Bluelight

Thread: SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado Baker that refused to bake gay wedding cake 7-2

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 67 of 67
  1. Collapse Details
     
    #51
    Senior Moderator
    Sober Living
    Words
    Captain.Heroin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    My hopes are blighted, my heart is broken, my life a burden, everything around me is sad and mournful; earth has become distasteful to me, and human voices distract me. It is mercy to let me die, for if I live I shall lose my reason and become mad.
    Posts
    68,892
    What makes the cake gay?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #52
    Bluelighter ashwolf22101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Running with the wild horses
    Posts
    315
    Small business -> Family owned/private -> right to deny anyone service

    On the other hand, if it was a government employee or shop that reused serviced it would be wrong.

    Oh, and let us not even mention religious freedom. It seems to be so inversely used these days.

    And how does this family owned cake shop benefit more from tax dollars than your average joe?
    Last edited by ashwolf22101; 06-06-2018 at 07:05.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain.Heroin View Post
    What makes the cake gay?
    I don't know in this case because it was never brought up, but I'm gonna guess it has two guy's names on it or to women's.

    Or looks something like this...

    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #54
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,528
    Quote Originally Posted by ashwolf22101 View Post
    Small business -> Family owned/private -> right to deny anyone service

    On the other hand, if it was a government employee or shop that reused serviced it would be wrong.

    Oh, and let us not even mention religious freedom. It seems to be so inversely used these days.

    And how does this family owned cake shop benefit more from tax dollars than your average joe?
    You might not get an answer there. To the best of my knowledge only one person here was trying to make the tax money argument, and he stormed off when I said that perhaps i might have overlooked a good argument in favor of allowing business to deny service to gays but not blacks rather than both or neither. Apparently that was an unforgivable act of flip flopping and he wouldn't tolerate such indecision.

    Quote Originally Posted by nuttynutskin View Post
    I don't know in this case because it was never brought up, but I'm gonna guess it has two guy's names on it or to women's.
    I wish we actually knew though. I'd say what was asked for specifically could be pretty important in determining how reasonable a request it was.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #55
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,528
    So I went searching for the facts from a less biased source than the media. This is what I got. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...6-111_j4el.pdf

    EDIT: I realize now that this was actually the original link in the first post, I must have glossed over the URL info. Apologies droppers.

    Turns out they indeed did not deliberately provoke the baker, nor did they request any particular design. However, the commission in siding with them had on 3 separate occasions at around the same time ALSO argued that bakers DID have a right to refuse service to straight couples who requested antigay messages on their cakes, before giving a totally different interpretation for this man when it came to his religious beliefs. They also belittled him and made disparaging remarks comparing his views to the holocaust and such. It seems the Supreme Court did not accept this doubt standard as legally valid.

    It's also worth noting that gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado when this happened. There's all sorts of other interesting details so for anyone interested in the truth, I highly recommend reading this.

    Something else I take from this, is it sounds like it's entirely plausible that if you made it a legal requirement to serve the public no matter what they ask to be written on the cake, it might result in more cakes with antigay remarks than actual gay wedding cakes.

    Much as I'd love to he wrong, I have a feeling there are some here who had they realized THAT, might have taken a significantly different position.

    As I keep saying, these laws often have side effects that aren't always immediately obvious and should be given proper consideration.

    EDIT: So, did anyone else actually read this? I'll admit in hindsight I should have read it sooner, but based on most of the posts I get the feeling few else have at all given that it answers some of the questions here and provides important insight in other areas of this discussion.
    Last edited by JessFR; 06-06-2018 at 08:02.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #56
    Bluelighter ashwolf22101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Running with the wild horses
    Posts
    315
    Read it. Very good.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #57
    Quote Originally Posted by ashwolf22101 View Post
    Small business -> Family owned/private -> right to deny anyone service

    On the other hand, if it was a government employee or shop that reused serviced it would be wrong.
    That's the way I see it.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #58
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,797
    Quote Originally Posted by nuttynutskin View Post
    Of course a cake and a tattoo are different but I think the comparison is still valid in this case. And I don't see anyone hyperventilating, just stating their opinion.
    I don't see how a wedding cake and a tattoo are a good comparison, but okay.
    I meant the person on Yahoo was hyperventilating. Just my opinion.

    Assuming those are places gay people hang out, why? I think for the most part it's important to be tolerant of other people's beliefs and lifestyles, but I don't think that should mean you have to be comfortable with them or condone them. In all honesty a lot of people in the LGBT community try to shove their lifestyles down other people's throats. They want tolerance but what about tolerance for a straight white christian male with more conservative beliefs? That person is the enemy to a lot of the people in the LGBT scene.
    Many people have to deal with the norm of the straight white Christian-ish male.

    Too many don't understand what it feels like to be a complete minority who isn't welcome.

    I had no idea Bearbucks (it's a Starbucks that is a bear stronghold) was a place where I probably shouldn't go. I remember being stared at and feeling incredibly unwelcome. I literally had to ask a few huge guys to move. It was that way until I got my beverage and left. And it was a great learning experience.

    Tolerance is a great word.

    The reason a lot of minority/oppressed groups are stepping up is because they are sick of having a particular culture shoved down their throats. Like the LGBTQ community, women, black and Hispanic people, and people who aren't Christian, including atheists.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #59
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,797
    Quote Originally Posted by 3,4-dihydroxyphen View Post
    For an example of a potential ramification of ruling against the cake guy, let us consider this hypothetical: you yourself are a cake guy, and an alt-right dude walks into your store demanding a custom designed cake for a low key Nazi party he is throwing on April 20th. Feeling uncomfortable with this, you decline. You have no problem selling him a cake, but you would rather not participate in designing a cake for a guy celebrating Hitler's birthday. He then sues you for discriminating on the basis of his political beliefs (which are low key Nazi, but as far as public record is concerned, he is simply right-wing). While it wouldn't be as strong of a case as the gay couple had, it would be much stronger as a result of the precedents set by ruling in the gay couple's favor than it would have been had they ruled in the cake guy's favor.
    Seriously? There aren't anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws protecting Nazis, no matter how "low-key" for a reason.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #60
    Senior Moderator
    Sober Living
    Words
    Captain.Heroin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    My hopes are blighted, my heart is broken, my life a burden, everything around me is sad and mournful; earth has become distasteful to me, and human voices distract me. It is mercy to let me die, for if I live I shall lose my reason and become mad.
    Posts
    68,892
    Quote Originally Posted by cduggles View Post
    Seriously? There aren't anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws protecting Nazis, no matter how "low-key" for a reason.
    Yeah there are. The first amendment allows people to be jackasses.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #61
    Quote Originally Posted by cduggles View Post
    Seriously? There aren't anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws protecting Nazis, no matter how "low-key" for a reason.
    How would you explain the KKK getting a city permit to rally then?
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #62
    Moderator
    Current Events and Politics
    cduggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    In a chromatically corrected world
    Posts
    5,797
    Actually, there are no anti-discrimination or anti-hate crime laws protecting Nazis in the United States.

    That's not how you get a rally permit. That's a free speech thing.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #63
    Senior Moderator
    Sober Living
    Words
    Captain.Heroin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    My hopes are blighted, my heart is broken, my life a burden, everything around me is sad and mournful; earth has become distasteful to me, and human voices distract me. It is mercy to let me die, for if I live I shall lose my reason and become mad.
    Posts
    68,892
    Quote Originally Posted by cduggles View Post
    Actually, there are no anti-discrimination or anti-hate crime laws protecting Nazis in the United States.
    The first amendment generally protects this purview not explicitly, but implicitly.

    Strict constitutionalists will of course argue otherwise.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #64
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Francisco, Ca, US
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by JessFR View Post
    It's private land. Most stores lease their location from a private company that owns the land. It's a private company, it's not publicly traded.

    If I start a small business, what gives you the right to use force to tell me who I can and can't do business with? That's what's bullshit.
    The same right that lets society force a business... a food-service business, for example... to heat its chicken to 165 degrees; and to rotate its milk stock; and to sanitize, not just wash, its dishes; and to trash unused ingredients after their expiration date.

    A business is not a person. It is a convenient legal fiction... a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere. It doesn't have rights. It has privileges, extended to it in excess of those of a person. And it receives services from the state in excess of those extended to a person. As such and in return, it is entirely appropriate to regulate it in ways that the state would not regulate a person. Go ahead and "cook" your own only to 140, if that's the way you want to run your home kitchen. But don't you dare do so in a commercial kitchen.

    Health codes for businesses are in the interest of the greater good of society as a whole. So are anti-discrimination laws. Go be a bigot on your own time.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #65
    Senior Moderator
    Sober Living
    Words
    Captain.Heroin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    My hopes are blighted, my heart is broken, my life a burden, everything around me is sad and mournful; earth has become distasteful to me, and human voices distract me. It is mercy to let me die, for if I live I shall lose my reason and become mad.
    Posts
    68,892
    Businesses have rights, man. I don't know where you got that notion from.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #66
    Quote Originally Posted by SvnLyrBrto View Post
    The same right that lets society force a business... a food-service business, for example... to heat its chicken to 165 degrees; and to rotate its milk stock; and to sanitize, not just wash, its dishes; and to trash unused ingredients after their expiration date.

    A business is not a person. It is a convenient legal fiction... a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere. It doesn't have rights. It has privileges, extended to it in excess of those of a person. And it receives services from the state in excess of those extended to a person. As such and in return, it is entirely appropriate to regulate it in ways that the state would not regulate a person. Go ahead and "cook" your own only to 140, if that's the way you want to run your home kitchen. But don't you dare do so in a commercial kitchen.

    Health codes for businesses are in the interest of the greater good of society as a whole. So are anti-discrimination laws. Go be a bigot on your own time.
    There's a bit of a difference between safety regulations and moral obligations.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #67
    Moderator
    Current Events & Politics

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,528
    Quote Originally Posted by SvnLyrBrto View Post
    The same right that lets society force a business... a food-service business, for example... to heat its chicken to 165 degrees; and to rotate its milk stock; and to sanitize, not just wash, its dishes; and to trash unused ingredients after their expiration date.

    A business is not a person. It is a convenient legal fiction... a piece of paper in a filing cabinet somewhere. It doesn't have rights. It has privileges, extended to it in excess of those of a person. And it receives services from the state in excess of those extended to a person. As such and in return, it is entirely appropriate to regulate it in ways that the state would not regulate a person. Go ahead and "cook" your own only to 140, if that's the way you want to run your home kitchen. But don't you dare do so in a commercial kitchen.

    Health codes for businesses are in the interest of the greater good of society as a whole. So are anti-discrimination laws. Go be a bigot on your own time.
    People's physical health which is pretty much universally the same for everyone isn't even remotely the same thing as the imaginary right for a portion of society to be free of being offended by another portion of society.

    Businesses may not have inherent rights but people do, and people can own businesses. That is exactly why I see a difference in this regard between small businesses and larger ones.

    If you're the owner of a business, business time and your time is virtually the same thing.

    And as for this additional services from the government bs. People keep suggesting it without actually clarifying what they even mean by it. So I think I'm done arguing with that until someone elaborates. Especially since as I've already said, if that is indeed the case, then a way should be made to forfeit it for increased freedom.

    Some people here keep imagining businesses purely artificial people always responsible to greater society. That might well hold some truth for some businesses. But for very small businesses like the kind this thread was started over, it's a bullshit argument. Those are businesses small enough that they are essentially the personal property of an individual. One of many individuals who own such businesses. And so part of society itself and deserving of rights.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •