• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

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

So these companies that deny gay people service, do they still receive benefits from taxes that said gay people partially fund? If they dial 911, the police come? The public road outside their store, it still gets repaired? Are the gays allowed to opt out of paying for any service that might benefit that particular establishment? No? Well that doesn't seem that fair.
 
i think this is a hurdle but not a sweeping reform that some people were looking for. the decision seemed to focus quite narrowly on the colorado commission's mistakes rather than the bigger societal picture.

i think it is a blow to lgbtq advocates but it's not the worst outcome:

justice kennedy in the ruling said:
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

alasdair
 
Why do we the people wait for them the courts to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Why don't we just tell the courts? They are our courts and they work for us. Why do we let them think it's the other way around?

Direct democracy... let's send some civil servants home.
 
Why do we the people wait for them the courts to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Why don't we just tell the courts? They are our courts and they work for us. Why do we let them think it's the other way around?

Direct democracy... let's send some civil servants home.

That sounds like a horrible idea. Tyranny of the majority, it's the reason the founding fathers didn't want a direct democracy and I think they were right. And there's no justice in letting the public decide such things. The public is terrible at it.

Personally, while I don't agree with discriminating against LGBT groups, I think private businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason. If people don't like it they can boycott it, but leave the government out of it.
 
Lol... I remember this especially since this also happened with a bakery in my state. I think the right decision was made in this case. It's not like a gay couple were refused service at a restaurant or movie theater. Hell, they weren't even totally refused service by the christian bakers, they just didn't want to compromise their beliefs. I'm sure if they had wanted to buy anything other than a wedding cake for a same sex marriage the owners would've sold them whatever they wanted.
 
It's not like a gay couple were refused service at a restaurant or movie theater.
why are those any different to a bakery?

Hell, they weren't even totally refused service by the christian bakers, they just didn't want to compromise their beliefs.
they were refused service. the baker refused to bake their cake.

and how does making a cake for a gay customer compromise their beliefs? accepting somebody's custom doesn't explicitly or even implicitly suggest they are condoning that customer's private lifestyle.

certain right-leaners go on about how liberals are a bunch of sjw, crying snowflakes. jesus the irony...

alasdair
 
why are those any different to a bakery?

they were refused service. the baker refused to bake their cake.

Because the christian owners don't support gay marriage obviously. It's not like they were refused service for just any sort of cake. Either way I tend to side with the view that business owners should be able to run their business how they want within reason. I don't think it's fair that someone that doesn't support gay marriage that is directly or indirectly involved in the wedding industry should have to bend their beliefs.

and how does making a cake for a gay customer compromise their beliefs? accepting somebody's custom doesn't explicitly or even implicitly suggest they are condoning that customer's private lifestyle.

I think it does because it's forcing them at least indirectly to be a part of something they don't support.

certain right-leaners go on about how liberals are a bunch of sjw, crying snowflakes. jesus the irony...

I don't get what's ironic.
 
I think this is a state's rights issue (the right of a business not to serve a customer for any reason is a law some states have, etc.)

Yeah, I've gone to plenty of places that have a sign that says they have the right to refuse service for any reason. And it's not like there isn't probably a million other bakeries that would be happy to bake a cake that says Bob and Frank or Susan and Katy on it.
 
Last edited:
The irony I see is how the left goes on about tolerance for other people's beliefs but then when they don't get their way or someone doesn't wanna be involved with their beliefs their tolerance disappears and they go crying to the government to MAKE them participate by force.

All this shit about tolerance is a total fraud. It's only tolerance about a preset list of beliefs, as soon as it's not one of those beliefs, tolerance disappears very quickly.
 
Someone posted this on Yahoo...

"Everyone seems to have missed the elephant in the room. The gay couple wanted to commission a cake specifically for them. An artist is not required to take every commission offered. The Supreme Court itself need not take up every case requested by litigants."

I definitely agree and it made me think of another scenario... Should say a tattoo artist be forced to do a piece they don't agree with? I don't think so, and they aren't required to, so I see this wedding cake issue the same.
 
Last edited:
Someone posted this on Yahoo...

"Everyone seems to have missed the elephant in the room. The gay couple wanted to commission a cake specifically for them. An artist is not required to take every commission offered. The Supreme Court itself need not take up every case requested by litigants."

I definitely agree and it made me think of another scenario... Should say a tattoo artist be forced to do a piece they don't agree with? I don't think so, and they aren't required to, so I see this wedding cake issue the same.

While I don't much agree with forcing private individuals and small privately run businesses from being made to serve everyone at all times, even if in sympathetic in this instance and think their actual homophobic beliefs are bs. If I were OK with making them accept them as customers, I'm really not sure I see why artists should be exempted but not other people. Presumably the difference is that art is art and business is business, but people can take pride in their work even if their work isn't generally considered art. They're still both an amount of work done for payment. So why should an artist be exempted by not other professions? I just don't see an important difference.
 
Let's not get too carried away.

A cake is a cake.

A tattoo is forever or expensive to remove.

I appreciate that wedding cakes are quite difficult to make well, but unless these folks are the Michelangelo and Rodin of fondant, someone on Yahoo needs to stop hyperventilating about works of art.

I think every straight white guy should have to at least go to Bearbucks in SF's Castro District or a few places in South Beach I can think of offhand. I think it's a good thing for everyone to experience what being different is really like.
 
Let's not get too carried away.

A cake is a cake.

A tattoo is forever or expensive to remove.

I appreciate that wedding cakes are quite difficult to make well, but unless these folks are the Michelangelo and Rodin of fondant, someone on Yahoo needs to stop hyperventilating about works of art.

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 think every straight white guy should have to at least go to Bearbucks in SF's Castro District or a few places in South Beach I can think of offhand. I think it's a good thing for everyone to experience what being different is really like.

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.
 
The irony I see is how the left goes on about tolerance for other people's beliefs but then when they don't get their way or someone doesn't wanna be involved with their beliefs their tolerance disappears and they go crying to the government to MAKE them participate by force.

All this shit about tolerance is a total fraud. It's only tolerance about a preset list of beliefs, as soon as it's not one of those beliefs, tolerance disappears very quickly.

8)

No one says the baker can't have his beliefs, or go to church, or have a "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!!" bumper sticker on his car. But if he has a PUBLIC business...that is open to the PUBLIC...that benefits from GAY tax dollars as well as straight tax dollars...he shouldn't be able to deny a reasonable and ordinary request from a gay couple. He is refusing a request from a gay couple that he would have accepted from a straight couple. That is a fact. Any argument against this point is semantic and disingenuous.

I suggest to the baker, if your precious anti-gay beliefs are so important to you, open your business on private land. Run it from your home. Take private orders. Practice your art (lol...such BS) somewhere you can be free to discriminate as you please.
 
8)

No one says the baker can't have his beliefs, or go to church, or have a "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!!" bumper sticker on his car. But if he has a PUBLIC business...that is open to the PUBLIC...that benefits from GAY tax dollars as well as straight tax dollars...he shouldn't be able to deny a reasonable and ordinary request from a gay couple. He is refusing a request from a gay couple that he would have accepted from a straight couple. That is a fact. Any argument against this point is semantic and disingenuous.

I suggest to the baker, if your precious anti-gay beliefs are so important to you, open your business on private land. Run it from your home. Take private orders. Practice your art (lol...such BS) somewhere you can be free to discriminate as you please.

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.

Liberals talk about being about tolerance and peace and against violence, but it's all lies. It's tolerance until you disagree, then you use violence, force, guns, to get your own way.

You might call that an exaggeration to say you're using guns and violence, but it's not, cause it's ALWAYS guns and violence once you make it a matter of law. You tell me I have to serve someone, then if I refuse, you take me to court, then you give me a fine, if I refuse that, we start talking jail, if I refuse that, a warrant for my arrest is issued, and if i refuse that, force will be used, and finally if I refuse THAT, the guns come out. Fucking bunch of hypocrites.

If it's a privately owned small business it should get to do what it wants. You might get me to agree with using laws and force against large companies, publicly traded companies, but not against something this small.

Private businesses are not government services to which the public is entitled. You don't have a right to use private facilities however you like provided you compensate them for it. But that's always the belief of the extreme anti capitalist left, that all business are actually public services that exist for their use answerable to them, controlled by them. And to which defiance will result in the use of force. I don't accept that, that's fucked. Neither do I accept that the concept of "be tolerant and accepting or I'll hurt you" as either morally acceptable. Or rationally sensible.

Worse still, it's not like your options are force, or nothing. You COULD boycott the business, use social media to shut them down. Perfectly democratic, excellent example of community action at work. But no, you only do that if your first option fails, and the first option is always legal, which involves force. And violence if that force is continually resisted.
 
Last edited:
I think it's important to reiterate that this particular verdict was largely the result of perceived discrimination/unprofessionalism on the part of members of the Colorado court system.

As such, it doesn't really set much (if anything) in the way of precedent. The can was kicked a little further down the road where that's concerned.

Tbh, I haven't really investigated the implications should either side of this issue ultimately win this debate. While I consider myself an advocate of LGBT rights and detest the type bigotry displayed by the cake shop owner, I can see how a ruling compelling individuals to perform tasks they feel "uncomfortable" about or are "morally opposed to" could be dangerous and come with unforseen ramifications.
 
I think it's important to reiterate that this particular verdict was largely the result of perceived discrimination/unprofessionalism on the part of members of the Colorado court system.

As such, it doesn't really set much (if anything) in the way of precedent. The can was kicked a little further down the road where that's concerned.

Tbh, I haven't really investigated the implications should either side of this issue ultimately win this debate. While I consider myself an advocate of LGBT rights and detest the type bigotry displayed by the cake shop owner, I can see how a ruling compelling individuals to perform tasks they feel "uncomfortable" about or are "morally opposed to" could be dangerous and come with unforseen ramifications.

People so often ignore the implications. Or how little by little this shit gets out of control. Here in Australia, there's a guy named Andrew bolt. I can't say I have much nice to say about him, and the feelings pretty common. He's a conservative commentator, anyhow, he wrote an article about how it seemed like a lot of white people who were of predominantly white backgrounds seemed to frequently identify as aboriginal based on a small aboriginal background in their ancestors. A claim which, while not quite as simple as it made it sound, undoubtedly has some truth to it. But despite being fairly subjective, and having truth to it, and being an opinion by a social commentator. He was taken to court for violating the discrimination laws. And lost.

You're simply not allowed to say offensive things, true or not, about aboriginal Australians in a public forum in Australia. You do not have that free speech. I do NOT want America to become like that. I don't like Andrew bolt, but he should have been allowed to say whatever he liked. That it had some truth to it in this case only makes it that much worse.

Now, this isn't quite the same situation. But it's still using force to compel someone to act against their beliefs, as part of their privately owned business, or face repercussions by force. Not because of the community getting together and deciding freely not to give them their business. But because a few powerful individuals used their power to compel them by force. Now I don't agree with the bakers anti gay beliefs. I'll happily argue that gays should be allowed to get married and express affection to each other in public the way a straight couple can. But this shit goes too far.
 
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.

Lol. It's open to the public. That is the common usage of the word public. Semantic argument, as I predicted.

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 fact that you receive subsidies from the government. The fact that your business benefits from roads and transit and infrastructure that is paid for by tax dollars. Equal protection laws. Anti-discrimination laws.

Just for starters.

Liberals talk about being about tolerance and peace and against violence, but it's all lies. It's tolerance until you disagree, then you use violence, force, guns, to get your own way.

You might call that an exaggeration to say you're using guns and violence, but it's not, cause it's ALWAYS guns and violence once you make it a matter of law. You tell me I have to serve someone, then if I refuse, you take me to court, then you give me a fine, if I refuse that, we start talking jail, if I refuse that, a warrant for my arrest is issued, and if i refuse that, force will be used, and finally if I refuse THAT, the guns come out. Fucking bunch of hypocrites.

jesus. Not only is this exaggeration, but you're generalizing "liberals" again. I thought you were a centrist, but this sounds more teenage anarchist. Are you against the idea of government and law enforcement? If so, why are we even having this conversation?

If it's a privately owned small business it should get to do what it wants. You might get me to agree with using laws and force against large companies, publicly traded companies, but not against something this small.

What does the size of the company have to do with it? If you are standing by your principles, that shouldn't matter. Again, "privately owned" means nothing in the context of this debate. The distinction is whether the business is "open to the public". If your business is open to the public, you receive certain benefits, but at the same time you are held to a standard and must comply with certain laws. This is part of living in a civilized democratic society.

Private businesses are not government services to which the public is entitled. You don't have a right to use private facilities however you like provided you compensate them for it. But that's always the belief of the extreme anti capitalist left, that all business are actually public services that exist for their use answerable to them, controlled by them. And to which defiance will result in the use of force. I don't accept that, that's fucked. Neither do I accept that the concept of "be tolerant and accepting or I'll hurt you" as either morally acceptable. Or rationally sensible.

Worse still, it's not like your options are force, or nothing. You COULD boycott the business, use social media to shut them down. Perfectly democratic, excellent example of community action at work. But no, you only do that if your first option fails, and the first option is always legal, which involves force. And violence if that force is continually resisted.

this is just irrational nonsense, bordering on paranoia. What happened to the "love it or leave it" mantra the right used to love so much? Again, you can debate the idea of government, laws, and law enforcement. But that's an entirely different topic. To even enter into this particular debate, you must to some extent recognize the validity of laws. And what the hell is the point of laws without law enforcement ? Laws without law enforcement aren't laws. They are suggestions.
 
Top