SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The Black Forrest]

Soooooooo who should people be supporting then?

"No one" is an option. Syphoning off your principles to the only bidder is how we got the 2016 election

The libertarian thread is the next door over.

[The Black Forrest]

So this particular baker, because he was treated unfairly by the Commission, had his free exercise rights limited in an unconstitutional way, and he rightly won his case. But the ruling rests on the Commission's bias and hostility - not on the antidiscrimination law itself. As Justice Kagan writes in her concurrence, had the Commission not shown such hostility, its decision might even have stood - because the secular bakers would have refused to make homophobic cakes for any customers, regardless of religion, while Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple specifically because they were gay. That's a valid reason for the Commission to find discrimination in the second case but not the first. But instead of that rationale, it repeatedly demeaned the plaintiff and belittled his beliefs.

The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.

That's some rather interesting mental gymnastics.

[Reverend Norv]

So this particular baker, because he was treated unfairly by the Commission, had his free exercise rights limited in an unconstitutional way, and he rightly won his case. But the ruling rests on the Commission's bias and hostility - not on the antidiscrimination law itself. As Justice Kagan writes in her concurrence, had the Commission not shown such hostility, its decision might even have stood - because the secular bakers would have refused to make homophobic cakes for any customers, regardless of religion, while Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple specifically because they were gay. That's a valid reason for the Commission to find discrimination in the second case but not the first. But instead of that rationale, it repeatedly demeaned the plaintiff and belittled his beliefs.

The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.

Which may or may not have violated the ADA anyway. Most antidiscrimination statutes have some wiggle room. If I'm white, and I'm booking a motel room on behalf of my black friend, and the owner refuses to do business with me, he's still in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The courts have been clear that the whole point in antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations is to ensure equal access to services, which is compromised by discrimination even at second hand.

But the real point is that the case wasn't decided on any of those merits. It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues, he was clear that "the delicate question of when the free exercise of [Phillips'] religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."

[Auralia]

It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues...

Those hints and equivocations give us some sense as to how Kennedy will rule in future. And they seem to tilt somewhat in favour of religious liberty, per my analysis above.

[Reverend Norv]

It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues...

Those hints and equivocations give us some sense as to how Kennedy will rule in future. And they seem to tilt somewhat in favour of religious liberty, per my analysis above.

There's also these:

"While those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

"Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.

[The Black Forrest]

Those hints and equivocations give us some sense as to how Kennedy will rule in future. And they seem to tilt somewhat in favour of religious liberty, per my analysis above.

There's also these:

"While those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

"Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.

How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Baker discriminates against LGBT people.

Baker told that he shouldn't discriminate against LGBT people.

Baker complains about being discriminated against.

You literally couldn't make it up.

> Baker refuses to participate in pro-homosexual event because his religion says is an abomination

> Baker told that he will participate in that event at gunpoint (literally if he didn't comply, by threats of prison and bankrupting fines)

> Baker denied a fair hearing by the Colorado extortion panel

> Baker complains about being literally persecuted and threatened with bankruptcy and imprisonment for obeying the explicit commands of his religion

Yeah, you really can't make that up. That shouldn't happen in America.

---

Maybe if the government put a gun to your head and forced you to participate in an anti-gay event, or bake a cake that reads "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION", you might start singing a different tune!

[Bakra]

My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.

Which makes this funnier, because Ginsberg and her lackey Sotomayer seem to think kangaroo courts are ok if they agree with their agenda. The baker plainly broke the law, but they needed to do it in a civil capacity with a fair and just trial.

But don't listen to me. Those two experts seem to think a fair trial is only applicable to their ilk. I may be slightly perturbed by this.

[The Black Forrest]

My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.

Which makes this funnier, because Ginsberg and her lackey Sotomayer seem to think kangaroo courts are ok if they agree with their agenda. The baker plainly broke the law, but they needed to do it in a civil capacity with a fair and just trial.

But don't listen to me. Those two experts seem to think a fair trial is only applicable to their ilk. I may be slightly perturbed by this.

Let's leave the remarks about the justices out of it. The same can be said about Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito.......

[Bakra]

How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?

Sort of how the only way to deal with a Jew is to play their game: be crafty, underhanded, and lie to them about gas chambers.

[The Black Forrest]

How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?

Sort of how the only way to deal with a Jew is to play their game: be crafty, underhanded, and lie to them about gas chambers.

I'm sorry this isn't the stormfront site.

[Bakra]

Which makes this funnier, because Ginsberg and her lackey Sotomayer seem to think kangaroo courts are ok if they agree with their agenda. The baker plainly broke the law, but they needed to do it in a civil capacity with a fair and just trial.

But don't listen to me. Those two experts seem to think a fair trial is only applicable to their ilk. I may be slightly perturbed by this.

Let's leave the remarks about the justices out of it. The same can be said about Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito.......

Gorusch? I would be interested to see some examples about how he treats people differently before the law. He even states in his decision that "you need to be consistent, whether it's with the anti-gay cake or the gay marriage cake".

[Reverend Norv]

There's also these:

"While those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."

“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”

"Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.

How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?

For a start, don't say that homophobic cakes reflect speech by the baker, who is therefore excused from making them, while gay wedding cakes exclusively reflect speech by the customer, obliging the baker to make them. Laws of general application have to be applied generally. As a legal definition of tolerance, that's as good a place to start as any. Auralia's right that Kennedy clearly thinks that this stinks to high heaven, and while - as Kagan pointed out - there are ways around the problem, that imbalance shouldn't sit well with any of us.

More broadly: activists are free to be as intolerant of each other as they want. But the state cannot make its decisions out of hostility, because there are no enemies of the state in a free society. That's why the principle of tolerance, in the resolution of these disputes, has to be paramount - however intolerant the parties to those disputes may sometimes be.

[Bakra]

Sort of how the only way to deal with a Jew is to play their game: be crafty, underhanded, and lie to them about gas chambers.

I'm sorry this isn't the stormfront site.

It was sarcasm.

[Vassenor]

Baker discriminates against LGBT people.

Baker told that he shouldn't discriminate against LGBT people.

Baker complains about being discriminated against.

You literally couldn't make it up.

> Baker refuses to participate in pro-homosexual event because his religion says is an abomination

> Baker told that he will participate in that event at gunpoint (literally if he didn't comply, by threats of prison and bankrupting fines)

> Baker denied a fair hearing by the Colorado extortion panel

> Baker complains about being literally persecuted and threatened with bankruptcy and imprisonment for obeying the explicit commands of his religion

Yeah, you really can't make that up. That shouldn't happen in America.

---

Maybe if the government put a gun to your head and forced you to participate in an anti-gay event, or bake a cake that reads "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION", you might start singing a different tune!

So where does the bible explicitly demand that homosexuals be discriminated against?

Also >extortion panel

Nice to see you're not even trying to approach this from a neutral frame of reference.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.

I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.

• Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
• Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
• Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
• Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.

---

Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.

I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.

We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.

Why do we still have the government in it?

[Kramanica]

The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.

Which may or may not have violated the ADA anyway. Most antidiscrimination statutes have some wiggle room. If I'm white, and I'm booking a motel room on behalf of my black friend, and the owner refuses to do business with me, he's still in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The courts have been clear that the whole point in antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations is to ensure equal access to services, which is compromised by discrimination even at second hand.

But the real point is that the case wasn't decided on any of those merits. It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues, he was clear that "the delicate question of when the free exercise of [Phillips'] religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."

They're still allowed access to services. They're simply not willing to bake them a cake for this specific circumstance.

[West Leas Oros]

I'm sorry this isn't the stormfront site.

It was sarcasm.

Usually you need to specify if you’re being sarcastic. Use this face :^)

[Vassenor]

As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.

I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.

• Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
• Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
• Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
• Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.

---

Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.

I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.

We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.

Why do we still have the government in it?

But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?

[Kramanica]

As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.

I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.

• Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
• Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
• Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
• Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.

---

Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.

I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.

We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.

Why do we still have the government in it?

But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?

Can you show us on the doll where the Christians touched you?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

So where does the bible explicitly demand that homosexuals be discriminated against?

The Bible explicitly forbids Christians from practicing sexual immorality, in both Testaments. The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality and sodomy as sinful abominations, in both Testaments. This includes a refusal to participate in pro-LGBT events.
(Besides, this fundamentalist baker has been frequented by many LGBT customers and he never denied them service until they tried to shake him down into celebrating homosexuality.)

The Bible orders Christians to follow the law and submit to the state unless the state compels them to defy/renounce God and/or to participate in sin. This is a clear-cut case of that very matter: honor God and possibly go to prison or bankruptcy, or kneel before the altar of sodomy and defy one's Christian fundamentalism.

The free expression of religion does not end at the threshold of the church vestibule.

[Krasny-Volny]

As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.

I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.

• Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
• Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
• Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
• Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.

---

Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.

I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.

We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.

Why do we still have the government in it?

But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?

Christians do not treat any man as being less than human if they are truly followers of Christ.

[Ethel mermania]

As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.

I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.

• Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
• Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
• Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
• Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.

---

Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.

I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.

We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.

Why do we still have the government in it?

But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?

Which has nothing to do with this case.

[Reverend Norv]

Which may or may not have violated the ADA anyway. Most antidiscrimination statutes have some wiggle room. If I'm white, and I'm booking a motel room on behalf of my black friend, and the owner refuses to do business with me, he's still in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The courts have been clear that the whole point in antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations is to ensure equal access to services, which is compromised by discrimination even at second hand.

But the real point is that the case wasn't decided on any of those merits. It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues, he was clear that "the delicate question of when the free exercise of [Phillips'] religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."

They're still allowed access to services. They're simply not willing to bake them a cake for this specific circumstance.

That's not how public accomodations law works. To quote the decision again, the point in civil rights laws is to protect certain classes of persons "in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” So if they want a wedding cake, they should be able to get it on the same terms and conditions as everybody else, "lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons." And the courts have held since at least the 1960s that the government has every right to pass laws to combat that community-wide stigma.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

But when something hurts Christians' feelings... ...then it should be fixed?

Dude, Christians are "stigmatized", defamed, blasphemed, mocked, deridden, and ridiculed on a daily basis. It's on every show, every late night discussion, and even a five-day "fashion"/blasphemy festival at a place called Met in New York City. (Of course, you never catch someone doing that to Muslims.)

I have NEVER advocated for any of that to be shut down by the state. Compulsory/establishment of religion is an abomination and taxpayer subsidies for religion is an abomination. If we have a right to live according to our faith, you have a right to mock us for it, but you can't put a gun to our heads and demand we kneel before an altar of sin.