SCOTUS Sides With Baker

2»

Replies

  • BallaCoiPersiciBallaCoiPersici NW Italy (Laveno Mombello)Posts: 4,404 Captain
    Your wife wouldn't have any problem if she decides to not have business, even without any valid reason, with male, Caucasian, straight, Christians, etc.
    But will be the hell for her if she decides to not have business, despite the best reasons, with females or gays or not Caucasian or Islamic, etc.

    This is the nowadays world. Just the new discrimination rules.


    Massimo (former Ballak) - Please, be patient for my English

    My YouTube Channel

    I'm typing with my "pasta hole" closed :grin !
    Being politically correct is a self-inflicted slavery.
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,532 AG
    Your wife wouldn't have any problem if she decides to not have business, even without any valid reason, with male, Caucasian, straight, Christians, etc.
    But will be the hell for her if she decides to not have business, despite the best reasons, with females or gays or not Caucasian or Islamic, etc.

    This is the nowadays world. Just the new discrimination rules.


    Oh pobrecito. White men have it sooooo bad...so bad in today's society. I wonder how they accomplish anything at all with everything stacked against them....
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,515 Admiral
    cadman said:
    The ruling was a slap on the wrist to the commission that spent a lot of time and energy making the baker out to be some form of xenophobe instead of treating this as it would any other complaint.  The baker is actually the one with a true civil case in that the amount of business he lost as a result of the exposure is measurable I am sure.  All that aside there is a lot of turmoil in the case, I personally feel that if you are in business you would be foolish to take this stance since it will most likely lose you customers.  But I also feel we should be allowed to do business with those of our choosing as long as we are obeying the law.
    The baker violated Colorado law. Colorado law prohibits the refusal of service based on  race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. it is one of twenty states that have such laws,. 

    The Colorado Civil Rights commission however violated the baker's right of free exercise of religion in their handling of the case. 




    The baker didn't refuse service. 
  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain
    cadman said:
    cadman said:

    I remember this story, and I immediately thought it has been surreal they had sued him instead than chose another bakery.

    It sounded immediately like a politically correct crusade to me.

    Glad the SC has decided that freedom is also politely refuse business for respecting personal values (even I don’t like religious radicalism).

    Common sense still exists. A good news.

    The couple did not sue him.They did go to another baker, but they also filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission is the entity that is involved in this court case, not the gay couple. 

    Here is the actual ruling from the Supreme Court

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

    The court ruled the Civil Rights Commission  violated the Free Exercise Clause of the constitution in regards to the baker,. It was an interesting decision. 

    Ah, ok.

    They sued him for free, using a specific institutional instrument available only for some categories. Bad for the State that have this kind of politically correct rules that help some frustrated people to easily took their useless revenges with a huge cost for the whole community.
    Indeed my point was about the revenge, the crusade and the huge protectionism for some categories.
    Moreover this makes grow intolerance instead than to decrease it (who has privileges is always envied and hated by those who haven't the same benefits).

    Western world has moved from discrimination (bad) to hyper-protectionism (bad).
    We should have stop in the middle also because enforcing hyper-protectionism for few people means create meanwhile discrimination for most people.



    Nobody sued anybody. You don't seem to understand the case.


    He understands it very well. He understands that it was all about revenge. Period. It pizzed them off, they decided to be offended, and filed a complaint. That's what the whole thing was about, as is every other similar case out there. The Court will continue to find against them. 
  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain

    dave44 said:
    No Cad, she didn’t perceive a wrong against her for being gay. You didn’t know she was gay so she must not have told you.
       She was trying to use the Colorado doctrine for revenge/payday. You really did get lucky, she’ll hone her methods and get there eventually.
    This ^ 
    The next time she will play the gay card upfront, and then threaten to file a complaint everytime she gets warned for not doing her job. And before some of you poop yourself, doing so isn't a gay thing, there's a bunch of sorry people out there doing the same thing. Not just gays. 
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,532 AG
    One ups the hating christer baker. #winning


    Like This Page · Yesterday via Instagram ·
     
    We hate to even have to say it but yes, of course we'll make your desserts!
    #wedontdiscriminate #lovewins #pridemonth
    .
    .
    .... See More

    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain
    So, you know for a fact that the baker hates gays? Someone inform you of that, or did you ask the baker? 
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,014 AG
    No one should be forced via the government bootheal to cater to anyone.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 1,481 Officer
    Soooo much white guilt in here.  Soo much straight guilt in here too
  • dave44dave44 Posts: 6,927 Admiral
    You’ve had a mental break dog. Maybe you should get that looked at.
  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain
    I thought this thread was about a Court decision. Instead, it's turned into another Trump hater thread. 

  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 4,475 Captain
    They can't help themselves.Doc.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,775 Captain
    Soooo much white guilt in here.  Soo much straight guilt in here too
    Its not just in the chatroom it's across the country. An outsider would think that every American comes home at night crying and wishing they could be black and gay. Truth is no one cares. They;re busy providing for their families ....

    A white person should try to force a black or gay baker to make a Ku Klux Klan cake. Maybe in the shape of an oak tree with several people hanging from it. Then take it to the Supreme Court
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,193 Admiral
    There are a lot of differing opinions in this thread, but I think we can all agree, everybody loves cake. 
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,775 Captain


    And I would be willing to bet a million bucks you see no problem with your idiotic statement....
    Children bet a million bucks. Next you'll be using hashtags...... Besides your nasty Birkenstocks and a quarter bag of mexican would never cover your debt

    The KKK is/was religious based. So if a business owner refuses service based on sex or religion what's the difference?
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,532 AG


    And I would be willing to bet a million bucks you see no problem with your idiotic statement....
    Children bet a million bucks. Next you'll be using hashtags...... Besides your nasty Birkenstocks and a quarter bag of mexican would never cover your debt

    The KKK is/was religious based. So if a business owner refuses service based on sex or religion what's the difference?
    Children say hashtag, adults call it a pound sign.... ;)
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • Soda PopinskiSoda Popinski GrovelandPosts: 8,193 Admiral
    Cyclist said:


    And I would be willing to bet a million bucks you see no problem with your idiotic statement....
    Children bet a million bucks. Next you'll be using hashtags...... Besides your nasty Birkenstocks and a quarter bag of mexican would never cover your debt

    The KKK is/was religious based. So if a business owner refuses service based on sex or religion what's the difference?
    Children say hashtag, adults call it a pound sign.... ;)
    That's what always confused me about the #metoo movement.   Pound Me too????  Uhhh ok
    People use statistics the way a drunk uses a street light, for support rather than illumination.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,452 Admiral
    cadman said:
    ....
    3) The ACLU was not a participant in this case, not sure why you mention them
     ?????
    The ACLU defended the gay couple
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,452 Admiral
    cadman said:
    kellercl said:
    Slough said:
    As a private business owner, I should be able to choose who I do business with. 

     Which is a fair point, IMHO.  My wife does graphic design work and her point was, if the KKK asked for a new logo, should she be legally bound to do it?  She wants nothing to do with them, and she should be free not to associate.    
    Do you not understand how civil rights law work ans why we have them?

     No, since her decision isn't based on their sex, race, religion, national origin, color, age, or nationality and in some states sexual orientation. She could refuse Republicans if she wanted or Democrats. 

    But should she be allowed to refuse to do logos for blacks? How about Jews? How about women?

    There are groups that have been discriminated against and refused service just due to their skin color or sex or religion. We have laws due to this discrimination. 




    the issue wasn't that the baker refused to serve a gay couple.  The baker refused to custom design something specifically for a ceremony he didn't believe in.

    there is a difference.


  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,154 AG
    edited June 6 #51
    What's the difference?

    In both cases, the baker discriminated against the couple based on his "beliefs".  To me, the custom design part is an impertinent yet exploitable detail, and this type of thinking opens the door on all sorts of religion-based discrimination.

    I'm not much of a slippery slope guy, but the precedence that could set by this issue does concern me.

    Hypothetically speaking, if the cookie monster whispers to me in a dream and says mixed-race couples will spend eternity in a broiling oven, when a mixed-race couple show up at my bridal shop (asking for an off-the-shelf dress or custom dress work, no matter) I should not be able to discriminate against them because of that religious belief.

    For me at least, the right to be NOT discriminated against supersedes expression of religious beliefs, and I have to imagine those on the other side of he debate simply value things differently.
  • TarponatorTarponator Under a BridgePosts: 10,154 AG
    edited June 6 #52
    Simmer down, boys.  Don't make me separate you.  :)

    For what it's worth, I think that John made a very valid parallel that should be answered rather than denigrated.  He's touching on the same point of justification of discrimination that troubled me a few posts above as well. 
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,775 Captain
    It's psycholist I coined that thank you .I should trademark it
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,532 AG
    It's psycholist I coined that thank you .I should trademark it
    I'm infamous!
    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain
    Simmer down, boys.  Don't make me separate you.  :)

    For what it's worth, I think that John made a very valid parallel that should be answered rather than denigrated.  He's touching on the same point of justification of discrimination that troubled me a few posts above as well.   

    Johns point is very valid. But our resident bike rider will never admit it.  
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Posts: 6,452 Admiral
    edited June 7 #56
    What's the difference?

    In both cases, the baker discriminated against the couple based on his "beliefs".  To me, the custom design part is an impertinent yet exploitable detail, and this type of thinking opens the door on all sorts of religion-based discrimination.


    he didn't kick the couple out.  he didn't refuse to sell them things all together. 

    He refused to create something custom for an event he had personal objections to, and which was his right.  His generically produced goods were offered to them, but they refused.

    Does a wedding event define a a same sex couple?  No.  The marriage wasn't even legal at the time.

    if a Jewish couple had come in and demanded a kosher cake and he refused, would that have been racist?  What happens when restaurants in general don't provide kosher meals, are they being anti-Semitic?

    There is a difference between generic production of things and a commission of art, which is what this baker was asked to do.

    to turn things around, using the KKK example, if a black baker was asked to create a custom designed cake for a KKK meeting, would you have a problem if he refused?  I wouldn't.  It wouldn't be refusal based on race, it would be refusal based on the event.

    but if those same members walked into the same baker's shop and tried to buy the generically produced doughnuts in the display case, the baker should not be able to refuse service.


    there is a difference



  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,059 Captain
    I would agree with
    all of that. Bike boy wouldn’t 
  • 1outlaw1outlaw Naples FLPosts: 643 Officer
    Gotta agree with Homer.... It’s also my understanding that the baker wouldn’t do Halloween cakes either.
    Jason :USA
  • dragon baitdragon bait Posts: 5,593 Admiral
    A Tennessee hardware store owner is celebrating the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of a bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding by placing a "No Gays Allowed" sign in front of his store.

    .http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391249-tennessee-store-puts-no-gays-allowed-sign-back-up-after-supreme-court-cake-ruling
  • stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 4,475 Captain
    A Tennessee hardware store owner is celebrating the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of a bakery that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding by placing a "No Gays Allowed" sign in front of his store.

    .http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/391249-tennessee-store-puts-no-gays-allowed-sign-back-up-after-supreme-court-cake-ruling
    I suspect there's not to many gays that buy hardware.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 18,996 AG
    Some prefer to live in alternate reality where the sky is not blue, and every decision is conservative unicorn pooping rainbow cupcakes.

    The Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Christian bakers at Masterpiece Cakeshop had the right to refuse service to a gay couple. #SCOTUS ruled only that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give them a fair hearing. 1st Amendment and equal rights issues remain unresolved.

    But don't let fact get in the way of your reality
    Because the baker didnt do that so how could the SC rule that he had that right?  The baker NEVER refused to bake the couple a cake. He just didnt want to decorate it the way they wanted it. 
2»

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file