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

[Shiranu]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/baker-won-supreme-court-case-maintains-cake-couple/story?id=55660012


Surprised to not see this story here, considering it's involving theocratic legislation. Long story short; Christian man does not want to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple because his religion disproves of their sexuality. They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.

[Baruch]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/baker-won-supreme-court-case-maintains-cake-couple/story?id=55660012


Surprised to not see this story here, considering it's involving theocratic legislation. Long story short; Christian man does not want to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple because his religion disproves of their sexuality. They sue him (rightly) for discrimination, the Supreme Court rules in favour of religious bigotry over sexual discrimination.

Lawyers rule on arcane technicalities.  Same now, as with the Dred Scott SCOTUS decision in 1857.  Nobody should care much, unless you want to get some of the excess law and lawyers out of daily life.  Advocacy and opposition are political.  The question for most people is political, unless you are a law code maven.

Now I personally can fall on both sides of the issue.  General law says if you provide a public service or product, you can't discriminate against customers other than the inability to pay for the product or service.  That seems fair, and SCOTUS failed to uphold that general legal principle.  Who knows why?  On the other hand there is the "we can refuse service to any customer" often because of "no shirt, no shoes, no service" usually at beaches.  This is what mistakenly happened with the Black fellows at the Starbucks.

[Gilgamesh]

He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

[pr126]

If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k

[Gilgamesh]

If the shop was owned by a Muslim, the case would have never got to the courts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k

It definitely would've gotten no media attention.

Imagine creating your entire worldview out of blatantly selective reporting by the dying legacy media

[Shiranu]

He refused the type of service they were asking for on the basis that he doesn't provide that sort of service. He's said multiple times that had they ordered a kind of cake that he does create, that he would service them in the making of it.

The ruling was just and protects the rights that are owed to him.

The OP is a cut-and-dry spin-job driven by an ideologically possessed SJW.

He doesn't make wedding cakes?

Interesting...

[GrinningYMIR]

Regardless of sexuality. You have the right to refuse someone service if you see fit to, as long as it is not in such a case that is blatant racism. I have Turned people away from my store becuase I dont recognize their ids or what have you

[Hydra009]

Regardless of sexuality. You have the right to refuse someone service if you see fit to, as long as it is not in such a case that is blatant racism. I have Turned people away from my store becuase I dont recognize their ids or what have you

Right.  Because it's unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, but not unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in some states.

But the times they are a-changing and people with them.  Team Pence's victory will not be a lasting one.

[pr126]

It is only a discrimination when a Christian does it.

The media wouldn't touch it if a Muslim had refused to make the wedding cake.
In fact, I think that the couple wouldn't have even reported it.

Why, that would have been Islamophobic, racist.

As it is, it is just double standards.

[Shiranu]

It is only a discrimination when a Christian does it.

The media wouldn't touch it if a Muslim had refused to make the wedding cake.
In fact, I think that the couple wouldn't have even reported it.

Why, that would have been Islamophobic, racist.

As it is, it is just double standards.

Sir, you are taking your identity politics to a 12. We want to ask you to at least bring it down to a 5.

[pr126]

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

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

[Shiranu]

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

Identity politics is a leftist (cultural Marxist) thing.

Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

[pr126]

OK. mate, riddle me this.

If it was a Muslim shop owner refusing the order, would it be made such a brouhaha about the case right up to the supreme court, or would it have disappeared down the MSM memory hole?
Assuming that the happy couple would have even reported it.

Identity politics? Add double standards too.

[Gilgamesh]

He doesn't make wedding cakes?

Interesting...

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.

[Gilgamesh]

Mm. That's why your entire argument revolves around, "Their identity makes them different! They need to be treated differently!"?

That's identity politics, mate.

Wasn't his argument the precise opposite of that..?