Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm guessing the gay couple that is refused a wedding cake is going to make sure the locals know. And that is their right. Odds are it will cost the bakery. Not too many gay couples that are refused a wedding cake are going to go back and buy Sunday croissants after that.
Well then its a good thing that "gay couples" are only a couple percent of the population.
There are likely to be more straight couples that go there specifically as new customers because of this than gay couples that stop going there. Just do the math on how many more people are "normies" than not.
Despite being part of the LGBT+ community myself, and active in Leather groups and such, I do feel that baker should have had the right to refuse service to any customer for any (or no) reason. The customer should then have the free right to go tell everyone they know and post reviews all over the internet about it if they want. I'm more about freedom, than not.
There was only one argument that made sense to me in the other direction, which was "suppose it was a rural critical service and could only have been got in one place for 500 miles or something?" Well, it wasn't. But I think an example of a useful level of sanity in that situation... If you could prove that you are the only business for some kind of a radius providing something "essential" such as gasoline, a utility service, medical services, groceries, etc. Something crucial to living. Then maybe there could be a tax incentive for that, which would go along with a clause of non-discrimination.
That is pretty much the extent of government involvement I'd accept in such a situation. Found to be discriminating in some service necessary for life, against someone based on color, creed, orientation, etc. and you lose some significant tax break. Enough of one to reward people for providing that service, and also to punish them for withholding it from anyone who needed it.
But a wedding cake bakery in a city like Denver? Come on...give 'em bad reviews, get your friends to give 'em bad reviews, and find another bakery to give your money to. Maybe a minority or LGBT+ owned one, if you really want to make a statement. I just don't feel that government pressure (even a lawsuit) made sense.
And that's my thought. If I was a gay couple, I wouldn't want the cake bought under duress. I would take my business elsewhere and make sure everyone knew how I was treated. But, like so many other situations, what I would not want is the baker complaining and saying "the gays are trying to put me out of business!" NO. Refuse to serve them? Fine, do that knowing the cost of losing their and their supporter's business, because that would certainly happen where I live. For gays that live in places like that, I can only say, don't give that location your contributions if they treat you badly. So many gays I know are quite affluent and there's no reason to give a location their education and wealth only to be treated badly.
Move west or northeast, don't shop at such places and make sure to leave reviews saying why.
The best way to punish a business is to not give them money.
While I am against discrimination I do believe people have the right to run their business as they see fit as long as the accept consequences of their actions. So even though I am liberal I think the supreme court made the right decision.
That being said I would also file this under a careful what you wish for category.
You shouldn't have to carefully wish for laws to be applied fairly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyboy84
1) I'm sure there are more than a handful of people who are praising the Supreme court decision saying a business owner "should not be forced to go against his beliefs" , however fair or not this baker can be seen as a bigot and if people don't want to spend their $$ on his business for his beliefs the same people shouting praise will be the first ones crying persecution if people make the choice to avoid his business..can't have it both ways
People can decide to spend or not spend their money however they want. The only likely way to see cries of persecution is if some Social Justice Warrior decides to organize a boycott over the owner of a business making decisions based on their own moral compass, a la Chic-Fil-A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyboy84
2) This is more of a general question. By this logic, can a business say they will not cater to Christians? Can a business refuse to write "Merry Christmas". Bake a cake for a second or third wedding? Can they refuse to use a crucifx? an image of Jesus?
It's their business. They should be allowed to serve or not serve any customer based on whatever criteria is important to them. Customers will decide to use their business based on their own opinions. Where the Venn diagram of those two groups overlaps is where everyone is happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyboy84
So you stuck it to the Homo's yay, good for you..take a victory lap, but from what I am seeing the people who identify as no religion/agnostic.atheist etc keeps going up and up, while people who identify as christian is getting less and less, no rapdily mind you but still decreasing. Turn about could be fair play and this decision just opened up a wide window to help turn about come faster than you think
Stuck it to the homos? Really? That's your takeaway from this case? It isn't, and never was, about "sticking it" to anyone. It is a question of whether or not a business owner could be forced to participate in an activity that he morally disagrees with. Note the word activity. It isn't about discrimination over race, gender, or orientation. It's the activity of marriage between people of the same gender that the baker objected to. There was no policy of "no gay people allowed" and he wasn't trying to stop the marriage. He simply refused to participate.
ETA: My personal opinion on gay marriage is that it should never have been a legal issue to begin with. Anyone who has time to worry about who someone else is attracted to, loves, sleeps with, or marries needs a hobby.
However, that doesn't translate into approval of someone being forced to participate in or support any activity. Nobody should ever be forced to go against their own conscience in order to run a business.
Long story short Colorado shot itself in the foot by going overboard with a zealous prosecution of the baker, not even attempting to hear/understand his side of things (religious exemption).
Correct. Although I was initially irate by what i thought was legislated discrimination, if CO had acted in a more neutral was toward the baker, the SC might have decided differently.
Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.
The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens' religious beliefs, the ruling said.
There was considerably more than that phrase including reasonable accommodation. They did not address the basis for which the baker sued.
Fair enough. It's like I said. This was a terrible case to bring before the SCOTUS.
How narrow in focus? The Supreme Court generally specifies these sorts of things. This ruling was destined to make waves no matter which way it went.
No, SCOTUS does not always write/send out detailed specified rulings or whatever. It is for attorneys, plaintiffs, lower courts and others to read decisions and arrive at conclusions.
Again this ruling is *NARROW* because the court didn't strike down Colorado's anti-discrimination laws, and only spoke to how that state applied them to this *ONE* particular baker.
If anything the court did leave things open ended (as they often do), to tackle another such gay discrimination case in future. Something that on substance could give them an opportunity to rule expansively and strike down such a law.
Again this case was deeply flawed against Colorado because that commission basically rode rough over the baker's constitutionally protected rights, seemingly mocking in the process. They were also all over the place in their rulings and rationale for same. Hence the 7-2 in favor for the baker.
Location: Big Island of Hawaii & HOT BuOYS Sailing Vessel
5,277 posts, read 2,798,920 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by BugsyPal
Narrowly implies the ruling, not number of justices.
Read the decision or detailed coverage thereof; it was *NOT* a carte blanche ruling that would allow persons or businesses to discriminate against LGBT persons, especially in violation of local anti-discrimination statues. Rather justices largely ruled the Colorado's commission did not fully take into account the baker's religious beliefs and or simply seemed to be attempting to impose their own ideals/morals upon the man without any sort of due process.
Colorado told the baker he couldn't refuse to provide a cake for gays, but then turned around and said he *could* refuse to do so for a cake that had an anti LGBT message. How does that work?
Long story short this is what happens when a statue is written and applied very sloppy. It also shows what happens when any side; liberal or conservative attempts to push too far in terms of their own beliefs/desires onto a person or business.
Justice Kennedy himself (the man who gave gays the right to marry), explicitly said in his decision that the ruling did *NOT* mean the court in future would embrace discrimination nor was the ruling striking down Colorado's nor any other local government's anti-discrimination laws.
Long story short Colorado shot itself in the foot by going overboard with a zealous prosecution of the baker, not even attempting to hear/understand his side of things (religious exemption).
So not a very good victory for this baker.
He was only wronged by the due process. However, was still in the wrong.
At best, what does it give the baker. The baker cannot use this ruling to continue to discriminate against gays.
Perhaps he can sue the Colorado commissioner for heavy handed due process. However, all the money that christian groups spelled with a small c poured into this case are still lost.
Remanded back to lower courts for a more courteous treatment of the baker.
For those of us that are old enough or recall history - religion was used to justify discrimination against non white people.
Sorry, no relevance here. The issue is being forced to embrace homosexual behavior as an ingredient of a cake.
They should have sought a certified homosexual cakery. It was all about causing trouble.
Correct. Although I was initially irate by what i thought was legislated discrimination, if CO had acted in a more neutral was toward the baker, the SC might have decided differently.
Right, and we don't know because CO messed it up, therefore no definitive decision about the important aspects of it. The SC was able to weasel out of dealing with the Big question.
It's not like anyone will learn from this, they will continue to demand tolerance from others when they do not practice it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
