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

[Toogoodman]

Being in the army isn't a protect class according to the law (personally, I think those people who refused you service are idiots btw). The issue at hand encompasses racism and bigotry and hatred, which are essentially people who fall into a protected class.

Sexuality (last i checked) wasn't a protected class yet, it should be, and it should be federally, but it isn't, so in this case there really isn't anything to due.

I absolutely morally disagree with not serving them, and if the courts decide that they were illegally denying service, well probably see a suite of changes to the laws. But, as we've seen with other cases related to this issue, i don't see that happening.

[Sci Fi Samurai]

I can't fucking believe I can't force people to bake cakes for me. Conservatards are so goddam oppressive.

[Endus]

Sexuality (last i checked) wasn't a protected class yet, it should be, and it should be federally, but it isn't, so in this case there really isn't anything to due.

Not federally.

It is at the State level, in this particular case. And State law is what's relevant; SCOTUS can't operate based solely on federal law, it has to account for State law where applicable, as it is here. They won't rule based on federal law alone, they'll rule on whether the Colorado State and Supreme Courts ruled appropriately on Colorado State law.

[Toogoodman]

Exact same logic... WTF. You gave an example of someone refusing you service because of your uniform. Versus someone refusing service because they were gay.

If you think that is the same. It is pretty clear where the issue lies.

Do you think someone should discriminate against veterans? It is totally legal, as people in uniform aren't a protected class, but it isn't really different in terms of discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

- - - Updated - - -

Not federally.

It is at the State level, in this particular case. And State law is what's relevant; SCOTUS can't operate based solely on federal law, it has to account for State law where applicable, as it is here. They won't rule based on federal law alone, they'll rule on whether the Colorado State and Supreme Courts ruled appropriately on Colorado State law.

Well, then i don't see why SCOTUS wouldn't agree with the couple then. However, if they do side with the couple, i see changes to federal law coming as a result.

[jibberbox85]

You made a bunch of bullshit statements and I fired each one of them down one by one, and you kept coming back with more bullshit you remembered from wherever you got them.

As I said if you spent half as much time actually learning how to reason and then maybe fucking getting a clue on logic along with it, shit like this wouldn't be fucking hard for you.

I see that we now have to resort to using big bad words like" making bullshit statement" being that your own arguments lost any merit that it might of had.


In fact, you really never had an argument. Also, what was said is actually something to be concerned about if you're a Muslim (For just an example) who would prefer not to make a cartoon print of Mohammed. Things like this can only make it to where those who don't care to do something due to their religious beliefs might be forced to do so no matter.

[provaporous]

Good, correct decision. You don't have the right to demand anything from anyone, that would be slavery.

If they don't want to preform X for someone, they should not be forced under penalty of law to do so.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I see that we now have to resort to using big bad words like" making bullshit statement" being that your own arguments lost any merit that it might of had.

I don't have to resort to shit, I have made my argument, you just keep hitting the "Reply With Quotes" because maybe you have a condition or something. I mean you fucking lost, there really isn't going to be anymore.

[Endus]

Well, then i don't see why SCOTUS wouldn't agree with the couple then. However, if they do side with the couple, i see changes to federal law coming as a result.

That's why I find it silly that the people supporting the cake shop see SCOTUS taking the case as a big "win". The courts have ruled twice, and both times, against the cake shop. Since protected class legislation has been tested multiple times in the past, it's basically not feasible to claim that SCOTUS will throw that out. So there's two possible outcomes, realistically;

1> They contravene the State courts and this one case gets overturned, and that's it. Or,
2> They agree with the State courts and determine that there's more merit to this than just this single case, and issue a sweeping ruling that applies federally. As they did with the gay marriage case, under the principles of the 9th Amendment.

[wheresmywoft]

Do you think someone should discriminate against veterans? It is totally legal, as people in uniform aren't a protected class, but it isn't really different in terms of discrimination.

dis·crim·i·na·tion: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

... Where did I say that they should? The only thing I pointed out was that the two things you were trying to compare, was not equal.

The existence of protected classes in the US should make it pretty clear that not all forms of discrimination is considered equal with respect to the law.

[Themius]

Sexuality (last i checked) wasn't a protected class yet, it should be, and it should be federally, but it isn't, so in this case there really isn't anything to due.

I absolutely morally disagree with not serving them, and if the courts decide that they were illegally denying service, well probably see a suite of changes to the laws. But, as we've seen with other cases related to this issue, i don't see that happening.

Sexuality is a protected class in that state.

- - - Updated - - -

Good, correct decision. You don't have the right to demand anything from anyone, that would be slavery.

If they don't want to preform X for someone, they should not be forced under penalty of law to do so.

So a coffee shop shouldn't have to serve coffee to anyone but white people if they don't want to?

[jibberbox85]

That's why I find it silly that the people supporting the cake shop see SCOTUS taking the case as a big "win". The courts have ruled twice, and both times, against the cake shop. Since protected class legislation has been tested multiple times in the past, it's basically not feasible to claim that SCOTUS will throw that out. So there's two possible outcomes, realistically;

1> They contravene the State courts and this one case gets overturned, and that's it. Or,
2> They agree with the State courts and determine that there's more merit to this than just this single case, and issue a sweeping ruling that applies federally. As they did with the gay marriage case, under the principles of the 9th Amendment.

From what I've read I don't believe a ruling has gone in the favor of the shop(or something similar to this case) from the state of Colorado. If the bakery was somewhere else it might be a different story due to some laws in other states.

[PragmaticGamer]

Baker is not refusing service based off "discrimination,' but based solely on a theme that goes against his religious beliefs. If you owned a bakery shop and someone came in asking you to add a nazi swastika to a cake you might have seconds thoughts on doing that. You probably wouldn't refuse them outright, it's just mainly due to the request they're asking.

And I'm pretty sure the baker has refused to make cakes for divorcees and couples having pre-marital sex.

Or does the baker cherry-pick which commandments they choose to follow?

[jibberbox85]

And I'm pretty sure the baker has refused to make cakes for divorcees and couples having pre-marital sex.

Or does the baker cherry-pick which commandments they choose to follow?

He made the claim that he refused other cakes like Halloween, Satanic, alcohol ect. I don't have the transcripts with me, but just remember something from one of his interviews/statements from some articles online. It's also been stated that he has served the LBGT community, but not with something that promotes same sex marriage.

[sam86]

He is private work owner so I think he has the right to deny anyone, i mean he is literally not forced to serve u if he doesn't take money, he isn't a slave
I don't say his reason is right, all I say he is private work owner and he can decide to just close shop and not work today, that's the benefits of owning a private work
However if it was a public service work or something that is a total different story

[purebalance]

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 mean we have a terrorist from the left wing on the SC and that's proven fact. I'd really like to see where Sessions pledged allegiance to something akin to what Sotomayor has ties directly to.

[msdos]

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.

[purebalance]

The Civil Rights Act would highly disagree with you.

Except it depends on what the business is. Civil Rights Act lays out specifically which businesses cannot. Mostly hotels, motels, restaurants, and other accommodations which implies that a store in general would not apply and neither would a bakery as it isn't an accommodation.

- - - 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.

I mean if I were the guy I would have just made a cake with a big vagina on it rather than go through all of this because clearly the couple involved on the other end are just as childish.

[msdos]

Except it depends on what the business is. Civil Rights Act lays out specifically which businesses cannot. Mostly hotels, motels, restaurants, and other accommodations which implies that a store in general would not apply and neither would a bakery as it isn't an accommodation.

- - - Updated - - -



I mean if I were the guy I would have just made a cake with a big vagina on it rather than go through all of this because clearly the couple involved on the other end are just as childish.

Two grown ass men are crying crocodile tears over a fucking birthday cake, if that isn't the definition of childish, then I just don't belong on this planet anymore.
"He isn't doing what we want, he hates homosexuals!!!!!" I bet you my life this is what it's really about.

[ablock87]

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.

Well said. Kudos.

[Quaght]

100% agree.

A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

The people who have there service refused (The gay couple in this case) have the right to plaster the story everywhere in the hope that business loses business.

But that would be market forces! We can't have that!