Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[b311j]

Who's forcing it? Even on this site we have a thread "Today's example of Christians behaving badly." but there's no thread about non Christians behaving badly."

You bring up religion and people freak, yet the opposite is okay. They talk about God is a joke, and fake - and yet it's okay? And of course it's okay for a restaurant to kick out an aide to the President. Jeez.

I wasn't referring to this site. We have a fairly diverse group of people here.

But to answer your question, we can start with the current administration and work our way down. Are you going to say that Pence, and Sessions, and DeVos, etc are not pushing a religious agenda?

As for the baker, he DOES have the right to refuse service. As does the restaurant that kicked out Sarah. BUT the restaurant owner didnt kick her out for religious reasons. They arent standing on their bible and saying they had a right to boot her. Equating the 2 scenarios seems silly to me.

 

[b311j]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-prison/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d957b3fb2b3

Allow deeply held religious beliefs....what could possibly go wrong.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I wasn't referring to this site. We have a fairly diverse group of people here.

But to answer your question, we can start with the current administration and work our way down. Are you going to say that Pence, and Sessions, and DeVos, etc are not pushing a religious agenda?

As for the baker, he DOES have the right to refuse service. As does the restaurant that kicked out Sarah. BUT the restaurant owner didnt kick her out for religious reasons. They arent standing on their bible and saying they had a right to boot her. Equating the 2 scenarios seems silly to me.

I think they do equate. The aide wasn't standing on her bible either, she just worked for a guy they didn't like. And worse, the threats she gets. Not sure how you see one okay but another isn't.

 

[Michchamp]

You can't refuse service - or discriminate really - if someone is a member of a protected class (ie sexual preference, race, religion, etc.)

you can discriminate against Republicans or Democrats though. Political affiliation isn't a protected class.

Don't like having to serve gay people? move to a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia.

 

[Michchamp]

Who's forcing it? Even on this site we have a thread "Today's example of Christians behaving badly." but there's no thread about non Christians behaving badly."

...

aw, come on now, that's an objectively great thread, and the most popular one in the whole Religion section of the board. even Christians enjoy it.

You could even argue it's helped Christians to behave better.

You could start a thread like that if you wanted. There was a converted Jewish guy who used to post here who started one, but it didn't seem to gain traction.

We have a lot of believers on this board and none of them seem shy to express their beliefs from what I've seen, and I haven't seen anybody freak.

That was zyxt's thread about how "Atheists are so awesome" he meant it sarcastically, but it turned into a thread about Atheist contributions and general excellence.

It happened because Atheists really ARE so awesome.

 

[Mitchrapp]

You can't refuse service - or discriminate really - if someone is a member of a protected class (ie sexual preference, race, religion, etc.)

you can discriminate against Republicans or Democrats though. Political affiliation isn't a protected class.

Don't like having to serve gay people? move to a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia.

Point taken.

Good to see ya.

 

[b311j]

I think they do equate. The aide wasn't standing on her bible either, she just worked for a guy they didn't like. And worse, the threats she gets. Not sure how you see one okay but another isn't.

A) I didnt say that one was okay and not the other.

B) Being discriminated against because of how you were born is not equal to being "discriminated" against because of who choose to support politically.

 

[Michchamp]

For those interested, here is a good, and reasonably short summary of the legal standards and reasoning that Congress and the Supreme Court have used to prohibit private discrimination against race, i.e. why you can't refuse to bake a wedding cake for a black family, or rent them an apartment even though it's your own private business or building.

There's really no reason why the reasoning underlying Civil Rights cases shouldn't be extended to other protected classes, such as LGBTQ persons, and that's what much of the recent litigation has been over, extending the Civil Rights holdings to these classes as well.

The government can't prosecute you for being a racist bigot. But if you are engaged in interstate commerce, or take or use public funds or resources, it can revoke your right to these things or pass laws requiring you not to actively discriminate in your business.

I guess if you really don't want to bake a cake for two gay people, you could close your public business, and just operate by word of mouth, or by private referrals. Maybe you wouldn't sell as many wedding cakes, but... tough shit!

 

[Spartanmack]

Deeply held religious beliefs are learned. Probably forced onto, er...I mean passed down through the generations. Being gay isn't a choice. So why is someones learned behavior of discriminating against a sector of people given precedence here? This is no different than if the baker had refused service because the couple were black. There is far too much spoon-feeding of religion onto society nowadays. Have your faith or belief. Nobody is stopping that. But quit forcing it onto others.

not baking a cake for a ceremony that violates you're deeply held religious belief is not forcing your beliefs onto anyone - it's refusing to allow others to force their beliefs onto you, which is everyone's right. also, it's not the same as denying a couple because they are black, it's not even in the same ballpark.

 

[Spartanmack]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-prison/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2d957b3fb2b3

Allow deeply held religious beliefs....what could possibly go wrong.

doesn't seem like a very good example of allowing deeply held religious beliefs as these people are being punished criminally for their actions.

Has anyone ever died because they couldn't force a business owner to bake them a cake? I mean in one case, the couple can just go to the next baker whereas the newborn really can't find parents who will give him/her access to medical care. I wonder because, like you said to Mitchrapp, equating the two seems silly to me.

 

[Spartanmack]

You can't refuse service - or discriminate really - if someone is a member of a protected class (ie sexual preference, race, religion, etc.)

you can discriminate against Republicans or Democrats though. Political affiliation isn't a protected class.

Don't like having to serve gay people? move to a theocracy, like Saudi Arabia.

the baker served gay people all the time. so did the florist who got sued by her long time gay customers because she wouldn't do the flowers for their wedding.

 

[Gulo Blue]

not baking a cake for a ceremony that violates you're deeply held religious belief is not forcing your beliefs onto anyone - it's refusing to allow others to force their beliefs onto you, which is everyone's right. also, it's not the same as denying a couple because they are black, it's not even in the same ballpark.

One of the distinctions I think the court discussed in the original case was that while the couple was gay, they weren't asking for a cake that was any different than any other wedding cake, so it wouldn't be considered speech without presuming what was being done with it. They were only asking for a wedding cake, same as any other customer. The service of making a wedding cake, being a service the business provides to the public, can't be denied to a protected class based on their being a part of that protected class. Had the couple asked for a wedding cake that had some sort of speech on it, the baker could then refuse. The idea that the cake was inherently speech because of who the recipients were, would invalidate the basis of protecting classes from discrimination as any service or product could then be considered to be speech if it supported someone you don't like.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't think our laws are actually about forcing or not forcing beliefs onto each other. We have freedom to the speech we want to voice and the religion we want to practice. We're not allowed to infringe other people's ability to practice and we're not allowed to discriminate in several ways, particularly business services and hiring practices.


But there's no freedom from religion, or from certain races, or from certain sexual orientations, no matter how much some people wish there was. You have to do business with protected classes, even if that business contributes to them being whatever protected thing it is that they are that you don't like.

 

[Michchamp]

the baker served gay people all the time. so did the florist who got sued by her long time gay customers because she wouldn't do the flowers for their wedding.

So what?

 

[Spartanmack]

One of the distinctions I think the court discussed in the original case was that while the couple was gay, they weren't asking for a cake that was any different than any other wedding cake, so it wouldn't be considered speech without presuming what was being done with it. They were only asking for a wedding cake, same as any other customer. The service of making a wedding cake, being a service the business provides to the public, can't be denied to a protected class based on their being a part of that protected class. Had the couple asked for a wedding cake that had some sort of speech on it, the baker could then refuse. The idea that the cake was inherently speech because of who the recipients were, would invalidate the basis of protecting classes from discrimination as any service or product could then be considered to be speech if it supported someone you don't like.

most of the articles I've read about the case refer to the product in questions as a custom wedding cake. the baker may be asserting that all his wedding cakes are custom made, but that's not stated in anything I've seen.

 

[Spartanmack]

So what?

so clearly they're ok with serving gay people.

 

[Gulo Blue]

most of the articles I've read about the case refer to the product in questions as a custom wedding cake. the baker may be asserting that all his wedding cakes are custom made, but that's not stated in anything I've seen.

"Phillips?s case also focused largely on the custom nature of his cakes, emphasizing how much artistic care and, crucially for his case, expression goes into the product."


https://www.vox.com/identities/2018...p-supreme-court-baker-ruling-gay-wedding-cake

 

[Gulo Blue]

The defense, which is not why the baker won, was a free speech thing, correct? To clear up the issue, I think someone needs to take their business to a sign maker that objects to a protected class and try to get a sign made that is specifically supporting a protected class. Or what about the people that protest funerals? Do they legally qualify as a religion (they are mostly just 1 family) and assuming yes, can a signmaker turn them away?

 

[b311j]

not baking a cake for a ceremony that violates you're deeply held religious belief is not forcing your beliefs onto anyone - it's refusing to allow others to force their beliefs onto you, which is everyone's right. also, it's not the same as denying a couple because they are black, it's not even in the same ballpark.

It absolutely is the baker forcing his religious beliefs. I cannot even see how this is in debate when he himself used religious beliefs as his defense.

And i would ask HOW it is not the same as denying a black couple. Black people are, as I understand it, born black. Gay people are born gay. BOTH would be denying based on how the person was born.

 

[b311j]

the baker served gay people all the time. .

IF this were true, then why did he refuse service in this one instance??