SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[fskimospy]

And this, boys and girls, is why it was a dumb idea to let religious people opt out of generally applicable laws.

 

[umbrella39]

Just goes to show you that for every 'persecution' facing old white male conservatives there is a GoFundMe or similar page set up to help the delicate snowflake cope:

https://www.gofundme.com/masterpiece-cakeshop
https://www.continuetogive.com/4821919
https://www.adflegal.org/stand-with-jack/donate

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, he was asked to bake a cake that's blue on the outside and pink on the inside, and refused on "religious" grounds because Jesus obviously was against mismatched cake colors.

Surely someone will be along shortly to explain how the differing colors represent "artistic expression" and thus the shop should be allowed to refuse.

LOL who am I kidding, those same people would need to know the identity of the potential customer first to determine if that was artistic expression or not. If from one of their favored pet groups (race, sex, LGBTQ identity, etc.) then no it's not and they should be forced to make the cake, if it were from a neo-Nazi or someone that it would and they could refuse and would indeed be morally obligated to do so.

This baker is a ridiculous fraud and morally stupid but the larger principle above still holds.

 

[theeedude]

If a little girl wanted a pink cake with blue icing, I am sure that bigot would have no problem.

 

[glenn1]

If a little girl wanted a pink cake with blue icing, I am sure that bigot would have no problem.

Perhaps but beside the point. The left wants to basically decide after the fact whether refusing to provide a cake is lawful or not based upon the "artistic expression" rationale. If you told me that you wanted a pink cake with blue icing for a little girl and refused to do so because it offended your artistic sensibilities you could, but if it's later found out that little girl was a transgender and the cake colors had deeper meaning to them signifying their gender transition then you could be forced under penalty of law to make that cake. I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" could be the basis for legal decisions.

 

[fskimospy]

Perhaps but beside the point. The left wants to basically decide after the fact whether refusing to provide a cake is lawful or not based upon the "artistic expression" rationale. If you told me that you wanted a pink cake with blue icing for a little girl and refused to do so because it offended your artistic sensibilities you could, but if it's later found out that little girl was a transgender and the cake colors had deeper meaning to them signifying their gender transition then you could be forced under penalty of law to make that cake. I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" could be the basis for legal decisions.

You could not refuse to bake someone a blue cake because of their sex, no, regardless of your artistic sensibilities. That would be a violation of the exact same law because you would be refusing service based on sex.

Edit: sorry, you seem to be saying that finding out later they were transgender would make you in violation when you had no knowledge or intent. That’s not how any of this works and I’m unaware of a single case of that happening in all of US history so it’s pointless to worry about and should be ignored.

If my religion says paying taxes is sin then why do I have to pay taxes?

 

[glenn1]

You could not refuse to bake someone a blue cake because of their sex, no, regardless of your artistic sensibilities. That would be a violation of the exact same law because you would be refusing service based on sex.

Edit: sorry, you seem to be saying that finding out later they were transgender would make you in violation when you had no knowledge or intent. That’s not how any of this works and I’m unaware of a single case of that happening in all of US history so it’s pointless to worry about and should be ignored.

If my religion says paying taxes is sin then why do I have to pay taxes?

So what if a transgender person wants you to draw a blue swasika on a pink cake? You can't have it both ways where protected classes can't be refused service and yet you get to claim a 1A right to refuse based on content. The case of the pink and blue cake seems like a good example because by itself color choice is not a political statement which would otherwise seem to be subject to 1A protection.

 

[fskimospy]

So what if a transgender person wants you to draw a blue swasika on a pink cake? You can't have it both ways where protected classes can't be refused service and yet you get to claim a 1A right to refuse based on content. The case of the pink and blue cake seems like a good example because by itself color choice is not a political statement which would otherwise seem to be subject to 1A protection.

You are mixing up constitutional rights and public accommodation laws. You can absolutely refuse service to a transgender person (or anyone else) for wanting to draw a swastika on a cake.

 

[glenn1]

You are mixing up constitutional rights and public accommodation laws. You can absolutely refuse service to a transgender person (or anyone else) for wanting to draw a swastika on a cake.

Then since the customer for this pink and blue cake was the mother of the transgender person (who presumably is not herself transgendered) and the cake doesn't include a swastika the baker can refuse to provide it since there's no public accommodation issue at play.

 

[jackstar7]

Then since the customer for this pink and blue cake was the mother of the transgender person (who presumably is not herself transgendered) and the cake doesn't include a swastika the baker can refuse to provide it since there's no public accommodation issue at play.

As usual, it depends on how the baker responds when prompted by the situation.

Why do you make it seem like this is hard for you?

 

[glenn1]

As usual, it depends on how the baker responds when prompted by the situation.

Why do you make it seem like this is hard for you?

As stated earlier, "I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" should be the basis for legal decisions."

 

[jackstar7]

As stated earlier, "I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" should be the basis for legal decisions."

No kidding. Fool opens his mouth about his reasons, that's *gasp!* an action!

 

[fskimospy]

Then since the customer for this pink and blue cake was the mother of the transgender person (who presumably is not herself transgendered) and the cake doesn't include a swastika the baker can refuse to provide it since there's no public accommodation issue at play.

That's not how any of this works. You can't refuse service to someone on the basis of sexual orientation, regardless of who it is.

EDIT: I mean did you really think people could get around public accommodation laws by saying that they were refusing service based on the race/sex/sexual orientation of a different person?

 

[fskimospy]

As stated earlier, "I refuse to believe that "thoughtcrime" should be the basis for legal decisions."

So you think businesses should be free to refuse service to black people?

 

[jackstar7]

So you think businesses should be free to refuse service to black people?

"Let the market decide!" -libertarian glenn

 

[Vic]

So you think businesses should be free to refuse service to black people?

Getting Heart of Atlanta overturned is the agenda behind all this.

 

[Vic]

"Let the market decide!" -libertarian glenn

He might like to have you believe that, but the reality is that it's a poor libertarian/capitalist who refuses to do business with a paying customer.

 

[glenn1]

So you think businesses should be free to refuse service to black people?

Per your standards if they want you to use your "artistic expression" to design a cake in a way you disagree with they could refuse service to black people. You'd probably be fine with a baker turning away a black person who wanted "support traditional marriage" written on a cake, would the customer being black then be some magic tiebreaker which then forced you to make the cake? Does every transaction require a truth table to determine if you can refuse or accept?

 

[fskimospy]

Per your standards if they want you to use your "artistic expression" to design a cake in a way you disagree with they could refuse service to black people.

Yes, you can refuse service based on not wanting to make that type of cake or whatever. You cannot refuse service because they are black. This really isn't that complicated?

Also they aren't my standards, they are the law.

You'd probably be fine with a baker turning away a black person who wanted "support traditional marriage" written on a cake, would the customer being black then be some magic tiebreaker which then forced you to make the cake? Does every transaction require a truth table to determine if you can refuse or accept?

It's really baffling that you don't understand the clear way the law works, considering you're so against it. The courts have clearly held that you can't be forced to speak on your customers' behalf, which would include writing a message. So yes, I would be fine with a baker turning a black person who wanted 'support traditional marriage' written on a cake. Same with one who wanted 'support gay marriage' written, or 'I have Bieber fever'. What I do not support is people violating the law and refusing to serve whole classes of people and I don't support people opting out of having to follow the law because of their religion.

If religious people can opt out of generally applicable laws then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because Jesus told me not to in a dream. This is why the Hobby Lobby decision was so, so bad.

 

[glenn1]

Yes, you can refuse service based on not wanting to make that type of cake or whatever. You cannot refuse service because they are black. This really isn't that complicated?

Also they aren't my standards, they are the law.



It's really baffling that you don't understand the clear way the law works, considering you're so against it. The courts have clearly held that you can't be forced to speak on your customers' behalf, which would include writing a message. So yes, I would be fine with a baker turning a black person who wanted 'support traditional marriage' written on a cake. Same with one who wanted 'support gay marriage' written, or 'I have Bieber fever'. What I do not support is people violating the law and refusing to serve whole classes of people and I don't support people opting out of having to follow the law because of their religion.

If religious people can opt out of generally applicable laws then I shouldn't have to pay taxes because Jesus told me not to in a dream. This is why the Hobby Lobby decision was so, so bad.

Well then you effectively have given an infinite number of means to refuse service to those protected classes, you just need to find a plausible excuse based on some "speech" factor and away you go. I'm not making the cake for you because you're black, it's because you want "X" written on it. Oh now you want "Y" written on it, I object to that speech also. Ad infinitum.

 

[ivwshane]

Bigots unable to figure out how bigotry works, color me surprised.

 

[fskimospy]

Well then you effectively have given an infinite number of means to refuse service to those protected classes, you just need to find a plausible excuse based on some "speech" factor and away you go. I'm not making the cake for you because you're black, it's because you want "X" written on it. Oh now you want "Y" written on it, I object to that speech also. Ad infinitum.

It's bizarre that you think the courts are so stupid as to not see through that.

I mean what did you think, if you rejected everything they wanted on a cake and said every time 'it's because I object to the speech!' that the courts were going to say 'WELL OKAY GLENN, YOU GOT US - I GUESS THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO KNOW!' Hahaha, I mean come on man, think this through. When someone robs a bank they usually deny it when caught. Do the courts just say 'well he said he didn't do it so I guess that's that! CASE DISMISSED'.

 

[glenn1]

It's bizarre that you think the courts are so stupid as to not see through that.

I mean what did you think, if you rejected everything they wanted on a cake and said every time 'it's because I object to the speech!' that the courts were going to say 'WELL OKAY GLENN, YOU GOT US - I GUESS THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO KNOW!' Hahaha, I mean come on man, think this through. When someone robs a bank they usually deny it when caught. Do the courts just say 'well he said he didn't do it so I guess that's that! CASE DISMISSED'.

Yep you sure got me, after you hire and spend several thousands on a lawyer and months of time, eventually I might be forced to make a $50 cake for you long after your event has taken place. Presuming the jury agrees with you. That will really learn me if you were to do that.

 

[jackstar7]

Yep you sure got me, after you hire and spend several thousands on a lawyer and months of time, eventually I might be forced to make a $50 cake for you long after your event has taken place. Presuming the jury agrees with you. That will really learn me if you were to do that.

Heh. So many people are going to take all your stuff.

 

[glenn1]

Heh. So many people are going to take all your stuff.

Yep, because all the banks who redline and refuse loans to minorities today are consistently having people "take all their stuff." Must be why they have such large buildings in every city. And obviously the Masterpiece cakeshop owner had all his stuff taken and doesn't even have a store to sell baked goods anymore also.