Court rules for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case

[Lois]

From http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  I believe that some religious practices should be ruled unlawful, particularly when the practice of them infringes on the liberty of others.  Slavery justified by "the curse of Ham" is a case in point.  Furthermore, we are a nation of secular laws, not religious ones.  So no Sharia Law, or stoning adulterers as the Bible demands.

But in the case of a cake, what gay person would want to force a baker that believes gays are "abominations" to make a cake for them when there are lots of other options?  I suppose if there was only one cake maker in town it would be different, but the Denver metro area has lots of other options.  Besides, once the word gets out he refuses to bake for same sex weddings it will hurt his sales and he will come around out of necessity anyway.  I know I would not patronize a shop that was so short sighted and intolerant.

The gay couple said they felt demeaned and humiliated when they were told, "We don't make wedding cakes for your kind here."  I would be pissed off too.  But my response would be to tell all my friends in the gay and gay supportive communities about it.  I believe this would hurt their business which is a far greater revenge than trying to force them to make wedding cakes.

Better yet, maybe there should be a requirement that such businesses post a sign saying they won't make certain items for people and why.  I bet this would hurt their business too.  Then they'd either come around or go out of business.

Any thoughts?

[Katiebee]

The decision had nothing to do in the merits of discrimination. It was because the commission in Colorado that rules in it was hostile to the baker’s religious views. They denigrated his reglious views, so they ruled on the car as a First Amendment issue because of the statements that some of the commission members made.

The SCOTUS did not rule on the discrimination.

[ChirpingGirl]

I read he agreed to make any cake they wanted, just not a gay wedding cake. I'm pretty sure they targeted him on purpose and sought to destroy and make an example of him. There's no way they wouldn't have known his policy.

This is absolutely the right decision. I hope he counter sues them for pulling this stunt that likely has destroyed his business and his career, which I again believe was the goal.

I'm the least religious person you'll ever meet, but this was an obvious hit job on a Christian.


You may now proceed with your insults.

[Athos_131]

I read he agreed to make any cake they wanted, just not a gay wedding cake. I'm pretty sure they targeted him on purpose and sought to destroy and make an example of him. There's no way they wouldn't have known his policy.

This is absolutely the right decision. I hope he counter sues them for pulling this stunt that likely has destroyed his business and his career, which I again believe was the goal.

I'm the least religious person you'll ever meet, but this was an obvious hit job on a Christian.


You may now proceed with your insults.

Source?

#Resist

[Katiebee]

She’s talking out of her ass.

The finding was narrowly focused in the treatment of the baker’s religious views by the Anti-discrimination commission in Colorado.

NOT about whether he discriminated against the two men, nor about his freedom of religion. He is still a damned bigot who is hardly an example of Christianity. Or at least not an example of the good in Christianity.

[ChirpingGirl]

It was a while I ago I don't remember where I read it.


But here, take this instead.

The court was careful to note that the baker was willing to make a birthday cake for the gay couple, but not a wedding cake, as he felt that would violate his religious beliefs.

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/supreme-court-your-bakery-doesnt-have-to-bake-a-gay-wedding-cake.html

[ChirpingGirl]

She’s talking out of her ass.

The finding was narrowly focused in the treatment of the baker’s religious views by the Anti-discrimination commission in Colorado.

NOT about whether he discriminated against the two men, nor about his freedom of religion. He is still a damned bigot who is hardly an example of Christianity. Or at least not an example of the good in Christianity.

I'm gonna miss you least of all, scarecrow. 

[Katiebee]

It will not save anyone else. Religious beliefs in secular business do not have standing. Again, the finding was about how the Commission responded

The finding was quoted in your link.

“That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission's treatment of Philips' case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission's formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips' faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's adjudication of Phillips' case.”

So learn how to read.

[ChirpingGirl]

Learn how to be less of a bitch. 

Can you tell I give no fucks? 


 

[Athos_131]

No where does it say that business was specfically targeted.

#Resist

[HppyHrryHrdn]

Let me be the other A-hole that believes the business was targeted.  No proof of such, so pretty much talking out my ass, except... There are alot of bakeries in Denver.  I've been there.  And the only reason you would make a stink is to make a point. Had i been the baker and they were making that kind of stink about it i would have make the cake and it would have been a shit cake not literally and figuratively.  Companies have insurance against lawsuits for people that think they got a rotten product.

My question is back when I was a partner in a business and one of the partners had a strong religious belief against alcohol, had I turned down working for Budweiser for that reason should they have been able to file against me?   I thought the partner was a moron (Found that out after he joined up) and we god rid of him but suing us to do work that he didn't believe in would be stupid on their part. So the plaintiffs are either stupid, arrogant or had an agenda.

And yes the ruling was only about the treatment the baker got from the state. The commission went in with an agenda and didn't listen to the facts of the case. Kind of like many people on this board do on a regular basis. It's ruling really had nothing to do with the merits of the case only the way it was adjudicated.  So all is well in the world.  The state can still force people to do what they don't want to do they just have to act like they are listening.

[Katiebee]

Learn how to be less of a bitch. 

Can you tell I give no fucks? 


 

in that case, why bother posting? Just to troll?

[Katiebee]

Let me be the other A-hole that believes the business was targeted.  No proof of such, so pretty much talking out my ass, except... There are alot of bakeries in Denver.  I've been there.  And the only reason you would make a stink is to make a point. Had i been the baker and they were making that kind of stink about it i would have make the cake and it would have been a shit cake not literally and figuratively.  Companies have insurance against lawsuits for people that think they got a rotten product.

My question is back when I was a partner in a business and one of the partners had a strong religious belief against alcohol, had I turned down working for Budweiser for that reason should they have been able to file against me?   I thought the partner was a moron (Found that out after he joined up) and we god rid of him but suing us to do work that he didn't believe in would be stupid on their part. So the plaintiffs are either stupid, arrogant or had an agenda.

And yes the ruling was only about the treatment the baker got from the state. The commission went in with an agenda and didn't listen to the facts of the case. Kind of like many people on this board do on a regular basis. It's ruling really had nothing to do with the merits of the case only the way it was adjudicated.  So all is well in the world.  The state can still force people to do what they don't want to do they just have to act like they are listening.

A blanket statement that wasn’t well thought out. The state also forbids you from speeding, committing fraud, extortion, theft, and murder.

[Army of One]

Okay, I enter this with trepidation. I really didn't want to contribute anything to this, given how easily it could attract trolls, but I do want to put in my ten-cents worth, so please treat what I have to say with respect.

In regards to the 'hostility' he was treated with during the original trials, okay, if they believe he was so treated, then they can rule that way. I was not in the courtroom when the original trial was undertaken (or any of them, for that matter), so I can't really opine on that.

In regards to whether he had his freedom of speech or religion violated by being asked to make the cake...here's the thing: it is actually stated in the Christian bible (Romans 13:1-7) that they should obey the law, even when it directly contradicts their beliefs. (Note I said their beliefs, not the law of God; this is an important note of difference.) So he violated common law for his own personal beliefs, thus the court is justified in punishing him.

Were his beliefs sincere? Fair point of contention, and I have to say I don't think so. There are plenty of verses and stories¹ in the Bible about discrimination, and it would be hard for him to not notice these at some point. So no, I don't believe it was a sincere belief, as it made him discriminatory, even if towards just one group.

So, my opinion: a same-sex couple approached this baker to make them a wedding cake, he turned them down, citing his beliefs, knowing full well he was being discriminatory by doing so and thus violating God's law, and was brought to trial. The courts treated him hostilely, and they got burned as a result. Now, SCOTUS needs to make one more ruling: did he break the law? I hope they do make a ruling on that, and I hope it is in the affirmative.
¹ I found a list of verses here, so feel free to browse it.

[HppyHrryHrdn]

And my question wasn't answered.  Should i have been sued to do something the partner didn't want to do.
 
And you are right on one point I should have said "try to force".  Not that they can succeed. I still speed (as evident by my driving record), and do other things that the state may consider not the best shall we say. But these are places where I draw the line not the state.

So according to the ruling as long as they look like they are listening they can try to make me do things I don't want to. And if i don't do what they say I will have to pay the price as long as they act like they are listening to my arguments.

[HppyHrryHrdn]

I guess i should make it clear my problem is with the state telling me to do anything.  Telling me not to do something is bad but telling me i have to do something is so much worse

[psiberzerker]

This is petty as fuck, on all sides of the argument.  If it weren't for agendas trying to prove a point, then this never should have gone to court in the first place.  Gay couples' money not being good enough, or gay couples wanting to use stuck up straight bakers.  It's all bullshit, and a waste of everyone's time.

I thought marriage was supposed to be a wonderful thing, not a fucking counter-protest.  I'm beginning to think some people can't be happy, even when they want to.

I'm as for equal rights as the next guyl, but I'm going to have to suck it up, and side with the business on this one.  It's their business, and none of our's.  They can refuse any customer, for any or no reason.  I wouldn't want a cake baked under duress anyway.

Put me down for Pro-Choice.

[Lois]

My question is back when I was a partner in a business and one of the partners had a strong religious belief against alcohol, had I turned down working for Budweiser for that reason should they have been able to file against me?   I thought the partner was a moron (Found that out after he joined up) and we god rid of him but suing us to do work that he didn't believe in would be stupid on their part. So the plaintiffs are either stupid, arrogant or had an agenda.

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  If you are all partners don't you all have an equal share in the decision making?  I thought Partners voted on things or worked out some kind of other arrangements.

[joan1984]

  Next cake order should be at a Muslim Bakery, assuming the 'couple' has money to burn for hiring attorneys, and bringing their snarky protest sign carrying friends to court with them, to whistle and scream in the streets.

  How does Colorado get rid of the Commissioners who so wronged this baker?
How does America get rid of the Judges who ruled so wrongly, having little to do with the "law" and more to do with their own political correctness, bias.

  This case should have been dismissed at the first place in the legal change, and those who brought the charges should be paying ALL the legal costs in this matter.

[joan1984]

  Use your art and talent, make my cake because I said so. Or, spend the next six years in court, at who knows how much cost... cause... I said so.

And my question wasn't answered.  Should i have been sued to do something the partner didn't want to do.

Who cares? Budweiser is not a person who was made to feel like a second class citizen by being refused business. If you need an opinion, then no, but this has little to no relevance to the topic at hand.

As reply to the thread in general, I'm inclined to believe this was a private matter between the couple and the bakery and the state should not have been involved, but I fully support the couple's decision to pursue punishing the baker by whatever means available.