Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon 286 Replies latest social current

• 

  _Morpheus

  I respectfully disagree. Generally speaking, shervices SHOULD be offered in a blanket manner. If you run a hotel you shouldnt be allowed to have an anti heterosexual policy anymore than an anti homosexual policy. If you go to chick fil a they should serve you if your a long haired tattooed man in shorts and a tee shirt (without vulgar language on it) or in a tuxedo. Or if your hetrosexual. Or if your homosexual.

  Whats at issue here was the baker being compelled to use his creativity to support a message he didnt agree with. The bakery offered a generic cake. They had no problem serving the couple, they didnt want to specifically create a pro homosexual message. This isnt that complicated. And i agree that its scarry and troubling that two justices dissented. Very troubling.
• 

  truth_b_known

  Dozy -

  The UK government being more secular has nothing to do with it. It's about statism vs living free and the concept of feeling morally superior. Morality is subjective, not objective.
• 

  _Morpheus

  Never mind i just looked up who they were: ginsberg and Sotomayor. Explains it all.
• 

  John Free

  No Morph wouldn’t make a porno cake or a racist cake as you suggested earlier. But that wouldn’t be homophobia or racism on my part would it. You’re convoluting issues.

  This WAS homophobia since he didnt provide a service that he does otherwise provide for straights. The law SHOULD protect these people against discrimination in the service industry.
• 

  blownaway

  As I said above, don't conflate not serving someone such as you can not eat in my diner because you are of some race or other protected class. Remember anyone can say I don't rent to plumbers, or teachers or people with black hair. But there are protected classes. And some gay person saying I want a hamburger with two guys butt rumping each other. So does a photographer have to take photos of a gay porn? Or does a Muslim have to make a wood crucifix if he is a carpenter? The baker would have made a wedding cake and they could have put on the two guys or girls or dog and a guy what ever it was they wanted. But you have crossed a line where you are asking someone to participate in your life style.
  
• 

  freemindfade

  I believe free speech will correct bad speech and I also believe capitalism is a greater force for progress than anti-discrimination laws.

  Jim Crow

  Case and point, Jim Crow laws were ENFORCED segregation by the government. Why is that significant? Because a free market was causing people/businesses in the south who were NOT racist, to choose money over bigotry. The racists (people and businesses) clearly saw this as an advantage, not in their favor, so what did they do? Use the government to create laws that FORCED businesses to segregate. So society and business typically do not discriminate, yes there are and always will be bigots, but the free market idea is about making money. Not oppressing groups.

  Free Speech not Religious Issue

  What is seldom mentioned in this Colorado issue is the baker was willing to sell them any cake they had, so in effect, he was not discriminating against them for being gay as individuals, but when it came to preparing one of his unique and special cakes for the wedding, he didn't want to. THAT should be protected. It is his choice not to work with someone. What if it was a gay bakery and a Christian wanted them to put on a cake a homophobic scripture? Shouldn't the owners have the right to say I find this offensive (personally) and choose not to do it? What if a black baker is asked to make a cake for a skinhead wedding and put things on it that are highly offensive to them?

  I get it, I hate that people are bigots, especially based on religion and the bible. But we have to preserve rights. Every time an opponent does something we don't like, we run to the government to make them stop, The government then usually would infringe on rights, for all! They basically make a blunt object to clobber them with that can then be used for others in a malevolent way.

  We need to be careful. When you censor, when you restrict, you often embolden the other side and threaten multiple rights. It's a radical idea, but maybe we should allow people to openly discriminate, let them show who they are, the market will put them out of business because most people object to this behavior. If you have the government make more laws, they simply change their speech, still discriminate quietly without the burden of proof, and we are all left with the laws. This will probably not ever happen so we need to make clear and careful lines and consider all rights, just not what makes us angry, it's hard to play devil's advocate, but its the only way to proceed logically.

  Why would you want someone who is bigoted towards you to make something for you?
  

  Why would you want to be employed by someone you don't want to work for? To me, that is the issue. He was turning down employment in a way, not disallowing people to buy his damn cakes.
• 

  blownaway

  John you are absolutely wrong. The backer did not say he would he would not sell or make a cake for them. He in fact stated he will sell a cake to anyone, but he does not create cakes for every occasion. They could have bought a generic cake and finished it with to guys spanking each other themselfs. But they were looking to force someone to go against their conscience.
  
• 

  never a jw

  Any private business should be able to discriminate on the basis of whatever they want, race included. It's stupid and bad for the bottom line, but it should be a protected right to handle my business in whichever stupid way I want. That's true freedom from government tyranny. But that's just me. Go ahead and hit the dislikes.
  
• 

  _Morpheus

  John, perhaps you could explain how not making a pornographic cake for larry flint is different than not making a gay pride cake?
• 

  Simon

  This was targeted harassment of someone based on their religion. Normally the left would be all over that, but in this case their arbitrary hierarchy of diversity that puts gayness ahead of belief means they were bad and had to have threats and made an example of. If the baker had been black or muslim, it wouldn't have happened. Fact.

  The left mobilizes people to attack any they disagree with and if you believe it's about 'the thing' instead of being about bowing your head to the goons you are mistaken. The government should not have the power to force people to do things they don't want because those laws WILL be misused because every law, however well intentioned, is eventually misused.

  Freedom is more important than some gay activists right to harass and cause trouble for someone.

  Question: If someone wanted a MAGA cake making and a gay baker refused, would that baker be threatened and harassed and prosecuted for it? The law should not be used as a club for certain groups. If it is, then there is something wrong with the law. This decision corrected that in this case.