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.
A reasonable compromise is to find another baker. The marrying couple then receives what they want, and the declining baker maintains his value system. Everyone gets what they want.
Unless of course what the marrying couple wants is to stubbornly insist that someone be forced to produce something artistic and individual just for them.
Perspective is important. We're talking about a freakin' cake here. Not an essential service. I think many people would have a very different perspective if we were talking about a doctor, teacher, etc. refusing service. But we're talking about a cake. A damned cake.
And what if others claimed to use the same out leaving none for them in a reasonable distance or price? Sorry for what aboutism but it isn't some case of outside of the realm of possibility, especially in certain areas of the country. This could also lead to cases of anyone (minus teachers as most are public employees and cannot discriminate) because the baker got away with it due to the heavy-handed and biased tactics of the Civil Rights organization in Colorado. This ruling did create a slippery slope due to a punt.
This is hardly a "meaningless case." Slavery is the compulsion to do what you don't want to do. In general imposing mandatory obligations on people to perform an act is frowned upon.
For example, if Masahiro Tanaka or CC Sabathia refuse to pitch because, say, the Yankees' corporate president or manager supports Donald Trump, the Court cannot force them to take the mound. The Court can allow the team not to pay them, and prevent them from pitching for another team. Courts will, on occasion, issue a "mandatory injunction" but the standards for obtaining one are almost impossibly high. For example:
The relief sought here was to force the baker to bake a cake. The reluctance of courts to enter any such order is solidly grounded both in common law and in the 13th Amendment, barring slavery.
This is hardly a "meaningless" case.
The case wasn't meaningless, but the decision was among the most meaningless the Court could have written.
Last edited by jazzarama; 06-05-2018 at 10:14 AM..
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement that the high court "rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs."
The Colorado commission's Anti-Christian behavior is unconstitutional and not allowed.
This decision is a rejection of the Democrat left's identity politics hierarchy and their brazen tendency to promote social inequality and use double standards in the realm of public policy.
This identity politics hierarchy divides people by their sex, sexual behavior, sexual transition status, religion, politics and geographical location and basically ranks them, with certain groups being considered superior and socially preferred to others.
The top and bottom of this hierarchy is apparently as follows:
1. A black, homosexual, transvestite woman, who is anti-Christian and a "Politically Correct" leftist (Marxist, radical feminist, LGBTQIA, SJW, BLM, ANTIFA, etc.) from a solid Democrat, Northeast or the West Coast state.
1,000,000+. A white, heterosexual, evangelical, Christian, male, who is a conservative Republican, voted for Trump and resides in the South.
This opinion invalidated this "Politically correct" view of the world as far as its use in government policy and confirmed that bias against Christians by government entities is unconstitutional and not allowed. The left's identity politics hierarchy was not deferred to and the behavior of this commission, which was apparently acting as if the Democrat left's identity politics hierarchy was superior to the US Constitution, was informed that this view is invalid and wrong.
And that is a powerful precedent that will be important for a very long time.
Why are you flipping this? My post was about comparing this to a Muslim shop owner based on a conspiracy theory of the result being released during Ramadan. The point made is that just as a Muslim deli owner who doesn't sell pork, it simply isn't ordered, if a baker doesn't want to take wedding cakes for homosexuals, why even offer the service of a wedding cake?
The problem is that he won't make halloween cakes, anti this or that cakes, or sexual cakes, for anyone. He does offer wedding cakes, just not for "those" people.
The gay couple wanted a “ custom cake”. They could have bought a reg type of wedding cake out of the frig. No one should be forced to take any commission. If I dont like you for whatever reason,
I shouldnt be made to paint your portrait or take your wedding photo etc etc. just because you want me to do so. I wouldnt do it.
Why are you flipping this? My post was about comparing this to a Muslim shop owner based on a conspiracy theory of the result being released during Ramadan. The point made is that just as a Muslim deli owner who doesn't sell pork, it simply isn't ordered, if a baker doesn't want to take wedding cakes for homosexuals, why even offer the service of a wedding cake?
Because some weddings are legitimate in a religious context, and others are not. And the first section of the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to free expression of religion, which is a higher imperative than any sub-constitutional law or regulation.
The gay couple wanted a “ custom cake”. They could have bought a reg type of wedding cake out of the frig. No one should be forced to take any commission. If I dont like you for whatever reason,
I shouldnt be made to paint your portrait or take your wedding photo etc etc. just because you want me to do so. I wouldnt do it.
If they are a "protected class" you have to. If they are a white straight male you can tell them to get lost and no legal repercussions.
Perspective is important. We're talking about a freakin' cake here. Not an essential service. I think many people would have a very different perspective if we were talking about a doctor, teacher, etc. refusing service. But we're talking about a cake. A damned cake.
The baker's perspective is that the "damned cake" is a work of art. That he is an artist, and his medium is the cake. That's why it's a free speech issue. He is an artist, and the cake is his artwork. What he does with the cake is an expression of him. As a devout opponent to same-sex marriage, he refuses to be compelled to use his artistic expression to support same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court is stating that the Colorado courts did not respect his argument enough, in fact the Supreme Court feels that they denigrated this argument. But you are denigrating that argument, too, when you talk about it as "a freakin' cake here".
The gay couple wanted a “ custom cake”. They could have bought a reg type of wedding cake out of the frig. No one should be forced to take any commission. If I dont like you for whatever reason,
I shouldnt be made to paint your portrait or take your wedding photo etc etc. just because you want me to do so. I wouldnt do it.
In this case, we don't know what the gay couple wanted. Neither does the baker. He informed them before they made any requests that he did not bake cakes for same-sex weddings. Period.
Because some weddings are legitimate in a religious context, and others are not. And the first section of the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to free expression of religion, which is a higher imperative than any sub-constitutional law or regulation.
But does it cover discrimination? Piggy Park's ruling says no. The problem is sexual orientation for whatever inane reason isn't a protective class, even though it has a very good reason to be.
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.
