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

[Phi for All]

7 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.

Many Christians interpret parts of the Bible as forbidding interracial marriages. Do you think it would be OK for this baker (any baker) to refuse to make a cake for a black man and a white woman who were getting married, based on this interpretation (or any interpretation) of his religion?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Many Christians interpret parts of the Bible as forbidding interracial marriages. Do you think it would be OK for this baker (any baker) to refuse to make a cake for a black man and a white woman who were getting married, based on this interpretation (or any interpretation) of his religion?

Can you imagine the outrage which would exist if a Halal bakery refused to serve Christians? 

[Scott of the Antares]

29 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Can you imagine the outrage which would exist if a Halal bakery refused to serve Christians? 

In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).

[YaDinghus]

3 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).

Where's the fairness in that?

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Scott of the Antares said:

In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).

And yet it is conservatives who cried about NFL players , cried about Michelle Wolfe at the Correspondence dinner, are crying to ABC for a Trump apology, and etc, etc. Seems that in your view complaining is weak and shameful when it comes from the left but justified and grounded in principle when it comes from the Right. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Can you imagine the outrage which would exist if a Halal bakery refused to serve Christians? 

Lol...Their pathetic snowflake reaction at people saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is bad enough

[Scott of the Antares]

46 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Where's the fairness in that?

Over here in England there has been a sharp increase in the liberal left becoming ‘offended’ by others freedom of speeches. By using the trope ‘in all fairness’, I was referring to the fact that our news hardly ever mentions these ‘religious bakery’ type cases (I can remember two over the last ~5 years), but our media is awash with the ‘offended snowflake’ types of case. So by using ‘in all fairness’, I was reflected that in the U.K. today, you are far more likely to hear of the liberals complaining than any religious types (I’m not sure we have many religious types here, it certainly seems to have taken a back seat recently). Hopefully that makes sense to you:)

32 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Seems that in your view complaining is weak and shameful when it comes from the left but justified and grounded in principle when it comes from the Right. 

‘Seems’? Respectfully that probably says more about you than me as it appears you have inferred understanding about me that I never stated. I never passed any judgement or statement of affinity for the right! Far right or far left are both intolerant in my opinion. In fact I likened far left intolerance to far right intolerance in my post; why would I have done that if I thought one was more acceptable than the other?!? I equated the two! It upsets me that a well respected member of a science forum can read a post and detect tones that were not present. Again, respectfully, I think that show your own bias sir.

Complaining is fine if people want to; that is down to them and I have no problem with it at all.

Personally, if that bakery didn’t want to bake a cake for me and my same sex partner, I would have gone to another bakery and not bothered wasting my time with a court case.

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

‘Seems’? Respectfully that probably says more about you than me as it appears you have inferred understanding about me that I never stated. I never passed any judgement or statement of affinity for the right!

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).

Repeating divisive conservative talking points are equal to judgement statements that imply affinity. 

 

9 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

It upsets me that a well respected member of a science forum can read a post and detect tones that were not present.

Now look who is saying "‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you". You point about the complaining liberals is undermined by your own "it upsets me" complaining. 

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Personally, if that bakery didn’t want to bake a cake for me and my same sex partner, I would have gone to another bakery and not bothered wasting my time with a court case.

I think you should be aware that this is not a simply issue of business decision. The bigger question is in case of competing laws (anti-discrimination vs artistic freedom). While the service in this case is relatively inconsequential, it raises the larger question whether services can be denied on that ground. This can have significant impact on numerous levels, if e.g. medical professionals or other semi-essential services  can limit access to certain groups. Even not having access to an affordable supermarket within a certain radius can have massive impact, especially for low-income folks. Remember that much of the US is a huge, relatively empty space and it can be difficult simply to go somewhere else.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

In all fairness, I think in today’s world the ultra-liberals are the most likely to complain. Their ‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you’ mantra is so far left it has come full circle and is now mandates a far right response (ie they are intolerant of perceived intolerances).

If you really mean "all" fairness, you should rethink the whole "I'm offended" routine. There's nothing wrong with calling out intolerance, nothing wrong with wanting better when people's lives are affected, and nothing wrong with saying "This is wrong!". To call it "complaining" demeans the intent, which is to stop discrimination when you find it.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you should be aware that this is not a simply issue of business decision. The bigger question is in case of competing laws (anti-discrimination vs artistic freedom). While the service in this case is relatively inconsequential, it raises the larger question whether services can be denied on that ground. This can have significant impact on numerous levels, if e.g. medical professionals or other semi-essential services  can limit access to certain groups. Even not having access to an affordable supermarket within a certain radius can have massive impact, especially for low-income folks. Remember that much of the US is a huge, relatively empty space and it can be difficult simply to go somewhere else.

Yep, the attitude that people can just go to the bakery next door is mostly a fallacy. Rather it is often a way for whole communities to passive aggressively discriminate and force out those minority neighbors they dislike. 

[Scott of the Antares]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Now look who is saying "‘I’m offended so stop doing what you are doing and start doing what I tell you". You point about the complaining liberals is undermined by your own "it upsets me" complaining. 

I am not offended, I am setting the record straight! Or do you think it is good practice to make a statement based on opinion, that turns out to be incorrect, and when you are corrected continue to perpetuate your fabricated statement? Especially when that opinion is formed form one post on an Internet forum? Sorry, I can’t see that. And regarding complaining, & I quote;

40 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

 

Complaining is fine if people want to; that is down to them and I have no problem with it at all

I already said I had no problem with complaining! And yes, I did complain when you (incorrectly) inferred my stance on left/right. I think I am entitled to defend wrong statements about myself, in a polite and friendly manner. I assure you I am not at the extreme in the left or the right, I prefer the middle! And I strongly believe that tolerance is the best path for all humans to conduct their interactions with others.

Sorry of I have overstepped the mark or upset anyone here, but I have to set the record straight when assumptions about myself are incorrectly stated in case others believe it as true. I am sure you understand that and I apologise again. I enjoy this forum as there are a good bunch of clever people here and I like to hear what they have to say. I don’t want any Endercreeper01 type dramas thank you very much!

Sincerley,

Scott

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Yep, the attitude that people can just go to the bakery next door is mostly a fallacy. Rather it is often a way for whole communities to passive aggressively discriminate and force out those minority neighbors they dislike. 

Discriminatory practices have historically shown to create communities with divergent access to a variety of services, which still have impact on many aspects, ranging from crime rates to economic success. With regard to intolerance there are studies out there that pretty much everyone is intolerant against those violating their values (Brandt et al. have published a series of papers on this topic). This points to a psychological underpinning that folks want to validate their own values (which seems like an almost trivial observation).

However, where differences are obvious are the groups and values at which each groups is willing to discriminate against. Another factor is that liberals were more likely score high on egalitarian scales, which may attenuate discrimination. On the conservative side scoring high on self-reliance attenuated discrimination. There is some evidence that conservative have a broader issue with strong traditional beliefs which increased the range of issues where they score higher in terms of discrimination. 

It is also interesting to look at the most polarized/discriminated groups. On the conservative side we got (roughly in order) liberals, democrats, radical students, atheists, gays and lesbians, labor unions, illegal aliens, environmentalists, civil right leaders and feminists.

On the opposite end we got: conservatives, Republicans, anti-abortionists, Christian Fundamentalists, business people and military.

[Scott of the Antares]

44 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think you should be aware that this is not a simply issue of business decision. The bigger question is in case of competing laws (anti-discrimination vs artistic freedom). While the service in this case is relatively inconsequential, it raises the larger question whether services can be denied on that ground. This can have significant impact on numerous levels, if e.g. medical professionals or other semi-essential services  can limit access to certain groups. Even not having access to an affordable supermarket within a certain radius can have massive impact, especially for low-income folks. Remember that much of the US is a huge, relatively empty space and it can be difficult simply to go somewhere else.

Yep I agree with you on medical services . And if I did experience that, then I certainly would complain!

Just to be clear, I think it is wrong that these folks couldn’t get their cake; people should be able to go anywhere and get good, polite equal service. End of. For any service.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Scott of the Antares

[CharonY]

3 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Just to be clear, I think it is wrong that these folks couldn’t get their cake; people should be able to go anywhere and get good, polite equal service. End of. For any service.

Sure, the comment was just to highlight that the issue is more than "just" for a cake but could have serious societal impact, as we can see from past implementations. Exploring the legality of these issues is therefore far more than merely a complaint. 

[Scott of the Antares]

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Exploring the legality of these issues is therefore far more than merely a complaint. 

Yep, in an earlier post I mentioned two similar cases that I can think of in England over the last five years; in both of those cases the couples won over the service provider. So our legal processes are coming down on the side of tolerance which is good news:)

Edited June 6, 2018 by Scott of the Antares

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, CharonY said:

Exploring the legality of these issues is therefore far more than merely a complaint. 

When this case first came out, there was a LOT of fake news attached to it that faded very slowly. Initially, bloggers complained that the cake was "probably" pornographic, and a strawman with icing was created. The cake was perfectly normal, just with two grooms on top. The baker doesn't turn away gay people who want to buy anything else, he just won't justify their "unnatural" wedding with one of the cakes he makes available to the rest of the public.

Iirc, the bloggers also went on at great length about "complainers", and how there were other bakeries to choose from. This is a conservative tactic, to reduce the very people who are rocking the boat to insignificance without actually dealing with the issue at hand. Attacking the person, not the idea.

[Scott of the Antares]

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's nothing wrong with calling out intolerance, nothing wrong with wanting better when people's lives are affected, and nothing wrong with saying "This is wrong!". To call it "complaining" demeans the intent, which is to stop discrimination when you find it.

I agree with this statement 100%. I should more clear as I said ultra liberal in my first post when it might have been better to say ultra left, although I am not sure that is right either.  An example in the media recently was when a white person was called a racist for complementing a black persons dreadlocks. There was no racist intent, but it was perceived as one. And then the person who was being nice is portrayed as ignorant. This is the kind of  complaining I was on about. Actual genuine intolerance as you mention? I am with you on that:)

[YaDinghus]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Over here in England there has been a sharp increase in the liberal left becoming ‘offended’ by others freedom of speeches. By using the trope ‘in all fairness’, I was referring to the fact that our news hardly ever mentions these ‘religious bakery’ type cases (I can remember two over the last ~5 years), but our media is awash with the ‘offended snowflake’ types of case. So by using ‘in all fairness’, I was reflected that in the U.K. today, you are far more likely to hear of the liberals complaining than any religious types (I’m not sure we have many religious types here, it certainly seems to have taken a back seat recently). Hopefully that makes sense to you:)

I know it because in Germany the AfD thrives upon the same sentiments as UKIP in the UK. Let's just say I'm neither a fan of Nigel Farrage, nor of Alice Weidel, and leave it at that.

[CharonY]

18 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I know it because in Germany the AfD thrives upon the same sentiments as UKIP in the UK. Let's just say I'm neither a fan of Nigel Farrage, nor of Alice Weidel, and leave it at that.

Well and Weidel is the supposedly establishment-friendly front of the AFD. I mean, there is also Gauland who does darndedst to downplay the impact of the Third Reich (among other things).

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

I agree with this statement 100%. I should more clear as I said ultra liberal in my first post when it might have been better to say ultra left, although I am not sure that is right either.  An example in the media recently was when a white person was called a racist for complementing a black persons dreadlocks. There was no racist intent, but it was perceived as one. And then the person who was being nice is portrayed as ignorant. This is the kind of  complaining I was on about. Actual genuine intolerance as you mention? I am with you on that:)

That incident sounds fairly isolated, and it's hard to trust "There was no racist intent". I don't know the context, but I've heard backhanded compliments before. "Nice dreadlocks!" doesn't necessarily mean the white person felt any admiration.

I'm convinced it's partly all the labeling we do that makes us so susceptible to manipulation emotionally. Left, right, black, white, latino, Democrat, Republican, liberals, conservatives, we use these labels as if these groups do everything in lockstep. I'm very conservative about a lot of things, but politically my solutions tend towards spending tax dollars more effectively, so I identify as a liberal (and I think MOST people are a blend of stances like me). Instead of using the variety of economic tools we have available to us, we label public and state ownership as Socialism and Communism, implying that any attempt to use these tools is an attempt to use ONLY those tools. The media loves these words because they come pre-loaded with our prejudices and opinions, and they grab our attention with a minimum of effort. 

So it doesn't matter if you call them the "ultra", it's extremism, and these are the folks on all the outer boundaries of the spectrum who suddenly have the mic on the world stage. Their fringe fears and extremist solutions have been pulled out of deep storage where they belonged, and now they're parading around in the spotlight, thankful that US leadership has suddenly embraced crazy and their ideas have become relevant for the first time since they were finally run out of town on a rail by the civil rights movement.

[YaDinghus]

31 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Well and Weidel is the supposedly establishment-friendly front of the AFD. I mean, there is also Gauland who does darndedst to downplay the impact of the Third Reich (among other things).

You mean his recent fauxpas concerning the 3rd Reich and Vogelschiss?

[CharonY]

7 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

You mean his recent fauxpas concerning the 3rd Reich and Vogelschiss?

Amongst other things. I would not necessarily call it a faux pas, considering that he has a history of  making nationalistic, racist and revisionist statements (though perhaps at a lower rate than some of his fellow party members, which in itself is sad).

[mistermack]

If I was a judge in one of these cases, the first question I would ask is how sincere are the plaintiffs? If I got a hint that the case was manufactured for political purposes, I would always find for the defendant. I would want to get a real idea of what was the cake for, was it a genuine occasion, and why did they choose a particular baker? 

If it looked like they were fishing for a refusal, so that they could bring a case, I would award against them, and award costs. 

It seems like a very odd thing to do, to try to force someone to prepare food for you, when they don't want to. I wouldn't want to chance eating the cake, under those circumstances. You never know what went into it. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by mistermack

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If I was a judge in one of these cases, the first question I would ask is how sincere are the plaintiffs?

Until a mind reading device is created sincerity can never absolutely be known. Such subjective variables should not be the bases for court rulings.