Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[LittleNipper]

The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers 4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.

etc. GINSBURG, J., dissenting

I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual. I don't feel that all values or opinions are equal. And I do feel that more flies are gathered with honey than vinegar. However, I do not see how any service or product which can be produced by most anybody should become a platform for lawsuits under the guise of discrimination. Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural. Everyone discriminates in one way or another by where they shop, eat, what they believe (or not), who they vote for, where they choose to live, what music they listen to, what they read, etc., etc., etc...

The Ginsburg's of this world often don't believe Jews can be Christians. Is that a discriminatory thought/opinion? YOU BET IT IS!!!! But is there anything wrong with the opinion other than I believe it is flawed and WRONG? I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs ---- that what is occurring is OK --- when it isn't acceptable to everyone, and needs to be QUESTIONED! And that QUESTIONING needs to be open and aboveboard and not in some closet.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions. They should not force establishments to cater to them. This is what free enterprise is all about, and separates one entrepreneur from another. If I visit Lancaster County, I go to see Amish living Amish --- I don't expect them to change to accomodate me ---- otherwise, who would desire to visit Amish driving cars and dressing like everyone else? If you don't like Christians, don't support them, but don't threaten them. Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!

 

[Pop23]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL. PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers. Like the baker did. The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally. The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


>>>>

If, as in your example, the gay truly believes his soul will burn in hell forever by doing business with the Baker, should the Government force that choice on the Gay.

If that’s not duress, I’m not sure what is?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Conservatives used to bang on endlessly about "State's rights", federal overreach, and so forth. Until decisions like this that is. As the disposition and composition of The Supremes has moved steadily right you'd think these screams would only grow louder than ever. Suddenly, instead of taking for granted that those closest to the action should have the highest decision making power, now it's The Supremes. Can you say "hypocrites"? I knew you could!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.

Pssst,... I think they already do, even the physical harm kind. But imagine - killing people with your beliefs... Perhaps some day real soon... What an advance, eh?

Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural.

Please remind me, who argued it was?

I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs

Dunno about that, but in this case the two men were discriminated against for their combined sex and sexual orientation, not their beliefs. Apples and oranges.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions.

Yeah, again, pretty sure they already can and mostly do. There's also trying something new. You know, being spontaneous? Sort of carefree? Fun?

They should not force establishments to cater to them.

Again, don't think they actually can yet in terms of preventing other's beliefs, but neat how you managed to slip the word "cater" in there knowing full well that the two gay men were granted no opportunity to even request catering, nor any design in this case other than "wedding". They were, in fact, more or less forced to listen to the owner's personal beliefs about them instead

Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!

Don't forget explaining your view of all those whose appearance irrationally disturbs you while rejecting their business
.

 

[Flopper]

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

Yes he did discriminate based on sex when he would sell wedding cakes to man/woman couples but not man/man (or woman/woman). The SCOTUS reversed the decision to the hostile actions of the Commission. Because of that he got a pass from the court on a narrowly applied ruling. The court did not however invalidate Colorado's PA law and if he continues to violate the law going forward he would be subject to the proceeding starting over again and this time you can bet the Commission will watch their p's and q's. And your silly word games if tried in court would be laughed out of the room.

(Although Arlene’s Flowers Inc v. Washington is still in the SCOTUS pipe-line awaiting determination if the SCOTUS will take the case which is basically the same as Mr. Phillips case - i.e. speech and religion - so he wouldn't have to wait years if they take the Arlene's Flowers case and actually rule instead of punting it.)


.>>>>

Sorry but under the law he doesn't get to "opt in or opt out" of new markets based on the sex composition of the couple or their sexual orientation. Just as bakers didn't get to "opt in or opt out" when state laws like Virginia's that barred interracial couples from entering into Civil Marriage were overturned.

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, it's still discrimination.

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

You can't discriminate based on a person's sexual preference in Colorado. If the baker says the product is not offered upon learning the cake is for a gay wedding and yet sells cakes for a heterosexual wedding, it's discrimination based on sexual preference.

Which sexual preference is he discriminating against when he denies making a wedding cake for same sex couples? He would deny the product for a Heterosexual same sex couple as well as a Homosexual couple. Again, he is treating all sexualities equaly.

I don't think you understand. This is not a case of sexual discrimination. It is a case of discrimination based on sexual preference, a big difference. For example:

If I deny Sarah or Mary a job because of their sex, that is sexual discrimination.

If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere. It is immaterial whether the victims are males or female or what their sexual preference might be. The way the law reads, if the I denied a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple because of their sexual preference, I would be guilty of sexual preference discrimination.


Another term for sexual preference discrimination is sexual orientation discrimination.

 

[Flopper]

The Court concludes that “the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers’] objections.” Ante, at 15. See also ante, at 5–7 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. Cf. ante, at 3–4, 9–10 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated—no better, no worse.3 The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers 4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries’ sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 15. Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals’ “difference in treatment of these two instances . . . based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal “to design a special cake with words or images . . . might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.” Ante, at 2.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division’s finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination.

etc. GINSBURG, J., dissenting

I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual. I don't feel that all values or opinions are equal. And I do feel that more flies are gathered with honey than vinegar. However, I do not see how any service or product which can be produced by most anybody should become a platform for lawsuits under the guise of discrimination. Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural. Everyone discriminates in one way or another by where they shop, eat, what they believe (or not), who they vote for, where they choose to live, what music they listen to, what they read, etc., etc., etc...

The Ginsburg's of this world often don't believe Jews can be Christians. Is that a discriminatory thought/opinion? YOU BET IT IS!!!! But is there anything wrong with the opinion other than I believe it is flawed and WRONG? I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs ---- that what is occurring is OK --- when it isn't acceptable to everyone, and needs to be QUESTIONED! And that QUESTIONING needs to be open and aboveboard and not in some closet.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions. They should not force establishments to cater to them. This is what free enterprise is all about, and separates one entrepreneur from another. If I visit Lancaster County, I go to see Amish living Amish --- I don't expect them to change to accomodate me ---- otherwise, who would desire to visit Amish driving cars and dressing like everyone else? If you don't like Christians, don't support them, but don't threaten them. Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!

There is nothing wrong with discrimination itself. In fact it's a necessary survival skill. However, not all discrimination is beneficial to society such as denying a person a job based solely on the color of their skin. That was very controversial 60 years ago but not so much today.

All federal civil rights protection is based on a very simple concept, people should be treated based on who they are as individuals; that is they should be judged based on their own merits.

Laws protecting the individual from sexual orientation discrimination are state laws, not federal laws. These laws are based on the belief that ones sexual preference should not be a consideration in hiring. Most states have such laws. In some states such as Colorado, it has been extended beyond just hiring practices.

 

[Flopper]

I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.

Pssst,... I think they already do, even the physical harm kind. But imagine - killing people with your beliefs... Perhaps some day real soon... What an advance, eh?

Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural.

Please remind me, who argued it was?

I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs

Dunno about that, but in this case the two men were discriminated against for their combined sex and sexual orientation, not their beliefs. Apples and oranges.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions.

Yeah, again, pretty sure they already can and mostly do. There's also trying something new. You know, being spontaneous? Sort of carefree? Fun?

They should not force establishments to cater to them.

Again, don't think they actually can yet in terms of preventing other's beliefs, but neat how you managed to slip the word "cater" in there knowing full well that the two gay men were granted no opportunity to even request catering, nor any design in this case other than "wedding". They were, in fact, more or less forced to listen to the owner's personal beliefs about them instead

Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!

Don't forget explaining your view of all those whose appearance irrationally disturbs you while rejecting their business
.

In Colorado, the general rule was, and remains, that the First Amendment does not allow business owners to deny members of the community equal access to goods and services. It seems unlikely that court will in the future overturn the law. In one case a state law that required employees to work on Sunday was overturn because it clearly force the employee to violate a commandment of the church. Other cases in which the Jehovah Witness Church claimed laws violated the free exercise clause they lost because the statues actually did not violated the persons right to worship; that is they did violate a commandment or precept of the church. For example, in this case the the baker would have to prove to the court that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple made him complicit in a act that specifically violated the religious doctrine of the church that members were expected to adhere to.

 

[JoeB131]

The Muslims bombed the Israelites first on numerous occasions. Those that bless the Jews will receive blessings and those that curse the Jews will receive a curse. Our policies (to some degree) are founded on biblical principles and not public opinion or fads.

Funny, when the Germans were throwing Jews into the Gas Chambers, they quoted the bible and wore belt buckles that said, "God's with us" (Gott mit Uns) . You can justify any kind of shitty behavior on "Biblical Principles"

And, no, the Zionists all lived in Europe before they started stealing Arab land.

 

[JoeB131]

Let me translate that from Crybully to English: Christians are an easy mark for lgbt activist-strikes because they really are a passive faith. Jews are too controversial to hit because the outcry of WWII is still too fresh.

And LGBT activists leave Muslims alone because if they sued a Muslim baker trying to force him to promote butt sex lifestyles, they would need life insurance.

You know, funny thing, I've never met a "Muslim baker'. i guess there are some, but they probably specialize in ethnic things i wouldn't eat.

But funny thing. There is a mosque right down the street from me, and the folks who worship there have never tried to blow anything up or threaten anyone. They need an iron gate around their building to protect it from the bigots.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL. PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers. Like the baker did. The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally. The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


>>>>

If, as in your example, the gay truly believes his soul will burn in hell forever by doing business with the Baker, should the Government force that choice on the Gay.

If that’s not duress, I’m not sure what is?

My examples of the gay owner, KKK owner, and Redneck owner being able to deny service have nothing to do with personal religious views.

They have to do with equal treatment under the law, recognition of personal property rights, and right of association.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

It is a new market that never existed before. It's a bit like saying that Car Company "A" must make electric cars because that market has still become fashionable.

But lets drill this down:

A Baker opens a Bakery in which he makes a number of decisions. One of which is, can I invest a ton of Money into a shop AND at the same time, be able to run it in such a way that does not violate my Religious views?

The Baker looks at current Law and decides that he can do this without Violating his religious belief. He even goes so far as to deny those who seek a Halloween Cake as his participation in such would be actively violating his religious belief. I can support that.

As for Wedding Cakes, he see's Same Sex Marriage being unlikely as State after State after State votes it down, so he decides to make wedding cakes. He doesn't care of the sexuality of those that order these cakes as his religious view is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, and two Homosexuals would not be violating this norm as long as a female Lesbian Marries a Male Homosexual.

Now the Baker is faced with the SCOTUS redefinition of Legal Marriage which is hostile with his ability to run his business in a way that doesn't conflict with his religious belief.

However, SCOTUS did not simply make "gay marriage" legal, in fact it made marriage between any two people, with only a few exceptions legal. Now, Straights of the same sex can Marry another Straight , and Homosexuals of the same sex can Marry another Homosexual of the same sex. HELL, Lets face facts, a Straight can Marry a Homosexual of the same sex (Weird I know, but true non the less).

He decides, the only way that he can avoid a conflict with his religion is to NOT PROVIDE WEDDING CAKES FOR SAME SEX COUPLES REGARDLESS OF SEX OR SEXUALITY. This decision is not based on a bias of either sex, nor a bias of a sexuality, if it is, what bias? He has made Wedding Cakes for Men. He has Made Wedding Cakes for Women. He's made wedding cakes for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, of this there is no doubt.

Now, lets examine the Virginia case you reference. The Baker that you would reference could make no argument that baking a cake for an interracial couple is in conflict with his Religious principles as Marriage is simply between a Man and a Woman. The Bible, as I understand it, makes no racial distinction, so he would have no case.

I think he would still be in violation of Colorado law. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the couple is male or female. It is still discrimination based on sexual preference. Whether he refuses to write best wishes Mary and Betty or John and Bill on the cake, it's still discrimination.

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

You can't discriminate based on a person's sexual preference in Colorado. If the baker says the product is not offered upon learning the cake is for a gay wedding and yet sells cakes for a heterosexual wedding, it's discrimination based on sexual preference.

Which sexual preference is he discriminating against when he denies making a wedding cake for same sex couples? He would deny the product for a Heterosexual same sex couple as well as a Homosexual couple. Again, he is treating all sexualities equaly.

I don't think you understand. This is not a case of sexual discrimination. It is a case of discrimination based on sexual preference, a big difference. For example:

If I deny Sarah or Mary a job because of their sex, that is sexual discrimination.

If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere. It is immaterial whether the victims are males or female or what their sexual preference might be. The way the law reads, if the I denied a wedding cake to a heterosexual couple because of their sexual preference, I would be guilty of sexual preference discrimination.


Another term for sexual preference discrimination is sexual orientation discrimination.

Neat, now explain which sexual preference the Baker has a bias against.

The law that created same sex marriage isn’t even about sexual orientation. Marriage, in it self, is simply a contract binding two people together for what ever reason the two elect to be bound. Sexual relationships are not necessary.

Next.

Marriage is to the law as Seinfeld is to Network programming.

Marriage binds two people together based on whatever reason the two want. Understand this. It has nothing, as law, that requires love, sexual contact. It simply is for the distribution of benefits. It is nothing like what you think it is.

Just like Seinfeld was a show about nothing, so is marriage a law about nothing except a perception not based On what it is.

 

[Pop23]

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL. PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers. Like the baker did. The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally. The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


>>>>

If, as in your example, the gay truly believes his soul will burn in hell forever by doing business with the Baker, should the Government force that choice on the Gay.

If that’s not duress, I’m not sure what is?

My examples of the gay owner, KKK owner, and Redneck owner being able to deny service have nothing to do with personal religious views.

They have to do with equal treatment under the law, recognition of personal property rights, and right of association.


.>>>>

Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity

Got it.

I call that governmental overreaching

 

[Silhouette]

If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere.

Actually if the Colorado law is tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections & fails, it no longer is Colorado law. We understand how the USSC decisions are binding below, yes? No state may have a law that violates someone's Constitutional protections. The Court in this case broadly hinted that Colorado has quite likely violated the baker's 1st Amendment protections. The Court ordered Colorado to "fix your law or else".

What's especially important to remember is the Court said that ideologies or behaviors must be able to be rejected by any or punished to all who don't play along. Do you suppose they would say this if the couple who wanted the cake were rejected because they were black? Remember in Hively 2016, the Court said that gay lifestylists are not allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the Civil rights Act's protection for mere static gender. Actions are not states of being.

The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors. That is absurd. For instance, what about cleptomaniac- Americans? If their stealing feels compulsive since birth, can shopkeepers be sued for throwing them out? Can Colorado discriminate arbitrarily from one compulsive-behavior lifestyle to the other if others also "cannot be helped" or "feels innate" (subjectively)? I spoke about the false premise (behaviors = static) fatality long ago. Now we see that fatality come to fruition . What would happen to penal codes across the country if a suspect can subjectively claim "innateness" to their drive to do (fill in the blank)?

REMEMBER Colorado Law cannot arbitrarily discriminate one" innate"-driven group from another; not and survive a future USSC test they can't. Doing a theoretical test say cleptos vs gay lifestylists. Arguments against cleptos would say they steal and this behavior impacts society negatively: hence why their innate-feeling behavior cannot be tolerated "and therefore has no civil rights protection". Then the opposition would argue "well what about the teenager with the surfboard rash on the back of his legs who sits on the bus seat to the beach where a gay guy with sphincter-rupture just sat and his HIV bloody feces smear just came into contact with the boy's open rash? Or HIV massively entering into hospital environments, the blood supply, other surfaces just touched with blood smears coming into contact with other's nicks and scrapes? Isn't death far more of an impact than just having some sundries nicked now and then? Why does HIV/AIDS epidemic super-risk lifestyles and behaviors trump just losing a pair of jeans or a clock radio off your store shelf now and then? In a purely legal "impact to society" sense?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity

Got it.

I call that governmental overreaching

Oh jeeze stop making shit up.

What part of the below that you quoted implies that I think the business owner should do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity. My actually comments are exactly opposite of what you stated.


If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


.>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

I believe that any person should be able to believe anything he or she wishes, as long as it doesn't physically harm another individual.

Pssst,... I think they already do, even the physical harm kind. But imagine - killing people with your beliefs... Perhaps some day real soon... What an advance, eh?

Discrimination is a fact. It is not unnatural.

Please remind me, who argued it was?

I certainly don't believe Mrs. Ginsburg should be sued or thrown out of her position. But this is what is happening to those who feel that catering to those living in sin is reinforcing such misguided beliefs

Dunno about that, but in this case the two men were discriminated against for their combined sex and sexual orientation, not their beliefs. Apples and oranges.

People should frequent establishments of their choice based on their values and opinions.

Yeah, again, pretty sure they already can and mostly do. There's also trying something new. You know, being spontaneous? Sort of carefree? Fun?

They should not force establishments to cater to them.

Again, don't think they actually can yet in terms of preventing other's beliefs, but neat how you managed to slip the word "cater" in there knowing full well that the two gay men were granted no opportunity to even request catering, nor any design in this case other than "wedding". They were, in fact, more or less forced to listen to the owner's personal beliefs about them instead

Simply explain your view and then walk away. That is the Christian way!

Don't forget explaining your view of all those whose appearance irrationally disturbs you while rejecting their business
.

I am one of those "terrible" individuals who, when the couple ready with a briefcase, tracts, and smiles (Jehovah Witnesses) come to my door, I respectfully run and get my Bible and witness to them on my doorstep! All they need to do was walk away. And frankly, I feel that it would be helpful to businesses to play recorded Christian hymns as background music throughout their establishments ---- I sure some might just take the hint... We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.

 

[Pop23]

Cool, so the gay in my example, believing that doing business with the Baker will end with him spending eternity burning in hell. And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity

Got it.

I call that governmental overreaching

Oh jeeze stop making shit up.

What part of the below that you quoted implies that I think the business owner should do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity. My actually comments are exactly opposite of what you stated.


If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


.>>>>

1. ) If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs. Neither I nor him likely would have a problem with this with the exception of Governmental interaction, which is EXACTLY why this case got thrown out of court.

2.) The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.

No, That would be discriminating against the entire race due to bias, and you have yet to explain which sexuality or sex the Baker discriminated against when he simply does not make same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sex or sexuality of the couple. Back to the question at hand. A black individual cannot control it's color, but we know that sexuality is often fluid, your color is not.

3. )The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.

In appropriate circumstances, absolutely. If the argument was that the Jewish Deli Owner offers product specific to a religion, and the Muslim's case was that, since he offered a product specific to one religion, he must satisfy all, then I would back the Jewish Deli owner every time.

4. )The Muslim deli owner against Jews.

See #3.

5. )The redneck baker against Mexicans,

See #1

I am amazingly consistent

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.

 

[Pop23]

If I deny Sarah and Mary a wedding cake because of their sexual preference(they prefer females to males sexually), that is discrimination based on sexual preference which is illegal in Colorado but not everywhere.

Actually if the Colorado law is tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections & fails, it no longer is Colorado law. We understand how the USSC decisions are binding below, yes? No state may have a law that violates someone's Constitutional protections. The Court in this case broadly hinted that Colorado has quite likely violated the baker's 1st Amendment protections. The Court ordered Colorado to "fix your law or else".

What's especially important to remember is the Court said that ideologies or behaviors must be able to be rejected by any or punished to all who don't play along. Do you suppose they would say this if the couple who wanted the cake were rejected because they were black? Remember in Hively 2016, the Court said that gay lifestylists are not allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the Civil rights Act's protection for mere static gender. Actions are not states of being.

The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors. That is absurd. For instance, what about cleptomaniac- Americans? If their stealing feels compulsive since birth, can shopkeepers be sued for throwing them out? Can Colorado discriminate arbitrarily from one compulsive-behavior lifestyle to the other if others also "cannot be helped" or "feels innate" (subjectively)? I spoke about the false premise (behaviors = static) fatality long ago. Now we see that fatality come to fruition . What would happen to penal codes across the country if a suspect can subjectively claim "innateness" to their drive to do (fill in the blank)?

REMEMBER Colorado Law cannot arbitrarily discriminate one" innate"-driven group from another; not and survive a future USSC test they can't. Doing a theoretical test say cleptos vs gay lifestylists. Arguments against cleptos would say they steal and this behavior impacts society negatively: hence why their innate-feeling behavior cannot be tolerated "and therefore has no civil rights protection". Then the opposition would argue "well what about the teenager with the surfboard rash on the back of his legs who sits on the bus seat to the beach where a gay guy with sphincter-rupture just sat and his HIV bloody feces smear just came into contact with the boy's open rash? Or HIV massively entering into hospital environments, the blood supply, other surfaces just touched with blood smears coming into contact with other's nicks and scrapes? Isn't death far more of an impact than just having some sundries nicked now and then? Why does HIV/AIDS epidemic super-risk lifestyles and behaviors trump just losing a pair of jeans or a clock radio off your store shelf now and then? In a purely legal "impact to society" sense?

Wow, excellent point in bold.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Other cases in which the Jehovah Witness Church claimed laws violated the free exercise clause they lost because the statues actually did not violated the persons right to worship; that is they did violate a commandment or precept of the church. For example, in this case the the baker would have to prove to the court that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple made him complicit in a act that specifically violated the religious doctrine of the church that members were expected to adhere to.

Wouldn't put it past some here to try it. They'd quick draw a cake, add a dirty human butt and act out making love to it. Yes, they are exactly that dumb.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I am one of those "terrible" individuals who, when the couple ready with a briefcase, tracts, and smiles (Jehovah Witnesses) come to my door, I respectfully run and get my Bible and witness to them on my doorstep! All they need to do was walk away.

I used to argue some. Now I just say "No thanks." In all cases, they've ended up just walking away.

I feel that it would be helpful to businesses to play recorded Christian hymns as background music throughout their establishments ---- I sure some might just take the hint...

Agreed.

We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.

Yeah, this is not really about that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.

This is what you said: "And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity"

Which is exactly opposite of my statement.

You believe in government overreach as the previous post shows (Post #1016) because you support PA laws and government telling private businesses owners who they can and cannot refuse service to - well - as long as you agree with the business owner.

On the other hand I think that ALL private businesses owners should have their rights of property and association respected and be able to refuse service to anyone whether I agree with them or not. PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to enter into contracts with and purchase goods and services from private entities since government agencies use taxpayer dollars.


You support government overreach - when it's not your ox being gored, I support getting the government out of the game.


>>>>