Author Topic: Colorado Gay Wedding Cake Case: Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Discrimination  (Read 2918 times)

Online Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sir, you are taking your identity politics to a 12. We want to ask you to at least bring it down to a 5.

Britain isn't the US.  He really doesn't know the US.
שלום

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"but courts don't deal in ethics" or in morality either.
Yeah, I wish I would have listed morality also.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Christian dude: has stated that if they ordered a cake with a theme that he wasn't fundamentally opposed to, he would've served them. Offered to do just that.
Also christian dude: has stated that he would've refused to create the cake that they were asking for, no matter who was ordering it.

You retards:



"uh me think this sexual discriminashun????"

Yeah, sure. He totally didn't care that the couple was gay. WE'RE the ones being retards, not you. Look, moron, personal beliefs do not belong in business. If a Christian fundamentalist baker is commissioned to make a cake with two grooms on it, he should just fucking do it.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Offline GSOgymrat

The ruling didn't really address the issue, which is freedom of religion and speech balanced against non-discrimination and commerce. It is focused on this one specific case and can't easily be used as a precident. The majority rests its ruling in favor of Phillips on the narrow ground that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the state’s obligation to religious neutrality required by the Constitution. This is a win for Philips and a loss for the gay couple but certainly isn't decisive on the topic.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights… At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

My opinion is that LGBT people, or anyone else, shouldn't be discriminated against in commerce. Providers of goods and services should not deny services based on race, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, etcetera but customers can't demand a specialized service that the seller doesn't want to provide. If a customer comes into a bakery wants to buy a chocolate cake in the display case the baker can't refuse because she is gay, black or Muslim. A customer comes in and wants a personalized cake that displays a Swastika, "Jesus is Lord" or is shaped like a penis, the baker can refuse because the refusal isn't because of who the customer is but because of the service the customer is requesting. I understand personally the argument LGBT people are a minority that continues to be discriminated against but I also believe part of living in a secular society is accepting that not everyone has to agree and that artists shouldn't be forced to create things they find personally offensive. If I was a baker and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church came in and said, citing freedom of religion and freedom of speech, he wanted me to design a cake that looked like a Raid insecticide can that said "AIDS-- Kills Fags Dead" I would refuse because I find it offensive, just as some Christians find homosexuality offensive.
“You are the sky. Everything else – it’s just the weather.”

― Pema Chödrön

This is like that Jim Crow shit all over again. Christians are told to start treating a marginalized group fairly, so they try to find every loophole they can find to stick it to them. It's not racist that I'm making my black employees use an outhouse instead of the bathroom. Blacks just have different diseases that I don't want to spread! Those statues of Confederate leaders aren't racist, they're "historical landmarks." Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't want to serve homosexuals at my business because of my beliefs that homosexuals are going to Hell. Your beliefs can suck it. Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 10:38:59 AM by Blackleaf »
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Offline GSOgymrat

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

Like it or not, employers are supposed to provide "reasonable religious accommodation."

Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol files federal complaint

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“You are the sky. Everything else – it’s just the weather.”

― Pema Chödrön

Offline pr126

Quote
Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

They can and they do. At least in the UK. We are more tolerant. :)
Here are some examples:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Not mentioning the litigation jihad where the Muslim employee is suing the infidel employer for religious infractions and the employer is losing his/her business in the process.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
 
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 11:09:02 AM by pr126 »
"Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their free will."
 - Joseph Goebbels

Offline SGOS

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Like it or not, employers are supposed to provide "reasonable religious accommodation."

Muslim flight attendant suspended for refusing to serve alcohol files federal complaint

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Many of these cases including the wedding cake, open one of Pandora's boxes.  Religious accommodation is one thing, but when religious accommodation allows an employee to burden another employee or a customer with his/her own religious views that creates a conflict of rights.  How does one determine which guaranteed right is more sacrosanct than another?  And there are theists that would love to force their beliefs on others.  How does a court determine if someone's religious freedom is being stepped on or if that person is just abusing his right of religious freedom and taking unfair advantage.  There are legal decisions that will decide the cases, but that doesn't resolve the greater issue of fairness.

Online Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah, I wish I would have listed morality also.

A fair analysis ...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

No prejudiced advocacy.  If the Colorado Commission (in part) hadn't been on public record for being anti-religious, the result would have been opposite.  Anti-religion isn't the same as religion neutral.  Same as if a judge in a case, who was anti-Black, made imprecations about a Black defendant before the court.  And this case doesn't establish any general pattern, it is specific to the mistake by the Colorado Commission on that one occasion.
שלום

Online Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is like that Jim Crow shit all over again. Christians are told to start treating a marginalized group fairly, so they try to find every loophole they can find to stick it to them. It's not racist that I'm making my black employees use an outhouse instead of the bathroom. Blacks just have different diseases that I don't want to spread! Those statues of Confederate leaders aren't racist, they're "historical landmarks." Oh, I'm not homophobic, I just don't want to serve homosexuals at my business because of my beliefs that homosexuals are going to Hell. Your beliefs can suck it. Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs? Can a Muslim working at McDonalds refuse to sell any pork-based products because of his personal beliefs? No. Personal beliefs do not belong in business.

In other areas, even when Obama was still President, there were pushes in that direction ... which are bad.
שלום

Online Baruch

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Many of these cases including the wedding cake, open one of Pandora's boxes.  Religious accommodation is one thing, but when religious accommodation allows an employee to burden another employee or a customer with his/her own religious views that creates a conflict of rights.  How does one determine which guaranteed right is more sacrosanct than another?  And there are theists that would love to force their beliefs on others.  How does a court determine if someone's religious freedom is being stepped on or if that person is just abusing his right of religious freedom and taking unfair advantage.  There are legal decisions that will decide the cases, but that doesn't resolve the greater issue of fairness.

A SCOTUS composed only of Catholics and Jews isn't unbiased ;-)
שלום

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Can Catholic cashiers refuse to serve costumers buying condoms because of personal beliefs?
In some places, yes.  There are jurisdictions with a "get-out-of-doing-your-job-free" card for so-called "moral objections".

Unfortunately, what these people mostly *don't* do, is quietly get a co-worker who doesn't have that objection, to handle the client.  They make a huge fuss over how it's against their beliefs and how they're "oppressed" for having to serve people who don't share them.

Now.  Here's how I handled it when I was faced with a moral objection question.  I know I've told about this before on this forum, but under the circumstances, it bears repeating.

A few years back when I was still working on the front desk at our office, I had a client ask me to sign a form opting out of vaccinations for their children, as witness to their signature.

It will come as no surprise that there was no fuckin' way I was putting any ink of mine on that page.

Here's what I did not do.  I did not give them any indication that I objected to their decision.  I didn't voice my objection to their decision, I didn't suggest that maybe they should reconsider in the face of the massive amount of research demonstrating the safety and efficacy of childhood immunizations, I didn't question either their intelligence or their wisdom.

I said—and what I said had the bonus of being absolutely true at the time—"I'm a temp, I don't think I'm authorized to sign on behalf of the agency.  Do you see that woman sitting over there?  She'll be able to assist you," and directed them immediately to the caseworker on duty.

The practical upshot being: I didn't have to compromise myself, and they weren't demeaned in any way, and were provided a path to getting exactly what they asked for in a manner that maintained both their dignity and mine.  Because no matter how wrong I think they were, they were perfectly within their legal rights to ask for what they did.  I do not have the right, much less the responsibility to deny them their legal rights, no matter how stupid I think their decision is.  I had and still have a responsibility to treat them like human beings, even if I privately have questions about that.

This is not what the guy at Masterpiece did.  This is not what Kim Davis did in her little fiefdom of a county in Kentucky.  What they did was put themselves and their beliefs ahead of the law.

Masterpiece is not a church.  His doors are open to the public.  He has to take them as they come.  If he'd been thinking, he might've said, "Oooh, I'm booked solid until (some date that's too late), I'm really sorry."  Chances are, the couple would've gone to find someone else, no one would've felt put upon, and we'd have one less questionable Supreme Court decision on our hands.

I'd have more respect for a face-saving lie than for deliberately demeaning other people for the sake of an invisible friend and his big book of fables.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

Online Shiranu

I'm sorry GSO, but you can't compare refusing Westboro, Nazis or explicit content that you find offensive to this...

Being a bigoted, hateful Christian is a choice. Being a bigoted, hateful Nazi is a choice. Wanting a penis on your cake is a choice.

Being gay is not a choice. If you want to allow offense towards homosexuals to be an acceptable reason to deny them service, than you have to allow people to refuse service to blacks because they find them offensive, deny service to women because they find them offensive, deny service to physically or mentally handicapped people because you find them offensive.

The only way you can compare is if you believe homosexuality is a choice.
“And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.” - William Gibson, "Count Zero"

A si i-Dhúath ú-orthor. Ú or le a ú or nin.

Offline GSOgymrat

Shiranu, I think we both want similar, perhaps not identical, outcomes. I don't believe homosexual orientation is a choice and I don't believe anyone should be refused service because they are gay, black, woman, Mormon or all of the above. I'm saying I don't believe a customer should be able to legally force an artist to create something they find offensive, and I do believe cake decorating is an art and an expression of speech. The artist could be offended for religious, political or other reasons-- for example, a baker may not want to contribute to Trump's re-election by creating a pro-Trump cake for a political rally and I believe should have the right to refuse to take the job. Can bakers refuse to serve queer people donuts? No. Can inn keepers refuse service to gay couples? No. Can restaurants refuse service to a trans person? No. Can adoption agencies refuse service to LGBT people? No. In none of those examples is someone creating a special product that could in any way be interpreted as speech or artistic expression.

I think we both agree that as a society we want LGBT couples to be treated like heterosexual couples and I think Christian opposition to anything outside a monogamous, one-man-one woman scenario is... misguided is the most polite way I can say it. While I'm passionate about acceptance, not just tolerance, I also value freedom of speech and artistic expression. I bristle at the thought of someone making me use my creative talents to express myself is a way I find objectable and while I'm not sympathetic to religion and I am sympathetic to a person of faith being placed in that position.

I may be misguided on this topic myself, I may not be considering all the variables and I admit I'm highly biased on this issue, but current that is my take on the situation.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2018, 03:12:29 PM by GSOgymrat »
“You are the sky. Everything else – it’s just the weather.”

― Pema Chödrön

Offline trdsf

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm saying I don't believe a customer should be able to legally force an artist to create something they find offensive, and I do believe cake decorating is an art and an expression of speech.
I can go as far as art, but I'm not all the way there on speech.  Unlike a painting, a book, a sculpture, it's not something that's going to bear the creator's signature down through the ages.  In fact, it's going to disappear in very short order.  And outside of the most exalted circles, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside the married couple and their very closest planning partners who could even name the business that a wedding cake came from—I don't even remember who made the cake for my own wedding reception.  Much less will they know the name of the baker, and I don't think it's realistic to expect any of them to think of the cake as an expression of anything other than the baker's skill as a baker and decorator.  What message it carries is that of the couple.

Fundamentally, a cake is generally a commodity, not a speech item.  There are exceptions, but I don't think this is one of them.

It's also worth pointing out Ginsburg's observation from her dissent: "While Jack requested cakes with particular text inscribed, Craig and Mullins were refused the sale of any wedding cake at all. They were turned away before any specific cake design could be discussed."  'Jack' here is William Jack, a christian activist who went around to bakeries in Denver requesting cakes with explicit anti-gay textual messages.  He was turned down; one offered to make the cake and would provide him with the icing and pastry bags necessary to add the text himself.

Jack's cake was denied because of the message; the baker would have refused to make that cake for anyone.  Craig and Mullins were denied because they were gay and had nothing to do with the cake; Masterpiece would have made that cake for any straight couple.

I think that's the essence of discrimination vs speech right there.
Sir Terry Pratchett, on being told about the theory that the universe is a computer simulation: "If we all get out and in again, would it start to work properly this time?"

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk