Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case[W:426, 1367]

[Ikari]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html



It's official. I pretty much had a feeling that this was going to go this way. Thoughts?

Overall, I would say that I think the courts got this decision right. We'll have to see going forward what else comes from future cases as a precedent gets established. But this baker is very consistent in his refusals for specialty cakes. For instance, it states that he doesn't make Halloween cakes because he feels that goes against his religions beliefs.

In general, he wasn't refusing service to homosexual couples, he sold and made a wide variety of baked goods to everyone. It even states in the article that the baker offered to make the couple other baked goods, but that they stormed out after that. In general, the article did state something I have stated several times in regards to this topic; a custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good.

I think it would be different if people came into his store looking to buy products in the display case for general sale and he refused. But I do think he has discretion over which custom goods he wishes to make or not. In this case, as I have long argued, I believe the baker was completely within his rights to refuse to labor over and create a cake he did not want to make.

 

[trixare4kids]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

can you answer my question, or not? Matters not to me what the USSC said (they have been wrong before). What matters to me is on what part of the teachings of Christ were the bakers religious "beliefs" founded?

If you want to talk about the teachings of Christ this is not the subforum to do it.

 

[Old Trapper]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

If you want to talk about the teachings of Christ this is not the subforum to do it.

Then why is the bakers religion, or his beliefs, even a question? Seems to me that is the basis for the whole discussion.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Then why is the bakers religion, or his beliefs, even a question? Seems to me that is the basis for the whole discussion.

Just the right being worse than the left regarding, "controlling people" via public policy.

Section 4. Religious freedom. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Then why is the bakers religion, or his beliefs, even a question? Seems to me that is the basis for the whole discussion.

The content of the beliefs specifically has nothing to do with the First Amendment analysis in play.

 

[Harshaw]

Overall, I would say that I think the courts got this decision right. We'll have to see going forward what else comes from future cases as a precedent gets established. But this baker is very consistent in his refusals for specialty cakes. For instance, it states that he doesn't make Halloween cakes because he feels that goes against his religions beliefs.

In general, he wasn't refusing service to homosexual couples, he sold and made a wide variety of baked goods to everyone. It even states in the article that the baker offered to make the couple other baked goods, but that they stormed out after that. In general, the article did state something I have stated several times in regards to this topic; a custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good.

I think it would be different if people came into his store looking to buy products in the display case for general sale and he refused. But I do think he has discretion over which custom goods he wishes to make or not. In this case, as I have long argued, I believe the baker was completely within his rights to refuse to labor over and create a cake he did not want to make.

These are all nuances that a lot of people are refusing to see.

They also refuse to see that you don't even have to agree with him to acknowledge all of this. They think if you do, you must agree with him. I know that you don't.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Yes, completely emotional, because it doesn't have a lick of fact or logic to it, and it's punctuated with a snotty "it's worthless."

What I said about the First Amendment is not refuted a bit by this. If you think it is, make a legal case with specifics, instead of just making a bland allusion to something which may or may not be the case. Do you have anything concrete in terms of "constitutional anti-discrimination legislation"? What? And how does it speak against anything I've said? How does it show strict scrutiny and the whole register of First Amendment jurisprudence to be "worthless"?

You're demanding a "legal argument" from me. Let's see yours.

Do I really have to explain this to you? CO's AD statute uses the same constitutional basis as the CRA. The 14A and the state's interests in regulating its own economy have been sustained by the SCOTUS as justification for such legislation. Laws that burden religious liberty have withstood strict scrutiny more than any other types of laws tested by that standard.

The government's compelling interest in the case at hand is the protection of LGBTQ Coloradans' constitutional rights, specifically the equal protection guaranteed to them by the 14A. I know you feel that the baker's 1A rights would be violated if he were required by law to fulfill the gay couple's orders, but I offer three points for your consideration. First, that argument has already failed dramatically for half of a century. "Deeply held religious convictions" are not only irrational but also do not create a legal exemption or defense vis-à-vis AD laws. Secondly, we need to be clear that the operation of an entity that qualifies as a place of public accommodation is an opt-in situation. The baker's religious freedom rights haven't been violated. He can hate gay people all he wants at home, at church, on the internet, around his town, etc. What he can't do is volunteer to open a business whereby he willingly subjects himself to a specific set of laws, rules, and regulations and then refuse to abide by those same laws, rules, and regulations, especially when his basis for doing so is his belief in an imaginary being who supposedly doesn't approve of the gay people it created. Finally, and this is the best part, the SCOTUS didn't invalidate the CO statute. If this baker starts making wedding cakes again this afternoon, he will be forced by law to make them for gay people. In that regard, the side I support won.

So, you still haven't made a case except to say "strict scrutiny", which I think I have here addressed. I can go further into the narrowly tailored and least restrictive aspects, but I think this particular post is long enough.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

No, not really. His refusal was the basis. He DID offer to bake other kinds of cakes and baked goods for them. Which supports his claim of religious freedom rather than a blanket prejudice against gays. My argument was that he was applying first amendment rights, not blind discrimination.

Are you really trying to make a separate but equal argument here? It's illegal.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

That COULD happen. When a person openly practices bigotry backlash could be big, he could also get donations etc from other bigots too. Thats why the freemarket is no replacement for laws, rights and justice.

Absolutely. Just like some other poster gloated about Chick-fil-A, misery loves company and bigots tend to thrive when they crowd together in the same sewer. The market does not protect civil rights. Everyone who wants the market to fix discrimination either doesn't know anything about the 1950s US or is a fool. Imo, the law should regulate anti-discrimination and separately, consumer preferences should determine which businesses last.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Are you really trying to make a separate but equal argument here? It's illegal.

Nope. I'm pretty sure "separate but equal" doesn't apply to cake baking. More like important rights like education, housing, employment, e.g. fundamental rights. The right to practice one's religion is written in the First Amendment - the "right" to force someone to bake you a cake is not.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Absolutely. Just like some other poster gloated about Chick-fil-A, misery loves company and bigots tend to thrive when they crowd together in the same sewer. The market does not protect civil rights. Everyone who wants the market to fix discrimination either doesn't know anything about the 1950s US or is a fool. Imo, the law should regulate anti-discrimination and separately, consumer preferences should determine which businesses last.

OF course people who actually care about the rights of others agree.
The free market claim has always been a smoke screen, almost as bad as religious claims. Ive asked the question countless times to the people against equal rights and civil rights . . "as a christian myself, what rights of mine are factually violated/infringed on by PA and AD laws" NOBODY can ever answer .....nobody. But the good thing is, it seems the majority understand the factual answer is "none"

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Nope. I'm pretty sure "separate but equal" doesn't apply to cake baking. More like important rights like education, housing, employment, e.g. fundamental rights. The right to practice one's religion is written in the First Amendment - the "right" to force someone to bake you a cake is not.

good thing nobody is being forced to bake a cake LMAO
and the right to practice is limited, always has been :shrug:

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

I find it adorable that so many people, including you, are tripping over themselves to vomit uneducated nonsense about the 1A. They're so happy to strip other people's rights and dignity because some psychotic people believe that they can push their unbelief and hatred of religion onto others.

Sorry but the fact is rights are not a 1 sided issue.

The CO commissioners were found to be out of line in their decision to punish this man. They were openly hostile to his religious beliefs which is unconstitutional by the and discriminatory as the justices pointed out.
They were also found to be inconsistent in how they handed other similar cases.

So why are you against people have equal protection under the law?

Do you think it is ok to force a painter to paint a painting he might find offensive?
Creative expression has been a 1st amendment right for a long time.

You copy and pasted my own post back to me? How clever.

Thank you for your banal synopsis of the ruling. What you forgot to include is that the baker is still required to bake cakes for gay people in CO. You seem to have missed that as well as the fact that AD laws do not and have not violated the 1A since 1964.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Do I really have to explain this to you? CO's AD statute uses the same constitutional basis as the CRA. The 14A and the state's interests in regulating its own economy have been sustained by the SCOTUS as justification for such legislation. Laws that burden religious liberty have withstood strict scrutiny more than any other types of laws tested by that standard.

The government's compelling interest in the case at hand is the protection of LGBTQ Coloradans' constitutional rights, specifically the equal protection guaranteed to them by the 14A. I know you feel that the baker's 1A rights would be violated if he were required by law to fulfill the gay couple's orders, but I offer three points for your consideration. First, that argument has already failed dramatically for half of a century. "Deeply held religious convictions" are not only irrational but also do not create a legal exemption or defense vis-à-vis AD laws. Secondly, we need to be clear that the operation of an entity that qualifies as a place of public accommodation is an opt-in situation. The baker's religious freedom rights haven't been violated. He can hate gay people all he wants at home, at church, on the internet, around his town, etc. What he can't do is volunteer to open a business whereby he willingly subjects himself to a specific set of laws, rules, and regulations and then refuse to abide by those same laws, rules, and regulations, especially when his basis for doing so is his belief in an imaginary being who supposedly doesn't approve of the gay people it created. Finally, and this is the best part, the SCOTUS didn't invalidate the CO statute. If this baker starts making wedding cakes again this afternoon, he will be forced by law to make them for gay people. In that regard, the side I support won.

So, you still haven't made a case except to say "strict scrutiny", which I think I have here addressed. I can go further into the narrowly tailored and least restrictive aspects, but I think this particular post is long enough.

You seem to think that I've been arguing a particular position as to the facts of this case. I have not been. I have been addressing entirely, based on what your accusation of what I "think" the First Amendment is, what I actually do think the First Amendment is.

Anyway, your analysis is wrong. Just because he agreed to follow CO law, it doesn't matter that he did if CO law runs afoul of the First Amendment. You seem to think First Amendment claims disappear, or traditional First Amendment analysis doesn't apply, just because he's subject to a CO law. The reality is, the CO law has to be justified against First Amendment rights, not the other way around. You seem to think it's the other way around.

Your constant digs at his beliefs, of course, having nothing to do with any of this. It simply shows the animosity you bring which renders your arguments emotional. (Never mind that the First Amendment doesn't simply protect someone having a belief, but specifically the free exercise thereof, without which simply having a belief doesn't mean anything.)

And because of that, you can't discuss the First Amendment rationally, as I said. You hate his beliefs. So what? That's completely irrelevant to First Amendment analysis.

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Go for it. That boycott worked so well for Chick-Fil-A as well:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...a-day-a-reminder-that-boycotts-often-backfire

Funny. My dad wanted to eat Chick-fil-A on Saturday. I persuaded him to spend my $14 at Good Times instead. Just doing my part to make the world a livable place even for the people that god's "followers" hate.

 

[Bullseye]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

good thing nobody is being forced to bake a cake LMAO

Having to defend oneself through multiple layers of legal bureaucracy sounds like force to me.

and the right to practice is limited, always has been :shrug:

You know that's stupid right out of the box, don't you? Yeah, banning some bizarre rituals happens, but that's not the case here - he's not arguing for the right to handled poisonous snakes or ingest strange chemicals.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Funny. My dad wanted to eat Chick-fil-A on Saturday. I persuaded him to spend my $14 at Good Times instead. Just doing my part to make the world a livable place even for the people that god's "followers" hate.

He'll probably just go a different day when you're not there to pester him, lol

I was thinking of where to get lunch today, I was leaning towards Panda Express, but now maybe I'll get a delicious Spicy Chicken sandwich.

I love the whole "make the world a livable place" as if Chick-fil-A did anything to make the world unlivable. Is there something about delicious chicken sandwiches that makes the world "unlivable"? lol Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate, the owner happens to have an unpopular opinion, but that doesn't come through the company's practices. There's really nothing to protest, but some silly notion of "making the world a livable place", when actually doing NOTHING along those lines.

lol

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Actually the stake is whether or not you can force someone to speech. It is whether or not you can force someone to create a message that they do not support or find offensive.
the long term standing on this is no. You cannot force someone to do that.




The first amendment right to not support something that the creator finds offensive.

Actually, it's not. The baker agreed to restrictions on his free speech when he chose to open a bakery. He wasn't forced. That is why your argument, which I have seen repeated often, doesn't hold a drop of water. The "long term standing" that you need to understand sooner or later is the CRA of 1964.

"The creator" finds a cake for two gay dudes "offensive"?

Y'all believe in an unbelievably ****ed up god.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

1.)Having to defend oneself through multiple layers of legal bureaucracy sounds like force to me.
2.) You know that's stupid right out of the box, don't you? Yeah, banning some bizarre rituals happens, but that's not the case here - he's not arguing for the right to handled poisonous snakes or ingest strange chemicals.

1.) facts dont care what you feel it sounds like, fact remains nobody is forced and nobody is fighting for the right to fore anybody :shrug:
2.) nope not stupid at all just more facts whether you accept them or not they remain facts LMAO but i do agree your illogical non-analogous example is COMPLETELY stupid LMAO

Rights often end where others begin, thats common sense and practice

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Actually, it's not. The baker agreed to restrictions on his free speech when he chose to open a bakery. He wasn't forced. That is why your argument, which I have seen repeated often, doesn't hold a drop of water. The "long term standing" that you need to understand sooner or later is the CRA of 1964.

"The creator" finds a cake for two gay dudes "offensive"?

Y'all believe in an unbelievably ****ed up god.

it NEVER held water because of that reason

in general not to the ruling of this case which was about conduct of the state..


there was a CHOICE to open a buinsess
there was a CHOICE to open a public access buinsess
there was a CHOICE to open a PA business and accept(contract) that it has rules/laws that regulate it
there was a CHOICE to sell a product under those rules/laws
lastly there was a CHOICE to follow the law or break the law and be a criminal :shrug:

there is factually no force when one could have choose NOT to open a business or NOT open a business that has those laws that regulate it and run a private(membership etc) business, or NOT sell a particular product that cause the owner issues or NOT break the law and rules that were already agreed with . . . .

its very simply and basic common sense.....

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

That was in the past. A business that wants to put up a sign saying "colored people not allowed" wpuld go put of business faster than you can blink in the free market.

Bull****. The only reason stores don't have signs that say, "No coloreds," is because the law doesn't allow it. You and I both know that without the CRA, all the racists would be free again to restrict service and they would all support each other.

 

[Desert Storm]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

So under this current ruling, if a gay couple wants to rent a banquet hall for their wedding, does the owner of the hall have to rent it to them, or can he object based on religious grounds??

 

[MateoMtnClimber]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

You got that from the ruling??

No. I responded to the post I included above the one you answered.

"If this couple would have*shut*up*aboutbeing*gay*-- this would have never happened."

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

So under this current ruling, if a gay couple wants to rent a banquet hall for their wedding, does the owner of the hall have to rent it to them, or can he object based on religious grounds??

Discrimination against sexual orientation is still illegal
If the hall is a public access business venue he has to follow the law

 

[Ikari]

Re: Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

So under this current ruling, if a gay couple wants to rent a banquet hall for their wedding, does the owner of the hall have to rent it to them, or can he object based on religious grounds??

I don't believe that the ruling was so wide as to cover this. Likely, they would have to rent it since they rent the banquet hall normally. I believe the SCOTUS ruling revolved around the wedding cake being a specialty item, a custom baked good.