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

The only thing the baker said repeatedly was that he wouldn't fill the guys order because of their sexual orientation.

/shrug That's just the fact. All of the stuff about expression was added in by his attorneys.

They didn't ask for a "wedding cake" they asked for a rainbow layer cake with horendous icing color choices.

originally posted by: canuckster
Nobody has a RIGHT to have a cake made for them. These people could have gone elsewhere to get their cake but chose to be attention shores and martyr themselves over it.

You can be refused service at any private business for any reason deemed fit by the owner. Don't like it? Don't shop there. It isn't your right to be able to, it's a convenience, make your own damn cake.

Actually, in Colorado, places of public accomodation (like a bakery) cannot discriminate, nor can they post signs about "reserving the right to refuse service."

Nowhere in the United States can you be refused service in public accommodation for just "any reason." You're simply mistaken.

a reply to: Gryphon66

you make false claims about the two not being involved

they have been on the tele spreading their hate lately

waa waaa waaaa i can't have cake so i am gonna make the whole straight world uncomfortable

the fem boy is sick in the mouth and the top looks like a very sinister just sitting there without talking

hate is the root of all these suits
and the shop owners are not espousing any hate just personal freedom




eta their is also the spiritual repercussions from being a part of gay marriage if one believes in an electric universe and that humans are energetic beings

would not want to short out

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: canuckster
Nobody has a RIGHT to have a cake made for them. These people could have gone elsewhere to get their cake but chose to be attention shores and martyr themselves over it.

You can be refused service at any private business for any reason deemed fit by the owner. Don't like it? Don't shop there. It isn't your right to be able to, it's a convenience, make your own damn cake.

Actually, in Colorado, places of public accomodation (like a bakery) cannot discriminate, nor can they post signs about "reserving the right to refuse service."

Nowhere in the United States can you be refused service in public accommodation for just "any reason." You're simply mistaken.

Pretty sure - - - Anti-discrimination against LGBT is not Federal (except government employees - minus Trans per Trump order).

It is by state, city, or local areas.

States/areas that do not have LGBT protection - - can legally refuse service to them.

In Arizona (except protected cities/areas) you can fire, refuse housing, refuse service, etc - - - just because a person is LGBT.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing the baker said repeatedly was that he wouldn't fill the guys order because of their sexual orientation.

/shrug That's just the fact. All of the stuff about expression was added in by his attorneys.

They didn't ask for a "wedding cake" they asked for a rainbow layer cake with horendous icing color choices.

wow

you are trying to argue that a reception/rehearsal is not part of a wedding

the hate in the case all around is why the scotus ruled as they did

let go of the hate and let people shop where they are welcome

stop forcing your views on everyone

a reply to: howtonhawky

Good point. I should have said that Charlie Craig and David Mullins haven't been party to any legal action since their initial complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. However, as an ardent defender of Constitutional rights as yourself surely knows, they have a right to make any statements they like privately, in public or to the press.

Craig and Mullins haven't spread hate, that's an absurd interpretation unless you feel that standing on one's civil rights is hateful.

The "whole straight world" isn't uncomfortable. If it is, prove your claim.

Your knowledge of gay relationship roles is fulsome; thanks for explaining - I had no idea of your expertise.

Again, it's not hateful to stand up for one's civil rights.

As much as I would like to hear about the repercussions of gays being married in an "electric universe" sadly that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

What if Dwayne Johnson were approached about doing a movie whereby he played a gay man getting married, and he chose not to do it because he didn't want to support gay marriage in that kind of way. But was clear that he didn't have issue with gay people.

SHould he be sued for failing to provide a service to the LGBT community?

I don't see that as the same.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only thing the baker said repeatedly was that he wouldn't fill the guys order because of their sexual orientation.

/shrug That's just the fact. All of the stuff about expression was added in by his attorneys.

They didn't ask for a "wedding cake" they asked for a rainbow layer cake with horendous icing color choices.

wow

you are trying to argue that a reception/rehearsal is not part of a wedding

the hate in the case all around is why the scotus ruled as they did

let go of the hate and let people shop where they are welcome

stop forcing your views on everyone

Now you're merely repeating yourself and making false statements in your posts. Sorry, I don't waste my time on droning.

If you feel like you're being forced to hear my views, simply stop reading my posts.

/shrug

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

What if Dwayne Johnson were approached about doing a movie whereby he played a gay man getting married, and he chose not to do it because he didn't want to support gay marriage in that kind of way. But was clear that he didn't have issue with gay people.

SHould he be sued for failing to provide a service to the LGBT community?

I don't see that as the same.

That's because it's not ... in any way.

a reply to: Gryphon66

the type of hate i speak of is your need to allow others to force people to do stuff they do not want to do

it is hateful and borderline tyrannical

and you and the like push that agenda in the name of equality all day

you treat unjust and unconstitutional laws as if they are golden calves

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Gryphon66

you treat unjust and unconstitutional laws as if they are golden calves

SCOTUS disagrees.

DP

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I mean, that is not the same kind of service

Of course...The Rock isn't a cake maker.

But the comparison seems to be similar. Should someone be required to do work for someone when they object to it on religious reasons? Not object to the customer themselves, but the work being requested?

a reply to: Annee

Of course not. Because you don't tend to think of an actor as a brand providing a service. But they are. Its exactly what they are.

If someone's religious beliefs prevent them from doing their job, for their own peace of mind, they should find another job.

The "sincerely held religious beliefs" arguments were used to justify segregation as well; the Supreme Court said no this argument as well. Newman vs. Piggy Park, et. al. (1968)

Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus, for example, the "fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants' contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, . . . that the Act was unconstitutional on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung, and defendants' contention that the Act was invalid because it 'contravenes the will of God' and constitutes an interference with the 'free exercise of the Defendant's religion.'"

Emphasis mine.

So now everyone should quit their jobs if they disagree with you.

wow

the hate is strong with this one and the ignorance just fits it perfectly

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think an actor taking a role is a public accomodation?

a reply to: howtonhawky

Homework for you:

Strawman Argument (I have never made the statement you claim I did.)

Ad Hominem Argument (Your focus is on the poster rather than the post.)

Both references are from Wikipedia, so they should be easy to understand.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

Of course not.

Because you don't tend to think of an actor as a brand providing a service. But they are. Its exactly what they are.

I'd call an actor an independent contractor.

If you have a gay role - - the agent can not request a gay or straight actor - - they can only present the script to those who think would represent the role by their acting skills.

Love you, but not gonna agree on this.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think an actor taking a role is a public accomodation?

Considering you're defining privately owned businesses and their privately owned risks as "public accommodations," I don't think it's outside the pale to say actors services are "public accommodations" in your myopic world.