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

[Silvestru]

28 minutes ago, DrP said:

  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.  

Sweet sower story haha. Looking forward to that travel plan. We could film it and make it a morning show. "Skinny and the bear - A cup of Travel"

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Silvestru said:

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

This is a flawed comparison. Phillips (the baker) did not refuse because the couple wanted special content on their cake. They didn't ask him for anything different than he'd make for any other wedding. This wasn't about what was on the cake as your example requires.

8 hours ago, Silvestru said:

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

No, he wouldn't have, and he's even said so repeatedly himself. So long as the couple planned to use the cake for their wedding, he refused to bake it. As I already noted above, content was irrelevant, and it didn't matter what cake type it was.

On the NBC Today show in June, Phillips (P) essentially made this argument with the Interviewer (I):

P: I don't make cakes for every occasion
I: But you do make wedding cakes
P: Yes, but gay weddings are different

[StringJunky]

12 hours ago, 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. 

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. 

Black is what one is, and so is gay; neither are choices.  They are equivalent with respect to the discussion.

Edited August 10, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Black is what one is, and so is gay; neither are choices.  They are equivalent with respect to the discussion.

In my opinion when people object to the comparison it means they are not well read on the Civil Rights movement. There were prominent Gay Civil Rights activists like James Baldwin and Bayard Rustin. The Civil Rights movement wasn't purely a Black Equality movement but rather a Equality for All movement which included gays, feminists, and etc. Shirley Chisholm was a Feminist Civil Rights Activist who also championed gay rights. When Martin Luther King was assassinated  in Memphis he was their marching for Union workers and not Civil Rights (Black equality) specifically. When Muhammad Ali was arrested and his sports titles stripped is was for his opposition to the Vietnam War which was also an issue taken up by Civil Rights Activists. Basic human rights, equality for everyone, a fair treatment under the law, and etc for all people (not just black people) was the message of the Civil Rights movement. That ALL people deserve dignity. 

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In my opinion when people object to the comparison it means they are not well read on the Civil Rights movement.

More broadly, it displays an unawareness of the concept of a protected class in jurisprudence. Race, gender, sexual preference etc. are all protected classes. Folks who want “Trump Rocks!” frosted on to their cake with icing (or, in similar news this week, people who want to propagate hateful nonsense on private platforms like twitter and YouTube like Alex Jones) are not. 

[mistermack]

On 8/9/2018 at 10:47 PM, iNow said:

On the NBC Today show in June, Phillips (P) essentially made this argument with the Interviewer (I):

P: I don't make cakes for every occasion
I: But you do make wedding cakes
P: Yes, but gay weddings are different

In that case, he hasn't got a leg to stand on. That particular case does initially come across as a genuine case, rather than activists setting a trap for Christian bakers. The thing is though, the incident happened in 2012, In Colorado, same sex marriage was illegal till 2014, and then it became legal in all of the US in 2015. So it's a complicated case from that point of view. How can you compel someone to make a wedding cake for an illegal wedding? Or penalise someone for refusing, when the wedding was not permitted at the time under state law? 

The couple were actually married in Massachusetts a month previously, which does make you wonder why they were buying it at all. They obviously were well aware of the legal position in Colorado at the time. It's portrayed as a genuine case, but it does smack of activism.

It reminds me of a recent row between my brother and sister over a tiny amount of money. Neither would back down, and it was obvious that they were winding each other up. They were both as bad  as each other, and my other sister eventually stepped in and took it over. Two adults acting like children. That's families for you. 

This kind of thing seems pretty similar. Who would want the bloody cake, if they didn't want to bake it? If I was gay, in the Bible Belt, and getting married, I'd find someone who wanted the custom and not choose religious fundies. And how pathetic is it, to refuse to bake an innocuous cake, even if you don't agree with whatever's being celebrated? It's grown people acting like children, all the way to the supreme court. 

[iNow]

Not all of their friends and family could afford the trip to Massachusetts for the wedding.

The cake was for their celebration which was planned for when they got home and which could include their loved ones.  

There’s valid reason to want a cake in Colorado. They engaged in a lawful procedure in another state. 

Surely you’re not saying family parties and celebrations were illegal in Colorado in 2012?

If you are, I’m rather shocked that their legal weed industry is booming the way it is!

[mistermack]

They could have got a cake in Massachusetts. They knew perfectly well that at the time, same sex marriages were not legal in Colorado, so their upset and outrage seems a bit contrived. And the gay marriage question was being hotly debated at the time, so they would have been very well aware of the Christian fundy views on it. To a lot of Christians, opposing gay marriage at the time was a religious question, not a question of anti-gay discrimination. They see marriage as a religious thing, rather than a legal contract. I suppose that's why there's no prospect of churches being compelled to perform gay weddings any time soon. 

Having different laws in different states is a recipe for trouble. I've often wondered what happens if you have legal sex in one state, with a girl who is under age in another. Although I think the differences in age of consent are not as big as they once were.

[iNow]

The core of your point appears to be that they were in the wrong for actively advocating for equal treatment in a state where equal treatment was not yet legal. 

You seem to be siding with the baker because this legally married couple sought to purchase from him a legal wedding cake to celebrate a wedding they legally executed in another state  

Am I misunderstanding your point? Am I mistaken in interpreting your argument to be that this couple should’ve shut up, NOT been allowed to eat a ceremonial wedding cake in Colorado, should’ve packed a cooler and traveled the almost 2,000 miles from MA to CO with an MA baked cake in addition to their MA legally signed marriage certificate, and like good little monkeys just stuck with the status quo?

I ask bc that’s how it’s coming across and I know I do not always interpret things correctly. 

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Having different laws in different states is a recipe for trouble.

Agreed, which is partially why fights like this mattered so much and helped usher in  the decision made in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Edited August 11, 2018 by iNow

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

The core of your point appears to be that they were in the wrong for actively advocating for equal treatment in a state where equal treatment was not yet legal. 

In a way, yes. Because of the WAY that they were advocating it, with a contrived case against the baker. Basically, misusing the anti-discrimination laws against an innocent party, to further the end of legalising same-sex marriage. Which at the time, was a couple of years away, in Colorado, and three nationwide. 

6 hours ago, iNow said:

You seem to be siding with the baker because this legally married couple sought to purchase from him a legal wedding cake to celebrate a wedding they legally executed in another state  

Again yes, because if their state didn't allow gay weddings at the time, it should have been reasonable for them to decline to bake the cake. Like I said previously, gay marriage was a political issue at the time, being hotly debated and fought over. People were taking sides on the issue, especially Christians, and all that was well known. I would side with the baker (to a tiny extent) in that they didn't look for a fight, whereas the other side sought them out, and misused the discrimination laws to further that end.

Really, as I made clear, I would side with no-one, but if I was forced to, I would plump for the baker, because he was picked on and used, whereas the complainers were devious and not sincere, in my opinion. 

If I was on the supreme court, I would rule that such refusals were legal before the law was change, but not legal now.

There is a risk, if you abuse the law, that the people in power will use it as an excuse to change or abolish it. It's probably unlikely in this case, but it's not set in stone. The death penalty issue has gone backwards and forwards in law, and I doubt if it's finished yet.

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, mistermack said:

In a way, yes. Because of the WAY that they were advocating it, with a contrived case against the baker. Basically, misusing the anti-discrimination laws against an innocent party, to further the end of legalising same-sex marriage. Which at the time, was a couple of years away, in Colorado, and three nationwide. 

I am sure many of the other passengers on the bus with Rosa Parks were just interested in getting home in an uneventful manner the day she refused to give up her seat. Rosa Park had no anti-discrimination laws protecting her. She was just tired from a long day and did want to move. By your logic she should have just moved. Rosa was inconveniencing everyone that day to push her own political agenda. 

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Again yes, because if their state didn't allow gay weddings at the time, it should have been reasonable for them to decline to bake the cake. Like I said previously, gay marriage was a political issue at the time, being hotly debated and fought over. People were taking sides on the issue, especially Christians, and all that was well known. I would side with the baker (to a tiny extent) in that they didn't look for a fight, whereas the other side sought them out, and misused the discrimination laws to further that end.

Really, as I made clear, I would side with no-one, but if I was forced to, I would plump for the baker, because he was picked on and used, whereas the complainers were devious and not sincere, in my opinion. 

You are implying motivations which you can't prove exist. Up to the point the gay couple were refused service how would they have known the baker would refuse them? All the baker had to do is sell a cake (for profit) and the couples grand political conspiracy would have been foiled.  You haven't shown any proof they shopped numerous Christian bakers searching for the one who refuse them service. The whole issue of the wedding being in another state isn't evidence they single out the baker. The couple were from Colorado. It is absolutely normal for people to purchase  things local to them prior to traveling. You think the couples with island weddings like in Hawaii wait until they are in Hawaii to buy dresses, rings, cakes, etc? 

[mistermack]

You can't prove what was in their heads. But a gay couple in Colorado would have been very well aware of the current scene. To portray them as a couple of innocents expecting any and every shop in the Bible Belt to be happy baking a cake for a gay wedding is disingenuous. They would have known, or expected refusal. In Colorado. In 2012. You couldn't be an openly gay couple and be that naive at that time.

While I can't prove it, I'm absolutely sure that they would have known and expected the likely outcome, and were fishing for it.

I think the Rosa Park thing is different. She had already paid and been accepted, and was using what she had paid for, a seat in the coloured section of the bus. The driver wanted her to get up and give her seat to a white passenger. It's not like the shop baked the cake, sold it, and then demanded it back because a straight person wanted it. If that happened, I would of course be against that. 

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

You can't prove what was in their heads. But a gay couple in Colorado would have been very well aware of the current scene. To portray them as a couple of innocents expecting any and every shop in the Bible Belt to be happy baking a cake for a gay wedding is disingenuous. They would have known, or expected refusal. In Colorado. In 2012. You couldn't be an openly gay couple and be that naive at that time.

Colorado is not in the Bible Belt. Colorado does not even border the Bible Belt. As a matter of fact out of 56 states and U.S. territories Colorado ranks #48 for religiosity. Colorado is one of the least religious states in the whole country. Your anecdotal evidence is wrong. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_religiosity

 

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

While I can't prove it, I'm absolutely sure that they would have known and expected the likely outcome, and were fishing for it.

You say fishing yet cannot provide proof they reached out to other bakers. You are basically arguing they somehow knew in advance this one baker would refuse them. How would they have possibly known that? Colorado is neither a religious or even a politically conservative State. Colorado voted for Obama twice  and Hillary Clinton got double the votes there as did Trump. I think you are confusing Colorado with someplace else. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think you are confusing Colorado with someplace else. 

Generally confused seems more accurate, that or homophobic; as Jim Jefferies says "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person.".

[mistermack]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Colorado is not in the Bible Belt.

OK, I am. That comes from living in the UK. I actually have a cousin living in Denver, and he hates Trump, I thought he was non-typical but apparently not. 

It doesn't change much though. They would have known for sure exactly what they were doing. I don't have to prove it, I'm just saying what I think. They went out of state to get married and they knew the marriage wasn't recognised in Colorado. They knew that gay marriage was being hotly debated, and the other side was staunchly Christian. If what you say is true, it would have been easy to choose a baker in Colorado who wasn't strongly Christian, so it actually makes it MORE likely that they deliberately picked out a Christian one.

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by mistermack

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, mistermack said:

OK, I am. That comes from living in the UK. I actually have a cousin living in Denver, and he hates Trump, I thought he was non-typical but apparently not. 

It doesn't change much though. They would have known for sure exactly what they were doing. I don't have to prove it, I'm just saying what I think. They went out of state to get married and they knew the marriage wasn't recognised in Colorado. They knew that gay marriage was being hotly debated, and the other side was staunchly Christian. If what you say is true, it would have been easy to choose a baker in Colorado who wasn't strongly Christian, so it actually makes it MORE likely that they deliberately picked out a Christian one.

1

Really? Did he have a sign on the door "No Muslims, No Atheists and definitely No GAYS!!! grrr..."?

Edited August 11, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, mistermack said:

They knew that gay marriage was being hotly debated, and the other side was staunchly Christian. If what you say is true, it would have been easy to choose a baker in Colorado who wasn't strongly Christian, so it actually makes it MORE likely that they deliberately picked out a Christian one.

How would they know how religious the baker was? Do you research the political and religious officiation of every business you purchase products from? 

"Hey, quick question before I order my Latte, how does the owner of this establishment feel about people like me"

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

How would they know how religious the baker was? Do you research the political and religious officiation of every business you purchase products from? 

"Hey, quick question before I order my Latte, how does the owner of this establishment feel about people like me"

How do you know this was the first time a gay cake had been refused by this baker? How do you know these people lived in a vacuum, and nobody knew anything about anyone else? Many people use word of mouth and local knowledge when buying locally. That's a fact.

Putting myself in their shoes, if I was gay and getting married, at that time, I would have opened with, "I'm looking for a cake for a celebration of a gay wedding, can you make me one?". And I would have added, "no problem if you can't, I'll get one elsewhere". 

That's how I would have gone about it, if all I wanted was a cake. If I wanted trouble, I would have gone about it the same way that they did.

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How do you know this was the first time a gay cake had been refused by this baker? How do you know these people lived in a vacuum, and nobody knew anything about anyone else? Many people use word of mouth and local knowledge when buying locally. That's a fact.

Let's be clear here. You are the one stating that you think they single out this specific baker to make a political statement. I am asking you what your proof is. Asking me for proof that they didn't doesn't support your assertion. You are the one stating they singled out this specific baker it is you who needs evidence to logically support the assertion. My assertion is that you do not have that evidence. Attempting to turn the burden of evidence toward me only serves to prove my point. 

22 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Putting myself in their shoes, if I was gay and getting married, at that time, I would have opened with, "I'm looking for a cake for a celebration of a gay wedding, can you make me one?". And I would have added, "no problem if you can't, I'll get one elsewhere". 

That's how I would have gone about it, if all I wanted was a cake. If I wanted trouble, I would have gone about it the same way that they did.

How you would have gone about it is irrelevant. No one has any obligation to do what you would do nor is the way you would do something inherently superior to the way anyone else does things.

I am an atheist, a liberal, a hetrosexual, a pescatarian (newly-ish), a native Californian, etc, etc. Anyone of the things I am potentially could be bothersome to some people based on their beliefs. I do not feel the need to carry a biography around shopping with me though. I don't feel I owe anyone an explanation for who I am or what I plan to do with the products I purchase. 

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Let's be clear here. You are the one stating that you think they single out this specific baker to make a political statement. I am asking you what your proof is. Asking me for proof that they didn't doesn't support your assertion. You are the one stating they singled out this specific baker it is you who needs evidence to logically support the assertion. My assertion is that you do not have that evidence. Attempting to turn the burden of evidence toward me only serves to prove my point. 

That's absolute rubbish. I've not claimed at any point that I have proof of anything. I clearly said I was giving my opinion, and gave reasons for that opinion. You've just ignored that, and gone straight for the old internet "prove it" fallacy. Giving your opinion doesn't imply that you have proof in your back pocket. Especially on a subject that it virtually unproveable, unless you have mind reading skills.

I simply bounced your pointless request back to you in the same form. I said so earlier, but I'll say it again. I don't need proof to say what I think. I gave reasons for why I think it, but that doesn't imply a burden of proof on either me or you. 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That's absolute rubbish. I've not claimed at any point that I have proof of anything. I clearly said I was giving my opinion, and gave reasons for that opinion.

Forgive us, this is a science site, so we were hoping for quite a bit more rigor in your asserted opinions. Otherwise, what meaning do they really have?

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I've not claimed at any point that I have proof of anything.

Than we agree. Their is no evidence the couple singled the baker out in an attempt to make a political statement. Between that and correcting your false false claim Colorado is a conservative bible belt state we have made a lot progress here. 

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Forgive us, this is a science site, so we were hoping for quite a bit more rigor in your asserted opinions. Otherwise, what meaning do they really have?

But, it's a political question, in the politics section. If you follow politics, you will find opinions are the currency, not scientific facts.

[Phi for All]

Just now, mistermack said:

But, it's a political question, in the politics section. If you follow politics, you will find opinions are the currency, not scientific facts.

But you're quite obviously claiming that your intuition is guiding you in your beliefs about gay people in Colorado. Your opinions are based on your hunches, and that's where I'd like to see a bit more rigor backing you up. It's plain you didn't know a LOT about the couple in question, and yet were making up motives they allegedly had in their search for a cake. When facts were pointed out, you didn't seem to take them into consideration and continued to favor your own made up interpretation over the evidence.

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But you're quite obviously claiming that your intuition is guiding you in your beliefs about gay people in Colorado. Your opinions are based on your hunches, and that's where I'd like to see a bit more rigor backing you up. It's plain you didn't know a LOT about the couple in question, and yet were making up motives they allegedly had in their search for a cake. When facts were pointed out, you didn't seem to take them into consideration and continued to favor your own made up interpretation over the evidence.

I've pointed out facts. The fact that same-sex marriage wasn't allowed or recognised in the state of Colorado in 2012. The fact that they went to Massachusetts to get wed a month previous to the cake order. The fact that same-sex marriage was a hotly debated topic in 2012, both in Colorado and the rest of the country. The fact that it's fundy Christians who oppose it the most. 

All facts relevant to the case and discussion, and facts that are reasons that I gave why I suspect the motives of the cake buyers. It clearly shows that gay weddings were hot politics in 2012, and that it would be ludicrous to propose that this guy was unaware of all that, having gone to Massachusetts to get married. 

Another fact is that I never claimed Colorado as Bible belt, I just hinted at it, when I said, "if I was gay, getting married in the bible belt". So I'd like to see the proof of that claim.       However, for the record, the whole USA is bible belt to me, compared to where I live.