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

[Cerilis]

So, what if every baker in that area refuses to service them on that basis?

[Jagscorpion]

This kind of seems like the same as a photographer refusing to participate in an adult video shoot. The objections would be entirely on the morality side of things. Does he have protection under law if the company decides to sue?

[mickybrighteyes]

So, what if every baker in that area refuses to service them on that basis?

Then that's a different discussion than a single business and that single business' practices...

To be honest, it's not a good thing to sit there and strong arm people into contracted business they don't want to perform.

[Eazy]

So private businesses can put signs up saying "No blacks" then?

There should've been regulations about that.

[Adp]

I patiently await the day we see signs of "No Jews" or "No Christians" or "No Catholics" in these small business's windows. Wouldn't the doctrine of one religion forbid the support of other religions/religious ceremonies? Can we use this vague "sincerely held religious belief" as a license to discriminate on religions themselves?

Are we just refusing to see the value in business non discrimination law or is that scenario what we really want. People seem to have this way of letting their own biases get in the way of enjoying happiness. It's not about freedom of religion really. You're free to practice your own religion in your personal life. It's wanting the freedom to act on being afraid of other people in public.

You say the market will correct the issue? Why even bother with the market and go through the whole song and dance of businesses closing down because they are run by people who don't understand they need customers to be profitable. In a sense, the law is saving them from their own incompetence.

[Halyon]

If they are not going to have their business open to the public at large, they should not be eligible for any kind of taxpayer funded incentives. Be it a small business program or a tax deduction or some other kind of publically funded incentive.

They are open to the public at large... Fairly certain that gay wedding cakes are in the minority. (Nothing wrong with being gay at all btw)

It's fair that private business owners cater to those they want to cater to, but it's also fair in return that they get called out on that they do it, so if they lose business, that's fair as well. Private business.

I think it's retarded, but it's not worth my energy to get riled up over.

[Lillyth]

What is it with Americans and these issues? If you dont want to service someone in Germany, it is your right to say so. Meanwhile in America its apparently a crime.

[ravenswood]

This kind of seems like the same as a photographer refusing to participate in an adult video shoot. The objections would be entirely on the morality side of things. Does he have protection under law if the company decides to sue?

They are not even remotely the same thing. In this case, they are refusing to sell Product A to Consumer B, despite providing Product A to all other consumer types. In your case, a photographer is refusing to provide a service that they don't even offer. It's simply not something that is offered to anyone, so no discrimination is taking place.

[AeneasBK]

It's fair that private business owners cater to those they want to cater to, but it's also fair in return that they get called out on that they do it, so if they lose business, that's fair as well. Private business.

If a business wishes to be private it should not be allowed to advertise as a public business in any form; and this includes a sign on the shop front or listing in free-ads. You want it private, you run it private, you want it public then it is PUBLIC.

[TITAN308]

Yeah, and I am now very clear as to why you hold the beliefs you do.

As oppose to what? You? Someone who needs the government to run their life?

Let me guess, you did quite a bit of running to authority as a kid?

Let the business sink or swim on its own based on their business practices. Stop running and crying to the government over everything.

[McFuu]

Everyone keeps getting bent out of shape like this is a discrimination ruling that allows discrimination. It is absolutely not, it's a ruling supporting religious freedom and artistic rights. Stop getting acting as if this is the second coming Jim Crow.
This is the correct ruling and should have been made by the lower courts. It's also a unique ruling that applies to such a small amount of businesses that the outrage in this thread is laughable. Florists, cardmakers, and bakeries seems to be the limit of people who can legitimately say their religion is a decision factor in their service. Maybe a tailor/dress maker as well, of the circumstances were right.

[nyc81991]

Why would they even want a homophobic person to make their wedding cake? I would never want to pay for any service that didn't accept me.

The homophobic baker is only hurting his own business because there are plenty of bakers that will make it.

[TITAN308]

Why would they even want a homophobic person to make their wedding cake? I would never want to pay for any service that didn't accept me.

Why do you think?

$$$

Turns out gay people can be greedy fucks just like everyone else.

[randomnamegenerator16]

So, what if every baker in that area refuses to service them on that basis?

Reductio ad absurdum, not a real argument.

[Morssoe]

Just out of curiosity but why wouldn't he be allowed to? Because it hurts people's feelings or are there legit legal ramifications for refusing his services?

They have made legal way to harass other ppl.

[Najnaj]

This is why it went to court, and why it isn't so black and white. The court happens to agree with me, and I've been trying to explain why. I'm going to steal Lemposs' post again. We disagree with each other I think on the ruling, but he put it really better than I ever can:

One isn't denying you service based on your sexual orientation, the other is a "fair" discrimination since you aren't obliged to accept specialty work whose inherent message goes against your belief.

Edit: Lemposs stealing my thunder again and posting basically what I wanted to say before me. Jerk!

I have said this before but clearly you need to hear it again. Think before you type.

I want to stress that I am not saying this to be rude. I honestly do not think that you are either homophobic or racist. I do however think that you took a stance and did not really understand it or think it through. If this ruling stays it opens up doors that are dangerous and far reaching. It sets a precedent that clearly states that the beliefs I hold for reasons I do not have to justify or explain are more important than your rights. I should not have to point out that the track record of religion vs minorities isn't exactly uplifting reading. It includes such high-points in human history as burning Jews alive, killing people with learning disabilities (especially down's syndrome) and inserting red hot metal objects into "sodomites" anuses. We got rid of this bit by bit starting 300 years ago and we should not go back. We never want to be in a situation again where my personal beliefs are as important or more important than your person. It is simply not acceptable at any level and this includes something as seemingly trivial as a gay wedding cake.

What you are saying here is that a person that you can get your religion (any religion, druidism, scientology etc) to take a stance against in one way or another can be denied things that are not considered essential. Imagine walking into a restaurant and be offered different menus based on personal (and some not personal at all) traits you have no control over. There is zero difference between different cake options for gays and special Muslim menus. Add to this the total lack of accountability for faith and we are entering some very murky waters.

Religious freedom means that you have the right to THINK what ever you want. It does not mean that you have the right to enforce those thoughts onto other human beings against their will. It is very similar to freedom of speech, you can say (with some restrictions) "kill all blacks" but you can not kill all blacks. You are allowed to think that gays do not deserve weddings but you can not deny gays weddings.

This is how it is and how it is supposed to be. Any deviation from this model in any direction is simply wrong. We do not have the right to dictate thought or behavior of others based on race, religion, sexuality or gender or any reason which the person has no control over that poses no threat to others. Any person that thinks they can dig up Leviticus (which undeniably is bronze age mythology at its worst) and cherry pick from it to tell others what they can and can not do should not be given a slap on the hand, they should be prosecuted. For a judge to say that this is OK behavior is just shocking.

By the way, judging from your pic I assume that you are a woman. Here is a little fun reading on special female troubles from Leviticus.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/l...ticus+15:19-33

Get ready to burn some pigeons next time you have your period! After all, if the gay bits stay then so does this.

[Halyon]

If a business wishes to be private it should not be allowed to advertise as a public business in any form; and this includes a sign on the shop front or listing in free-ads. You want it private, you run it private, you want it public then it is PUBLIC.

The private part means that it's privately owned. It can be privately owned and open to the public in general. It's usually not like you don't have a choice between businesses either... In this case, there are more than 1 bakery to choose from. Granted it's not an excuse, but you're not excluded from getting a cake from all bakeries, so complain over the one you wanted initially, move on and get a cake somewhere else.

- - - Updated - - -

They have made legal way to harass other ppl.

Nobody's harassing anyone dude...

[AeneasBK]

The private part means that it's privately owned. It can be privately owned and open to the public in general. It's usually not like you don't have a choice between businesses either... In this case, there are more than 1 bakery to choose from. Granted it's not an excuse, but you're not excluded a cake from all bakeries, so complain over the one you wanted initially, move on and get a cake somewhere else.

Sorry I'm a bit brainfarted from not sleeping yet (trying to get to sundown before I crash) I didn't mean that what I posted is how things currently are; I just thought this argument that it was a private business and should be allowed to pick adn choose custom was a little "having the cake and eating it too" seeing as the "private" business is more than happy to make use of public channels to grow; but wants to use the "privately owned" card to allow it to do as it pleases.

I'm sure people think privately owned businesses should have to comply with, for example, safety laws, so why not anti-discrimination laws? If you don't feel you can hack making cakes for people you take religious differences with, I'm suggesting you have no business, operating a business. I could word this better, sorry again. In the same way that if you don't feel you can abide by food safety regulations you shouldn't be running a bakery, etc.

[Xandrigity]

Good. I think refusing to make a cake for a gay couple is stupid and petty, but no one should be legally obligated to make one.

Pretty much how I feel. It’s become just about trying to milk money out of it now.

[Babadoo]

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

Is Neo Nazi White Supremacist the Libtard meme of 2017?

infracted - trolling