Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple

[kitsune]

If they wanted a plain cake, they could have had a plain cake.

The issue comes when the baker is asked to provide artwork. You mention swastikas. Can you imagine a court compelling a Jewish baker to craft the cake? It should be enough that the artist finds it offensive.

I take the point. But I disagree.

 

[lurchadams]

Morning Lurch! Trump's weaponized DoJ? I guess you missed the Mueller investigation and the SPYING on the Trump campaign by the FBI. The DoJ is simply doing its job now and you say that is weaponized? I'm not interested in seeing her in front of Congress. I want to see her in front of a Grand Jury. Also speaking of the DoJ setting a precedent of ignoring subpoenas I thought that precedent was set by Eric Holder.

Good morning!

I can't wait until trump, his crime family and his cabinet are all doing time

Hey, on a lighter subject, I recreated my favorite meal at home last night that I eat on the road. It's a steak salad - high protein, high fiber, low carb and sugar and tasty. Check it out!

 

[Obscurity]

Where is this inherent right to be served cake found.

Right alongside the inherent right to be a judgmental asshole and force your morals on the public?

 

[Jay59]

Right alongside the inherent right to be a judgmental asshole and force your morals on the public?

You do realize that in this case the, "judgmental asshole" tring to "force [their] morals on the public" is the gay couple, right?

I take the point. But I disagree.

That is understandable. Weighing rights is difficult.

What is important to recognize is that the baker also has relevant rights. That is the bit that is typically ignored.

 

[WillyPete]

Well, I would disagree with your interpretation. These bakers weren't "serving the public" but offering a service to the public. They offered a limited type of wedding cake that wasn't what the gay couple were looking for. The gay couple, rather than seek out a bakery, of which reportedly there were many, sought to force this bakery to go outside their offered services and insist on them meeting their particular need. This bakery wasn't offering gay wedding cakes to other couples and choosing not to make one for this couple - that would have been discrimination. They didn't offer to make gay wedding cakes for anyone because it was against their religion.

Just as an aside, I suspect that they wouldn't be keen on baking an abortion cake, with a dead fetus decoration, which is likely also against their religious beliefs. Perhaps, if these bakers provided divorce cakes, against their religious beliefs, there'd be an argument that they were being selectively prejudicial.

They are subject to local public accomodation laws, which prohibit this behavior.

Those laws aren't forced upon them. They opted into them, as part of licensing their business. They agreed to abide by them long before the fateful day.

There are a few different ways they could have organized their business so that this wasn't an issue.

What they did in denying service based on sexual orientation was illegal, full stop.

This most recent decision (or lack of one) was more about how some of the decision makers at the state level treated them rather than any argument that they didn't violate the law.

Shame on the local admins for losing patience with a religious bigot.

 

[WillyPete]

You do realize that in this case the, "judgmental asshole" tring to "force [their] morals on the public" is the gay couple, right?

I suppose if you HAVE to find the judgmental asshole, it's the legislature that developed the public accomodation law they violated, and the people who elected them.

What is important to recognize is that the baker also has relevant rights. That is the bit that is typically ignored.

They probably shouldn't have opened a business subject to these laws, if they had a problem following them. They could have made a private cake club, or a cake-based church, or used some other way to skirt the law.

But they don't just get to ignore it.

 

[dixon01767]

This whole thing is so strange to me. If a business is open to the public, it's open to the public. Not just those members of the public that the owner happens to like or agree with. As long as the member of the public is behaving himself, is not asking me to do anything illegal, and has the ability and the commitment to pay (talking to you, Deadbeat Donnie) then bake the stupid cake.

Then why not offer these crazy protections to the entire public? You could refuse to bake a cake for any whiney liberals and refuse service all day long without violating the law. Call them stupid ****ing commies as they walk back out the door in shame. Until a particuliarly efeminate whiney liberal comes in and you throw out a "stupid ****ing commy fa**ot" as they walk out the door and in many states you will owe 100s of 1000s of $s. All states if the Democrats have their way. And this they do under the banner of equal protection.

 

[rwee2000]

The baker knowingly and willingly abdicated this right to the state when they opened a business for profit to the public at large.

No they don't you don't abdicate that or any other right when you open a business, to the public. But think about what you just said, I could walk into a business and FORCE them to make an Confederate battle flag cake, oh wait Walmart will refuse the make them, or an ISIS flag cake (which they did make because they couldn't read it), they could do so because it was a custom cake and they, like any other business they can refuse custom orders.

 

[Mr Person]

Well, that's what happens when the GOP manages to stack the court with judges that vote the way conservatives like after refusing to so much as vote on a moderate.

 

[dixon01767]

They probably shouldn't have opened a business subject to these laws, if they had a problem following them. .

They probably opened their business before Oregon added sexual orientation to their public accomodation laws. When they refused to bake their cake, Oregon hadnt even legalized same sex marriage yet. The state of Oregon was refusing gays marriage licenses while this baker was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a gay marriage cake.

 

[CanadaJohn]

They are subject to local public accomodation laws, which prohibit this behavior.

Those laws aren't forced upon them. They opted into them, as part of licensing their business. They agreed to abide by them long before the fateful day.

There are a few different ways they could have organized their business so that this wasn't an issue.

What they did in denying service based on sexual orientation was illegal, full stop.

This most recent decision (or lack of one) was more about how some of the decision makers at the state level treated them rather than any argument that they didn't violate the law.

Shame on the local admins for losing patience with a religious bigot.

The stridency of your position doesn't make it the only decision legal minds could reach. And no matter how many times you and others care to refer to faithful people of religion as bigots, it doesn't make them bigots so much as it makes you appear to be the bigoted ones.

 

[dixon01767]

What they did in denying service based on sexual orientation was illegal, full stop.

They would of equally opposed baking a same sex wedding cake for two heterosexuals of the same sex. Their objection wasnt based upon sexual orientation. Would be like claiming that marriage laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy are discrimination based upon religon because its primarily Mormons and Muslims wanting multiple marriages. Absurd. But thats how these protected classes usually end up working. The discrimination is simply presumed to be based upon the needed classification.

 

[Obscurity]

No they don't you don't abdicate that or any other right when you open a business, to the public. But think about what you just said, I could walk into a business and FORCE them to make an Confederate battle flag cake, oh wait Walmart will refuse the make them, or an ISIS flag cake (which they did make because they couldn't read it), they could do so because it was a custom cake and they, like any other business they can refuse custom orders.

Again, completely false equivalency. The baker is using a moral loophole, by abdicating their morality, to that of an aphotic entities morals, that of a completely fictitious "religion" and persuant to this are thus enforcing that rigid structure on someone who does not follow that faith.

Let's not even discuss the misery quotient, the one which seemingly conservatives are hell bent on increasing, by infringing on the lives of everyone else with their religious zealotry.

God is dead.

 

[Obscurity]

They probably opened their business before Oregon added sexual orientation to their public accomodation laws. When they refused to bake their cake, Oregon hadnt even legalized same sex marriage yet. The state of Oregon was refusing gays marriage licenses while this baker was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a gay marriage cake.

Which does nothing to protect the public from the moral fillibuster the religious right is claiming it is entitled to. The public at large shall not be infringed by the radical, evangelical, and moronic elements of Christendom.

 

[dixon01767]

Right alongside the inherent right to be a judgmental asshole and force your morals on the public?

The Oregon Public Accomodation law then. Neiter a part of the "various state constitutions and business licensure laws."

 

[Glitch]

I suppose the baker would refuse to bake a cake with a X Rated message on it also.

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

 

[Obscurity]

The Oregon Public Accomodation law then. Neiter a part of the "various state constitutions and business licensure laws."

Hiding your judgmental asshole attitude behind the veil of religion is cowardice of the worst description and an unlawful, unconstitutional infringements of the rights of the public against the moral fiat of religious dogma.

 

[dixon01767]

Which does nothing to protect the public from the moral fillibuster the religious right is claiming it is entitled to. The public at large shall not be infringed by the radical, evangelical, and moronic elements of Christendom.

Im an atheist and believe any business owner should be free to serve or not serve whoever he wishes. But your a libertarian so you expect the government to force them to do so or pay 100s of $1000s in fines if they do not.

 

[kitsune]

Then why not offer these crazy protections to the entire public? You could refuse to bake a cake for any whiney liberals and refuse service all day long without violating the law. Call them stupid ****ing commies as they walk back out the door in shame. Until a particuliarly efeminate whiney liberal comes in and you throw out a "stupid ****ing commy fa**ot" as they walk out the door and in many states you will owe 100s of 1000s of $s. All states if the Democrats have their way. And this they do under the banner of equal protection.

At the moment I can think of few things that would be more satisfying to me than to have the right to refuse service to people like you. And I'm sure that you would like to treat me similarly. But a society that allows each of us free rein to deal with others solely on the basis of our personal enmities and prejudices isn't a society, it's just a random collection of disparate jerks.

 

[prometeus]

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Not those that are open to the public.

 

[WillyPete]

They probably opened their business before Oregon added sexual orientation to their public accomodation laws. When they refused to bake their cake, Oregon hadnt even legalized same sex marriage yet. The state of Oregon was refusing gays marriage licenses while this baker was fined $135,000 for refusing to bake a gay marriage cake.

Don't doubt it, but it's on them to keep tabs on the law and determine if they could abide or not.

 

[Obscurity]

Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.

Only, not when those businesses refuse service to a gay couple, or a MAGA hat wearing clown, right?

I for one am absolutely 100% on the side of the baker; I agree the baker should not be forced to bake a cake for anyone.

I disagree with the mode of function for his argument. I personally do not believe - as most americans - that businesses as entities can be religious. I do not believe an entity that consists of product and 4 walls, a roof, and people selling things can have faith.

I do not have the authority to enforce my morality onto you. So I feel that, while I agree any business can refuse service as it befits them, I do not believe using religion to do so is morally, ethically, or legally acceptable.

Holding others to the moral teachings of your delusions is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[WillyPete]

They would of equally opposed baking a same sex wedding cake for two heterosexuals of the same sex. Their objection wasnt based upon sexual orientation. Would be like claiming that marriage laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy are discrimination based upon religon because its primarily Mormons and Muslims wanting multiple marriages. Absurd. But thats how these protected classes usually end up working. The discrimination is simply presumed to be based upon the needed classification.

The details of this specific case, where they refused service immediately when they learned it was same sex, and proffered biblical verse to support, leads me (and at least one court) that this was over the line.

If the law was misapplied, them I wish them luck on appeal, but that's not what I'm seeing so far.

 

[Glitch]

Not sure why you have to insist on delving into labels. But I digress.

The baker is a miserable person who is someone I'd not want to be around. They use their religion as a bludgeon against whom they think are opponents.

The state didn't illegally or unconstitutionally persecute anyone. The state says "If you do business with the public you are not allowed to discriminate." The baker was not asked to go gay. Nor was the baker asked to go to the wedding.

The baker is an incomparable douchebag and a self serving religious zealot who should be barred from opening any businesses anywhere in this country. If they want an exclusive club then open a club.

The State intentionally violated the baker's constitutionally protected First Amendment right, and businesses are allowed to discriminate despite the lies spewed by the anti-American left. Every business has the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It was the fascist left's intolerance of the baker's religious beliefs and their irrational desire to persecute Christians that created this unconstitutional conflict. Once again demonstrating that the Democratic Party is the greatest enemy this nation has ever faced.

 

[Obscurity]

At the moment I can think of few things that would be more satisfying to me than to have the right to refuse service to people like you. And I'm sure that you would like to treat me similarly. But a society that allows each of us free rein to deal with others solely on the basis of our personal enmities and prejudices isn't a society, it's just a random collection of disparate jerks.

Political affiliation is not a protected class. You can deny anyone wearing any form of political stuff service simply because of that.