Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

[Spartanmack]

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).

this is nonsense, allowing someone to exercise their right to freedom of religion isn't even close to establishing a theocracy - that's simply moronic hyperbole. Also, the first amendment doesn't restrict the exercise of those freedoms to their private affairs. Even if it did, his business is a private enterprise and government compulsion of your beliefs is a massive overstep.

 

[Michchamp]

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.

that's not true. it's been claimed discrimination and bias would be inefficient economically, and would disappear on their own, but indeed these things persisted for decades prior to the Civil Rights acts ending them.

boycotts and bad publicity can play a role, but can't overcome all bigotry.

your theories rely on a humanity that is far more decent than the one we find in reality.

 

[Gulo Blue]

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.

I don't think, when something like this comes up again, the court will see baking a cake as participating in the ceremony any more than selling someone a house is participating in their cohabitation.


You can't say, "I don't want to participate in the wedding or cohabitation because of their race", so you can't say "I don't want to participate in the wedding or cohabitation because of their sexual orientation". Because legally, they are protected similarly.

 

[tinselwolverine]

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.

On Halloween the title is ?slut? and don?t blame me - that?s a chick thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKuF3fV8_yc

 

[Spartanmack]

that's not true. it's been claimed discrimination and bias would be inefficient economically, and would disappear on their own, but indeed these things persisted for decades prior to the Civil Rights acts ending them.

boycotts and bad publicity can play a role, but can't overcome all bigotry.

your theories rely on a humanity that is far more decent than the one we find in reality.

It is true and no, my theories don't rely humanity that is far more decent than the one we find in reality. Reality is nothing like you think it is - the evidence simply doesn't support your bullshit. segregation in public institutions (like schools) maintained by racist democrats (like you) lasted longer than in private businesses (restaurants, shops, etc) because boycotting state funded institutions didn't have the same immediate impact as it did on private enterprise.

and I didn't say that boycots and bad publicity overcome all bigotry. I said they did more for desegregation than the civil rights act.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't think, when something like this comes up again, the court will see baking a cake as participating in the ceremony any more than selling someone a house is participating in their cohabitation.

you could be right, the court could easily make that mistake.

You can't say, "I don't want to participate in the wedding or cohabitation because of their race", so you can't say "I don't want to participate in the wedding or cohabitation because of their sexual orientation". Because legally, they are protected similarly.

a more apt analogy would be building a custom home vs. baking the custom cake but it's still not a good one. Building or selling a house to someone of a different race isn't compelling you to participate in something you could be legitimately morally opposed to. One is about bigotry and hatred the other is about a belief in the institution of marriage and saying that's like believing in the institution of slavery is nonsense. Not participating in the wedding in now way impinges on the couples freedom to be gay or get married nor does it mean the baker hates gay people.

 

[Spartanmack]

On Halloween the title is “slut” and don’t blame me - that’s a chick thing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKuF3fV8_yc

you're using a Lindsay Lohan movie as your bar? C'mon, you're so much better than that. It's inconclusive at best - Amanda Seyfreid just says she's a mouse, not a slutty or a sexy mouse. Plus mean girls is from the heyday of hollywood sexism. I think google is a more definitive source - you won't find the word slut once to describe any of these costumes...

https://www.google.com/search?q=sex...v5zcAhULd98KHcpZDbMQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=985

I'll see your Lacy Chebert and raise you a sexy Princess Leia costume...

 

[Gulo Blue]

you could be right, the court could easily make that mistake.



a more apt analogy would be building a custom home vs. baking the custom cake but it's still not a good one. Building or selling a house to someone of a different race isn't compelling you to participate in something you could be legitimately morally opposed to. One is about bigotry and hatred the other is about a belief in the institution of marriage and saying that's like believing in the institution of slavery is nonsense. Not participating in the wedding in now way impinges on the couples freedom to be gay or get married nor does it mean the baker hates gay people.

Not legally. Nobody is drawing parallels to slavery in the argument, they are simply two characteristics people have used to discriminate by. Justifying the discrimination as a religious belief happens/happened in both cases. If there is a legal distinction you are pointing out between race vs. orientation, I'm not seeing it yet.


How custom something has to be to constitutes speech that is protected to the degree where it would trump non-discrimination laws is a separate, not yet settled issue. But just selling a product that you sell constituting participation, I think that's an opinion argument about how it feels like things should be to some people. There's no legal argument there. You can not do things for everybody you object to on religious grounds. You can't make a store owner sell alcohol if they don't want to. But if they sell it, they have to sell it to all religions and protected classes.

 

[Michchamp]

Republitards: FACTS don't care about YOUR FEELINGS, LIBTARDS, DURRR DURR DDURRRRR

Also Republitards: *through hysterical sobs* OH... THESE POOR CHRISTIAN CAKE MAKERS... FORCED - FORCED! (durr) - TO BAKE A CAKE FOR GAYS...!! Think of their FEELINGS!!! This is all so hard for them, durr durrrr

 

[tinselwolverine]

you're using a Lindsay Lohan movie as your bar? C'mon, you're so much better than that. It's inconclusive at best - Amanda Seyfreid just says she's a mouse, not a slutty or a sexy mouse. Plus mean girls is from the heyday of hollywood sexism. I think google is a more definitive source - you won't find the word slut once to describe any of these costumes...

https://www.google.com/search?q=sex...v5zcAhULd98KHcpZDbMQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=985

I'll see your Lacy Chebert and raise you a sexy Princess Leia costume...

What are you talking about? Yes, I'm using Mean Girls as the bar. A Google search for "best teen movies" or "classic teen movies" or "most iconic teen movies" shows it ranked in the top three on almost every list.

Also, Lindsay Lohan didn't write/create it - Tina Fey did. Maybe not everyone thinks she's great but I would call it disingenuous to argue against her success.

Princess Leia is not iconically slutty - she's more iconically sexy or beautiful. Sometimes chicks dress like her for Halloween, but she's not really a Halloween character, like the slutty Kitty.

Chuck Lorre also uses "slutty" to describe Halloween costumes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR3eMP3nRas

Now, a chick wearing a hot costume on Halloween who wants to refer to herself as "sexy" rather than "slutty" has every right to do so; however, to Cady's point in the clip, isn't describing one's self as a slut the one day of the year that it's completely socially acceptable kind of the whole point?

Also, in the words of Amanda Seyfried, "duh?" Of course Google will show the word slutty to describe the same costumes if one searches for slutty Halloween costumes. I've decided not to make a link because it kind of goes against the no graphic images standard for the board, but a person can see for themselves.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Now, a chick wearing a hot costume on Halloween who wants to refer to herself as "sexy" rather than "slutty" has every right to do so; however, to Cady's point in the clip, isn't describing one's self as a slut the one day of the year that it's completely socially acceptable kind of the whole point?

Yeah, that's how you feel about it, but in terms of the law...






I'm kidding. I got nothing to add here.

 

[Spartanmack]

What are you talking about? Yes, I'm using Mean Girls as the bar. A Google search for "best teen movies" or "classic teen movies" or "most iconic teen movies" shows it ranked in the top three on almost every list.

Also, Lindsay Lohan didn't write/create it - Tina Fey did. Maybe not everyone thinks she's great but I would call it disingenuous to argue against her success.

Princess Leia is not iconically slutty - she's more iconically sexy or beautiful. Sometimes chicks dress like her for Halloween, but she's not really a Halloween character, like the slutty Kitty.

Chuck Lorre also uses "slutty" to describe Halloween costumes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR3eMP3nRas

Now, a chick wearing a hot costume on Halloween who wants to refer to herself as "sexy" rather than "slutty" has every right to do so; however, to Cady's point in the clip, isn't describing one's self as a slut the one day of the year that it's completely socially acceptable kind of the whole point?

Also, in the words of Amanda Seyfried, "duh?" Of course Google will show the word slutty to describe the same costumes if one searches for slutty Halloween costumes. I've decided not to make a link because it kind of goes against the no graphic images standard for the board, but a person can see for themselves.

Two and a Half Men? now you're taking it completely off the rails. I just googled "slutty kitten costume" and nowhere on the internet is anyone selling anything under that description. I'll take the market indicators over a couple of pop culture references any day.

 

[Spartanmack]

Not legally. Nobody is drawing parallels to slavery in the argument, they are simply two characteristics people have used to discriminate by. Justifying the discrimination as a religious belief happens/happened in both cases. If there is a legal distinction you are pointing out between race vs. orientation, I'm not seeing it yet.


How custom something has to be to constitutes speech that is protected to the degree where it would trump non-discrimination laws is a separate, not yet settled issue. But just selling a product that you sell constituting participation, I think that's an opinion argument about how it feels like things should be to some people. There's no legal argument there. You can not do things for everybody you object to on religious grounds. You can't make a store owner sell alcohol if they don't want to. But if they sell it, they have to sell it to all religions and protected classes.

the distinction is he will sell them any of the regularly produced items in his bakery that they want for any purpose they desire, he just won't be compelled to use his artistic talents to participate in an event he's opposed to by baking them a custom wedding cake.

 

[Spartanmack]

Republitards: FACTS don't care about YOUR FEELINGS, LIBTARDS, DURRR DURR DDURRRRR

Also Republitards: *through hysterical sobs* OH... THESE POOR CHRISTIAN CAKE MAKERS... FORCED - FORCED! (durr) - TO BAKE A CAKE FOR GAYS...!! Think of their FEELINGS!!! This is all so hard for them, durr durrrr

beliefs are not feelings. durrr. I couldn't care less about the baker's feelings, it's everyone's freedom of religion, including nonbelievers that matters.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Two and a Half Men? now you're taking it completely off the rails. I just googled "slutty kitten costume" and nowhere on the internet is anyone selling anything under that description. I'll take the market indicators over a couple of pop culture references any day.

I get the same purchase options for ?slutty kitten costumes? as I get for ?sexy kitten costumes.?

?Slutty? is a self-identification option for Halloween, ergo, the numerous, poignant and prescient pop culture references.

Pop culture matters.

 

[b311j]

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.

Morally opposed to what? 2 consenting adults that were born gay choosing to spend their lives together? OH THE HORROR!!!!!!

 

[Gulo Blue]

the distinction is he will sell them any of the regularly produced items in his bakery that they want for any purpose they desire, he just won't be compelled to use his artistic talents to participate in an event he's opposed to by baking them a custom wedding cake.

That's the 'how custom does something have to be to constitute protected speech' question. I agree that's not completely settled. But that's not the part I was asking about.



I'm asking what's the legal distinction that makes selling a custom thing to a gay couple different than selling a custom thing to a black couple.

 

[Spartanmack]

Morally opposed to what? 2 consenting adults that were born gay choosing to spend their lives together? OH THE HORROR!!!!!!

no, as far as I can tell, he's perfectly OK with 2 gay men (or women) spending their lives together. But in accordance with his Christian faith, he believes marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's the 'how custom does something have to be to constitute protected speech' question. I agree that's not completely settled. But that's not the part I was asking about.



I'm asking what's the legal distinction that makes selling a custom thing to a gay couple different than selling a custom thing to a black couple.

Well, one distinction would be he's not engaging in wholesale discrimination against gay people - he's perfectly willing to do business with them, selling his other products for them to use however they choose. His opposition is to same sex marriage, not gay people. That's different than the wholesale discrimination against a protected class - you couldn't reasonably argue that you have a religiously based moral opposition to building houses for black people. I'm not aware of any builders who claim their religion would allow them to renovate a black couple's bathroom but not build them a house.

It's not cut and dry, a bit of a gray area but I think his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump their right to compel him to participate in something he's morally opposed to. You can be opposed to same sex marriage and not hate gay people.

Personally, I think the government has no business and no real interest in sanctioning or regulating marriage, regardless of whatever wrongheaded decision the Supreme Court made about it. Beyond my tax filing status, the piece of paper I have from the state of New Jersey saying I'm married is meaningless to me. The one I have from the Catholic Church matters way more.

 

[Spartanmack]

I get the same purchase options for ?slutty kitten costumes? as I get for ?sexy kitten costumes.?

?Slutty? is a self-identification option for Halloween, ergo, the numerous, poignant and prescient pop culture references.

Pop culture matters.

pop culture and it's bastard offsping, PC culture are what's rotting this country from the inside. Get out of Hollywood while you still can. You already think the Big Bang Theory is a good show, I'd hate log on one day and read you quoting Two Broke Girls or a Tyler Perry movie.