Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[Najnaj]

The problem with this is that the bakery didn't refuse to serve the person individually. The person requested a "Gay themed" wedding cake that the went against the owners religious beliefs. Thus, this wasn't an act of discrimination against someone who is gay, but a refusal due to the theme of the request.

..and that is textbook discrimination if the same service is offered to other people... no matter how much bolding you use.

[Deleted]

There's some resent articles out there that interviewed the owner.

That's not exactly a source. But okay.

[Hugnomo]

I wonder how many of these people applauding the decision were triggered by the women-only Wonder Woman screening.

[Najnaj]

In the end, this is a good ruling because it sets the precedent of favoring the business in these situations. They are the ones providing the service; let the free market do its thing. If you can't get the service you want, take your business elsewhere.

To put it differently, you are totally OK with a "No Jews" sign in a shop window. Hey, just take your business elsewhere ....

[ravenswood]

This is my point about the "Free Market." The best business could still be the one that discriminates against the gay community. In this case they provide the best service to the majority while simultaneously they are denying this superior service to a minority group. I don't see how you can rationally accept this very real possibility.

I don't mean to pester you but the response "If that happens I'd suck it up and other gay people should too" doesn't seem to sit right. This issue can seriously disenfranchise minority groups economically.

the point is that business could never be the best if it is actively discriminating against minority groups, because those who aren't excluded would refuse to shop there.

[jibberbox85]

..and that is textbook discrimination if the same service is offered to other people... no matter how much bolding you use.

Not sure how it's "TextBook" You're only seeing it from your side of the spectrum, and not the owners. He's not refusing the individual person, but the theme of the wedding was the issue due to their religious beliefs.

[-aiko-]

The best business could still be the one that discriminates against the gay community.

This is why I called it hyperbole before. You're taking it to the extreme and twisting it to fit your narrative. I'm going to bold this sentence for you: there was no discrimination here. The baker didn't kick the gay couple out for being gay, they could have received service and purchased a different type of cake. The baker was refusing to create a specialty cake for a theme that went against his own personal beliefs and that should be his right.

[Sormine]

the point is that business could never be the best if it is actively discriminating against minority groups, because those who aren't excluded would refuse to shop there.

There's nothing that says a business would do poorly simply because they discriminated against a group. Especially in more rural areas where certain indecencies would be tolerated based on necessity of what the business was selling.

[PosPosPos]

There are very few examples of a product or service that does not have a viable alternative. I was raised in one of the most rural areas of the 48 states, and I had viable shopping alternatives.

Oh yes, Machismo "I love slavery" Schmo and his usual stuck up "I don't have a problem, so it's impossible for you to have a problem too".

[-aiko-]

To put it differently, you are totally OK with a "No Jews" sign in a shop window. Hey, just take your business elsewhere ....

Personally? Yes, I am okay with it. I would hope the backlash would run the business to the ground, but I do believe they should have that right.

That's not comparable to what actually happened here, however, so it's irrelevant.

[Sormine]

This is why I called it hyperbole before. You're taking it to the extreme and twisting it to fit your narrative. I'm going to bold this sentence for you: there was no discrimination here. The baker didn't kick the gay couple out for being gay, they could have received service and purchased a different type of cake. The baker was refusing to create a specialty cake for a theme that went against his own personal beliefs and that should be his right.

This was a hypothetical situation that you initially answered in an accepting manner. I understand that what my scenario is describing isn't what literally happened, but there's not much suggesting that my scenario couldn't happen, the way these rulings have been going. It's not hyperbole to assume that a business could still do well for itself despite discrimination being a tolerable subject.

Again consider an electric company that provides the only electricity service in the county, or perhaps a cable company.

[s_bushido]

Could you clarify your point? I don't understand what you mean. I'd appreciate it.

Vaccines have been effective and reducing preventable disease. Anti-vaxxers see that disease is less widespread so feel free to perpetuate their brand of bullshit (vaccines cause autism).

Anti-discrimination laws have been effective at reducing institutionalized discrimination. Bigots (and the ignorant) see that discrimination is less widespread so feel free to perpetuate their brand of bullshit (muh religious freedom > your rights).

[The Penguin]

Yes, the head of the DOJ is a Trump appointed Neo Nazi White Supremacist, yeah shocking.

The salt here is real. Disagreeing with your limited iewpoint does not make one a Neo-Nazi or a White Supremacist. It does showcase how immature you are however. I only wonder if the self-proclaimed 'wise Latina' (her words) was on the right side of history, or if she's going to be shilling it out for Obama and the Alt-Left to the bitter end.

All in all a good day for religious liberty. I don't mind gay people, and I might bake them a cake. But if I choose not to, that is my right. Please don't try to shove your views upon me like some new-age rapist who doesn't grasp that "No means no", and then strive to use the Courts to punish me because I refuse to be party to your pursuit of happiness at the cost of my own. If the community dislikes what the Baker did, they can refuse to do business with him. That is enough.

[ravenswood]

There's nothing that says a business would do poorly simply because they discriminated against a group. Especially in more rural areas where certain indecencies would be tolerated based on necessity of what the business was selling.

You don't think a business' reputation matters? You don't think consumers would think twice about buying products from a business that is discriminatory to minority groups? You wouldn't feel different about buying your pizza from that place across the steeet if you found out they refused service to black people?

[-aiko-]

Again consider an electric company that provides the only electricity service in the county, or perhaps a cable company.

The problem with comparing the situation to these types of companies is that it does not work. There is no artistic expression for an electricity service or cable company.

[Sormine]

The problem with comparing the situation to these types of companies is that it does not work. There is no artistic expression for an electricity service or cable company.

Okay fine, a restaurant. Michelin star restaurants have a perfectly valid argument to claim that their work is artistic expression. Should they be allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation?

[Deleted]

So just read up on the first court case that this went through, and it actually makes a somewhat fair point. So an open business can't discriminate in the case of a specialty service, if said item go against their belief in its usage or user. It can however discriminate against it message or its creation process.

So you can't deny service if the product you are asked to make goes against your religious belief in its usage (gay wedding) or its user (gay person). You can however deny the service if the product is itself against your religious belief, so a gay message sporting cake can be denied (which to be fair, wedding cakes are pretty gay).

[Xar226]

That shit SJWs used to dogpile up on small business owners for not representing them will be shot down by the Supreme Court.

https://archive.fo/tBOF8

I mean, maybe. But the fact that the Solicitor General filed a brief against it really has no bearing on how the Court decides the case.

The main thing that bothers me is that this is the case that's going to be heard. Literally the fucking gay wedding cake thing. Who cares?

The problem is that once you decide it's okay to discriminate against gays, it's hard to stop. I really couldn't care less if a gay couple has to go someplace else for their wedding cake, or doesn't get one at all (and I say that as a gay man). It's rude, and it's stupid, but it's not a serious problem. But where does that end? Not long ago we had country clerks arguing they couldn't sign a marriage certificate for a gay couple despite literally being ordered to by a court. They got around it by finding somebody else in the office who would do it. Is that okay too? What if there's nobody in the clerk's office who wants to sign it -- hardly unheard of for very small or very conservative counties? Is it okay for doctors to discriminate? Those are private businesses. Is it okay for employers to discriminate? Is it okay for a grocery store to discriminate? What if it's the only one in a small town? Can an auto mechanic refuse to fix your car? Can a clinic refuse to administer an employer-mandated drug test and thus effectively kill your chances at a job?

And if not, but you're okay with a baker doing it -- why not?

Much easier to draw a line in the sand. Not because I care whether or not a cake gets made, but because I don't like trying to parse convoluted examples of when something is or is not okay. Nor am I a big fan of the notion that doing something should be completely fine in one circumstance but not fine if too many other people around you do the same.

I don't buy the "businesses should be able to do whatever they want!" angle. There's a reason many of these groups are called minorities, and there's a reason terminology like "tyranny of the majority" exists. The fact that liberals in big cities are really pissed off at Joe's Straight-Only Cake Shop in Mississippi isn't going to change a damn thing for anybody living in Mississippi. And the unfortunate reality is that the places where these things are most likely to happen are also the ones where there is most likely to be very little social or economic pressure for them not to, and the fewest alternatives for people caught in the middle. I don't find it conscionable that by fluke of where you happen to be born that we should accept discrimination, and so I don't.

I just wish it was a less shitty case at the tip of the spear on this issue.

[kasuke06]

Except they have unanimously said the precise opposite.

Except when that was a hotel and deemed directly related to interstate commerce which is within the commerce clause to force the owner to rent rooms to black people.


Please, explain to me how a local cake shop could be construed as interstate commerce?

[Dr Assbandit]

No you're wrong. Being gay is a choice of lifestyle. You can't discriminate against ideas.

Just about as much of a choice it is for you to be straight .