Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum supreme court's ruling

The Supreme Court has said, in a case out of Birmingham, Alabama that you can not discriminate against African- Americans in public accommodations. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Ollie's Barbecue refused to serve Blacks because of race. This was discrimination based on race and was based in part on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and interstate travel and commerce.

I don't know what the answer is. Do You.

I think as a private individual or private owned business you ought to be able to deny service to anyone you damn well please. You don't like it take yer business somewhere else.

>>>Now here is the next point: that 1964 Act has never been amended to add "sexual orientation" or anything of the sort. So the Civil Rights Act CANNOT be legitimately applied in the baker case.

Alan Dershowitz , Constitutional Law professor , cited this fact the other night.

The Supreme Court has said, in a case out of Birmingham, Alabama that you can not discriminate against African- Americans in public accommodations. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Ollie's Barbecue refused to serve Blacks because of race. This was discrimination based on race and was based in part on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and interstate travel and commerce.
That has been the law of the land for generations.
The case was not about religious beliefs, but only could a person refuse service to another based on the race of the other person. But suppose that Ollie McClung said he refused to serve persons of color because he believed they had the mark of Ham on them and his religious beliefs caused him to believe that serving them was a sin.
HE WOULD HAVE LOST.
Fast forward from 1964 to present day.
You have many of the same elements. Public accommodations (open to and doing business with the public), Interstate Commerce ( ingredients used in the cake traveled in interstate commerce, members of the public who avail them selves of the service and products offered, and a business man who refused service to those members of the public. He is claiming that his religious beliefs forbid him from providing service to a segment of the population he disagrees with, i.e. homosexuls who want to be married.
Where is the difference in refusing service and products to Blacks and homosexual persons?
REmember that in the early days there were ministers who could find justification to discriminate against African-Americans in the Bible.
I think in a split decision, the Bakery owner will lose.
I do not disagree with owner's decision to refuse to make the cake, but discrimination based on a claim of religious freedom is awfully speculative. Suppose he had refused to make a special cake for a male and a female deer hunter, with camo on it and antlers and representations of firearms. Because the way he reads his Bible, hunting and guns are sinful, and he refused to provide the service based on his strongly held religious beliefs? Who on here would say, " He has a right to refuse to serve the deer hunters due to his religious beliefs."?
I don't know what the answer is. Do You.