(July 15, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Ace Wrote: Ok, based on the laws that you had provided which position should this be looked at, a religious one or one of plan discrimination? Keeping in mind that in 1990's Massachusetts had legalized same sex and civil unions, promise or commitment ceremonies were occurring in other states. So since the late 1990's till, lets say 2013 any news in regard cake disputes seem to have never been an issue until now.
This has made some think that they are personally being targeted by homosexual organizations to deliberately have them change their policies or put them completely out of business because of their "un-wanting to participate in any way to their marriages.". They organizations are saying not true.
However, why is it only recently that this had become an issue? Given the various types of ceremonies throughout and marriages in Massachusetts were being conducted prior to the State court ruling and the Supreme Court ruling, with what seems to be not an issue.
It is a little out of the ordinary that the shops that are refusing their services just happen to be some fundamental type of Christian group. I have look and have not found any issue with other religions or any other non-religious bakeries. Only the Christian one's
It should also be noted that the backing shops in question have no history of any prior discrimination to any minorities. ( Black, Women, Jews, disabled)
Is there any legal action that the shops can take if they can prove that they are definitely being targeted because of their religious objection's?
I have read about the various cake shops you are discussing and find their stories quite interesting. In general the trend seems to be the cake shops are not denying them the baking of a cake. Only the baking of a wedding cake, which they believe would constitute their participation in an act they deem to be immoral. A few of the shops even offered to bake the cake, but would not place any same sex imagery on the cake, while being willing to provide the customer with the means to readily place the desired imagery at a later date.
I imagine the majority of the push against them is in an effort to establish moral equivalency. It is apparent to even the pre-Socratic philosophers that people want their actions to be determined as good and proper even when they are not so. And as I like to say jokingly, "There are two ways to be the best. Either be the best, or be the best of what is around by making them worse." As the argument is predicated upon fallacies alone they seem to be taking the latter route.
In regards to your legal recourse of the cake bakers. First, the cake bakers need to re-write their contracts to explicitly state the benefits and duties therein are to be assignable and delegable at will (implicitly all contracts are assignable and delegable). By doing this they may take orders from any customers and the delegate the duty and benefits of making the cake to someone else.
Second, they need to begin to file counter suit on the theory of tortious interference with a contract and perspective economic profit. If it may be shown the defendant intentionally interferes with a known contract or with an evidence perspective of economic profit than the plaintiff (cake bakers) may recover from them the lost profits the contract or perspective profit entailed.
Third, they need to file counter suit based on constitution protections (4th amendment) a person's right to privacy and association. So if these cake bakers would like to further avoid legal battles they need only consider themselves a private association which admits members only upon referral and committee approval (where the committee consists of the owners themselves). They are being attacked under the argument they are a business that is open to all clientele (many of which are small mom and pop shops which most obviously are not).
Fourth, they need to file counter suit based on the 1st constitutional protections. Freedom of speech also constitutes freedom from speech. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a business (like the government) has a right to dominion over the message it portrays to the public (unless compelled by safety or national obligation). A wedding cake may further be considered either a public or private forum by which approval or dissent of a wedding is expressed. Thus the cake baker's are well within their rights to with hold speech in this forum or to express speech in this forum as is keeping with their corporate message.
Most of these suits were litigated by african-americans throughout the years. Following re-construction and the civil rights era. At present the Court seems to have a good balance between corporate and personal rights. However, if the Supreme Court continues to break with precedence in order to try to compel people to accept what they do not want I am not sure how things will go.
