SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I don’t really care whether or not it’s any of my business, I’m still going to question the logic behind garbage business decisions.

Putting everything into the realm of "business decision" is hardly logical in and of itself.

Discriminating against people and denying them patronage is definitely a business decision since it directly involves the business.

[Thermodolia]

Like I said if they are dumb enough to pay me almost 2 Million dollars for a fucking cake than I’m going to make the shitest cake ever and donate that 2 Million to several military organizations in their name.

Instead of just telling them to get the fuck out of my store, I’d go the extremely petty route and take as much money as I can get from them, and then make a donation with said money in their name to the thing they are protesting or hate.

You'd still be equipping them to disturb a soldier's funeral. Regardless of whatever they pay you or what you do with the money that would happen.

It'd be far easier to just say "No, I'd rather not because I don't support that". And you should have every right to say that.

No I wouldn’t be. I made a product, I’m not disturbing anything. Using that logic all gun manufacturers are culpable of murder.

Maybe for you it’s easier but I’d rather be petty and indirectly get them to donate money to things they hate. As is my right, I’ve already said that it’s a bad idea to force artists to make art. It’s also a bad idea to tell artists that they can’t sell their art.

[Senkaku]

Like I said if they are dumb enough to pay me almost 2 Million dollars for a fucking cake than I’m going to make the shitest cake ever and donate that 2 Million to several military organizations in their name.

Instead of just telling them to get the fuck out of my store, I’d go the extremely petty route and take as much money as I can get from them, and then make a donation with said money in their name to the thing they are protesting or hate.

You'd still be equipping them to disturb a soldier's funeral. Regardless of whatever they pay you or what you do with the money that would happen.

It'd be far easier to just say "No, I'd rather not because I don't support that". And you should have every right to say that.

Hi so I think it's really interesting that you're out here comparing two people of the same sex getting married to desecrating military funerals and frankly says more you than it does about the situation at hand that you would look at a celebration of two people's love and decision to spend their lives together as equal to spewing hateful nonsense to disrupt the last rites of someone who gave their life for our country

[Thermodolia]

Did I mention that I’m not a fan of the first. Like at all.

Sure you arn’t.

I’m being completely serious. If you don’t want to believe me go ahead. But I do think that the first amendment is over broad and needs to be severely curtailed to insure national stability, order, and security.

Far left and far right Political organizations should be banned, as should cults like the WBC, Wahhabism, Scientology, and the like.

If you haven’t already noticed I’m an asshole and a authoritarian

[Pilarcraft]

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.

(Late response, but I was sleeping) 1- No, I really don't. I'd prefer no powers actually
and 2- That doesn't really matter in the point of discussion, does it? What matters is that the SC essentially pissed on the entire point of state level legislation by ignoring the states' law and decision making. Essentially, this would mean that any person of any religion (and, let's face it, most people have religion) could refuse service to another person because "muh religion".
Jews not selling to the Goys anything, Muslims not selling anything to the Kuffar, nobody paying taxes for their religious merchandise (and that's the few that I can remember right now. I am pretty sure there are as many trade limitations as there are religions and denominations) because the Supreme Court couldn't get it in their heads that freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation.

[Thermodolia]

Said the person who prefers federal powers.

(Late response, but I was sleeping) 1- No, I really don't. I'd prefer no powers actually
and 2- That doesn't really matter in the point of discussion, does it? What matters is that the SC essentially pissed on the entire point of state level legislation by ignoring the states' law and decision making. Essentially, this would mean that any person of any religion (and, let's face it, most people have religion) could refuse service to another person because "muh religion".
Jews not selling to the Goys anything, Muslims not selling anything to the Kuffar, nobody paying taxes for their religious merchandise (and that's the few that I can remember right now. I am pretty sure there are as many trade limitations as there are religions and denominations) because the Supreme Court couldn't get it in their heads that freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation.

That not what the court did at all.

[Pilarcraft]

(Late response, but I was sleeping) 1- No, I really don't. I'd prefer no powers actually
and 2- That doesn't really matter in the point of discussion, does it? What matters is that the SC essentially pissed on the entire point of state level legislation by ignoring the states' law and decision making. Essentially, this would mean that any person of any religion (and, let's face it, most people have religion) could refuse service to another person because "muh religion".
Jews not selling to the Goys anything, Muslims not selling anything to the Kuffar, nobody paying taxes for their religious merchandise (and that's the few that I can remember right now. I am pretty sure there are as many trade limitations as there are religions and denominations) because the Supreme Court couldn't get it in their heads that freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation.

That not what the court did at all.

That's exactly what it did though. By letting the Christian guy not sell cakes to gays (and then protecting him against the laws of the state, which had already condemned him), the Supreme Court did exactly that. It doesn't matter that the State's laws were stupid (they weren't), what matters is that the same can, and will easily, apply to other examples. Once again, freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation

[Mallorea and Riva]

That not what the court did at all.

That's exactly what it did though. By letting the Christian guy not sell cakes to gays (and then protecting him against the laws of the state, which had already condemned him), the Supreme Court did exactly that. It doesn't matter that the State's laws were stupid (they weren't), what matters is that the same can, and will easily, apply to other examples. Once again, freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation

That's a misunderstanding of the grounds for the decision. The law was not invalidated. The application of the law was the failing point.

[Pilarcraft]

That's exactly what it did though. By letting the Christian guy not sell cakes to gays (and then protecting him against the laws of the state, which had already condemned him), the Supreme Court did exactly that. It doesn't matter that the State's laws were stupid (they weren't), what matters is that the same can, and will easily, apply to other examples. Once again, freedom of religion is not intended to be an exemption from commercial regulation

That's a misunderstanding of the grounds for the decision. The law was not invalidated. The application of the law was the failing point.

The point about Supreme court decisions in a country with little to no written law is that it invalidates the smaller laws when it goes against them. The next guy who does it (or something annoying and close to it, like refusing service to another person for a similarly religious reason) is also going to use this as the basis for their own case, Ad infinitum. The Supreme Court may have not intended for that to happen (which I doubt very much. They definitely intended) but that's a huge possibility for the future.

[Thermodolia]

That's a misunderstanding of the grounds for the decision. The law was not invalidated. The application of the law was the failing point.

The point about Supreme court decisions in a country with little to no written law is that it invalidates the smaller laws when it goes against them. The next guy who does it (or something annoying and close to it, like refusing service to another person for a similarly religious reason) is also going to use this as the basis for their own case, Ad infinitum. The Supreme Court may have not intended for that to happen (which I doubt very much. They definitely intended) but that's a huge possibility for the future.

Um that nation is not the US then because we have a metric fuck ton of written law

[Pilarcraft]

The point about Supreme court decisions in a country with little to no written law is that it invalidates the smaller laws when it goes against them. The next guy who does it (or something annoying and close to it, like refusing service to another person for a similarly religious reason) is also going to use this as the basis for their own case, Ad infinitum. The Supreme Court may have not intended for that to happen (which I doubt very much. They definitely intended) but that's a huge possibility for the future.

Um that nation is not the US then because we have a metric fuck ton of written law

By "no written law" I mean the legal system, not the fact it has, or doesn't have, laws that are written on a paper. That is to say, The Common Law, which doesn't start with a number of already accepted laws a la Civilian Law

[Salandriagado]

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

The case went to the Supreme Court, mate.

And at what point was there even so much as an accusation of harassment leveled at the gay couple?

No, I'm not.

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

From your source (the non-Daily Mail one, because I refuse to go to the Daily Mail's website): the comments were "sexually aggressive" and "menacing". That is: they were threats. Threatening people is assault if you do it in person, and absolutely should continue to be illegal when done online.

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.




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.

Yes, he did. He put a sign on the door saying "OPEN".

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

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

Nope. Read the actual definition: It isn't age, it's "people over 40".

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"

Already responded to elsewhere.

[Claorica]

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

Yes, he did. He put a sign on the door saying "OPEN".

That only makes his normal everyday services a public accommodation. One can provide a public accommodation while also having a service that is custom and contracted.

[Claorica]

I think any Private busniess should be allowed to deny anyone service for ANY reason because the government or anyone should not force anyone to do something that they don't want to. I don't want a Christian Baker being forced to bake a Cake for a Same-Sex Couple if the Baker doesn't want to bake the cake and I would want a Same-Sex Baker not be forced to bake for a Christian Couple if the Baker doesn't want to. That is what Freedom will is.

But why should a business have to discriminate against anyone for stupid reasons in the first place? If you’re in the business to make money then you should down to accept anyone’s money regardless of who they are.

Because some people have morals/values that go beyond making money?

[Claorica]

In the State of Maine (If I remember Correctly) A Private Business has the right to Deny anyone Service base on Religious Reason because of the "PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT" under PERSON which means an individual, corporate body or religious organization.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

It equally applies to all religions as well as non-religious, so.... not really respecting an establishment of religion there.

[Washington Resistance Army]

In the State of Maine (If I remember Correctly) A Private Business has the right to Deny anyone Service base on Religious Reason because of the "PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT" under PERSON which means an individual, corporate body or religious organization.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Please stop quoting that because you still don't understand what it means.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

In the State of Maine (If I remember Correctly) A Private Business has the right to Deny anyone Service base on Religious Reason because of the "PRESERVATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT" under PERSON which means an individual, corporate body or religious organization.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

[Salus Maior]

You'd still be equipping them to disturb a soldier's funeral. Regardless of whatever they pay you or what you do with the money that would happen.

It'd be far easier to just say "No, I'd rather not because I don't support that". And you should have every right to say that.

Hi so I think it's really interesting that you're out here comparing two people of the same sex getting married to desecrating military funerals and frankly says more you than it does about the situation at hand that you would look at a celebration of two people's love and decision to spend their lives together as equal to spewing hateful nonsense to disrupt the last rites of someone who gave their life for our country

That was not my point and no, I don't believe that.

My point was that everyone has principles that they would not violate for money, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that Therm's military background would make him think twice about associating with people who desecrate funerals for his fellow soldiers, even for money.

[Salus Maior]

You'd still be equipping them to disturb a soldier's funeral. Regardless of whatever they pay you or what you do with the money that would happen.

It'd be far easier to just say "No, I'd rather not because I don't support that". And you should have every right to say that.

No I wouldn’t be. I made a product, I’m not disturbing anything. Using that logic all gun manufacturers are culpable of murder.

Maybe for you it’s easier but I’d rather be petty and indirectly get them to donate money to things they hate. As is my right, I’ve already said that it’s a bad idea to force artists to make art. It’s also a bad idea to tell artists that they can’t sell their art.

The gun manufacturers would be culpable for murder if they sold guns to someone knowing that they'd murder someone with it.

Just like you would be culpable in the desecration of a soldiers funeral if you supplied someone knowing that they would do that with what you supplied them.

Ok, and I'm not saying that they can't sell their art if they want to. So...Where is our disagreement exactly?

[Tobleste]

But do you disagree with the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on businesses discriminating on the basis of race?

It's has been said previously on this thread, if the baker had refused to make a cake for a black person then we'd likely be in a whole different place right now...

LGBT people still aren't fully accepted. It wasn't so long ago they were barred from marrying each other. Trans people are regularly barred from certain bathrooms on the grounds that they're dangerous sex predators. It would probably be delusional to think homophobia would be completely gone but the prescence of religion in American politics means there'll be a constant balancing act between the rights of LGBT and the "religious freedom" to discriminate and marginalise.

[Claorica]

It's has been said previously on this thread, if the baker had refused to make a cake for a black person then we'd likely be in a whole different place right now...

LGBT people still aren't fully accepted. It wasn't so long ago they were barred from marrying each other. Trans people are regularly barred from certain bathrooms on the grounds that they're dangerous sex predators. It would probably be delusional to think homophobia would be completely gone but the prescence of religion in American politics means there'll be a constant balancing act between the rights of LGBT and the "religious freedom" to discriminate and marginalise.

refusing to create a custom artisan product is not discrimination or marginalization, it's freedom not to be compelled to create speech.

[Salandriagado]

Yes, he did. He put a sign on the door saying "OPEN".

That only makes his normal everyday services a public accommodation. One can provide a public accommodation while also having a service that is custom and contracted.

Yes, I know. I've said that, several times. Kindly read the discussion before jumping into it.

[The Provincial Union of the Pacific]

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, from what I understand, protects religious activities and beliefs, however there is no consumer rights listed in the U.S. Constitution.

Morally, someone shouldn't have to go against what they believe their Creator has said, and there are plenty of non-religious bakers in the United States, why throw a fit over one?

Economically, capitalism is a system which strives on the 'natural' selection quality of itself saying: "the weak [businesses] will die [bankrupt]", so let the business run the course of capitalism without governmental intervention, I think someone just wanted to gather all the attention they could over something little.

[Salus Maior]

But do you disagree with the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on businesses discriminating on the basis of race?

It's has been said previously on this thread, if the baker had refused to make a cake for a black person then we'd likely be in a whole different place right now...

If the same gay customer came in asking for, say, a birthday cake rather than a wedding cake I doubt there would be a problem.

The issue is that the baker doesn't want to associate himself with the wedding, which is fine.

[Xelsis]

And at what point was there even so much as an accusation of harassment leveled at the gay couple?

Being harassed to make the cake was the entire reason the case existed in the first place.

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

From your source (the non-Daily Mail one, because I refuse to go to the Daily Mail's website): the comments were "sexually aggressive" and "menacing". That is: they were threats. Threatening people is assault if you do it in person, and absolutely should continue to be illegal when done online. [/quote]

"Grossly offensive" was the category discussed, that was explicitly separated from cases of "harassment or threats" in the article.

Said article also noted the two-year prison sentence you could get for carrying a sign.

Woods was charged by British police under section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act 2003, which found that his message was "grossly offensive" or "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character."

And for good measure, he's the actual relevant text of the act.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

No harassment required.

Yes, he did. He put a sign on the door saying "OPEN".

Noting that the business was, in fact, open. Noting nowhere that he now held some sort of slavish obligation to serve anyone who walked in the door.

He can't prosecute people for trespassing with that sign. Neither is he obligated to serve them.

Nope. Read the actual definition: It isn't age, it's "people over 40".

The United Kingdom, not the United States.

https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights

Already responded to elsewhere.

Where?