No cake for YOU!

Sad, but yes -- they did.
The only good news: not a precedent-setting decision. The ruling was specific to this particular case, and doesn't give carte-blanche to the religious to discriminate.

right. there would have to be evidence that each cake artist or employee was, actually engaged in some ? like? documented lengthy evidence establishing proof the person was a "sincere religious practitioner" and as such, so dogma filled they were disabled and handicapped in their actions and behaviors by said dogmatic incursion on their thinking processes, within a bias filled dogmatic religion.

so if a person happened to work in a bakery, they may not be an artist? so not qualify?

or if a bakery was run by dozens of workers assembly line style, no individual would qualify as it is in fact, a factory?

so many variables. Does the court write up an explaination of benefits or explaination of variables weighed, and what legal argument is applicable to decisions in the future?

I know my take on stupid stuff that is disguised as religious discrimination may be a little bit different, but it's that if it doesn't affect you or your ability to follow your religious tenants, it's not your business. I.e., you have the right to not use birth control, someone else using it does not affect that right. You have a right to not seek abortions, someone else getting one does not affect you. Selling bakery items to someone whose religious tenants you disagree with does not affect you. If you're a pharmacist and sell PlanB to someone, it does not affect your right to practice your religion.

However, when it comes to requiring you to perform more than a perfunctory service, i.e., an artistic creation, I do believe you are drawn in. Not getting into why you'd want someone who had hateful feelings toward you bake your wedding cake, I believe requiring someone to do so or putting them out of business because they won't, does lend credence to their argument of religious bias. And it might weaken the argument that things that don't affect other people's right to their own religious beliefs is not religious intolerance.

I also would be for requiring people who will not individually create something for same-sex couples to have to advertise that so that people who have a strongly held religious belief against bigotry can avoid patronizing such places.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 10:57AM by NormaRae.

IMHO, the "artistic" stuff is a nonsensical distraction from a simple fact: the baker refused to do business with someone because they're gay. It's no different from refusing to do business with someone because they're black, or they're a woman, or their family is from Ireland.

That's not acceptable -- to me and lots of others in our country. No matter what your religious beliefs are or aren't. Period.

I doubt they refuse to do business with gay people. They would probably sell them as many pastries as they want. And if they didn't, they should not be in business. I do see the other side of it, and I think it's ok to draw a line. I don't think the "artistic" stuff is bullshit. Again, I know my opinion is unpopular in these parts. Not the first time or I'm sure, the last.

To say that “the baker refused to do business with someone because they’re gay” is untrue. At the time, Colorado did not recognize same sex marriages, AND the complaint acknowledges that the baker “would sell them other baked goods”. So yes, the baker WOULD do business with someone who was gay.

To me it appears the State of Colorado screwed up. In a previous case the State supported three bakers who refused to create a cake with anti-gay/same sex slurs. Can’t have it both ways.

"Yes, you black folks can sit at the back counter and order from the black menu, but you can't sit in the front and order anything you want."

--

"Yes, I'll sell you gay people cupcakes, but I won't make you a wedding cake or let you use all of my services."


Identical.


You can make excuses for bigots if you want to.
I won't.

So...You want the government to have the ability to FORCE you to provide a service to ANYONE? What if they wanted to force you to design and bake a cake for the group that protests funerals of gay soldiers. You know that this can go several ways, and legislating that you can force someone to do ANYTHING is a bad precedent.

jthomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So...You want the government to have the ability
> to FORCE you to provide a service to ANYONE?

I don't want anybody to need to be FORCED to do anything.
I want people to treat all other human beings equally.

> What
> if they wanted to force you to design and bake a
> cake for the group that protests funerals of gay
> soldiers.

Protesting funerals of gay soldiers is a choice. Being gay isn't. Such ridiculous examples only serve to illustrate the ridiculous of such a position.

> You know that this can go several ways,
> and legislating that you can force someone to do
> ANYTHING is a bad precedent.

Nobody can, in reality, FORCE anyone to do anything. What laws do is provide consequences for behavior our society finds unacceptable. People are free to engage in such behavior -- but then they get the consequences.

We already have consequences for all kinds of bigoted behavior IN PUBLIC, WHERE IT HARMS OTHERS. This is no different.

"Protesting funerals of gay soldiers is a choice. Being gay isn't."

Getting married is a choice. Many people of all persuasions never get married.

xxMMMooo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting married is a choice. Many people of all
> persuasions never get married.

The baker didn't refuse to make a cake because they were getting married.
He refused to make a cake because they were gay people getting married.
He makes cakes for straight people getting married all the time. The only difference is gay people.

"I don't want anybody to need to be FORCED to do anything." Says the control freak. LMAO.

Free Speech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I don't want anybody to need to be FORCED to do
> anything." Says the control freak. LMAO.

If humans would stop irrationally believing that the nonsense in ancient books of myths were written by imaginary "god" things, and simply start treating other humans with kindness (like they'd want to be treated, and like they claim to do following bible jesus dude), there'd be no need for laws protecting the rights of all humans.

Since that's not yet the case, the laws are needed.

That's not being a "control freak." It's being an empathetic human being. Try it some time. It's a lot easier than living a fairy tale and regularly spewing hate, and more enjoyable, too.

oh so you arent a control freak you just want to cancel everyones religious rights cause they are stupid.

I think you just proved my point. lmao

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMHO, the "artistic" stuff is a nonsensical
> distraction from a simple fact: the baker refused
> to do business with someone because they're gay.

Factually incorrect. He was quite clear he would sell them any other baked goods they wanted.

>
> That's not acceptable -- to me and lots of others
> in our country. No matter what your religious
> beliefs are or aren't. Period.


Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Period. :D

Thomas P. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Factually incorrect. He was quite clear he would
> sell them any other baked goods they wanted.

Factually correct. See my example above.
That the baker refused to do CERTAIN kinds of business is still illegal discrimination.

> Well, the SCOTUS disagrees with you. Period. :D

No, actually, they didn't.
This decision did not set precedent that allowing discrimination because of religious belief was acceptable.
Maybe you should read the decision.

Not that I'd care if they DID disagree with me...it still wouldn't be acceptable. SCOTUS decides law, it doesn't decide what I find acceptable or not.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMHO, the "artistic" stuff is a nonsensical
> distraction from a simple fact: the baker refused
> to do business with someone because they're gay.
> It's no different from refusing to do business
> with someone because they're black, or they're a
> woman, or their family is from Ireland.
>
> That's not acceptable -- to me and lots of others
> in our country. No matter what your religious
> beliefs are or aren't. Period.

Hie, you should read the decision. You're passing along misinformation here. The baker did not refuse "to do business with someone because they're gay," as you claim. He specifically offered other ready-made goods to them. He refused to create a custom cake for them. Get your facts straight.

You do yourself no favors by engaging is such hysteria. This is a limited decision, and if you'd actually read the decision, you'll see it's based in part due to animosity displayed by the state against the religious beliefs of the baker. The original findings against him were filled with degrading and belittling characterizations of his faith. That cannot be allowed to stand, since the state has an obligation to enter these decisions from a position of neutrality. If the state bases a decision on a dismissal of the individual's faith as bad or wrong, they've violated the Constitution.

There's a reason this was not a split decision. It was 5-2 in favor of the baker with traditionally liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joining the majority. The state cannot base ANY decision upon a dismissal of religious faith as irrelevant. That's a prima facie violation of the first amendment.

It's interesting to note that hysteria like you commonly display in this issue is one of the primary reasons the ruling was decided for the baker. The court found it is absurd to equate refusing to create a wedding cake with racism or other forms of bigotry. The right to dissent against orthodoxy and not participate in prevailing thought is a fundamental right according to the decision.

In short, same sex marriage is legal. Forcing individuals to endorse it or participate in it is not.

This is not carte blanche for discrimination against gay people, and you should really slow down on your the-sky-is-falling characterizations. From the decision:

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Justice Kennedy added.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 01:48PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie, you should read the decision. You're passing
> along misinformation here. The baker did not
> refuse "to do business with someone because
> they're gay," as you claim. He specifically
> offered other ready-made goods to them. He refused
> to create a custom cake for them. Get your facts
> straight.

I did read it.
And he did indeed refuse to do SPECIFIC business for gay people. See my example above regarding blacks.
No difference.
My facts are straight.

> You do yourself no favors by engaging is such
> hysteria.

I don't consider bigotry "hysteria."

> This is a limited decision, and if you'd
> actually read the decision, you'll see it's based
> in part due to animosity displayed by the state
> against the religious beliefs of the baker.

I did read the decision, and if you'd bother to read my posts, I pointed out the limited nature of the decision (and what it was based on) more than once.

> It's interesting to note that hysteria like you
> commonly display in this issue is one of the
> primary reasons the ruling was decided for the
> baker.

a) no "hysteria."
b) no "hysteria" was involved in the decision -- it was based on the actions of one commission in Colorado.
Now who doesn't get their facts straight, and is exhibiting "hysteria?"

> In short, same sex marriage is legal. Forcing
> individuals to endorse it or participate in it is
> not.

Baking a cake isn't forcing anyone to endorse or participate in anything other than baking a cake. And this decision, as you yourself pointed out, didn't involve what you just claimed.

Well, your feelings on this topic are irrelevant. And that's the point. Personal animus toward an ideology is not a substantial foundation for discrimination against that ideology.

You're out of step with history and the law. Consider how you've addressed everybody who sought to keep same sex marriage illegal and apply those arguments to your position on this topic.

You're wrong, and the law is not on your side. The law in this instance specifically states baking this cake is legally seen as an endorsement of the ceremony, and the state has a compelling interest to allow freedom to prevail over forcing someone to engage in something they find immoral. You can disagree with the law, but your characterizations of bigotry are wrong. The law disagrees with you.

According to the law, you are the bigot. Freedom won over bigotry like you display against religious freedom.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, your feelings on this topic are irrelevant.
> And that's the point. Personal animus toward an
> ideology is not a substantial foundation for
> discrimination against that ideology.

How about personal animus towards particular kinds of human beings, like gay people? Is that irrelevant too? Or does that get special treatment because some book some people consider "holy" say they should all be killed?

> You're out of step with history and the law.

Um, no, actually -- it's the religious conservatives using religion as an excuse for their bigotry that are out of step with both history and law.

> Consider how you've addressed everybody who sought
> to keep same sex marriage illegal and apply those
> arguments to your position on this topic.

I've consistently pointed out that their determination to do so uses the exact same arguments as those against "inter-racial" marriage, are based on fallacy, and are constitutionally unsound. And the law agreed.

> You're wrong, and the law is not on your side.

Um, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide. I was right, and and the law is on my side.

> The
> law in this instance specifically states baking
> this cake is legally seen as an endorsement of the
> ceremony...

No, it doesn't. Now you're just making stuff up.

> but your characterizations
> of bigotry are wrong. The law disagrees with you.

Did you read Kennedy's opinion in THIS case?
You're wrong, and the law agrees with me.

> According to the law, you are the bigot. Freedom
> won over bigotry like you display against
> religious freedom.

I'll lend you $5 if you'd like to buy a clue...but I charge interest.

No, the law does not agree with you. I cannot be forced to make any type of art form I do not agree with. Thats what was ruled. And its a good thing. I would hope you would not want to be forced to create any art you do not morally agree with.

jthomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, the law does not agree with you. I cannot be
> forced to make any type of art form I do not agree
> with.

The law says you cannnot discriminate against other human beings.
This case isn't about being "forced to make any type of art form I do not agree with."
I pointed out above why that claim is false.
Try to keep up.

> Thats what was ruled.

No, it's not.


The ruling overturned the Colorado commission's ruling against THIS baker because the Colorado commission's actions were inconsistent. There is no mention of any kind in the ruling about forcing or art or any of the things you're claiming.

(quote)
"In a case brought by a Colorado baker, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that he did not get a fair hearing on his complaint because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated a hostility to religion in its treatment of his case.

Writing for the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that while it is unexceptional that Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions that are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

He said that in this case the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, understandably had difficulty in knowing where to draw the line because the state law at the time afforded store keepers some latitude to decline creating specific messages they considered offensive. Kennedy pointed to the Colorado commission's decision allowing a different baker to refuse to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Kennedy went out of his way to say that decisions on specific cases in the future may well be different.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue respect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy said."


https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/605003519/supreme-court-decides-in-favor-of-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case

> And its a good thing.
> I would hope you would not want to be forced to
> create any art you do not morally agree with.

You are free to continue to make excuses for bigotry, and pretend (wrongly) it has something to do with "art."

I won't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 04:47PM by ificouldhietokolob.

This was a narrowly defined decision which focused on the way the bakers had been treated.

I wonder how different this is from the window signs in restaurants that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."?

It seems that refusing service on religious grounds is not as cut and dried and some would believe. I think it's good that they ruled in his favor. It wasn't even a close vote, either -- it was 7 to 2.

They made the right call and it wasn't even close (7-2). The right of conscience is a fundamental human right that cannot and should not be violated. In this case there was a tension of a couple being mildly inconvenienced versus using the coercive power of the state to force a man to violate his convictions. This shouldn't be all that controversial and, yet, here we are.

Thomas P. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...the coercive power of the state to force a man to
> violate his convictions.

Go read the decision, no such issue was decided.

And, pray tell, what violation of "convictions" is involved in making a cake?

Do I really need to point out (again) that such bakers routinely make wedding cakes for adulterers, fornicators, divorced people, wife-beaters, etc. (none of which they ever even ask about), all of which are also supposedly against their "convictions?" Singling out gay people demonstrates their own hypocrisy and bigotry, not their "convictions."

Am I right in that the key difference is between things that are a choice (religion, ideology) and things that one is born or grew up with and has no choice in the matter (race, orientation?)

"Do I really need to point out (again) that such bakers routinely make wedding cakes for adulterers, fornicators, divorced people, wife-beaters, etc. (none of which they ever even ask about), all of which are also supposedly against their 'convictions?' "

If someone came in and wanted a cake with the writing "Adultery is Great!" or "Happy Divorce!" on it, thus revealing their viewpoint to the baker, that the baker would have a right to refuse it? Presuming these things are choices, that is.

Point here being maybe the baker doesn't *know* about these other things because most people don't ask for a cake specifically commemorating it. I know wedding cakes often don't have any writing on them, but usually it is made clear that the customer is in fact asking for a wedding cake.

xxMMMooo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Point here being maybe the baker doesn't *know*
> about these other things because most people don't
> ask for a cake specifically commemorating it. I
> know wedding cakes often don't have any writing on
> them, but usually it is made clear that the
> customer is in fact asking for a wedding cake.

Other than the names on a cake (if they're put there, which today they usually aren't, as you noted), what part of a wedding cake "celebrates" that the people getting married are either gay or straight?

Your point above is the point. This particular baker doesn't ask (or assume or presume or anything else) if a couple coming in are adulterers, or fornicators, or wife beaters, or atheists, or catholics, and on and on and on. And this particular baker has "religious convictions" that many of the things the people he normally makes wedding cakes do are "wrong." Yet he still makes cakes for them.

But if he assumes (or is told or asks) if the people are gay, he refuses to make cakes for them. Because (he says) of religious convictions that gay people getting married is "wrong." While making cakes for people doing lots of other things he thinks are "wrong" is just fine. He doesn't care about any of those other things that he considers "wrong." He only cares if people are gay or not.

The SCOTUS decision sent this case back because of the inconsistent (and "hostile") behavior of the Colorado Equal Rights commission. At a time gay marriage had not been legalized nationwide. So on this particular ruling, the baker won't have to abide by the commission's decision. The ruling specifically does NOT set precedent that using religious belief as an excuse to discriminate against gay people is legal.

His conviction is that marriage is for a man and a woman. He doesn't state any convictions about adultery, divorce, etc.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thomas P. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...the coercive power of the state to force a
> man to
> > violate his convictions.
>
> Go read the decision, no such issue was decided.
>
> And, pray tell, what violation of "convictions" is
> involved in making a cake?
>
> Do I really need to point out (again) that such
> bakers routinely make wedding cakes for
> adulterers, fornicators, divorced people,
> wife-beaters, etc. (none of which they ever even
> ask about), all of which are also supposedly
> against their "convictions?" Singling out gay
> people demonstrates their own hypocrisy and
> bigotry, not their "convictions."


You cannot wrap your head around the workings of religious faith, yet somehow feel you are qualified to determine what is a valid expression and what is not. And worse yet, you lack the awareness to understand why your bias prevents you from engaging this topic fairly. That's pretty much what this decision said to the lower courts. Your clear expression of animus toward religious belief voids your findings on the topic.

Give it a rest. The baker consistently cited that the cake was unquestionably a symbol of his personal expression. It did not assemble itself, and it was a specific, individual creation of his expression. The state has a compelling interest to allow people to refrain from engaging in activities that violate their faith and do not harm others by their inaction. This is not a doctor watching a gay person die on a gurney, and you do yourself no service by your feigned inability to discern the difference.

I would like to see someone go to a gay-owned bakery and ask for a caked with the writing "God Hates the Gay" / "Pray the Gay Away!" on it, and whether or not the baker would refuse it. (Assuming the bakery normally makes custom cakes with writing on them.)

According to the decision, this has already occurred. A man went to THREE different bakers in Colorado seeking a cake to be made with gay hate speech written on it. The three bakers refused to make the cake. The State sided with the bakers in their right NOT to create such a cake.

So....where is the outrage?

Why should there be "outrage?"

A person can refuse to write hate speech.
On anything.

Which isn't, of course, anything at all like the issue at hand here.

And what exactly is hatespeech?

its whatever the libtards are pissed off about this week.

who was the dunce who said that they werent going to post here anymore if the supreme court didnt uphold the "discrimination" case about baking the "gay cake" in California? Get ready.

Free Speech Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its whatever the libtards are pissed off about
> this week.


^^^^^
This.

This has nothing to do with "libtards."

It's about democracy and the rule of law.

Everything that's happened over the last two years might be new to America, but quite common in authoritarian states.

A religious minority -- in this case white Evangelical Christians (incl. Mormons) -- are worried about losing their traditional cultural position of dominance and support a (would be) dictator who promises them favoured status in exchange for their influence and unwavering support.

Qaddafi in Libya, Assad in Syria, and Saddam in Iraq all used religious minorities fearful of loss of influence to stay in power.

If you think it can't happen here, well it IS happening here -- and religion is the primary means that's allowing it to happen here.

Perhaps you'll get it before it's too late.

You pretend to be about civil rights but hate the bill of rights at the same time. How about you just get a clue...

I think its you who doesnt get it. I am for NOT TAKING AWAY RIGHTS. I in no way think the government should be in the business of FORCING people into action, especially for something that makes them uncomfortable. I would feel the same if the roles were reversed. And the court (bi-partisan) agrees with me.

or Muslims vs Christians or atheists against people of faith.

I won't even bring up the Hindu caste system.

You can't have a functioning democracy with discrimation.

Now if you want something else like an authoritarian state, that's a different matter...

@jthomas, I wasnt saying you were. Its "anybody" who is clearly advocating a system of Government in which he can mandate anybody to do anything he wants them to do simply because that is what he wants.

Your argument boils down to this: the strong should rule the weak, and the many should rule the few.

What you are calling "freedom" is anarchy.

It's also impractical.

If you have a large racial and religious majority you can band together and discriminate against every one else but that won't work in twenty-first century America.


You can't get your 1950s world back. Not going to happen.

The Supreme Court punted and decided the case based on a narrow factual issue, namely, the religion-bashing remarks by Colorado authorities in the transcript. It wasn't a victory for either side, except for the baker.

The big battle over the constitutional issue is for another day, if ever.

Here are some things to think about.

I've asked before about the biblical justification sanctioning discrimination against sexual minorities.

There is no such sanction.

It's just a dodge to get around the anti-discrmination laws.

The "freedom of association" argument doesn't wash either.

If you don't want to sell to "the public" then don't run a public business.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 03:29PM by anybody.

funny how that mentality doesnt hold water when it comes to Trump supporters who are often times denied service at bars and food establishments for voting for the president of the united states...

Ginsburg and Sotomayor are certifiable. Not that we needed any more confirmation of that, of course. This one was pretty straight forward to anyone who isn't a whacked-out ideologue.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/30/supreme-court-justice-trump-second-nominee-scotus

Game over man game over

And it won't be a "game" you want to play.


This is *NOT* a game.

I own the New York giants.

My religion specifically rejects Mormonism.

All Mormons attending our football games are required to leave during the artistic half-time show.

They also can’t attend any plays in my theater on broadway.

Maybe his suppliers will boycott him.

Patty-cake, patty-cake baker man,
Bake me a cake, or I'm suing you, man!

If this topic is interesting to you, check out the Piggie Park case. Maurice Bessinger claimed it was against his religious beliefs to serve black people in his dining room with white people. He would sell them food - but not in the dining room.

He lost.

The baker's religious views were not taken into account in the lower court ruling, said the Supreme Court.

It's win-win for the gays and the religious views of the baker. The gay couple can still get legally married, and hire someone else to bake their cake. And the baker gets to uphold his religious convictions.

Hiring a baker isn't the issue for the gay couple. They wanted to force the issue, and lost. They can't quash the religious convictions of another.

Since the Supreme Court has weighed in, there is no higher law in the land to appeal to. Case over.

This is discrimination, plain and simple.

The baker could have offered to sell the couple a plain cake without any of his "art" or personal embellisments.

It's no different from denying black people a seat at a restaurant or a jewish person membership at a golf club.

The baker is using religious preference as a means to discriminate.

No, it is different. That is what the Supreme Court addressed in its decision. Was the baker's personal religious views and convictions. Not denying someone to sit in a restaurant or join a country club. There are distinctions. It would discriminate the baker's religious convictions if he was forced to violate them to accommodate the request by a gay couple. They could go elsewhere. It wasn't the baker himself they wanted to hire because of how well he baked. They simply wanted to force the issue. And lost.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 06:18PM by Amyjo.

It's democracy at work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2018 06:17PM by Amyjo.

After listening to Nina Totenberg's report about this case on NPR, I have to conclude that SCOTUS is trying to have it both ways on this issue. On the one hand, it wants the state to recognize the rights of sincerely religious people; on the other hand, it doesn't want to abrogate the human and legal rights of homosexuals. The fact that the Court is trying to please everybody here may ultimately please nobody, but it also reflects the very bitter (and real) cultural war going on between many religious people and secularists, such as myself.