How will the USSC rule on the Bakery vs the Gay wedding case?

[TurtleDude]

Well, that's your opinion. I personally think they are raging hypocrites, and if they don't cater to all, they shouldn't cater to any.

I don't believe that government has the proper power to tell a business who it has to serve. I don't believe its wise or even moral to discriminate for stupid reasons but people should have that right unfettered by government. The only corporations that should be banned from discrimination are public government entities

 

[Harshaw]

I think the baker has an absolute right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever,

if he turns down good customers he's only cutting his own throat,

now we cannot determine who decides NOT to give a baker business based on reasons that you might find as wrong as the baker's decision. but what are we going to do-interrogate customers -why didn't you patronize a black bakery or a gay run bakery etc

I say the freedom of association-a stated right in the bill of rights trumps this bogus governmental interference. period

I doubt anyone would have any problem with a gay baker who declines to make custom cakes for any BUT gay weddings, even though the exact same issues would be at play, and if anyone did, it certainly wouldn't be with the raw animus that some are leveling against this baker.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No, :lol: they also didn't make Halloween cakes. See - just refusal based on religious beliefs is not right. They don't have to support it, but you can't discriminate when you're in business.

Could a bakery discriminate against an obese person?

 

[Crovax]

Yup. Already knew that, but thanks for the link.

Still doesn't justify his discriminating against the couple by refusing to bake them a cake.

If he doesn't want to be fair to all his customers, and not just the ones he chooses, he should lose the right to bake any cakes.

Do that **** out of your house like they do on Facebook.

You simply cannot discriminate against someone simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

So then you would find no problem with a Jewish baker being forced to bake a Nazi cake? Of a Black baker being forced to bake a cake with the word "nigger" on it?

 

[Oreo]

Tomorrow, I believe, the USSC will hear the appeal of the Bakery that refused to serve a gay wedding. How do you think the Court will rule?

Well any business in this country has the right to refuse service to anyone. You can't force a business to do business with someone they don't want too.

Someone who is gay--why would they want someone to bake a cake for them, that didn't want too. Why do they want to spend their hard earned money there? Take your money and spend it where it is appreciated--and let this business lose your business. They don't deserve your business. Why make an issue out of it?

 

[Crovax]

I disagree. Nobody is asking them to agree. Just bake the ****ing cake and cash the check.

I wonder how many wedding cakes they've refused to bake when people are on their 3rd or 4th wedding? That's against Bible, too, but I'm sure they don't have a problem with that part. It's just that "gay stuff" that they have a problem with. :roll:

What? Where in The Bible does it say that you cant have a second or third wedding?

 

[TurtleDude]

Could a bakery discriminate against an obese person?

LOL, years ago, I would frequent a now closed TGIF restaurant. One of the servers knew I was an attorney with the feds, her younger brother had attended, in college, a class where I was a graduate assistant after I had my JD. she also knew I was up on civil rights issues. She looked like Venus Williams i.e. tall and sinewy skinny. She played varsity volleyball at the local university. well anyway, a gaggle of rather obese women were having lunch as this waitress came up to me and said-hey, when I tend bar, I can cut off people I know or I think are drunk. I don't care what color they are, and the chance of them claiming discrimination is like zero. Now can I cut these fat white chicks off from having another double chocolate cake because they are heifers?

one of the funniest things I ever heard. I said yes since that doesn't violate Title VII but the GM might not like it

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It all depends if this court accepts and agrees with the premise of equal protections under the law. If they don't, the LGBT community will lose status as a protected class, and be re-subjected to the second-class citizenship from which they were so recently freed.

If it's unconstitutional to deny service because of race, religion, ethnicity, etc., but it's okay to deny service based upon sexual orientation, that would not be a good thing in my view.

The bakery is not arguing a right to discriminate against gay people, only homosexual marriages.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I disagree. Nobody is asking them to agree. Just bake the ****ing cake and cash the check.

I wonder how many wedding cakes they've refused to bake when people are on their 3rd or 4th wedding? That's against Bible, too, but I'm sure they don't have a problem with that part. It's just that "gay stuff" that they have a problem with. :roll:

Well if a bakery did deny a cake to a 2nd or 3rd wedding no advocacy groups would sue, so it’s a moot point

 

[Skeptic Bob]

The Court is going to deal with the actual facts of the case, not the popular misunderstanding of the facts. They didn't deny service based on sexual orientarion. They do and have always served gay customers, and they would have sold them a stock or blank cake from the shelves. They declined to make a custom cake for a particular event. They also decline to make cakes for Halloween for the same reason.

Since the incident, they've stopped making any wedding cakes at all.

Popular legend says they don't serve gays, but popular legend is wrong.

Yeah, I think a better comparison is if the baker refused to make a cake for an interracial marriage, if the baker felt interracial marriages were a sin (something some denominations have believed).

 

[DiAnna]

Yup. Already knew that, but thanks for the link.

Still doesn't justify his discriminating against the couple by refusing to bake them a cake.

If he doesn't want to be fair to all his customers, and not just the ones he chooses, he should lose the right to bake any cakes.

Do that **** out of your house like they do on Facebook.

You simply cannot discriminate against someone simply because you don't agree with their lifestyle.

i've missed you so much. I was broken-hearted to be told you left DP because of me. We have been dear friends for so many years. This is cut-and-dried in my opinion: either you are able to discriminate because of an individuals sexual orientation, lifestyle, or religion, or you are not. To me it's a no-brainer. To our new SCOTUS, I do not know.

 

[DiAnna]

I doubt anyone would have any problem with a gay baker who declines to make custom cakes for any BUT gay weddings, even though the exact same issues would be at play, and if anyone did, it certainly wouldn't be with the raw animus that some are leveling against this baker.

That is not only ridiculous, but completely unsubstantiated.

 

[DiAnna]

Could a bakery discriminate against an obese person?

Oh for **** sake no.

 

[Lursa]

Hard to say. It wasnt a SCOTUS decision but KY state allowed that civil servants could claim religious discrimination in handing out marriage licenses to gays and I didnt see grounds for that.

During the civil rights movement, Jim Crow, and segregation, many individuals and institutions claimed 'religious discrimination' in order to deny blacks rights. They even cited Bible passages when proposing anti-segregation legislation. These were all denied.

 

[Lursa]

The Court is going to deal with the actual facts of the case, not the popular misunderstanding of the facts. They didn't deny service based on sexual orientarion. They do and have always served gay customers, and they would have sold them a stock or blank cake from the shelves. They declined to make a custom cake for a particular event. They also decline to make cakes for Halloween for the same reason.

Since the incident, they've stopped making any wedding cakes at all.

Popular legend says they don't serve gays, but popular legend is wrong.

I didnt know that about Halloween cakes but it was often published that they did serve gays.

 

[Lursa]

In their own words:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...ign-cakes-same-sex-weddings-column/917631001/

Smart. It will read well in court. I wonder how it would have played when the courts decided Loving? There were religious reasons brought for that too.

 

[Lursa]

I think the baker has an absolute right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever,

if he turns down good customers he's only cutting his own throat,

now we cannot determine who decides NOT to give a baker business based on reasons that you might find as wrong as the baker's decision. but what are we going to do-interrogate customers -why didn't you patronize a black bakery or a gay run bakery etc

I say the freedom of association-a stated right in the bill of rights trumps this bogus governmental interference. period

So that includes blacks too? Or Muslims?

 

[Lursa]

I don't believe that government has the proper power to tell a business who it has to serve. I don't believe its wise or even moral to discriminate for stupid reasons but people should have that right unfettered by government. The only corporations that should be banned from discrimination are public government entities

I would love to see a largish community pilot a program where any businesses and services that wished to could post who they chose not to serve, including protected classes. Without legal consequences.

They could express their true opinions and not serve anyone that gave them offense or they were afraid of without legal repercussions and could express their 'creativity' or true faith in God, etc etc etc.

It would be interesting to see how those businesses fared compared to businesses that did not choose to differentiate in who they served.

 

[Lursa]

What? Where in The Bible does it say that you cant have a second or third wedding?

I think she's referring to divorced people or people that cheated.

I know for a fact that in small communities, such as mine back home, lots of times bakeries know everything...births, deaths, who is cheating on whom, the circumstances behind divorces and 2nd weddings, who is living with who, etc. People order from local bakeries for all sorts of family events and also sit and drink coffee there, chatting, too.

 

[Lursa]

The bakery is not arguing a right to discriminate against gay people, only homosexual marriages.

Yes, they are discriminating against gay people marrying. Something that all straight people have a right to do.

 

[Chomsky]

Tomorrow, I believe, the USSC will hear the appeal of the Bakery that refused to serve a gay wedding. How do you think the Court will rule?

Since Obama's order making LGBT a protected class still stands I believe, I think the SC will go with the gays.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh for **** sake no.

Actually, yes, they can.

 

[HonestJoe]

IDK but my attitude on this changed 180 degrees as a result of my experience as a restaurant owner, I now fully what business to have the constitutional right of freedom of association in most cases. Where to draw the line is a problem but I want to go back to "We reserve the right to refuse service as we see fit".

That isn’t the legal argument being made though. The bakery aren’t saying any business should be free to refuse any service, only that religious business owners should be free to refuse service if they say it goes against their faith.

The problem is that they’re only thinking about Christians refusing the provide service for same-sex weddings but the logical precedent being set is that literally any law or regulation that applies to businesses is open to be ignored by any business owner who claims it goes against their religious beliefs. Of course, if anyone else tried to take advantage of that in a way they disapproved of, they’d quickly be making all sorts of noise about it.

 

[joG]

Since Obama's order making LGBT a protected class still stands I believe, I think the SC will go with the gays.

LGBT a protected class? That sounds rather discriminatory, really.

But that aside. LGBTs are not the issue. The issue is a subsidiary law was passed by Congress that infringes on religious practice, which is forbidden Congress. Do we really want Congress to be allowed to break its Constututional limits instead of amending the Constitution?

 

[Chomsky]

LGBT a protected class? That sounds rather discriminatory, really.

But that aside. LGBTs are not the issue. The issue is a subsidiary law was passed by Congress that infringes on religious practice, which is forbidden Congress. Do we really want Congress to be allowed to break its Constututional limits instead of amending the Constitution?

There's a lot of protected classes (minorities, the disabled, etc.). And, apparently Obama made LGBT protected through an Executive Order.

And I'm not sure making a cake will be found to be religious practice.