SCOTUS sides with Masterpiece Cakeshop, 7-2

[glenn1]

I'm following what you're saying, but the SCOTUS didn't really way in on that. They merely defined a case where the Colorado anti-discrimination law conflicts with the first amendment freedoms of the store owner because, owing to gay marriage not being legal at the time, making the cake would represent speech indicating the position of the baker in conflict with his religious expression. Without the CO law, it's my impression that they could discriminate against serving them any way they wished for any reason. Which poses an interesting question. In the absence of legal protection, are there people who cannot find services from anyone? Is that ok? Imagine this were 20 years earlier in the South. Would it be acceptable for them to be able to find no one to make them a cake at all?

Of course, there are plenty of social pariahs who get refused service all the time for something inflammatory they said on Facebook or whatnot. The main difference is they may not represent a protected class for equal accommodation laws. Which as I said it likely to lead to the result that LGBTQ folks will still be discriminated against, only business owners will know better than to make opposition to their LGBTQ identity the stated reason they're being refused service. In some cases that may be impossible (@fskimospy's restaurant example) but there's nothing saying one needs to accept every offer of future work presuming you're not overtly saying "I'm refusing this work because you're gay." The person will just say "sorry I'm going on vacation on that period" or "I'm already booked for that day" to which discrimination laws won't apply.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The issue the baker had was not with making a cake for a gay couple. It had something to do with what they wanted put on the cake(or something of that nature).

I see both sides of this really. I mean, if you were a jewish cake baker, would you accept a request by a white supremist to have nazi symbols on a cake?

As a comparison - certain local newspapers, and other local businesses with religious bias refuse to do service with a local adult book store because it goes against their beliefs. Free speech goes both ways and people like to forget that.

If someone doesn't want to serve you, in most cases the answer is simple. Go somewhere else that will. They don't need/deserve your business. It doesn't need to be blown up into a wasteful court dispute. Obviously there are caveats to this - such as necessary things (like water, electric, etc).

 

[fskimospy]

The issue the baker had was not with making a cake for a gay couple. It had something to do with what they wanted put on the cake(or something of that nature).

I see both sides of this really. I mean, if you were a jewish cake baker, would you accept a request by a white supremist to have nazi symbols on a cake?

A few things:

1) It did not have anything to do with what they wanted to put on the cake, the cake shop categorically refused service because they wished to purchase a wedding cake. (the couple never got to the point where they were even able to tell them what they would want on the cake)

2) This is a misunderstanding of public accommodation laws and the first amendment. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone for being a white supremacist and it is perfectly legal to decline to decorate a cake in the way someone requests so you really aren't seeing both sides here as everything you described is legal under current laws. What this was akin to was saying that they would not provide service to someone who was black marrying a white person because they don't agree with interracial marriage.

As a comparison - certain local newspapers, and other local businesses with religious bias refuse to do service with a local adult book store because it goes against their beliefs. Free speech goes both ways and people like to forget that.

Again, all perfectly legal under current laws.

If someone doesn't want to serve you, in most cases the answer is simple. Go somewhere else that will. They don't need/deserve your business. It doesn't need to be blown up into a wasteful court dispute. Obviously there are caveats to this - such as necessary things (like water, electric, etc).

Do you think black people in the 1960's should have just said 'I guess those white people don't want to serve us' and accepted it?

 

[HomerJS]

The issue the baker had was not with making a cake for a gay couple. It had something to do with what they wanted put on the cake(or something of that nature).

I see both sides of this really. I mean, if you were a jewish cake baker, would you accept a request by a white supremist to have nazi symbols on a cake?

As a comparison - certain local newspapers, and other local businesses with religious bias refuse to do service with a local adult book store because it goes against their beliefs. Free speech goes both ways and people like to forget that.

If someone doesn't want to serve you, in most cases the answer is simple. Go somewhere else that will. They don't need/deserve your business. It doesn't need to be blown up into a wasteful court dispute. Obviously there are caveats to this - such as necessary things (like water, electric, etc).

What about the pharmacist who refused to provide birth control because of religious objections? Maybe that's why no ruling on the broad question.

 

[glenn1]

What about the pharmacist who refused to provide birth control because of religious objections? Maybe that's why no ruling on the broad question.

Perhaps you can link to the specifics but IMHO saying you won't carry/sell a type of product/service to anyone because of religious reasons is different than saying you will carry/sell that product/service and sell to certain people and not to others because of that religious reason. Not selling contraceptives might make you a lousy pharmacist but not a discriminatory one; whereas refusing to sell contraceptives to teenage black girls "for God" is discriminatory.

 

[Perknose]

What seemed off about it? I'll change the wording if it's easily misinterpreted.

Say whaa? Seriously? You don't see how that sentence could be mistinterpreted?

But... The ACLU explicitly has a program for discrimination against Muslims.

You don't need to change it, as your fellow posters know you are not a right wing bloviator . . . but "against" would be far clearer than "for" imho.

Example:

But . . . The KKK explicitly has a program for discrimination against Blacks.

 

[interchange]

What about the pharmacist who refused to provide birth control because of religious objections? Maybe that's why no ruling on the broad question.

Dunno about the case details here. My thought is that this seems simple to not require a legal protection against. An employer can fire him, and insurers can terminate contracts with him to cover him providing meds to anyone. Otherwise, if he wants to own his own shop where everyone plays cash, I don't care what he does. As to the insurers piece, I don't know how their contacts are typically worded. Might not be legal to terminate for that reason and would have to choose not to renew. I'm thinking this because pharmacies don't carry every possible medication, and I don't think refusing to obtain it is necessarily a violation. For example, clozapine is not a controlled substance but requires an online course to get access to the registry for lab draws, and dispensing it without doing so would be a liability, so I could absolutely understand a pharmacy refusing to do that. Otherwise, I don't know the malpractice liability of pharmacists, but they do serve a role in counseling patients on meds, so I think something being out of the scope of their comfort in expertise would be reasonable to refuse.

 

[IronWing]

But he was being forced to contribute fully grown cake cells which are precious and must be protected from gayness at all costs.

In this, he is protecting all of us. Nobody, nobody, likes fruit cake.

 

[interchange]

Say whaa? Seriously? You don't see how that sentence could be mistinterpreted?

You don't need to change it, as your fellow posters know you are not a right wing bloviator . . . but "against" would be far clearer than "for" imho.

Haha. I added a word to clarify. Yeah it's obvious when pointed out, but since I clearly knew what their intentions were I didn't see the ambiguity. Also, I didn't look very hard.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Perhaps you can link to the specifics but IMHO saying you won't carry/sell a type of product/service to anyone because of religious reasons is different than saying you will carry/sell that product/service and sell to certain people and not to others because of that religious reason. Not selling contraceptives might make you a lousy pharmacist but not a discriminatory one; whereas refusing to sell contraceptives to teenage black girls "for God" is discriminatory.

If it is across the board? I think that is their right. There are alternative places. I don't agree with it, but you can't have it both ways. You have to have a pretty devoted mindset to refuse service to a whole group of people in a time when getting customers and staying in business can be very difficult, but many religious zealots are pretty stubborn and proud.

 

[JSt0rm]

the cake maker played the "Im an artist" angle and the sc agreed you cant force an artist to do art. Makes sense.

 

[brycejones]

the cake maker played the "Im an artist" angle and the sc agreed you cant force an artist to do art. Makes sense.

This is good news for bigoted Subway sandwich artists everywhere.

 

[deathBOB]

In this, he is protecting all of us. Nobody, nobody, likes fruit cake.

Soak it in enough rum and it becomes edible.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This ruling has very little to do with free speech or religious freedom.

It has everything to do with flaws in the proceedings presided by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is why the ruling is so narrow.

 

[ImpulsE69]

This ruling has very little to do with free speech or religious freedom.

It has everything to do with flaws in the proceedings presided by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is why the ruling is so narrow.

Yea, they explained that this ruling was simply that they didn't agree with how they handled it. The bigger questions are still up in the air.

 

[IronWing]

Soak it in enough rum and it becomes edible.

I'm not going there, nopers, not going there.

 

[theeedude]

This ruling has very little to do with free speech or religious freedom.
It has everything to do with flaws in the proceedings presided by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is why the ruling is so narrow.

They chickened out on making the ruling they wanted to make, because they know it's a lost cause. The two liberals were nice enough to give them a fig leaf so they could punt it.

 

[Noah Abrams]

They chickened out on making the ruling they wanted to make, because they know it's a lost cause. The two liberals were nice enough to give them a fig leaf so they could punt it.

You need to at least try to get out of the persecution complex. There are some principled, honest people as SC Justices. It’s one thing to disagree. Quite another to attack the integrity of people.

 

[theeedude]

You need to at least try to get out of the persecution complex. There are some principled, honest people as SC Justices. It’s one thing to disagree. Quite another to attack the integrity of people.

They are politicians in robes, nothing more. But I guess the robes are enough to fool the rubes.

 

[Atreus21]

Except that he was not asked to be part of the gay wedding, which was in fact held in Massachusetts.

In his opinion he was. The cake is a central aspect of a wedding reception.

 

[Atreus21]

Has the baker ever objected to couples who had pre-marital sex? If not the religious objection is pure bullshit

I don't know, but he has refused making cakes for Halloween on religious grounds.

 

[Noah Abrams]

They are politicians in robes, nothing more. But I guess the robes are enough to fool the rubes.

I could cite many actual SC cases, going back to before you were even born and continuing to this day, to refute the politician in robes. But it seems you have your mind already made up (like most people). People only talk at each other now, not with each other. So I won't waste your time, or mine.

 

[SkyDiver]

It's very confusing to see the court decide in favor of discrimination in this case, but punt of wanting their decision to actually stick.

Why make a decision if you are embarrassed by / do not agree with it in a broader sense?

I'm in Colorado. The case was much more nuanced than a case of rank discrimination.

 

[jackstar7]

The baker did the one of the most un-Christian acts there is, which is to be inhospitable to his neighbors, under the false pretense that his Christian faith required it.
This court may have forgiven him, but there is a higher court still that awaits him.

Wait... where? Do you think the Hague gets involved? Or the Vatican?

I'm confused.


(p.s. not confused)

 

[theeedude]

I could cite many actual SC cases, going back to before you were even born and continuing to this day, to refute the politician in robes. But it seems you have your mind already made up (like most people). People only talk at each other now, not with each other. So I won't waste your time, or mine.

Same court that rules along party lines most of the time. Issues rulings like Bush v. Gore and then says this is not a precedent, we are only doing it for this one time when it fits our politics. Where non-ideological centrists like Garland are barred from the court while ideologues cherry picked by Heritage foundation take seat. Go peddle that BS somewhere else. They are politicians, nothing more, you like their politics, fine, but you aren't fooling anyone.