Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[Dashinka 24,793]

This one will be interesting.  From other stories and commentary I have read and heard, the baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for the couple, he refused to decorate it for them.  Seems pretty clear cut to me this is an artistic expression limit that Colorado is imposing.

 

By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow

Courts & Law

December 5 at 12:40 PM

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

Kennedy, who wrote the court’s 5 to 4 decision in 2015 saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, speculated about what might happen if a decision in baker Jack C. Phillips’s favor prompted requests for bakers across the country to refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples. Would the federal government feel vindicated? Kennedy asked.

On the flip side, just moments later, Kennedy sharply questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick R. Yarger. The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

At one point, Kennedy and some conservative justices raised the possibility that the proceedings against baker Jack C. Phillips had been infected by bias.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.6a828d049454

[jayjayj 571]

16 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

This one will be interesting.  From other stories and commentary I have read and heard, the baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for the couple, he refused to decorate it for them.  Seems pretty clear cut to me this is an artistic expression limit that Colorado is imposing.

 

By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow

Courts & Law

December 5 at 12:40 PM

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

Kennedy, who wrote the court’s 5 to 4 decision in 2015 saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, speculated about what might happen if a decision in baker Jack C. Phillips’s favor prompted requests for bakers across the country to refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples. Would the federal government feel vindicated? Kennedy asked.

On the flip side, just moments later, Kennedy sharply questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick R. Yarger. The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

At one point, Kennedy and some conservative justices raised the possibility that the proceedings against baker Jack C. Phillips had been infected by bias.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.6a828d049454

 

This will be interesting.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

This one will be interesting.  From other stories and commentary I have read and heard, the baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for the couple, he refused to decorate it for them.  Seems pretty clear cut to me this is an artistic expression limit that Colorado is imposing.

 

By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow By Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow

Courts & Law

December 5 at 12:40 PM

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

Kennedy, who wrote the court’s 5 to 4 decision in 2015 saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, speculated about what might happen if a decision in baker Jack C. Phillips’s favor prompted requests for bakers across the country to refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples. Would the federal government feel vindicated? Kennedy asked.

On the flip side, just moments later, Kennedy sharply questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick R. Yarger. The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

At one point, Kennedy and some conservative justices raised the possibility that the proceedings against baker Jack C. Phillips had been infected by bias.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.6a828d049454

 

   He refused to make and decorate a wedding cake. He said he would make and decorate any other kind of cake. That part was never in dispute. The couple came to buy a wedding cake and the baker refused to do that. 

[Dashinka 24,793]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   He refused to make and decorate a wedding cake. He said he would make and decorate any other kind of cake. That part was never in dispute. The couple came to buy a wedding cake and the baker refused to do that. 

I think you may be misinformed.  He refused to decorate a wedding cake, you know the artistic part of it, he did not refuse to bake and ice generic cakes for the couple.  But I suppose most people don't go to a specific baker for their cake baking quality.  He also will not decorate cakes of many other themes that conflict with his first amendment religious beliefs.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/wedding-cakes-v-religious-beliefs-plain-english/

[jayjayj 571]

23 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   He refused to make and decorate a wedding cake. He said he would make and decorate any other kind of cake. That part was never in dispute. The couple came to buy a wedding cake and the baker refused to do that. 

Correct and it appears the Supreme Court tea leaves suggest they have that right.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I think you may be misinformed.  He refused to decorate a wedding cake, you know the artistic part of it, he did not refuse to bake and ice generic cakes for the couple.  But I suppose most people don't go to a specific baker for their cake baking quality.  He also will not decorate cakes of many other themes that conflict with his first amendment religious beliefs.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/wedding-cakes-v-religious-beliefs-plain-english/

     

   That's what I said. They asked him to bake and decorate a wedding cake. He said he would bake and decorate other types of pastries but not a wedding cake.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

38 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Correct and it appears the Supreme Court tea leaves suggest they have that right.

 

  It's down to Kennedy's vote. If the tea leaves are showing you anything, it's because you want to see it. I don't think Kennedy has tipped his hand yet.

[Dashinka 24,793]

36 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It's down to Kennedy's vote. If the tea leaves are showing you anything, it's because you want to see it. I don't think Kennedy has tipped his hand yet.

Why is that?  Are the other four saying that an African American artist who markets their wares must in fact fulfill an order from a white supremacist?

 

 

[yuna628 9,713]

I'm concerned with one of the justices that complained he'd never tasted a wedding cake that was good to eat. That's a terrible thing to say, our cake was lovely! It even tasted good a year later.

[TBoneTX 46,120]

The most dangerous food is Wedding Cake.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

     

   That's what I said. They asked him to bake and decorate a wedding cake. He said he would bake and decorate other types of pastries but not a wedding cake.

He said he wouldn't do a wedding cake for a gay couple because it is against his religious beliefs.   Which was his right,  in spite of the lower court's ruling.  The legal system got this one wrong.

 

You cannot force a subcontractor to perform a job.  You can request them to, and pay them if they do, or fire them if they don't.  But can't force them to work.

 

From the gay couple's perspective... why would you want to do business with someone who is against your beliefs?  Why not find another cake maker who fits your wants better?

 

Drama is the only answer I can think of.

[Dashinka 24,793]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

He said he wouldn't do a wedding cake for a gay couple because it is against his religious beliefs.   Which was his right,  in spite of the lower court's ruling.  The legal system got this one wrong.

 

You cannot force a subcontractor to perform a job.  You can request them to, and pay them if they do, or fire them if they don't.  But can't force them to work.

 

From the gay couple's perspective... why would you want to do business with someone who is against your beliefs?  Why not find another cake maker who fits your wants better?

 

Drama is the only answer I can think of.

If one doesn’t acquiesce to our views, one must be destroyed!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

He said he wouldn't do a wedding cake for a gay couple because it is against his religious beliefs.   Which was his right,  in spite of the lower court's ruling.  The legal system got this one wrong.

 

You cannot force a subcontractor to perform a job.  You can request them to, and pay them if they do, or fire them if they don't.  But can't force them to work.

 

From the gay couple's perspective... why would you want to do business with someone who is against your beliefs?  Why not find another cake maker who fits your wants better?

 

Drama is the only answer I can think of.

 

    I doubt any same sex couple still goes to this guy. The couple that did originally were not aware of his views. Since it is illegal to discriminate, he did not have a sign posted on his window saying he wouldn't make cakes for same sex weddings. It only became news when the couple decided to go to the Colorado civil rights commission, which ruled correctly under existing Colorado law. Colorado law does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Public businesses in Colorado are required to treat potential customers equally. Either he bakes wedding cakes or he doesn't.

 

   To satisfy the law, the baker was originally going to stop making wedding cakes for anyone, and just make other types of cakes. However when the ADF took his case pro bono, I guess that was an offer that was hard to refuse. 

 

   

 

25 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If one doesn’t acquiesce to our views, one must be destroyed!

 

   Speaking of drama.....

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I doubt any same sex couple still goes to this guy. The couple that did originally were not aware of his views. Since it is illegal to discriminate, he did not have a sign posted on his window saying he wouldn't make cakes for same sex weddings. It only became news when the couple decided to go to the Colorado civil rights commission, which ruled correctly under existing Colorado law. Colorado law does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Public businesses in Colorado are required to treat potential customers equally. Either he bakes wedding cakes or he doesn't.

 

   To satisfy the law, the baker was originally going to stop making wedding cakes for anyone, and just make other types of cakes. However when the ADF took his case pro bono, I guess that was an offer that was hard to refuse.

So if a christian’s religious beliefs prevent him from accepting gay marriage, and he doesn’t want to support it by making them a cake, it’s a violation of the gay couples’ civil rights?

 

What if a muslim truck driver refuses to deliver beer, because it’s against his religion?  Well, it seems that’s just fine, and here’s a lot of money for your troubles, kind sir...  https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-15b.cfm

 

Seems that using religion as a “reason” to not do something is only convenient if it’s not christians to me. As I said, the gay couple could have found a new subcontractor to make a cake for them, as opposed to suing.  But hey, it’s America, and if you are a white christian male, it is highly likely you will be ruled against by just about any minority out there, eh?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

So if a christian’s religious beliefs prevent him from accepting gay marriage, and he doesn’t want to support it by making them a cake, it’s a violation of the gay couples’ civil rights?

 

What if a muslim truck driver refuses to deliver beer, because it’s against his religion?  Well, it seems that’s just fine, and here’s a lot of money for your troubles, kind sir...  https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-22-15b.cfm

 

Seems that using religion as a “reason” to not do something is only convenient if it’s not christians to me. As I said, the gay couple could have found a new subcontractor to make a cake for them, as opposed to suing.  But hey, it’s America, and if you are a white christian male, it is highly likely you will be ruled against by just about any minority out there, eh?

 

     Two different scenarios. Did you not read my previous post? Colorado law does not allow businesses to discriminate against consumers. The second example you posted has nothing to do with Colorado and describes an employee-employer relationship, in which a completely different set of laws are applicable.

 

   A business sells a product.They do not have to condone or disavow their customers beliefs. None of that is applicable as it relates to the law. What they are required to do (by law) is treat all consumers the same as it relates to selling their product.