SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Right wing humour squad]

Good. Why shouldn't a baker be allowed to have his say on what he can and can't bake for a customer?

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

[The Black Forrest]

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

I'm sorry my dictionary doesn't list except black people, gays, what ever when you look up public.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court first established true chattel slavery in America, and said that a man "born a slave, remains a slave", that states cannot decide how their districts are drawn, that the Tenth Amendment is ceremonial (again and again), that the government can destroy a farmer's crops or fine him for ploughing his own field (because intrastate commerce somehow affects muh world market), that blacks are lesser humans, that mentally ill people can only be interned when they are about to cause harm or are causing harm (SCOTUS single-handedly destroyed the American mental health system), and that the government can intern men in concentration camps because of their racial background. Rogue justices have constantly shot down plenary powers of Congress and the states, including as explict of plenary powers as Congress controlling immigration and the President controlling the military.

Do you REALLY want to go down that road, son? SCOTUS is not infallible and its docket has been stained with abominations up and down the years.

Five unelected men with life tenure do not, and should not, rule the USA. They, and all American judges, are co-equal to the other branches of government and can be impeached at the pleasure of Congress.

[Ors Might]

Good. Why shouldn't a baker be allowed to have his say on what he can and can't bake for a customer?

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

Do gays have the right to force artists to design whatever they want now? Because as far as I can tell, the baker wasn’t refusing to sell them a cake.

[Right wing humour squad]

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

I'm sorry my dictionary doesn't list except black people, gays, what ever when you look up public.

Do we really want to have this discussion for the sixth year in a row? It always goes the same way.

[Reverend Norv]

We live in a common law system. The courts, not you or I, decide the meaning of the Constitution. I think that uncontrolled campaign spending by third parties is toxic to our democracy, but that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional, because Citizens United is the law of the land whether I like it or not. Similarly, you can say that civil rights laws are immoral, but it is contrary to legal fact to say that they are unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court first established true chattel slavery in America, and said that a man "born a slave, remains a slave", that states cannot decide how their districts are drawn, that the Tenth Amendment is ceremonial (again and again), that the government can destroy a farmer's crops or fine him for ploughing his own field (because intrastate commerce somehow affects muh world market), that blacks are lesser humans, that mentally ill people can only be interned when they are about to cause harm or are causing harm (SCOTUS single-handedly destroyed the American mental health system), and that the government can intern men in concentration camps because of their racial background. Rogue justices have constantly shot down plenary powers of Congress and the states, including as explict of plenary powers as Congress controlling immigration and the President controlling the military.

Do you REALLY want to go down that road, son? SCOTUS is not infallible and its docket has been stained with abominations up and down the years.

Five unelected men with life tenure do not, and should not, rule the USA. They, and all American judges, are co-equal to the other branches of government and can be impeached at the pleasure of Congress.

Sure, slavery was constitutional at the time. Immoral, but constitutional. So were all of the other things on your list. That's just legal fact. The co-equal nature of the federal judiciary does not deprive it of the power of judicial review. The Constitution says what the Court says that it says - however immoral, however abominable. That is a cold, hard, legal fact.

[The Black Forrest]

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

Do gays have the right to force artists to design whatever they want now? Because as far as I can tell, the baker wasn’t refusing to sell them a cake.

It never reached the design phase. He denied them outright.

Actually he was. At best he would only give them the internal piece(s). Maybe cupcakes.

[Benjabobaria]

I support the baker in this case. I don't like that he won't bake a cake for an LGBT couple, but I believe his side of the case is the best.

Baking a cake is a form of speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to not say anything. The baker didn't want to bake a cake, which would be a form of expression, and he has the right to refuse to do so.
Imagine if you were a baker and someone wanted you to make a cake with a swastika on it. While that's very different from a gay wedding cake, if you were a baker you probably wouldn't want to make that cake. The baker didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, and he has the right to refuse certain cake designs.

Keep in mind the baker would've let the couple buy anything else (besides the cake) in his store. He wasn't kicking them out of the store for being gay, or refusing to sell them anything because they were gay. The baker didn't want to devote his time to making a form of artistic expression that supported something he opposed.

[Ors Might]

Do gays have the right to force artists to design whatever they want now? Because as far as I can tell, the baker wasn’t refusing to sell them a cake.

It never reached the design phase. He denied them outright.

Actually he was. At best he would only give them the internal piece(s). Maybe cupcakes.

Really? I was under the impression that he had sold cakes to gays, just not wedding cake?

[The New California Republic]

Maybe if the government put a gun to your head and forced you to ... bake a cake that reads "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION", you might start singing a different tune!

Not really. I have already stated that I would be willing to make a cake that said that, because I know that the words on a cake don't reflect my own beliefs.

[The Black Forrest]

I support the baker in this case. I don't like that he won't bake a cake for an LGBT couple, but I believe his side of the case is the best.

Baking a cake is a form of speech. Freedom of speech means freedom to not say anything. The baker didn't want to bake a cake, which would be a form of expression, and he has the right to refuse to do so.
Imagine if you were a baker and someone wanted you to make a cake with a swastika on it. While that's very different from a gay wedding cake, if you were a baker you probably wouldn't want to make that cake. The baker didn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, and he has the right to refuse certain cake designs.

Keep in mind the baker would've let the couple buy anything else (besides the cake) in his store. He wasn't kicking them out of the store for being gay, or refusing to sell them anything because they were gay. The baker didn't want to devote his time to making a form of artistic expression that supported something he opposed.

Artistic expression? He is a cake maker. Offering them cookies doesn't make up for denial of access to cakes.

[Benjabobaria]

Really? I was under the impression that he had sold cakes to gays, just not wedding cake?

That's correct. He would've sold anything else to the couple besides a wedding cake.

[Salandriagado]

Because when you run a public accommodation you don't get the right to discriminate.

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

Don't start one then.

[Xelsis]

Baker discriminates against LGBT people.

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

Baker complains about being discriminated against.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You literally couldn't make it up.

The baker is a private actor. The government is the government.

Two completely different levels of scrutiny. There are all kinds of discrimination that are perfectly fine at the private level that don't jive at the federal. This is closer to the border of the arguably "Less OK" discrimination, but the difference is quite stark regardless. His discrimination meant they had to buy somewhere else. The government's discrimination meant civil, and potentially criminal, sanction.

[The Black Forrest]

It never reached the design phase. He denied them outright.

Actually he was. At best he would only give them the internal piece(s). Maybe cupcakes.

Really? I was under the impression that he had sold cakes to gays, just not wedding cake?

Did he now? I don't remember that being mentioned. If he did make cakes for gays, then that does change the view point......

[The Black Forrest]

Really? I was under the impression that he had sold cakes to gays, just not wedding cake?

That's correct. He would've sold anything else to the couple besides a wedding cake.

Wedding cookies or cupcakes?

[Proctopeo]

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

Don't start one then.

start the church of cake and jump right through the loophole

[Arlenton]

Good.

[Telconi]

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

Don't start one then.

Don't go to Woolworth's then. ~Salandriagado, 1960

[Auralia]

There is a difference well at least what was stated as it never got to the design phase. They said they wanted a nice cake. No gay references.

Gorsuch addressed this argument in his concurring opinion:

To suggest that cakes with words convey a message but cakes without words do not—all in order to excuse the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case while penalizing Mr. Phillips—is irrational. Not even the Commission or court of appeals purported to rely on that distinction. Imagine Mr. Jack asked only for a cake with a symbolic expression against same-sex marriage rather than a cake bearing words conveying the same idea. Surely the Commission would have approved the bakers’ intentional wish to avoid participating in that message too. Nor can anyone reasonably doubt that a wedding cake without words conveys a message. Words or not and whatever the exact design, it celebrates a wedding, and if the wedding cake is made for a same-sex couple it celebrates a same-sex wedding. See 370 P. 3d, at 276 (stating that Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins “requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wed - ding ”) (emphasis added). Like “an emblem or flag,” a cake for a same-sex wedding is a symbol that serves as “a short cut from mind to mind,” signifying approval of a specific “system, idea, [or] institution.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette , 319 U. S. 624, 632 (1943). It is precisely that approval that Mr. Phillips intend ed to withhold in keeping with his religious faith. The Commission denied Mr. Phillips that choice, even as it afforded the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case the choice to refuse to advance a message they deemed offensive to their secular commitments. That is not neutral.

[Salandriagado]

Don't start one then.

Don't go to Woolworth's then. ~Salandriagado, 1960

Because clearly being banned from entering places because of your race is exactly the same thing as being held to an agreement that you willingly entered into.

[Telconi]

Don't go to Woolworth's then. ~Salandriagado, 1960

Because clearly being banned from entering places because of your race is exactly the same thing as being held to an agreement that you willingly entered into.

He willingly agreed to bake them the cake? Then what's all the fuss about?

[The Black Forrest]

There is a difference well at least what was stated as it never got to the design phase. They said they wanted a nice cake. No gay references.

Gorsuch addressed this argument in his concurring opinion:

To suggest that cakes with words convey a message but cakes without words do not—all in order to excuse the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case while penalizing Mr. Phillips—is irrational. Not even the Commission or court of appeals purported to rely on that distinction. Imagine Mr. Jack asked only for a cake with a symbolic expression against same-sex marriage rather than a cake bearing words conveying the same idea. Surely the Commission would have approved the bakers’ intentional wish to avoid participating in that message too. Nor can anyone reasonably doubt that a wedding cake without words conveys a message. Words or not and whatever the exact design, it celebrates a wedding, and if the wedding cake is made for a same-sex couple it celebrates a same-sex wedding. See 370 P. 3d, at 276 (stating that Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins “requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wed - ding ”) (emphasis added). Like “an emblem or flag,” a cake for a same-sex wedding is a symbol that serves as “a short cut from mind to mind,” signifying approval of a specific “system, idea, [or] institution.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette , 319 U. S. 624, 632 (1943). It is precisely that approval that Mr. Phillips intend ed to withhold in keeping with his religious faith. The Commission denied Mr. Phillips that choice, even as it afforded the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case the choice to refuse to advance a message they deemed offensive to their secular commitments. That is not neutral.

Gorsuch? He was the guy that supported the firing of a truck driver for leaving his broken down truck after spending hours waiting for orders in freezing temperatures. He is irrational.....

[Right wing humour squad]

And that’s what is wrong with public accommodation.

Don't start one then.

Or you could decide what you do with your property?

[The Black Forrest]

Don't start one then.

Or you could decide what you do with your property?

Probably not his property and this is not same as his house but let's not go down that tangent again.