Your take on gay wedding cake issue

aren't most bakers gay anyway

If I went to a baker and tried to get a wedding cake designed for my straight wedding and the baker refused and says he only designs cakes for gay weddings, you wouldn't see me or anyone else complaining. We would just go to a different baker. It is rediculous that anyone would take this to court.

allman brothers wrote:

penis cake no thanks

What? You can't have your c*** and eat it too.

Let's see replace gay with balck and you have, "Is it OK to refuse to sell a black cake?" Of course it is OK to refuse to sell a black cake if the business is not in the business of selling a black cake.

BTW. Why do you want to be forced to do things? Should the Eagles have been forced to visit the White House and Trump?

Should the entertainers who boycotted Trump's inauguration have been forced to attend. I think not.

10000 steps wrote:

I am pro-cake. I don't care if the cake is gay, or if it is for a wedding, or whatever. Cake is cake. Pretty sure that's in the Bible somewhere. Or the Constitution. Or maybe just a cookbook. Anyway, I am pro- cake.

Are you kidding me? You must be a shillary supporter (Trump won btw get over it)

Brownie is the far superior dessert. I believe that once the wall is built, Trump will immediately deport all cakes back to their rightful motherland (mexico)

MUSAGA 2024

Homophobic Much? wrote:

Bobby1 wrote:

Homosexuals cannot really be married, so they don't need a cake.

Uh, obviously you are factually incorrect, regardless of your personal opinion!

Uh im sorry SJW its actually factually correct that only a man and women can get married. Its called biology. You would know that if you studied STEM in college instead of gendered (sexist) studies.

Wozers wrote:

I saw a cake once getting it from behind in a Meijer's parking lot. That cake was really gay.

What cake is gayer? The pitcher or the catcher???

Few things here:

1) Religious beliefs are given special protection by the constitution. That's basically what the Free Exercise Clause is. A lot of people think that's wrong, and that religious convictions shouldn't be treated any differently than other strongly held beliefs that do not stem from religion, but that's not the law.

2) The Free Exercise Clause doesn't actually provide THAT much protection for religion. The Supreme Court has held that you don't get a religious exemption from neutral and generally applicable laws. (Where that comes up is under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is a statute saying that you do get religious exemptions unless the government has a really good reason for denying an exemption.) What the Free Exercise Clause prohibits, under current Supreme Court doctrine, is exercises of government power that are based on anti-religious animus. That's what happened in this case, according to the court. The state agency that was punishing the baker was on the record disparaging his religious beliefs, and there was evidence that the agency had previously allowed some people latitude to decline to create messages that they disagreed with. The basic rule is that if you already allow people to get case-by-case exemptions for other reasons, then religion can't be arbitrarily excluded from getting an exemption. This ruling basically clarified some earlier cases that where a bit ambiguous on these points.

3) The case was decided on narrow grounds, because facts like these will never come up again. Which means that there will absolutely be another case like this that squarely presents the First Amendment question. (The Court should have taken the Elaine Photography case a few years back.)

4) The First Amendment angle is really important here, and it's what takes cases like this outside of run-of-the-mill anti-discrimination cases. The Baker's argument isn't that he's allowed to deny service to gay people; it's that he can't be compelled to create a message whose content he disagrees with (i.e., a customized cake celebrating an "immoral" ceremony). If he wins on that argument, the effect will be limited to businesses that involve speech.

5) When the case comes up again, the threshold question of whether there is even compelled speech is going to take center stage because compelled speech is almost always a loser, outside of certain narrow categories like mandatory point-of-sale disclosures of purely factual information. That's why Ginsburg and Sotomayor argued that the cake wasn't speech. Even they weren't going to argue that it would be okay to compel someone to say something they don't agree with, just because they're in business.

6) It's not at all an easy question whether a customized wedding cake is a form of speech (though any writing on the cake obviously would be). And it's important to keep in mind that whether something is speech is entirely different from whether it is "artistic." Some very prominent pro-free-speech academics have come down against the baker, arguing that no matter how special his cakes are, baking isn't sufficiently expressive for First Amendment protection. I think there's a concern that some speech advocates have that if we start treating everything as expressive conduct, courts will be reluctant to provide the full, and extremely powerful, protection of the First Amendment, which would lead to watered down protection for things that are obviously speech. I think that concern is valid.

7) Many people don't realize that anti-discrimination laws are an exception to the general rule that you can do business with whomever you want. Unless you're a protected class under state or federal laws, then you typically have no recourse when a business refuses you service. (The other exception is "common carriers" like railroads, who basically have to take everyone. That's an old rule with a complicated history.) My personal take is that anti-discrimination laws are justifiable under a few circumstances. If experience has shown that without such laws, a certain class of people is going to be systematically denied access to goods and services, then the government should step in. But that's not the case with wedding cakes in Denver. I have zero sympathy for people who live in a major metropolitan area and intentionally go to the one baker who they know is stridently opposed to gay marriage, just to make a lawsuit out of it. The point wasn't at all about ensuring access to goods or services; was about enforcing conformity of thought and punishing people who disagree.

I have zero sympathy for people who live in a major metropolitan area and intentionally go to the one baker who they know is stridently opposed to gay marriage, just to make a lawsuit out of it. The point wasn't at all about ensuring access to goods or services; was about enforcing conformity of thought and punishing people who disagree.[/quote]

The whole point of this case and others trying to work similar cases through the courts is to get a supreme court ruling that says there is the same compelling interest in protecting LGBT people from discrimination as with racial discrimination such that they trump someone's deeply held religious beliefs. For LGBT people, this is the only way, absent revising title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to be assured that they will not face discrimination from religious groups. If someone can refuse to bake a wedding cake because of their religion, then someone else can refuse lodging because they do not want LGBT people committing sin on their property, and so on. LGBT people then become second class citizens.

Mal Content wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-baker-gay-wedding-cake-case-reaction-swift-predictable-172655745.html

1. Is this a slippery slope for convenient discrimination?

2. Is a baker an artist or a businessman? What if you are a baker for HEB? Do you consider yourself an artiste?

3. Why do religious beliefs hold more weight than regular beliefs?

4. Does having God as your imaginary friend allow you more leeway when discriminating?

5. Flagpole?

1. No

2. A baker is not an artist, but the decorating of a cake is artistic.

3. Government needs to be content neutral and it was not in this case.

4. Lots of people claim what they do is ok with their religious beliefs or their god.

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have. I am sorry but this decision was correct whether you like it or not. They couldnt do this in a governing body but as a private business they can do what they want. They could go to someone else. They have an option. They just want to sue because they found a possible way of making money.

I know religion is first in the 1st Amendment, but I would put a few other rights before it like speech, assembly and property ownership.

I never heard that they wanted an "erotic" cake.

Precious Roy wrote:

The whole point of this case and others trying to work similar cases through the courts is to get a supreme court ruling that says there is the same compelling interest in protecting LGBT people from discrimination as with racial discrimination such that they trump someone's deeply held religious beliefs. For LGBT people, this is the only way, absent revising title VII of the Civil Rights Act, to be assured that they will not face discrimination from religious groups. If someone can refuse to bake a wedding cake because of their religion, then someone else can refuse lodging because they do not want LGBT people committing sin on their property, and so on. LGBT people then become second class citizens.

- These cases are not an alternative to revising Title VII. These cases are about determining the constitutional reach of anti-discrimination laws. They only arise in jurisdictions that have already expanded statutory protections for gays, and if the plaintiffs lose these cases, then the federal government would also have its hands tied.

- None of these cases raise the issue whether there's the same compelling interest in protecting gays as there is in protecting racial minorities. In fact, if the defendants win, then they would have the same right to refuse to speak with regard to racial issues that they disagree with. For instance, a baker could refuse to bake a Black Lives Matter cake.

- These cases are also, for the most part, not about deeply held religious beliefs. That's an issue that comes up under RFRA, which doesn't apply to the states. These cases are almost being litigated as free speech cases, and it's not ultimately going to matter whether someone opposes gay marriage because they're religious or for any other reason.

- Finally, these cases will have zero effect on anti-discrimination laws generally because lodging, restaurants, etc., have nothing to do with speech. There's a reason that these cases are all coming up in the wedding context--vendors like photographers (clearly) and bakers (maybe) have a plausible compelled speech argument that the overwhelming majority of market participants do not.

by this logic... wrote:

Chips and dip wrote:

2. It doesn’t matter in this case. If a business refuses to do business with a person because of who they are (gay) that is discrimination.

So if someone wants to hire a band to play at a white nationalist rally, the band shouldn't legally be able to say "we won't play at your rally because we don't believe in what you stand for"?

Lol you missed some logic. The band would be able to say no as the request of the customer would force them to violate their beliefs by attending a white nationalist rally. It’s about the actions requested, not the people.

To those who oppose Mr Baker’ right of refusal:

Just to be clear, he did not refuse to do business with gay people; he refused to do something that, by doing it, implied agreement with something to which he is opposed, based on his religious beliefs. Very important distinction, and really not that subtle.

Now if those who disagree want to keep pushing the point and proceed with similar lawsuits, expect 4 more years of Trump. That’s your dilemma, like it or not.

A night club owner could be sued if the owner is letting people (or not letting people in) because of a protected class. The owner could let only "hot" women in but as long as it is not only "hot" white women he would likely be okay.

You might want to read a little about the 60s and before when a certain race of people were discriminated against on a pretty big scale. I suggest reading "Parting of the Waters".

If you want to be a test case for discriminating you go right ahead, but I am betting you lose.

As a doctor and part of the health industry i wont sell my services to obama voters anymore. Freedom at last

I could have told you that sugar-laden wedding cakes are nothing but trouble.

This liberal’s opinion may surprise you wrote:

no forced labor wrote:

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

Same here. I think the business should be able to decide for themselves what clients to take.

Except the business isn’t an island. They take benefits from the public, they should be required to serve the public. They shouldn’t use religion to discriminate.

All you people who say the business should decide who they can serve are frankly wrong. This is fairly well settled law. They can’t discriminate so long as the non discrimination law is neutral.

The real issue is if you see the cake as “artistic” expression. I don’t. It’s a friggin cake. Meant to be eaten.

The other point is that I’m sure his belief is legit but it strains credibility to say that forcing him to make the cake impinges on his exercise if religion. He isn’t required to bake cakes as part of his religion. It really has nothing to do with his religion. It’s his job.