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.
Discrimination is a property right.
Freedom of association is a property right.
Freedom of religion is a property right.
This ruling, however trivial, is at the very least a victory for self-ownership and the free market. No one should be forced by law to serve or provide services to individuals or groups of individuals without their consent; as a business owner you have the right to refuse service to anybody, for any reason. To suggest otherwise is an advocation of slavery.
A business that is run with “we don’t serve 'X' race, 'X' religion, 'X' sexuality, etc.” won’t stay in business. It's better to have bigots self-expose rather than blindly support them.
And this is coming from an agnostic who's into Wicca.
You don't make people "healthy" by turning them away. You do the opposite.
Exactly. Conservative Christians cannot use their religion to explain away the baker's behavior. If he was a true Christian, he would have baked the cake, because Jesus commanded us to "Love one another," not just people like ourselves.
If you want to go with the argument that the baker viewed the couple as sinners who needed to change their ways, he still would have baked the cake, using that opportunity to witness to the couple about God's love. But refusing them service is the behavior of a homophobic bigot, not a true Christian.
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.
You do know that you are unusual right? So many in the LGBT community want to tear apart anyone who agrees with this decision.
What happened in the case is that the Colorado Commission on Equal Rights showed indifference and outright hostility to the Bakers truly held religious belief. That hostility caused the SCOTUS to rule in his favor. Everyone under the law is entitled to equal and fair treatment. The Commission violated this principle and the case turned on it's lack of objectivity.
The Commission utterly failed the Baker, the plaintiffs and the larger principle of the law by treating the baker like crap.
You do know that you are unusual right? So many in the LGBT community want to tear apart anyone who agrees with this decision.
Fortunately the prevailing political attitude in my personal area (ironically, Colorado Springs, which ain't far at all from Denver) is "live and let live" and people aren't terrible at agreeing to disagree. All the same, I don't tend to get into a ton of political discussions with most of my friends. For instance, I keep my Facebook on a strict policy of "funny stuff ONLY." I'm not there to argue. I'm there to look at cats. Bite me. lol
I just really don't understand why they went this direction with it. Why not slam the bakers' reputation in town and online, and go somewhere else? And I'm actually pretty surprised there are not bakeries owned by people that this couple should want to support....?
Someone here mentioned that the couple was formerly friends with the owners, before all of this hubbub. Which makes me wonder if a feeling of sort of outraged betrayal, when they found out that their "friends" were not in fact so friendly to their genuine selves, seemingly turned on them. Was that it, I wonder?
I don't know. I've never met any of these folks. *shrug*
A smart Chief Justice tries to organize 7-2 or better, or at the very least 6-3 when dealing with hotly contested issues. A 5-4 is just too likely to be reversed by the fickle results of elections. Even Roe v. Wade, a somewhat questionable decision (I agree with the result but not the reasoning) has survived the test of time, though not easily or without challenge. If that were 5-4 it would have been overturned a long time ago.
The Supreme Court has to focus on broad issues of law, not justice in individual cases.
I’m trying to think of a major piece of civil liberty granted through a 5-4 SCOTUS decision that was later reversed. Miranda is the biggest civil rights case recently that was 5-4, and we all know that isn’t reversed. The problem with fanatics fantasizing about reversal of Obergefell is that they fail to grasp an important idea: once a liberty is recognized, it is actually quite difficult un-recognize that right. Same-sex marriage is not going anywhere, and some people just have to accept this reality and move on.
"Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake"
5-4 is a narrow ruling. 7-2 is as close to a sweep as you are going to get these days.
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).
Narrow as in narrow in focus...the decision only affects the parties involved--it does not have larger implications.
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.
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.
