Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[JimBowie1958]

Wrong, he refused to sell two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a wedding cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.

No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.

He was totally willing to sell things to homos.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.

Really? Utter chaos and anarchy eh? Seriously, do you really believe our society is replete with bigots, just waiting to go apeshit as soon as it's legally allowed?

Yes, that most of our society is bigoted if not all of it, is a central assumption of today's liberalism.

 

[Silhouette]

No, actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.

He was totally willing to sell things to homos.

Knowledge is key here. If the gay militants...er..I mean couple targeting...er..I mean "innocently visiting without pre-knowledge" the Christian baker had said "we want four dozen cupcakes and a 100 chocolate eclairs to go, the baker would've packaged them up and sent them out the door. But if they said they wanted those things for their gay wedding, the baker would have to refuse on principle. He CANNOT act to promote in ANY WAY the spread of homosexuality throughout a culture. Paramount of that would be their hijacking the word 'marriage" which to a Christian ALWAYS AND ONLY can mean the holy union of man and woman as father and mother to the blessed nuclear family.

 

[Pop23]

Does the left now actually want in based on Love? I guess than we would need the State Legislators to define what Love is? To develop a "Love Test" of some kind?

Or do they wan't the State Legislatures to define what qualifies as sanctioned sex? How much Sex would be required to keep a valid license? Would a women in a male/female marriage be forced to engage in anal sex?Can you imagine the Utah legislature debating what qualifies? And if sex is a requirement, then wouldn't a man forcing himself on his wife be sanctioned as well?

I find it amazing that you guys want to redefine even love if you don't get your way on things.

Okay, one more time, tell me how gays being able to get married effects your life in any way, shape or form.

Thanks.

Tell me one more time why you think I care.

He just quoted you on that. Clearly obsessed with anything imaginable going on in the privacy of another's home. Otherwise oblivious. Typical of the Christian Right perceived victim here. Like peas in a pod.

There ya go.

Looking to destroy religion will somehow make homosexuality more acceptable.

Ain’t going to work and the electoral map will continue to get more red because of it.

You had your time in the spotlight. It’s over. You’ve become boring and annoying

I've known more lesbians than male homosexuals over the years, and many of them are faithful church goers. One, as a matter of fact, was a minister who started a small church and did a lot of good in the recovery community.

This is not an either-or situation. Or at least it doesn't have to be.

It may be a small group of activists that seek this destruction, like the two making a fuss over the cake, but their existence is obvious and destructive to their own cause. And also to the political party supporting them.

 

[Pop23]

The reality is that those justices don't have to deal with the consequences. They have a cushy job that affords them the ability to send their children and grandchildren to private institutions or have paid tutors. They don't care about healthcare or retirement because they have it all. It is the working classes that are stuck with all the red tape and endless worries, while government officials can simply shut their doors and retreat to their summer estates...

What consequences other than what bigots do to hurt others?

I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm certainly not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people. Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't hurting them. It's just refusing to make them a cake.

Wrong, he refused to sell two gays a wedding cake. The baking is clearly all irrelevant. Even if he had one freshly baked and all ready for a customer who just called cancelling the order, he would not have sold them that cake! His excuse being, since it's a wedding cake, the Bible tells him he can't "engage" in their ceremony, past, present, or future. Correct? And these are not simply "people", but members of a persecuted minority class attempting to celebrate their recent decision to formally and legally commit to taking care of one another long term. Marriage. So you would not be "hurt" if both you and a partner went to buy a wedding cake and the store owner told you "Sorry, I can't service your kind. The Bible tells me so."? Sure you wouldn't. "not saying bigots should be allowed to hurt people"? Yes, you are.

Yet, he would bake the cake for two homosexual, opposite sex, with no problem.

He does not offer same sex wedding cakes regardless if the couple is straight or gay.

 

[OldLady]

Because once the SC says we have the right to discriminate based on our individual consciences, all hell will break loose.

Really? Utter chaos and anarchy eh? Seriously, do you really believe our society is replete with bigots, just waiting to go apeshit as soon as it's legally allowed?

Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they? Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience? I've talked to plenty of blacks who tell me bigotry lives. I've talked to Jews who say the same. I'm a woman, so I know there are still men out there who are unwilling to view women as equals. "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine. I don't agree that if we ditch anti-discrimination laws that the "market place" will correct the situation. It didn't prior to the Civil Rights Act and it won't now..

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they? Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience? .

Because one is an adopted, shifting behavior with closeted hetero tendencies and the other was something someone was born as: race.

You can try to run away from this round and round the mulberry bush but it's coming. So, buckle up.

 

[dblack]

"Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.

Heh... Yeah, your words were "all hell will break loose". I clearly misrepresented your view. My bad.

 

[OldLady]

"Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.

Heh... Yeah, your words were "all hell will break loose". I clearly misrepresented your view. My bad.

You planning on answering my question? Or just poking?

 

[dblack]

"Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine.

Heh... Yeah, your words were "all hell will break loose". I clearly misrepresented your view. My bad.

You planning on answering my question? Or just poking?

Which one?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Knowledge is key here. If the gay militants...er..I mean couple targeting...er..I mean "innocently visiting without pre-knowledge" the Christian baker had said "we want four dozen cupcakes and a 100 chocolate eclairs to go, the baker would've packaged them up and sent them out the door. But if they said they wanted those things for their gay wedding, the baker would have to refuse on principle. He CANNOT act to promote in ANY WAY the spread of homosexuality throughout a culture. Paramount of that would be their hijacking the word 'marriage" which to a Christian ALWAYS AND ONLY can mean the holy union of man and woman as father and mother to the blessed nuclear family.

I’d make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but Colorado baker Jack Phillips shouldn’t have to

The popular criticism of this wildly unpopular view is that turning down a custom cake order from a same-sex couple is no different from turning African-Americans away from the lunch counter under Jim Crow.

But Phillips does not and cannot turn anyone away. He does sell brownies and tortes and anything else in his pastry case to gay customers and creates special-order cakes for them, too, for birthdays and other non-nuptial occasions.

Yet in those three cases of the bakers who wouldn’t bake wedding cakes with Christian messages on them, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that since they had served Christians in other contexts, they hadn’t discriminated, but that Phillips, who likewise serves gay couples in other contexts, had.

A lawyer for Phillips argued that his “friends on the other side...would compel an African-American sculptor to sculpt a cross for a Klan service or force a gay opera singer to perform at Westboro Baptist” because he’d also done so at the National Cathedral.

And the case does hinge in part on whether a baker is enough of an artist to be entitled to creative expression. Or is he instead a merchant, who like any hotelier or restaurant owner has to rent a room or prepare a table for all comers? Phillips, who also draws and paints, creates his cakes based on his sketches and then hand paints them. He definitely sees himself as a designer whose raw materials happen to be flour and sugar.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Homosexuals are not the only protected class, are they? Why should there be any distinction, once we can discriminate based on our conscience? I've talked to plenty of blacks who tell me bigotry lives. I've talked to Jews who say the same. I'm a woman, so I know there are still men out there who are unwilling to view women as equals. "Utter chaos and anarchy" are your words, not mine. I don't agree that if we ditch anti-discrimination laws that the "market place" will correct the situation. It didn't prior to the Civil Rights Act and it won't now..

And yet it is perfectly legfal for me to ahve a private club that only admits red head white males and they only may buy things sold within the club.

But few actually do such crap because it is a pathetic business model.

There is no profit incentive to discriminate, which is the biggest reason few businesses do.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And yet it is perfectly legfal for me to ahve a private club that only admits red head white males and they only may buy things sold within the club.

But few actually do such crap because it is a pathetic business model.

I agree it's a crappy business model.

However if you are doing it on a for profit basis or as a means of evading public accommodation laws, no it's not perfectly legal.

Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


.>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

Since it seems you've inexplicably simply grown hostile, I won't bother any more. Sorry I asked you a question!

I certainly didn't mean it as hostile. Sorry you took it that way.

Forgiven in any case. But baking a generic wedding cake is neither rocket science nor unheard of in any sense. And honestly never could find what "simple question" you were supposedly addressing from the beginning. Not for lack of trying...

You said,
Btw, someone early on claimed this was not a point of sale (POS) transaction. I've seen nothing to indicate it was anything but. The couple walked walked into the shop and the baker refused to bake them a wedding cake. No writing ordered on the cake. Nothing indicating delivery or any need for personal involvement in their particular ceremony whatsoever. Just a baker being asked to bake a cake for an every day secular ceremony.
I said,
I don't know where you heard that, but the gay couple clearly requested he create a wedding cake for them.
You said,
Yep?

I guess you think I missed your point.

No, but from the beginning I haven't seen this "question" you've claimed to be simply answering... A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...?

I thought you were saying, from that first post, that you thought the guys came in and were refused service outright for being gay.

Close. In any case, they were refused (a) service outright. That service being selling them a wedding cake. Refused outright because they were gay. Just the facts, ma'am... (not simply my opinion) easily distilled directly from the court report.

You were actually inserting a strawman (not meant hostilely) that the couple requested a "cake for an every day secular ceremony."

You've inferred wrong. Not meant hostilely. Wasn't putting words in anyone's mouth. Just injecting my opinion that weddings are basically every day secular ceremonies. Been through two of them myself. No religion required. Just adds extra noise and expense. Unlike the State which is required for one to be legal... as in, you know, "the law"... which is the realm we should be logically confined to here? I mean, how about, for a change, we actually stick to known facts instead of this modern norm of wasting time entertaining speculations from everyone's personal point of view... projected upon the parties involved from everywhere under the Sun. What is legally required? What should selling "the public" a wedding cake legally require at a minimum? What is the verifiable essence of the case? Those sort of questions are all I'm interested in here.

That is not the case when it comes to this baker. He did not see it as an every day secular ceremony, but a sin against God that he would not take any part in.

How he may or may not have viewed his duty to serve the public is irrelevant. The State granted him a license to sell directly to the public. He accepted and signed off on those conditions. Be it hot dog, medical marijuana, or wedding cake. Same deal. Minimal requirements must be met to retain said license. They weren't. No excuses. Case closed. Laws can't logically be crafted to satisfy individual tastes, particularly those of majority class members, at the expense of a minority's basic civil rights. Just because Christians cry "Woe is me!" louder than any doesn't mean they actually suffer compared to most.

A quote of said "question" remains most welcome...?

You said,
Yep?

Your move.

The question you originally alluded to... long before that one? Never mind, not important.

Of course, I agree with your summary paragraph, but obviously if it were that simple, it would not have made it to the Supreme Court.

Seems the Supremes now actually prefer mulling over the simple stuff and making a mess of it. They refuse all the tough cases. Too much work and backlog.

The right to freely practice your religion is the kick off sentence of the First Amendment,

It goes more like this:

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.

That limits Congress's power to enact laws interfering with the rights listed of the people, churches, and the press. One of those rights being of the people to petition Government (through the courts obviously) for a redress of grievances. However, none of that instructs the Supreme Court to do anything, let alone intervene in the acts or laws of individual States.

which we hold as self evident. This particular case is an instance where that freedom is interfering with another citizen's rights, but whose rights are actually greater?

First, you finish by oddly injecting a phrase from the Declaration of Independence. Then, thankfully, limit your First Amendment arguments to speech and religion.

Just to refresh my own memory in order to focus appropriately, the "original intent" regarding religion was to keep government out of it so that no sect or "faith" could establish itself as being sanctioned by the state as had happened in England and elsewhere. Also, as a direct result of firmly separating church from state, the people and various "faiths" would be free to pick from whichever, whenever with all acknowledged as equals. As a little aside though, and as history has proven, "the people" was never really intended to mean all of the people back then. They meant European white people "of property" which vastly meant men. Similarly, though the language simply specifies "religion" they were really just considering the various sects or "faiths" of Christianity because that's pretty much all they'd ever been exposed to. Ignorant, so didn't give a fig about Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. From thus clearly spring the "conservative" (meaning only regressive here) constant pleadings of "original intent" from the most racist, homophobic, sexist, and religiously intolerant among us, the (Christian or) Religious Right, amply demonstrated here in this thread, but I digress.

You assert "The right to freely practice your religion". Well, you must be alluding to this baker's supposed right to somehow freely "practice" his religion in his bakery faced with a simple request for a wedding cake from two people whose supposed right to "practice" their religions in his bakery are notably granted absolutely zero similar consideration. That's enough already to expose the argument as a complete farce.

And then you don't actually even bother with a speech argument. As some have noted, property rights are suggested by the circumstances. Not religion. And the only speech that logically mattered was his refusal to serve them like others because of their sexual identity and orientation. Discriminated against due to both.

If it were simply about the PA laws, which clearly seem to need to be upheld, why didn't the SC just issue a decision on it, then?

I've been presuming "PA laws" refers to Pennsylvania laws, but have no idea. However, I stopped presuming the Supremes still had much of a clue about anything back around when Bork somehow got on there.

 

[Silhouette]

1.......the "original intent" regarding religion was to keep government out of it so that no sect or "faith" could establish itself as being sanctioned by the state as had happened in England and elsewhere. Also, as a direct result of firmly separating church from state, the people and various "faiths" would be free to pick from whichever, whenever with all acknowledged as equals.
2.….......You assert "The right to freely practice your religion". Well, you must be alluding to this baker's supposed right to somehow freely "practice" his religion in his bakery faced with a simple request for a wedding cake from two people whose supposed right to "practice" their religions in his bakery are notably granted absolutely zero similar consideration. That's enough already to expose the argument as a complete farce.
3. ...….And the only speech that logically mattered was his refusal to serve them like others because of their sexual identity and orientation. Discriminated against due to both.

1. Yes, so the Court told the city in Colorado that they cannot refuse to punish the Rainbow Religion while simultaneously punishing the Christian baker. They are to be "neutral" with application of their PA laws.

2. You left out the part that practicing faith means 24/7. You say it has to stop at the marketplace. Kennedy and the others disagree with you.

3. Sexual orientation is a behavior that like any other habitual behavioral orientation has no protections or even allusions to protections in written federal law. If one majority-rejected habitual behavior (aka "orientation") gets special status, then they all do. And obviously that can't happen, because the gamut of those behaviors are nearly limitless. We'd have to discard penal systems across the country. So the baker doesn't have to promote the behaviors or dogma of another person if that behavior or dogma fundamentally puts his soul at risk....Which according to Jude 1 and Romans 1 of the New Testament, it does, in spades. Those passages state that for a Christian to promote the takeover of the homosexual culture of any culture (using the potent icon of marriage the epitome of said sin), they have committed a mortal and unforgiveable sin that sentences them to the Pit of Fire forever.

All in all the baker made the right and proper call. His immortal soul is more important than the gay lifestylists refusal to walk down the street to another bakery. The Court broadly hinted that this is the future conclusion. Or, long story short, you're going to have to get used to people of conviction not promoting your lifestyle taking over our culture using incremental inroads that undermine the 1st Amendment.

 

[Grumblenuts]

actually the baker did offer to bake various other things for their wedding, just not the wedding cake.

He was totally willing to sell things to homos.

Well don't be shy since it's now clear you must have been there taping the entire exchange. Show us all the footage!

 

[emilynghiem]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

This will have a massive effect.

That's fine....now let everyone know who a business will not serve. View attachment 196628 View attachment 196629 View attachment 196630

Dear bodecea
Businesses must still serve any type of PERSON but do not have to serve all types of BEHAVIOR OR ACTIVITIES.

Same sex marriage, weddings, relations and events count as BEHAVIOR.

As an INDIVIDUAL, whether you identify as gay, straight, transgender, Christian, Atheist, Muslim etc. you should still be treated the same as any other customer walking into a store.

But if you are asking for certain expressions or activities to be served by a business, that is different.

Even if a STRAIGHT person came into the store and asked for a gay wedding cake,
that person would get turned down. so it wasn't discriminating against the person's orientation but the type of service they were asking for that was in conflict with the faith and consent of the business provider.

 

[emilynghiem]

AP is reporting that the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the baker who would not bake a cake for a gay wedding. Links forthcoming.

This will have a massive effect.

Nope..very narrow ruling..effects the case only...the larger question remains open--

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple - Reuters

I agree with the ruling..on the narrow grounds states..it is clear that the commission that originally ruled against the baker was openly hostile towards religion..and had ruled differently in three other cases when religion was not the issue:

Supreme Court backs Christian baker who spurned gay couple

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

But the justices did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights while noting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” Kennedy wrote.

The case marked a test for Kennedy, who has authored significant rulings that advanced gay rights but also is a strong advocate for free speech rights and religious freedom.

The case’s outcome hinged on the actions of the Colorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited by Kennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that “freedom of religion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”

‘OPENLY ANTAGONISTIC’
Kennedy noted that the commission had ruled the opposite way in three cases brought against bakers in which the business owners refused to bake cakes containing messages that demeaned gay people or same-sex marriage.

FINALLY!
this ruling and the Wording/Acknowledgement that the punishment decision was biased with HOSTILITY toward people of beliefs against same sex marriage
actually RENEWED my faith that the courts/judges COULD get something right.

After going TOO FAR with "creating a new right to marriage" through courts instead of legislation voted on by actual people, I was truly worried we had lost our court system to liberal bias political agenda.

At least this points back on track with sticking with PROCEDURE and govt duty to remain NEUTRAL.

Thanks to Justice Kennedy for reconfirming that, and I hope this ruling catches on
and re-establishes what courts and govt are supposed to be doing, not pandering to politics
but sticking with principles and process, regardless of the content of the two sides' beliefs in conflict.

Thanks EvilEyeFleegle for posting the content of the ruling
that contains the wording I think is necessary to really get what is going on and going wrong here!

FINALLY!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

how are they supposed to know who the Boston Strangler is?

He killed for years before he was caught.

same with rapists, etc.

their pictures aren't generally posted on the from page like Al and Ma's were.

If a Jewish bakery can refuse to bake a cake honoring Hitlers Birthday, why can't a Christian refuse to bake a Gay Wedding cake?

It doesn't matter. If baking a cake for a sinner is a sin, then it's up to the baker to make sure he isn't committing a sin isn't it?

nope

just follow his teachings.

But this baker obviously believes the teachings include that baking a cake for a sinner is a sin so if baking a cake for a sinner is a sin then it is up to the baker to follow the teachings and not bake cakes for sinners

To the baker participating in the celebration via providing a cake for THAT EXPLICIT PURPOSE was the issue.

The baker admitted he would not deny point of sale items to gay couples or anyone else for that matter.

I hope no gays even shop at his store. If their money is ok for whatever else he sells, and not ok for a wedding cake, then boycott his store altogether.

Exactly Penelope
why not invest in LGBT owned and operated wedding services?

or if you insist on making political statements while ordering same sex wedding cakes,
why not go to a Buddhist or Muslim bakery that doesn't believe in that either but
won't discriminate against customers and are glad they would patronize their business!

 

[emilynghiem]

Interesting. I think this is a good decision because few bakeries will turn down business for this reason. Gays don't need that protection as they are not at risk of not being able to have their cake.

The owner offered to sell them other cakes, just not a wedding cake, I wonder if he does that to fornicators, adulterers or inter-racial relationships?

Dear Moonglow cc rightwinger Grumblenuts
1. Your beliefs can be against same sex marriage but not against other types of marriages.
Hindus may refrain from consuming beef, but allow for pork;
while Muslims refrain from pork, but allow for beef. Just because Vegans or some Buddhists refrain from
all meat doesn't mean people of other faiths have to do the same as Vegans.

2. race is different from sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is known to change, but not race which is genetic and decided even before birth
what the gene pool is going to be between two parents based on their genetics.

No one has ever claimed to change their physical race from what their genes are from birth.

You can claim a change in culture or behavior, but that's not the same as genetically determined race.

If orientation is determined before birth, it could be based on conditions in the womb
that affect neural development and gender/orientation identity. but spiritual healing
therapy, that has been used to change orientation, has never been used to change someone's race!