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

[SheWasLvL18]

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.

That's a good point and I was chuckling while reading that. Thank you for expanding on your previous post.

 

[swilow]

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. .

I'm sorta disappointed you would use both extreme generalisation as well as creating absurd situations in which liberal policies are enacted by force to prove the same point about how only you see the reality here ("if I refuse" that's your problem, not mine or any other liberal fucking hypocrites).

The attempts at tolerance are admirable but they are the same as shooting dissidents which is the absurd claim you are making.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

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

Then really the problem is the state (appeals?) court judges, yes?

People think a state is "blue" but it often is not (repub's loaded in the state legislature, as governor, staunch pro-cops pro-big-state judges etc.).

I wonder if the two men in question were life-long Coloradans or moved there for the gay marriage and perceived liberalness of the people, gov't etc.

P.S. the supreme court is a part of the problem; no one but Thomas stood up for CA gun rights. 7/5 split for gay marriage right was weak and unnecessary (the gay agenda is weak itself; much more important issues impacting the gay community than marriage equality).

Did anyone really expect the supreme court to make the right call here?

 

[Captain.Heroin]

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.

The implication you make is that liberals are for tolerance in general.

I'm sure that's a generalization you can make, but we're not all like that.

It's an issue of moral objectivism vs. moral subjectivism vs. moral relativism in philosophy.

Specifically I believe in moral subjectivism. Tolerance is not required or an objective moral value in my book. That doesn't make me a conservative.

It just happens that a lot of liberals also happen to be moral relativists and don't understand the problem with relativism (if tolerance is necessary then that there is your, at least, one moral objective, and you cannot tolerate intolerance...)

 

[JessFR]

The implication you make is that liberals are for tolerance in general.

I'm sure that's a generalization you can make, but we're not all like that.

It's an issue of moral objectivism vs. moral subjectivism vs. moral relativism in philosophy.

Specifically I believe in moral subjectivism. Tolerance is not required or an objective moral value in my book. That doesn't make me a conservative.

It just happens that a lot of liberals also happen to be moral relativists and don't understand the problem with relativism (if tolerance is necessary then that there is your, at least, one moral objective, and you cannot tolerate intolerance...)

I'll admit that it's a generalization born from frustration.

I'm sorta disappointed you would use both extreme generalisation as well as creating absurd situations in which liberal policies are enacted by force to prove the same point about how only you see the reality here ("if I refuse" that's your problem, not mine or any other liberal fucking hypocrites).

The attempts at tolerance are admirable but they are the same as shooting dissidents which is the absurd claim you are making.

I really don't think it's absurd to call it a use of force and violence, if that's what you're suggesting. By using the law and the courts to compel me to do something like accept your business and built something custom made for you, that's a use of force. If I resist that force, it will eventually result in violence towards me. That is what you support when you support the use of law to get the outcome you desire. Now obviously some things should be against the law, and sometimes force and violence is called for. But I think people fail to recognize the violence they make themselves responsible for by advocating the use of law for their political beliefs.

If you say I can't legally refuse someone's business, you are saying that you support the use of force to make me comply. If I don't comply, and that law is used, I will be made to appear in court, if I resist, men with guns will come after me. Then when I'm found guilty, if I continue to resist, geneally eventually I'll be given a more serious sentence. If I resist that sentence, men with guns will compel me to do so, and if I continue to resist I'll be injured or killed. So it's either comply, or force will continue until you do so.

The people who advocate for these kinds of laws seem to refuse to acknowledge the violence involved in enforcing them. They aren't the ones doing it so they pretend it doesn't exist.

Nonviolent options exist, community boycotts for example, but many here seem to consider that option unacceptable. They want their views imposed by force. I think thats wrong. The use of violence and punishment by either fines or imprisonment etc shouldnt be exercised lightly. Let alone when for all we know the offending behavior could be the refusal to work to produce something they find offensive.

That's not tolerance that's intolerance.

 

[nuttynutskin]

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

I don't because I'm not racist. I can see that it could be a somewhat slippery slope as where to draw the line regarding who businesses can refuse to cater to, but at the same time I also think it's a slippery slope when there's too much government control (I tend to lean on the side of libertarianism). I think most people can agree that businesses should cater to all races, but when religion and beliefs come into play I think it makes things a bit trickier. I honestly would have to think about this a bit more for a better answer. I will say tho that I would have no problem for a bakery to cater exclusively to the LGBT community.

Also, I think dihydroxyphen makes some good arguments.

 

[JessFR]

I don't because I'm not racist. I can see that it could be a somewhat slippery slope as where to draw the line regarding who businesses can refuse to cater to, but at the same time I also think it's a slippery slope when there's too much government control. I think most people can agree that businesses should cater to all races, but when religion and beliefs come into play I think it makes things a bit trickier. I honestly would have to think about this a bit more for a better answer. I will say tho that I would have no problem for a bakery to cater exclusively to the LGBT community.

Also, I think dihydroxyphen makes some good arguments.

See that's another way in which I don't think you can consistently have it both ways. Catering to LGBT groups is fine, but if that meant refusing anyone else, that's refusing service because of your beliefs again.

Way I see it, if you provide a service only to one group of people on the basis of their race or gender or sexuality that's the same thing as refusing that service to everyone outside that group for their race gender, sexuality etc.

 

[swilow]

I'll admit that it's a generalization born from frustration.



I really don't think it's absurd to call it a use of force and violence, if that's what you're suggesting. By using the law and the courts to compel me to do something like accept your business and built something custom made for you, that's a use of force. If I resist that force, it will eventually result in violence towards me. That is what you support when you support the use of law to get the outcome you desire. Now obviously some things should be against the law, and sometimes force and violence is called for. But I think people fail to recognize the violence they make themselves responsible for by advocating the use of law for their political beliefs.

If you say I can't legally refuse someone's business, you are saying that you support the use of force to make me comply. If I don't comply, and that law is used, I will be made to appear in court, if I resist, men with guns will come after me. Then when I'm found guilty, if I continue to resist, geneally eventually I'll be given a more serious sentence. If I resist that sentence, men with guns will compel me to do so, and if I continue to resist I'll be injured or killed. So it's either comply, or force will continue until you do so.

The people who advocate for these kinds of laws seem to refuse to acknowledge the violence involved in enforcing them. They aren't the ones doing it so they pretend it doesn't exist.

Nonviolent options exist, community boycotts for example, but many here seem to consider that option unacceptable. They want their views imposed by force. I think thats wrong. The use of violence and punishment by either fines or imprisonment etc shouldnt be exercised lightly. Let alone when for all we know the offending behavior could be the refusal to work to produce something they find offensive.

That's not tolerance that's intolerance.

I see what you are saying but it isn't entirely logical. It's taking an argument to absurd lengths.

For example, I believe laws against littering should be enforced. By your logic, I implicitly support violence against litterers. And as a non violent person, I'd be hypocrite. I don't support violence but I support laws which fine people who litter. Anyone who doesn't litter implicitly supports that law by perpetuating its prohibitions. Anyone who doesn't litter therefore supports violence against those who do. Any law abiding citizen is violent. Which is absurd.

Though I've spoken about my distaste for punishment meted out by state. So am playing devil's advocate to some extent.

On topic, I do not support laws which protect religions over non religious people. I don't think they should have any role in law in the first place. My suggestion would be to boycott this business as bigoted cunts (itself an act of violence- if a fine is violent, economic penalties are too) and for other local bakers to stand up and bake fucking cakes for whoever can pay.

 

[JessFR]

I see what you are saying but it isn't entirely logical. It's taking an argument to absurd lengths.

For example, I believe laws against littering should be enforced. By your logic, I implicitly support violence against litterers. And as a non violent person, I'd be hypocrite. I don't support violence but I support laws which fine people who litter. Anyone who doesn't litter implicitly supports that law by perpetuating its prohibitions. Anyone who doesn't litter therefore supports violence against those who do. Any law abiding citizen is violent. Which is absurd.

Though I've spoken about my distaste for punishment meted out by state. So am playing devil's advocate to some extent.

On topic, I do not support laws which protect religions over non religious people. I don't think they should have any role in law in the first place. My suggestion would be to boycott this business as bigoted cunts (itself an act of violence- if a fine is violent, economic penalties are too) and for other local bakers to stand up and bake fucking cakes for whoever can pay.

Well, yes if you support laws against littering, you're saying you're willing to ultimately use violence to enforce it. I'm not saying that's wrong, or that the use of violence is always inherently wrong. Or that you can't be against violence in general while accepting its use in certain situations.

I'm saying that using the law, is using force, and if it comes to it, violence. And that that should be kept in mind when deciding if the benefits are worth it. It's easy to sort of just think of the repercussions as no big deal. But it can become a big deal when that force is brought into conflict with something someone truly believes in. And that if you're going to do that, you should fully appreciate the implications and potential side effects.

Very very few people have such a deeply held belief in the moral rightness of littering and would be willing to bring the situation to where violence would be needed to enforce the repercussions. But it becomes much more plausible when it starts getting into beliefs held for religious reasons.

Ultimately what I'm saying here is that I think the people advocating it be illegal aren't really acknowledging the full implications. And I think many of these people have a very specific idea of what is and isn't tolerance, and conveniently that definition excludes anyone they disagree with politically. That's what's hypocritical.

There are other options rather than using the law and force. But these people seem to feel it should be their first option rather than their last. Really I'm not sure I'm on board with anti littering laws for similar reasons. Seems like something where you could do just as much good if not more without using force of law. I think we miss out of all sorts of better options by constantly just thinking we should just pass a law to fix any problem. Without much thought to the side effects or how it affects the people brought into the cross hairs.

Not to mention that as soon as you decide that it's OK to force businesses to take actions based on social moral issues, that tool can be much more easily misused for other purposes as well.

 

[nuttynutskin]

See that's another way in which I don't think you can consistently have it both ways. Catering to LGBT groups is fine, but if that meant refusing anyone else, that's refusing service because of your beliefs again.

Well not refusing anyone else, but I mean making solely gay wedding cakes that people could buy.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

What makes the cake gay?

 

[Ketamania]

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?

 

[nuttynutskin]

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...

 

[JessFR]

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.

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.

 

[JessFR]

So I went searching for the facts from a less biased source than the media. This is what I got. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_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.

 

[Ketamania]

Read it. Very good.

 

[quiet roar]

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.

 

[cduggles]

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.

 

[cduggles]

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.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

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.