• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

maquiscat said:
As noted above, it is not narrow in the vote spread, but narrow.in the scope of what the ruling covers.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty fair in that it leaves the door open for other cases yet to be presented. For one side to claim a win over another is absurd. Cons are celebrating a victory that is not.
 
maquiscat said:
So.just to rephrase to see if I am understanding you correctly: If it is already on the shelf, then one does not have the right to refuse, but if it is to be made specifically to order, then one does have that right. Is that correct?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. If the leader of the local KKK comes in to buy a dozen cupcakes that I have for sale, even though I know he is taking them to a Klan meeting, I courteously sell them to him.

If he comes in wanting me to put KKK or 'white supremacy rules' on those cupcakes, I want the right to courteously say no, I don't do that.

I should not have to participate in a KKK activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in a pro choice or pro life activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in an "America first" activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in a same-sex wedding in ANY respect if I choose not to do so.

Everybody has the complete right to come in and buy whatever I have for sale. But I shouldn't have to violate my conscience or my beliefs or my principles by accommodating an activity that I choose not to be a part of.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And being present at a pro life convention does not make you pro life. But if you objected to the concepts being promoted there, you might choose not to be there as a matter of principle or conscience. And if they wanted you to cater the event and/or provide products specially decorated for the event, you should have every right to politely refuse on the grounds that you don't do that.
Click to expand...
A wedding isn't an event promoting anything. A wedding is just about two people making a commitment to each other.

Also, the cakes we're talking about aren't decorated in any special way for a same sex wedding. A woman could go in to a bakery and order a cake for her wedding to her fiancee Alex, deciding on the shape, icing and colours without the baker having the blindest idea whether Alex is male or female.
 
maquiscat said:
As noted above, it is not narrow in the vote spread, but narrow.in the scope of what the ruling covers.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that's totally what this title is saying. lol Give me a break.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Thanks for throwing all the non sequitur in there and completely missing the point. That is always so helpful to the discussion. Not. Do have a pleasant afternoon.
Click to expand...

Such a non-sequitur that you can't even tell me what it is that you think is a non-sequitur.
 
FreeWits said:
Oh yes, that's totally what this title is saying. lol Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Your inability to comprehend how the word is used in the article is irrelevant to what you believe is its use in the title.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
HonestJoe said:
A wedding isn't an event promoting anything. A wedding is just about two people making a commitment to each other.

Also, the cakes we're talking about aren't decorated in any special way for a same sex wedding. A woman could go in to a bakery and order a cake for her wedding to her fiancee Alex, deciding on the shape, icing and colours without the baker having the blindest idea whether Alex is male or female.
Click to expand...

I really want to order a cake in celebration of my deceased grandparents' love of over 50 years, informing the baker that their names are "Chuck and Bill" and see how much some people would freak out.
 
HonestJoe said:
A wedding isn't an event promoting anything. A wedding is just about two people making a commitment to each other.

Also, the cakes we're talking about aren't decorated in any special way for a same sex wedding. A woman could go in to a bakery and order a cake for her wedding to her fiancee Alex, deciding on the shape, icing and colours without the baker having the blindest idea whether Alex is male or female.
Click to expand...

Most wedding cakes are baked disassembled and then assembled with final touches and decorations at the reception hall. Also these days the names of the couple are usually on the cake as well as some sort of topper. That constitutes the baker having to participate in an activity.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Most wedding cakes are baked disassembled and then assembled with final touches and decorations at the reception hall. Also these days the names of the couple are usually on the cake as well as some sort of topper. That constitutes the baker having to participate in an activity.
Click to expand...

This is all highly subjective. After all, can you show that they planned any of this stuff for their cake? Can you prove that it was just their design that he objected to? He could have refused to attend their reception (which was all the cake was actually for). He didn't even allow them to get close to any of that sort of planning.
 
veritas1 said:
This was never about the cake. This was about getting a test case before the SC. The gay couple could have gone to any other bakery but insisted on that one. Speaking for myself, if a place doesn't want my business, fine, I'll go to a competitor. This turned out about as I expected except for the majority vote being larger than I thought it would be.
Click to expand...

I agree,the gay couple could have bought a fruit cake anywhere
 
maquiscat said:
Your inability to comprehend how the word is used in the article is irrelevant to what you believe is its use in the title.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand basic English is your problem. When a title reads that there is a narrow victory in the Supreme Court, that means the vote was close, basically 5-4. Instead, it was 7-2. Rueters was caught with #FakeNews yet again. No surprise.
 
roguenuke said:
This is all highly subjective. After all, can you show that they planned any of this stuff for their cake? Can you prove that it was just their design that he objected to? He could have refused to attend their reception (which was all the cake was actually for). He didn't even allow them to get close to any of that sort of planning.
Click to expand...

It's fair to assume that a baker will have to go to the wedding as that is standard procedure unless we find out otherwise. It's not as simple as saying that a baker could bake the cake and have someone else assemble it, either, because the final product affects the baker's reputation, so the baker needs to make sure the cake gets there safely and is assembled professionally. Furthermore, baking the cake and then refusing to assemble the cake at the wedding could cause even bigger problems, as that would be clear discrimination anyways, and could possibly break a contract as the gay couple would have a reasonable expectation of the baker assembling the cake as is standard procedure.
 
Hi guys, I am a little late to the discussion, but here's my thought: people, and the private businesses that they own, should be able to discriminate against anybody that they wish to. I know this is against the public accommodation laws, however my stance is that these laws are unjust. There is nothing in the Constitution (or anywhere else) that says private people cannot discriminate. If someone wants to discriminate against anybody for any reason, he should be able to do so. Why should the government be able to compel someone to do things that they don't want to do?
 
roguenuke said:
This is all highly subjective. After all, can you show that they planned any of this stuff for their cake? Can you prove that it was just their design that he objected to? He could have refused to attend their reception (which was all the cake was actually for). He didn't even allow them to get close to any of that sort of planning.
Click to expand...

To be fair, can you show what exchanges went on between the couple and the baker? I mean is there video from the time they entered the shop until they left, having been refused? Is there anything to support your last sentence?
 
FreeWits said:
Your inability to understand basic English is your problem. When a title reads that there is a narrow victory in the Supreme Court, that means the vote was close, basically 5-4. Instead, it was 7-2. Rueters was caught with #FakeNews yet again. No surprise.
Click to expand...

Nice to meet you pot, I'm kettle.

Basic English allows for the use of word with multiple definitions as well as different implications based upon context. While the title is no doubt intended to catch the eye and draw one into the article, with the context of the article it is very clear that the intent of the word "narrow" is intended to cover the scope of the ruling and not the vote spread. There is no fake news here except for the claim of the word being used to refer to the vote spread.

Mind you if you find another article that species a narrow vote instead of a narrow victory, I will agree with you on that specific article.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Supreme Court hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute


God may have made gay people, butno one has to make a gay wedding cake.
Click to expand...


Did you read the article you've provided as a discussion rubric?

From the article:

"The justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religion. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.​

The only thing the justices opined upon is the "the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012." They didn't remark upon anything other than that.
 
maquiscat said:
Nice to meet you pot, I'm kettle.

Basic English allows for the use of word with multiple definitions as well as different implications based upon context. While the title is no doubt intended to catch the eye and draw one into the article, with the context of the article it is very clear that the intent of the word "narrow" is intended to cover the scope of the ruling and not the vote spread. There is no fake news here except for the claim of the word being used to refer to the vote spread.

Mind you if you find another article that species a narrow vote instead of a narrow victory, I will agree with you on that specific article.
Click to expand...

You basically admit that the title of Reuters was #FakeNews. The contents of the article is irrelevant, because there's a huge chunk of people who won't read the article and will only read the title. This is well known in the field of media. To mislead in the title like this is absolutely #FakeNews. I noticed they changed their title later. That tells you all you need to know. What you are defending didn't even reach their own low standard.
 
AlbqOwl said:
That's pretty much it. If the leader of the local KKK comes in to buy a dozen cupcakes that I have for sale, even though I know he is taking them to a Klan meeting, I courteously sell them to him.

If he comes in wanting me to put KKK or 'white supremacy rules' on those cupcakes, I want the right to courteously say no, I don't do that.

I should not have to participate in a KKK activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in a pro choice or pro life activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in an "America first" activity in ANY respect if I choose not to do so. And I should not have to participate in a same-sex wedding in ANY respect if I choose not to do so.

Everybody has the complete right to come in and buy whatever I have for sale. But I shouldn't have to violate my conscience or my beliefs or my principles by accommodating an activity that I choose not to be a part of.
Click to expand...

I agree and don't understand how anyone could disagree with anything you said. Forcing a person to engage in an activity that violates their personal beliefs and values isn't freedom, it's the exact opposite and it's wrong.

.
 
trixare4kids said:
Just so we are all on the same page as to what the broader issue is that the Supremes did not rule on today and that is whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.
Click to expand...

Definitely not and I would actually oppose such a ruling.
 
FreeWits said:
You basically admit that the title of Reuters was #FakeNews. The contents of the article is irrelevant, because there's a huge chunk of people who won't read the article and will only read the title. This is well known in the field of media. To mislead in the title like this is absolutely #FakeNews. I noticed they changed their title later. That tells you all you need to know. What you are defending didn't even reach their own low standard.
Click to expand...
Enticement is the name of the game. The idea is to get someone to read the article. Now I am not speaking to the efficiency of that. But there is not one word or use of word in that title that is false. If you just look at a title, and try to tell people what the article is saying without reading the article, then the one spreading "#Fake News" is you. Which is what is happening here with anyone who is trying to say the article or title makes a claim of a narrow vote.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
To be fair, can you show what exchanges went on between the couple and the baker? I mean is there video from the time they entered the shop until they left, having been refused? Is there anything to support your last sentence?
Click to expand...

The court record, which actually wasn't refuted by him.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Throughout the various trials on this, it has not been disputed that he refused them before they even discussed any sort of design, and that the refusal was not based on any sort of design. He told them he would sell them any other products for another occasion, but not to celebrate their wedding. He also was found to have refused to provide cupcakes for a commitment ceremony for a lesbian couple in the past (as well as 4-5 other same sex couples).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom