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

[baskev]

Yes, there are, such a neo nazis, antifa, republicans, democrats, etc. It does cover every race and religion as I just said, however.

- - - Updated - - -



If you agree he's breaking the law, why would you advocate the Supreme Court ignoring said law, because it may become a "slippery slope" (even though, as history has shown, it takes a huge amount of public support and as well as decades of time to become a protected class).

To answer your other question, no, I have not, but I'm not as "flamboyant" as others of my persuasion. I still think it's asinine that these people will justify discriminating against them, however, because a book says "don't fuck men" and they warp it into "don't bake cake for gays".

Answer to the first question: Because i think the law is wrong. In this discussion i have told it several times. When you force a small business owner to accept clientele it becomes forced labor.

Answer to slippery slope: You do know what that means right. Because what you say after it has nothing to do with it being a slippery slope. But let me explain before you rage. Currently extreme right people are getting more and more traction...they could use this against us normal people with forcing their agenda on us!! And yes i am happy that we get support. But i do not want to be a protected class with special bathrooms etc. When i go into a restaurant i want to sit down and eat. Not got to the special place set aside for gay people. I do not want to go into a restaurant where the cooks, the owner hates me. They can go f*ck themselves.

You have not...lucky you . Sadly i have on several things, on several times. And yes i agree with you that they are assholes being discriminating against people ( i said this several times btw). But this bakery is not a matter of importance. We can go to a other bakery!!!

Its wrong to bar us from going to the bakery...but its a small business, they should have a right to choose their clients. because by taking away his freedom, we are hurting all we fought and bled for. It will only fuel the rage of the anti gay people.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing about that is, they don't actually have the legal right to refuse service for "whatever reason". Maybe you wish that was how things worked, but it flat-out isn't, and hasn't been for over a half-century.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/t...-of-appearance

Yup you are right. The above is a nice read on it.

[Masoner]

expected when you appoint a neo nazi as the AG. really it is like acting shocked that nazis are nazis. If anything it has proven that our freedom and democracy is very fragile in this country

I don't know if you are being serious, but just so you understand.. very few people actually take it seriously when you toss out "nazi" like this. It's lost all it's meaning now.

- - - Updated - - -

The thing about that is, they don't actually have the legal right to refuse service for "whatever reason". Maybe you wish that was how things worked, but it flat-out isn't, and hasn't been for over a half-century.

Not only that but the gay man had ordered and bought cakes from there before. He wasn't refused service cause he is queer just for the wedding cake.

[Zuben]

Not smart business-wise, but I think it's their right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Competition usually forces even prejudiced establishments to serve anyone they can.

Finland's equality laws would prevent this.

[schwank05]

Every grocery store is a private business. By your logic it would be totally acceptable for them ALL to stop serving 'insert demographic'. Your position is both illogical and morally reprehensible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

But I completely agree with him, I mean we will not hire anyone who smokes, because all it does it costs us money. I think there are people that would frown upon that, I also won't hire someone with either a bad driving record or no license, because again it only costs us money. So I don't get whats wrong with someone that owns something to say "hey... No you get the fuck out"

[artemishunter1]

The thing about that is, they don't actually have the legal right to refuse service for "whatever reason". Maybe you wish that was how things worked, but it flat-out isn't, and hasn't been for over a half-century.

Do you believe gov't owns the fruits of your labor? Is it that gov't own you, thus make you do whatever it wants? Do the right to do business comes from gov't? WIthout it, people can't do business naturally?

[Endus]

Do you believe gov't owns the fruits of your labor?

They have a right to a portion of it, for all the support they've provided to you to allow you to earn it. We call this "taxation", y'know.

Is it that gov't own you, thus make you do whatever it wants?

No, it's that you're a citizen, which is a legal arrangement you concent to, whether overtly or tacitly, and which carries duties and obligations in exchange for the rights it provides.

If you don't want the duties and obligations of citizenship, you're free to leave.

Do the right to do business comes from gov't? WIthout it, people can't do business naturally?

The concept of "money" is entirely based on the government.
The concept of "property" only exists as a legal arrangement with the government.
The only way to have agreed-upon contracts for trade enforced is through government.

So in short, yes. Otherwise, me storming into your place of business with a dozen armed men and taking everything I want, including your own staff, is just as legitimate a "business" transaction as whatever you were thinking of when you used the term.

[wheresmywoft]

Don't try to presume my position.

I for one think that baker is an asshole, and an idiot for turning away a perfectly good client. What kind of businessman refuses to take money? a bad businessman.

That being said, I still think its his right to decide who he wants to service and who he doesn't.

No presumption was required. You've reiterated the same things I called you out on in your latest response.

[Antiganon]

People really need to read the facts of the case, and relevant statutes.

The Baker initially stated he didnt want to bake a cake for gays.

Colorado state law makes discrimination based on sexuality illegal in places of public accommodation (a business open to the general public), and defines a bakery as one example of such a place.

No matter what you think about this from a moral standpoint, the legal argument is a slam dunk for the gay couple.

[shimerra]

Government intervention in these EXTREME AND VERY UNLIKELY TO OCCUR instances. Any large business isn't going to refuse money, though.

Yeah even big businesses regularly told blacks and gays to fuck off in the past because it lost them business to serve them as a result of public outrage or more often their own personal hate towards those groups.

I literally took an entire course about the economics of discrimination on my way to a masters. It's better today but people regularly refused huge chunks of business because of discramtory preferences. Case in point the entire civil rights movement. Problem is tools like you aren't personally affected and we are far enough out for it to have been mildly forgotten by those who don't experience it. Markets failed for centuries. Government intervention and black and gay protests to change public opinion in concert are the reason we don't have businessses refusing black business which they literally did all the time.

You'd be very surprised to see how much profit businesses were willing to give up to be racist or bigoted. It was not a small amount.

[Orbitus]

Not smart business-wise, but I think it's their right to deny service to anyone for any reason. Competition usually forces even prejudiced establishments to serve anyone they can.

Finland's equality laws would prevent this.

And so does Colorado state law. Which is why they lost the previous court case. So, it isn't their right to deny service for this specific reason.

[Sargerasraider]

People really need to read the facts of the case, and relevant statutes.

The Baker initially stated he didnt want to bake a cake for gays.

Colorado state law makes discrimination based on sexuality illegal in places of public accommodation (a business open to the general public), and defines a bakery as one example of such a place.

No matter what you think about this from a moral standpoint, the legal argument is a slam dunk for the gay couple.

Given the reasoning in the recent Hobby Lobby case, I think it very likely that the Supreme Court overturns (at least partially) the Colorado state law. In short, it put forward that the government could not compel individuals (or closely held businesses) to act to violate religious beliefs as long as there was a reasonable alternative available.

[Shakou]

Yes.

A private business should be able to refuse service to anyone. Do I personally think it is idiotic as shit to deny service because you don't like gay marriage or blacks? Also yes. However if the business wants to generate bad press and lose business that is their decision.

We should NOT force businesses to service everyone because 'feelings'.

Then you're against not just the civil rights movement, but the Civil Rights Act which is embedded in the laws of the land. This is patently unconstitutional and it's frankly painful and cringe worthy witnessing you people try to defend it. Your beliefs do not trump the law, and you can be 100% sure of one thing, occasionally the pendulum swings in the direction of those who think like you and then it comes swinging right back and smacks you good in the head.

[Endus]

Given the reasoning in the recent Hobby Lobby case, I think it very likely that the Supreme Court overturns (at least partially) the Colorado state law. In short, it put forward that the government could not compel individuals (or closely held businesses) to act to violate religious beliefs as long as there was a reasonable alternative available.

Not remotely comparable.

The Hobby Lobby case regarded what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees, specifically contraception. The ruling only applied to this, and only allowed for Hobby Lobby's defense because there were less restrictive options; specifically, the government could provide contraception through the ACA and so forth.

None of this is applicable to the bakery case. If it could, it would mean that all anti-discrimination law regarding public accommodations, on any grounds, would be overturned. Given that those have been so thoroughly tested and supported by SCOTUS, that's basically just not gonna happen. Especially since there is no government mandate the courts can turn to as the less restrictive way to ameliorate the issue; there is no government-funded wedding-cake-provision program.

[Sargerasraider]

Not remotely comparable.

The Hobby Lobby case regarded what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees, specifically contraception. The ruling only applied to this, and only allowed for Hobby Lobby's defense because there were less restrictive options; specifically, the government could provide contraception through the ACA and so forth.

None of this is applicable to the bakery case. If it could, it would mean that all anti-discrimination law regarding public accommodations, on any grounds, would be overturned. Given that those have been so thoroughly tested and supported by SCOTUS, that's basically just not gonna happen. Especially since there is no government mandate the courts can turn to as the less restrictive way to ameliorate the issue; there is no government-funded wedding-cake-provision program.

The reasoning is directly applicable.

A business owner is being asked to violate his religious conscience. It is demonstrable that he has refused to make cakes which do so in the past (does not make cakes for Halloween, does not make cakes to celebrate divorce). There is an easily available alternative, less restrictive to his religious freedom (soon after, the couple received a free cake from another local bakery). The funding of this does not matter. If there is a reasonable alternative available, he should not have to violate his conscience. He may be wrong, but has the right to be so. The couple may be mildly inconvenienced, but are not harmed in any way by this.

Your second point is debatable (in terms of "thoroughly tested and supported". Two SCOTUS cases have been brought on this issue, both under title II of the CRA. One was with a hotel that catered mostly to interstate travelers and the other was a restaurant which did the same. Both opinions upheld the law under the interstate commerce clause. To my knowledge, local or state laws have not been challenged in this way, and I do not think federal law has been challenged by any small businesses which mainly cater to local customers. (In the end, this is not surprising, because most small business owners are not going to turn down anyone's money, nor would they want the bad publicity going along with it.) In the end, I do not think that there would be five justices who would rule anti-discrimination laws unconstitutional, but I would not be surprised if you got three.

[Deleted]

Not remotely comparable.

The Hobby Lobby case regarded what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees, specifically contraception. The ruling only applied to this, and only allowed for Hobby Lobby's defense because there were less restrictive options; specifically, the government could provide contraception through the ACA and so forth.

None of this is applicable to the bakery case. If it could, it would mean that all anti-discrimination law regarding public accommodations, on any grounds, would be overturned. Given that those have been so thoroughly tested and supported by SCOTUS, that's basically just not gonna happen. Especially since there is no government mandate the courts can turn to as the less restrictive way to ameliorate the issue; there is no government-funded wedding-cake-provision program.

Your characterization of the Hobby Lobby case is, as is usual with the majority of your comments on this board, complete and total BULLSHIT.

Hobby Lobby brought the case because it objected to 2 forms of birth control - the morning after pill and IUDs - that ACA was requiring them to provide for their employees. They DID NOT bring the case based on your distortion - "The Hobby Lobby case regarded what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees, specifically contraception." You make this blanket statement, inferring that Hobby Lobby was against ALL forms of birth control. You offer NO QUALIFIERS, which renders your statement as complete bullshit. It also had NOTHING to do with "what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees" - it had to do with a religious objection to those 2 forms of birth control.

That is the problem with people like you - you completely distort reality and then try to proffer it as if it is truth.

[Endus]

The reasoning is directly applicable.

A business owner is being asked to violate his religious conscience. It is demonstrable that he has refused to make cakes which do so in the past (does not make cakes for Halloween, does not make cakes to celebrate divorce).

Not comparable, because it doesn't establish the grounds on which Hobby Lobby's exceptions were allowed for. Which the entire case rested upon. There is no blanket "religious conscience" exception.

There is an easily available alternative, less restrictive to his religious freedom (soon after, the couple received a free cake from another local bakery).

You don't get to insert outside parties into the case like that. In the Hobby Lobby case, there was no such outside party. It isn't about whether there's an alternative, it's about whether the government can find a less restrictive way to solve the issue; the Hobby Lobby case only allowed for that ruling because it was based on health care provision, which the government had a hand in to begin with.

- - - Updated - - -

Your characterization of the Hobby Lobby case is, as is usual with the majority of your comments on this board, complete and total BULLSHIT.

Hobby Lobby brought the case because it objected to 2 forms of birth control - the morning after pill and IUDs - that ACA was requiring them to provide for their employees. They DID NOT bring the case based on your distortion - "The Hobby Lobby case regarded what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees, specifically contraception." You make this blanket statement, inferring that Hobby Lobby was against ALL forms of birth control. You offer NO QUALIFIERS, which renders your statement as complete bullshit. It also had NOTHING to do with "what an employer was required to provide in terms of health care policies for employees" - it had to do with a religious objection to those 2 forms of birth control.

That is the problem with people like you - you completely distort reality and then try to proffer it as if it is truth.

So your wroth and ire is all based upon trying to "correct" me, by saying the case wasn't about whether Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception, it was about whether Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception.

My statement was entirely correct, and you confirmed it, as you were frothing in rage at me for being, apparently, right.

If I say "I think I'll go eat an apple", I'm not lying if I then go eat a Red Delicious apple, just because I didn't specify exactly what variety of apple I was going to eat. It's included in the broad term I already used.

I never once said "all contraception". Go back and read my post. You're inserting a straw man I never made.

[Deleted]

So your wroth and ire is all based upon trying to "correct" me, by saying the case wasn't about whether Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception, it was about whether Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception.

My statement was entirely correct, and you confirmed it, as you were frothing in rage at me for being, apparently, right.

Proof positive of what I just said to you - a distortion of reality. No, it was NOT about whether or not Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception - they objected to 2 forms of contraceptives. They continued to provide their employees insurance which covered contraception - the pill, condoms, nexplanon, etc. So, again, your blanket statement that "it was about whether Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception" is bullshit.

Just like this entire debate about gay marriage participants being refused a service by a religious person. The baker is not refusing service BECAUSE they are gay - he is refusing service because he does not endorse gay marriage, based on his religious beliefs. Those are not even remotely the same thing and to conflate them as if they are is ridiculous - and just further proof of how you distort reality to fit your "victim" narrative. It is disgusting.

[Endus]

Proof positive of what I just said to you - a distortion of reality. No, it was NOT about whether or not Hobby Lobby had to provide contraception - they objected to 2 forms of contraceptives.

"It wasn't about contraception, it was about contraception".

This isn't an argument. This is feigned outrage while you agree with me.

[provaporous]

Then they can move their happy ass and bakery to Russia where it is legal to discriminate against gays.

- - - Updated - - -



No, he doesn't. It is in their state laws that they cannot deny gay people, it is protected by Colorado State law. If he is a business that provides goods to the public, he isn't a private business.

- - - Updated - - -



What the actual fuck?

Couple things. Baker's dont provide to "the public" they provide to private citizens. So no, they are not obligated to preform a task to every person that walks in if they don't want to. To force someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake under penalty of law is slavery.

[Masark]

Couple things. Baker's dont provide to "the public" they provide to private citizens. So no, they are not obligated to preform a task to every person that walks in if they don't want to. To force someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake under penalty of law is slavery.

1. Private citizens are the public.

2. They are not forced to. They are perfectly free to close their shop and not bake cakes for anyone. But as long as they wish to operate a business, they are not allowed to discriminate against protected classes.