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

[Endus]

Couple things. Baker's dont provide to "the public" they provide to private citizens.

The body of private citizens is "the public". You're drawing a distinction that does not exist in reality.

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.

The word you're looking for is "duty" or "obligation". One they entered into voluntarily, and are free to exit at any point. Calling this "slavery" is just flat-out wrong and renders the word functionally meaningless.

They aren't "forced" to do anything. If they don't want to abide by the legal requirements for public accommodations such as their bakery business, they're free to give that business up and/or sell it, and not have to deal with the issue any more. The only people putting them into this position is themselves.

This is like saying the government is "enslaving" you by not letting you walk in the streets and cause traffic problems. It's nonsensical.

[Orbitus]

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.

Wrong. If you are open to the public and don't have a membership fee, you are a public business. This is protected by Colorado state law, the Civil Rights act of 1964, and the 14th amendment.

[Sargerasraider]

Wrong. If you are open to the public and don't have a membership fee, you are a public business. This is protected by Colorado state law, the Civil Rights act of 1964, and the 14th amendment.

In the end, I guess we'll see how all this goes in a few months.

I'm curious if this goes against the cakeshop, could a business state that they are a private club, and charge a $0.01 membership fee to "join" for life with a purchase.

Anyhow, for all of us armchair lawyers, would suggest reading the commentary on SCOTUSblog. Good articles on both sides:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...-rights-commn/

[cordrann]

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"

But that isn't what the person I quoted said. You offered specific examples, which is fine, they offered a blanket absolute "anyone they please, for whatever reason" which is an intellectually and morally irresponsible position.

[telygroar]

This discussion made me remind a poster in a old history book saying "forbidden to jews and dogs".

Heck, history like to repeat itself. At least the business owner can go near russia, there is one country where it will be perfectly normal to do so.

[wheresmywoft]

I'm curious if this goes against the cakeshop, could a business state that they are a private club, and charge a $0.01 membership fee to "join" for life with a purchase.

They could, but you realize that means this couple could just buy the membership for $0.01 and then ask for the cake again.

If they were declined the membership for the same discriminatory reasons, you're back at square one.

[Sargerasraider]

They could, but you realize that means this couple could just buy the membership for $0.01 and then ask for the cake again.

If they were declined the membership for the same discriminatory reasons, you're back at square one.

Not really. It has been established that private organizations can discriminate (e.g. a church can require that a minister be a member of a particular religious denomination). They could establish their shop as a religious club.

[wheresmywoft]

Not really. It has been established that private organizations can discriminate (e.g. a church can require that a minister be a member of a particular religious denomination). They could establish their shop as a religious club.

Which is different than your first statement. Where you believed his business could simply state it. What you're talking about is this business essentially being created as something else.

Although, if this were to happen, it would definitively conclude that it was indeed this persons Religion pushing them to discriminate. Which would probably not help with the current legal jeopardy they're facing.

[Benggaul]

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.

So you didn't read the entirety of my post and just assumed how "I wished" based on one line. Got it. Here's the gist of the rest of it: The bakery who refused service should go bankrupt. It is entirely socially unacceptable that they be allowed to do what they did. I may have been wrong about it being legal--because admittedly I'm no expert on what the law is around this subject and I assumed the DOJ would be--but I don't think they were right in doing so.

Maybe make sure you understand everything that was written before jumping on someone's neck next time, yeah?

[Sorcath]

Yeah I am also kind of Torn when obvious fucking homophobia is being equated to fucking free market and economics, seriously what the fuck!

- - - Updated - - -




Yeah guess what that doesn't work and writing down some nonsense about what all bakers care about, and you don't choose your fucking orientation no matter what fucked up person told you otherwise, however that shit is a forbidden topic, because folks like yourself whine about getting your ass kicked by facts too much.

Which is probably going a long way towards the idiots under the delusion that this shit is legal and OK it isn't and it will be defeated while all the people crying about why everybody calls them a homophobe, or racist, or sexist, will probably go on for years.

Fuckers find facts and evidence offensive, even though when those facts and evidence go against them it's a secret liberal conspiracy plot LOL

What "facts" are you ready to provide, carebear? This is actually my trade of choice, so I would hope that in all the places Ive worked the information that Ive distilled remains topical.

Its their religion, one you conveniently forget they have a right to when things dont your crybaby way. Trust me, no baker in the entire world cares how many pebises you slammed down before you got there.

[Celista]

The "cake as artistic expression" defense was frankly ridiculous.

[Sorcath]

Wrong. Business do NOT have the right to refuse service for any reason they want to, as what was seen in this bakery in Colorado. In Colorado, sexuality is a protected class, just like race is. And who cares what your religion thinks, orientation IS NOT A CHOICE. Also, talking with a lisp, doesn't mean you are gay. You think that because they were gay, asking for a wedding cake, that they were going to shove it up their ass? Are you intentionally this ignorant?

They didn't single out a "religious" bakery. Otherwise that bakery wouldn't be making cakes for divorced couples. Because they are violating their own religious rules. It isn't the couple that is forcing them to comply, it is the rules of the business laws of the state that force them to comply.

You have no "empathy for their kind"? So if your kid came up to you and told you they were gay, you would disown them? I have no empathy for your kind either. You are a bigot.

Youre confusing empathy with indifference. I care when theres a real injustice. A fabricated injustice because you conveniently want to forget the same rules of freedom of religion applies across the board, even when your demographic isnt welcome.

If my son or daughter were homosexual, I certainly wouldnt care. If they came crying to me that x-christian/allah based religion didnt welcome then with open arms and asked for me to sign a government document forcin them to appease their liberal senses, i would not only laugh in their face for the hypocritical position on tolerance, but kick them out because they obviously need some real life experience.

On a further note: Youre right, it isnt legal. But why dont you stop riding the fence of religious tolerance anf ultra pc social behavior and put your big kid oants on and say "we should ban the majority of religion because every group is hated by at least 1"? Oh, thats right, it ruins this narrative of how socially "woke" you animals are.

[Orbitus]

Youre confusing empathy with indifference. I care when theres a real injustice. A fabricated injustice because you conveniently want to forget the same rules of freedom of religion applies across the board, even when your demographic isnt welcome.

If my son or daughter were homosexual, I certainly wouldnt care. If they came crying to me that x-christian/allah based religion didnt welcome then with open arms and asked for me to sign a government document forcin them to appease their liberal senses, i would not only laugh in their face for the hypocritical position on tolerance, but kick them out because they obviously need some real life experience.

On a further note: Youre right, it isnt legal. But why dont you stop riding the fence of religious tolerance anf ultra pc social behavior and put your big kid oants on and say "we should ban the majority of religion because every group is hated by at least 1"? Oh, thats right, it ruins this narrative of how socially "woke" you animals are.

Wrong, your freedom of religion ends where mine begins. And in this specific case, their sexuality was protected by Colorado state law.

Most gay people aren't part of religion because religion doesn't accept the gay lifestyle because some dusty old book tried to say so. Government can't force a religion to accept them.

I am an animal because I accept marriage equality? You do realize that all humans are technically animals right?

[s_bushido]

Its their religion, one you conveniently forget they have a right to when things dont your crybaby way.

Ah, that's the argument faith-healing parents should have made when they're convicted of the deaths of their children! Genius.

Wait.

Crying "it's muh religion" isn't a get out of jail free card, literally or figuratively. Especially when a person's right to practice their religion involves infringing the rights of other people, or doing outright harm to them. Deal with it.