SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Thermodolia]

Apparently, this case will not set a precedent. Discrimination isn't allowed, art is protected. Oh well. Close enough.

Anti-discrimination laws are still legal. And it’s not so much that art is protected in that the CCRC has outrageously hostile to said Baker’s religion

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Good. I do wonder, however, how such a case would've gone had it been a black person instead

Why?

[Geneviev]

Apparently, this case will not set a precedent. Discrimination isn't allowed, art is protected. Oh well. Close enough.

Anti-discrimination laws are still legal. And it’s not so much that art is protected in that the CCRC has outrageously hostile to said Baker’s religion

Right. I forgot about that part.

The important thing is that it won't make discrimination legal.

[Thermodolia]

It may be legal
But it’s still both a dumb and mean thing to do

It may be legal
But it’s still both a dumb and mean thing to do

Agreed. It's still not nice, but apparently a wedding cake is art protected by the first amendment.

Again that’s not true at all. The court didn’t rule on the legality of the law but on the very specific case at hand which they found that the CCRC was openly hostile to this mans religion and didn’t play the role of neutral arbitrator.

Anti-Discrimination laws are still legal.

[Thermodolia]

Splitting hairs. Saying that one form of discrimination is acceptable while another isn't acceptable just puts us on a path that leads to some very dark places. Attempting to exonerate "private" discrimination just because of the mere fact that it is "private" doesn't really work. You are underplaying what his discrimination meant. It didn't just mean they had to buy somewhere else, just like refusing to serve blacks doesn't just simply mean "they have to buy somewhere else"...

I don’t believe it’s “splitting hairs” at all. The government is funded by tax payers and private business, such as this cake shop is funded by the owner, possibly a financial institution and his customers. LGBT people have the right and should have the right to access government services but nobody has the right to force someone to participate in a ceremony they find immoral. Why would a LGBT persons want to give their money to someone that finds their wedding immoral anyway?

What I want to know is why they wanted to put anything besides the traditional white on the cake

[Cedoria]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

True, but "I don't like the customer's private life" should not be a good reason.

I thought you Americans already had this discussion about whether you can refuse services to people on the grounds that you don't like one innate characteristic or another? It was called segregation. No surprise that a Supreme Court stacked with far-right religious loons wants to bring it back, but still disappointing.

[The New California Republic]

What I want to know is why they wanted to put anything besides the traditional white on the cake

What else was going on the cake?

[Geneviev]

It may be legal
But it’s still both a dumb and mean thing to do

Agreed. It's still not nice, but apparently a wedding cake is art protected by the first amendment.

Again that’s not true at all. The court didn’t rule on the legality of the law but on the very specific case at hand which they found that the CCRC was openly hostile to this mans religion and didn’t play the role of neutral arbitrator.

Anti-Discrimination laws are still legal.

I know that. That's the good thing about this.

[Thermodolia]

What I want to know is why they wanted to put anything besides the traditional white on the cake

What else was going on the cake?

Idk. I just assumed there was something to do with rainbows because how else would said Baker know that a gay couple is buying it for their wedding. Also apparently he offered to give the couple a white cake.

[Thermodolia]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

True, but "I don't like the customer's private life" should not be a good reason.

I thought you Americans already had this discussion about whether you can refuse services to people on the grounds that you don't like one innate characteristic or another? It was called segregation. No surprise that a Supreme Court stacked with far-right religious loons wants to bring it back, but still disappointing.

SCOTUS is hardly stacked with far right religious loons. You have two moderate republicans, two far right judges, four liberal justices, and one libertarian.

[The New California Republic]

What else was going on the cake?

Idk. I just assumed there was something to do with rainbows because how else would said Baker know that a gay couple is buying it for their wedding. Also apparently he offered to give the couple a white cake.

Hmm. Well I'd maybe understand his refusal a bit more if the cake they wanted was extremely graphic, such as a phallus-shaped cake or the like (some cake makers do make those sorts of cakes, for hen parties and such), but refusing to make a cake with certain colours on it just seems odd (if that was the case here). If it was me, I'd just take the white cake from him, and then decorate it myself with rainbow ribbon around the bottom or something, or just chuck two grooms on the top.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

True, but "I don't like the customer's private life" should not be a good reason.

I thought you Americans already had this discussion about whether you can refuse services to people on the grounds that you don't like one innate characteristic or another? It was called segregation. No surprise that a Supreme Court stacked with far-right religious loons wants to bring it back, but still disappointing.

SCOTUS is hardly stacked with far right religious loons. You have two moderate republicans, two far right judges, four liberal justices, and one libertarian.

Who's the libertarian?

[The South Falls]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

True, but "I don't like the customer's private life" should not be a good reason.

I thought you Americans already had this discussion about whether you can refuse services to people on the grounds that you don't like one innate characteristic or another? It was called segregation. No surprise that a Supreme Court stacked with far-right religious loons wants to bring it back, but still disappointing.

It's pretty much a 5-4 religious split.

[Greater Catarapania]

It doesn't seem that absurd. If I were a baker being forced to work by the Colorado government, I'd cry foul as well.

You don't find it absurd that the Baker discriminated against some people, and then has the gall to complain that he himself is being discriminated against?

If it isn't absurd, then the entire thing is most certainly hypocritical...

Only if you assume that every case of discrimination is equal.

Discrimination on the basis of religion is only justified if the religion in question is some kind of f*cking death cult. Like, one of the lines of their creed is literally "we must murder everyone on the planet to please the dark gods" level bullsh*t. Obviously, conservative Christianity (whatever its shortcomings) doesn't meet that criterion. Nor, for that matter, does Islam, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle or behavioral proclivity is a whole 'nother ball game. A bartender can discriminate against alcoholics by refusing to serve them, for example, and that's arguably morally commendable. If traditional Christian views on sexual ethics are to be present in the Overton window (and refusing to make such an allowance would exhibit an unmitigated bigotry to make the Westboro baptists look like f*cking hippies), then we have to recognize that the baker in this case sees himself as doing something analogous to the bartender - refusing to cater to somebody else's personal demon.

Asking him to bake that cake would - as far as the baker's concerned - be asking him to help them along their way to Damnation. You might just as well ask him to shove them into his oven with the cake. To make such a ludicrous demand, to display such wanton disregard for the rights of conscience, is quite simply absurd. And to have the gall to do so in the name of "tolerance" and "non discrimination" is hypocritical in the extreme.

[Geneviev]

You don't find it absurd that the Baker discriminated against some people, and then has the gall to complain that he himself is being discriminated against?

If it isn't absurd, then the entire thing is most certainly hypocritical...

Only if you assume that every case of discrimination is equal.

Discrimination on the basis of religion is only justified if the religion in question is some kind of f*cking death cult. Like, one of the lines of their creed is literally "we must murder everyone on the planet to please the dark gods" level bullsh*t. Obviously, conservative Christianity (whatever its shortcomings) doesn't meet that criterion. Nor, for that matter, does Islam, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle or behavioral proclivity is a whole 'nother ball game. A bartender can discriminate against alcoholics by refusing to serve them, for example, and that's arguably morally commendable. If traditional Christian views on sexual ethics are to be present in the Overton window (and refusing to make such an allowance would exhibit an unmitigated bigotry to make the Westboro baptists look like f*cking hippies), then we have to recognize that the baker in this case sees himself as doing something analogous to the bartender - refusing to cater to somebody else's personal demon.

Asking him to bake that cake would - as far as the baker's concerned - be asking him to help them along their way to Damnation. You might just as well ask him to shove them into his oven with the cake. To make such a ludicrous demand, to display such wanton disregard for the rights of conscience, is quite simply absurd. And to have the gall to do so in the name of "tolerance" and "non discrimination" is hypocritical in the extreme.

Perhaps the baker should learn to think differently, then.

[Claorica]

No, because he was legitimately discriminated against and practicing religion isn't discrimination.

Discrimination against LGBT people isn't legitimate discrimination?

refusing to create a custom-made product for a purpose that you don't agree with is discrimination?

[The New California Republic]

Asking him to bake that cake would - as far as the baker's concerned - be asking him to help them along their way to Damnation. You might just as well ask him to shove them into his oven with the cake.

Yup, the road to hell is paved with rainbow-colored frosting.

[Claorica]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

True, but "I don't like the customer's private life" should not be a good reason.

I thought you Americans already had this discussion about whether you can refuse services to people on the grounds that you don't like one innate characteristic or another? It was called segregation. No surprise that a Supreme Court stacked with far-right religious loons wants to bring it back, but still disappointing.

Except this isn't that at all.

This is the same thing as a black person trying to contract a white nationalist to custom-make a black-power cake or a white person trying to contract a black person to make a cake with Jefferson Davis' face on it. It would be discrimination if the baker said "in fact, I won't just not make you that cake but I won't even sell you that other cake over there." This was very specifically the baker saying "I'm not going to make a custom product that explicitly supports something which I don't agree with." Would you take a muslim to court for refusing to make you a cake for a Christmas party?

[Telconi]

Only if you assume that every case of discrimination is equal.

Discrimination on the basis of religion is only justified if the religion in question is some kind of f*cking death cult. Like, one of the lines of their creed is literally "we must murder everyone on the planet to please the dark gods" level bullsh*t. Obviously, conservative Christianity (whatever its shortcomings) doesn't meet that criterion. Nor, for that matter, does Islam, but that's a topic for a different thread.

Discrimination on the basis of lifestyle or behavioral proclivity is a whole 'nother ball game. A bartender can discriminate against alcoholics by refusing to serve them, for example, and that's arguably morally commendable. If traditional Christian views on sexual ethics are to be present in the Overton window (and refusing to make such an allowance would exhibit an unmitigated bigotry to make the Westboro baptists look like f*cking hippies), then we have to recognize that the baker in this case sees himself as doing something analogous to the bartender - refusing to cater to somebody else's personal demon.

Asking him to bake that cake would - as far as the baker's concerned - be asking him to help them along their way to Damnation. You might just as well ask him to shove them into his oven with the cake. To make such a ludicrous demand, to display such wanton disregard for the rights of conscience, is quite simply absurd. And to have the gall to do so in the name of "tolerance" and "non discrimination" is hypocritical in the extreme.

Perhaps the baker should learn to think differently, then.

I thought Germans weren't allowed to say stuff like that anymore.

[Argentinstan]

Surprisingly I don't know what to think of the ruling.

While I believe that the case is similar in the way to adoption agencies (religious) refusing to handle the cases of gay or LGBT couples because of the views, I don't support that. So I don't support this ruling in that way.

However the couple, in this case, should have the right to carry out their daily business without being harassed and be treated the same as other Americans, their rights under the law.

And also, in this case, this was in Colorado which allows same-sex marriage. I believe circumstances would be different in a state that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Regardless, this is a conflicting issue. I don't know what you all think but I am leaning to siding with the couple here.

[Geneviev]

Perhaps the baker should learn to think differently, then.

I thought Germans weren't allowed to say stuff like that anymore.

Really? We are.

[New Emeline]

I thought Germans weren't allowed to say stuff like that anymore.

Really? We are.

Methinks he's referencing a certain historical event...

[The New California Republic]

Surprisingly I don't know what to think of the ruling.

While I believe that the case is similar in the way to adoption agencies (religious) refusing to handle the cases of gay or LGBT couples because of the views, I don't support that. So I don't support this ruling in that way.

However the couple, in this case, should have the right to carry out their daily business without being harassed and be treated the same as other Americans, their rights under the law.

And also, in this case, this was in Colorado which allows same-sex marriage. I believe circumstances would be different in a state that prohibits same-sex marriage.

Regardless, this is a conflicting issue. I don't know what you all think but I am leaning to siding with the couple here.

It always gets complex when the wishes and rights of different groups in society directly clash. Sure, if certain people have the means to buy a product, they should be able to do so. However, a salesman has no obligation to sell something either. Gay people have a right not to be discriminated against, but artisans shouldn't be compelled to craft something that they don't want to either. It is one of those situations where nobody wins.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Really? We are.

Methinks he's referencing a certain historical event...

Ah yes
Those damn Holy Romans

[Geneviev]

Really? We are.

Methinks he's referencing a certain historical event...

I know.

People always are.