SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[United Muscovite Nations]

Surprised no one else has posted this, so I'll go ahead and post it to start the inevitable discussion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... ke-n872946

So, my understanding is that the argument SCOTUS decided on was two-pronged, based on that 1) the baker is an artisan, and that the involvement that was wanted of him included "First Amendment expression", and 2) That the Colorado Civil Rights Commission* had an open disdain for conservative Christianity in their opinions, and that this constituted an unfair proceeding for him. The Court decided that this applies in only very specific situations, and is not a more broad ruling on religious freedom and discrimination. I personally agree with the Court, in that there has to be a distinction between custom, artisan work and standardized work, and that this distinction may be an exception to anti-discrimination statutes due to the sincerely-held beliefs of the artisan. However, I don't have very strong opinions either way.

Discuss.

* the previous version of the OP had an erroneous reference to the lower courts in this place, it has since been pointed out that this is not true, and I have corrected it accordingly.

[The Portland Territory]

Good. I do wonder, however, how such a case would've gone had it been a black person instead

[Terra Novae Libero]

It seems the ruling came because the Colorado courts were openly antagonistic to the baker's religion. So much so that two of the liberal justices sided with the majority, but no clear precedent is set.

[Vassenor]

So why does the First amendment trump the fourteenth, rather than all of them being equal?

[The New California Republic]

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.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So why does the First amendment trump the fourteenth, rather than all of them being equal?

The Fourteenth Amendment protects against government discrimination, not private.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Right call from everything I've seen thus far. The CCRC was acting out of line and a 7-2 ruling supports that.

[Hakons]

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 CCRC did discriminate against the baker, and this 7-2 decision confirms that. However, the central question of the case remains unresolved. We still don't have a clear line between religious liberty and equal protection under the law.

[Tobleste]

I kinda agree with the OP. This was a single baker deciding to refuse work rather than a large, powerful monopoly rejecting large demographic groups out of prejudice. Someone in the bakers position shouldn't be forced to accept work if they don't want it.

That said, it's good that the finding doesn't seem particularly strong or far-reaching. I'd imagine that if that happened conservatives would want protections for their religious objections to LGBT people breathing the same air as them or women daring to speak.

[The New California Republic]

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 CCRC did discriminate against the baker, and this 7-2 decision confirms that.

I never said that it didn't. I was drawing attention to the absurdity of the whole thing.

[Hakons]

I'd imagine that if that happened conservatives would want protections for their religious objections to LGBT people breathing the same air as them or women daring to speak.

I'm afraid that hyperbole will forever remain in your imagination.

[Hakons]

The CCRC did discriminate against the baker, and this 7-2 decision confirms that.

I never said that it didn't. I was drawing attention to the absurdity of the whole thing.

It doesn't seem that absurd. If I were a baker being forced to work by the Colorado government, I'd cry foul as well.

[Atmovia]

Whilst I don't agree with homophobia in the slightest (since I am gay myself) I find myself in 2 minds about this thing

1. A person who runs their own small business does technically have the right to refuse to serve whomever they want.
2. However, I feel that it is wrong to choose not to serve someone based on their sexuality.

I try to think of it as someone not being homophobic for the point of simply being homophobic, but because of their religious beliefs. Despite being agnostic myself, I am a person who believes in freedom of religion. However, I do also know plenty of people from a variety of religions that have no problem with people being gay, so it's a complicated thing for me to really comment on.

The Human Rights law is, whilst of course a good thing, always being contradicted because: At the same time the gay couple are entitled to their marriage and to get a cake, the baker is entitled to his religious beliefs.

If this happened to me I'd be disheartened, maybe a little annoyed, but I wouldn't bring the issue to court, I'd just find another freaking baker, there's plenty of them, after all. And most are perfectly willing to do a cake for a gay wedding. I've come to accept that not all people are open minded about LGBTQ+ but this baker did not (as far as i can tell) act in disgust/hatred, nor did he act violent, he simply said "I'm sorry guys but I cant do that", if he had acted in hatred or was violence, it would have been a different story altogether.

Anyway, I'm not even American so I guess "what do I know" xD

[The New California Republic]

I never said that it didn't. I was drawing attention to the absurdity of the whole thing.

It doesn't seem that absurd. If I were a baker being forced to work by the Colorado government, I'd cry foul as well.

You don't find it absurd that the Baker discriminated against some people, and then has the gall to complain that he himself is being discriminated against?

If it isn't absurd, then the entire thing is most certainly hypocritical...

[Ostroeuropa]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

[Firaxin]

Small business owners should have the right to refuse anyone they wish, though I do find it wrong to do so. We wouldn't have this problem if the State owned the means of production, as they could just assign someone who doesn't have a problem with baking the cake the job.

[Freezic Vast]

Whilst I don't agree with homophobia in the slightest (since I am gay myself) I find myself in 2 minds about this thing

1. A person who runs their own small business does technically have the right to refuse to serve whomever they want.
2. However, I feel that it is wrong to choose not to serve someone based on their sexuality.

I try to think of it as someone not being homophobic for the point of simply being homophobic, but because of their religious beliefs. Despite being agnostic myself, I am a person who believes in freedom of religion. However, I do also know plenty of people from a variety of religions that have no problem with people being gay, so it's a complicated thing for me to really comment on.

The Human Rights law is, whilst of course a good thing, always being contradicted because: At the same time the gay couple are entitled to their marriage and to get a cake, the baker is entitled to his religious beliefs.

If this happened to me I'd be disheartened, maybe a little annoyed, but I wouldn't bring the issue to court, I'd just find another freaking baker, there's plenty of them, after all. And most are perfectly willing to do a cake for a gay wedding. I've come to accept that not all people are open minded about LGBTQ+ but this baker did not (as far as i can tell) act in disgust/hatred, nor did he act violent, he simply said "I'm sorry guys but I cant do that", if he had acted in hatred or was violence, it would have been a different story altogether.

Anyway, I'm not even American so I guess "what do I know" xD

This is pretty much the perfect post for this, and I completely agree with it. It sums up my thoughts as well on it. The baker has the right to refuse to do business, and the couple could just as easily tried to find another bakery to bake the cake for them, no harm, no foul.

[Galloism]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

This is about where I’m at. I’m conflicted, but I hesitate to force people to create art.

[Hakons]

It doesn't seem that absurd. If I were a baker being forced to work by the Colorado government, I'd cry foul as well.

You don't find it absurd that the Baker discriminated against some people, and then has the gall to complain that he himself is being discriminated against?

If it isn't absurd, then the entire thing is most certainly hypocritical...

No, because he was legitimately discriminated against and practicing religion isn't discrimination.

[Proctopeo]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

This, exactly.

[The New California Republic]

You don't find it absurd that the Baker discriminated against some people, and then has the gall to complain that he himself is being discriminated against?

If it isn't absurd, then the entire thing is most certainly hypocritical...

No, because he was legitimately discriminated against and practicing religion isn't discrimination.

Discrimination against LGBT people isn't legitimate discrimination?

[Rivine]

I agree with this ruling given that it was a request for a designed cake. If it was a matter of buying one already prepared, I would side with the plaintiff, however, you should not be forced to create something you object to. If a baker refuses to bake a cake, that is their right. If they refuse to sell one, they'd better have a good reason.

Yeah, this is where I stand as well.

[Hakons]

No, because he was legitimately discriminated against and practicing religion isn't discrimination.

Discrimination against LGBT people isn't legitimate discrimination?

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

[The New California Republic]

Discrimination against LGBT people isn't legitimate discrimination?

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.

[Odinburgh]

I disagree with the decision as it will just only empower the bigots in the US. Yeah they have the right to refuse but it's also discrimination. I am not surprised as SCOTUS is a Republican controlled supreme court would rule this way. It's one more step towards total dictatorship under Trump which liberal voices and rights of all people don't really matter except bigots and wealthy people.