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

[Sormine]

The thing you're leaving out is that the gay couple at the bakery requested a gay themed wedding. People who go to eat at restaurants don't typically request for their food to have a gay theme to it. (Unless maybe it's a gay themed restaurant?)

Also, keep in mind there are lots of gay restaurants of out there that are specifically designed with gay people in mind.

Right but the act of hosting a "Gay Date" itself could be construed as taking part in a gay theme.

[chewie49]

Do you guys honestly feel a business has the right to refuse service based solely on sex? If yes, how do you feel about businesses who refuse service based on race?

Yes, and yes. And people should boycott business that do things which they don't agree with. We shouldn't run to daddy government to FORCE people to do things they don't want to do. This is the morally consistent thing to do. It also works from a practical standpoint: no business that discriminates against others based on arbitrary reasons will succeed in the long run. However, once you start a precedent for government to make people do things they don't wish; it will one day be you who is forced to do something that you don't want to do. Only then will you see the mistake, and it will be too late to correct it.

[jibberbox85]

Right but the act of hosting a "Gay Date" itself could be construed as taking part in a gay theme.

Expect for one has to do with a cake/food the other is with the people themselves.

[Endus]

He didn't deny them ALL service, he refused to bake 1 custom cake with a specific motif that he didn't want to create.

That's not what happened. He refused to bake them any cake, if it would be used in a marriage for gay people. He might have been willing to provide them non-cake services that weren't related to the wedding, but he was still denying service based on sexual orientation.

Colorado State law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, which this was; it's a protected class in that State.

If he'd bake a wedding cake for a straight couple, but refuse to sell the same cake to a gay couple, then he's breaking the law. The Justice Department is in the wrong, and doesn't have the authority to overrule State law in this matter.

If he'd been willing to make them a wedding cake, but just refused to put giant penises on it or something, then I'd agree he should have that right, but the moment he found out they were gay, he flatly denied service.


Would it be legal for a bakery to deny a wedding cake because a couple was interracial? Because they don't sell to women? Because you're Muslim? No. Those are all obviously against the law. Same difference here, since Colorado sees sexual orientation as a protected class as much as the rest.

[LanToaster]

There seems to be conflicting narratives here. Mostly because apparently at one point, back at the beginning of the whole debacle he clearly stated he refused to serve gays. His story seems to have changed since then.

I did a bit more Digging:

In 2012, when same-sex marriage was still prohibited in Colorado, Craig and Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips’s business in the suburb of Lakewood.

The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.

Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ ”

Craig recalled: “We were so stunned he would say something like that it actually took a little time to sink in. My mom is kind of a religious person, too, and she said, ‘This doesn’t make sense to me.’ ”

SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.a886b15fb8f8

[Sormine]

Yes, and yes. And people should boycott business that do things which they don't agree with. We shouldn't run to daddy government to FORCE people to do things they don't want to do. This is the morally consistent thing to do. It also works from a practical standpoint: no business that discriminates against others based on arbitrary reasons will succeed in the long run. However, once you start a precedent for government to make people do things they don't wish; it will one day be you who is forced to do something that you don't want to do. Only then will you see the mistake, and it will be too late to correct it.

1) Morally consistent? I think the civil rights act of 1964 is still begging you to disagree with it.

2) "No business that discriminates against others based on arbitrary reasons will succeed in the long run" - Except the segregated restaurants and drug stores that were doing pretty well for themselves despite not actually providing service to a minority group. Please address this issue first as I feel it is more contradictory to any of your claims.

3) Should we allow private business to dump their waste and pollute wherever they so please? Is that fair to you? Because we let them do that once, it was really shitty for the environment as well as local societies.

Businesses didn't lose money due to the free market in the above systems I described, it took actual legislation to get them to play fairly.

[Spectral]

I did a bit more Digging:


SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.a886b15fb8f8

This makes it pretty apparent that it's a specific, distinct service that's being requested that he won't provide. It seems like everyone's on the same page that the specific refusal was that he does not provide services for same-sex weddings.

I'm not a religious person, but it's pretty easy for me to understand how someone who is religious is disinclined to provide support for an event that he thinks is somewhere between a mockery of an important religious rite and outright blasphemy. There are obviously competing rights at play here and protecting the religious freedom seems obviously much, much more important to me than the nominal right to compel a non-essential service.

[Fojos]

Do you guys honestly feel a business has the right to refuse service based solely on sex? If yes, how do you feel about businesses who refuse service based on race?

As long as it's fine for google to demonetize and fire people with wrong opinions this is fine as well.

"Just look for another job." "Just use another platform."

So I say "Just find another baker."

Then again we have hypocrites like Endus (see previous page).

[Endus]

State law can't violate the constitution. End of discussion.

It doesn't. In fact, your attempt to restrict rights to just what's explicitly in the Constitution directly violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Which state, respectively, that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are just as real as those that are, and that unless something is explicitly delegated to the federal government or denied to the States, it's within State power. And establishing protected classes is neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, so it's within State's rights.

There's no violation of the Constitution here, other than your argument, which violates the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as it's fine for google to demonetize and fire people with wrong opinions this is fine as well.

Then again we have hypocrites like Endus (see previous page).

Can't fire someone for membership in a protected class, either. No hypocrisy whatsoever, just you misrepresenting the concept of protected classes.

[Orange Joe]

When would "any other sinner" tell you explicitly which sin the cake would be used for? It's not really the same thing. In this case, the baker was clearly explained that the cake was intended for an event that is against his beliefs. It's like if some guy went to a Muslim baker and asked him to bake a "death to Muslims" cake.

Getting married is not a sin. The only "sin" is the sexual act itself.

[Fojos]

It doesn't. In fact, your attempt to restrict rights to just what's explicitly in the Constitution directly violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Which state, respectively, that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are just as real as those that are, and that unless something is explicitly delegated to the federal government or denied to the States, it's within State power. And establishing protected classes is neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, so it's within State's rights.

There's no violation of the Constitution here, other than your argument, which violates the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -



Can't fire someone for membership in a protected class, either. No hypocrisy whatsoever, just you misrepresenting the concept of protected classes.

Nope. You just want freedom for some.

If you can fire people for opinions (something that librrals defend) you should also be able to fire or not hire based on othet attributes.

[LanToaster]

This makes it pretty apparent that it's a specific, distinct service that's being requested that he won't provide. It seems like everyone's on the same page that the specific refusal was that he does not provide services for same-sex weddings.

I'm not a religious person, but it's pretty easy for me to understand how someone who is religious is disinclined to provide support for an event that he thinks is somewhere between a mockery of an important religious rite and outright blasphemy. There are obviously competing rights at play here and protecting the religious freedom seems obviously much, much more important to me than the nominal right to compel a non-essential service.

That quote is for the people who defend "His Artistic Freedom to not bake Penis Cakes".

The whole case is a Mockery, if you read the Article:

Gay People go to Bakery, want cake. Get Told: "I dont do cakes for Gays"
Gay People are Offendet, and take it to court. Court agrees that he discriminates them on they Sexuality, and there is apparantly a Law (also taken from the Article) that protects you from beeing treated differently in public shops based on different things including sexuality.

Baker goes to supreme court, and his lawyer changes the story that he shouldn´t have to express himself artisticly against his beliefs.

Apparantly: Its Illegal to deny service to Gay people. (Which is in my Opinion right) And his appeal to the supreme court is a lie. Because he wasnt asked to provide a "Gay themed Cake".

[Schattenlied]

I think the real question here is why do you want to give your money to someone who doesn't support your union in the first place? Would you rather not take your money to someone who supports gay marriage or at least is indifferent to it, than someone who is against it?


A gay couple shouldn't be wanting to give this person money for a cake at all, whether they are forced to provide service or not. Take your money to a business that supports you, you have options, that's the point of capitalism.

[LanToaster]

This makes it pretty apparent that it's a specific, distinct service that's being requested that he won't provide. It seems like everyone's on the same page that the specific refusal was that he does not provide services for same-sex weddings.

I'm not a religious person, but it's pretty easy for me to understand how someone who is religious is disinclined to provide support for an event that he thinks is somewhere between a mockery of an important religious rite and outright blasphemy. There are obviously competing rights at play here and protecting the religious freedom seems obviously much, much more important to me than the nominal right to compel a non-essential service.

That quote is for the people who defend "His Artistic Freedom to not bake Penis Cakes".

The whole case is a Mockery, if you read the Article:

Gay People go to Bakery, want cake. Get Told: "I dont do cakes for Gays"
Gay People are Offendet, and take it to court. Court agrees that he discriminates them on they Sexuality, and there is apparantly a Law (also taken from the Article) that protects you from beeing treated differently in public shops based on different things including sexuality.

Baker goes to supreme court, and his lawyer changes the story that he shouldn´t have to express himself artisticly against his beliefs.

Apparantly: Its Illegal to deny service to Gay people. (Which is in my Opinion right) And his appeal to the supreme court is a lie. Because he wasnt asked to provide a "Gay themed Cake".
(Which I would Support, I wouldn´t force him to make a Penis Cake. But he shouldn´t deny service on Sexuality)

[Fojos]

That quote is for the people who defend "His Artistic Freedom to not bake Penis Cakes".

The whole case is a Mockery, if you read the Article:

Gay People go to Bakery, want cake. Get Told: "I dont do cakes for Gays"
Gay People are Offendet, and take it to court. Court agrees that he discriminates them on they Sexuality, and there is apparantly a Law (also taken from the Article) that protects you from beeing treated differently in public shops based on different things including sexuality.

Baker goes to supreme court, and his lawyer changes the story that he shouldn´t have to express himself artisticly against his beliefs.

Apparantly: Its Illegal to deny service to Gay people. (Which is in my Opinion right) And his appeal to the supreme court is a lie. Because he wasnt asked to provide a "Gay themed Cake".

Public shops? It's a private business, not public.

[jibberbox85]

It doesn't. In fact, your attempt to restrict rights to just what's explicitly in the Constitution directly violates the 9th and 10th Amendments. Which state, respectively, that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are just as real as those that are, and that unless something is explicitly delegated to the federal government or denied to the States, it's within State power. And establishing protected classes is neither delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, so it's within State's rights.

There's no violation of the Constitution here, other than your argument, which violates the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -



Can't fire someone for membership in a protected class, either. No hypocrisy whatsoever, just you misrepresenting the concept of protected classes.

You're going off the assumption that the baker was acting out of discrimination instead of his religious beliefs. That's something that must be proven before invoking discrimination act against a protected class.

[LanToaster]

Public shops? It's a private business, not public.

Private owned Business, a public shop. Read the Article. Opening a Shop makes you subject to law.

Private Business would be something that require a Membership. Where not everybody gets access.

You're going off the assumption that the baker was acting out of discrimination instead of his religious beliefs. That's something that must be proven before invoking discrimination act against a protected class.

He flat out told them: I dont make cakes for Gay People.

Also, elaborate on why baking a cake for a gay couple would violate your religous beliefs.

[Argarock]

Yes, a business should be able to refuse service to anyone, but not for this. Refusing someone service because of their race, gender or sexuality should be illegal. Obviously. If you don't think so you're seriously on the wrong side of history.

[jibberbox85]

Private owned Business, a public shop. Read the Article. Opening a Shop makes you subject to law.

Private Business would be something that require a Membership. Where not everybody gets access.



He flat out told them: I dont make cakes for Gay People.

If you look into it a litter further you'll see that he stated that he refused to partake in a gay wedding design of the cake. It was the expression of the design and his religious beliefs on why he refused to create gay themed design.

[Najnaj]

Quit the emotional bullshit. We're talking about a cake. Not medical trearment. It doesn't matter what I think. This is what you fail to grasp. Personal opinions don't matter. I'd bake any cake someone paid me. But homosexuals are not a protected class. I'll say it again. Homosexuals are not a protected class. They're not protected by federal discrimination laws. Quit injecting your personal morality into the law. The two aren't connected.

What do you mean by "protected class"?

...and FYI, Sexual Orientation IS included in laws against discrimination in the US/Canada, most of Latin America all of EU and many other countries. Gays and lesbians are protected in virtually every way against discrimination besides that a religious organization is not required to marry a gay couple (in most of those countries but not all) even though gay couples have the right to a religious wedding ceremony.

Btw, do you seriously think that this is about cake?