You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A public business that provides products and services that are considered public accommodations (lodging, food, drink, entertainment) cannot discriminate on any arbitrary basis.

Cakes are not public accommodations.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Gotta get the repressive cultural rednecks though man. No one likes people of faith. Shine the light of their own discrimination onto them, let the world see them, and charge..

ridiculous that this is even a thing. when they are obviously targeting people they themselves disagree with.

communion, baptism, bar-mitzvahs and such are religious issues I have a problem with the idea that marriage is a religious issue for a number of reason, first of which being that one does not have to be a believer of any religion to desire to be married, or to understand the advantages of being married. even non-believing pagans selected partners and grew families. no religion was necessary to define what it was. the fact is that the earliest documents of marriages reflect more of a contractual agreement between the husband to be and the father of the bride.. and contracts usually are governed in the realm of the civil gov'ts and not the religion.
religions come in and more or less define the picture of what a moral, godly, marriage is in their view. that doesn't mean that marriages that don't abide by that picture they portray ain't marriages, which it really seems some christians seem to want to be saying but just don't have the nerve to. freedom dictates that I can buy your picture of marriage, or I can reject it in favor of my own idea of what marriage is... weather or not your personally see my view of marriage as being moral or godly, is your decision but in no way should it effect my rights as an individual holding equal rights.

what is at question here though is to what extent does making a cake, refusing to tow a damaged car, providing birth control pills or insurance that covers them, referring a patient to a place that provides abortions, equate to taking part in that sin, and well, just how adversely a person's decision to not want to "take part" should be allowed to effect the refused.

yes, there is probably another bakery in the area that will bake the poor gay couple their wedding cake... ya, in time the disabled lady managed to have someone come with a tow truck and tow their car... but does that religious freedom go to the extent where your refusals to provide services because of your religious beliefs actually endanger people's lives and causes adverse health effects? IS there any line that can't be crossed in the quest for religious freedom?

originally posted by: SummerRain

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A public business that provides products and services that are considered public accommodations (lodging, food, drink, entertainment) cannot discriminate on any arbitrary basis.

Cakes are not public accommodations.

Yes, any food when offered to the public for sale is a public accommodation, as is drink, lodging and most entertainment.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a religious issue with government paperwork for tax and identity reasons.

That's an opinion, not a fact.

a reply to: scrounger

Before claiming that someone else is lying, perhaps you should get your facts straight:

The purchase of food from a public vendor is certainly a matter of public accommodation and is therefore, in all meaningful ways, a legal right.

The couple asked for a cake for a reception not a wedding but their intent for the cake is their business, not the bakers.

The baker refused their request based on their sexual orientation and stated this openly.

Sexual orientation (among others) is a protected class in Colorado (and 21 other States thus far) precisely because of beliefs/practices that unfairly discriminate on arbitrary bases and treat Americans as second-class citizens.

Remove the beam from thine own eye, etc. etc.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: scrounger

Before claiming that someone else is lying, perhaps you should get your facts straight:

The purchase of food from a public vendor is certainly a matter of public accommodation and is therefore, in all meaningful ways, a legal right.

The couple asked for a cake for a reception not a wedding but their intent for the cake is their business, not the bakers.

The baker refused their request based on their sexual orientation and stated this openly.

Sexual orientation (among others) is a protected class in Colorado (and 21 other States thus far) precisely because of beliefs/practices that unfairly discriminate on arbitrary bases and treat Americans as second-class citizens.

Remove the beam from thine own eye, etc. etc.

Custom ordering would fall under a private individual contract. So, No, the baking of a custom cake is NOT a public accommodation. The baker offered the couple to purchase one of their standard public accommodating cakes...which the couple refused.

I am thankful that the Supreme Court obviously could see the difference.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

Custom ordering would fall under a private individual contract. So, No, the baking of a custom cake is NOT a public accommodation. The baker offered the couple to purchase one of their standard public accommodating cakes...which the couple refused.

I am thankful that the Supreme Court obviously could see the difference.

Several levels of jurisprudence disagree with your interpretation. A cake of any type is a food item, and the baker holds out to the public to make cakes of all kinds including custom designs as part of their public business. Public accommodation most definitely does cover food items offered for sale to the public.

SCOTUS specifically stated that the issue here was that a) Colorado attacked the man's religious rights (which is unconstitutional) while at the same time b) making the statement that Colorado CAN protect the rights of all citizens (including gay ones) to be treated fairly.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: scrounger

The couple asked for a cake for a reception not a wedding...

That is an excellent point.... and I feel a little dumb for not thinking about this before.

The cake has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage ceremony. At least to the best of my knowledge, there is no faith whose ceremony requires cake... or any civil wedding procedure that mandates the presence of cake. The cake is not part of the wedding/marriage. By the time the cake is cut, the marriage is a done deal. So in that sense, I don't see how decorating a cake violates anyone's faith. The cake does not help anyone get married or make it possible for anyone to get married. And, conversely, the lack of a cake has no bearing on the wedding/marriage. So, technically, refusing to make the cake isn't about refusing to take part in a wedding, but about refusing to contribute to the celebration of that marriage.

Having said that, though, I still firmly believe that anyone and everyone is free to decide who they will and will not work for... for any reason they so choose -- even stupid reasons. And I still firmly believe that we would ALL be better served by finding ways to encourage and promote nondiscrimination in the market, rather than punishing and hurting those who do discriminate.

P.S. So good to see you again, Gryph!!!

a reply to: Gryphon66

The purchase of food from a public vendor is certainly a matter of public accommodation and is therefore, in all meaningful ways, a legal right.

Gotta love those feelings accepted as facts by many.

I have never heard of a right to food. I do not think it would work since they charge money to hunt on public lands.

a reply to: Boadicea

My personal belief is that I don't want to give money to anyone who considers me a second-class citizen. However, I also believe in the rights of the people of a State to make legal decisions, and in CO, those people have decided that it is illegal to discriminate in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

As I've said many times, IF the baker had simply declined to make the cake, with no explanation of reason (I don't think the law requires anyone to explain their justification for not performing work) there would not have been a legal issue here.

Further, all rights have limits. Speech, expression, the press, etc. The limit of any right is the point at which it HARMS another.

The question (and it is a decent one) regards whether it is a matter of RELIGION or simply of PERSONAL BELIEF (and there is a distinction to be made there) that making a cake for a sinner is a sin.

I would like to see an equitable answer to that question, but would agree with SCOTUS that it was not a matter to be settled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

a reply to: howtonhawky

You should learn what public accomodation is; the actual meaning is relevant here.

As it is, you're merely arguing from ignorance.

EDIT: Please note, I am not calling you ignorant, however, your argument that you've never heard of something is not a valid reason to believe it doesn't exist. Google "Colorado Public Accomodation law" and you'll see what we're discussing.

a reply to: dawnstar

...but does that religious freedom go to the extent where your refusals to provide services because of your religious beliefs actually endanger people's lives and causes adverse health effects? IS there any line that can't be crossed in the quest for religious freedom?

That's a very good question and one I've given much thought. But what it always comes down to for me is that no one should ever deny others that which they need for life and well-being.... and that should be the law. No religion involved. If you have the only gas station for 50 miles, and you know that unless you sell this person gas they're going to run out of gas in the middle of nowhere, thus endangering their life and well-being, then it's wrong. Doesn't matter if it's for religious reasons, or because you're against miscegenation, or you hate their gender, or any other reason. What matters is the life and well-being of others.

So to that extent, by all means we should have so-called "Good Samaritan" laws. But not based solely on religion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: howtonhawky

You should learn what public accomodation is; the actual meaning is relevant here.

As it is, you're merely arguing from ignorance.

EDIT: Please note, I am not calling you ignorant, however, your argument that you've never heard of something is not a valid reason to believe it doesn't exist. Google "Colorado Public Accomodation law" and you'll see what we're discussing.

Are you trying to claim that gayers are a special class of peoples?

Sexual orientation seems to be absent from your accommodation laws.

The truth is that an owner can close their doors to anyone they wish as long as they do not say why.

out to lunch

a reply to: Boadicea

The issue is simpler for me. Does a religion have established proscriptions against certain kinds of business?

There is a distinction between religious freedom and personal interpretation.

Further, the First Amendment requires government to be neutral towards religion ... but the matter is well-established that religious belief does not supercede the rule-of-law UNLESS that law has directly targetted religion.

a reply to: Boadicea

we do have laws against monopolies and laws against cruelty and such.

i think we have plenty of laws and can not keep track of them and do not apply them correctly so we just create more laws and end up with a bigger mess.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: howtonhawky

You should learn what public accomodation is; the actual meaning is relevant here.

As it is, you're merely arguing from ignorance.

EDIT: Please note, I am not calling you ignorant, however, your argument that you've never heard of something is not a valid reason to believe it doesn't exist. Google "Colorado Public Accomodation law" and you'll see what we're discussing.

Are you trying to claim that gayers are a special class of peoples?

Sexual orientation seems to be absent from your accommodation laws.

The truth is that an owner can close their doors to anyone they wish as long as they do not say why.

out to lunch

Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado and 21 other states: that is a fact.

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act directly proves that your post is mistaken in this specific matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

My personal belief is that I don't want to give money to anyone who considers me a second-class citizen.

Fair enough. I sure don't want to give anyone my money who considers me a second-class citizen either. And I don't want to give anyone my money who considers YOU a second-class citizen.... or anyone a second-class citizen.

But I would much rather know exactly who that is, so that I can walk away and take my business to someone who does not consider anyone a second-class citizen. And so that everyone else so inclined can do the same. Let the fools do what they will -- as long as we don't have to be part of it!

However, I also believe in the rights of the people of a State to make legal decisions, and in CO, those people have decided that it is illegal to discriminate in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yes, they have decided such. And I actually consider this SC decision to be a supreme copout. Perhaps worse, because I'm pretty sure the SC ignored the actual arguments of the baker to rule in this very narrow fashion. They were cowards and refused to address the most fundamental issue: Does a state have the right to violate the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and I would say no. States have those rights and powers not enumerated in the Constitution. And this right is enumerated, therefore every state must abide by such.

Good ol' "Let's get the government to handle it!"

Government interventions, themselves, are not believers of or biased towards the power of markets and the goodness of people. If you look at the role of government, after much debate, at the beginning of our nation... the role of government was intentionally very small, and the majority of the influence on the lives on the people were handled at the state level.

Remember when Rand Paul made his controversial remarks, about the Civil Rights Bill was wrong in limiting a private business from denying service to anyone for any reason... including race?

If it HAD been written that way... then what would the impact of "markets and the goodness of people" been on businesses that refused to serve blacks... or bakeries that refused to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings?

Well, for those businesses... it would be akin to speech, and folks in the community that had a problem with it would be able to choose to NOT shop there. It's probable that other folks would open up businesses that WOULD serve that unserved market.

In my own case, if I found out a business I patronized wouldn't serve some folks because of the color of their skin... I would no longer do business there.

People and markets. They take care of everything... until the government finally goes the extra inches and controls everything we think... and they ARE working on it and are well down that road!

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Boadicea

we do have laws against monopolies and laws against cruelty and such.

i think we have plenty of laws and can not keep track of them and do not apply them correctly so we just create more laws and end up with a bigger mess.

I agree. And we keep making more such laws -- with no regard for the overlap or contradictions with standing laws. Quite profitable for attorneys... but that's about the only ones it benefits.

Much like "hate crime" laws. It's not wrong to beat someone up some people and okay to beat up others... it's wrong for everyone to beat up anyone! Unless it's done in self-defense (or defense of others), it's wrong. Not because of race or religion or sexual orientation or any other nitpicky reason. It's just wrong. Period.