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

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I do.  This way the chef’s or other’s bigotry is out in the open.  However, I guess the other way, they can keep it hidden.

Okay so we can start a list of the establishments/professionals that can refuse to serve people due to skin color, race ,sex, sexual orientation:

 

1. Bakers

2. Chefs/Restaurants

3. Artists

4. Architects

5. Painters

6. Baristas (Some Baristas have incredibly individualized talents)

7. Taxi drivers (They have individualized talent in their knowledge of their area, and the routes that they have developed and tested over their careers. Why would they want to share that knowledge with a gay couple?)

 

I'm sure I can come up with more.

 

If I was a grocery store clerk and I won an award for the "fastest grocery score clerk in Houston" (Time trial...100 items...sudden death!), could I then start refusing to serve certain people because I don't want to share my unique talent with them because of their sexual orientation?

 

EDIT:

 

As to the bold part - Unfortunately we can't control people's thoughts. But we should put limits on their actions when it involves discrimination. The baker can hate gay people as much as he wants. He can think about how much he hates gay people every single hour of every single day (Though if he did I would question whether he was repressing something...). His inner hatred shouldn't allow him to discriminate with his ACTIONS.

Edited December 7, 2017 by bcking

[yuna628 9,713]

40 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So what you are saying the baker did not refuse to serve them, he refused to lend his customized talent to them.  The state now should control how people or business owners share their individual talent?  What then was so horrific about the baker’s actions?  We all need to conform to the social attitude of the state now?  By the way, I don’t consider a form cake in a case as being the same thing as one that requires more artistic input.  For all we know, he didn’t even make the cakes he was offering.

In a way yes. However, I think that makes the basis of his claim weakened because he offered them some other cake. He's arguing on the one hand that it's the making of the cake (customizing it with dye)... but yet he was fine giving them one he had already made. The ADF makes his claim weaker by then saying it's the act of giving them any cake which offends him, which would imply he gives his blessing to the marriage via his artistry. If he gives them ANY cake in his store, that they would use for a wedding, it would still be giving them his blessing, following that logic. He offered to give them a different cake, thus his blessing. Maybe SCOTUS will notice that point, they tend to be a lot more nuanced in decisions.

 

It's not so much controlling how a person should share talent... but you would acknowledge that we as a society decided it was not appropriate for a business to refuse to serve an African American, an immigrant, or an inter-racial couple - and I hope that same-sex couples should be thought of the same way. That is, in a way directly telling someone what they must do in public. What the guy did was rude, morally backward, and downright stupid... but you can't police stupid. However, I would also say that governments have been doing that to artists for years, especially when there is public outcry over 'offensiveness''. We control 'obscenities'' over the airwaves, and a whole host of other measures that may curb artistic expression. The ADF and other similar organizations would not, I suspect stand up for the right of someone refusing to bake a cake for Christians. They would not object if many controversial artworks were removed, and would not complain when artists are banned from venues. I'm familiar with Farris who runs the ADF, he's not really interested in a lowly cake-baker, he has his eyes on a bigger goal and has been for years, in every single organization he's inserted himself in... and he will keep bringing such cases (even absurd ones) as far as he can.

 

I too would prefer a person's bigotry and stupidity be out in the open. It allows people to have a choice. It allows them to stop hiding, and for us to decide not to patronize them. Money speaks loudly. This guy will likely only have certain clients coming to him now.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by yuna628

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

do you think a Muslim owned Restaurant should be able to refuse to cater a wedding with Pork Products 

 

  Yes. It's no different than this case. They can refuse to serve pork to all people. Discrimination arises if they serve pork to some people and not others. There's a big difference between what you suggested in your example and what happened in this case.

 

   Again, this baker could have complied with the law by not making wedding cakes for anyone. He was originally going to do that. Then all the gofund me money and pro bono legal representation showed up.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

My argument stands

  No it fell about as flat as it possibly could have.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

has there  been a description of what the gay couple wanted on the cake?

 

   I don't think it even got to that point. He told them almost immediately that he would not make a wedding cake due to his beliefs.

[TBoneTX 46,122]

I wonder how the outcome of this case might affect businesses that post the generic sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

What if it was a Muslim baker being asked for a same sex wedding cake?  I think this was already asked in Dearborn, MI, and they refused.  Now this was at the time that same sex weddings were not recognized in Michigan, so the MDL blew it off.  If memory serves, this baker in front of SCOTUS initially refused this couple when CO also did not recognize same sex marriages.

 

The thing I don’t understand is why would this couple even want this guy to make their cake for them?  

 

   You should link to the case, however as I've said a couple of times, the Masterpiece bakery case was a violation of Colorado law. Different states may have different laws, I have heard of some states passing "religious freedom" laws. In Colorado, a Muslim baker would be similarly guilty as a Christian baker for discrimination..

[Steeleballz 7,550]

56 minutes ago, bcking said:

Okay so we can start a list of the establishments/professionals that can refuse to serve people due to skin color, race ,sex, sexual orientation:

 

1. Bakers

2. Chefs/Restaurants

3. Artists

4. Architects

5. Painters

6. Baristas (Some Baristas have incredibly individualized talents)

7. Taxi drivers (They have individualized talent in their knowledge of their area, and the routes that they have developed and tested over their careers. Why would they want to share that knowledge with a gay couple?)

 

I'm sure I can come up with more.

 

If I was a grocery store clerk and I won an award for the "fastest grocery score clerk in Houston" (Time trial...100 items...sudden death!), could I then start refusing to serve certain people because I don't want to share my unique talent with them because of their sexual orientation?

 

EDIT:

 

As to the bold part - Unfortunately we can't control people's thoughts. But we should put limits on their actions when it involves discrimination. The baker can hate gay people as much as he wants. He can think about how much he hates gay people every single hour of every single day (Though if he did I would question whether he was repressing something...). His inner hatred shouldn't allow him to discriminate with his ACTIONS.

 

   Regardless of the list, if an artist chooses to conduct business, he or she must comply with the state and federal laws. If they choose to remain a private citizen, they are free to practice whatever beliefs they have as long as they don't do anything illegal.

 

   If the baker in this case was just a guy who made cakes, he could pick and choose who he wanted to bake cakes for. He could freely refuse some people and not others. When he went into business he was bound by the anti discrimination laws that apply to all business in the state. Similarly if he refuses to hire a same sex couple for that same reason, he would violate employment anti discrimination laws. His personal freedom to practice his religion was not taken away. No doubt the baker is a great artist, but ultimately it was the his choice to go into the cake decorating business.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

18 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I wonder how the outcome of this case might affect businesses that post the generic sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."

 

   Regardless of what they post, they still cannot deny service based on any reason that would violate state or federal anti discrimination laws.

[Dashinka 24,793]

45 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

In a way yes. However, I think that makes the basis of his claim weakened because he offered them some other cake. He's arguing on the one hand that it's the making of the cake (customizing it with dye)... but yet he was fine giving them one he had already made. The ADF makes his claim weaker by then saying it's the act of giving them any cake which offends him, which would imply he gives his blessing to the marriage via his artistry. If he gives them ANY cake in his store, that they would use for a wedding, it would still be giving them his blessing, following that logic. He offered to give them a different cake, thus his blessing. Maybe SCOTUS will notice that point, they tend to be a lot more nuanced in decisions.

 

It's not so much controlling how a person should share talent... but you would acknowledge that we as a society decided it was not appropriate for a business to refuse to serve an African American, an immigrant, or an inter-racial couple - and I hope that same-sex couples should be thought of the same way. That is, in a way directly telling someone what they must do in public. What the guy did was rude, morally backward, and downright stupid... but you can't police stupid. However, I would also say that governments have been doing that to artists for years, especially when there is public outcry over 'offensiveness''. We control 'obscenities'' over the airwaves, and a whole host of other measures that may curb artistic expression. The ADF and other similar organizations would not, I suspect stand up for the right of someone refusing to bake a cake for Christians. They would not object if many controversial artworks were removed, and would not complain when artists are banned from venues. I'm familiar with Farris who runs the ADF, he's not really interested in a lowly cake-baker, he has his eyes on a bigger goal and has been for years, in every single organization he's inserted himself in... and he will keep bringing such cases (even absurd ones) as far as he can.

 

I too would prefer a person's bigotry and stupidity be out in the open. It allows people to have a choice. It allows them to stop hiding, and for us to decide not to patronize them. Money speaks loudly. This guy will likely only have certain clients coming to him now.

 

My only issue is that we are passing laws to limit free speech.  We will see how SCOTUS decides this case, but less laws restricting people’s freedom to be stupid the better.  Stupidity, like bigotry needs to be in the open.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

My only issue is that we are passing laws to limit free speech.  We will see how SCOTUS decides this case, but less laws restricting people’s freedom to be stupid the better.  Stupidity, like bigotry needs to be in the open.

Agree. I feel there is no clear cut answer in this case. If I was on the SCOTUS,  I would have a very hard time with this one 

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/6/2017 at 8:45 PM, 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.

I think he did during his questioning.  Especially when one of the defense lawyers made a disparaging remark about religion in general.  Kennedy wasn't happy about it.

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/7/2017 at 8:50 AM, Steeleballz said:

 

     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. 

 

    

So now lefties want to cede to state law, but not in regards to other things, like gay marriage.

[jayjayj 571]

12 hours ago, bcking said:

Do you think restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people of religions they don't support?

 

Cooking is a form of artistic expression as well. I've had several "works of art" on my dinner table. Can those chefs say they only serve Christians? Or refuse to serve a gay couple eating out for their anniversary?

 

If we want to draw that line in the sand I think we should be clear where the line actually falls. Can a painter refuse to paint the walls in your house if he finds out your gay, because his painting is a form of artistic expression? What about building a house in general. Can an architect refuse to design a house for a gay couple because they are gay?

You are asking someone to make something that celebrates something they don't believe in.  You can't equate that with a chef making food for people to eat.  The cake is much more than just food.

[jayjayj 571]

12 hours ago, bcking said:

That seems crazy to me. They are both food. In fact many restaurants have pastry chefs that have dedicated their life to their art just like a cake maker.

 

Absolutely if a wedding cake maker has the right, a chef has the right. They are both creating edible art. 

 

This is just as much art as any wedding cake is art.

 

 

Allowing discrimination due to "Artistic expression" opens up A LOT of possibilities for discrimination. I personally don't think we should go down that road.

I don't see the food above celebrating something.  It is simply artsy food.  Not the same.