SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Ethel mermania]

how would you know if someone is gay, though

SAme way this bakery knew the people they wouldn’t serve were gay

The way this bakery knew was they were asked to make a wedding cake. The baker refused but offered to sell them any premade cake they wanted.

[Internationalist Bastard]

SAme way this bakery knew the people they wouldn’t serve were gay

The way this bakery knew was they were asked to make a wedding cake. The baker refused but offered to sell them any premade cake they wanted.

Ugh premade wedding cake

[Mallorea and Riva]

SAme way this bakery knew the people they wouldn’t serve were gay

The way this bakery knew was they were asked to make a wedding cake. The baker refused but offered to sell them any premade cake they wanted.

Is that entirely clear from the record? Justice Thomas seemed to think so but the majority did not.

[West Leas Oros]

Why is this important enough for the SCOTUS to intervene?

[Ethel mermania]

The way this bakery knew was they were asked to make a wedding cake. The baker refused but offered to sell them any premade cake they wanted.

Is that entirely clear from the record? Justice Thomas seemed to think so but the majority did not.

Pretty much every article I read on the topic has said so.

Kennedy made the ruling as narrow as he could, which the court generally does, and he focused on the Colorado commissions hostility to religion. He pretty much said, this doesn't settle the issue.

The thing that surprised me is in case of error, the court usually throws it back down the food chain for a rehearing. In what I have read I didn't see them do that here. If someone has something that says they did, I would like to see it.

[Salus Maior]

It hasn't been ruled that the baker discriminated against the LGBT people.

So what was the reason for him refusing to make a cake for gay people that he would make for straight people? Hm? Please tell me.

And don't say "religion", religion does not exclude the possibility of discrimination being the cause.

What does it matter that one baker didn't want to make a cake for someone?

That customer can just take their business to another baker who will.

[Salus Maior]

At this point I'm waiting for the States Right crowd to show up and complain about how "The Big Gobberment" is infringingon the State of Colorado's right to legislation where it pleases. I know, the never will, but you still gotta dream, right?

Said the person who prefers federal powers.

[West Leas Oros]

So what was the reason for him refusing to make a cake for gay people that he would make for straight people? Hm? Please tell me.

And don't say "religion", religion does not exclude the possibility of discrimination being the cause.

What does it matter that one baker didn't want to make a cake for someone?

That customer can just take their business to another baker who will.

I mean, what do you do if no one else will? You have a good point, but I can see situations where other problems could arise.

[Salus Maior]

What does it matter that one baker didn't want to make a cake for someone?

That customer can just take their business to another baker who will.

I mean, what do you do if no one else will? You have a good point, but I can see situations where other problems could arise.

Make your own cake?

Anyway, somehow I don't think that's the case in Colorado, or in any number of these liberal states where this sort of thing blows up.

[Telconi]

What does it matter that one baker didn't want to make a cake for someone?

That customer can just take their business to another baker who will.

I mean, what do you do if no one else will? You have a good point, but I can see situations where other problems could arise.

I highly doubt every source for a wedding cake in the area is run by a sole homophobic proprietor...

[Mallorea and Riva]

Is that entirely clear from the record? Justice Thomas seemed to think so but the majority did not.

Pretty much every article I read on the topic has said so.

Kennedy made the ruling as narrow as he could, which the court generally does, and he focused on the Colorado commissions hostility to religion. He pretty much said, this doesn't settle the issue.

The thing that surprised me is in case of error, the court usually throws it back down the food chain for a rehearing. In what I have read I didn't see them do that here. If someone has something that says they did, I would like to see it.

Justice Thomas indicates in his concurrence that the Court viewed the record as too unclear on that point, though from his reading he disagrees.

Regarding the fact that it wasn't sent back down: I don't know if this is because of the procedural history (Commission to ALJ to Commission to state courts) which makes remand inappropriate, or if it's because it's moot. I haven't had the time to dig into it.

[Ethel mermania]

Pretty much every article I read on the topic has said so.

Kennedy made the ruling as narrow as he could, which the court generally does, and he focused on the Colorado commissions hostility to religion. He pretty much said, this doesn't settle the issue.

The thing that surprised me is in case of error, the court usually throws it back down the food chain for a rehearing. In what I have read I didn't see them do that here. If someone has something that says they did, I would like to see it.

Justice Thomas indicates in his concurrence that the Court viewed the record as too unclear on that point, though from his reading he disagrees.

Regarding the fact that it wasn't sent back down: I don't know if this is because of the procedural history (Commission to ALJ to Commission to state courts) which makes remand inappropriate, or if it's because it's moot. I haven't had the time to dig into it.

That is something I am unsure about, and more unsure since you mentioned it. The case came from the Colorado supreme court, not the federal system. I don't know if the Supremes do remand to the states.

[West Leas Oros]

I mean, what do you do if no one else will? You have a good point, but I can see situations where other problems could arise.

I highly doubt every source for a wedding cake in the area is run by a sole homophobic proprietor...

So do I, but what if you live in a small town with only one baker? (Sounds like a shit town tbh) This was meant as a more speculative hypothetical question.

[The Republic of Fore]

Good, there was no reason they had to get a cake from this exact bakery. Plenty of other ones in Colorado.

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

Besides, the ruling doesn't actually side with the baker.

No less sound than "we should force people to sell to gay couples, because having to shop somewhere else might hurt their feelings". Side note, why would you want to spend your money on someone who refused to serve you for being gay? I mean if the imperial cyclops of the klan was a chef, I doubt he'd have too many black customers beating down his door. It would be one thing if it was an essential service, but It's a cake. And that's not even considering the fact that it could be a bad idea to purchase food from someone who hates you.

[Galloism]

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

Besides, the ruling doesn't actually side with the baker.

No less sound than "we should force people to sell to gay couples, because having to shop somewhere else might hurt their feelings". Side note, why would you want to spend your money on someone who refused to serve you for being gay? I mean if the imperial cyclops of the klan was a chef, I doubt he'd have too many black customers beating down his door. It would be one thing if it was an essential service, but It's a cake. And that's not even considering the fact that it could be a bad idea to purchase food from someone who hates you.

Sorry, felt the need to clarify, but it’s “Grand Wizard”, and there’s four them, all which claim the other three are FBI plants.

[New Emeline]

No less sound than "we should force people to sell to gay couples, because having to shop somewhere else might hurt their feelings". Side note, why would you want to spend your money on someone who refused to serve you for being gay? I mean if the imperial cyclops of the klan was a chef, I doubt he'd have too many black customers beating down his door. It would be one thing if it was an essential service, but It's a cake. And that's not even considering the fact that it could be a bad idea to purchase food from someone who hates you.

Sorry, felt the need to clarify, but it’s “Grand Wizard”, and there’s four them, all which claim the other three are FBI plants.

Imperial Cyclops is a better name tbh

[Telconi]

I highly doubt every source for a wedding cake in the area is run by a sole homophobic proprietor...

So do I, but what if you live in a small town with only one baker? (Sounds like a shit town tbh) This was meant as a more speculative hypothetical question.

There are definitely holes in laws, question being is the removal of every single baker's right to contract worth it for the one guy in Bum Guck Nowhereville who would be otherwise deprived of a luxury good.

[West Leas Oros]

No less sound than "we should force people to sell to gay couples, because having to shop somewhere else might hurt their feelings". Side note, why would you want to spend your money on someone who refused to serve you for being gay? I mean if the imperial cyclops of the klan was a chef, I doubt he'd have too many black customers beating down his door. It would be one thing if it was an essential service, but It's a cake. And that's not even considering the fact that it could be a bad idea to purchase food from someone who hates you.

Sorry, felt the need to clarify, but it’s “Grand Wizard”, and there’s four them, all which claim the other three are FBI plants.

Is it seriously called that? Sounds like something from dungeons and dragons. The Grand Wizard uses flame cross, take 2d6 points of damage.

[Telconi]

Sorry, felt the need to clarify, but it’s “Grand Wizard”, and there’s four them, all which claim the other three are FBI plants.

Is it seriously called that? Sounds like something from dungeons and dragons. The Grand Wizard uses flame cross, take 2d6 points of damage.

It does 2d12 if your character is black.

[Russoslava]

A Private Business should have the right to decline anyone from service, no matter what the reason. However, said business shouldn't complain when he gets a bad review for exercising that right. The First Amendment is a double Edged Sword. Religion is cover under the constitution, the Consumer in this matter is not. "If the Baker won't bake a cake find another baker."- Dave Rubin. Welcome to the Free Economy. No one is forcing to buy from this Baker so find another that is willing.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A Private Business should have the right to decline anyone from service, no matter what the reason. However, said business shouldn't complain when he gets a bad review for exercising that right. The First Amendment is a double Edged Sword. Religion is cover under the constitution, the Consumer in this matter is not. "If the Baker won't bake a cake find another baker."- Dave Rubin. Welcome to the Free Economy. No one is forcing to buy from this Baker so find another that is willing.

You're several hundred years behind the rest of the US jurisprudentially and several dozen pages behind this thread.

[Galloism]

Is it seriously called that? Sounds like something from dungeons and dragons. The Grand Wizard uses flame cross, take 2d6 points of damage.

It does 2d12 if your character is black.

Oh snap!

[Thermodolia]

Says the white supremacist.

To be fair, white supremacists can be homosexual. I am not saying that is the case here, but they most certainly can.

They are apparently thought of as traitors by said white supremacists

[Xelsis]

No such harassment occurred. If it had, there would be a harassment lawsuit going on.

The case went to the Supreme Court, mate.

You're wrong about the nature of the arrests anyways.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uk-man-jai ... ee-speech/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Bute.html

No, I'm not.

That's not a refutation of sources. Provide yours, or concede the point.

There is no obligation to work by commission to serve who one wishes.

There is, however, an obligation to not set up a business open to the public. Working by commission is only one way to do that, though it is the most common way for artists to do it.

Please cite the advertisement, then. If it says what you say, I will concede.

They have a shop with a sign in the door saying "OPEN", and advertise opening hours. This establishes a reasonable belief on the part of customers that they are open to the public.

So he did not advertise it as open to everybody. There you have it.

Clear discrimination, protected class, considered acceptable. Right on-point.

Erm, no, not at all. Children are not a protected class.

As cited directly earlier, age is. Children are defined by age.

Phillips left the couple completely alone until they came to him. If that is all the agenda is, then it has been fulfilled.

True. But after that, he ceased to leave them alone. A reasonable response would be to allow them to purchase a cake of any design that he is happy to sell. Dictating what they can do with it after the purchase is not reasonable.

That's nonsensical. It's impossible to leave someone alone if they are interacting with you.

The only way to leave them alone in that case would be exiling all homosexuals to some deserted island, or something, which doesn't sound great for "gay rights"

[Russoslava]

A Private Business should have the right to decline anyone from service, no matter what the reason. However, said business shouldn't complain when he gets a bad review for exercising that right. The First Amendment is a double Edged Sword. Religion is cover under the constitution, the Consumer in this matter is not. "If the Baker won't bake a cake find another baker."- Dave Rubin. Welcome to the Free Economy. No one is forcing to buy from this Baker so find another that is willing.

You're several hundred years behind the rest of the US jurisprudentially and several dozen pages behind this thread.

I'm not. And Again, If one baker won't bake a damn cake for you, find another baker. a PRIVATE Business has the right to decline anyone from services because it's a private business. However, no one is forcing you to shop at one place. It's called a Free, Competitive market. Where One Baker won't serve you for one reason there is another that will. Forcing them won't help matters.