Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.
Your freedom of association only goes so far, and that wouldn't even really apply here since the guy is willing to associate with homosexuals (according to his claim), but unwilling to treat them equally to other customers when it comes to buying certain products/a certain product.
The first amendment has applied to states for almost a century now.
That is not true. The US congress has made non-discrimination law, quite a lot of it in fact. AND the First protects speech from being violated by ALL government, federal, state and local.
Nope, in fact if you read the decision that engineered freedom of association into the constitution you see it deals with associations with groups and causes as well. .
There is no right to discriminate.
I am being libertarian. I can choose to live and do business in a state that does not have a discrimination law in effect, as could they. Liberty does not mean violating any state law you do not like in the name of religious freedom.
If you want a state business license so you can conduct services for the general public, then there are certain people you are obligated to provide services for even if you don't like them. There is no right to deny services. The 13th applied to slavery and involuntary servitude, not paid services, so it is irrelevant to this discussion and a hyperbole at best.
Once payment has been rendered for property, it is no longer your property. The customers paid for the cake, therefore the baker was obligated to provide the cake.
True, but through court precedent.
Damn those activist judges! Using the 14th amendment to protect individual liberties! How dare they!
No they aren't.
Find me a human right that doesn't call for it.
Liberty is the right to own your life. That you can use your time, energy and talents to go after whatever it is that you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.
No one is obligated to serve another as everyone ownership of their body and it's facilities, as such have ownership of their own labor and service and with that right the own property. Furthermore, involuntary servitude is slavery and it does not call for payment.
Nonsense. The condition in which the cake was to be made was unknown, and thus, the terms of the contract was yet to made.
I consider that a strawman. For one thing, the fourteenth amendment applies to state laws, not individual people, and for another, your argument does not in any way face the reality that the first amendment applies to states.
I thought we were talking about the Constitution.
That is your definition. There are plenty of others.
That is not how the 13th amendment is written even by a stretch of the imagination.
It is known. The baker had already accepted the contract. That is why it is in contention. The baker could have refused the contract for just about any reason prior to taking it, even for artistic license.
Do you really think you can argue this point? What is free speech? Is that a property right? Who has ownership of the speech in question?
Free speech. It has nothing to do with property without some serious stretching. I can say plenty of stuff that others have said. No one really owns speech.
I'm talking about both, as it makes no difference to my point.
Provide one to humor me.
Are you arguing that forcing someone into service for you is not making them your slave?
How will you go about arguing this point I wonder. Since you claim to be a libertarian do you know why subpoenas violates the thirteenth amendment? For an easier question perhaps, do you know why the draft violates the thirteenth amendment? If you can't answer these question than your lean is even more in question than it is now.
No, it was not known. The cakes purpose was entirely an unknown and when it was discovered the service was refused.
Not if he does this in a way everyone is aware of and can prove.
That is the thing about violating laws, if you are going to do it, you need to ensure you do it in a way where you don't get caught. In this case, he openly said he would not sell a cake to any same sex couples because it violates his religious beliefs, yet I'm willing to bet as are others that he does not enforce those same religious beliefs when it comes to selling others wedding cakes, which shows plain bias against same sex couples, and not actual religious convictions in the first place.
Although it really doesn't matter because he agreed to the antidiscrimination laws all businesses of the state/area are subject to when he started his business. He doesn't get to violate those laws simply because he doesn't like certain people.
The Constitution has nothing to do with "human rights".
I am not here to humor you. Go find a dictionary. Probably not one so influenced by classically liberal philosophers.
How am I forcing them into service? They chose to do business in a state with a non discrimination law. They can go elsewhere. A slave can't leave. Your hyperbole is astonishing.
I find it odd that your idea of being a libertarian is that everyone has to agree with your ideas of what makes someone a libertarian.
It was a contract for a wedding cake. I am pretty sure that its purpose was known. It just was not known it would be used at a same sex ceremony.
Oh? How very interesting. What do you think the first amendment protects? What about the second?
Is there something wrong with my definition? You have yet to tell me where it is in fact wrong.
Again, if someone was to sue these individuals for failure to service them are you arguing that they are not asserting to the fact in the court of law that they have a right to an involuntary servant?
You don't seem to support the central axiom of libertarianism; in that, that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. Your support of anti-discrimination laws is in clear violation of that principle, and your denial to answer very obvious violations of that principle is very telling that you do not in fact agree with it.
Exactly. It was not known what the cake was to be used for. That is exactly my point.
Civil liberties.
Nothing wrong. It is an opinion. There are others.
I am not asserting that anyone has a right to an involuntary servant. That is your silly hyperbole.
I did not say I supported anti discrimination laws. I said that I don't have to live where they have anti discrimination laws.
It was a wedding cake. As such, the contract was accepted on those terms. There was nothing in the contract that said that it could not be used for same sex ceremonies.
So what do you think a civil right is?
Then offer one.
How are you not?
Then where would you live?
Nope. The terms of the contract must involve what it is for.
Individual freedoms that are protected from infringement by the government.
The ability to act on your own free will and to take responsibility for your own actions and not to diminish or harm others in the process.
Because your argument is ridiculous an inane. It relies on the notion that a baker who chose to set up shop in a state with a nondiscrimination law and who was penalized when he declined to fulfill the terms of the contract because his patrons were gay is the equivalent of a slave who is held against his will and forced into unpaid labor.
I already live in a state without discrimination protections for gays and lesbians.
I think the courts determined that the contract adequately defined what the cake was for because it was a wedding cake. Wedding cakes are for weddings. It is literally in the name.
There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.
Exactly how does a non discrimination law that requires people to provide services to gays and lesbians lead to violation of their religious beliefs?
I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.
True, but once again by court precedent.
Gitlow v. New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just don't like it when people quote the Constitution as if that were how it were originally written.
Still only goes so far, otherwise no anti-discrimination laws would hold up ever under Constitutional scrutiny.
And freedom of association really deals mainly with a person's right to join groups or be associated with other people, not in whether or not they have some sort of freedom not to ever do some sort of business with certain types of people.
Sure they would, just not the ones dealing with sexual orientation.
Freedom of association goes both ways, you get to choose whom you wish to associate with and whom you do not.
Freedom of association has been held to apply to associations, not businesses, particularly not businesses that are completely open to the public. If you disagree, then show where the SCOTUS has said otherwise. The SCOTUS has even upheld antidiscrimination laws against homosexuals. Romer v Evans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?