SCOTUS Sides With Baker

stc1993stc1993 Albany, GA Carrabelle, FLPosts: 4,497 Captain
edited June 4 in Off Topic #1
who refused to bake wedding cake.  About time for some common sense.  They keep calling it a narrow victory, it was 7-2 that's not narrow in my book.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/narrow-ruling-supreme-court-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946
«1

Replies

  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 22,777 AG
    Narrow in the sense that the ruling only applies to this particular case. See below.

    But the opinion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might decide future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who have cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage decision.

    133cbf2b243368b1ddb2f591a1988076--beach-posters-florida-travel.jpg
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 1,491 Moderator
    It is a very narrow ruling and leaves a lot still unsaid. It seems to be more about the state commission's attitude towards the baker than any perceived bias on the baker's part towards the couple
    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
  • Westwall01Westwall01 Posts: 4,793 Captain
    Still a ruling. Accept it
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 1,491 Moderator
    Of course I accept it. Why wouldn't I?  It's the law of the land I live in. 


    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
  • BallaCoiPersiciBallaCoiPersici NW Italy (Laveno Mombello)Posts: 4,417 Captain
    edited June 4 #6

    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.

    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.
  • FinfinderFinfinder Posts: 9,550 Admiral
    It's the ACLU trying to cherry pick what they perceive as week a spot in the constitution.


      
  • MelbourneMarkMelbourneMark Posts: 1,512 Captain
    Freedom of association is very important.  I'm glad the SC sides with this; however as already said, there will be more similar cases testing religious freedom.  

    *personal opinion: any PRIVATE person, group, organization should be able to associate with any person(s) they want to.  
    **the Colorado ethics board or whatever (and other state groups) is a complete waste of time, air, and tax payers $$.  THIS is prime example of an abuse of govt.  
    (had the gay couple went to the media, got attention, the baker likely would have gotten flack and changed their tune OR go out of business) no need for govt to get involved 
  • SloughSlough S.w. Ga./ St. JamesPosts: 4,337 Captain
    As a private business owner, I should be able to choose who I do business with. 
    I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,850 Captain
    It's nice to see a judgement go in the direction of We the People. All men are created equal according to the Bill of Rights.
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    edited June 4 #11

    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. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,046 AG
    A victory for common sense. 
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • Reptile DysfunctionReptile Dysfunction LP - Edge of the Known UniversePosts: 3,113 Captain
    fins4me said:
    A victory for common sense. 
    Yep. Was Ruth Buzzie Ginsberg on the wrong side as usual?
    "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free" - P. J. O'Rourke
  • Bimini TwistedBimini Twisted Posts: 10,862 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
  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,850 Captain
    At the heart of the matter was a social agenda. The baker was was willing to provide any baked goods that they requested, but he chose not to make a wedding cake because he didn't believe in it. Instead of taking their business elsewhere they decided to make an issue out of it under the guise of social justice. It's shameful that anyone would believe that way
    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • ferris1248ferris1248 Posts: 1,491 Moderator
    At the heart of the matter was a social agenda. The baker was was willing to provide any baked goods that they requested, but he chose not to make a wedding cake because he didn't believe in it. Instead of taking their business elsewhere they decided to make an issue out of it under the guise of social justice. It's shameful that anyone would believe that way

    The Court's decision had nothing to do with what you said.
    "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole of the law. The rest is commentary."

    Rabbi Hillel (c20 BCE)
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    edited June 4 #17
    At the heart of the matter was a social agenda. The baker was was willing to provide any baked goods that they requested, but he chose not to make a wedding cake because he didn't believe in it. Instead of taking their business elsewhere they decided to make an issue out of it under the guise of social justice. It's shameful that anyone would believe that way
    So any time you feel a business treats you unfairly and you report it to the state agency in charge of that business. all you are doing is trying to make an issue out of it for your privater social agenda.

    A lot of people have a lot of social agendas going on. There are 1000s of complaints filed each year in Florida alone to various agencies. 

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • pottydocpottydoc Posts: 2,177 Captain
    You guys keep trying to believe it wasn't a victory for the baker, and others like him. The couple got their pants in a wad, and filed a complaint because they were mad. Colorado only did something about it because they were gay. If it had been a heterosexual Christian couple, it would have went no where. And while this particular case might be limited, the decision obviously shows which way he he Court was leaning. It won't be the last case where someone's religious rights are supported by the Court. And if Ginsburg kicks the bucket while Trump is still in office, those decisions will keep happening for a long time. 
  • Florida Ex-patFlorida Ex-pat Posts: 500 Deckhand
    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.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    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. 




    Mini Mart Magnate

  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,503 Captain
    edited June 4 #21
    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.    
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    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. 




    Mini Mart Magnate

  • treemanjohntreemanjohn Posts: 2,850 Captain
    So what happens when someone's sexual orientation clashes with someone's religious beliefs? Both are protected

    The only purpose of this entire case was too bring pain to the baker, prove a point, and to hostba victims group. It only made the opposition on both sides dig in. Very counter productive .

    The ACLU only cares about certain demographics. Why didn't they come to the rescue of the baker? 


    We’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing, and that ends President Trump
  • BallaCoiPersiciBallaCoiPersici NW Italy (Laveno Mombello)Posts: 4,417 Captain
    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.



    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.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    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.


    Mini Mart Magnate

  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    edited June 5 #26
    So what happens when someone's sexual orientation clashes with someone's religious beliefs? Both are protected

    The only purpose of this entire case was too bring pain to the baker, prove a point, and to hostba victims group. It only made the opposition on both sides dig in. Very counter productive .

    The ACLU only cares about certain demographics. Why didn't they come to the rescue of the baker? 


    1) The conflict of rights was the issue here, but SCOTUS side stepped slightly by focusing on the commission's violation of the baker's rights.

    2) The ACLU  does not care about one demographic. They defended the KKK in the past. Their only concern  is a person's civil rights no matter who they are. I don't always agree with them, but they do stick with their principles no matter which side it is on. 

    3) The ACLU was not a participant in this case, not sure why you mention them

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • BallaCoiPersiciBallaCoiPersici NW Italy (Laveno Mombello)Posts: 4,417 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.


    I understood.

    Technically it hasn't been a lawsuit, but the focal point doesn't change.
    The baker got lot of troubles because someone revenged against him using the available (politically correct) bureaucracy.
    Substance is substance, technical aspects are only useless details.


    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.
  • cadmancadman Home of the Gators Posts: 23,982 AG
    edited June 5 #28
    I understood.
    Technically it hasn't been a lawsuit, but the focal point doesn't change. 
    The baker got lot of troubles because someone revenged against him using the available (politically correct) bureaucracy.
    Substance is substance, technical aspects are only useless details.



    People use the government bureaucracy all the time to get revenge for a wrong they feel they got from a business. Does this one upset you because the couple was gay? what would your feelings be if they were black? How about when you visited the U.S.. How would you have felt if a business said they didn't want to serve you due to your accent or because you weren't American?

    The couple is not the issue. The commissions handling of the case was the issue. 

    I have the distinction of probably being the only person on this site charged with firing a person because they were gay. While gays aren't protected under Florida Law, they are under a local City of Gainesville ordinance. I had to provide evidence I did not discriminate, which was easy since i had several gay employees at the time and my records did not reflect any bias in hiring.. The funny part was, I didn't even know the girl was gay when i fired her, she was fired for being a lousy employee. 

    In my case the local agency in charge made the right decision and found me not guilty of the charge and dropped the case, It cost me a few hours time putting documents together and going to a hearing. It cost the local taxpayers money to hire the judge handling the case. But the girl was within her rights, she was upset over what she perceived as a wrong against her. 


    Mini Mart Magnate

  • dave44dave44 Posts: 7,017 Admiral
    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.
  • BallaCoiPersiciBallaCoiPersici NW Italy (Laveno Mombello)Posts: 4,417 Captain
    edited June 5 #30
    cadman said:
    I understood.
    Technically it hasn't been a lawsuit, but the focal point doesn't change. 
    The baker got lot of troubles because someone revenged against him using the available (politically correct) bureaucracy.
    Substance is substance, technical aspects are only useless details.



    People use the government bureaucracy all the time to get revenge for a wrong they feel they got from a business. Does this one upset you because the couple was gay? what would your feelings be if they were black? How about when you visited the U.S.. How would you have felt if a business said they didn't want to serve you due to your accent or because you weren't American?

    The couple is not the issue. The commissions handling of the case was the issue. 

    I have the distinction of probably being the only person on this site charged with firing a person because they were gay. While gays aren't protected under Florida Law, they are under a local City of Gainesville ordinance. I had to provide evidence I did not discriminate, which was easy since i had several gay employees at the time and my records did not reflect any bias in hiring.. The funny part was, I didn't even know the girl was gay when i fired her, she was fired for being a lousy employee. 

    In my case the local agency in charge made the right decision and found me not guilty of the charge and dropped the case, It cost me a few hours time putting documents together and going to a hearing. It cost the local taxpayers money to hire the judge handling the case. But the girl was within her rights, she was upset over what she perceived as a wrong against her. 


    Your personal experience is the proof that this kind of protectionism is an idiocy.
    Your had to demonstrate you fired her not for sexual discrimination but because she has been a bad employee.
    If you had fired a heterosexual (white, better ;)) no one had would ask you the reason. Instead she was gay and she used the protectionism bureaucracy to obtain a favored treatment, costing furthermore a lot of money at the whole community.

    BTW I had some problems abroad (not in USA) because I'm Italian, anyway I'm also a pragmatic person. As first I have to admit that some Italians abroad behave like animals and who had bad experience has his good reasons to refuse some services. Then I always found alternatives, so why waste my time ? For a puerile revenge ?
    I could have many way to create troubles at that people but I didn't.

    So in this specific case the bureaucracy has been like a gun. If you don't pull the trigger the gun doesn't shot. But they pulled the trigger, they wanted to shot, they wanted their puerile revenge.


    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.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 1,503 Captain
    edited June 5 #31
    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. 




    For me the broader point is my wife, a petite female, shouldn't be forced to do business with any person (or group) that makes here uncomfortable.  And yes, it is a slippery slope.  She probably wouldn't want to support pro life groups either, a group which could assert they are based on religion.  She stays away from politically driven work.  I believe, as a small family business, she has the right to pick and choose.  If she didn't want to support blm would that be racism or just potentially protecting her brand give it wouldn't sit well with her general customer base? Again, a bunch of gray areas.  There isn't an easy answer, imho.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.