Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

    Sanity prevails.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/justices-...-politics.html

    WASHINGTON (AP) ó The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

    The justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

  • #2
    And FWIW, as I think this article obscures it somewhat, is that no one is asking for the ability to flatly deny general service to gay and lesbian people.

    Just that they want the ability to pick and choose clientele for personalized services such as wedding cakes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Also significant: The decision was 7-2. Kagan and Breyer both sided with the baker, in this obviously appropriate ruling.

      Only permaloony Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her apprentice Sotomayor voted against the baker.

      Come on, Ginsburg and Kennedy retirement. Crossing my fingers that it happens this term.

      Comment


      • #4
        LOL, yahoo has updated their article, leading off with "The Supreme Court has narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado Baker...."

        Yeah, 7-2 with two liberals switching to the common sense conservative side. Real narrow. No media bias though!

        Comment


        • #5
          This is good news for freedom. You can't force a business to provide a service or product that they do not want to. There are so many bad things that could happen as a result of forcing the issue. That goes for all people on all sides of the fence. People can simply choose to not shop there, that is how commerce works. Let the market decide what it wants.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by skidadl View Post
            This is good news for freedom. You can't force a business to provide a service or product that they do not want to. There are so many bad things that could happen as a result of forcing the issue. That goes for all people on all sides of the fence. People can simply choose to not shop there, that is how commerce works. Let the market decide what it wants.
            Discrimination in the public sector = freedom Curious

            I am sure they felt the same way about buses and lunch counters at one time.

            Total bastardization of Christianity if you ask me. It is what it is though.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 2233boys View Post
              Discrimination in the public sector = freedom Curious

              I am sure they felt the same way about buses and lunch counters at one time.

              Total bastardization of Christianity if you ask me. It is what it is though.
              I don't get that viewpoint. You can't force private business owners to violate their beliefs. It doesn't matter if you agree with their beliefs or not. If it is a "christian" thing to do is an entirely separate issue.

              What if a Muslim decided he didn't want to bake a Christian themed cake? Are you going to force him to do that? What if someone demanded that an Amish guy selling crosses make a pentagram or a wooden dick? How bout someone asking for a wooden inscription referring to technology? Who gets to determine which one is more conscience violating to which group? There are a ton of things that the government can't and shouldn't solve.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by 2233boys View Post
                Discrimination in the public sector = freedom Curious

                I am sure they felt the same way about buses and lunch counters at one time.

                Total bastardization of Christianity if you ask me. It is what it is though.
                It's not a blanket denial of service. Surely you can see a difference between that and refusing personalized messages on cakes or other forms of artistic expression.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Next we will sue Elton John for not singing a requested song of repentance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by skidadl View Post
                    I don't get that viewpoint. You can't force private business owners to violate their beliefs. It doesn't matter if you agree with their beliefs or not. If it is a "christian" thing to do is an entirely separate issue.

                    What if a Muslim decided he didn't want to bake a Christian themed cake? Are you going to force him to do that? What if someone demanded that an Amish guy selling crosses make a pentagram or a wooden dick? How bout someone asking for a wooden inscription referring to technology? Who gets to determine which one is more conscience violating to which group? There are a ton of things that the government can't and shouldn't solve.
                    DISCRIMINATION!!! Fundamentalist Muslim restaurants that provide catering services should be forced to provide the baked beans at my pig pickin'.

                    Whaaaa?!?? They cater. They should have to serve me. I'm not forcing them to EAT the pork, for chrissakes, just be around it, smell it, see everyone else eating it and pouring sauce on it and talking about how awesome it is. I'm just asking them to set up shop and have their baked bean platter be right next to my roasting pig, where I'm also displaying a sign that says, "Pork! The best meat! Everyone should eat it, at every meal!" They might be in the picture next to the pig or the sign, but whatevs.

                    Oh, I'm also going to have live nude strippers there, not wearing burkas, so.... you know, they better look away. But if they don't cater, I'm suing the shit out of them. Intolerant fucking assholes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mschmidt64 View Post
                      DISCRIMINATION!!! Fundamentalist Muslim restaurants that provide catering services should be forced to provide the baked beans at my pig pickin'.

                      Whaaaa?!?? They cater. They should have to serve me. I'm not forcing them to EAT the pork, for chrissakes, just be around it, smell it, see everyone else eating it and pouring sauce on it and talking about how awesome it is. I'm just asking them to set up shop and have their baked bean platter be right next to my roasting pig, where I'm also displaying a sign that says, "Pork! The best meat! Everyone should eat it, at every meal!" They might be in the picture next to the pig or the sign, but whatevs.

                      Oh, I'm also going to have live nude strippers there, not wearing burkas, so.... you know, they better look away. But if they don't cater, I'm suing the shit out of them. Intolerant fucking assholes.
                      There's a joke about a woman on her period in there somewhere....

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mschmidt64 View Post
                        It's not a blanket denial of service. Surely you can see a difference between that and refusing personalized messages on cakes or other forms of artistic expression.
                        Considering that they didnít address that at all, I am sure that someone will try to use this ruling as a way to not serve LGBT

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I tend to think the line should be whether what youíre selling could be described as an artistic commission or not should be the litmus test. Is it a cake that you would have made for a straight couple, you should sell a gay couple the same item, is it personalized such that it requires the baker (or painter, scuplter, etc) to personalize it in a way that tacitly endorses something they believe is immoral? In that case I think refusal of service is reasonable. But I do think the standard should be more than names in icing, or cake toppers.

                          Say for instance an artist is asked to paint a gay couple kissing, I think being forced to paint it, for the purpose of non-discrimination would be a violation of the artistís right of free expression.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Businesses are not public services, they are simply part of commerce. Forcing a business to provide services that they don't want to is a terrible idea.
                            Last edited by skidadl; 06-05-2018, 09:02 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Pimping ain’t easy, Colorado. Hoes don’t always want to do things you want them to do.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X