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

[DirtyChai]

On 6/8/2018 at 11:57 AM, mistermack said:

If the baker just said I don't serve gays, then he wouldn't have much of an argument.

Right.  Discrimination would be refusing to serve gays regardless of the event or message on the cake. 

If the gay couple wanted a birthday cake, I'd suspect the baker wouldn't object.  If he did, then the case for discrimination would be a slam dunk.

It's seems to me that this case is more about disagreeing with an idea than it is about discrimination.

 

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

It's seems to me that this case is more about disagreeing with an idea than it is about discrimination

How many times have you had to explain your lifestyle or world view to a baker? It is ridiculous. No one should have to justify themselves to a stranger in order to receive customer service at retail store. 

[mistermack]

36 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

How many times have you had to explain your lifestyle or world view to a baker? It is ridiculous. No one should have to justify themselves to a stranger in order to receive customer service at retail store. 

That's absolutely fine, if it's just a case of an innocent couple ordering a cake for their wedding. 

However, these cases seem to be cropping up too frequently to be just normal trade. It looks suspiciously like activists are selecting committed Christian bakers, with provocative orders, fishing for a refusal, so that they can portray themselves as wronged and discriminated against. And not just in the USA. A similar case was brought in Northern Ireland. http://felixonline.co.uk/articles/2018-06-23-the-curious-case-of-the-gay-cake/   

I think if the baker suspects that he's being used in a crusade, he's entitled to refuse. So long as he makes it clear that it's being used in a political campaign that he is objecting to, rather than serving gay customers. 

Would a newspaper owner have the right to refuse to carry an advert for gay marriage rights? It's a political stance, and you surely have the right to refuse to support a political campaign, if you disagree with it?

Would I have to bake a cake in the shape of a gun, with a gun rights message on it, if I was a lifelong committed anti-gun activist? (which I am).

That would seem perverse to me. Surely there's a freedom there, that overrides the customer's rights? After all, nobody is barring the customer from getting a cake. They are just saying "If you want a political cake, get it elsewhere".

So long as the baker made it absolutely clear that they were happy to supply that customer with a non-political cake, they should have the right to refuse a political one. 

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's absolutely fine, if it's just a case of an innocent couple ordering a cake for their wedding. 

However, these cases seem to be cropping up too frequently to be just normal trade. It looks suspiciously like activists are selecting committed Christian bakers, with provocative orders, fishing for a refusal, so that they can portray themselves as wronged and discriminated against. And not just in the USA. A similar case was brought in Northern Ireland.

People purchasing their products "too frequently" is not a logical complaint for a business lodge. The more cakes a baker sells the better their business is doing. The notion that "activists" are attacking Christian bakers by giving them business is absurd. It is a problem any business could only wish to have. 

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think if the baker suspects that he's being used in a crusade, he's entitled to refuse. So long as he makes it clear that it's being used in a political campaign that he is objecting to, rather than serving gay customers. 

I think it is ridiculous that a baker would bother to consider this. Can you imagine calling to order pizza and being asked what you intend to use the Pizza for prior to the pizzeria agreeing to sell it to you ? 

27 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Would a newspaper owner have the right to refuse to carry an advert for gay marriage rights? It's a political stance, and you surely have the right to refuse to support a political campaign, if you disagree with it?

A newspaper's advertising space becomes part of the product they are selling to all their customers and appears in every single one of the papers they sell. It isn't and apples to apples comparison. No one is demanding something specific be included to every item sold at a bakery to all customers.

[mistermack]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

People purchasing their products "too frequently" is not a logical complaint for a business lodge. The more cakes a baker sells the better their business is doing. The notion that "activists" are attacking Christian bakers by giving them business is absurd. It is a problem any business could only wish to have. 

If you don't want to see, then you will not see. I see activists seeking out staunchly Christian bakers, and ordering cakes with provocative messages on them. You see nothing of the sort. Just innocent people wanting a cake. There are none so blind as those who will not see. One of the few true sayings from the bible. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/october/crippled-by-lgbt-targeting-christian-bakers-close-shop  

 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think it is ridiculous that a baker would bother to consider this. Can you imagine calling to order pizza and being asked what you intend to use the Pizza for prior to the pizzeria agreeing to sell it to you ? 

So do I, but then, I think all of Christianity is ridiculous. Just because YOU think it's ridiculous, that doesn't mean it is. If only everyone thought the same, it would all be fine, I'm sure. 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Can you imagine calling to order pizza and being asked what you intend to use the Pizza for prior to the pizzeria agreeing to sell it to you ? 

It isn't and apples to apples comparison. 

But presumably Pizzas to cakes is ok?  

 

Really, the point I'm making is that the anti-discrimination laws (which I support) are not put in place for activists to force unwilling people to take some part in a political campaign that they disagree with. They are there to stop discrimination in commerce. I think the bakers have used the wrong defence, that's all. If they make it clear that they are happy to provide a non-political cake to gay people, they would stand a much better chance in court.

If it's a case of political activism targeting innocent Christian bakers, I'd like to see it fail. If it's bigoted Christians discriminating in a nasty way against a gay couple just wanting a cake, I'd like to see THAT fail. 

[Ten oz]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

If you don't want to see, then you will not see. I see activists seeking out staunchly Christian bakers, and ordering cakes with provocative messages on them. You see nothing of the sort. Just innocent people wanting a cake. There are none so blind as those who will not see. One of the few true sayings from the bible. http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/october/crippled-by-lgbt-targeting-christian-bakers-close-shop  

In the link you provided there are zero examples of anything "provocative" the bakery was asked to make. They refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, were taken to court, and then chose to close citing the legal troubles. If you are going to continuing to state that LGBTQ activists are seeking out Christian bakers and request "provocative" products from as a way of hurting their businesses you'll need at least one example. 

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So do I, but then, I think all of Christianity is ridiculous. Just because YOU think it's ridiculous, that doesn't mean it is. If only everyone thought the same, it would all be fine, I'm sure. 

I think it is ridiculous that grocery stores often have multiple wet floor signs out creating obstacles to walk around yet they do it because so many have been sued after someone slipped and fell. Running a business comes with many challenges. Christian companies aren't exempt from any of those challenges. If a non-religious bakery refused to bake someone a cake because they disapproved of the person for some secular reason they too could be sued. Christian businesses are not being held to any different standard. Businesses that offend, mistreat, or otherwise upset customers are often sued and seldom survive. 

[mistermack]

The US has a ludicrous legal system, so quoting it doesn't make it right.

I've already pointed out that it's legal for a church to refuse to marry gays, even though that's a service that they provide to the public for money. As far as I'm concerned, the same laws SHOULD apply to bakers and preachers. (and they should pay the same taxes). The only response was "oh, well, the law is different for churches". So is what's right or wrong ALSO different for churches? 

Should gay clubs be forced to allow Christian people in, wearing Christian anti gay-marriage slogans on T shirts? 

[Ten oz]

38 minutes ago, mistermack said:

The US has a ludicrous legal system, so quoting it doesn't make it right.

I've already pointed out that it's legal for a church to refuse to marry gays, even though that's a service that they provide to the public for money. As far as I'm concerned, the same laws SHOULD apply to bakers and preachers. (and they should pay the same taxes). The only response was "oh, well, the law is different for churches". So is what's right or wrong ALSO different for churches? 

Should gay clubs be forced to allow Christian people in, wearing Christian anti gay-marriage slogans on T shirts? 

Churches are tax exempt organizations under law. With that comes specific guidelines. A Bakery does not meet the same legal standard as a church. If you are arguing Churches should lose their legal exemptions and be treated as any other business I agree completely however that would only increase the number of law suits. Again, any businesses that offends, mistreats, or otherwise upsets customers is going to have legal problems and will most likely fail. Capitalism is secular. No one is forced to open a business. If a Christian chooses to open a business than they are willfully entering into a nonsecular environment.

Your club analogy is another bad one. A gay wedding cake (to the bride & bride or groom and groom) is not an anti Christian slogan. Being gay is not inherently anti Christian. Straight couple are allowed in "gay clubs". I have never heard of a "gay club" which discriminated against straight people, have you? 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Ten oz

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Your club analogy is another bad one.

Disagree. In my example, the club would not be discriminating on the grounds of faith, but on the political message displayed. Which is the same situation as the cake. But the Christians could bring a case and argue that they were discriminated against as Christians. 

To me both cases would be equally flawed. 

To me the nub of the question is that just because you are in business, doesn't oblige you to take part in political campaigns against your beliefs. You ignored my example of baking a cake in the shape of a gun, with a pro-gun message on it. Gay marriage is a political question, and people have the right to support it, or oppose it. These cases are just abusing anti-discrimination law, to further a political cause. That's not what it's there for. 

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Disagree. In my example, the club would not be discriminating on the grounds of faith, but on the political message displayed. Which is the same situation as the cake. But the Christians could bring a case and argue that they were discriminated against as Christians. 

Nope, a gay wedding cake is not a anti Christian slogan. Many gay people are Christian and many Christian denominations accept gay couples.

 

[iNow]

49 minutes ago, mistermack said:

just because you are in business, doesn't oblige you to take part in political campaigns against your beliefs.

Seeking equality and equal treatment is not a political campaign against ones beliefs, unless ones beliefs suggest that discrimination is appropriate, which it's not.

51 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Gay marriage is a political question, and people have the right to support it, or oppose it. These cases are just abusing anti-discrimination law, to further a political cause

To clarify, do you feel civil rights granting equal treatment to black people in the 1960s was a political cause? What about women's suffrage? If so, then you need to clarify what exactly ISN'T a political cause? You're using the term so broadly that it essentially loses all of it's meaning and merit.

This is about humanity, dignity, respect for the individual, and most importantly equal application of our laws. By dismissing it as a political cause, you appear not to be arguing in good faith.

A political cause is whether or not to invest in an infrastructure project, open some woodlands to drilling, engage in a war, or offer healthcare to citizens. It's not whether people who share similar plumbing should or should not be allowed to wed with one another or whether they should be allowed to be discriminated against by businesses being operated in a secular marketplace.

[mistermack]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Nope, a gay wedding cake is not a anti Christian slogan. Many gay people are Christian and many Christian denominations accept gay couples.

You are twisting the question. It's not anti-Christian. Nobody said it was. It's political. You don't have to be anti something to be political. Being pro gay marriage is a political stance, on a hotly debated subject. I think anyone should have the right to decline to take any small part in supporting a political stance that they oppose. You don't have to be Christian or even religious to oppose gay marriage rights.

What if I ordered a cake with "congratulations on your abortion" on it? Christian bakers would probably refuse that too. On similar grounds. Which illustrated the point that it's not the section of society that's being refused, but the political message. 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Seeking equality and equal treatment is not a political campaign against ones beliefs, unless ones beliefs suggest that discrimination is appropriate, which it's not.

You've mis-read the post. I meant taking part, against what you believe in. Not that it's a campaign against your beliefs. But I do see how you could read it like that.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

To clarify, do you feel civil rights granting equal treatment to black people in the 1960s was a political cause? What about women's suffrage? If so, then you need to clarify what exactly ISN'T a political cause? You're using the term so broadly that it essentially loses all of it's meaning and merit.

This is about humanity, dignity, respect for the individual, and most importantly equal application of our laws. By dismissing it as a political cause, you appear not to be arguing in good faith.

A political cause is whether or not to invest in an infrastructure project, open some woodlands to drilling, engage in a war, or offer healthcare to citizens. It's not whether people who share similar plumbing should or should not be allowed to wed with one another or whether they should be allowed to be discriminated against by businesses being operated in a secular marketplace.

Yes, of course those things were political causes. To me, that's the bleeding obvious. Just because you yourself agree with something, that doesn't make it non-political. Going by your logic, the American Civil War had nothing to do with politics. 

[Ten oz]

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You are twisting the question. It's not anti-Christian. Nobody said it was. It's political. You don't have to be anti something to be political. Being pro gay marriage is a political stance, on a hotly debated subject. I think anyone should have the right to decline to take any small part in supporting a political stance that they oppose. You don't have to be Christian or even religious to oppose gay marriage rights.

What if I ordered a cake with "congratulations on your abortion" on it? Christian bakers would probably refuse that too. On similar grounds. Which illustrated the point that it's not the section of society that's being refused, but the political message. 

 

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

Should gay clubs be forced to allow Christian people in, wearing Christian anti gay-marriage slogans on T shirts? 

Trying to buy a cake for a wedding is not equal to a Christian wearing an anti gay-marriage slogan t-shirt. Gay marriage is not anti Christian. Your analogy is not an apples to apples comparison. Christian bakers are not being asked to bake or tolerate anti Christian slogans.

Gay marriage legal. Gay couples are free to marry in the U.S.. A gay couple getting married is no more a political statement than is a black person selecting where they sit on a bus. It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest. 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Gay marriage legal. Gay couples are free to marry in the U.S.. A gay couple getting married is no more a political statement than is a black person selecting where they sit on a bus. It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest. 

You really do have a weird idea of what constitutes politics. If passing a law settles the politics of something for ever, then slavery would never have been abolished. Ownership of slaves was settled law. You can't have it both ways. In reality, so long as some people disagree, it's a political question.

At present, waterboarding is legal for employees of the US State, it's not torture. It's just "enhanced" interrogation.  

That doesn't make it "settled law", there's no such thing. Laws are subject to change, even the constitution. In reality, any legal question that doesn't have a hundred percent unanimity is a political question. 

[iNow]

Fair enough, but I’m unwilling to accept the  core argument that baking a cake in a secular commercial setting operating under municipal city laws and codes is equivalent to protected individual religious freedom. 

[Silvestru]

On 07/08/2018 at 11:07 PM, Ten oz said:

People purchasing their products "too frequently" is not a logical complaint for a business lodge. The more cakes a baker sells the better their business is doing. The notion that "activists" are attacking Christian bakers by giving them business is absurd. It is a problem any business could only wish to have. 

Ten Oz, would you bake me a Trump cake? That said "Absolutely our president now and forever" ? 

The modern gay couple is not so weak to be destroyed by a Christian dude who doesn't want to bake a cake. I am being refused service here in Poland because I have a different nationality.

I want to buy a plot of land from a lady, I have the $$$ and all the documents but she refuses to sell it to me because I am not polish. You won't see my story in the news.

My point is that I agree this could have been a crusade.

On 08/08/2018 at 12:38 PM, Ten oz said:

Businesses that offend, mistreat, or otherwise upset customers are often sued and seldom survive. 

Straw man. The guy just refused to make that specific cake. I am sure he would have baked a normal chocolate cake for them.

It's the political part he did not agree with.

[DrP]

19 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest. 

I wonder how many of these laws will be reversed over the next couple of years.  No gays in the army. No gay couples in the supermarket if owned by a Christian. No minimum wage for slaves hired help, sorry. No practice of any religion apart from Christianity. No gay marriage, no trans ops allowed. BS taught in school over science. No help for the poor if they aren't in work. Death penalty for 'scum bags'. Victims to marry their rapists to avoid the shame of their sins.  I guess it doesn't matter, just as long as you win the nuclear war that you are trying to start.

 

 

[Silvestru]

On 08/08/2018 at 2:43 PM, iNow said:

To clarify, do you feel civil rights granting equal treatment to black people in the 1960s was a political cause? What about women's suffrage?

Yeah, it's exactly the same...being forcefully taken from your culture and continent and transported in the worst conditions possible to be made a slave in a different land then oppressed for hundred of years and probably more to come is the same as not getting your chosen cake design. 

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Gay marriage legal. Gay couples are free to marry in the U.S.. A gay couple getting married is no more a political statement than is a black person selecting where they sit on a bus. It is settled law and not some sort of ongoing protest. 

I'm pretty sure not in all states. Stop comparing Gay to Black please. It is not the same as stated above. Aside for the many reasons why you shouldn't compare the two, you shouldn't but just in case you are in danger or you find it fit you could hide being gay. You can't hide being black. 

[DrP]

Just now, Silvestru said:

Yeah, it's exactly the same...being forcefully taken from your culture and continent and transported in the worst conditions possible to be made a slave in a different land then oppressed for hundred of years and probably more to come is the same as not getting your chosen cake design. 

But people used to beaten for being homosexual. It was illegal and people went to prison...  or more commonly were just beaten up and spat on. If you let them start refusing people because of gayness then you are on a slope back to 'the good old days' when you could call a nigger a nigger, shoot him for looking at your daughter in a funny way. Laugh at a homo and get him arrested or just beat him up. Rape your wife without any legal repercussions.. Oh - lets make America/the UK great again eh?  We all miss the good old days.   

[Silvestru]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

you shouldn't but just in case you are in danger or you find it fit you could hide being gay. You can't hide being black. 

Also I never said let's go back to the good old days. Just don't compare the two. 

Also DrP  a bit ironic of the example below but you exaggerated my claims.

 

[DrP]

10 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

you could hide being gay. You can't hide being black. 

Why should anyone have to hide anything? Neither are illegal.

3 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

 Just don't compare the two. 

The comparison is the struggle both groups have had to be recognised as normal legal human beings. Both groups have faced prejudices of varying and different levels - often with real threat to the individuals. Why not compare them? I suppose their troubles have been very different...  you never went to prison for being black. People don't beat you up ridicule you for being black. I guess we can't appreciate what levels of violence and oppression some individuals have been subjected to for being black or gay as I am neither.

 

 

[Silvestru]

3 minutes ago, DrP said:

Why should anyone have to hide anything? Neither are illegal.

You took a part of my total sentence. I never said you should. Actually I added that you shouldn't.

4 minutes ago, DrP said:

People don't beat you up ridicule you for being black.

Let's you an me take a car ride through the UK countryside and have a pint at a few local pubs. Or better yet lets go to Alabama, Mississippi and talk to the friendly folks there  see how kindly they take to "your kind around these here ol' parts". 
People absolutely still do get beaten/ridiculed for being black. Maybe not in your city.(although if you live in UK I'm curious what city that is)

[Ten oz]

45 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Ten Oz, would you bake me a Trump cake? That said "Absolutely our president now and forever" ?

If I operated a bakery that specialized in customized products I absolutely would. I would happily accept money from all paying customers. It would be bad for my business not to,.

34 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I'm pretty sure not in all states.

Nope, all 50 states.

Quote

 

Same-sex marriage in the United States was initially established on a state-by-state basis, expanding from 1 state in 2004 to 36 states in 2015, when, on June 26, 2015, same-sex marriage was established in all 50 states as a result of a landmark civil rights ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

 

[Silvestru]

You are right oz, sorry. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by Silvestru

[DrP]

42 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

Let's you an me take a car ride through the UK countryside and have a pint at a few local pubs.

  That sounds lovely!   I'm sure we'd have nice afternoon chatting and putting the world to rights.  I bet polar bears can really handle their drink though? I'm a bit of a lightweight these days.

It wouldn't be a problem in the UK if you are black or gay.  (are you? - not that I care either way. )  I think maybe the US is still a bit behind the UK and the EU when it comes to not seeing skin colour..... although a lot people still hold prejudices in private.   I have been shouted at for being white in a London before though...  and a Pakistani bloke hit me for being white once in a town near London, but that was a long time back and you have to think what that person might have been through to drive him to hate me because of my skin colour....  maybe he was just an arsehole......  or maybe he'd been called a 'Fucking Paki bastard' so many times he just flipped and lashed out  (at a 16 year old skinny boy who was half his size - brave lad). I learnt that I could take a punch that day though - I was still standing after it, even though I saw stars and went a bit wobbly.   I also learnt later that he had hit about 10 other young white kids the same day on his crusade against whites....  as I said - Something must have happened to him to hate us that much.  

 

 

Edited August 9, 2018 by DrP