Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.
In a 7-2 decision , the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker
well, well, well... Looks like religious liberty Trumps sexual orientation!
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
85 visitors
Just got the newsflash over my phone. Heads will be exploding all over Newstalkers ......
Gonna be a huge list of nasty's coming out. Put your seatbelt on.
Finally, a little bit of common sense and human decency for once. The Court wasn't fooled by these butt hurt lover boys and their phony lawsuit against Phillips, which was designed beforehand to put him out of business.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
hear, hear!
Personal and derogatory
CoC violation [ph]
I bet that thumper homopobe baker is loading a moving van right now. heh heh heh
Nah, he's got too many non-gay customers to take care of. All this frivolous lawsuit did was increase his business and was a stinging defeat to gay activists and agitators.
We both know what happens to thumpers in that county.
Well, it may be in his best interest to get out of that loony libtard state he is living in, but I suppose his business is doing pretty damn good now.
I know this will be beyond the comprehension of the anti-gay conservatives here, but that's precisely what the ruling doesn't do. In fact the ruling affirms the Colorado law which says: "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation regardless of the proprietor’s personal views".
Obviously you did not read the decision.
You apparently didn't read it much less understand it. The ruling upholds Colorado's law, so if the bigoted baker commits the exact same offense again he'll be convicted again. In fact SCOTUS clearly says he broke the law but that the statements made by one of the civil rights commissioners reflected bias against his bigoted superstitions. That bias is the only reason SCOTUS overturned the state ruling.
If the bigoted baker committed the same offense again he'd be unanimously convicted again.
It seems to be.
(start at :40) ---
Is that cop holding an alligator?
I think you are correct on some points, but you are taking the quoted language out of context. Here is the full paragraph.
2 things: 1) Not a ruling, finding, or holding of the Court, but a possible interpretation of a statement of a commissioner. 2) Not even the likely interpretation, as identified in the last sentence.
The meat was, as you say, the apparent hostility toward the objection raised by Phillips. However, in there is also a statement that not only was there some hostility, but a departure from previous treatments of similar circumstances but with different religious freedom objections being raised.
That second paragraph certainly invalidates the lower rulings because of the way the matter was handled. However, it doesn't say that, if the same set of facts is presented again, the baker is hosed. I take the opposite view, especially considering the language in the opinion.
Yes he is.
Correct, and that's all the ruling really does. In fact it means the original complaint can now be refiled against the baker.
.
Please cite where the ruling indicates that the same public accommodations law cannot be enforced in the exact same set of circumstances (absent the procedural error). It doesn't do that. Thus the law today is the same as it was before the ruling. SCOTUS doesn't per gratis give its stamp of approval to existing state or federal laws. That's not its job.
Note also that SCOTUS declined to hear the appeal in the Elane Photography case even though it had far stronger arguments. In fact since about 1884 no public accommodations law has been struck down, and certainly not due to such "frivolous arguments" (to use the phrase the federal courts and SCOTUS have previously applied to these very same claims that superstition and artistry are an excuse to violate a public accommodations law).
You're correct in saying that I can't, because it doesn't. Just as it does also not say that, under the same set of facts, the baker is hosed. As you note, the SCOTUS avoids the constitutional question if it can, and it looks like it did here. Commission conducted what the majority believed to be an invalid analysis, so it answered the question on those grounds. We are on the same page there.
What "constitutional question" is there? There is none. I suggest you read Newman v Piggie Park to learn how the very same moronic claims have previously been treated.
To the extent that Kennedy's ruling says anything it's that gays have the civil right not to be denied service when state law prohibits it, and superstitious bigots have the right to be treated without bias by our judicial system. What the ruling doesn't say is that the bigot has any legitimate excuse for violating the law.
So as I said the law is unchanged. The only reason SCOTUS reviewed this case was to correct a procedural error. If you want an accurate analysis of the ruling I suggest you read this:
Apply a smidge of logic to your sentence fragment in the context of the ruling. If it were true, that a business could in no way discriminate for reasons of religious conviction, then why does the Supreme Court require the commission to seriously consider those religious convictions? The answer is that they are highly relevant.
It doesn't say his excuse was illegitimate. In fact, the whole ruling is that the commission should have heard and considered his excuse.
That's not what they said at all. What the court said is that the commission cannot exhibit religious bias against the defendant.
As far as whether superstitious excuses to violate a generally applicable law should be treated seriously I suggest you read Newman v Piggie Park where these exact same claims were termed "frivolous." It's no surprise that the dumb bigots in both cases were Southern Baptists and artistes with deeply held superstitious convictions. And as SCOTUS noted in this case it would be entirely proper for the civil rights commission to simply dismiss religious claims by stating that "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views."
.
Hearing his excuse is what an unbiased commission would do. But superstition is never an excuse to violate a generally applicable law. As SCOTUS said in 1878: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
The interviews the bigoted baker has been giving indicate that he intends to break the law again. He'll be back in court rather soon and he'll lose again.
I've read enough of your posts to know you are smarter than that.
Competing rights. References are made in the opinion, as you note, including to Piggy. But, the Court stops short of answering the above question because the commission did not approach the question without bias.
The last paragraph of the opinion sets this up for the question to be answered in later cases though.
Piggy, btw, was about fees. The "religious" defense put forth was that serving blacks was a violation of their religious freedom, and then they argued against fees, claiming that Title II only provided for fees in instances when the defenses had been advanced in bad faith. The Court rejected the subjective test on fees, but noted in the footnotes that the defenses there were quite frivolous and that it wasn't a close case anyway.
Different set of facts here.
I would say that's a good possibility shrek , unless he changes and tweeks his business model. thus affecting which laws apply to whats going on.
he could very well separate the 2 different aspects of the bakery the baking and design , and the final prep portion and stay within the law.
One side can be cranking out the crap( yes I looked at his work and found it wanting , but eye of the beholder thing) that falls under public accommodation /access , and a members only final prep side.
The court didn't need to answer that question because it's already dealt with the issue. If fact it dealt with it long before Piggie Park in the 1878 Reynolds v US where it said (and which Scalia reiterated in 1990): "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
.
You obviously didn't understand that paragraph. All the first bolded part says is that the judicial process should not exhibit religious bias (for or against). That's easy because superstition is irrelevant to these laws and can't be used as an excuse to avoid them. And the second bolded part says that public accommodation laws (which protect sexual orientation) do appropriately protect gay folks in places of public accommodation. Nowhere in the ruling does it say that Colorado's law is invalid or unconstitutional in any sense nor does it say that superstition can be used in any way as an excuse to ignore or violate those laws.
.
Completely false. Piggie Park was the exact same issue, a business owner who cited his Southern Baptist superstitions to deny service based on a protected class. It doesn't matter one bit which of several protected classes it was or that the product was BBQ pork rather than wedding cakes. Both dumb bigots claimed to be "artistes" by the way.
What you're confused about is that SCOTUS reviewed and unanimously upheld the SC federal district court ruling when it reviewed the defendant's appeal of the attorney fee assignment. They didn't even complain that the federal judge had said that Bessinger's superstitious claims were "frivolous."
SCOTUS supported discrimination, welcome to the era of Trump.
Sorry, but Trump didn't rule on this case. He has NO POWER TO DO SO, why are you blaming him?
The vote was 7-2. Not even close!
Yet it seems you don't understand what the ruling did. LOL.
SCOTUS ruled one person's feelings don't trump anther person's rights. Had it went the other way practically every Muslim bakery in the country would have to close. Be careful of unintended consequences there sparky.
No, actually they ruled that an adjudicating body should not exhibit bias, but they upheld Colorado's non-discrimination law. So you folks just lost the war.
.
Too bad you're unable to cite even a single legitimate case of that ever happening in the US, All the cases to date have involved Southern Baptists and other kinds of Christian extremists.
As long as you cite your sincere religious beliefs as a reason for doing so, you can now discriminate against anyone.
What has happened to common sense?
Fortunately that's not what happened. In fact I'd say quite the opposite occurred.
The irony though is that a dumb bigot gets off the hook if anyone accurately describes his bigoted views. LOL.
This leaves it open for that to occur. This decsion cannot be defended on even a legally pragmatic level. Instead of ending the debate with guarnateed equal rights for others, this decision re-opens the issue about the Public Accomidation protections.
How did they rule for Obergfell and then turn around and make this bigoted decision?
What lunacy are you referring to? Are equal rights for all lunacy? Can I cite my religious belifs as a reason to refuse others service or is that ability just reserved for white heterosexual Christians?
Logic was tossed out in the window in favor of emotional nonsense in this decision, Even the SCOTUS admits it when they state that this decision creates a gray area that must be revisited.
yes, you have always had that option... and the public has the option to not do business at your store. (simple)
if however and for example,
your business is to run an ambulance service for the city? public accommodation laws will prevail.
no baker holds a monopoly on cakes... people can go elsewhere. ( public accommodated. )
Cheers
If it is a private business they all must have the same rights to serve or to refuse to serve. You cannot pick and choose who can deny service in the public establishment.
Where did Jesus tell his followers to discriminate?
On its face this is just a process ruling about what happened in the civil rights commission. It doesn't even disagree with the outcome of that ruling, nor does it dispute in any way the state supreme court's affirmation of the legal finding. It only states that the process was flawed because the courts did not seriously consider the claim of bias. Personally I think SCOTUS is overreacting to what were truthful and very accurate comments, but all this does is void that original process. The plaintiffs can now refile their complaint against Phillips and they'll certainly win again, hopefully this time without any procedural errors.
.
I don't think so. It affirms public accommodations laws in general and in this specific context, so it doesn't help the bigots at all. The possible can of worms is in other aspects of the ruling. Kagan's concurrence and Ginsburg's quasi-dissent are both helpful in understanding what the court did.
Nobody is asking you to accept or tolerate anything. You are creating that in claim your head. Do you want to harass LGBT people in public because of your conservative views? Does not being able to do so mean that you are being forced to tolerate their presence?
Do you believe that you hasd the right not to tolerate and accept them before the Windsor and Obergfell decisions? LGBT people have the same rights in public business and the same civil rights as everyone else as you do. Why do you have a problem with that very basic concept?
Good news I was pulling for him. One should be free to pick and choose the work they do and who they do it for.
Yep, within reason and that is exactly what this was. Within reason.
Said that many times in here, much to the consternation of some of the progressive fruit-loops present.
When I go into the house painting business I won't be painting any Christian houses. I get to choose who I do business with, right?
Yep, within reason and it seems SCOTUS agrees by a wide margin.
Thanks for the morning chuckle , the question arises how would one identify who is and who is not a Christian? hand out a questionnaire before the bidding process? hire a PI to tail them on sundays ? and what if they skip over that question on the grounds of privacy rights?
and yes you as a business owner would have a right to turn down business, most common reason would be overbooking jobs , and that is your choice.
Look for the big Jesus fish on the house, crosses, any identifying sculpture, image, icon, etc
I live in the Bible Belt and believe me, you know who the Christians are and where they live.
Absolutely!
exactly... now your catching on. you might find those evil christians own most of the houses in your town. but if your business model is to target the smallest possible number of potential customers? .have fun with that.
I chose all my customers my whole career in construction. (they only thought they were interviewing me)
if they seem suspicious for any reason at all? I would just tell them I am too busy or I doubled my bid and demanded half up front... problem solved
Cheers
Sorry to disappoint you but the ruling specifically did not do that.
It pretty much implied that. Stay tuned for further rulings which will clear it up for you.
So....you haven't actually read the ruling, eh?
I have...What it means is that Justice Kennedy, who was at the forefront of same-sex marriage becoming the law of the land attended to some overlooked concerns - namely the lefts using that right to call people of faith bigots! The Colorado Civil Rights commission made it so easy with their anti-religious language. Although it may only apply to this specific case the decision was desperately needed!
Here:
Kennedy’s response was devastating:
So you've only actually read a right-wing digest's interpretation of the ruling and thus missed the fact that none of the bigot's excuses for violating the law was accepted by the court majority? The only reason he got off the hook temporarily was due to presumptive bias on the part of the civil rights commission (ie a procedural error), not because the commission should have allowed his superstitions to be used as an excuse to violate the law. As the court majority noted there would have been no error if they had simply said: "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views."
You also apparently missed what the court majority meant when it said "without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."
.
No, that just means that anyone adjudicating these cases needs to be careful not to exhibit bias or even the possible impression of bias, no matter how truthful and accurate their comments about how superstition has often been used as an excuse to harm minorities.
Kennedy's comments also have no impact whatsoever on how the general public will continue to condemn superstitious and dimwitted bigots like Jack Phillips. It's really no surprise at all that his Southern Baptist sect was literally founded to promote bigotry, slavery and white supremacy. And no surprise that all of the current cases in the courts involve Southern Baptists too, just like the Piggie Park case 50 years ago.
I can't wait for an LGBT ER doctor or a paramedic to make the same arguement when its a Christian who needs help.
Ridiculous statement.
Or how about a Muslim who refuses to serve a Jew?
Watch heads explode, then
All religious belief and sexuality/gender must be treated absolutely equally. If you can do it to them then legally they must have the right to do it to you.
Wrong.
Your emotional belief is not a legally valid argument.
I never made any emotional argument.
WTF are you bleating on about?
the SCOTUS has ruled, and I can live with that without whining and crying.
You made a one-word emotional decision because you have no argument, rational or otherwise, to support it.
My replies were taking this decision to its logical conclusion when people of other groups or religious beliefs use the same argument the SCOTUS delivered to deny equal service to Christians. This decision cannot be used by just bigoted bakers to deny service to only LGBT customers. Legally it must be able to be applied to all business owners and customers regardless of race, creed, color gender, sexuality or disability. .
You WISH!
I'll leave the emotional stuff to you.
In fact that's exactly what Colorado's law requires and it's just as much in force today as it was yesterday. There's no difference in the treatment of protected classes.
My beliefs are not emotional because I could not have articulated them as I did if they were. Maybe you could try to divorce your emotions and instead embrace logical thought.
I have read other sources as well, this is a bit confusing - I thought the Supreme Courts ruling would offer guidelines / limits of religious freedoms etc ....
Congratulations to the Baker, I do believe cake decorating is an art form … yet this decision seems to me to still leave the door wide open for the conflicts to continue
it absolutely does, the scope was narrow for this ruling (something some people don't seem to understand or are being intentionally obtuse about), so this issue isn't over yet in my opinion.
I am thinking it is a lack of comprehension that the Supreme Court made a ruling that impacts only one case - I was taken back when I read the ruling, I expected the Justices to make a broader ruling providing some form of standards / guidelines in their decision.
Agreed Pheonyx, this is far from over in my opinion - the floods gates are about to open wide up!
What about this?
I have not found anything as of yet that explains this … if this is the case - does not this make the point of filing a suit rather moot?
i expected the same and i was a bit shocked as well, they seem to have avoided the bigger issue and it seems more cases will have to be pushed to them to get them to finally rule one way or the other on the bigger issue.
yes, on both sides it seems
i honestly don't know, i haven't found an explanation either, i would figure it would be specific to this case since the scope is so narrow with this ruling, but does seem very confusing
In my quest for clarity, I did run across this article from May 26 2018....
Yep Yep Yep .. far from over .. the decision today did not even attempt to scratch the surfer of what the Justices 'must' know is a multi faceted issue … the question I have is will there be multiple decisions handed down, or will the Justices come together and make a decision as a whole?
honestly ? i could actually see multiple decisions coming down first, then realizing some of those decisions can be interpreted in conflicting manners - a major decision as a whole would be next. just means this could be a long drawn out issue...
Good point … the Colorado Baker case took nearly 6 years to wind its way to the Supreme Court
Well, in a sense the issue was moot since the cake was already baked by a better and more ethical baker. But this ruling is really just about the specific facts of this case and in particular some statements made by one of the civil rights commissioners.
The ruling repeatedly affirms public accommodation laws both in general and for the particular law and type of case in question. The main issue for the court seems to be the (appropriately) derogatory treatment of Phillip's bigoted superstitions by one of the civil rights commissioners. Apparently they're supposed to treat nutty and bigoted superstitions with the same impartiality that the rest of our court system would. So if this identical case were before the civil rights commission and they once again ruled unanimously against him by saying (per SCOTUS on pg 14) that "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation regardless of the proprietor’s personal views" , then the ruling would stand as long as they made no derogatory comments about his bigoted superstitions.
But there are several problematic aspects, not the least of which is how the court equated this denial of service to a denial due to an offensive message. Either this opens the door to Dixie Swastikas being printed by Walmart, or it becomes a lot more difficult for a civil rights commission to distinguish unlawful bigotry from a legitimate business interest. SCOTUS was concerned about the state substituting its own moral assessment for that of the business'.....but on some level isn't that necessary when adjudicating these disputes, ie in weighing whether a particular defense for discrimination is legitimate?
Here's the ruling:
No, it showed that the statements made by one commissioner revealed bias against Phillips' nutty and bigoted superstitions (and I might add quite rightly so), but the bigoted baker still lost unanimously. He'll lose again unanimously if he does it again. So he has a choice to make........he can continue not to sell wedding cakes (he stopped doing that after his original conviction), or he can sell wedding cakes to gays and straights alike. But he can't do what you and he really want, so you both lost the war.
If businesses cannot be sued for violating those anti-discrimination laws then do those laws still legally exist, except in print? If they cannot be enforced then the law is toothless.
I haven't read the whole ruling yet, just got the specifics. I will try to read it in a little bit. From what I gather they basically just stated that the courts had to be neutral in terms of religion.
All in all it sounds like they just punted it all down the road.
It was intentionally narrow. It doesn't overturn any States accommodation laws, it merely ruled that in this case the bakers religious freedom was not considered thoroughly enough by the lower courts. It implies that if you are an "artist" you cannot be compelled to create art for/on a subject you disagree with. Just like an atheist painter couldn't be compelled to paint nativity scenes or paintings of angels etc. It leaves in place the requirement for all establishments to serve gay Americans without discrimination. I felt it was a serious stretch to call this bigoted baker an "artist", but the SCOTUS ruled narrowly that the lower courts didn't consider he technically could be classified as such.
This isn't any sort of "win" for religious bigots, it's a technical "win" for this one individual and sets no precedent in future cases. It intentionally leaves the barn door wide open so future cases will be determined on a case by case basis until a broader ruling can be made.
Anyone, except maybe an accountant, can claim that they are an artist when there is an element of creativity in their work. This decision is a legal clusterpuck because it creates more problems than it solves.
As long as the person claims that their bigotry is based on their sincere religious beliefs this SCOTUS will permit it.
Why does a rational person worry about offending bigots who seek to discriminate?
i don't think this ruling states that as a broad brush, i'm sure you could still sue a business for violating anti-discrimination laws. This ruling left open a lot concerning this issue - they only ruled on the very specific particulars of this one case and that's it. I think SCOTUS will be getting more of these types of cases and be forced to make a general ruling on the bigger issue.
No, it doesn't do that at all. In fact SCOTUS said that these sincere superstitions are not an excuse to violate these laws.
There's been a lot of misreporting about what the ruling does and what it was about. It really was a big win for LGBT rights because it affirms the applicability of public accommodation laws to these same-sex wedding related cases. I think it also answers any question about how the other wedding-related cases will be resolved.
That's exactly why the court didn't do what so many reporters are claiming it did. Here's a more accurate analysis:
There are a few things they left open (or possibly bungled) like the extent of viable compelled speech claims. But in general I think people aren't understanding either the broad effect of the ruling or the niggling details which might cause problems later.
.
I don't think so. They really did address the issues of whether public accommodation laws can protect sexual orientation, whether superstition can be used as an excuse to break those laws, and to some extent whether free expression can be used as an excuse to break those laws. So that's why they said this is an issue lower courts will be dealing with.
Thank you so much for all your information and documentation in support of this decision (and clarity). It was very helpful and much appreciated.
Unfortunately the dumb bigots will still play deaf, dumb and blind to the reality (the truth).
i'm not so sure honestly, because it seems that some of the lower court cases are in disagreement - i don't think this ruling by SCOTUS will settle those disagreements, do you ?
Thanks Ender .. I read the ruling, yet did not get a satisfactory understanding of the 'business owner cannot be successfully sued for religious based denial of services...
What was your interpretation of what you read? (presuming you were able to read the ruling)
Morning Pheonyx..
From everything that I have read, there are multiple cases regarding similar actions to that of the Colorado bakery 'winding' their way to the Justices .. I am with you, as we chatted yesterday, there will be multiple rulings specific to each case - I do not see that the current ruling covers all possibilities .. even the ACLU seems to state that more cases are to come..
I suppose the Supreme Court can refuse to hear them .. perhaps....
The only one I'm aware of in the entire country over the past 20 years of public accommodations law cases is the one in Bakersfield, CA, and that will certainly be overturned on appeal. No other court including SCOTUS has accepted the arguments made in that case, nor has any declined to enforce these laws.
However I'm not surprised that the ADF is making claims to the contrary. Phillips and his ADF attorney were interviewed this morning and they're spinning it good.....I suspect Phillips will be taken to court again soon since he erroneously thinks he's been granted permission to deny service to same-sex couples.
There's nothing in the current ruling which can be interpreted to support the use of superstition or free expression to deny service in these cases. Quite the opposite in fact and the public accommodation laws in the country are unchanged.
.
That's exactly what they did in the Elane Photography case, one which had far stronger claims and no procedural errors in the case.
To put it another way, there's no reason for SCOTUS to take a case merely to put its stamp of approval when the state courts enforced state law correctly and didn't infringe the US constitution. So unless someone can invent a constitutional issue which would allow broad denial of service to all protected classes, you're unlikely to hear from SCOTUS again on this issue.
yes i remember reading that one. i thought there were others, but i could be wrong, tons of things going on at once. I wonder if that one will get appealed or not - and how that will go (if they do). So far that is a conflicting decision and hopefully it'll get sorted out. Things get hazy in circumstances like these - reminds me of which states allowed same sex marriage and which didn't etc, before SCOTUS ruled on the matter.
I'm quite certain there are no other rulings like the one in Bakersfield. That erroneous ruling will be handled by the state courts.
Really the only legitimate reason for a court not to enforce a public accommodations law is when the probable cause finding is insufficient or the facts of the case otherwise dictate. State law (and federal law) provide no exceptions or excuses to these laws, and the reason for that is quite obvious.
Reading it, it seems that all they did was slap the Colorado commission. They only reversed the judgement against him. I actually agree with Kagan and disagree with Gorsuch, even though they essentially voted the same.
I think Kagan would have upheld the decision if the commission had acted appropriately and without disparaging remarks. Kagan said that the rulings that gave some an exemption were based on the bakers not willing to write or design offensive messaging, which they would not do for anyone. Yet Philips not doing business for certain people was not the same thing. Gorsuch was trying to argue that they are the same, when they are not. He is arguing that a message that disparages some people is the same as a message that celebrates people. So again I disagree with him here.
So far I have not found anything about lawsuits , suing or outcomes of those. I have yet to find anything about not being able to successfully sue.
Yeah, there are a number of odd things in the ruling and the concurrences and dissents. Two things in the majority ruling were odd, first the strained interpretation of "bias" which results in extreme deference to even the most vile of religious views. I understand that the courts should not take a position on those views, but the commissioner in question merely stated that religious views have historically been used to justify discrimination and the worst of abuses. That's a fact and in reality it's what's actually going on in this case, no different from the baker denying service because the couple is mixed-race.
Second is the co-mingling and blurring with "test cases" (presumably set up by the ADF) involving offensive imagery or offensive text neither of which is going on in this case. Those public accommodation claims were dismissed because no protected class was infringed and because the baker has a legitimate business interest in not conveying derogatory messages. In other words not at all comparable to the Phillips case.
Yep. I really didn't like where Gorsuch was going with that. He was trying desperately to lump all into one category. As if things are only black and white with zero gray area. IMO he was being intellectually dishonest and trying to conflate the issue.
Does this mean I can legally discriminate against Christians now?
Yes!
Try it and find out.
Apparently I can and you just got your nose tweaked. It seems with your last comment that you don't want Christians to be treated in the same manner many treat non-Christians or the LGBT community.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Either you support relgious-based discrimination or you don't. You cannot have it both ways.
Actually, the SCOTUS just ruled that I can have my cake and eat it too!
Yes.....but only if one of the civil rights commissioners reveals a bias against anti-Christian bigotry.
That is a given.
The commissioners decision was bigotry and bias in and of itself, so if they made the same decision in the future, the Supreme Court would strike it down again... I can't help if you do not understand this simple point..
False, as SCOTUS noted. However the one commissioner's comments were 100% accurate even if inappropriate for a quasi-judicial setting.
.
False. SCOTUS had no dispute with the commission's finding, just with the possibility of bias.
Let the whining commence, people!!!
What are you whining about this time?
just sitting here waiting on you and your buddies to show up and start it!
You folks just lost the war. Shouldn't you be whining rather than celebrating?
maybe you could read through these posts and then try to figure out who is whining.
Here's a hint:
It SURE ain't me!
So......you're celebrating because your side actually lost the war or because you haven't read or comprehended the ruling?
Did I say I was celebrating, or are you just making shit up?
Obviously they don't have a Supreme Court (yet) that is willing to permit at will discrimination against same sex couples.
No, and there never will be.
gee, for once, you got it right--no SC will allow at will discrimination.
Good job!
It's far worse than that for the dumb bigots......SCOTUS just effectively ruled 8-1 to affirm Colorado's non-discrimination law (with only Thomas dissenting on that aspect). The bigots are just too dumb to read the ruling and understand what just happened.
Is everyone whose views different from yours a "bigot". You sure toss that word out all over the place. Weakens your point.
Nope, just the dumb bigots who think it's OK to violate non-discrimination laws.
Prohibiting bigots from denying serive is a public business because of their hypocritical religious views is not discriminating against bigots.
I hope these idiots know that people still have their free speech right to protest against them and their place of businesses if they choose to deny equal service to LGBT people. It may be legal but it isn't moral, so we will see if their customers want to be seen supporting bigotry.
a very interesting ruling, altho it's narrow so it seems this issue isn't over yet, but still an interesting ruling nonetheless. Always be careful what you wish for, correct ?
7-2 is narrow?
When narrow isbeing used about a case, it is about the scope of the ruling. Is it just applied to just this case, or is it applied to all future cases? Or, is it focused on a limited number of cases or just a limited interpretation of laws and the Constitution? In this case, it sounds like it is a limited application of the First Amendment; therefore narrow in scope.
didn't read the ruling or don't understand the scope of the ruling ?
In this case, the ruling's limited application is to ONE PERSON.
Yep, it's really just about the unwise statements made by one of the commissioners about the bigoted superstition which Phillip's belongs to.
However the ruling also affirms the underlying Colorado law by at least 7-2 (really 8-1) which says: "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation regardless of the proprietor’s personal views." That's the part the right wingers are missing, the fact that they won a battle but lost the war.
'well, well, well... Looks like religious liberty Trumps sexual orientation!'
Looks like faux religious liberty persecution and bigotry trumps all.
This should have been settled with 2 simple questions to the baker's lawyers.
The answer to the 1st question is that HE didn't.
If the answer to the 2nd question is yes, then the case needed to be thrown out.
Lol, that may be true here but certainly not on NEWSVINE. That comment is tame by comparison to the normal horse-shit over there.
This is newstalkers not newsvine.
LOL I know, i've done the same thing ..... combination of old mans disease and CRS .....
Apparently the learned members of SCOTUS disagreed with you.
Eight years of tackle football didn't help much either.
I'm being fitted for a drool bucket as we speak.
Where did I interpret the Bible? If Jesus did say something against homosexuality or same sex marriage, where is your evidence??? Show me where in the Bible Jesus said it. Stop whining and blustering and show me where I am wrong.
Otherwise your claim is just outright BULLSHIT!!!
Doesn't mean I was wrong when I claimed that he is using religion as an excuse for his discrimination.
Yeah, it kind of DOES.
That's the funny part about this ruling.....all of the remarks made by the "biased" commissioner were 100% correct. So when he noted that Phillips' bigoted superstitions were the same sort of thing which had been used to justify slavery and Jim Crow laws he was exactly right since Phillips is a Southern Baptist. But apparently it's impolitic to tell the truth in a quasi-judicial body.
The funny part is that no one said anything at all, the book is from stories and myth written hundreds of years after the purported events and you want to quibble about what person or persons that questionably ever existed said what. Many people over the centuries have used that book to enrich, enslave, enthrone and execute at their convenience as one thing is for certain the human race lacks not for gullibility as ample evidence proves.
Where did Jesus ever mention homosexuality or gender identity? Where did Jesus ever tell his followers to discriminate?
If you are going to cite Leviticus then you must logically obey all of Leviticus instead of cherry-picking the passages that defend your discriminatory behavior.
Either post your supposed claims or admit that you have nothing.
Okay, I realize that I accidentally ended the sentence with a period instead of a question mark, but a 5 year old would recognize this as a question not a statement.
No, first and foremost the baker was a self-proclaimed Christian, as in worshiper of Jesus Christ. He did not worship Peter or anyone else. If Christ believed that way, he would have said it himself.
The old if you can't understand my argument, that's your problem not mine argument???
So you tell me "Christian", who's teachings do you follow? Christ only said "Love thy neighbor", Peter said stuff that goes against that 1 Christ commandment, so who do you follow? Or do you just pick and choose what parts you want to follow?
Yes, it is. And you still haven't shown me where Jesus said anything against homosexuals or same sex marriage. I also notice that you have conveniently ignored my 2nd question to the baker's attorneys.
I was thinking along those lines myself. So much faith in a book written by man.
And so many years after the person of topic left this world. And so many people who have retold and retold and retold the stories and surely there have been variations along the way due to differences in terminology and/or interpretation.
So who do you follow when they contradict each other? Whichever one you feel better supports your prejudices?
Pretty much how I feel about it as well. Out of all the religions, there is generally one thing in common, God, then the stories go off in all kinds of directions.
I haven’t read the decision yet but it seems like a very narrow ruling that says Colorado violated this particular baker’s first amendment rights through hostility to his religious beliefs rather than a broad decision declaring that religious freedom trumps sexual orientation. If so, then the ruling only applies to him and leaves unanswered the difficult question of how you resolve a clash between the rights of the baker and the homosexuals who demand wedding cakes.
That is how I interpret what I have read 1ofmany .. the Supreme Court only ruled on the specifics of this one case .. However the ruling does protect business owners from 'successful' lawsuits against them for refusing service to same sex couples ... (?)
There are more cases working through the courts .. this is not over yet...
It set a precedent that the Court will not look kindly upon frivolous vindictive lawsuits claiming no real damages, that aim only to punish and put people out of business.
I'm sure that you can point to exactly where in the opinion that is stated.
The opinion speaks for itself. The baker has no court costs to pay.
That first part is correct, but in fact the broader aspect of the decision says the exact opposite of your last clause.
.
Actually the court repeatedly affirmed the underlying principle of Colorado's law and said: "a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation regardless of the proprietor’s personal views."
In other words these public accommodations laws do apply to same-sex wedding related businesses, but the courts and commissions which adjudicate them need to be careful not to exhibit bias against superstitious folks.
Religious people have a persecution complex so anything that stands in their way of forcing others to obey their mythical idiocy is persecution. This court needs to grow a backbone and draw a hard line between the actions of someone in business and their religious beliefs as a private person. You do not gain religious rights to force others to obey your beliefs when you open a public business.
Who is forcing anyone to obey their religious beliefs? Forcing? Is this a remake of the Spanish Inquisition? Perhaps it's just a case of RESPECTING another's religious beliefs - sort of like what CAIR wants all of America to do, and I think you support that, don't you?
A person's religious beliefs are irrelevant in business because the business is incorporated. Your customers do not have to ask if their religious beliefs clash with your own before they can be served. Your constitutional religious rights are limited to the right to believe in god/s and to worship as you see fit. You do not have the right to force others to take part or to believe in your religious beliefs because that act would trample on their equal rights belifs when they are members of a different religion or no religion at all.
Can your own employees sue the boss because of the employees religious beliefs are different?
CAIR is not asking for special rights.
I'm glad that my father's customers didn't sue him when he locked the doors of his business on the Sabbath - after all, wasn't it their [constitutional] right to do so? But then I guess they had respect for his adhering to his religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court of the United States just proved you wrong, lol!
(faceplam) I expected better from you because of your legal background.
Every business owner has the right to close their business because of their own religious holidays. Nobody is saying otherwise. That is not an example of discriminating against anyone because he was not refusing to serve one group while serving another unless they were trying to refuse to serve to a demographic or a customer by doing so.
There are still state-level anti-discrimination laws.
The customers can protest the store when they discriminate because they have their free speech rights. Shutting down a bigoted business is still possible and even likely. This decision begs to be revisited for a sweeping decision due to the fact that the current SCOTUS kicked the issue down the road.
Just using an exaggeration to make a point, dear. I see little difference from those who scream "constitutional right of free speech" while shouting down a distinguished Israeli speaker at a university. This is a world of hypocrisy, isn't it.
Sounds more like you didn't understand the ruling. LOL.
It really is a sweeping decision against bigotry and for public accommodation laws. It's just dressed in the veneer of a small victory for one dumb bigot......and all he really won is a temporary reversal of his fine.
Hmmmm.....maybe you should read this:
I do think the scope of this one case was narrow , mainly being were the rights of the those involved being actually violated , and that it was the particulars of this one case that were looked at.
I also think that there are a couple other issues being ignored, at the expense of being labeled a discrimination case.
One being the issue of choice , the right to choose freely. And the right to free association being the other , the right to choose whom one will associate with without force. both of those issues are rife for claims of discrimination , but people still hold those unenumerated rights and can choose as they see fit.
Well, the bigots lost the war on those points since SCOTUS just affirmed Colorado's public accommodations law.
The baker is still free to run his business as a private members-only club like the whites-only club which Rush Limbaugh attends, but if he remains a business open to the public then what he can't do is refuse to make or sell the same goods and services to gays that he sells to straights. In other words his illegal conduct is still just as illegal today as it was 6 years ago.
I don't think there was a loss on those points I mentioned , unless you are saying I must be accepting of everyone ( even if I choose not to) to include pedophiles , rapists , and a whole list of others one might choose not to associate with, you see that choice is still mine to make , and it cant be legislated away no matter how a law is written.
Way I do see it is it is none of my personal business to pass any judgment on the life choices of 2 consenting adults , it doesn't affect me in the slightest really , but the element of individual choice is pretty important , and who am I to decide what makes someone else happy? The only one I can control that for is myself , that's it .
other than that I try to treat people as people , what I believe really wont matter in the long run. but I will always reserve the right of choice for myself.
and I can think of another way to get around it .
most custom bakeries have portfolios of what they can create, picture books as they say, let whomever pick their design, bake the cake as pictured , and let THEM finish up with the final touches they desire , be it some congratulatory message , or the proverbial , bride and groom , bride and bride , or groom and groom as they choose . but that makes too much sense.
just don't offer those final touches as part of the service, to anyone, that would still be following the law .
but then again I was an old school traditionalist , and tradition dictated when I got married , that the cake was baked by both the couples mothers , call it superstition , tradition or whatever . MY mother could cook , my ex wifes Bio mom could burn water , and her foster mom , well baking was not her forte. maybe that's why we eloped and had ice cream cake in the car on the way out of town......
That's exactly what ethical bakers have offered the bigots who wanted anti-gay messages on their cakes.
The first choice that an business person has is what KIND of business to open. The laws governing that KIND of business should be a part of that decision. If you choose to open a business that is defined as a public accommodation, you are choosing to follow the laws governing public accommodations.
Again, NOT if you run a business that is a public accommodation. You may not want to associate with any number of people, you still have to serve them a cup of coffee or give them a room.
Depends on the circumstances, as the Supreme Court has just ruled.
I cant say I disagree with any of that as for public accomodation such as hotels , cafes and and the like where the public is usually afforded equal treatment ,all for it .
where I might have some question is such as this case of a niche business such as a specialty shop of this sort, they make their money by the piece , now unless this guy has the most spectacular cake in the Denver metro area, there are other bakers in this specialty market. and being such as an AT WILL , meaning it takes both parties to agree to services desired and those that would be rendered and since there was no agreement on both parties parts , no public contract or trust was violated.
what some I think are failing to understand , is even though this bakery is a business, it is also what some would call an at will specialty shop, open to the public yes , but the proprietor can pick and choose for whatever reason , whether to take a job and be paid , or not . a contract employee. if they choose to not enter a contract for services , that's up to them. but the reprecussions and consequences of those choices , are their own doing as well.
some may not like that outlook , but thankfully I don't have to deal with those public accommodation laws , being semi retired and usually doing piece work as I want , I can and do pick and choose if I will take on work.
just to clarify , I ran a lawn care /landscaping business for a few years to stay busy , I still at times will be asked to mow a lawn or two or get asked for some advice on what to do as for landscaping , the advice is free, so I tell people to take it for what its worth to them , the mowing , I don't charge much past cost of fuel and maint., thing is , it is my choice if I am going to do it for someone or not . It is actually nice being semi retired , and I call myself that because I am not old enough to collect SSI , and my retirement savings dictate I don't have to work if I choose not to. I like my simple , basic way of life.
There's ZERO question that custom order services including wedding cake bakeries are subject to all state and local public accommodations laws, no matter how big or small the business. The only issue is whether the business sells those goods or services to the general public, if it selects its clientele, or if it is a members-only club. Any business which sells to the general public is subject to these laws.
So it sounds like you're really whining about public accommodations laws in general despite the fact that they've been with us for a very long time, at least since 1875.
whining? nope , I just understand a little about contracts between parties , and in order for a custom order contract to be held valid their must first be an agreement on the subject of the contract, no agreement , no violation seems even though this guy was open for public business ,an agreement on the contract for this specific item was not reached , and yes he could have used any excuse to turn down the work , I during the time I WAS subject to accommodation laws turned down exactly ! job solicitation , guy saw the landscaping being done at his neighbors by my crews , decided he wanted about 20k worth of work done , we talked , turns out e was planning on selling the property , and the payment was contingent on the sale , so he wanted the work done on credit ,ok so a credit check was run , based on that , the job was turned down with a reference to someone that might take the job , and I even told him the reason I was turning it down , he wasn't happy , but I told him based on the report , I would not extend the credit or contingency and all work would be paid for as done . he wasn't happy . and yes if you tried to contract me to mow your lawn , I would turn it down , so sue , other choice suggestions would be to go pound dry sand.
Accusing a member of whining is almost as effective as shouting them down. Would you by any chance be a Berkeley graduate?
Well to me its an issue of does someone who has a business , that works on a contractual basis have the right to turn business away or refuse work for whatever reason suits them? to me that's the real crux of it, where it hinges.
hell there is a truck driver shortage at the moment , I hold a class A CDL with OTR experience , does that mean I HAVE to take a job if it is offered to me to alieviate the driver shortage? I don't think so , but by doing that it has reprecussions on the cost of just about everything people buy.
lol don't let it get to ya buzz , he is entitled to his opinion , even if it is wrong headed thinking.
his opinion doesn't bother me , for it to bother me first it has to matter to me , and it doesn't.
The dumb bigot was given an opportunity to work it out after the civil rights commission found probable cause that he had violated the law, but he refused all remediation efforts. That's why it went to court and it's why he lost all the way to the state supreme court......and even at SCOTUS the only thing he won was a reprieve because the civil rights commission made an error, not because the state erred in enforcing the law.
In this case no contract was signed because the dumb bigot illegally denied service.
Federal and state statues define what a public accommodation is and it's on the business owner to review the law and decide whether they want to open a business governed by those laws. People can call it whatever the hell they want to but under the LAW, it's a bakery and must follow the public accommodations statutes.
A business owner has another choice too. They can form a members only business and only serve those they ALLOW to be members. That exempts their business from the public accommodations statutes.
he denied service? or declined to enter into a contract using his skill set to enter into a contract he decided not to? there is a difference even if it has the same result.
YES
I have to say I agree with that to a point, the bakery being a brick and mortar establishment most likely had good for sale on premises, and those goods already made should fall under the public accomodations laws , so we can agree already made products denial would be illegal.
Now throw in something that has not been created yet , is something that doesn't exist also protected under those laws ? or does contract law effect it? because the way I do see it , there is a melding of the two , under contract law either party can withdraw for any reason or decline the contract if the subject is not suitable or satisfactory right up to the moment the contract is agreed to.
lets say for hypothetical it happened this way, the couple comes in inquires about a cake and the proprietor agrees and says I can make a cake , the couple then say its a wedding cake , and that's acceptable ,then they stipulate what the cake is for , here there is a disagreement and the proprietor balks , and says they wont do that.
At the least in my view , they have a verbal agreed to contract for a wedding cake, so that's all the baker has to do , but its not what the customer wants , do they settle for what was agreeable? or take their business elsewhere? or does the customer have the right to force someone to use their skill sets to create something they have not agreed on past what they have agreed to?
Now I write this thinking of my little brother , very developmentally disabled , late 40 s year old man with the mind and thought process of a 12 year old , he has one great passion , one that he bonded with our father over , and that happens to be cars, and 1 car in particular , the dukes of hazard general Lee, he sees that and he recalls good time spent talking with dad, them both getting to know one another , which wasn't easy with my dad .
Under those circumstances , should I or anyone be able to custom order a cake , in that design , exact in every detail to include the roof top painting of that flag? to him it isn't the lee without the flag. or can any entity deny the order because they find it offensive?
question for me is where is the line drawn for public accommodation laws , and contract laws where the service or product has not yet been done . for me if there is a product on the shelf , I should be able to buy it , when it comes to being contracted to actually create something that doesn't exist yet , until there is agreement even just verbally from both parties , there is no contract , that can be enforced past what has been already agreed on.
Why would they want a cake that's on the shelf - that is generally a display item.
Wouldn't you want a freshly made cake?
What skill set? Did you see that tacky piece up above - one of his finished 'works of art'?
I see it differently , if we both were on the Sc we would have been on different sides of the decision then.
and you have never walked into a grocery stores bakery section and picked up a pie or cake or some other goodies ? just on the spur of the moment , or even am established bakery and bought something off the shelf such as a loaf of bread?
I admit fresh is best , but even I have bought whats on display to satisfy a craving , usually its something that is chocolate related and usually goes by the name of "death by chocolate".
well , Art , like beauty , is in the eye of the beholder , just like trying to figure out if something is actually art or is it pornography, that depends on the person.
If I own a dinner can I serve the guy in the booth next to you a plate of pancakes and then refuse you service by claiming that your breakfast isn't 'already made'?
If we can agree that if I serve fresh pancakes of one, I must serve fresh pancakes for all, a cake isn't far behind.
Here's another point. The baker had NO IDEA if the couple wanted a 'unique' cake. You can go to his website and see his 'theme' wedding cakes. If you have already baked, decorated and photographed a 'theme' wedding cake, can you really claim that making another one just like it is 'artistic expression'? IMHO, you can't.
good point and granted about the diner, but that would also depend on a couple things really, if I were sitting there respectfully and not making a scene yeah that would be illegal . BUT if I were being a socially unacceptable boar, being disruptive or derogatory to others , or even just offensive , you as the owner of the diner have every right to use whatever you decide , to rectify the situation , from what I have seen happen back in my younger days , it is usually being told to get out , if it was a bar , it would have been being 86ed and told not to return.
and if something is in a portfolio showing what can be created , then yes it should be protected under the laws , what I don't think is, is when it goes past the visual and more requirement are discussed . IE adding to the basic contract. those stipulations and conditions unique to a particular service in question for that specific contract.
If only the racists had such an easy out after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. But unfortunately they did not, and neither did the dumb bigoted baker in this case.
just thinking off the cuff , I think what we may be going to see start happening in such cases related to bakers , but not exclusive to them , is people that have to follow public accommodation laws , offer such as has been mentioned , the portfolio aspect , as their basic service offered, kind of what you see is what you get, that would satisfy those PA laws .
then there would be also be services , based on contract law that those providing a service , that go beyond the basic protected service , also will come into platy where the agreement to do the service would have to be mutually agreed on.
But what I think really doesn't matter in the whole scheme of things . I wont be putting myself in that position where I have to consider it.
You think? grocery store bakeries stuff comes in pre made and flash frozen , cakes and pies are thawed. breads are frozen and uncooked and simply baked quick . that's about as close to "fresh baked " as they get. Real bakeries are a little different.
Whatever dude. I really don't give a fuck. The gyrations you're going through to defend this bigot are amazing.
You may have the last word now.
well I do see a lot of prejudices and bigotry being shown , just not in the same places that you see them.
Thanks for the last word.
gee, if it was so damn crappy, why is everyone so upset he wouldn't make them a cake?
So then this baker and every other one that has been prosecuted violated the law. None of the case documentation shows that any of the couples asked for a 'unique' wedding cake.
What the................. is that supposed to mean?
I admit that I have occasionally tortured the English language but even I would not have posted that reply.
Do we now have to inquire what the business owner's religious views are before we seek to conduct a business transaction with them?
'well I do see a lot of prejudices and bigotry being shown , just not in the same places that you see them.'
How oblivious of you - I mean obvious
i think there is a difference between going to another place due to crappy food/service etc and going to another place due to you being refused service simply due to your sexual orientation and the gender of your fiancee (or husband or wife) - wouldn't you agree ?
So all the shitty little comments about his skill sis really just a big old case of sour grapes?
Ok , so if this guy had said , I will make you a wedding cake as pictured in a portfolio, but I wont do any additional decoration past what the picture shows ,that would have been ok ?
Not if you're declining services provided to other customers. Sounds like you just don't get how these laws work despite the fact that they've been around for your entire life.
and that's the "rub" or question I have shrek, where exactly IS that line of where public accommodation /acsess laws begins and ends , and where does contractual services begin and end ? as well as exactly what rights do both entities have under a contractual service agreement?
as I have said I agree , under the public acsess /accommodation laws , denial of those services cannot be denied .
where the rub /question is , when someone is consulted and solicited to do what some can say is work unique to a specific project, what IS everyones rights?
It appears , that some think if the baker is in business they HAVE to take ALL contracts for unique work, I just don't see it that way.
I will use this as an example, a guy can own an acre of land out in hells half acre ( where they filmed starship troopers) its desert , but he wants it to look like the 18th green at Augusta, IF I were still in the landscape business , would I have the right to turn down that project/ contract? for whatever reason I choose?
Can you see my questions now and where I am viewing from?
now wait a minute.. i don't remember mentioning anything about skills... let's see:
nope, nothing mentioned about skills... now, let's get back to you answering the question:
do you agree ? (you are welcome to keep dodging and avoiding answering the question, it speaks volumes)
wouldn't that depend on the reason ?
You can weave whatever complex example you like but the court will only look at three issues - is your business considered a public accommodation and thus is subject to these laws, were the goods or services denied of the kind generally offered to the public, and did your motive in the denial of service infringe a protected trait of the customer. That's it.
The good thing in all these recent public accommodation cases is that the facts are clear cut and the dumb bigots proudly admit that they're dumb bigots. So there's zero question that their motives were unlawful.
.
I need to address this point a bit further. You need to actually read one of these laws - they all include language about the "full and equal provision of goods and services". And they do that because dumb bigots are scummy weasels and have historically proven to be without honor.
still didn't answer the questions , but that's ok. and to get around those things you said the court would look at , is the service offered to the public. was denial based on something that infringes on someone elses rights protected by law is to simply say they are booked solid and don't have the time to take on the project.
There is no dishonor in that.
The first contract that the baker signed on to was his business license. That is a contract with the state and municipality to run his business according to the laws and regulations that govern that business.
There sure as hell is if you pretend to yourself that you are doing so based on religious beliefs. Pretty sure all religions have a dogma against lying.
Sure, and that's a perfectly valid reason assuming it's true. In fact there are countless legitimate reasons to deny service. But in each and every case before a civil rights commission in recent years the dumb bigots admitted to an unlawful motive, including this case. For some reason homophobes tend to be proud of their hate.
.
I guess it depends on whether you're an honorable person rather than a dumb and dishonest bigot, and whether you get caught because you've established a pattern of denying service only to certain kinds of people.
would you be assuming someone is lying? or religious ( to invoke the religious view of lying)?
Like I said before , the simplest way to avoid doing a job or project one doesn't want to do is cite a booking , scheduling issue and explain the project cant be taken. another way is to give such an outrageous quote for the inconvienience , they walk away.
I had 3 mower crews that their jobs were scheduled before the season even started , had a few times people would call about getting in the schedule , even though I allowed for some extra time in the season , it wasn't more than being able to do a one time fast project for those crews. the landscape crew had a little more leeway . and yes I can see both sides , but if the time isn't there , its not .
Had one guy become so irate once because he COULDNT get on the list for the summer , I told him I would talk to the crews and see if he could be fit in , well to fit him in required weekend and overtime work , so I figured up what that was and gave him the quote , never heard from him again.
Of course there is a difference. I was referring to all the snarky comment about the baker's supposed lack of skills.
But you knew that already.
He does make gawd-awfully ugly cakes, doesn't he? Not to buy into stereotypical tropes but if a straight guy like me thinks they're hideous I can't imagine why a couple of gay guys would ever walk into that bakery. One of their mothers must have really bad taste.
I just read this:
"Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate'
Jack Phillips maintained he would 'serve everybody that comes in my shop,' but that he wouldn't 'create cakes for every message"
Source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He does not discriminate? What the heck do you call his double speak? Seems he doth speak with two mouths.
Your scenario inferred a lie.
Don't really get that question. I your underlying reason for refusing service is religious, and you LIE about being available, you're a hypocrite.
It's the REASON you don't want to do the project that makes it discriminatory. We're not talking about not wanting to work for a pain in the ass, we're talking about refusing service to person who is a member of a protected class BECAUSE they are a member of a protected class.
Which REALLY begs the question: Why all the fuss?
What I believe he meant was that anyone walking in can purchase whatever is made and for sale in his shop as is. He simply refused to make ths particular cake from scratch and decorate it.
Yep, it's a lie he tells himself. "I don't hate gays or mixed-race couples or Jews, I just won't make wedding cakes for their ilk."
Also he's signalling that he intends to break the law again, so he'll be back in court shortly. He'll definitely lose again but this time SCOTUS won't give him a reprieve from the fine since the state will be more careful.
In other words he'll illegally deny gay couples the same service he provides all other couples.
However...as a cake maker with a cake shop, would he not have to make cakes from scratch and decorate them other other customers as they asked? But, he chose to refuse to make a cake from scratch and decorate it for these customers. And then he claims that he does not discriminate:
"Baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding: 'I don't discriminate'
Jack Phillips maintained he would 'serve everybody that comes in my shop,' but that he wouldn't 'create cakes for every message"
Source:
I'd say that his claim of not discriminating is not true. That he uses the term "he wouldn't 'create cakes for every message" is just an excuse to try and cover up the fact that he does indeed discriminate.
Let me ask you a question:
Should a Jewish baker, who makes cakes for various religious events, be able to refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it?
That right there shows his true colors. His saying "their ilk" says it all right there. It leave no doubt that he does indeed discriminate against those he feels superior to. It has nothing to do with his religion, that is just an excuse he uses to cover the fact that he does discriminate.
Ilk:
ilk
[ilk]
NOUN
a type of people or things similar to those already referred to.
"the veiled suggestions that reporters of his ilk seem to be so good at" · [more]
synonyms: type · sort · class · category · group · set · bracket · genre · kidney · grain · species · race · strain · vintage · make · model · brand · stamp · variety · family
SCOTTISH
archaic
(of that ilk)
of the place or estate of the same name.
"Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk"
Nothing wrong with using ilk as he did.
I'll ask you:
Can a Jewish baker who makes cakes for religious events be forced to make a cake with a swastika on it?
Sorry, by putting it in quotes I didn't mean to imply that he actually used those words. But it's what he's really saying.
Either way, ilk is being used correctly and is not derogatory.
You continue to confuse the product or services offered with the protected trait of the customer who was denied service. Once you can understand that then I'll happily answer a really dumb question which has been asked and answered a thousand times before.
Phillips is just your garden variety bigot who thinks that if he cites his 1st Amendment religious views he can ignore the law that guarantees people equal rights in a business that is open to the public. His ilk is still trying to fight the Civil Rights Act 55 years too late. Any judge or Justice who bought his religious beliefs argument should be ashamed of themselves because there is nothing Christian about him, unless conservative Jesus wore a sheet and a hood.
How could the couple know what his religious views are unless they were discussed, which isn't relevant in this situation? Did Phillips know what the couple's religious views are? Why are religious views relevant when baking a cake, unless he is just a bigot who is grasping for a reason to discriminate against others? How does baking a cake for a couple harm his religious views, unless he is just a bigot who desperately seeks to find a way around equal rights for others?
Does he also ask potential customers what their religious views are when he bakes a birthday cake for their teen who might be biracial, gay and atheist? Does he ask a heterosexual couple what their religious views are when he bakes their wedding cake? He might be baking a cake for atheists if he doesn't ask? Do people need a signed and notarized statement from their minister as proof of their religious beliefs?
I can't wait for a cop or an EMT to cite his ilk as a reason not to serve them.
Yes, unless he can prove that the cake was ordered as a credible threat to him.
You do not have the right not to be offended by your customer's opinions when you open a business that serves the public. Grow a backbone and be an adult!
You know, JUST because someone asks a question doesn't mean they confused anything.
It is a legitimate question.
If you don't want to or can't answer, skip on by.
Ilk? You keep saying it like it is derogatory in meaning.
Thanks for your answer--seems like you are the only one willing to do it.
How can a symbol be threatening?
oh good, you acknowledge there is a difference. Now, do you think it's perfectly ok and legal to discriminate against someone due to their sexual orientation and the gender of their fiancee (or husband or wife), by refusing them service you would grant to everyone else who had the "correct" sexual orientation and the "correct" gender of their fiancee (or husband or wife) ?
Now, i'm aware you were referring to the snarky comments about the baker's supposed lack of skills - but that was irrelevant to my question.
that question has already been asked multiple times and answered multiple times - in fact, skrekk actually answered it in his response to you (about your confusion). I'm not sure of the relevance - does this Jewish baker regularly make swastika cakes and are made available to everyone ? would this baker refuse to make a swastika cake for one customer yet make that cake for another customer ?
In that context, it is very derogatory.
The swastika is a blatant symbol of Nazi Germany. You are ignorant or intentionally obtuse if you think that symbol isn't a threat to Jews and others who suffered under Hitler.
Do you also want to say that a burning cross isn't a threat to African-Americans and others?
Nope.
I already posted a definition of it, and believe it has some synonyms listed there as well..
All legitimate ways to describe things or people.
Look at it this way--it is similar to using cult to describe religions.
Now, you don't believe it is offensive or wrong to use cult to describe a sect of a religion, right? Well, this is the same--ilk describes a group of like-minded or similar people.
To some it is intended to be a derogatory word, depending on how it is used.
Can you imagine asking someone "What cult do you belong to?" vs. "What religion are you?"
"
Ilk describes similar people. In the bakers case, it is perfectly acceptable to use the term as intended.
Really?
Here is a definition of a swastika:
Swastika
The swastika (also known as the gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, or manji) (as a Chinese character: 卐 or 卍) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees. It is considered to be a sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
Swastika - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Now, Jews may not like them, but going by that definition, there is no reason to.
yet, you, among others, screamed "holy terror" whenever cult was used claiming it was derogatory in nature... and I, among others, told you it was just:
go figure, huh ? this almost seems to be a case of "context" - which I, among others, stated yet it fell on deaf ears as they were screaming "holy terror" because it was a "derogatory" term... very interesting...
As I've said you've confused the product or services offered with the protected trait of the customer. Does your hypothetical Jewish baker make swastika cakes for other customers?
Don't be fecking obtuse and try to ignore the context of Nazi Germany! Nazis were not Hindus, Buddhists or Jains.
It's ok.
The Jewish baker in my hypothetical makes cakes for religious events. I stated such already.
Now, do you force him to make one with a swastika or not?
I don't know if he does. Doesn't matter--he makes cakes for religious events.
I know that. Don't be so fucking patronizing.
That isn't what I asked anyways.
You KNOW what the question was--I repeated it several times.
Is he baking the cake for a Buddhist/Hindu/Jain or is it for a Neo-Nazi?
Stop trying to ignore the facts of Nazi Germany and equate Buddhism with the Nazis!
So, you are upset because I finally agreed with you?
Use cult all you want--you'll never hear another peep from me about it, but don't be hypocritical and now claim that "ilk" is anything other than what I described it as.
that really depends - does he make swastika cakes for religious events regularly and is refusing to do one swastika cake for one religious event ? or does he not even offer swastika cakes for any religious events, period ? It seems you aren't supplying enough information so you can steer everyone into giving you the answer you are looking for from them.
just a person who entered his shop and wanted to order a cake with one on it. Might be a neo-Nazi, might not be.
Now who is being obtuse?
I gave you all the info you need to answer--a person wants a cake from a Jewish baker with a swastika on it. Should we compel the baker to make it or not?
Whether he makes other swastika cakes is irrelevant. I already stated he makes cakes for religious events.
I am not equating anything.
I merely asked a question. Why are you appearing to be angry?
oh not at all, i just find it interesting and amusing on the lack of foresight (we all suffer from that at times), and the amazingly sudden 180 degree turnaround.
i'm not claiming anything about "ilk", but thanks to you and others - our "free" speech (on this site) is now limited further due to some people having sensitive feelings over a word legitimately describing religion, so we cannot use the word "cult" anymore. Maybe think ahead in future situations ?
Shrekk, I already told you the baker makes cakes for religious events.
Doesn't matter if he has made one with a swastika on it before or not.
Maybe you should feel the same way about cult as you do ilk. Or vice-versa!
Unless he makes swastika cakes for other customers he can't be forced to do that under both the compelled speech doctrine and due to legitimate concerns about associating his bakery with hate groups or defamatory speech. But more relevant is the fact that you didn't state the identity of the customer. What matters here is why service is denied.
However neither standard applies in the case of the bigoted baker since he does make custom wedding cakes for the general public. His personal animus towards gays or towards same-sex weddings are trumped by the state protecting sexual orientation.
.
Yes it does. It's the core of the issue. It also explains why you don't understand how these laws work because you've confused what's actually protected from what's not.
So do we force the Jewish baker to make the cake or not?
that's the part you don't understand - it is completely relevant whether or not he makes other swastika cakes. Does he offer them as a public good/service for religious events ? you haven't given enough information to answer the question, i'm not being obtuse - you are being intentionally vague and not supplying enough information.
A swastika is not a hate group.
i have no issues with either word - so i guess you are speaking about someone else, huh ?
Okay, the baker in the case just settled stated he didn't make cakes for gay weddings. He did make cakes for heterosexual weddings. They are both cakes, right?
just like my hypothetical--it doesn't matter if he has ever made one before, Do we force him to make on now?
So the IDENTITY of someone determines whether they get service?
It sets precedent, where the baker has in theory made a cake for a group that he found reprehensible. In theory. Maybe he actually approved, but assuming he didn't, and made the cake anyway, then it kills the argument of using his beliefs as a reason to deny the gay couple a cake of their choosing.
It seems you deserved it because you're asking intentionally dimwitted questions which reveal that you don't understand the issue at all. You're trying to corral the other members here into a canyon which isn't even on the same planet as the law in question.
you just stated the difference - "gay" wedding and heterosexual wedding. There's your difference, he offers cakes as a public service/good to some customers while denying it to others based upon their sexual orientation (and the gender of their fiancee or husband or wife). (i'm guessing you won't see that as discrimination)
it absolutely matters - does he make swastika cakes as a public service/good for some religious events while denying it for other religious events ?
No, it's the protected traits of all customers which determine whether a business can legitimately deny them service. As long as none of those traits are infringed by the reason for the denial then there is no violation of the law.
Duh. This is more proof that no conservative understands what public accommodation laws and protected classes are or how they work. In a way I'm not surprised that high schools in Texas don't teach civics and avoid topics like civil rights.
Not if he is selling regular cakes to the open public. However, if he is only making cakes for the Jewish community then I would say no, he would not have to make a cake with a swastika.
If someone has never owned a business selling to the open public, which I have, 2 of them, then it is rather hard to understand the business areas of responsibility they have to deal with.
One of the businesses I owned was making plastic hand-held shopping baskets for supermarkets and other retail operations. But, I also sold them to the public. So I had two areas of responsibility. A wholesale area of business, as well as a retail area of business. There are two different levels of responsibility. But, at the same time they are similar.
Once I contract with a corporation, or even the US military in Quantico, I had specific obligations that I had to be willing to meet in order to get and keep their business.
However, with retail sales to the open public, I had no such obligations. Yet, in order to retain my retail business, I had to be willing to work with them much the same as with a corporation. In business, reputation is everything.
With corporations, I had to be willing to meet their demands for all different colors of baskets, colors of handles and of course, hot-stamping their logos or other types of images or wording on the sides of their baskets in volume. And the high volume of their orders made the additional costs to meet their demands profitable.
However, with retail sales, which consisted mostly of sales of under 25 baskets, providing baskets in special colors and/or hot-stamping the baskets was not profitable. But, if the customer wanted to pay the additional cost of the stamp for the hot-stamping and for the special color, I had no problem making the baskets for them. Yet, if they were not willing to do so, then I had to decline meeting their request. However, the refusal was based from a profit aspect, not due to any other reason.
In business, profit and reputation is everything. There is no room for loss of profit or reputation, or your business will fail.
That would be a good learning experience for him, but, I doubt he would see it that way. He would likely complain to the city that he was being discriminated against. And take his complaint to the Supreme Court.
But, rest assured.....Karma is a Bi*ch. And what goes around comes around when you least expect it.
State law requires that businesses provide the "full and equal provision of goods and services", so you're admitting that he denied some services and did so for an unlawful reason.
That's why the state courts unanimously determined that the dumb bigot broke the law. And FYI, SCOTUS did not and cannot question that determination as long as the law is otherwise constitutional. All they questioned was something they interpreted as a procedural error.
It isn't a religious symbol either.
Really?
Hmmm...best let a BUNCH of people know!
Swastika
The swastika (also known as the gammadion cross, cross cramponnée, or manji) (as a Chinese character: 卐 or 卍) is a symbol that generally takes the form of an equilateral cross, with its four legs bent at 90 degrees. It is considered to be a sacred and auspicious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.
skirting the CoC [ph]
Do you CONSTANTLY need to be the way you are?
He needs to learn that if he can discriminate against LGBT people and others than anyone else can discriminate against him, for any reason that they see fit. Maybe after it happens to him as blowback, he see the light and publically disavow his bigotry.
Bigots like Phillips still believe that there is a necessary social heirachy in the US and that their skin color and relgious belif keeps them at the top. They believe that their supposed right to discirminate is necessary to keep them at the top and to keep inferior people below them where he believes they belong.
He makes cakes for religious events. I have told you that at least twice now.
In that note, how can a symbol be patriotic?
Cool. Has he made swastika cakes for other customers?
The Nazis misappropriated that religious symbol as a way to claim that they were part of the supposedly superior Aryan race. Publically the Nazis claimed to support Protestant Christianity.
I take it you were raised a Southern Baptist much like Jack Phillips?
Why are you so intent on defending the swastika, if you aren't a Nazi? Are you a Neo-Nazi?
I can be reasonably certain that you are not a Jain, Buddhist or a Hindu.
Using your logic:
The Colorado baker made wedding cakes, so he can't discriminate against gay wedding cakes. Right?
In my hypothetical, the Jewish baker made cakes with religious symbols on them. He can't refuse to make a cake with a swastika on it then either. A swastika is a religious symbol.
Right?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
I am not a religious person myself, and haven't attended any church for over 30 years besides attending 4 or 5 weddings.
I went to Methodist, Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, and Pentacostal churches. I even went to a synagogue.
You assume WAY too much about people you have never met.
That claim would only apply to a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Jain. The Swastika wasn't a religious symbol to Nazis. It was a political symbol to Nazis.
Not defending a thing. Just asking questions.
Seems to me the Jewish baker could not refuse to make the cake.
Using your logic--he makes cakes with religious symbols, so has to make ALL cakes requesting religious symbols.
Just like the Colorado baker made wedding cakes, so he has to make one for gay weddings.
does he make swastika cakes as a public service/good for some religious events while denying it for other religious events ? (i have asked you this at least twice now, you still seem to be purposely avoiding giving out enough information in an effort to corral people into a specific answer)
But you can't ask someone what religion they are and base service on that.
Oh so the customer told the Jewish baker how to properly orient the symbol. Why didn't you say so in your scenario?
I despise people who are being intentionally dishonest as a way to make a point that they cannot defend in an honest way.
I have to wonder what Phillips would do if I walked in and old him that I was Native American and asked him to make me a cake decorate with Tipis and with a Tomahawk on top. And that my religion was that of my ancient ancestors. It would be interesting to see what he would say. I am willing he would refuse, as he would not be willing to create one of his 'Masterpiece' cakes for a Native American who is a savage and does not have a religious affiliation.
Just my thoughts.
If you are claiming that it is a religious symbol, I can ask, because it has also been used as a political symbol.
I agree.
I wonder what he would say if I paid him to bake a cake with the Humanist symbol or a stylized Atheist symbol on it?
I am a little surprised I haven't encountered Jain in discussion before. Gives me some homework for tonight.
Or, in other words, you despise right wingers!
You ain't the only one...
Do YOU 'CONSTANTLY' need to be the YOU are? Don't point fingers at others until you clean up your own act, and mouth.
Actually, the design first belonged to Native Americans. It was known as a Whirl Log
" Swastika is Sanskrit meaning “well-being”. Throughout most of history, it has been associated with order and stability. The unfortunate association of the swastika with Hitler understandably makes some people uncomfortable when they see a similar symbol on Native American baskets, rugs and jewelry.
To distinguish Whirling Logs from Hitler’s Swastika, some try to make a distinction between which direction the figure appears to rotate, clockwise or counter-clockwise. But if you look at a whirling log on the outside of a Native American basket and it is whirling counter-clockwise, that same design will be whirling clockwise on the inside. Similarly with a woven rug – each side of the rug would show the symbol whirling a different way. So that is not distinction."
Source:
That sounds synonymous.
I always knew you folks were sekret Nazis!
I wonder how far back swastika variations go? I'd expect a very long ways.
Actually the Swastika was used by the SW tribes for hundreds of years. It is often referred to as the ''Whirling Logs'' and is very famous among the Navajo and other SW tribes. At the start of WWII the Native American tribes stopped using it when it was appropriated by the Nazi's...If you look at buildings in the NM area that were built before WWII you'll see the Swastika (Whirling Log) symbol on some of the buildings.
The 45th Infantry Division used the Swastika as it's patch. The division had a large number of American Indians. They also changed from the Swastika to the Thunderbird when WWII started.
Pre WWII Navajo rug with Swastika
Building in Farmmington NM.
Thank you for the additional information.
Who is more offensive to you? Nazis or Gay/Bi and transgendered people?
Wrong. Only a few things matter here:
1) Is the business a public accommodation? (yes in this case)
2) Is the item or service which was denied generally sold to other customers? (you refuse to say)
3) Does the reason for the refusal infringe a protected trait of the customer? (you refuse to say)
Note that the vast majority of reasons for a denial of service don't violate the law so you need to provide more information in your hypothetical pro-Nazi Jewish baker scenario for a decision to be made.
A very long time, 100's of years. Kavika has more information on the Whirl Logs in his comment on them as well.
Probably crap is pants while he hyperventilated til he passed out.
Jainism supports come very compelling beliefs.
Interesting.
I've got this page open right now, but I figure I will dive in more deeply tonight and over the next couple days..
Yes and I note that in all the images you posted, it is oriented differently than this one:
You'll find the the Whirling log can be found facing in both directions and also as shown above.
Also, in many of the Native American baskets with the Whirl Log design. In the baskets the Whirl Log is facing in one direction, but, when you look at it from the inside it is facing the opposite direction. (see below)
"Whirling Logs are used in Navajo sand paintings during a healing or other type of ceremony. A sand painting is supposed to be a temporary piece of art which is destroyed after the ceremony is over. However sand painting designs are also used in prints and framed paintings, rugs and on jewelry.
The Whirling Log symbol is associated with a narrative involving a man (sometimes called the Culture Hero) who takes a journey down the San Juan River in a hollowed out log canoe. During his adventure, he encounters whirlpools and a special event where the San Juan River meets the Colorado River. There he comes upon a whirling cross with Yei figures seated on the cross. From the Yeis he learns much knowledge which he takes back to his people."
"Since World War II, the use of the Whirling Logs in Native American artifacts has been confined mainly to rugs. Jewelry with the symbol is usually from before 1940."
What have the tribes said about it being bastardized/approprriated?
They were/are outraged over the appropriation of our symbol.
There is a movement now to start using it again. This is a hot topic since part of the tribes/members are in agreement other are dead set against using it again.
That's going to be controversial inside and outside the native community.
It will be, but some have started using it again in the Navajo rugs.
To answer your question as to how far back does the use of the Whirling Log go...The oldest known use of it goes back 2500 years to the Hopewell people of the east coast.
What someone's religion is isn't any of your business.
Deleted, skirting {SP}
In this world of a soundbite, it would be hard to explain the nuance.
Removed for context {SP}
Deleted, Skirting {SP}
I 'll be removing the rest of the thread as it is off topic and a multipersonal slap fight
Using the legal system in this case is a mistake. LGBT people have won the war; they can marry. Allow atavists this small victory. It will help them cope with a changing world and it really is a minor inconvenience. No one sane is going to eat a cake they forced someone to make anyway. Save legal action for situations that really matter.
good points
Maybe people who do wedding services should advertise that they don't discriminate against anybody and will take anybody's money as long as it's green
Yeah, but for some reason some gays feel the need to advertise their orientation and agitate against those that are not comfortable with it, or find it unacceptable.
How many gay people do you personally know and do they twist your arm to accept them?
Methinks you do a lot of whining and protesting over nothing
Advertise how? By being together in public as heterosexual couples are? I see more Heterosexual couples making out in public than homosexual couples. Not a fan of PDAs by anyone. Just this past Saturday while shopping saw a young man/woman couple kissing and giggling in the mild aisle.....PUKE
PLEASE don't pretend that 'the gays' have the market on 'inappropriate' public behavior.
are "gays" wearing crosses or other symbols to show who they are ? are "gays" coming door to door to recruit you to their favorite house of worship ? are "gays" standing on street corners shouting out their beliefs to everyone walking by ? seems like you are speaking about some other group than "gays"
Yep, yesterday @ a park in small town IN, there was a straight couple 'having at it' on a blanket in the grass during a charity concert. Broad daylight and little kids everywhere.
I feel the same way. I want to shout 'get a room'!
Yes, and I could provide you a link to homo's having sex in public places also. The world is full of retards.
~shudder~ - do it in private people.
That is correct, but in response to the "advertising" comment... where do you stand? How do they advertise being gay?
Yea, my thoughts exactly.
Well why don't you provide the links then?
Quite a few over the years. They didn't feel they needed to tell me of the fact. They lived and let live. Now so many feel a need a to be out and proud and let everyone know.
I have seen this as well, young boys and girls, men and women, going at it out in public without a bit of thought of others around them, including young children who are standing and sitting nearby watching with wide eyes and mouths agape, and looking at their parents with total confusion. This was inside an ice cream parlor to boot. Finally the manager told them to get out, to a round of applause from the customers.
Disgusting is not even a close word for what they were doing 'in pubic'. If they wanted to go that far, they should have gotten a room or confined it to a private area. The only thing I could think of besides the obvious, is that they have no respect for themselves or others.
So trying to limit such behavior to gays only is truly despicable in itself.
So what does that mean exactly?
Holding hands?
A quick kiss?
And that bothers you how? Does it personally affect how you live, breathe, work, play?
I'm not really interested in your private internet viewing.
What was funny is that a dog started barking at them and they looked up to see everyone staring at them. They exited, stage right...
BTW, it was a 'Concert for our lives' and everyone should check out if one is being held in your hometown.
How many advertise their religion in the moniker of the advertising they do for their business, hoping to draw like minded individuals as a result, in reality I avoid those places of business as they like far to many of the front pew sitters are the most likely to try a rip off or a host of unethical practices. Brings to mind the auto dealer I once lived near that prominently featured the word Christian in their name, buy a car from them and one thing is for certain, regret would be yours for quite a while.
Go for it.
How are you being involved in any part of a LGBT wedding, any more than what you are involved in a heterosexual wedding?
What is it about LGBT people that bothers you so much? Is it the fact that they exist and you cannot attack them because they refuse to bend to your beliefs? Do you think that they are icky? Do you not understand how two people of the same gender can be attracted to each other? Maybe you are just jealous.
Why can't you just leave them alone and let them live, just as you do heterosexual couples, or do you harass them as well?
You need me to show you how to use google?
She wouldn't read them anyways.
Why would I look at homosexual porn?
Whatever floats your boat Tex and Capn Caveman.
then why on Earth would you ask someone to provide the links if you have no intention of looking at them?
That can't even make sense in Liberal La-La Land!
SMDH
Yet you want to tell us all about your voyeurism and gawking at straight people being loving in public.
Get a life, or better yet, get a computer and save your fantasy's for when you are in private, and don't post them here.
First of all, it isn't 'voyeurism' if the act is being done in public. Secondly, no 'gawking' involved. Since it's in the middle of park, in my field of view, it was impossible NOT to see. Oh and BTFW, my mother was sitting next to me and was appalled.
Hey I'm not the one bookmarking gay porn for 'sharing'.
Pales in comparison to the flagrant acts of self righteousness by thumper scum in public.
Actually they won the bigger war too. It seems most commenters here haven't read the ruling.
Thanks for all your clarifications on the matter. I will post accordingly now.
I did read the ruling and do understand the bias issue. Although it’s obvious that you’re right about most not understanding, my point is that rubbing people’s noses in it when you win is non-productive. I did a Google search for “gay marriage” and “gay cake case”, 640 million and 414 million hits respectively. The second number shouldn’t be there at all, let alone be two-thirds as large as the important issue. It amplifies the issue for conservatives, and that's the last thing liberals should want.
I disagree entirely. This issue is a big loser for the cons. It might get their base riled up but it puts everyone else off. No sane person wants to be associated with these dumb bigots today.
Deleted, CoC {SP}
That was a great comment. It reveals a great deal about your character and your fantasy life.
The couple didn't bring suit against the baker, the STATE did.
I know that you know way more than I do about this stuff, but it probably varies from state to state and in Colorado I think it's both - the state signs on as a co-petitioner once the probable cause finding has been made. It doesn't actually go to court unless the respondent refuses to amicably resolve the issue after that finding, and Phillips absolutely refused. However I think the state shoulders the legal burden if it does go to court although the petitioner retains their own legal counsel (in this case the ACLU). I'm not sure if the state can take it to court unless the petitioner remains a party to the case.
So for example in the CO court of appeals ruling Craig & Mullins are listed as "Petitioners-Appellees" and the CO civil rights commission is listed as "Appellee".
Yes, the Commission is acting in their name as the damaged party.
Thanks, it wasn't clear to me how it actually works given that the ACLU is their attorney. Does that mean that the state takes over the case entirely or do they still coordinate with the ACLU?
On a side note this is how the ADF is spinning it today.....I suspect Phillips will be sued again in the near future.
It's up to the 'Defendant' to decide if they want to work with the ACLU or any other Attorney. The court can also deny the request from an attorney to argue at a hearing, as long as the 'Defendant' has counsel.
I'm getting confused again and I don't want to belabor the point, but here Craig & Mullins are the petitioners and an ACLU attorney is their attorney of record. So when the state shoulders the burden of the case as a co-petitioner do they simply go off on their own and handle the case or is there continued (or necessary) coordination between the attorneys for the nominal petitioners and the co-petitioner? It doesn't really matter, I was just curious about how these laws work since there's no enforcement mechanism except via a complaint filed by the aggrieved party.
The Colorado case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al.
Masterpiece was the petitioner.
'which they so aggressively demand of others.'
Equal rights?
I keep hearing stuff like that. however my whole life I denied service to lawyers just for being lawyers. (not kidding)
no court in the world could have made me do a job for a lawyer. unless I doubled my bid and got half down up front.
but then again... I never told them why I turned down the job. so apparently it is only illegal if ya admit it out loud.
Cheers
Are lawyers as a group a member of any protected class in your area? If not then feel free to deny them service.
I just read the decision and it’s quite narrow. Some of us discussed this case when it was pending befor the Court and I surmised at the time that it was a difficult issue because two constitutional rights are being brought into conflict. Although a clear majority of the court found that the Colorado Commission impermissibly sat in judgment on the legitimacy of the baker's religious views and denigrated them (much as some do on this site), there was no clear court view regarding where to draw the line between religious freedom and homosexual rights so no line was drawn.
If the line is drawn in the future, the dissent by two justices favoring the state even on this record indicates they would favor the state of Colorado in the future. Two more justices declined to favor the state on this record but pretty much stated that it would be easy for Colorado to prevail and then told the state how to do it. But that’s only a total of four justices for Colorodo.
Two justices took issue with the two justices that thought Colorado could fix the problem. One other justice went to the merits and essentailly said he sides with the baker. So that’s three potential no votes on the merits.
That leaves two swing votes. If Ginsberg dies, and another conservative joins the court, then the score may be four to four with one swing vote (Kennedy).
Given the divisions on the court, it’s certainly not clear what the court would do when it reaches the ultimate issue but, in this case, it’s unequivocally clear that the court agreed with the baker that Colorado’s process was so fundamentally biased against him that it’s decision cannot be allowed to stand.
Masterpiece Cakeshop ???
The gay couple should have ran from this shop, lol
Too funny !
Agreed. If that is supposed to be a "Masterpiece", then my own cake creations I make in my own kitchen must be "Royally Stunning".
Oh, Pat. Say it ain't so. These are examples from the guy who calls himself a 'cake artist'?
Sorry it's true. Looks like the effort of a C level student at a third rate culinary school.
That proves the happy couple went there with malice aforethought at the direction of the ACLU>
Correct, but they went there to try and make a point. Well, they just lost.
perhaps they went there to buy a cake and ended up deciding to make a point.
A point I personally think they probably had a right to make. Discrimination is illegal.
But I would have just said "Thank you just the same, I wouldn't want anything made by someone who feels like you do anyway." walked out and down the street to the next baker.
I live in and accept a country where we have freedom .. mine and yours.
If you don't want to work with or for me I soon feel the same and walk away (I have the freedom to do that ya know) and I have No problem doing it.
...............................................
PS: From the looks of the pictures of this guy's "Masterpieces" It appears I would have done myself a huge favor in walking down the street to another bakery anyway.
"master baker" indeed .............
That must be the case, what self-respecting gay men would want to order a cake from this shop after seeing the product quality ?
They did in fact do that and got a much better cake from a more ethical baker, then later they filed a complaint against the bigoted baker.
O and now after all their extra time, effort and money they spent they also won the right to force a person who bakes crappy lookin cakes to bake a cake for them a cake they no longer need nor want.
Wow I'm impressed.
lol
.....................................................
I've always worn my hair Long as a young man I was discriminated against for it.
I had prospective employers ever tell me "Go get a damn hair cut son and you have a job."
When I ran into people like that I knew I didn't want anything to do with some one so judgmental anyway and was happy to walk away. I also figured if I didn't want anything to do with a person like that many others probably didn't want anything to do with the asshole either and that was all I needed. I figured they lost out on a damn good employee and I just saved myself much grief.
to each their own, trying to force someone to be what they arent is ludicrous anyway.
We all have our line. I imagine even you would not be too inclined to hire an individual to run the cash register if they had a handgun tattooed on their face.
Sounds like your objection is to public accommodation laws in general.
Note that the original complaint wasn't really about those particular customers or that particular cake but rather about the fact that the baker had denied service on a basis which state law clearly prohibits. Those particular customers were very unlikely to go to that baker ever again. In fact no ethical person would.
My "objection" is to wasting my time and forcing others to do what they object to doing isn't high on my priority list.
true but I also wouldn't expect anyone to hire me with a handgun tattooed on my face either.
So.....straight white guy who doesn't care about other people's civil rights?
Note that the complainants in this case didn't do it for themselves but for any future customers to that store and any other gay couples who would dare to venture into the public marketplace to buy something. Brave folks like that are why you rarely hear about public accommodations violations of any kind today.
Just a human who chooses its battles wisely. Besides gaining national attention I dont see how all this changes much. This baker is now probably more bias than ever and it doesn't sound like the law is for setting precedence. and as I already said, "IMO: trying to force someone to be what they arent is ludicrous anyway."
When I was told go get a damn haircut and you have a job I immediately knew that was not a person I wanted to do business with ayway and like I said I was happy to know it and walk away. Forcing someone against their will to accept me really never entered my mind.
It really doesn't change anything since the law remains unchanged, but the ruling does indicate that public accommodation laws are enforceable in these cases.
.
So what? No one expected the dumb bigot to stop being a dumb bigot. I'm sure that the owner of Ollie's BBQ went to his grave as a white supremacist Southern Baptist who resented that he could no longer deny service to blacks and no longer keep his restaurant racially segregated. These cases are why 99.9% of businesses follow public accommodations laws.
.
No one is actually forcing the dumb bigot to do anything. He's free to run his bakery as a private members only club like the whites-only country club Rush Limbaugh attends and just sell his cakes to his fellow Christian extremists.......he can then post a sign stating that no gays or blacks can enter his bakery. But if he chooses to sell to the general public than he has to follow all applicable state and federal law including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other public accommodations laws. His choice, but it sounds like he intends to break the law again.
Talk about tacky!!! Masterpiece? Yeah, right!
but they didn't. Instead, they complained.
Actually they did. They went to a far more ethical baker and got a much better cake, and then they later filed a complaint against the bigoted baker who had illegally denied them service. That's a win-win.
Win for ALL then.
At least until either the plaintiffs refile their complaint or the bigoted baker breaks the law again as he's indicated he'll do. This time the courts won't treat him so gently since he's an unrepentant scofflaw.
These guys wanted a freaking cake, not a lifetime threesome commitment. Throw some eggs and flour in a bowl, spank out a cake, charge them $1,000.00, and Bob's your freaking uncle.
That would take all the fun out of climbing up on and down off his cross, now that he's a thumper celebrity.
Common sense finally prevailed!
The fun has just begun.
I agree...this is the first of many cases the litigious radical gay agitators and activists will lose.
So you're expecting the states to make more procedural errors when they enforce their public accommodations laws? That's rather doubtful.
That thumper POS is likely living on borrowed time in Colorado, and he knows it.
sweeping generalization [ph]
No worries. He sits in the back row at his church.
Why don't you just send him a one-way bus ticket to a confederate state like Alabama or Texas? He'd probably feel more at home there anyway.
A goober state where a teavangelical ass licking conga line is a sunday morning ritual.
I think it's going to take some time and several lawsuits going all the way to SCOTUS before this is settled. Here are some analogous cases that clarify the issue at the heart of this case:
Imagine a black artist who paints many scenes of American history is approached by a white supremacist who wants to commission a painting of Jefferson Davis in full confederate regalia standing atop a pile of dead black union soldiers. Obviously, as an artist, he would be able to refuse to take such a commission.
Now imagine a black barista working a coffee shop and a white person comes in wearing a Jefferson Davis T-Shirt where he is standing on a pile of dead black union soldiers. Can the barista refuse to offer to serve him? Can he claim he's a "coffee artist"? What if it was a white barista with a black customer wearing a Black Panthers T-shirt picturing the genocide of white people? Wearing the shirt is an expression of free speech, can you deny someone service based on that? Would that not seem to be denying them service based on their race?
Can a Christian convenience store clerk deny service or sales of products to a Muslim based on their religion? How about a Muslim denying service to a Christian? Their religion may consider those of your religion "infidels", would their religious freedom "trump" yours and allow them to deny you service? Does it come down to the product being denied? If it's just regular goods and service, must you comply with accommodation laws and if it's "art" then you can refuse? And if so, who gets to decide whether it's "art"? Will every single item in question need to go all the way to SCOTUS for that to be determined?
It would seem like there will eventually be a general rule of thumb decided on by SCOTUS to determine whether it's a violation of the accommodation laws versus a violation of freedom of religion.
Yes, a business can deny service for almost any reason....just not for reasons which infringe a protected trait of the customer. And free speech isn't protected in non-governmental settings. You can deny service because you don't like the cut of his jib.....but if you have a pattern of doing that only to customers of a certain kind you might run into trouble.
.
No.
.
Note that this isn't a freedom of religion issue at all since the state isn't involved except that it treats religion as a protected trait of the customer. The business owner is free to have religious views and generally free to deny service based on them but only as long as a protected trait of the customer isn't infringed. To the extent that the owner's right to "free exercise" is infringed at all it's because the state has a compelling reason to do so and the law is narrowly tailored.
.
No, the nature of the products and services are irrelevant. All that matters is whether the business is a public accommodation and whether those same products or services are sold to other customers.
.
Generally it doesn't matter if creative expression is involved. What matters is whether it's a work for hire and whether the same sort of products or customers are sold to the general public. Some artists are exempt from these laws because they're not considered public accommodations just like other kinds of businesses which select their clientele.
Also I think Elane Photography unanimously lost their case (and were denied cert by SCOTUS) even though they made these creative expression claims. By the way that case had much stronger claims than the Masterpiece case because a wedding photographer attends the wedding, unlike a baker.
.
There's a good bit of case law on these issues and Newman v Piggie Park already answered whether religion can be used as an excuse to violate these laws. Actually Reynolds v US answered the question most authoritatively in 1878: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Note that the ADF and other anti-gay hate groups are trying to invent excuses which were debunked long ago. There's no difference whatsoever between any of the current cases and a denial of service because the customers are a mixed-race couple. And the usual disclaimer: IANAL. LOL
Can a Jewish baker who makes cakes for all sorts of religious events be forced to make a cake with a swastika?
No. But what supposed "gay" design was the gay couple in this case asking for? The answer? None. So your question would make more sense if you had asked "Can a Jewish baker who makes cakes for all sorts of religious events be forced to make a cake for a Nazi?". If it were a heterosexual couple of skin heads with swastikas on their heads I think they might have a case against a Jewish baker if all they asked for was a traditional wedding cake like any other the baker was making for other clients and the baker refused. The issue is whether you wouldn't serve someone just because you disagree with their lifestyle, ideology or religion, it has nothing to do with compelling someone to write/draw or decorate any specific designs. A baker could refuse to decorate a cake with flowers if they didn't like flowers and didn't offer flower decorated cakes to anyone else.
Have you ever even TRIED gay wedding cake, Tex? It tastes much better than straight wedding cake!
The SCOTUS gave its ruling based on the COTUS.....which is what they do. They do this for a living, you know. Live with it.
Do you even understand what the court ruled?
Article is locked due to its size and subsequent trouble loading etc.
Also due to slap fights in the absence of the seeder.
I deleted a thread of 16 or 17 comments of an off topic thread that was nothing more than a slap fight.