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

[zephyr]

why are those any different to a bakery?

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

This angle of thought is not concerning politics or even gay rights but just a different perspective.

The buissness can refuse service based on .anything and that's always been the case so this refusal because the customer is gay does indeed make the Baker a bigot. . Easily identifiable too and therefore also an idiot.

A gay couple would be very unlikely to want a cake made by a bigot .

The referendum here made bigot wedding businesses easy to spot, the retaliation in return was the community making a blacklist of the bigot buisnessesand available to boycott and also known lbgt friendly ones who were already known by gay regulars to direct them more customers.

FB businesses capitalised on this and can add in a lbgt friendly option for people who prefer to support LGBT people overall or if they want to avoid being refused coz gay.

Slight issue with the lbgt community being used as a marketing tool just as it has worked here but that's marketing for ya.

Not really that interested in the whole marriage equality or left right thing being divorced but everyone here can figure out for themseves that marriage is the happy ever after the divorce rate proves it isn't for half the population who go there.


Wedding s and the trimmings being half price for gay couples for a while kinda pissed me off a bit as did specials on dog washes and haircuts for gay couples , that seemed a bit more like a money grab and not actually lbgt support especially since those ploys didn't last more than a month.

 

[JessFR]

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



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.



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?



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.



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.

I'm not against laws or government. I'm against them being used in this way. I don't like ranting about liberals, since I have a quite a few shares beliefs with the left, but it seems appropriate in this situation. So a better way of saying it is I'm against extreme liberals.

I can somewhat get on board with the "getting benefits from the government means you're accountable" argument, but there should be a way out. You should be able to have some way to run a business and get to choose who you work with. Maybe that way should be cut off from certain tax funded benefits, i'm sympathetic to that rationale, but there should he an option. Open to the public is not open to everyone all the time. There are female only gyms for example.

The reason I think the size of the company, and it being publicly traded or not matters, is the question of to what degree it already operates under collective decision making. More people influencing how a company runs makes it closer to a service than one person's personal operation. Likewise, being bigger means questionable use of that freedom impacts more people.

What I'm really saying here, is that a private small company belongs to someone, or a very small group, and it should be there's to decide who they do business with. An open house is open to the public but isn't publicly owned. Being open to the public is not public ownership. That's not simply symantics its an accepted legal reality.

It is a reality of business that you're already answerable to the public, in today's social media reality, being a bigot can kill your business if indeed the public really is antibigotry. So there's already accountability. But that seems to not be enough for you, you want a central authority to enforce it legally. That's less democratic than a community boycott. The only reason to prefer legal action is to use violence to make them comply, regardless of what the community thinks. Cause if the community truly agreed they could shut it down with no force with a boycott with social media.

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm gonna play both sides of the fence here... one one hand, it is clear discrimination. If the discrimination was made on a racial basis, I think the way people would be talking about this would be different. Imagine a black couple walking into a business and being denied service because they were black, or the same for hispanic, or whatever.

On the other hand, maybe someone who owns a business has the right to refuse service to someone. And if they do, they have to face the social repercussions, which this business most certainly will be facing at this point, whether the supreme court/laws get involved or not. Public outcry is a powerful force. And making laws compelling individuals/businesses to behave in certain ways could be a slippery slope. I certainly find it distasteful and problematic for a business to display bigotry towards anyone for any reason, and you can be sure that I would not patronize this business as a result of their actions. I'd go to another cake shop, as the couple in question could do, and as many other couples will now do who disagree with the owners' bigotry.

Either way, I think it was important for this to come up, to shed some light on the issue.

 

[JessFR]

I'm gonna play both sides of the fence here... one one hand, it is clear discrimination. If the discrimination was made on a racial basis, I think the way people would be talking about this would be different. Imagine a black couple walking into a business and being denied service because they were black, or the same for hispanic, or whatever.

On the other hand, maybe someone who owns a business has the right to refuse service to someone. And if they do, they have to face the social repercussions, which this business most certainly will be facing at this point, whether the supreme court/laws get involved or not. Public outcry is a powerful force. And making laws compelling individuals/businesses to behave in certain ways could be a slippery slope. I certainly find it distasteful and problematic for a business to display bigotry towards anyone for any reason, and you can be sure that I would not patronize this business as a result of their actions. I'd go to another cake shop, as the couple in question could do, and as many other couples will now do who disagree with the owners' bigotry.

Either way, I think it was important for this to come up, to shed some light on the issue.

Speaking for myself, that is something I thought about. What if they were denying service to someone for being black. Way I see it you can't have it both ways. Either you agree that both must be served or both can be denied. The only other option that's rationally consistent is to argue that being gay is a choice while being black isn't, which is complete bullshit. And having considered that, I'm on the both can be denied side. For small privately owned businesses. I honestly believe in most of the country, community activism would stop such behavior anyway.

As I've said before though, I'm much less committed to this libertarian line of extreme personal choice when it comes to larger companies. Largely because I value personal freedom very highly and I don't want to see it violated if there's another way. And a few small racist and homophobic business owners seems far less a justification to me to violate that freedom than if it were say, google or something.

Ultimately I believe in the best interests of society with an emphasis on personal freedom. So I'll support curtailing that freedom if I feel the social benefits are worth the loss. So I'll be inclined to be much more restrictive on large multinationals than small business.

 

[alasdairm]

Either way I tend to side with the view that business owners should be able to run their business how they want within reason.

right - we're just discussing where the 'within reason' line is drawn. do you support a business' right to refuse to serve a customer solely because they're black?

honestly i can see this issue from both sides.

alasdair

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

I'm gonna play both sides of the fence here... one one hand, it is clear discrimination. If the discrimination was made on a racial basis, I think the way people would be talking about this would be different. Imagine a black couple walking into a business and being denied service because they were black, or the same for hispanic, or whatever.

On the other hand, maybe someone who owns a business has the right to refuse service to someone. And if they do, they have to face the social repercussions, which this business most certainly will be facing at this point, whether the supreme court/laws get involved or not. Public outcry is a powerful force. And making laws compelling individuals/businesses to behave in certain ways could be a slippery slope. I certainly find it distasteful and problematic for a business to display bigotry towards anyone for any reason, and you can be sure that I would not patronize this business as a result of their actions. I'd go to another cake shop, as the couple in question could do, and as many other couples will now do who disagree with the owners' bigotry.

Either way, I think it was important for this to come up, to shed some light on the issue.

The historical problem that pops up when businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they choose, no matter how discriminatory, is that you end up with huge pockets of the country where discriminatory refusal of service is so commonplace, that the group being discriminated against is ultimately denied access to essential goods and services necessary to sustain a first world quality of life. This is largely why anti-discrimination laws were passed in the first place.

The central question this debate raises is just how far we should take those laws.

Perhaps the solution is to attack the root of the problem, and legally declare that religious belief can no longer be used as a justification for bigotry and discrimination?

 

[JessFR]

The historical problem that pops up when businesses are allowed to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they choose, no matter how discriminatory, is that you end up with huge pockets of the country where discriminatory refusal of service is so commonplace, that the group being discriminated against is ultimately denied access to essential goods and services necessary to sustain a first world quality of life. This is largely why anti-discrimination laws were passed in the first place.

The central question this debate raises is just how far we should take those laws.

Perhaps the solution is to attack the root of the problem, and legally declare that religious belief can no longer be used as a justification for bigotry and discrimination?

That won't help anything, religious belief is just one of many justifications. That's also not the root of the problem. The bigotrys the root of the problem not the excuses people use or the actions they take because of it. Banning it doesn't stop people having those beliefs and that's the root cause.

Besides, i don't see how gays could be entirely cut off from services that way because you can't immediately know someone's gay. Which occurs to me now as a much better rational for arguing that refusing to serve gays is OK but black people isn't. The former can't result in total denial of service even in a highly bigoted community.

With that in mind, i'm reconsidering what I said before. Maybe you can have it be OK to deny service to gays but not blacks. Not sure that's what I believe yet, I'd need to think it over more. But it's a much better argument than the one that first came to my mind.

 

[mal3volent]

That won't help anything, religious belief is just one of many justifications. That's also not the root of the problem. The bigotrys the root of the problem not the excuses people use or the actions they take because of it. Banning it doesn't stop people having those beliefs and that's the root cause.

Besides, i don't see how gays could be entirely cut off from services that way because you can't immediately know someone's gay. Which occurs to me now as a much better rational for arguing that refusing to serve gays is OK but black people isn't. The former can't result in total denial of service even in a highly bigoted community.

With that in mind, i'm reconsidering what I said before. Maybe you can have it be OK to deny service to gays but not blacks. Not sure that's what I believe yet, I'd need to think it over more. But it's a much better argument than the one that first came to my mind.

I'm really glad you did finally just say it, because it prevented me from wasting more of my time posting in this thread. Enjoy floundering around for another 5 pages trying to find a point of view. I'm just gonna cut this one off early, personally.

 

[JessFR]

Oh well sorry for not mindlessly sticking to an argument once a better one comes up. Actually I changed my mind yet again, I'm not sorry. Cya!

 

[Droppersneck]

When those purported to be the tolerant are intolerant of anyone else’s personal preferences this is what you get. From my understanding is this couple came there from Massachusetts to challenge this Baker, anyone have the details? Also, this baker offered to sell them cakes he simply didn’t want to specifically bake them a cake which violated his religious beliefs. He also doesn’t make Halloween cakes, anti American cakes, etc. I don’t really get the hang up myself, I’d bake the damn cake, but I’m not religious. I was thinking about this today, seems like if conservative gays got together and found a Very religious baker of another Abrahamic religion this would get squashed in the court of public opinion pretty quickly. I wish I was independently wealthy I would fund these types of things to see it through. Any legal scholars here, does this case set precedent? Or no, since it wasn’t a unanimous decision. Can store owners know refuse general service to gay folks? That wouldn’t seem right, but not sure if any of that was specified.

 

[alasdairm]

i'd love to understand how baking them a cake makes them compromise their beliefs but selling them a cake does not. seems very muddled to me.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

i'd love to understand how baking them a cake makes them compromise their beliefs but selling them a cake does not. seems very muddled to me.

alasdair

One requires a lot more work. Could also depend a lot on what they actually asked him to do with it.

If droppers is right and they actually deliberately tried to find someone who'd be prejudiced against them so they could start something, apart from that officially destroying any sympathy I had, it would also imply they deliberately made the request as provocative as possible.

If.

 

[alasdairm]

One requires a lot more work.

so it's ok to do some work and take money from the gays but not too much work? again, seems pretty muddled.

If droppers is right and they actually deliberately tried to find someone who'd be prejudiced against them so they could start something...

i've read through the thread and can't see this claim. help me out?

thanks.

alasdair

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

so it's ok to do some work and take money from the gays but not too much work? again, seems pretty muddled.

i've read through the thread and can't see this claim. help me out?

thanks.

alasdair

The idea is that baking and designing the cake is a more "artistic" or personalized endeavor than simply serving a customer in a diner or allowing them to enter your grocery mart. The cake guy has to take a much more active and participatory role than a simple clerk working a cash register. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he refused to design a cake specifically for an event whose very nature he was morally opposed to.

While I think he is a bigoted piece of shit, I'm uneasy at the thought of the government compelling individuals to take such an active or participatory role in something they may have objection to. I'm generally an ardent defender of and proponent for anti-discrimination laws, but this might be a bridge too far. The prececents set by such a verdict could be dangerous.

 

[alasdairm]

The idea is that baking and designing the cake is a more "artistic" or personalized endeavor than simply serving a customer in a diner or allowing them to enter your grocery mart. The cake guy has to take a much more active and participatory role than a simple clerk working a cash register. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he refused to design a cake specifically for an event whose very nature he was morally opposed to.

sure. i see what you are saying. i just think it's muddled and hypocritical to say "if i make you a cake specially i'm compromising my beliefs but if i sell you one i'm not".

thanks for the comments 34-dihydro, jess et. al.

alasdair

 

[JessFR]

so it's ok to do some work and take money from the gays but not too much work? again, seems pretty muddled.

i've read through the thread and can't see this claim. help me out?

thanks.

alasdair

Droppers post before mine, second sentence. I don't know if it's true though.

The difference is, if it is indeed true, for all we know maybe they intentionally wanted to get denied and asked for a personalized cake of two guys fucking or something. I don't know if it's true, but it's plausible. And I'd say that's a pretty understandable reason why they might be willing to sell them one but not make them one.

Though regardless, I feel the point is they have a right to refuse service regardless of how stupid the reason is.

 

[alasdairm]

Droppers post before mine, second sentence. I don't know if it's true though.

based on my (admittedly quick) background reading, it's not true at all.

I think this is a state's rights issue...

it's my understanding that the colorado anti-discrimination act "...prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation". seems pretty clear cut to me. but then i'm not a supreme court justice

the lower court found that "...despite the nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion."

alasdair

 

[SheWasLvL18]

While I think he is a bigoted piece of shit, I'm uneasy at the thought of the government compelling individuals to take such an active or participatory role in something they may have objection to.

I agree with this. I think he has the right to not do it, but he is doing so for the wrong reason. Although, it's a difficult question because I wouldn't want like a taxi/uber driver to be able to turn someone down for their orientation. I guess I would prefer people just provided service to everyone and chalked it up to one of the many concessions we make to live in society.

 

[JessFR]

Strictly speaking, there not being an amendment for it doesn't make it not still a right. There's even an amendment for that.

But regardless, it's constitutionality is a different question to if it's right to legislate it. In spite of what I just suggested, I tend to think making it illegal to serve people on these grounds probably isn't unconstitutional. But I still disagree with it.

 

[34-dihydroxyphen]

I agree with this. I think he has the right to not do it, but he is doing so for the wrong reason. Although, it's a difficult question because I wouldn't want like a taxi/uber driver to be able to turn someone down for their orientation. I guess I would prefer people just provided service to everyone and chalked it up to one of the many concessions we make to live in society.

An Uber/taxi ride doesn't require the same type of "artistic" or personalized participation that baking a cake (ostensibly) would. Refusing to provide something as simple and depersonalized as a taxi ride based on race/gender/sexual orientation absolutely does (and should) fit under the existing anti-discrimination umbrella (although it would be pretty difficult to sue for). This case is about the degree the degree of active, individualized or "artistic" participation one must engage in, in order to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

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.

While this may seem a far from perfect example, all you really need is one Trump appointed curcuit court judge looking to cuck the libs with their own legal victories to really get this precedent snowball rolling downhill.