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

[jayjayj 571]

11 hours ago, bcking said:

In my mind the far slipperyer (that's not a word...more slippery) slope is the one that discriminates people because of their religion, sex or sexual orientation.

 

But as I've already said - It's fine if we want to allow people that freedom of expression. But we have to extend to all other reasonable comparisons. Architects, Chefs....how about Baristas? I've seen some "works of art" in a latte. Gotta include those. We can just keep on going.

Still not the same, as much as you want it to be.  

[jayjayj 571]

11 hours ago, bcking said:

I had asked that originally. I haven't seen one.

 

Obviously if they wanted like a phallic motif or something I would have no problem with a baker refusing on the basis that likely the baker would refuse that from ANY customer (again - Not discrimination if you don't do it for anyone, only discrimination if you do it for some people but not for others). 

 

If they wanted a cake that would have been perfectly suitable in a straight wedding and one that the baker would have had no problem making for a straight wedding, I don't see how it "offends" the baker's "artistic expression" to do something he would do for any other couple except them or "their kind". The cake itself doesn't offend his religion, and that is all that matters. He isn't required to attend the wedding.

This is a bad example.  It would offend and outrage the baker just as much to make a **** cake as it would a cake celebrating gay marriage.  The baker doesn't make **** cakes, just like the baker doesn't make gay marriage cakes or whatever other cakes they don't make.

[jayjayj 571]

10 hours ago, yuna628 said:

It was a plain cake. No words or descriptions or anything remarkable. The only thing was the inside - rainbow foodcoloring. By all accounts the most boring cake you could pick. No doubt he had stock wedding cakes already in his business that were more 'artistic' by far.

Has the baker ever made a rainbow colored cake before?  If they haven't, then forcing them to learn how to do that would seem wrong, according to many argument in this thread - you can't force a cook to learn how to cook something they don't know how to.

9 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I still think the best comparison is an artist business asked to do something against their deeply held beliefs (pick your example).  Will the state force them to do it or put them out of business?

This is the best example in my opinion.

[jayjayj 571]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  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.

So this baker can refuse to serve rainbow colored cake to all people.  Who likes rainbow colored cake anyway?

 

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Has the baker ever made a rainbow colored cake before?  If they haven't, then forcing them to learn how to do that would seem wrong, according to many argument in this thread - you can't force a cook to learn how to cook something they don't know how to.

 

I agree with that completely.

 

If they were asking for something outside the scope of what the baker does, that is different. He can present what he feels comfortable with. You can ask but can't expect beyond that. When we ordered our wedding cake our baker gave us the flavour options (4 or 5). We didn't expect to be able to ask for flavour #6 that he has never done before.

 

That, to me, is very different than baking a cake that he would gladly make for a straight couple, but on the basis of just their sexual orientation he won't make. The cake is the same. He shouldn't be able to dictate whether or not he agrees with what they want to do with it. He is hired to bake the cake, not sign off on the wedding.

 

They didn't ask the baker to do anything against his beliefs. They weren't asking him to have gay sex. They weren't even asking him to agree with their marriage. He just needed to bake a cake that he likely had baked for countless other people before.

 

At the end of the day it all hinges on whether sexual orientation is going to be added to the list of protected groups. I absolutely believe it should (as well as several others including health status, IE HIV status). If the SC decides it is not (I won't be surprised), we'll likely find more states go the way of California. They absolutely should be protected against discrimination and it's unfortunately one of many sad examples of how old fashion America is becoming.

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[jayjayj 571]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   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.

It is a unneeded law that tries to prevent discrimination by discriminating.  Regardless, I suspect SCOTUS is going find it unconstitutional.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

It is a unneeded law that tries to prevent discrimination by discriminating.  Regardless, I suspect SCOTUS is going find it unconstitutional.  

 

  Don't cry when they don't. They will likely send this back to the lower courts. 

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  Don't cry when they don't. They will likely send this back to the lower courts. 

Doubtful, they seem set to make a ruling.  You can't discriminate against people while trying to prevent discrimination.  This is clearly an overstep on Colorado's part.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, jayjayj said:

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

 

   I don't think I said that. It works better if you read the post you are responding to rather than just replying.

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

   I don't think I said that. It works better if you read the post you are responding to rather than just replying.

I didn't say your name.  You seem to have taken it personally though.  

 

Do you not think Obama was correct in his decrees on gay marriage?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

14 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

I didn't say your name.  You seem to have taken it personally though.  

 

Do you not think Obama was correct in his decrees on gay marriage?

 

   You responded to my post, which generally means you were addressing me, although I concede whatever your point was, it had nothing to do with what I posted.  To what you said about state law, while there are federal anti discrimination laws, there is no federal law that extends these protections to the LGBT the way that Colorado anti discrimination act does.  

Edited December 8, 2017 by Steeleballz

[jayjayj 571]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

I agree with that completely.

 

If they were asking for something outside the scope of what the baker does, that is different. He can present what he feels comfortable with. You can ask but can't expect beyond that. When we ordered our wedding cake our baker gave us the flavour options (4 or 5). We didn't expect to be able to ask for flavour #6 that he has never done before.

 

That, to me, is very different than baking a cake that he would gladly make for a straight couple, but on the basis of just their sexual orientation he won't make. The cake is the same. He shouldn't be able to dictate whether or not he agrees with what they want to do with it. He is hired to bake the cake, not sign off on the wedding.

 

They didn't ask the baker to do anything against his beliefs. They weren't asking him to have gay sex. They weren't even asking him to agree with their marriage. He just needed to bake a cake that he likely had baked for countless other people before.

 

At the end of the day it all hinges on whether sexual orientation is going to be added to the list of protected groups. I absolutely believe it should (as well as several others including health status, IE HIV status). If the SC decides it is not (I won't be surprised), we'll likely find more states go the way of California. They absolutely should be protected against discrimination and it's unfortunately one of many sad examples of how old fashion America is becoming.

Everyone should be protected against discrimination, not just certain subsets of the population.  

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   You responded to my post, which generally means you were addressing me, although I concede whatever your point was, it had nothing to do with what I posted.  To what you said about state law, while there are federal anti discrimination laws, there is no federal law that extends these protections to the LGBT the way that Colorado anti discrimination act does.  

Do you think Obama's decree on gay marriage was the right or wrong thing for the federal government to do?

[bcking 3,157]

5 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Everyone should be protected against discrimination, not just certain subsets of the population.

In what way were they wanting to discriminate against the baker? Baking or not baking the cake has NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs, as much as he wants to argue otherwise.

 

The argument that this is about freedom of religion is a joke. He is still completely free to practice his religion. No one is trying to restrict him or discriminate against his beliwds. Baking for them wouldn't do that. Baking the cake wouldn't even mean he supports their marriage. He doesn't have to sign off on the marriage. He doesn't have to attend the marriage. He can't hate them, think there are evil, but still provide the service that he provides to EVERYONE ELSE (is not discriminating). Whether he likes it or not their marriage is perfectly legal where he is and has nothing to do with his religion. If his religion doesn't allow gay marriage that's fine, they probably aren't getting married in his church.

 

It's overreaching on that front, in my opinion. I realise you likely disagree, but that's my two cents. I feel ashamed that our country is going down this silly road of allowing discrimination and prejudice in the name if "religious freedom". Jesus would be ashamed.

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, bcking said:

In what way were they wanting to discriminate against the baker? Baking or not baking the cake has NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs, as much as he wants to argue otherwise.

 

The argument that this is about freedom of religion is a joke. He is still completely free to practice his religion. No one is trying to restrict him or discriminate against his beliwds. Baking for them wouldn't do that. Baking the cake wouldn't even mean he supports their marriage. He doesn't have to sign off on the marriage. He doesn't have to attend the marriage. He can't hate them, think there are evil, but still provide the service that he provides to EVERYONE ELSE (is not discriminating). Whether he likes it or not their marriage is perfectly legal where he is and has nothing to do with his religion. If his religion doesn't allow gay marriage that's fine, they probably aren't getting married in his church.

 

It's overreaching on that front, in my opinion. I realise you likely disagree, but that's my two cents. I feel ashamed that our country is going down this silly road of allowing discrimination and prejudice in the name if "religious freedom". Jesus would be ashamed.

Sure it does.  They want him to bake a cake celebrating something that is against his religion.  That violates his rights to religious freedom, making it discriminatory.  At least half, if not a majority of the SCOTUS agrees with me.  You can't just dismiss it as a joke.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

Sure it does.  They want him to bake a cake celebrating something that is against his religion.  That violates his rights to religious freedom, making it discriminatory.  At least half, if not a majority of the SCOTUS agrees with me.  You can't just dismiss it as a joke.

He doesn't have to celebrate their marriage. He just has to bake the cake.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

We can't pick and choose when we want to read the Constitution literally and when we want to make assumptions. Since I assume you would prefer a literal reading of another amendment, you have to go with a literal reading of this.

 

We would not be providing the free exercise of his religion. He is still perfectly capable of practicing his religion. He can go to church, he can pray, he can believe they are sinning.

 

This kind of "freedom of religion" is NOT spelled out in the Constitution. So those "strict constructionists" are going to be incredibly hypocritical if they rule that it is.