We have previously discussed (here and here) the growing conflicts over businesses that decline to accommodate same-sex weddings and events in a clash between anti-discrimination and free speech (and free exercise) values. Despite my support for gay rights and same-sex marriage, I have previously written that anti-discrimination laws are threatening the free exercise of religion. Some of these cases involve bakeries that insist that making wedding cakes for same-sex couples violates their religious principles. Now we have a twist on this trending litigation. The Azucar Bakey has been found to have broken discrimination laws by refusing to make an anti-same-sex cake. The bakery was asked to make a Bible-shaped cake with an anti-gay slur and owner Marjorie Silva refused. The customer brought a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and won.
The customer wanted the bakery to draw two males holding hands with “a big ‘X’ on them.”
Silva identifies herself as a practicing Christian and makes Christian cakes, but balked at making an anti-gay cake at her Lakewood bakery in December 2013. Previously in Colorado, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips broke discrimination laws when he refused to make a cake for the same-sex wedding of Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig in July of 2012. That decision was upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Now we have the flip side. Silva offered to leave the bible page blank to allow the customer (who she describes as disruptive) to write whatever he wanted but she declined to write it herself. Ironically, she could have simply refused to serve him on the basis for any disruption in the store. She was later sent a notice by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) that a religious discrimination complaint has been filed against Azucar Bakery. She has since received a notice from DORA requesting a final letter describing her account of events.
The question raised by these cases is whether anti-discrimination laws are driving too deeply into free speech rights. Bakers and photographers view themselves as engaged in a form of speech generally. The loss of a bright-line defining free speech has meant that we are finding ourselves increasingly on a slippery slope of speech regulation. On the other hand, we fought hard to guarantee accommodation for all races in places of public accommodation. Stores are not allowed to ban black customers under the same rationale. The question is whether there is a difference between refusing to serve customers on the basis for sexual orientation generally as opposed to taking an active or direct role in a same-sex wedding.
Where do you think we should draw the line?
Source: KDVR
Paul Schulte,
Not too long ago businesses were allowed write off “lunch” as a tax deduction. Taxpayers paid for the tax deduction and consumers paid the rest of the bill.
That “lunch” was filed as a business expense so it didn’t count as income. The IRS and state tax agencies finally removed that perk except for some expenses while travelling on out of town business.
Most of us have to buy our own lunch.
Ross – to deduct a business lunch you had to discuss business during the lunch. Technically, it was a working lunch. I could not go to lunch by myself and write it off.
Ross wrote: “Most of us have to buy our own lunch.”
Unless you work for Google or Facebook. Then all the food is free to you. I wanted to do that in my corporation, provide free lunch to all my employees, but my CPA is too afraid that the IRS will put us in jail if we try it. She says they have lawyers to fight the IRS and I don’t. Their legal theory hinges on a case involving bank tellers, where banks are allowed to provide their tellers lunch for free so they don’t have to take off too much time for work. So, anyway, I have to use my own money that I have paid taxes on. Would be nice if I could have a tax deduction for it so 35% more of my money could be used for my employees to enjoy a free lunch rather than given to a government that is going to waste it.
By the way, as the owner of a corporation, the IRS is very clear that I cannot give myself a free lunch, even if I provided it free for all my employees.
Reference: Electronic Health Records. These are NOT a phenomena of the PPACA. It predates the ACA. The ACA merely mandates it apparently…I am sure it is helpful to the family practitioner MD out in Eagle Crotch, ND, population 105, somehow…or at least through bankruptcy court. Every shred of my medical records for the past dozen years have been electronically recorded on digital media, available on line to both my physicians and to me, and anyone to whom I assigned proxy rights. The prior 20 years of manual records are also referenced in the newer media by annotation.
Reference: New manual reports required of patients. Now this is a phenomena of the PPACA and it entirely redundant for anyone not a brand new patient somewhere. I have been with the same providers for 30+ years and yet during 2014 I had new fancy forms with all kinds of questions to fill out by hand…no digital submissions. Like Paul C said it is strange the information already on record is asked for again? Manually entered. All this redundant crud has n-o-t-h-i-n-g to do with nurse entered or physician entered actual medical data during a visit, procedure, or recovery period. It is for someone else.
For whom is it intended…e.g., my hospital and physician network already has it all, so who else is looking? On one of the last questionnaires I was asked which of about a dozen race choices what I was. I entered “Homo Erectus.” Done that twice now and so far no anthropologists have called me about it.
This phenomena is a relatively new characteristic for government…as I have mentioned on other threads, the demand for manual entry work by the lowest levels or ranks, including citizens per se, is increasing, and now nearly double that of a decade ago…and that’s just for the civil servants. Perchance we should be grateful the senior wonks in the ACA administration by H&HS haven’t a clue.
I take certain glee in thinking that once my manually entered redundancies are bundled up and sent off to some H&HS office cavern that they’ll add another “race”…e.g., “Homo Erectus” to the list. I was thinking about adding, under “other medical procedures you’ve had” a line about the surgical removal of my extra two peni$ but figured that might provoke trouble.
All said and done I am actually glad the H&HS folks don’t yet have the capability to glean my digital records…now some GS-07 in IT might have it, no doubt does have it, but none of the busy bodies in the most senior ranks have a clue how to mine databases. If the senior rank person wants the info, they will order the GS-07 to prepare it for them, manually, then send up on a manually prepared Powerpoint deck….filing away the paper manually prepared reports for eternity. When I said we are rapidly approaching a government that operates on the graphic equivalent of Twitter….I was not kidding.
Have I made my point that all these new manual hand written forms you now must fill out are NOT really for your medical care? We should wonder just what they are for in reality?
Groty said …
The problem with these types of laws is that they assume the business is the powerful party and the consumer needs Big Brother to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole premise is wrong in the modern era.
The rest of your remark was on the money as well. Sadly, even if it wanted to do so, “Big Brother” cannot really protect you. I’ve worked there and it is struggle enough to deal with the imbeciles appointed over you…help Joe Sixpack? Whot? No time. Now to the back of the line with you…Next!
PS: I wonder if Rabel has actually gotten resolution from the IRS yet over that 5 cent boo boo?
It’s only a conundrum if your worldview denies inalienable rights. If you were to believe the right of conscience is inalienable, then you wouldn’t need to do mental gymnastics to ‘legally’ impose your beliefs on anyone else.
Sole-proprietorships don’t receive 100% tax deductions like corporations receive, but those costs get passed onto the consumer even in a sole-proprietorship.
Ross I will agree that costs get passed onto the consumer. That is basic economics 101. Duh.
Corporations pay taxes. Big corporations pay LOTS of taxes. Where you get the idea that the don’t pay taxes is beyond me.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-corporations-are-taxed-30157.html
These are the top/most common deductions allowed to corporations. Small businesses, sole proprietors get to take “most” of these deductions as well.
A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits “pass through” the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns. This s for C Corps. S Corps are different.
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/top-10-corporate-tax-deductions-10403.html
The liberal left wants to beat up on businesses, job creators and want to micromanage what is left of the battered businesses.
Until you have been in business for yourself, I suggest you really don’t have a clue.
They wouldn’t even draw a cartoon about it.
They wouldn’t say squat because the are afraid of the Muslims. They wouldn’t protest outside of the store or file a lawsuit.
The Muslim. While I’ve seen some big, nasty lesbians in my life, I’ve never seen any cut off someone’s head. That was a no brainer.
I saw this recently and it would be apropos to this discusion:
A LIBERAL CONUNDRUM: If a Muslim barber refuses on religious grounds to cut the hair of a lesbian, whose side does a liberal take?
Pogo,
on 1, January 20, 2015 at 2:35 pmdavidm2575
Jeff Silberman wrote: “You CANNOT discriminate against characteristics of people over which they had no control.”
___________________________
David said…
“You really believe that lie? Nobody has been born gay. NOBODY. Sexuality evolves over a series of choices. It is based upon not just genetic proclivities involving the senses of sexual pleasure, but also upon the environment and cognitive choices. The monozygotic twin studies in homosexuality prove this conclusively.
Everybody can control their sexuality. There is nothing defective about gays that make them unable to control their sexual urges.”
Ross you are the perfect example of the fascist progressive left. I am sure if you put that to a vote you would lose overwhelmingly much as many pro same sex marriage laws lost in the popular vote. Then some unelected progressive fascist judge would over rule the democratically expressed view of the people by finding some new penumbra or other to impose his views. Thank you for expressly stating the end game of trying to punish if not destroy any church that does not capitulate to the demands of people like you.
I salute you for your honesty.
DBQ, I worked @ The Drake Hotel in Chicago. Their Bakery Chef was an Austrian w/ many awards. He made cakes for many high end weddings in Chicago, many not even held @ The Drake. The man was an artist by any definition. I would sometimes watch him work. I love watching artists create.
The ultimate in regressivism is to clamor for a return to the dark ages where the rights of the people were whatever the government deemed them to be.
Jeff, As stated previously, “Gay Mafia” derives from the gay community and is not a pejorative. Actually, it is said w/ pride. And the word “rights” is a loaded word. What you may consider a right, I may not. And, since we are a nation of laws, what the courts decide is a right, is the only right that is recognized. There are many people who believe there is a right to not be offended. THANKFULLY, that is not the case…yet. I surmise you are one of these folks who believe in the right to not be offended?
DBQ:
Even small businesses pass all costs onto their customers or they go out of business.
Sole-proprietorships don’t receive 100% tax deductions like corporations receive, but those costs get passed onto the consumer even in a sole-proprietorship.
Ross wrote: “Sole-proprietorships don’t receive 100% tax deductions like corporations receive…”
LOL! I wish my corporation received a 100% tax deduction. What IRS code are you reading dude? I want a copy of it.
It is amazing how liberals will go to any lengths and contortions to impose their views. Why can’t a business just decline to serve anyone the want without giving a reason.
Here is an example. In NYC there are many places that refuse services for a number of reasons. Right now in Williamsburg there are several Orthodox Jewish stores that refuse to serve half naked hipster chicks because it offends their religious sensibility. Ditto some cafés and Muslim owned businesses on Altantic Avenue. I was turned away once from a joint in Brighton Beach because I wasn’t Russian. Which is fine by me. It was his place. I didn’t own it. I didn’t own him. But you see the government and the fascist progressive left think they own everything and can tell everyone what to do. Even the size of a cup of soda.
What happened to freedom. I thought we live in America Land of the Free?
Inga, no one is talking about the origins of homosexual behavior.
If churches turn down 100% of government funding including IRS tax deductions for religious institutions, ADA federal funds, etc. and pay a higher non-church tax rate – they can discriminate almost without limit.
Once they accept taxpayer money, they can’t then discriminate against those same gay taxpayers. It’s really simple, don’t take the money.
Seriously, is it’s no surprise that the anti science rightists don’t believe that homosexuality is determined during development, or is possibly even genetic. That is the kind of regressive ideology that is all too common in the conservative world.
Inga – you have the Masters from Marquette. Is homosexuality caused during procreation or development? And which parent is responsible?
Inga wrote: “… it’s no surprise that the anti science rightists don’t believe that homosexuality is determined during development, or is possibly even genetic. That is the kind of regressive ideology that is all too common in the conservative world.”
Excuse me but I am not anti-science. I have earned several degrees in the biological sciences. I have taught numerous biology classes at the university level for 5 years. I have several publications in peer reviewed scientific journals. I have taught genetics too, at the university level.
There is a genetic component, as I mentioned previously, but it is not the sole component. If every person were born gay as you contend, then in every identical twin where one is gay, so would the other one be gay because they are genetically identical. Truth is that there is only about a 50% concordance rate.
Given that being gay is characterized by extremely high rates of promiscuity, it is likely that the genetic component may be related to having heightened senses of sexual pleasure and gratification.
Another point in fact is that people would not change their sexual identity. Many times a woman will say she is a lesbian only to years late switch and say she is not a lesbian anymore. Sometimes a gay man will do the same thing. Sometimes a man will live until 50 years old, like Clive Davis, through several marriages, always being attracted only to women, but then later switch and decide he is gay and wants a monogamous relationship with a man.
The idea that people are either gay or straight is a myth. Every sexual study out there deals with a continuum of sexuality. The gay activists who perpetuate the myth that people are either gay or straight always criticize such studies by complaining about who they designate into the homosexual category and who is considered straight. Just doing that is almost impossible from an objective standard. They do the best they can. The Bell and Weinberg study uses the Kinsey scale of sexuality ranging from 1 to 6. No studies that I know use a binomial gay or straight categorization because that defies reality.
David wrote: Sometimes a man will live until 50 years old, like Clive Davis, through several marriages, always being attracted only to women, but then later switch and decide he is gay and wants a monogamous relationship with a man
and sometimes they will get married because society did not let them be gay (not so much the case now but if you 50 or older being gay was to be hidden or you could lose your job, be ostracized, etc.
Anecdotal but I know a few folks who were gay, married because that was what society expected and did not come out as gay, which they always were, until after the spouse died.
(I still remember a teacher I knew, gay, who was threatened with being outed by a woman who had a gigantic crush on him. She told him, and I can’t imagine why she would want to date him knowing he was gay, that if he did not date her she would out him to the school board. He did date her not wanting to lose his job.)
leejcaroll wrote: “Anecdotal but I know a few folks who were gay, married because that was what society expected and did not come out as gay, which they always were, until after the spouse died.”
I don’t doubt you at all. My point is that is not all that happens. I mentioned a specific person, a record producer named Clive Davis, because his biography is available. That was not his case. He marvels that people do not believe him and think he had to be some kind of closet gay. He has no dog in this race. He is presently in a committed relationship with another man. He just says this is the truth, that he never once had any attraction toward a man until he was in his 50’s and after several failed marriages. I often hear lesbians say they turned to lesbianism after several failed boyfriends. There is a wide range of sexuality, and the gay agenda about gay rights is mostly pure fiction meant to advance open sexuality not homosexuality. Just go attend a gay parade somewhere in the world or look at the magazine produced for a gay conference and that should become obvious to anyone with a small amount of common sense. Historians in the future will look at this generation with bewilderment, wondering how we could believe this stuff. It is like the way we look at the Romans and Greeks believing in polytheism. How could that happen?
leejcaroll – I have a good lesbian friend who did not come out until she was 50 and had 4 children. Then she stayed in the closet until last year when she and her partner married in San Diego. It was a lovely wedding, where they were given away by their grandsons.
I wonder if the baker could refuse on the grounds that he could be exposed to being arrested for being an accomplice to a potential hate crime?
Or, perhaps he could just increase the price of the cake by $1000 or more, saying the additional charge is to cover the cost of the damage to his business reputation if he complies with the request. A simple accounting procedure that sets prices based upon actual and anticipated costs.
Two ways to fight the system using the system . . .
That is bakers not barks. Stupid IPad!