Huh...Religious Conservatives were right...

[John Galt]

if the penalty for draft dodging is death, should conscientious objectors be all shot?

"they have a right to religious beliefs, but no right to inflict them on others" rofl... as if inflicting on others mean associating or not associating with them

[Medius]

This whole conversation has gotten pretty far out there, so I thought I'd post a few things that we should keep in mind:

For this case particularly:
1.) It is a state law, not federal.
-This just means that the Constitution only applies insofar as the few restrictions put upon the states (none apply) and the fourteenth amendment which incorporates the bill of rights on the state.

2.) The customers in this case have no constitutional remedy as the actor (store owner) is not a state actor.
-The constitution is a limitation on governmental actions, not on the actions of the citizens.
-The constitution grants no right to purchase goods from an unwilling party, the Civil Rights Act does, in a limited fashion (only applies to those who take federal funds or participate in interstate commerce).

3.) The designation of "Public" and "Private" with regards to a company has only to do with the structure, that is, whether shares in the company are publicly traded or not.
-What is most likely being referenced here is the wording "Public Accommodations" in the civil rights act, which really isn't a store, but rather truly areas of public accommodation (hotels, motels, bars, restaurants, etc...) and doesn't apply in this case as homosexuals are not covered (which is why the customers are invoking state law).

4.) There is no constitutional right to purchase something from an unwilling individual.
-On a federal level, this privilege is created through use of the interstate commerce clause through law in the Civil Rights Act.
-The Civil Rights Act only applies to specific protected classes and only upon businesses that fall into the federal purview (federally funded or engaged in interstate commerce).

The whole OP and all related cases can be brought down to these arguments:
"Is there a point where a business service can extend beyond a simple transaction an into a level of participation"

I would argue yes, that it can. Perhaps the intent wasn't in this case to have a full-service florist, but if such a service were offered at any point and the request was for such service, according to the logic in this thread, it would be required.

"Does that level of participation, when required by law, breach first amendment protections?"

I would argue yes on this as well, that required participation to own or work at business creates a law that, in adverse effect, requires someone to suspend their guaranteed religious freedom. As the result is not financial or physical harm, I do not see an exception to be made.

"Does any level of forced knowing participation breach constitutional protections?"

This, clearly through existing legal interpretation, is no at the moment. However, I personally believe that it does. The reason I believe this is that the Civil Rights Act was forced through an interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, which means it is not derived from the protection of any particular right, but through a power given to congress to make regular trade between the states. That is to say, empowerment is only a part of economic harm caused by asymmetric state trading, which does not trump the specific limitations of (and in fact, is specifically restricted by) the bill of rights.

I could see an argument made that you can't turn away any person for any reason of attribute, for off-the-shelf purchases as there is no responsibility of the seller to know to what purpose that person would put said purchase. That really can't extend to services in general (depending upon the nature).

[John Galt]

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[John Galt]

[exploited]