Colorado Gay Wedding Cake Case: Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Discrimination

[Baruch]

The devil is in the details.  We need a cop to watch every purchase made, to make sure the customer isn't screwed over ;-)  There are so many ways to screw over customers ;-))

[Draconic Aiur]

Sir, (or is it Shir?) you are projecting.

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

Is it? Because last I checked atheists couldn't testify in court. So In Texas a red state is not a red state at all?

[Baruch]

Is it? Because last I checked atheists couldn't testify in court. So In Texas a red state is not a red state at all?

Assholes come in all political persuasions, and US States.  Identity politics means ... I am right, and all of you who are not me, are wrong.  And I can extend my rightness arbitrarily based on nonsense like gender, sex, race, political party etc.  ie I can form a faction of activists that I can lead to world conquest - See Hitler.

[Draconic Aiur]

Sure there are assholes everywhere but they have the right to be an asshole and not sell people who they believe are unsuited for their products. Its as simple as that, and hey with all the bully radical left wing propaganda their business could actually flow with more right wing customers coming in. It's all a business advertisement i tell you!.

[Gilgamesh]

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.

Literally everytime someone uses a sarcastic paraphrase on these boards I'm just going to tell them to KYS from now on. It's not an argument, and I'm tired of explaining that it's not only to have you retards use it again and again no matter what. So, KYS :)))

Anyone who is against this ruling is deliberately misrepresenting reality so their narrative looks better.

The fact is that he refused to bake (and cater) a very specific type of cake. There is absolutely 0 evidence that he did this on the basis of the customers sexuality, therefore any claim that that's what it was has failed to meet its burden of proof. You fucko's can whine all you want.

[Cavebear]

He does. He doesn't make wedding cakes with certain messages.

If they could prove that he's made pro-gay wedding cakes for straight people before then they'd have a case. But if he's consistent in not making wedding cakes with a pro-gay message, regardless of the sex or race of the customer ordering it, then that demonstrates that it's the type of service being refused; not the customer.

But you know this and are just being intentionally obtuse.

I really hate to say this, but I think that baker has a point.  He was perfectly happy to sell any product in the store to the gay couple.  But he did not want to make a special cake for them.

Suppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

[Baruch]

I really hate to say this, but I think that baker has a point.  He was perfectly happy to sell any product in the store to the gay couple.  But he did not want to make a special cake for them.

Suppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

Yes, they would, as long as the complaint is made by Muslims.

[Blackleaf]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFblNabV0mg

Looks like I'm not the only one who saw parallels to Jim Crow in this case. Refusing service because you disapprove of a homosexuality is little different from the "separate but equal" philosophy of the South post-Civil War. Disapproval of a minority group based on privately held beliefs should not extend to public services. Just as it was not acceptable to give blacks separate accommodations (supposedly equal in quality), it is not acceptable to tell a gay couple, "I will not make a wedding cake for you, but you can have one of these cakes I've already made."

[Gilgamesh]

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ^

He doesn't make wedding cakes depicting a homosexual couple on it. He does not provide this service, regardless of who orders it; therefore it is not discrimination against the customer.

It wasn't even a genuine moment to begin with. It was an LGBT rights oranization going to multiple bakeries looking for rejection to set them up. It was never a situation of two people actually getting married. AND the bakery didn't even deny them a cake. They just didn't want to make the specific request they were asked. The bakery STILL offered to help them in other ways.

I really hope none of you who are against this ruling call yourselves anti fascists. Using the state to force a person to create an artistic expression he does not want to create is, uh, pretty fascist.

[SoldierofFortune]

In capitalism there is not one option to get the cake made . the couple could choose from one of the producers. This is a virtue of the capitalist system. That is, there is not "only" one cake maker that you have to prefer it. Also the producer should have the right to choose their customer...

[Draconic Aiur]

The baker wasn't part of the government which  I think you ar confusd he or she is. It's the private sector, they have the right to refuse service. If you don't like it dont go thre, don't talk about it, don't even violently enter and break the place like those crazy radical liberals that caused harm to a cat cafe because the owner was white.

[Blackleaf]

The baker wasn't part of the government which  I think you ar confusd he or she is. It's the private sector, they have the right to refuse service. If you don't like it dont go thre, don't talk about it, don't even violently enter and break the place like those crazy radical liberals that caused harm to a cat cafe because the owner was white.

What does it matter if it's the government or not? If services were privatized during the time of Jim Crow, would that have justified the separate but equal policy? Discrimination is discrimination.

[Shiranu]

Suppose you were a Jewish baker and a person asked you to make a cake with Swastikas all around it? 

Suppose they wanted names of concentration camps on it?

Suppose they wanted icing in the form of Hitler?

And suppose that Jewish baker said he wouldn't make a cake like that.  Would you blame him?

No, I wouldn't... but yet again, are we really comparing being gay to being a Nazi?

You are not born a Nazi. You choose to be a Nazi. Denying someone over something they are actively choosing to be, particularly if it is extremely offensive, is perfectly acceptable; consider it the same as kicking someone out of a store for causing a scene or being hateful towards the cashiers or other customers.

You are born LGBT. You do not choose to be LGBT. Denying someone over something they were born as, is not acceptable unless we want to say that the segregation-era Americans had some justifiable reason for denying African Americans, Irish, Chinese people service.

What the baker did is refuse a service because he found a trait of someone repulsive (their homosexuality). Therefor you should be allowed to deny African Americans, women, the physically or mentally handicapped service because you find them repulsive.

The more like-for-like analogy would be an African couple coming and asking for a cake that celebrates their heritage, and the baker saying no because he finds them to be offensive. If he said no because he didn't have the materials to make such a cake, again... I am 100% on his side. But when his expressed reason is, "I don't like them because I find their culture offensive!" then I'm sorry... but that is denial of service due to bigotry, and that is unacceptable.

[Blackleaf]

durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ^

He doesn't make wedding cakes depicting a homosexual couple on it. He does not provide this service, regardless of who orders it; therefore it is not discrimination against the customer.

It wasn't even a genuine moment to begin with. It was an LGBT rights oranization going to multiple bakeries looking for rejection to set them up. It was never a situation of two people actually getting married. AND the bakery didn't even deny them a cake. They just didn't want to make the specific request they were asked. The bakery STILL offered to help them in other ways.

I really hope none of you who are against this ruling call yourselves anti fascists. Using the state to force a person to create an artistic expression he does not want to create is, uh, pretty fascist.

Durrrr!!! I type stupid sounds because it makes me sound smart! Everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot! Poopity scoop! Hurr duurrr!

[Shiranu]

Maybe it's not all doom and gloom though... if Colorado does it again, swing vote Kennedy has said he will likely vote in favour of the state. The problem with this case is, the way the state did it was worded in a way that was too disparaging of Christianity, and the fact that two of the people involved in the lawsuit were extremely hostile towards religion in the work place as well as wouldn't sanction bakers who refused to put anti-gay messages on cakes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/08/supreme-courts-masterpiece-ruling-not-victory-despite-headlines-column/676566002/

But how can this be if the baker won the case? The baker did win on the grounds that the Colorado anti-discrimination agency unconstitutionally displayed religious bias when it sanctioned him. But Kennedy’s majority opinion sent every signal that should Colorado again seek to sanction the baker for a future refusal to serve same-sex couples, the state will win so long as it refrains from statements or actions that seem to disparage religion.

So as long as it's brought up more civilly next time, there is a strong chance the SC might vote in favour of protecting the LGBT community from discrimination.

Of course, the fact that it has to be put politely for them to vote for the right thing is still really fucking pathetic.