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

[tss]

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?

Let the market handle it.

[shmiskywalke]

People don't respect religious beliefs in this country anymore, you can tell because homosexuals are going into frothing outrages anytime someone denies them based on their own beliefs.

"The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe."

How can you get upset at that? Just take your business somewhere else and someone else will make your stupid fucking cakes, it's not hard. But instead, they wanna go into a frothing, emotional outrage. It's pathetic, embarrassing and uncivilized.
If you feel like you have to come in to the "defense" of the couple, then you aren't acting civilized, you're just acting like an emotional child that wants their way.

Because they could have given to shits about a cake, they wanted money plain and simple.

[Themius]

Ya, so as a gay male individual, my opinion is that we shouldn't start trying to force issues like this. The baker in question refused to make the cake for ignorant reasons, yes, but that's his decision to make really. The repurcussions he experiences should be in the form of loss to his business.

Playing the devil's advocate here as well, let's say there's a bakery run by a homosexual couple and a man walks in the door asking for a cake design implicating his severe hatred of gays and deep devotion to heterosexuality? Should the couple running that private bakery have the right to say no, or should they be forced to make that cake regardless? A slippery-slope argument I know, but this same instance would be covered by the law here that was shot down.

These are private businesses in both instances, and those owning them have the choice to serve certain customers or not based on their own beliefs. No private business should be forced into doing any service that they don't wish to engage in. If they are being racist or ignorant or hateful, whatever, that business certianly is not going to remain popular and will collapse on its own.

And I'm pretty sure in the 40s some black folks felt that Jim Crow was okay. Them being private businesses doesn't mean shit.

You're making no sense and taking this out of context.

It's like if a person came in with their wife and was like "can we get this cake from your catalog" and the gay couple is like "no we don't serve straight people" What you're describing is someone walking in and then being mean... and then them being denied service for being hateful...

- - - Updated - - -

People don't respect religious beliefs in this country anymore, you can tell because homosexuals are going into frothing outrages anytime someone denies them based on their own beliefs.

"The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe."

How can you get upset at that? Just take your business somewhere else and someone else will make your stupid fucking cakes, it's not hard. But instead, they wanna go into a frothing, emotional outrage. It's pathetic, embarrassing and uncivilized.
If you feel like you have to come in to the "defense" of the couple, then you aren't acting civilized, you're just acting like an emotional child that wants their way.

Really? where is the scotus ruling?

[Marema]

Note so self as a small business owner: If I decide to refuse to sell something to a customer then I will decide to refuse it based on the color of their shoes.

[Strangewayes]

So what happens when a Muslim baker refuses to bake a Gay couple a wedding cake due to Islamic beliefs?

I want to hear super progressives brains explode trying to figure out how to fix that one lololol

[Auxora]

This religious rights argument as basis to legalize discrimination is so un-American and like others said a major slippery slope. If SCOTUS says religious rights trump (no pun intended) state discrimination laws, then this could be applied to anything. A Muslim store owner could refuse service to people that don't believe in Allah. Atheists could refuse service to people that believe in any god, and so on.

We have a local private super-fundamental Christian high school locally, where students are not allowed to watch tv (they call it "the devil's box"), female students are required to wear long dresses and cover ankles, and they cannot go to any businesses on Sunday. So they are always at the grocery store on Saturdays. What if the grocery store manager refused to sell to them based on their beliefs. If the SCOTUS sets precedent that religious beliefs can allow that type of discrimination, it would make follow-up court cases pretty open and shut. And there are many millions of non-Christians in the US, so the fundamental Christians pushing for this may find it's a Pandora's Box in the long run that backfires. It's not going to be just one direction. And when that baker goes to get an oil change and the Hindu shop owner tells him to get out because serving a Christian would go against his religious beliefs, he might wish he let it go and just made the cake.

Hopefully the SCOTUS realizes that and doesn't open the door to it.

[Strangewayes]

The Muslim baker would be in the wrong then. There you go, progressive brain unexploded figuring it out.

This religious rights argument as basis to legalize discrimination is so un-American and like others said a major slippery slope.

so basically you think Freedom of Religion as a law is a load of bullshit then, and Un-American? lol

[Endus]

Note so self as a small business owner: If I decide to refuse to sell something to a customer then I will decide to refuse it based on the color of their shoes.

You realize you don't need to right-out admit it, eh? This stuff goes to civil court, not criminal, and they don't need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in civil court, just to what a reasonable person would think.

If you don't have a more-reasonable reason for refusing, the court's likely to rule against you. And shoes ain't reasonable.

So what happens when a Muslim baker refuses to bake a Gay couple a wedding cake due to Islamic beliefs?

I want to hear super progressives brains explode trying to figure out how to fix that one lololol

Why would they? It's wrong for the same reasons. I get the feeling you're projecting your own issues onto others, here.

- - - Updated - - -

so basically you think Freedom of Religion as a law is a load of bullshit then, and Un-American? lol

Religious freedom doesn't entitle anyone to break the law and discriminate unlawfully while running a public accommodation.

[Strangewayes]

Religious freedom doesn't entitle anyone to break the law and discriminate unlawfully while running a public accommodation.

So those people will just discriminate lawfully and tell them they don't have any rooms.

[Dald]

A private business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. I'd have no problem making a double dong dildo cake for a gay couple, however.

[Masark]

So those people will just discriminate lawfully and tell them they don't have any rooms.

Then they will be caught in their lies and hammered harder for it until they take a hint.

[ravenswood]

A private business should have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. I'd have no problem making a double dong dildo cake for a gay couple, however.

So if there existed a city where every business agreed to not provide service to black people, you would be fine with that?

[Endus]

So those people will just discriminate lawfully and tell them they don't have any rooms.

It's not like they don't have booking records that can be subpoenaed nor any chance that they might overhear them telling literally any other clients that they DO have rooms.

"We might get away with breaking the law" really isn't the inspiring counter-argument you think it is.

[ablock87]

Because if you mean it's "privately owned", well, that doesn't change anything. It's still a public accommodation, regardless.
If you mean it's a private club, then you'll have to explain what their membership policies are and how their services aren't available to non-members.

And those are basically your two options here.

ffs, you can google it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

the notion that "You deal with public goods, that means you're not a private business" is absurd and should be laughed at.

You can not force me to sell to someone that goes against my religious beliefs. Period.

[Endus]

ffs, you can google it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

the notion that "You deal with public goods, that means you're not a private business" is absurd and should be laughed at.

You can not force me to sell to someone that goes against my religious beliefs. Period.

Why do you think that's even remotely an argument? Nobody is contesting this.

What we're pointing out is that "private businesses" like bakeries and restaurants and hotels and the like are also "public accommodations", under the law, and that carries with it certain legal obligations.

The two terms are not in opposition, they refer to entirely unrelated factors.

No, they can't "force you to sell to someone that goes against your religious beliefs", but they CAN cause you to lose the lawsuits from those someones you've unlawfully discriminated against, and that could lead to you going bankrupt if you don't amend your practices, not to mention the possibility of contempt of court charges for refusing to abide by prior rulings.

[Canpinter]

ffs, you can google it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

the notion that "You deal with public goods, that means you're not a private business" is absurd and should be laughed at.

You can not force me to sell to someone that goes against my religious beliefs. Period.

operating a public business is a choice, with that choice comes the legal duty to sell to the public as a whole, your right no one can force you to sell a cake to gay people so long as you chose not to sell cakes at all.

[mickybrighteyes]

operating a public business is a choice, with that choice comes the legal duty to sell to the public as a whole, your right no one can force you to sell a cake to gay people so long as you chose not to sell cakes at all.

I think you're definition is a bit off. Isn't a public vs private business discussion concern looking at stock shares rather than goods such as cake/food?

[ablock87]

operating a public business is a choice, with that choice comes the legal duty to sell to the public as a whole, your right no one can force you to sell a cake to gay people so long as you chose not to sell cakes at all.

*private*

free to serve whom they want

and they will suffer the consequences, good or bad

free market at work.

[Masark]

I think you're definition is a bit off. Isn't a public vs private business discussion concern looking at stock shares rather than goods such as cake/food?

No, he's just using a slightly wrong word. The legal term is "public accommodations", which in US law is defined as:

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation

[Orbitus]

Ya, so as a gay male individual, my opinion is that we shouldn't start trying to force issues like this. The baker in question refused to make the cake for ignorant reasons, yes, but that's his decision to make really. The repurcussions he experiences should be in the form of loss to his business.

Playing the devil's advocate here as well, let's say there's a bakery run by a homosexual couple and a man walks in the door asking for a cake design implicating his severe hatred of gays and deep devotion to heterosexuality? Should the couple running that private bakery have the right to say no, or should they be forced to make that cake regardless? A slippery-slope argument I know, but this same instance would be covered by the law here that was shot down.

These are private businesses in both instances, and those owning them have the choice to serve certain customers or not based on their own beliefs. No private business should be forced into doing any service that they don't wish to engage in. If they are being racist or ignorant or hateful, whatever, that business certianly is not going to remain popular and will collapse on its own.

The bolded part is not protected by laws. In Colorado sexuality is a protected class. Hate speech isn't.

That is the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

*private*

free to serve whom they want

and they will suffer the consequences, good or bad

free market at work.

Within the law, yes, they can serve whom they want. They can't go around and say, I am not serving blacks anymore, same with gays in Colorado. This would be a violation of the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights act of 1964.