Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Aba Incieni]

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.

Tell him yourself.

Of course if bacon isn't on the menu you are SOL as PA laws don't require that shop owners stock certain products - only that if such products are stocked or sold to the public that customers can't be refused for certain reasons such as race, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin.

But you would know that if you understood what Public Accommodation laws actually do instead of just trying to throw shit around the internet.


.>>>>

Gay cake decorations aren't on the menu. Forced labor is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.

Tell him yourself.

Of course if bacon isn't on the menu you are SOL as PA laws don't require that shop owners stock certain products - only that if such products are stocked or sold to the public that customers can't be refused for certain reasons such as race, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin.

But you would know that if you understood what Public Accommodation laws actually do instead of just trying to throw shit around the internet.


.>>>>

Gay cake decorations aren't on the menu. Forced labor is.

Per Mr. Phillips there was never any discussion of cake decorations.

Piggie Park owners agree about the "forced labor" bit I bet.

.>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

Really, genius? You mean 'asserting "I have a feeling that" really means you don't know? You've just been expressing your groundless, "desperate and ridiculous" opinions from the start? Hwell then... I'm shocked! SHOCKED I yells ya! Fine admission!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.

Go ahead then, Mr. Smartypants, don't be shy! Do tell the world why two people uniting [as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone] have reason to formally celebrate or buy a wedding cake?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ahh,

Public Accommodation laws

= "PA laws"
Doh!

eta: My excuse? I happen to live in PA so Google never suggested that within the first several pages of search results. Still,... heard it enough - should have known

 

[task0778]

That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.

I agree, hence part of my problem with PA laws.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to black people = Not good enough.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted.

In addition, a Gay shop owner does not have the right to discriminate against the personal religious beliefs of a customer and refuse them service. If they do they are then in violation - on grounds of religious discrimination - under both State AND Federal PA laws.


.>>>>

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Actually the Colorado law was tested against the bakers 1st Amendment protections and the court refused to overturn the law but rather sided with the Baker because of prejudicial actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Colorado law requires everyone to condone everyone else's behaviors.

The law is specific and does not even address behavior. The baker business is to supply wedding cakes, not to make judgement on his customers.

The following is from the Colorado Dept of Regulatory Services:

Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.

Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation

The way I look at it is the merchant can plead his case and seek relief but it there is no law the gay couple cannot. They can be denied food, shelter, and services that should be available to all because of their real or perceive homosexuality.

Treatment based on perceived membership in a certain group or category, in a way that is worse than the way other people are usually treated is just plain wrong and most Americans support this belief. Anti-discrimination laws help prevent the unfair treatment this gay couple received.

People today don't want to go back to the days when a merchant was free to say, "We don't serve your kind of people".

 

[WorldWatcher]

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not. The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion. Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

You mean "when" there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it? Suppose there aren't, what then? Harmful discrimination, correct? So this supposed distinction demands gay purchasers geographically test the area for retailers offering fresh wedding cake to all comers before going shopping. An additional burden. And having to advertise that you discriminate on the basis of sexual preference doesn't seem to fit the bill either.

 

[task0778]

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not. The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion. Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>

I doubt if anyone would win their case for an exemption to PA laws based on religious views against black people. Nor do I think Muslim taxi drivers or anyone else is going to get an exemption for servicing people with service dogs. They can ask, but I don't think they're going to get it. You're going to have to make quite an argument to convince most people, including a judge that you should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, interracial couples, and dog owners for religious reasons. I'd like to see a link if any of those cases you described were successful.

Ditto for a gay business owner, what grounds would his religious objection be based on? They do it to us so we'll do it to them doesn't cut it IMHO.

This is all my personal view, okay? If the SCOTUS throws it back to the states and says okay guys it's up to you to formulate your own rules about PA laws and the enforcement thereof as long as all parties are fairly and impartially treated, I'm cool with that. If the state says look gay people, there's a freakin' bakery just down the effing street that'll bake your cake for you, so no harm no foul. Or if they say to the baker you gotta bake the effing cake but you don't have to decorate it, I'm good with that too. But what I'm not good with is a couple of activists who deliberately search out somebody to attack for their religious views and persecute them for it. I'm just not okay with PA laws totallly trumping freedom of religion and expression.

 

[task0778]

It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

You mean "when" there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it? Suppose there aren't, what then? Harmful discrimination, correct? So this supposed distinction demands gay purchasers geographically test the area for retailers offering fresh wedding cake to all comers before going shopping. An additional burden. And having to advertise that you discriminate on the basis of sexual preference doesn't seem to fit the bill either.

Test the area? Bullshit, are you trying to tell me these guys didn't deliberately target the one Christina baker they KNEW would turn them down for a same-sex wedding cake? It was purely a coincidence that they just happened to walk into that one bakery? They weren't testing for who would do it, they were testing for who wouldn't, and that's who they went to. And that's bullshit. Don't be screaming about your civil rights when you created the problem yourself.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

You mean "when" there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it? Suppose there aren't, what then? Harmful discrimination, correct? So this supposed distinction demands gay purchasers geographically test the area for retailers offering fresh wedding cake to all comers before going shopping. An additional burden. And having to advertise that you discriminate on the basis of sexual preference doesn't seem to fit the bill either.

Test the area? Bullshit, are you trying to tell me these guys didn't deliberately target the one Christina baker they KNEW would turn them down for a same-sex wedding cake? It was purely a coincidence that they just happened to walk into that one bakery? They weren't testing for who would do it, they were testing for who wouldn't, and that's who they went to. And that's bullshit. Don't be screaming about your civil rights when you created the problem yourself.

Evidence?

eta: not to mention, you failed to address the actual question.

 

[task0778]

It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

You mean "when" there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it? Suppose there aren't, what then? Harmful discrimination, correct? So this supposed distinction demands gay purchasers geographically test the area for retailers offering fresh wedding cake to all comers before going shopping. An additional burden. And having to advertise that you discriminate on the basis of sexual preference doesn't seem to fit the bill either.

Test the area? Bullshit, are you trying to tell me these guys didn't deliberately target the one Christina baker they KNEW would turn them down for a same-sex wedding cake? It was purely a coincidence that they just happened to walk into that one bakery? They weren't testing for who would do it, they were testing for who wouldn't, and that's who they went to. And that's bullshit. Don't be screaming about your civil rights when you created the problem yourself.

Evidence?

Of what? You can google bakeries in Denver and see for yourself how many there are. They're all over the place, so are you trying to tell me it was pure happenstance that they walked into the only one that was run by a Christian baker who would deny them their wedding cake? Bullshit. If you want to believe it was all totally innocent, fine by me. I'm done here.

 

[Grumblenuts]

so are you trying to tell me it was pure happenstance that they walked into the only one that was run by a Christian baker who would deny them their wedding cake?

Obviously not. I have no idea and remain thoroughly disinterested, but I see your evidence for that claim as well is notably absent. I can't help thinking one should try very hard to stick to backing such claims immediately with verifiable (i.e. unfalsifiable) evidence whenever discussing legal stuff. It's not like "Calls for speculation" has gone lacking as an objection in TV courtroom drama. Why should scientific method not inform legal argument and vice-versa?

 

[WEATHER53]

Perpetually offended attention whores
Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked

 

[Aba Incieni]

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.

Tell him yourself.

Of course if bacon isn't on the menu you are SOL as PA laws don't require that shop owners stock certain products - only that if such products are stocked or sold to the public that customers can't be refused for certain reasons such as race, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin.

But you would know that if you understood what Public Accommodation laws actually do instead of just trying to throw shit around the internet.


.>>>>

Gay cake decorations aren't on the menu. Forced labor is.

Per Mr. Phillips there was never any discussion of cake decorations.

Piggie Park owners agree about the "forced labor" bit I bet.

.>>>>

Republicans fought a war to stop Democrats' forced labor.

They stopped them once, they can stop them again.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Perpetually offended attention whores
Go to the next damn store and get your pretend wedding cake baked

The homos don't NEED to get married.
The homos don't NEED a wedding cake.
The homos don't NEED that particular baker to bake them a cake.
They WANT him to.

I WANT bacon on my falafel from that falafel maker.

 

[LittleNipper]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

Really, genius? You mean 'asserting "I have a feeling that" really means you don't know? You've just been expressing your groundless, "desperate and ridiculous" opinions from the start? Hwell then... I'm shocked! SHOCKED I yells ya! Fine admission!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.

Go ahead then, Mr. Smartypants, don't be shy! Do tell the world why two people uniting [as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone] have reason to formally celebrate or buy a wedding cake?

I'm sorry that Pop23 wasn't very polite towards you. But the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act. It is kinda like the movie Some Like It Hot. Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon were pretending to be women but in fact were not Transsexuals, gay, or transvestites in the true sense of the word. They were doing what they were doing to get out of town... The rest made for a very funny movie.

 

[Flopper]

" Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted."

I wouldn't go that far, not in all cases. I might grant an exception to selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, but any other product? NO. It's hard to see the harm done to a gay couple if they are denied the wedding cake but there are numerous other bakeries around that can do it.

How about anniversary cakes?

Cupcakes for a bridal shower?

How about a cake for a baby shower for a same-sex set of parents expecting a child?

I can't see any justification, religious or otherwise for denying full access to goods and services to black people. Also hard to see any justification for a gay business owner to deny full access to goods and services to well, anybody. Religious discrimination? Not seeing it.

It doesn't matter if you see it or not. The owners of Piggie Park Restaurants claimed it was against their religion to serve black people. Bob Jones University (a private university) claimed racial discrimination was against their religion. Then there were Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota that claimed servicing people with service dogs violated their religion.

Why are the personal religious views of bakers more important than those that want to discriminate against blanks, interracial couples, and dog owners more important?


And why should a gay shop owner be subject to unequal treatment under the law when a baker can refuse them service but the gay shop owner cannot refuse a customer for their religious views?


>>>>

Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation. A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies

 

[WorldWatcher]

Under the Colorado Public Accommodations law, the sex of the person being discriminated against is irrelevant as is the Sexual Orientation of the owner of the accommodation. A gay baker discriminating against a straight couple wanting a wedding is a violation of the law the same as if the baker was straight and the couple were gay.

Public Accommodations Discrimination | Department of Regulatory Agencies

Never said any different.


.>>>>

 

[Grumblenuts]

the reality is that 2 guys could get married for purely financial reasons and simply play act.

The operative word being "could" not "would", only..

kinda like the movie

is also like for the purpose of professionally producing some fictional portrayal of reality, also

to get out of town...

And, agreed, it's:

a very funny movie.