Supreme court rules in favor of colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

[Endercreeper01]

A supreme court ruling has been announced in favor of a Colorado baker.

The case involved a Colorado baker who refused to serve cake to a gay couple for their wedding.

This case seems like a good example of a situation that show how discrimination is justified in a certain context, where the context is within the framework of the religious beliefs of the baker.

What do you all think of the case? Is it justified?

[CharonY]

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

This case seems like a good example of a situation that show how discrimination is justified in a certain context, where the context is within the framework of the religious beliefs of the baker.

This is not how SCOTUS framed the argument. Or the involved party for that matter. The main argument by the baker (Phillips) is that compelling him to make the cake would violate his first amendment rights. Nowhere was it stated that discrimination was justified (in fact, it was framed that way, the decision would certainly have ended up differently).

If you read the ruling you will note that the court decided that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility towards the baker which is surprisingly limited in scope and leaves quite a few things open.

[iNow]

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

Quote

decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

(...)

even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone. It is clear, Kennedy continued, that in at least some scenarios sincerely held religious beliefs can trump such laws – for example, a member of the clergy who objects to same-sex marriage cannot be required to perform such marriages. But at the same time, Kennedy explained, the exception cannot be allowed to swallow the rule, with the result that “a long list” of people would be allowed to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.

 

[Moontanman]

If this idea that you won't bake a cake due to religious belief then any business that does this should be required to list the parts of society they will not serve plainly some place like the front door so the rest of us can know who these bigots are and not patronise them if you disagree with them...  

Personally I think this is just a way to bring back the ideas prevalent in some areas where they used to post signs proclaiming no negroes or asians. You can use this religious excuse to bar almost anyone from your business. Everyone should have the right to know who your bigotry encompasses..   

Edited June 5, 2018 by Moontanman

[YaDinghus]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

If this idea that you won't bake a cake due to religious belief then any business that does this should be required to list the parts of society they will not serve plainly some place like the front door so the rest of us can know who these bigots are and not patronise them if you disagree with them...  

Personally I think this is just a way to bring back the ideas prevalent in some areas where they used to post signs proclaiming no negroes or asians. You can use this religious excuse to bar almost anyone from your business. Everyone should have the right to know who your bigotry encompasses..   

My business will not serve bigots

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

My business will not serve bigots

"They who is with sin shall not be served."  Everybody would go bankrupt.  

Edited June 5, 2018 by StringJunky

[YaDinghus]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"They who is with sin shall not be served."  Everybody would go bankrupt.  

XD XD XD

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

If this idea that you won't bake a cake due to religious belief then any business that does this should be required to list the parts of society they will not serve plainly some place like the front door so the rest of us can know who these bigots are and not patronise them if you disagree with them...  

Personally I think this is just a way to bring back the ideas prevalent in some areas where they used to post signs proclaiming no negroes or asians. You can use this religious excuse to bar almost anyone from your business. Everyone should have the right to know who your bigotry encompasses..   

They won't serve gays but they'll serve people who may be murderers, molesters, fraudsters, without batting an eyelid.

[Ten oz]

All businesses for the most part receive public funds in one form or another. Retailers compete for permits to open store fronts in commercially designated areas based on city infrastructure and layout. There is a clear quid pro quo between Cities and the business they permit to operate within their boundaries.  The City ensures a public safety in the form of Police Dept, Fire Dept, street lights, traffic lights, and etc and the business serves the Cities residents. If a business doesn't intend to serve the Cities residents than the City should not give that business a permit to operate. It is that simple. If there are LGBTQ residents paying taxes which are collectively helping  that Bakery than that Bakery needs to serve them.

All the religious nonsense is total irrelevant. No one was forced to open a Bakery. 

[Phi for All]

This is clearly a case where publicly-funded efforts meet privately-funded investments, and in the US the private businesses almost always win, or at least get much more consideration than public efforts. It dilutes the power of public funding. To those extremists who plot for as much private ownership as possible, this is a real game changer. The religious trappings are just for show, obviously.

The next step, of course, is to allow private ownership of the streets and sidewalks near your business. That way you can lobby to deny access to those you don't want to serve.

[MigL]

seriously ?

I might not like the way Phi parts his hair, and if he wants to hire me to build a fence, I can refuse because I don't like certain lifestyle choices ( hair parting ) he makes.

There is no law requiring a person to like everyone.
Similarly there is no law requiring anyone to patronize that bakery if you don't like the character of the owner.
If enough people vote with their wallet, that bakery will soon go out of business, and another problem will have been solved by capitalism.
 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I might not like the way Phi parts his hair, and if he wants to hire me to build a fence, I can refuse because I don't like certain lifestyle choices ( hair parting ) he makes.

There is no law requiring a person to like everyone.

Before the civil rights movement, it was OK to discriminate against lots of folks. It's not illegal for you to refuse my business because of my hair now, and probably won't be for some time, but we are working on making it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ folks. It has nothing to do with liking them, and everything to do with them being people.

AFAIC, when a religion causes discrimination, the religion is incompatible with a democratic society. In a society where church and state are deliberately kept separate, the state and the general public are the only real participants in this dilemma.

[Endercreeper01]

It's not that the baker necessarily had any animosity towards the gay couple, rather it is his religion that tells him that it is not okay to bake the cake for the gay couple.

In this sense, then the discriminatory behavior is okay in the context that the baker is refusing to participate in an action that would constitute what is considered sin in his religion, with the action being the marriage of two gay men.

So in this situation it would be justified on the basis that the baker is only following his religion, because baking a cake for the gay couple would constitute participation in the sin of the marriage of two gay men.

 

[iNow]

[MigL]

Come on, Phi, this was never about religion; the baker simply did not agree with the lifestyle choices made by the couple ordering the cake.
His religious beliefs were simply the excuse used to deny their business.
And you simply cannot pass laws to make everyone like everyone else.
If not religion, they'll simply use some other excuse next time.

The only way to change their attitude, is not through legislation, but through their profits, or lack thereof.
I'm sure this baker will soon realize his mistake when business drops off.
( or maybe he can move to the US south )

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, MigL said:

And you simply cannot pass laws to make everyone like everyone else.

You keep repeating this. How many businesses do you know that require a customer to be more than reasonable and capable of paying?

I think you're making a straw man argument. It's not about "liking". This wasn't even about printing something objectionable. This was discriminating against a gay couple who wanted a wedding cake from a local bakery.

[MigL]

Agreed.
And why exactly, do you think the baker discriminated against the gay couple ?

You seem to think that discrimination is more than simply not liking another person for the colour of their skin, or their gender, or their sexual/romantic preference, or even their religious beliefs.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

why exactly, do you think the baker discriminated against the gay couple ?

Because his head is too firmly lodged up his ass and his pastor told him that gays are bad, mm’kay... that marriage is not allowed btw a white woman and a black man... oops, I mean btw two people who have common plumbing in the crotchel regions

Edited June 6, 2018 by iNow

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

You seem to think that discrimination is more than simply not liking another person for the colour of their skin, or their gender, or their sexual/romantic preference, or even their religious beliefs.

In this case, it WAS more. It involved being turned away as a customer for cake because of lifestyle. Prejudice is what you're talking about. Discrimination is when prejudice becomes public action, and that's what the SCOTUS should have been paying attention to.

[MigL]

Very well, I'll rephrase it in your words...
The baker discriminated against the gay couple because of prejudice.

IOW he didn't like them, and he acted on those feelings.

[Endercreeper01]

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

In this case, it WAS more. It involved being turned away as a customer for cake because of lifestyle. Prejudice is what you're talking about. Discrimination is when prejudice becomes public action, and that's what the SCOTUS should have been paying attention to.

It was more related to the baker not wanting to participate in what he considers to be a sin in accordance with his religion. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is considered participating in what constitutes a sin in his religion. He should be allowed to practice his religion in this way.

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Baking a cake for a gay wedding is considered participating in what constitutes a sin in his religion. He should be allowed to practice his religion in this way.

60 years ago, he would have been able to refuse black customers because of his religion. Do you think we should allow that now?

[Endercreeper01]

59 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

60 years ago, he would have been able to refuse black customers because of his religion. Do you think we should allow that now?

In this case, he was refusing to have a part in something his religion doesn't allow, as opposed to simply being discriminatory. It's not the racism or discrimination based on race in and of itself that is wrong with such cases, instead it is that someone is being refused service. This case is different in this way though, making it justified for the refusal of service.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Endercreeper01

[YaDinghus]

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

In this case, he was refusing to have a part in something his religion doesn't allow, as opposed to simply being discriminatory. It's not the racism or discrimination based on race in and of itself that is wrong with such cases, instead it is that someone is being refused service. This case is different in this way though, making it justified for the refusal of service.

Maybe it's different, but it's still no justification to my mind. Now, I don't sell cakes. I sell my skills and my time. I don't deny services based on your person, but I deny orders that I consider unethical. I can't imgine a cake bing used for something unethical.

[mistermack]

I suppose I'd better change the writing on the cake we've got planned for my daughter's abortion party.