Your take on gay wedding cake issue

ukddnme wrote:

Homophobic Much? wrote:

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.

I may or may not be a SJW, that’s beside the point. The point is, that gay marriage is legal in the United States of America, whether you like it or not. So factually, I am correct!

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.

Well said.

Forcing the baker to make the cake is not the solution. I can only imagine how grrrreeeeaaaaaat a cake that would be.

Mister Experty wrote:

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

There have to be at least a dozen shows on television right now that are about cake artistry

The real issue is that the board's decision was basically "we are punishing you because we think your religious views blow." If they had just said, "we are punishing you because your practice is discriminatory towards the LBGT population in violation of the public accommodations law" it would have probably been upheld (maybe not, but that's what the court says)

Bakery Church wrote:

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have.

A bakery is not a place of religious worship.

Depends on religion home slice. Some follow the book everywhere they go

Gay coffee shop owner unloads on Christians. That's cool though.

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.

+1

I heard a local bus company will transport blacks only in the back of busses. Private companies have the freedom to decide. Blacks should be lucky to be allowed on at all

Mush like the quarterpounderwithcheese issue a retailer has the right to decide what he sells and what price he sells it at.

If an item is offered for sale he must sell it to anyone who can pay for it.

wineturtle wrote:

Mush like the quarterpounderwithcheese issue a retailer has the right to decide what he sells and what price he sells it at.

If an item is offered for sale he must sell it to anyone who can pay for it.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the baker had cakeS in his store and would have and would have been glad to sell them one. He just declined to make a cake for the specific purpose of a gay wedding. We’ve been through this several times now, so you people should be getting this distinction by now.

agdsfasdfasdf wrote:

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?

Well you have an obvious POV but I agree with you.

There's a simple test here. Replace "gay" with "Black" and see if you still think it's ok. Is it ok for a baker to refuse to serve someone because they're Black?

The black analogy is bad because he didn't refuse to serve them because they they were gay, he refused the message that was requested on the cake. This would be like refusing to serve a black customer who wanted the word n$#@a on the cake. This seems like it should be totally within his right.

Apartheid America YES wrote:

I live in a college town. We should be able to ban Orientals, half-Asians from Russia, Ameirrcan Jews, etc. from our downtown entertainment area.

Why do you post something like this in every thread? You're the weirdest poster on here...

Pizzaman wrote:

The black analogy is bad because he didn't refuse to serve them because they they were gay, he refused the message that was requested on the cake. This would be like refusing to serve a black customer who wanted the word n$#@a on the cake. This seems like it should be totally within his right.

As far as I can tell, he turned them down because they were gay, not because of the message on the cake. They hadn't even discussed the message. Quoting the NYTimes: "The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down. The court added that people seeing the cake would not understand Mr. Phillips to be making a statement and that he remained free to say what he liked about same-sex marriage in other settings."

youre wrong though wrote:

The real issue is that the board's decision was basically "we are punishing you because we think your religious views blow."

True. And it gave SCOTUS an easy way of dealing with the case.

youre wrong though wrote:If they had just said, "we are punishing you because your practice is discriminatory towards the LBGT population in violation of the public accommodations law" it would have probably been upheld (maybe not, but that's what the court says)

Well, the Court didn't say one way or the other. It would have been forced to confront the question whether cake artistry is sufficiently expressive to qualify as speech.

Note that for First Amendment purposes, "art" is not necessarily synonymous with protected speech. For instance, there was some discussion of architecture at the oral argument. Everyone agrees that architecture is creative, probably artistic, and even that architects are sometimes trying to convey an idea or a message. But what if the "message" is something that 99.9% of the people who use the building and don't read architecture blogs are going to miss? What if the "message" is something that's subject to a lot of debate even among architecture geeks? What if the significance of the "message" is totally outweighed by the functional aspects of the building? Also, consider whether it should change things if the regulation at issue is specifically targeted at the message, as opposed to non-communicative aspects of construction? Or, should it change things if the person commissioning the building is explicitly requesting that the building convey a message that the architect doesn't want to convey? What if a church that happens to perform gay marriages asks for a new house of worship to be constructed? What if, instead, the church asks that the new house of worship include special elements that specifically celebrate gay marriage? Should that change things? Consider a non-religious and non-sexual example: What if a state that is widely considered to be regressive on issues of criminal justice asked an architect to design a prison that conveyed the power of the state and the futility of resistance? Should such an architect be allowed to say no on First Amendment grounds?

These are the kinds of questions that come up when expressive conduct is at issue. Easy to see why the Court wanted to avoid them. If only for a term or two.

Okay, I'll replace "gay" with "black".

If a gay walked into a bakery and wanted to buy something off the shelf, it would not be okay to not sell to them, which in fact the bakery in question did not do. Same goes for a black person. If a black person walks into a bakery and wants a particular kind of artwork, for which the baker does not feel he can do a professional job, then it is in his or her right to refer the given black person to another baker. Same goes for gays.

Yes, but Mr. Phillips only makes highly customized cakes. His position is that every cake he makes is a commissioned piece of art celebrating the couple. He said that if he were selling already-made cakes, for instance, he would have sold one to the couple, but that's outside the scope of his business. I suppose it's theoretically possible that the happy couple actually wanted to order a cake conveying the message that gay marriage is sinful, but I think Mr. Phillips was on safe ground in assuming that they wanted a message that he disagreed with.

This is the more relevant consideration in deciding whether he had a free speech right to turn them down.

Regarding your first comment, customizing a cake doesn't need to be celebrating homosexuality. Going back to the race analogy, could he hypothetically refuse to customize a cake on the basis of his religious beliefs against miscegenation? These days we rarely celebrate miscegenation at marriages, people just get married. Both are protected classes, so what is the distinction?

I don't understand your second comment. If people seeing the cake would not understand him to be making a statement then wouldn't that be baking up the couple?

(I do of course realize that this case was decided on a very specific technicality rather than the merits of whether this baker should be allowed to refuse them.)

Oops, meant to write "backing up the couple", not "baking up the couple"

The baker may have won in court, but his business will most likely suffer. Who wants to do business with a discriminating baker? A baker? Lol.

I don’t think haters will keep his business afloat. It will not survive this story.

asgasfsdf wrote:

Oops, meant to write "backing up the couple", not "baking up the couple"

I'm sure one in that couple does lots of "backing up."

a Hostess Twinkie should have been symbolic enough for their wedding cake.