Free speech was nice while it lasted.

[Plane]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/colorado-appeals-court-backs-gay-couple-in-wedding-cake-dispute/ar-BBlIJk6


We still have some freedom, as long as we agree with the governing religion.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Free speech dealing with the refusal to bake a cake is barely speech at all.  I do not see this as any serious problem.
There will be gay bakers who will bake cakes for gay couples. The bigoted bakers will eventually retire, just like the White restaurant owners who refused to serve Black people and this will become at best a quaint non issue. Not even worthy of a made-For-TV movie on Trinity Broadcasting.

"I refuse to bake a cake for Adam and Steve because I oppose buggery." is hardly a serious political statement.

[hnumpah]

What governing religion?

The law, in most places, requires businesses to be licensed. A requirement to obtain a license is that a business does not discriminate. The bakery owners are in no way required to be gay themselves, or even to approve of a gay lifestyle, but to obtain a license to run a public business, doing business with the public, they must do that business with all segments of the public, without discrimination.

[Plane]

   Would you be upset if the government were telling an artist what the message of his art must be?
   Imagine Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollack having to explain to an official of the government why their art was art, Salvador Dali had to leave Spain for a while because this is an impossible task.

    There is an ancient philosophy in government , in that the government is right , and disagreeing with the government is troublemaking.

     This philosophy was probably old when the Pharaohs were engaged in it.

    Now we have a government setting precedent that a work of art must be produced as requested in the government approved orthodox set of messages.

   If the message offends the artist , that is just tough.

[sirs]

BINGO!

[hnumpah]

OMFG, I must have missed all those artists being thrown into jail for not producing government approved art.

Examples please. With URLs, if you don't mind.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Making wedding cakes may be artistic, but it is hardly a recognized art form.  I agree that if the business is licensed to serve the public,m then it must cater to the public.

Saying "I won't bake this cake for Adam and Steve because I disapprove of their wedding" is perfectly legal. Just refusing to make the cake is illegal.

This is obviously some sort of test case, otherwise the couple would have just told the bigoted baker to kiss off and found a different bakery. So it is not really about free speech at all, it is about symbolically using the government to punish either gays for wanting to get married or bakers for refusing to bake a cake to show they disapprove.

NOT any sort of real threat to free speech. 

[sirs]

That's funny....I see those signs at restaurants, "that cater to the public", that make it clear they have the right not to serve you.  There's no art involved in making someone scrambled eggs for breakfast

[Xavier_Onassis]

The slogan "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is the classic sign used to tell Blacks they were not welcome.

I have not seen such a sign in decades. I think you may only have seen it in your imagination.

Putting up such a sign is not illegal. Refusing to serve someone based on race, gender or whatever is clearly illegal. Most people do not sue over such bigotry, they just go to any local chain restaurant (Denny's, Chili's, McDonald's, BK, wherever) that does not post such signs.

I have seen "No shoes, no shirt, no service", but that all I have seen lately.

I can't recall seeing barefoot or shirtless people anywhere except on the beach in any restaurant.

[sirs]

Yep, that's the one I still see.  Thanks for providing the full quote

[Xavier_Onassis]

Here is the legal opinion about "We reserve the right to refuse blahblah to blahblah:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

I am not a lawyer, so I defer to this.

Can you refuse to serve the barefooted?

It looks like you can't say the law is on your side about that one, either.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2013/06/3-ways-you-can-legally-refuse-service-to-customers.html

Once upon a time, a man named Lester Maddox in Atlanta ran a fried chicken place. He refused service to Blacks because he claimed that his chicken eating customers would be offended by Black people eating  chicken on the same premises. He was told he could not do this. So he provided a barrel of axe handles at the door, so that his customers could threaten chicken-loving Negroes. He was eventually shut down, and due to this and his prodigious ability to ride a bicycle backwards, he was elected governor of Georgia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox

http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/497

I bought a "Pickrick drumstick" (an axe handle with Lester's name on it) in a yard sale here in Miami for $3.00 and presented it to Johnny Adams, a Black colleague of mine who taught business  courses. Dr Adams was from Athens, GA and had been a master Sargent in the US Army for 22 years, but had participated in lunch counter boycotts before he enlisted.

He died not too long ago, and his wife gave it to a Black History Museum project.

Perhaps one of the greater financial errors of my career as a yard sailor:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lester-Maddox-Signed-15-Axe-Handle-PickRick-Drumstick-PSA-DNA-COA-Autograph-GA-/301130932992

[sirs]

Strange how they can "cater to the public", but have the right not to serve someone.  Which is how it should be....it's called freedom, that which this country was founded on. 

If said person/business is deemed to be discriminatory, and the word gets out, people will stop giving them business. 

What you don't do is mandate that they perform a service, against their religious values.  There are plenty of non-religious organizations that will gladly cater to one's wants.  The notion of forcing someone(s) to perform functions counter to their religious guidelines, just because they don't support your actions/choices. is completely contrary to the concept of religious freedom, as set forth in the 1st amendment of our Constitution

[Xavier_Onassis]

The problem is that you are clearly wrong. Legally, you cannot refuse service to anyone in a public business.

I can refuse to serve you a Cheeseburger in my home, but once I open a public restaurant, I no longer have that right.
The purpose of a restaurant is to serve food, not to make political statements.
The purpose of a bakery is to bake cakes for the public, not to make religious proclamations.

The court ruled correctly in this case.

This country was not founded on mean-spirited gestures of bigotry.

[sirs]

Your problem is that you might have Political Correctness on your side, however the Constitution is on my side

[Xavier_Onassis]

The court ruled on my side.

This was no doubt based on their interpretation of the Constitution.

I do not consider this to be in any way important, as it is not difficult to find someone to bake a gay marriage cake, and marriage does not require cake.

I am not gay, and I am not fond of cake.