Jon D Thornton
Aug 23, 2017 · 3 min read

Ron, you’re just going farther and farther afield.

The core of our disagreement is in your assertion that a commercial transaction can be construed as a religious expression.

I made no such assertion. So apparently we don’t have a disagreement.

I do recognize that these are people, with lives. I view them holistically, not by their disparate roles. I see that their actions -whether professional or spiritual -are consistent with their beliefs. I may not agree with those beliefs, but as long as they don’t force me to eat their cake I’m not going to use the justice system to persecute them.

I maintain that as a commercial transaction, what you do for money is not a religious action…

Concur.

Further, fulfilling an order for a customer, of whatever background, is not tacit approval of the event in question.

That would of course depend on the order. Furthermore I imagine a wedding cake with the disclaimer:

  • The views and opinions expressed by this cake are those of the client and do not officially represent those of our bakery”

…would be inappropriate too.

There really would be no way for the baker to make such a value judgment, based on the short interaction of buying a cake. She is simply fulfilling an order from a client for an event.

Clearly that wasn’t the case. You neither understand the facts of this case nor the agonizing amount of thought that many brides give to their cake.

The identity of the client, and the nature of the event, is immaterial to that action.

It’s a wedding cake Ron. Are you familiar with the concept?

Cake baking is a commercial activity for a bakery, not an expression of religious observance.

I would generally agree with that statement, with the possible exception of… WEDDING CAKES!

I’d object to having to bake a cake for a NAMBLA convention or a Neo-Nazi rally. But the same principle applies.

Quite right! So you can see how much better to allow businesses the right to refuse service and let the market mete out the consequences.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by “privately owned places of public accommodation”.

You do know I have Google, right?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin. Did you miss the part where I wrote…

  • Though anti-discrimination laws that protect classes such as race and gender are consistent with the Constitution, as amended, they may yet violate the law of the land when expanded to include age or sexual orientation.”

…or perhaps you just imagined the words sexual orientation were included in the CRA of 1964?

Further, if said bakery is incorporated, one would have to question the ability of a corporation to hold a religious objection to anything.

Ever heard of Catholic Charities Corporation? or Hobby Lobby for that matter? Now you’re just being silly.

That would be true if not for the fourteenth amendment, which codified federal law as primary in the order condescendi.

No, Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” This however does not eliminate limits to federal jurisdiction, but just in case someone like you came along trying to make shit up, we have the Tenth Amendment…

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, when a bible-thumper cites Leviticus as rationale for hating gay people, I’d ask if that person…

Sigh, and Romans 1:27. But seriously “hating gay people” is a bit over the top don’t you think? It’s a cake!

)

    Jon D Thornton

    Written by

    BAPS/Economics/MSIR