If I were a celebrated artistic cake decorator and someone asked me to bake a cake that read:

"Congratulations Warren Jeffs on your marriage to your 44th wife"

or

"Celebrating the court victory and vindication of Joseph Smith VI's pedophile charges"

or

"In Honor of the $50 billionth dollar collected in tithing", I think I'd decline to decorate the cake too.

Mormonism is all about you making the money for their cake. You making their cake. You decorating their cake and maybe you can eat some of it too if you are worthy to.

If you were a fashion designer, would you feel entitled to refuse to sell your clothing line to people who could afford it and could fit into the clothes, but that you felt were unattractive?

Asking for a friend.

I'd like to see someone go to a gay-owned bakery, one that does custom cakes with occasional writing or artwork on them, and order a cake with the words "Pray the Gay Away!" or "God H8s Teh Ghey" on it.

Do they have to make the cake?

"Congrats LDS for 40 years of being less racist!"

They are eating that one to "Be One."

And thanks to the new court ruling, you dont have to. Its sad that many on this forum would like to force you to make that cake.

It is amazing how so few seem to get it too.

For example: I have moonlight over the years as a writer of articles, manuals, etc. If a job came my way that I knew I could take care of, I normally did. If an organization asked for an article loaded with racism or some other disgusting topic, I would have flat out refused to do so, because it would violate my conscience. I doubt very few would argue such a position is wrong.

And, yet, this case some can't get it. Fortunately for the proprietor, seven of the nine justices (including some lefties) did. The other two are on the wrong side of the Constitution and, for that matter, history.

It's not the same thing. You can decide what types of articles to write, what topics are OK and not OK for your conscience, etc. That's different from saying "I don't moonlight articles for people who are (gay, black, Jewish...).

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts of the case. Nobody is asking anyone to make a cake they don't normally make, or provide any service they don't normally provide. The crux of the issue, from my perspective anyway, is that services shouldn't be selectively provided based on sexual orientation (or religion, or race, etc.). For example, a restaurant in Utah should be able to decide whether they serve coffee or alcohol or not. But once they decide to put either of those items on the menu, they can't decide to deny a beer or a latte to anyone wearing a CTR ring to enforce the WoW on church members.

U think the justices were confused on the facts?? Not so much. They offered to sell them all of their "on the menu", yet the couple refused. They wanted a custom cake to be made that would be specific to their event with 2 grooms on top, which is not a service offered by the cake shop. That is why each "custom" cake is considered artwork, and that is why 7 out of 9 justices voted in favor of the cake maker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 01:38PM by jthomas.

From what I've read, that appears not to be accurate. The baker himself says that their conversation was limited to "sorry guys, I don't do cakes for same sex weddings" and lasted no more than 20 seconds. As to the ruling, the court did not make any determination as to which side of Colorado's anti-discrimination law the baker falls on, and whether or not his religious exemption is valid, rather, they commented that the commission should have been more sensitive in their proceedings. The issue actually remains unresolved, so it's kind of a crappy ruling for either side of the argument.

Im sorry, but I disagree. What you describe is no where near the take away I got from the ruling. Are you saying they did not offer them other "on the menu" goods? if you are. You are wrong and here is the quote.
"He offered to make any other baked goods for the men. "At which point they both stormed out and left," he said."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

Whether he offered to sell them anything else is irrelevant. He sells wedding cakes, they asked for a wedding cake, he denied them a wedding cake. I can see him denying them a rainbow colored wedding cake or a wedding cake emblazoned with "Can't wait to **** you in the *** tonight!" as being within his rights, but the issue is that he refused to provide the same product for them as he makes for heterosexual couples. As to the takeaway from the ruling, the article you cite says "Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented." It doesn't actually say the baker, or any other provider of services, may refuse those services to LGBTQ people on religious grounds.

And to respond to your edit, I didn't ever say the justices misunderstand the facts of the case. But most people commenting on internet sites seem to.

in that passage he declined to make them a wedding cake for their wedding - not a special something he wouldn't be making for anyone else

As it is, the nondiscrimination law is still in place, but supposing it had been overturned, I think it would only be reasonable for business owners to post in their place of business, website, and sales materials that they do not serve gay couples so gay couples can avoid being refused service. Clearly and publicly stating such should not be a hardship for the business owner if these are his or her sincerely held beliefs.

So maybe "straight" and "gay" water fountains, and "straight" and
"gay" waiting rooms at the airport etc. For some reason this is
sounding like something I saw before, long ago.

I totally agree - and I think the result is that fair minded people would see the signage and choose another bakeshop. I just think if they insist that this is their value, it should be an uncomfortable for them as for those they discriminate against.

Once again for those in the back - gay couples aren't asking for anything offensive to the baker to be written on their cake, they are asking for the same type of wedding cake he makes for any other couple. It's not the cake that the baker objects to, it's the couple. This couple, specifically, didn't even get to the point of talking about what kind of cake they wanted, when it was clear they were a gay couple, the baker refused them service.

And according to the supreme court, was perfectly well within his rights to do so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 02:29PM by jthomas.

The ruling of the supreme court did not strike down Colorado's nondiscrimination law, so no he is not. They just ruled that Colorado had gone too far in their ruling on the case, mostly objecting to their wording. The law has not changed at all.

No, they ruled he had not been discriminatory outside his rights. His store is still open, and operating as usual. I know its not what you want to hear,....but thats not my doing. sorry.

Maybe actually read the opinion. It is a very narrow ruling that does not address whether or not he was within his right to refuse service. That remains an open question which the opinion specifically states will have to be reckoned with at a later time.

Does he have to make the cake? And is his business being fined or shut down by the government due to this issue. Is he going to jail?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2018 03:53PM by jthomas.

I'm going to have to stop trying to clarify anything for you since you're obviously not in a learning mood. Just stay tuned for the next case and we'll see what happens.

I'm sticking to the facts. The nondiscrimination law was not struck down.
"What this means, in short, is that the Supreme Court has punted on the broader issues involved, narrowing its ruling to the specific circumstances of this individual case, and that what it said should not be interpreted as giving other businesses carte blanche to do what Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, did."

https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/6/4/17425294/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop-gay-wedding-cake-baker-ruling

Noone said any non discrimination laws were struck down. But as you said in the case of the cake maker.... he did not violate law, which means the state went outside the law in saying that he had broken the law. Why would you WANT to be forced by the government to make a cake for someone like a klan rally, or a cake that says negative things about homosexuals. I don't get it. But, I am not going to understand your logic.

The Supreme Court did not say that he did not break the law. The court held that the body that decided he broke the law was not dependable and that its ruling could not be credited. Those are different things.

You aren't getting the nuance, a nuance that the supremes expressed explicitly.

This is correct.

The decision was on a narrow issue--the body that made the finding--and explicitly eschewed broader significance. When the issue is eventually decided more generally, I'm pretty confident that Ginsburg's minority opinion will prevail. You can't deny a cake to a customer because the customer is black.

Remember what Scalia said about Kennedy: his earlier rulings necessitated the granting of equal rights to gay people. And Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the present case.