Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[Gulo Blue]

IF this were true, then why did he refuse service in this one instance??

I think I saw that somewhere too. He'll sell a gay couple cupcakes or whatever generic thing they may want for birthdays or whatever, but considers his wedding cakes to be involved in a specific thing he is opposed to.

Phillips?s attorneys pointed out that he even offered to provide other kinds of cakes, brownies, or cookies to Craig and Mullins ? showing that the issue was not that the men are gay. But he did refuse all wedding cakes to the couple, including cakes that were made for other customers before and a ?nondescript? cake ? showing that he was singling out gay people in refusing at least one kind of service.

 

[tinselwolverine]

IF this were true, then why did he refuse service in this one instance??

It was a same sex wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

He always does.

He also refuses to make Halloween cakes.

If it was me, I would take money to bake a same sex wedding cake and a Halloween cake at the same time, dressed as a slutty kitten.

But that?s just me.

The baker should be free.

 

[Spartanmack]

IF this were true, then why did he refuse service in this one instance??

it IS true and it's not just this one instance. he refuses to make wedding cakes for all same sex couples and he also doesn't decorate cakes for halloween for the same reason.

 

[Spartanmack]

"Phillips’s case also focused largely on the custom nature of his cakes, emphasizing how much artistic care and, crucially for his case, expression goes into the product."


https://www.vox.com/identities/2018...p-supreme-court-baker-ruling-gay-wedding-cake

so he doesn't have a standard line of cakes specifically for weddings - it makes sense that they're all custom, made to order and also makes his case for not using his artistic skills to participate in something that violates his beliefs stronger.

 

[Spartanmack]

It absolutely is the baker forcing his religious beliefs. I cannot even see how this is in debate when he himself used religious beliefs as his defense.

And i would ask HOW it is not the same as denying a black couple. Black people are, as I understand it, born black. Gay people are born gay. BOTH would be denying based on how the person was born.

he is not forcing his religious beliefs on anyone. He's not trying to force the couple to believe what he believes - they're trying to force their beliefs onto him. It's only a debate because you can't seem to grasp the difference. Using his religious beliefs as his defense isn't forcing anything on the plaintiffs - he's not forcing them to believe what he believes.

First, it hasn't been proven that people are born gay. There are genetic and environmental factors that affect behavior and preferences and it's unclear whether people are born that way, influenced by their environment or both.
Second, the baker is refusing to participate in a gay wedding, which is a violation of his Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. He's not refusing to sell them anything, he's simply won't be forced to use his artistic talents and participate in an event that violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. That's completely different from race based discrimination.

 

[TheVictors]

I love how discriminating against gay couples is said to be based on religion.

And then you ask how and the reply is, “God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve!”

Hell, some dude in the Bible laid with men ...can’t recall my Bible as Lit notes from Ralph Williams off hand.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don't believe any of this is about anybody forcing their beliefs on anyone else.


Legally.


It was about free speech. Art can be protected if it is speech. Did baking that cake constitute speech in support of gay marriage on the behalf of the baker? If it is speech, that's not the end of it because not all speech is protected. The Colorado court exhibited bias against the baker in coming to a conclusion, so he won the case without winning or losing the argument people want settled.

 

[Gulo Blue]

he is not forcing his religious beliefs on anyone. He's not trying to force the couple to believe what he believes - they're trying to force their beliefs onto him. It's only a debate because you can't seem to grasp the difference. Using his religious beliefs as his defense isn't forcing anything on the plaintiffs - he's not forcing them to believe what he believes.

First, it hasn't been proven that people are born gay. There are genetic and environmental factors that affect behavior and preferences and it's unclear whether people are born that way, influenced by their environment or both.
Second, the baker is refusing to participate in a gay wedding, which is a violation of his Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. He's not refusing to sell them anything, he's simply won't be forced to use his artistic talents and participate in an event that violates his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. That's completely different from race based discrimination.

How is this a difference? They are both protected classes. (And races aren't clear cut in terms of DNA anyway.)

 

[tinselwolverine]

it IS true and it's not just this one instance. he refuses to make wedding cakes for all same sex couples and he also doesn't decorate cakes for halloween for the same reason.

Dude, I just SAID this in the post just above this one and I even threw in a slutty kitty Halloween costume reference for good measure.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't believe any of this is about anybody forcing their beliefs on anyone else.


Legally.


It was about free speech. Art can be protected if it is speech. Did baking that cake constitute speech in support of gay marriage on the behalf of the baker? If it is speech, that's not the end of it because not all speech is protected. The Colorado court exhibited bias against the baker in coming to a conclusion, so he won the case without winning or losing the argument people want settled.

forcing someone to participate in an event (using their talent and skill to make a custom cake) he or she is morally opposed to is forcing their beliefs on them.

 

[Michchamp]

forcing someone to participate in an event (using their talent and skill to make a custom cake) he or she is morally opposed to is forcing their beliefs on them.

Yeah, that would be wrong... except for the fact that the guy choose to run a public wedding cake business.

 

[Gulo Blue]

forcing someone to participate in an event (using their talent and skill to make a custom cake) he or she is morally opposed to is forcing their beliefs on them.

Legally, what law are you talking about? "Forcing beliefs" isn't a legal thing.

 

[Spartanmack]

Dude, I just SAID this in the post just above this one and I even threw in a slutty kitty Halloween costume reference for good measure.

yeah, I saw that after the fact but I was too lazy to edit my post and acknowledge you beat me to it. But since you called me out on it, I do have one minor nit to pick - I believe most people call those costumes "sexy kittens" - it's a bit misongynistic of you to assume just all cats that dress like that are sluts.

 

[Spartanmack]

Yeah, that would be wrong... except for the fact that the guy choose to run a public wedding cake business.

except for the fact that his right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech trumps your right to compel him to use his talents to participate in something he's morally opposed to.

 

[Spartanmack]

Legally, what law are you talking about? "Forcing beliefs" isn't a legal thing.

that's a distinction you've added - the argument from bj is about whether or not the baker is forcing his beliefs on the plaintiff. He's not, it's clearly the opposite where the plaintiffs are trying to force their beliefs onto him.

 

[Michchamp]

except for the fact that his right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech trumps your right to compel him to use his talents to participate in something he's morally opposed to.

except for the fact that his "right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech" doesn't trump a prohibition on discriminating against protected classes, in which the trend in case after case has been to included LGBTQ persons.

white supremacists tried this same argument in the 60's against having to serve black customers, rent to black families, etc. it failed then and it's failing again now.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's a distinction you've added - the argument from bj is about whether or not the baker is forcing his beliefs on the plaintiff. He's not, it's clearly the opposite where the plaintiffs are trying to force their beliefs onto him.

Yeah, you're the only one that's responded so far, but the my 1st post on this wasn't directed at anyone specifically. Arguments about people "forcing their beliefs", I think, are arguments about what feels right to people, not what our laws are or how they might be interpreted by the courts.

 

[Gulo Blue]

except for the fact that his "right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech" doesn't trump a prohibition on discriminating against protected classes, in which the trend in case after case has been to included LGBTQ persons.

white supremacists tried this same argument in the 60's against having to serve black customers, rent to black families, etc. it failed then and it's failing again now.

This is how I see it shaking out. I haven't heard any legal distinction between discrimination by sexual orientation vs. race (I don't think there is one) and the slippery slope of calling everything art requires some kind of bar to get over before something can be called speech. If there's no bar to get over, you could call lots of things speech and use that as a justification for discrimination. So what bar do you set? That part is tricky, but claiming that any participation, even with cakes designed for other couples or completely generic designs, constitutes speech, is no bar at all, and opens the door to discrimination. (example: "Them cohabitating is against my beliefs. I won't participate by building them a house.")

 

[Michchamp]

This is how I see it shaking out. I haven't heard any legal distinction between discrimination by sexual orientation vs. race (I don't think there is one) and the slippery slope of calling everything art requires some kind of bar to get over before something can be called speech. If there's no bar to get over, you could call lots of things speech and use that as a justification for discrimination. So what bar do you set? That part is tricky, but claiming that any participation, even with cakes designed for other couples or completely generic designs, constitutes speech, is no bar at all, and opens the door to discrimination. (example: "Them cohabitating is against my beliefs. I won't participate by building them a house.")

The 1st Amendment text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

The arguments used to justify discriminating are either that: 1) it's speech, ie I don't like these people and won't serve them or 2) it's religion, ie my religion says I can't serve these people.

Now, leaving aside the fact that In both cases, those making the arguments aren't being very Christian, they can do those things in private and the government cannot do anything about it.

Engaging in interstate commerce - i.e. open to the general public - is not in private. And there are a lot of good reasons why, and none that are why not, unless you want to live in a theocracy (or Nazi Germany).

 

[Spartanmack]

except for the fact that his "right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech" doesn't trump a prohibition on discriminating against protected classes, in which the trend in case after case has been to included LGBTQ persons.

white supremacists tried this same argument in the 60's against having to serve black customers, rent to black families, etc. it failed then and it's failing again now.

yeah, his first amendment rights trump their right to compel his participation in an event he is morally opposed to. If people decide not to patronize a bakery that refuses to participate in such events and he goes out of business, like what happened with segregation (you many not be aware of this but boycotts and sit ins did a lot more to integrate the south than the civil rights act did), then so be it, but the baker has rights and you don't get to compel him to forfeit those rights just because you don't like his position.