SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

This wasn't turnabout, love or war, it's just hypocrisy.

Well it wasn't love.

Or war. Or Turnabout.

Just you being a hypocrite.

I want an apology for that liar remark btw.

[Infected Mushroom]

YES!

OH MY GOD!

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PREVAILED!

(sorry for the caps, I cannot contain my absolute excitement and elation)

[Telconi]

Well it wasn't love.

Or war. Or Turnabout.

Just you being a hypocrite.

I want an apology for that liar remark btw.

No it was definitely the other two.

Good for you.

[Right wing humour squad]

YES!

OH MY GOD!

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PREVAILED!

(sorry for the caps, I cannot contain my absolute excitement and elation)

Dude go reread it.

[Dagnia]

Even as a gay man who hopes to marry some day, I was strongly in favor of the baker. Legally, I never thought the plaintiff had much ground to stand on. It's not like that Kentucky marriage license clerk, who rightfully went to jail, thinking she could legislate something from her desk and deny people a right that was already the law of the land. This is a private business that produces a certain range of goods and services, and gay wedding cakes were not on that list. Also, unless this is a major chain of bakeries, I think it's safe to say they have fewer than the number of employees usually required to be subject to any kind of discrimination law at all.
The biggest reason I'm happy about the decision is that otherwise this opens the door to either forcing any business to serve or produce products for anyone who asks, or simplifying things by creating a few protected classes of people that you can't discriminate against. If it's the former, I myself may be required to perform services for the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church against my will to accommodate their religious or social beliefs, and if it's the latter, you've just done more to kill the dream of equality than any religious nut could ever hope to.
And either way, if I'm shopping for cakes, I want to know that this person is totally willing and happy to make that cake. I need to be sure that the minute I say it should have two grooms as the top decoration, they don't just smile politely while hiding their resentment that they no longer feel they can even voice and in the process of making it give it a special ingredient or two, which is what I would certainly do if I were forced to make any food item for something that violated my conscience. I want them to say no so I can find someone who likes making gay wedding cakes.

[Infected Mushroom]

YES!

OH MY GOD!

FREEDOM OF CONTRACT PREVAILED!

(sorry for the caps, I cannot contain my absolute excitement and elation)

Dude go reread it.

that wasn't the court's reasoning but the practical effect will be in favour of the principle nevertheless

[The Portland Territory]

I disagree with the decision as it will just only empower the bigots in the US. Yeah they have the right to refuse but it's also discrimination. I am not surprised as SCOTUS is a Republican controlled supreme court would rule this way. It's one more step towards total dictatorship under Trump which liberal voices and rights of all people don't really matter except bigots and wealthy people.

Fear me!

[Arkinesia]

that wasn't the court's reasoning but the practical effect will be in favour of the principle nevertheless

Not in the slightest, you clearly haven't read the opinion in full.

[Infected Mushroom]

that wasn't the court's reasoning but the practical effect will be in favour of the principle nevertheless

Not in the slightest, you clearly haven't read the opinion in full.

I have not read it in full but I did read the linked article in full.

I don't so much care about the court's actual justification or its qualification that this is just a "narrow application" and not a "broader decision"... that's just typical political verbiage.

The practical effect, is that now companies have more room to tailor their goods and services... such that they can control the types of contracts they want to or don't want to enter into. For instance in this case, a cake baker can avoid baking cakes for groups he doesn't want to do business with (as he should have the right to in a society with freedom of contract) by specifying the TYPES of services he provides/doesn't provide. It creates a definitional tool (defining the services/goods you are producing) to control and influence who you will be doing business with and without.

[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.

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.

Agreed. This case ultimately comes down to how well each side argues their case...morale can be sent either way, making it ineffective in this situation.

[Right wing humour squad]

Not in the slightest, you clearly haven't read the opinion in full.

I have not read it in full but I did read the linked article in full.

I don't so much care about the court's actual justification or its qualification that this is just a "narrow application" and not a "broader decision"... that's just typical political verbiage.

The practical effect, is that now companies have more room to tailor their goods and services... such that they can control the types of contracts they want to or don't want to enter into. For instance in this case, a cake baker can avoid baking cakes for groups he doesn't want to do business with (as he should have the right to in a society with freedom of contract) by specifying the TYPES of services he provides/doesn't provide. It creates a definitional tool (defining the services/goods you are producing) to control and influence who you will be doing business with and without.

Nope. Go reread. This is a judgement against anti religious bigotry by anti discrimination bodies. Not the desperately needed freedom of contract.

[The Alma Mater]

The practical effect, is that now companies have more room to tailor their goods and services... such that they can control the types of contracts they want to or don't want to enter into.

I thought the court merely sided with the baker because the people that investigated the case were condenscending jerks - and made no statement on it being right or wrong that he refused to sell ?

[Telconi]

The practical effect, is that now companies have more room to tailor their goods and services... such that they can control the types of contracts they want to or don't want to enter into.

I thought the court merely sided with the baker because the people that investigated the case were condenscending jerks - and made no statement on it being right or wrong that he refused to sell ?

That's correct. The functional decision here was on rather he received a fair shake before the law.

[Infected Mushroom]

I have not read it in full but I did read the linked article in full.

I don't so much care about the court's actual justification or its qualification that this is just a "narrow application" and not a "broader decision"... that's just typical political verbiage.

The practical effect, is that now companies have more room to tailor their goods and services... such that they can control the types of contracts they want to or don't want to enter into. For instance in this case, a cake baker can avoid baking cakes for groups he doesn't want to do business with (as he should have the right to in a society with freedom of contract) by specifying the TYPES of services he provides/doesn't provide. It creates a definitional tool (defining the services/goods you are producing) to control and influence who you will be doing business with and without.

Nope. Go reread. This is a judgement against anti religious bigotry by anti discrimination bodies. Not the desperately needed freedom of contract.

I'm talking about the practical results of the decision, not the exact language used to justify the decision.

If a decision sets the world on fire... I would be talking about how it sets the world on fire. What the decision explicitly says, doesn't say, doesn't concern me. This isn't some LSAT reading comp multiple choice where you can only frame your answers in terms of what's explicitly spelled out.

[Right wing humour squad]

What I’d really like to know is if this judgement can be used as an example later on of anti-religious bigotry in government. Because that would have some useful and interesting repercussions.

Tip of the wedge into removing anti discrimination laws.

[Rashidi Jabal Shammar]

What's the difference between this and a painter?

I'm sure that a religious painter has a right to refuse service if asked to create a piece mocking their religion. Ditto the baker.

[Farnhamia]

What's the difference between this and a painter?

I'm sure that a religious painter has a right to refuse service if asked to create a piece mocking their religion. Ditto the baker.

The cake requested did not mock the baker's religion.

[Rashidi Jabal Shammar]

What's the difference between this and a painter?

I'm sure that a religious painter has a right to refuse service if asked to create a piece mocking their religion. Ditto the baker.

The cake requested did not mock the baker's religion.

No it didn't. But my point stands.

I can simply change the example to a painter being asked to paint something that they oppose, for example, a Jewish painter asked to paint anti-Semitic propaganda. The painter has the right to refuse, so should the baker. He shouldn't be forced to create art.

[Balnik]

Huzzah huzzah! I can totally see where the supreme court is coming from. I think they totally made the right decision in this case with siding with the baker.

[Balnik]

The cake requested did not mock the baker's religion.

No it didn't. But my point stands.

I can simply change the example to a painter being asked to paint something that they oppose, for example, a Jewish painter asked to paint anti-Semitic propaganda. The painter has the right to refuse, so should the baker. He shouldn't be forced to create art.

I think that is a bit outlandish of an example but I can see where you are coming from. Homosexuality is considered sinful, And sin is the direct antagonist to the ethics and morals of Christianity. Thus corroborating with "Sinners" to make a cake celebrating said "sin" would be a rude gesture to the baker.

[Farnhamia]

The cake requested did not mock the baker's religion.

No it didn't. But my point stands.

I can simply change the example to a painter being asked to paint something that they oppose, for example, a Jewish painter asked to paint anti-Semitic propaganda. The painter has the right to refuse, so should the baker. He shouldn't be forced to create art.

You're entitled to your opinion. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated an anti-religious bias in making the their ruling. End of story. Trying to read anything else into it is a mistake. And an artist is rather different than a retail bakery.

[Right wing humour squad]

No it didn't. But my point stands.

I can simply change the example to a painter being asked to paint something that they oppose, for example, a Jewish painter asked to paint anti-Semitic propaganda. The painter has the right to refuse, so should the baker. He shouldn't be forced to create art.

You're entitled to your opinion. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated an anti-religious bias in making the their ruling. End of story. Trying to read anything else into it is a mistake. And an artist is rather different than a retail bakery.

That last sentence is solely under the discretion of the baker.

[The Grims]

Nope. Go reread. This is a judgement against anti religious bigotry by anti discrimination bodies. Not the desperately needed freedom of contract.

I'm talking about the practical results of the decision, not the exact language used to justify the decision.

The practical result is "do not be biased if you want a court to uphold your ruling".

[Farnhamia]

You're entitled to your opinion. The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated an anti-religious bias in making the their ruling. End of story. Trying to read anything else into it is a mistake. And an artist is rather different than a retail bakery.

That last sentence is solely under the discretion of the baker.

Sez you, which is your right.

I think you want "mouth off" instead of "mouth of" in your signature, by the way.

[Right wing humour squad]

That last sentence is solely under the discretion of the baker.

Sez you, which is your right.

I think you want "mouth off" instead of "mouth of" in your signature, by the way.

Well unless you want a government mandated list of artists and we’ve all seen enough xmen to know how apocalyptic that’s going to go.

Roger.