SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Dylar]

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

Not exactly analogous to this case, though. The baker was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not accept any commissions for a same sex wedding.

Actually iirc, he did offer to sell them cupcakes instead of a rainbow-colored cake

[Greed and Death]

We suffer for our art.

Btw, there were hour long lines to use it.

To be honest, I'd stand in line for that.

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

Most of the Iraq invasion vets used Saddam's gold toilets.

[Galloism]

To be honest, I'd stand in line for that.

How many people get to say they got to shit in a golden toilet?

Most of the Iraq invasion vets used Saddam's gold toilets.

Damn it. Now when I say "I got to shit in a golden toilet", like a third of my friends will be like "oh, you too! it's great isn't it?"

Well there goes the great story. Thanks a fucking lot Saddam for buying fucking golden toilets.

[Greed and Death]

Not exactly analogous to this case, though. The baker was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not accept any commissions for a same sex wedding.

Actually iirc, he did offer to sell them cupcakes instead of a rainbow-colored cake

Lets keep the facts clear. While the couple in question did end up with a rainbow colored cake that was not discussed with the baker so the design is not issue for denying the job.

What the baker knew was they wanted a cake for a gay wedding and they wanted a custom cake.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The ruling was on procedural grounds, and the logic is sound.

The CCRC abused its power and tried to bully the baker into making a cake. 0/10 would not go to Colorado.

[Petrasylvania]

The ruling was on procedural grounds, and the logic is sound.

The CCRC abused its power and tried to bully the baker into making a cake. 0/10 would not go to Colorado.

No Pot For You.

[Greed and Death]

The ruling was on procedural grounds, and the logic is sound.

The CCRC abused its power and tried to bully the baker into making a cake. 0/10 would not go to Colorado.

You really should not fill a committee that adjudicates cases with social justice warriors.

[Herskerstad]

The ruling was on procedural grounds, and the logic is sound.

The CCRC abused its power and tried to bully the baker into making a cake. 0/10 would not go to Colorado.

You really should not fill a committee that adjudicates cases with social justice warriors.

Why not, eventually you'd get away with it and it's not as if the federal government is going to do much in regards to it. Going full Jefferson would not really do anything now.

[Cappuccina]

Yeah, no. Refusing to sell someone something is not treating them as "subhuman". It indicates that you don't want to associate yourself with that person, or perhaps even more narrowly, you don't want to provision them with a specific good or service that would entail a stamp of approval from yourself towards whatever conduct of theirs you disagree with.

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

If people are to have freedom of association, naturally they should also have freedom of disassociation as well.

[The Alma Mater]

TIL "WE DON'T SERVE THE COLORED" isn't treating them as subhuman.

Not exactly analogous to this case, though. The baker was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not accept any commissions for a same sex wedding.

"For whites, I shall make a special fresh cake.
Blacks, you can have one of the prepackaged things on the shelf."

[Thermodolia]

You really should not fill a committee that adjudicates cases with social justice warriors.

Why not, eventually you'd get away with it and it's not as if the federal government is going to do much in regards to it. Going full Jefferson would not really do anything now.

Martial Law in Colorado. No state is above the constitution!

[Bakra]

Not exactly analogous to this case, though. The baker was perfectly willing to serve the couple, just not accept any commissions for a same sex wedding.

"For whites, I shall make a special fresh cake.
Blacks, you can have one of the prepackaged things on the shelf."

Just for kicks, what if we could concretely prove that homosexuality was a behavior, not a biological trait? I mean we haven't proven either yet (I would welcome some sources tho), but that would make this argument a lot more interesting.

[Deathfall]

For purposes of "expanding" this discussion more to the legal side of things, you can find the Supreme Court's ruling here, the Court below's ruling here.

[The Alma Mater]

"For whites, I shall make a special fresh cake.
Blacks, you can have one of the prepackaged things on the shelf."

Just for kicks, what if we could concretely prove that homosexuality was a behavior, not a biological trait?

You mean like being a Christian ?

[Sicaris]

The thing is, he literally gave them the materials to decorate the cake themselves, AND THE ADDRESSES OF 30 OTHER BAKERIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CAKES. His religion went against their homosexuality, he refused to do a very specific request of theirs and still gave them what they wanted, they made a big deal out of it because they weren't satisfied.

I don't get why this is so big. It's just an overreaction.

Would the situation be the same if the man was a Muslim?

[Vassenor]

The thing is, he literally gave them the materials to decorate the cake themselves, AND THE ADDRESSES OF 30 OTHER BAKERIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CAKES. His religion went against their homosexuality, he refused to do a very specific request of theirs and still gave them what they wanted, they made a big deal out of it because they weren't satisfied.

I don't get why this is so big. It's just an overreaction.

Would the situation be the same if the man was a Muslim?

Here we go again.

"Discrimination is OK because there are other options" is not sound logic.

[New Emeline]

The thing is, he literally gave them the materials to decorate the cake themselves, AND THE ADDRESSES OF 30 OTHER BAKERIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CAKES. His religion went against their homosexuality, he refused to do a very specific request of theirs and still gave them what they wanted, they made a big deal out of it because they weren't satisfied.

I don't get why this is so big. It's just an overreaction.

Would the situation be the same if the man was a Muslim?

Yes, albeit probably to different groups as well.

[Pilarcraft]

The thing is, he literally gave them the materials to decorate the cake themselves, AND THE ADDRESSES OF 30 OTHER BAKERIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CAKES. His religion went against their homosexuality, he refused to do a very specific request of theirs and still gave them what they wanted, they made a big deal out of it because they weren't satisfied.

I don't get why this is so big. It's just an overreaction.

Would the situation be the same if the man was a Muslim?

it should have been, if it was a Muslim doing it. But we'll never know, I guess.

[Sicaris]

The thing is, he literally gave them the materials to decorate the cake themselves, AND THE ADDRESSES OF 30 OTHER BAKERIES IN THE AREA THAT WOULD MAKE THEM CAKES. His religion went against their homosexuality, he refused to do a very specific request of theirs and still gave them what they wanted, they made a big deal out of it because they weren't satisfied.

I don't get why this is so big. It's just an overreaction.

Would the situation be the same if the man was a Muslim?

Here we go again.

"Discrimination is OK because there are other options" is not sound logic.

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

[Vassenor]

Here we go again.

"Discrimination is OK because there are other options" is not sound logic.

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

So where does the bible require that homosexuals be discriminated against?

[Sicaris]

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

So where does the bible require that homosexuals be discriminated against?

Several sections. Not particularly discriminated against, but that they will go to hell should they sleep with each other. I don't particularly believe it, but it's how others have interpreted it. It's a tenet of their belief, so either way you're discriminating against someone here. There isn't really a "good" way out.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

So where does the bible require that homosexuals be discriminated against?

There's more to a religion than a book.

[Vassenor]

So where does the bible require that homosexuals be discriminated against?

Several sections. Not particularly discriminated against, but that they will go to hell should they sleep with each other. I don't particularly believe it, but it's how others have interpreted it. It's a tenet of their belief, so either way you're discriminating against someone here. There isn't really a "good" way out.

If it doesn't say that they need to be discriminated against, or shunned, or whatever, then logically discriminating against them is not a tenet of their religion and they're just using the religion as a shield against criticism for being a hateful jackass.

[Pilarcraft]

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

The solution is to not let him refuse service. Because it's against the fucking State Law.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

It's either let people have others options other than one very specific place (e.g. discriminate against them) or discriminate against those of a particular religion or ethnicity by forcing them to give service to specific people that their religion may not allow.

What's your solution here?

The solution is to not let him refuse service. Because it's against the fucking State Law.

Fuck the state law, they can go to another baker.