Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[Gulo Blue]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html


7-2 decision. Apparently motivated to a significant degree by "the commission?s asserted hostility to religion"


I could see a ruling where the baker had to make A cake, but not necessarily any cake requested with speech on it. In this case, there had not been any discussion of the design of the cake. Whatever the fine line is here they are trying to convey, I haven't figured it out yet.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Reading comments online, this may be a very narrow opinion about how the baker wasn't treated fairly in this specific case.

 

[TheVictors]

I think it’s more the SC saying the baker didn’t receive proper procedure from the State ..not that the baker (and wow, the details are being left out on social media) was right in refusing to make the cake.

Some online are making ludicrous claims about the alleged cake design but if you read the case, they’d never gotten to cake design, just the request.

I’m sure there’s are a good half-dozen gay friendly bakers to choose from.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I think it?s more the SC saying the baker didn?t receive proper procedure from the State ..not that the baker (and wow, the details are being left out on social media) was right in refusing to make the cake.

Some online are making ludicrous claims about the alleged cake design but if you read the case, they?d never gotten to cake design, just the request.

I?m sure there?s are a good half-dozen gay friendly bakers to choose from.

That's what I'm reading. There are probably fine lines that could be examined, but this case doesn't raise them. It's about the government making anti-religion comments in it's decision.

 

[tinselwolverine]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/...es-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html


7-2 decision. Apparently motivated to a significant degree by "the commission?s asserted hostility to religion"


I could see a ruling where the baker had to make A cake, but not necessarily any cake requested with speech on it. In this case, there had not been any discussion of the design of the cake. Whatever the fine line is here they are trying to convey, I haven't figured it out yet.

The groom and groom requested statuettes lf two naked dudes holding hands as the centerpiece and pictures of dicks and balls decorating the icing.

The court ruled that the baker was entitled not to have to engage in this type of speech expression if he didn't want to.

 

[Gulo Blue]

If a higher court rules that a court screwed up, is there an opportunity for a retrial?

 

[tinselwolverine]

If a higher court rules that a court screwed up, is there an opportunity for a retrial?

I don't think there's been a case where the Supreme Court has ruled that there needed to be retrial. I think the Supreme Court decision is it.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't think there's been a case where the Supreme Court has ruled that there needed to be retrial. I think the Supreme Court decision is it.

I guess you're right. That's the norm in the Supreme Court, other courts making errors. I just usually think of biased parties making the mistakes.

 

[Michchamp]

The US Supreme Court is pretty much the end of the line... if they screw up, you pretty much have to wait until new justices come on board, or get a law passed or amend the constitution.

 

[Michchamp]

Reading comments online, this may be a very narrow opinion about how the baker wasn't treated fairly in this specific case.

That's what I've read as well... (very little) just comments that the holding was not in regards to equal protection generally, just that in this one (1) case, the state anti-discrimination law was biased against... uh... people that hate gays, and view them as subhuman or evil.

haven't read any speicifics though.

also comments that because the holding was so narrow, it doesn't resolve whether or not anti-discriminatory laws are unconstitutional, just this one.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Some online are making ludicrous claims about the alleged cake design but if you read the case, they?d never gotten to cake design, just the request.

t's terrible that people would just make shit like that up and post it on the internet.

 

[Gulo Blue]

t's terrible that people would just make shit like that up and post it on the internet.

I'm glad we have people like you on this board keeping our moral compass pointed in the right direction.

 

[Spartanmack]

t's terrible that people would just make shit like that up and post it on the internet.

thank goodness everyone here is mature enough to not engage in such tactics, like no one here would ever say that people who don't want to participate in something that violates their deeply held religious beliefs

hate gays, and view them as subhuman or evil.

 

[Michchamp]

thank goodness everyone here is mature enough to not engage in such tactics, like no one here would ever say that people who don't want to participate in something that violates their deeply held religious beliefs

oh, it's not hate?

"I don't hate gays and view them as evil, I just have this thing about baking wedding cakes for two guys and am willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court."

sure, that's reasonable. not hatred or bigotry.

 

[Gulo Blue]

oh, it's not hate?

"I don't hate gays and view them as evil, I just have this thing about baking wedding cakes for two guys and am willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court."

sure, that's reasonable. not hatred or bigotry.

Sometimes it's hate, but sometimes it's not. Do you actually not know anybody that falls into that group?

 

[turok]

The SCOTUS ruled that the state had wronged the baker procedurally, this had nothing to do with his refusal to bake a gay-themed cake in a largely conservative city that his publicized bias very likely will have a negligible if any negative effect on his business going forward.

However any of the businesses which have/will supply him with the ingredients and equipment that are necessary for him to operate his bakery, could decide to stop doing so as a result of this lawsuit being so highly and widely publicized.

 

[Spartanmack]

oh, it's not hate?

"I don't hate gays and view them as evil, I just have this thing about baking wedding cakes for two guys and am willing to take it all the way to the Supreme Court."

sure, that's reasonable. not hatred or bigotry.

that's right - people can believe things different from what you believe and do so without the least bit of hate.

 

[Spartanmack]

Sometimes it's hate, but sometimes it's not. Do you actually not know anybody that falls into that group?

probably but it's much easier to win arguments when you can just dismiss off hand the opposing points of view as racist/bigoted/homophobic.

 

[Michchamp]

probably but it's much easier to win arguments when you can just dismiss off hand the opposing points of view as racist/bigoted/homophobic.

I guess someone who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple could also just be extremely ignorant, or stupid.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Here's the guy on Today. He says he also doesn't bake Halloween cakes, and wouldn't design a cake that disparages LGBT people or any other group.