• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

 
 
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
One difference between the cake maker in Colorado and the civil servant in Tennessee (Kentucky) is that one of them is a government employee (elected Government Official). I hold civil servants to far stricter standards than people outside government.
Click to expand...
The Kentucky case was clearly illegal. She was using her position in Government to enact edicts as per her religious faith. That is just wrong on so many different levels.

The cake case is disturbing because SCOTUS has pretended to see bias via false equivalency (well... they ruled against offensive speech against gays on a cake, why wouldn't they allow a guy to not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, it is so similar!). Luckily only two justices (Gorsuch and Thomas) sought to add cakes to expression.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Supreme Court Rules for Baker in Gay Wedding Cake Case But Carefully Avoids Central Debate - This 7-2 ruling is more about Colorado's biased enforcement of discrimination law than freedom of expression

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 this morning that the State of Colorado erred in punishing a baker for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the approach the court took guarantees that this debate is far from over.

The court did not rule that cake-baking is a protected form of free expression. Instead it said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) showed open hostility to the baker's attempt to assert his religious beliefs as a reason to reject the couple's request, and that the state thus did not neutrally enforce its antidiscrimination law.

In Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, bakery owner Jake Phillips refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because he had religious objections to same-sex marriage. Colorado ruled that this counted as discrimination against gay people, which violates state law. Phillips countered that he would sell any other baked goods to gay people, but he wouldn't make or sell goods for same-sex wedding ceremonies, because he felt as though he was being compelled to support an idea (that gay marriage is valid) that he did not believe.

The court punted on the issue of whether creating a wedding cake (or other wedding-related goods) is a form of free expression. Instead the justices ruled that the CCRC took a dismissive, hostile approach toward Phillips' religious-based objections when compared to other kinds of cases that came before them
Click to expand...

This isn't really much of a win for any of the sides involved.
Click to expand...

Right. The CCRC very obviously engaged in viewpoint discrimination. This SCOTUS Opinion does not announce any new law but simply affirms that government cannot do that. This forum is populated with atheists and agnostics who ought to appreciate that this was the right decision. Moreover, Kagan (Obama appointee) and Breyer (Clinton appointee) joined. When supposed members of an ideological wing of the Court join the majority, that speaks to the soundness of the decision. The dissenters, Sotomayer and Ginsberg, were the same two, and only two, who dissented when the Supreme Court several years back upheld a Michigan voters' referendum that all should have equal protection under the law. That they would dissent here is hardly surprising.
 
I'm pretty sure this decision will eventually result in some more direct and damaging action taken against a gay couple, or individual. Let's face it, having someone refuse to decorate a cake for you is hardly a matter of life and death. I expect the next case where someone tries to use 'it's against my religion' as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals will be over something more serious; and that case will, I expect, turn out differently.
 
Jobar said:
I'm pretty sure this decision will eventually result in some more direct and damaging action taken against a gay couple, or individual. Let's face it, having someone refuse to decorate a cake for you is hardly a matter of life and death. I expect the next case where someone tries to use 'it's against my religion' as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals will be over something more serious; and that case will, I expect, turn out differently.
Click to expand...
Much like sitting in the back of a bus, where hey... you are still on the bus, right? Things are muddled these days, as corporations are capable finding religion, instead of just being pieces of paper that trade certain rights for certain privileges.
 
Jobar said:
I'm pretty sure this decision will eventually result in some more direct and damaging action taken against a gay couple, or individual. Let's face it, having someone refuse to decorate a cake for you is hardly a matter of life and death. I expect the next case where someone tries to use 'it's against my religion' as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals will be over something more serious; and that case will, I expect, turn out differently.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that is in the same category of the predictions that said each of the last several presidents would suspend the next election.
 
Why would you want to give your money to somebody who doesn't want to provide a service for you. Money talks.
Besides,
JQEWkBy.jpg
 
Are bakers who don't sell gluten free cakes discriminating against certain people? No. They simply choose not to service that particular market. Same with bakers who don't sell 'rainbow' wedding cakes.

Are butchers who dont sell halal meat discriminating against muslims ?

If a taxi/chauffeur says I will drive you anywhere you want to go except to an abortion clinic, is that discrimination ??? No! They won't drive ANYONE to that destination.

Are wedding photographers who refuse to film (legal) pornographic honeymoon memories for newlyweds accused of discrimination? No - of course they arent. They can refuse.

Are prostitutes who only serve straight clients guilty of discrimination? Intolerance? Homophobia ?
 
Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?
 
Jobar said:
I'm pretty sure this decision will eventually result in some more direct and damaging action taken against a gay couple, or individual.
Click to expand...
Sometime back, they decided that individual pharmacists could refuse to issue birth control or abortion drugs if it went against their religion.

Soon after that, a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a coagulant because she SUSPECTED that the woman was bleeding from an abortion.
No evidence to support this, and the doctor on the script wouldn't confirm or deny, but still, her suspicions and her agenda were more important than the woman dripping on her floor... And filling OR denying the prescription had no bearing on preventing an abortion.

So, yeah. Someone will hear only 'SCOTUS sided with the baker' and deny someone something because they think they can...
 
Lion IRC said:
Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?
Click to expand...
”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.
 
James Madison said:
untermensche said:
James Madison said:
The decision is more nuanced.
Click to expand...

In other words it is twisted to favor current Christian delusions.

Delusions like discrimination against gay marriage is a part of religious practice.
Click to expand...

Read the opinion. You’re wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

An Opinion is just a series of lame excuses to do what you want to do in the fist place. It is never a thing that approaches objectivity. That is why it is called an opinion. We form our conclusions first then with cleverness create an opinion to take us there.

I don't need to read anything.

I can think.

And it is absolute delusion to claim that Christian practice includes discrimination against gay marriage.

That is a temporary religious delusion that is prevalent.

So prevalent it dominates the Court.

They have been picked by those with religious delusions, like Reagan and GH Bush and GW Bush and Trump, because of their religious delusions.
 
Juma said:
Lion IRC said:
Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?
Click to expand...
”Impose values” ?
Click to expand...
I really have to wonder HOW a bookstore manages to 'impose' such values on consumers. What, you can't order a Bible unless you order three items of gay porn, first?
 
Juma said:
Its about denying service.
Click to expand...

Which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was allowing on a selective basis depending on the view being expressed.

AKA they were engaging in viewpoint discrimination.
 
Juma said:
Lion IRC said:
Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?
Click to expand...
”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.
Click to expand...
The distinction, though subtle, between denying service and not serving is critical. I sell (and only sell) Pepsi--not Coke. If someone wants to buy Coke from me, then although I'm not selling that someone Coke, I'm not denying to sell him Coke. On the other hand, if I do sell Coke but refuse to sell it, then that is a denial.
 
Lion IRC said:
Are bakers who don't sell gluten free cakes discriminating against certain people? No. They simply choose not to service that particular market.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that people that don't sell gluten free cakes do so specifically to avoid selling items to people with gluten allergies?
Same with bakers who don't sell 'rainbow' wedding cakes.

Are butchers who dont sell halal meat discriminating against muslims ?
Click to expand...
Here is the deal, it is one thing to not sell an item at all, it is another thing to restrict your sales of an item from certain classes of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom