SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[The Free Joy State]

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?

While I still fail to see the relevance of age discimination statutes in the UK to this case, the UK has no minimum age at which one is protected (although students are not protected at school), however to quote the government website:

It does not outlaw the many instances of different treatment that are justifiable or beneficial.

This would include a maximum age requirement being placed on a job that is highly physical that can be shown to be too taxing for many older applicants, or -- to use your oft-repeated example -- the rules that prevent the sale of alcohol or cigarettes to minors (as the ban is objectively both justifiable and beneficial).

Objective, incidentally, is a key word.

Someone's subjective opinion doesn't count.

[Thermodolia]

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?

I don’t see how making someone a fucking cake is the same as me desecrating a funeral. I don’t know how you make that leap in logic.

Because if that’s your logic then the people who sell markers, paint, and cardboard so that the WBC can make protest signs are just in the same boat as the WBC. Which I think is completely dumb.

I’m just selling the item I’m not involved in any way and that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t give a shit if my stuff is being used at any place, especially if they paid me a lot of money, I made money. I don’t have to justify my actions to you.
But get it through your head that I’m not participating in any just because I sold a fucking cake.

[Internationalist Bastard]

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?

I don’t see how making someone a fucking cake is the same as me desecrating a funeral. I don’t know how you make that leap in logic.

Because if that’s your logic then the people who sell markers, paint, and cardboard so that the WBC can make protest signs are just in the same boat as the WBC. Which I think is completely dumb.

I’m just selling the item I’m not involved in any way and that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t give a shit if my stuff is being used at any place, especially if they paid me a lot of money, I made money. I don’t have to justify my actions to you.
But get it through your head that I’m not participating in any just because I sold a fucking cake.

Yeah this whole debate is crazy
I see where the SC decision comes from from but the bakers were just being assholes

[Telconi]

I don’t see how making someone a fucking cake is the same as me desecrating a funeral. I don’t know how you make that leap in logic.

Because if that’s your logic then the people who sell markers, paint, and cardboard so that the WBC can make protest signs are just in the same boat as the WBC. Which I think is completely dumb.

I’m just selling the item I’m not involved in any way and that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t give a shit if my stuff is being used at any place, especially if they paid me a lot of money, I made money. I don’t have to justify my actions to you.
But get it through your head that I’m not participating in any just because I sold a fucking cake.

Yeah this whole debate is crazy
I see where the SC decision comes from from but the bakers were just being assholes

I don't think very many people would disagree, it's just a bad idea to start banning people from being assholes.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Yeah this whole debate is crazy
I see where the SC decision comes from from but the bakers were just being assholes

I don't think very many people would disagree, it's just a bad idea to start banning people from being assholes.

In this case I agree
Other cases it’s completely fair for a law to stop people from being assholes

[Telconi]

I don't think very many people would disagree, it's just a bad idea to start banning people from being assholes.

In this case I agree
Other cases it’s completely fair for a law to stop people from being assholes

Eh, problems arise when the .gov decides you're an asshole.

[Internationalist Bastard]

In this case I agree
Other cases it’s completely fair for a law to stop people from being assholes

Eh, problems arise when the .gov decides you're an asshole.

Sure, but then there’s things like having armed people standing outside a voting place

[Salandriagado]

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.

No, it wasn't. You can tell by how he didn't sue the couple for harassment.

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.

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

No, it includes those.

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

If you threaten a person or group with it, yes.

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.

Notice the word "menacing" in there.

(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.

Again, "menacing". As in "threatening".

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.

Saying that a business is open and advertising this to the public means that it is open to the public.

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

The law disagrees.

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

The United Kingdom, not the United States.

The UK version is more general:

Equalities Act, 13(2): If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

"Protecting the health of children" is a legitimate aim.

Also, from Schedule 3, part 14 of that same act:

30C(1)This paragraph applies where a person (P)—

(a)provides a service the provision of which is prohibited by or under an enactment to persons under the age specified in or under the enactment (“the statutory age”), and

(b)displays on the premises on which the service is provided an age warning in relation to the provision of the service.

(2)An age warning in relation to the provision of a service is a statement to the effect that the service will not be provided to a person who—

(a)appears to P, or an employee or agent of P's, to be under the age specified in the statement, and

(b)on being required to do so by P or the employee or agent, fails to produce satisfactory identification.

(3)P does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to age discrimination, by not providing the service to a person, who—

(a)appears to P, or an employee or agent of P's, to be under the age specified in the age warning in relation to the provision of the service, and

(b)on being required to do so by P or the employee or agent, fails to produce satisfactory identification.

Already responded to elsewhere.

Where?

Discussion with Ethel Mermania, page 29.

[The Black Forrest]

In this case I agree
Other cases it’s completely fair for a law to stop people from being assholes

Eh, problems arise when the .gov decides you're an asshole.

When do they do that?

[Pilarcraft]

Eh, problems arise when the .gov decides you're an asshole.

When do they do that?

When they make public discrimination kinda illegal.

[The Black Forrest]

When do they do that?

When they make public discrimination kinda illegal.

And that is bad how?

[Senkaku]

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.

Again, you are comparing a celebration of two people's love and decision to be together to the desecration of the funerals of those who died for our country. Can ya not see how fucked up that comparison is?

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

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

My religion says I must murder a child every Thursday as an offering to the gods. Why is my religious liberty being infringed on?!

[Pilarcraft]

When they make public discrimination kinda illegal.

And that is bad how?

Are you kidding me? That's good. That's the position I've had since the very beginning of the thread lol.

[The Black Forrest]

And that is bad how?

Are you kidding me? That's good. That's the position I've had since the very beginning of the thread lol.

I barely remember how to get home after work. Not going to always remember what a generatlite wrote

[West Leas Oros]

When they make public discrimination kinda illegal.

And that is bad how?

If you want to get technical about it, controlling what people can and cannot think or say is generally bad.

[Van Riebeeck Land]

Discrimination is a bad business strategy. Would I of done that in the situation of the CO baker? No. But in the end the SCOTUS made the right decision, it's that guy's business, he has the right to serve whoever he wants.

[Pilarcraft]

Discrimination is a bad business strategy. Would I of done that in the situation of the CO baker? No. But in the end the SCOTUS made the right decision, it's that guy's business, he has the right to serve whoever he wants.

Not according to the Laws of the State of Colorado. The Supreme Court butted in where it shouldn't have, and gave precedence (possibly, at least, I wouldn't be surprised if this actually became as legal landmark) to a concept that can, pardon my french, screw commercial regulation so hard it'll never rise again.

[The Black Forrest]

And that is bad how?

If you want to get technical about it, controlling what people can and cannot think or say is generally bad.

They aren't controlling your thoughts. My tin hat makes sure of it.

You aren't blocked from saying shitting things. Where you run into problems is when you try to have "no coloreds allowed"......

[West Leas Oros]

If you want to get technical about it, controlling what people can and cannot think or say is generally bad.

They aren't controlling your thoughts. My tin hat makes sure of it.

You aren't blocked from saying shitting things. Where you run into problems is when you try to have "no coloreds allowed"......

True, but the point of this statement lies in the principle of the thing, as annoying as it is to hear that. In truth, this would cease to be an issue if private business were kept on a shorter leash.

[Purpelia]

If you want to get technical about it, controlling what people can and cannot think or say is generally bad.

They aren't controlling your thoughts. My tin hat makes sure of it.

You aren't blocked from saying shitting things. Where you run into problems is when you try to have "no coloreds allowed"......

You do realize tin is an electrical conductor and would thus act as an antenna amplifying any sort of mind control signal?

I am assuming we are talking tin foil AKA aluminium foil here. But even just proper tin is going to act as a semiconductor so you're screwed either way.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don’t see how making someone a fucking cake is the same as me desecrating a funeral. I don’t know how you make that leap in logic.

Because if that’s your logic then the people who sell markers, paint, and cardboard so that the WBC can make protest signs are just in the same boat as the WBC. Which I think is completely dumb.

I’m just selling the item I’m not involved in any way and that’s where the disconnect is. I don’t give a shit if my stuff is being used at any place, especially if they paid me a lot of money, I made money. I don’t have to justify my actions to you.
But get it through your head that I’m not participating in any just because I sold a fucking cake.

Yeah this whole debate is crazy
I see where the SC decision comes from from but the bakers were just being assholes

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

[Senkaku]

Yeah this whole debate is crazy
I see where the SC decision comes from from but the bakers were just being assholes

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

Sadly for them, since we live in a society that allows people freedom of religious belief, they have to accept the state's laws rather than their god's to govern their lives.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

Sadly for them, since we live in a society that allows people freedom of religious belief, they have to accept the state's laws rather than their god's to govern their lives.

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

[Pilarcraft]

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

That's the entire point of Secularism though. The laws of god don't matter. Only the laws of the State do. You can have your personal religion all you want, but as long as the state forbids you from doing something (which is my understanding of the situation here) or tells you to do something (Admittedly, this one is rare, since most legal systems work on a 'don't do that' basis instead), the law of god doesn't even get to come into it. Else, what would the point of legislation even be?

[Purpelia]

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

Sadly for them, since we live in a society that allows people freedom of religious belief, they have to accept the state's laws rather than their god's to govern their lives.

Problem is that when you put people in that position they don't. If you take a deeply religious person and tell them to renounce god for your laws they just won't take it.

You have to understand these are people who truly deeply and completely believe that there is a vengeful sky god out there who is going to judge their every action looking for even the slightest violation of his commands to sentence them to an eternity of torture. People have died to escape that. People have allowed them self to be tortured to death for it. History is full of martyrs for this very reason.

And more importantly in our modern case people are willing and able to fight against a government that puts them in such a situation. So if you don't want to abandon freedom of religion and just embrace state atheism you have to give them some concessions. Otherwise they will rise up against you or force your hand into starting religious persecution. Or, you know, use their rightful powers as members of a democracy to overthrow you that way.