Poll of the Day > Supreme Court rules in favor of baker that refused to bake cake for gay wedding

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

Final vote was 7-2, so pretty strong consensus of the Supreme Court. I have to side with the Court on this one.

PS: Don't be surprised if I don't comment for several hours, I'm currently at work
---

it perfectly within this man's freedom to be a dumbass who doesn't want more money

Zangulus posted...

FinalFantasyVII posted...

it perfectly within this man's freedom to be a dumbass who doesn't want more money

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

Youre free to be an asshole. That doesnt mean youre free of the consequences of being an asshole.

Im a firm believer that a private business should be able to run their business however they want and let the free market decide how that works for them. If he wants to deny service to gays, fine, but then he risks losing business in doing so.
---

Good.

We live in a world where its very easy to get your story out and encourage people to vote with their dollar. In a case like this that involves luxury items, it makes no sense that he should be forced to participate. Businesses, provided they aren't receiving tax payer money, should be able to refuse anyone they please for any reason.
---

Zangulus posted...

Its also not what Freedom means. Youre not Free to force your beleifs on anyone else. Youre Free to have them.

There is a difference.

Which means you can't force Christians to support defilement of their traditions. It goes both ways.
---

Zangulus posted...

They didnt rule that he had the right to refuse them based on their being gay.

They ruled that he himself was discriminated against and had hostility for his beliefs.

Being a baker should be illegal we dont need their kind
---

https://tinyurl.com/y9fgwwz9

I remember reading that he would bake cakes to anyone regardless of sexual orientation; but he would not want it to be an actual wedding cake.

I think they ruled in favor of him primarily because a commission in his state was hostile to him. Depending on the specific service he refuses to provide, or the kind of religious edict he chooses to follow, we probably would not receive the same ruling.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Which means you can't force Christians to support defilement of their traditions. It goes both ways.

If you have a business you must obey certain rules and regulations. Taxes, minimum wage, etc. This is a clear breach of the separation of church and state (which we all know is bullshit when it comes to christianity) based on what we know about why he refused them.

While I would like to say a business should be able to offer its services to whom ever they want, refusing services for being homosexual seems pretty fucked up seems similar to the days of black people having less rights.
---

Zangulus posted...

Your belief isnt a reality though. It would allow areas to create basically dead spots where people cant live and function.

Pretty much. The whole "let the free market decide" thing only works in an infinite market, or at least one that's large enough to be effectively infinite, and a great many regions do not meet those criteria. If there aren't viable alternatives, people can't spend their money elsewhere.

Imagine if, instead of a bakery, it was the only grocery store in town (not that unusual in rural areas). Can you really say it'd be okay to force a gay couple to drive for an extra half hour each way to get to the next-closest store, effectively making them pay more (time=money, gas=money) for the necessities of life?
---

FinalFantasyVII posted...

it perfectly within this man's freedom to be a dumbass who doesn't want more money

The best part of all this are all the idiotic sjws being offended.

I drink all of your easily-offended tears.
---

jramirez23 posted...

https://tinyurl.com/y9fgwwz9

I remember reading that he would bake cakes to anyone regardless of sexual orientation; but he would not want it to be an actual wedding cake.

I think they ruled in favor of him primarily because a commission in his state was hostile to him. Depending on the specific service he refuses to provide, or the kind of religious edict he chooses to follow, we probably would not receive the same ruling.

They were willing to bake the cake, just not willing to write the message they wanted on it or something iirc
---

Zangulus posted...

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

For necessities, sure, but a wedding-cake is a luxury.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Zangulus posted...

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

For necessities, sure, but a wedding-cake is a luxury.

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities. It's pretty simple to not be a homophobic/racist/religiously discriminatory asshole. That's not an unreasonable expectation to place on people. It's also pretty reasonable to say it's not okay to force people to spend more or accept poorer service because of who they are, regardless of how necessary the service in question is.
---

adjl posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Zangulus posted...

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

For necessities, sure, but a wedding-cake is a luxury.

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities. It's pretty simple to not be a homophobic/racist/religiously discriminatory asshole. That's not an unreasonable expectation to place on people. It's also pretty reasonable to say it's not okay to force people to spend more or accept poorer service because of who they are, regardless of how necessary the service in question is.

I cannot disagree more. Why should a private business owner, emphasis on private, be forced to provide service for something that goes against their beliefs? Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a swastika cake? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for the KKK?
---

Zangulus posted...

Youre free to be an a******. That doesnt mean youre free of the consequences of being an a******.

Freedom of consequence is the freedom, otherwise it means nothing.

That's like saying I have the freedom of theft and murder and pedo simply because there are consequences
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

adjl posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Zangulus posted...

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

For necessities, sure, but a wedding-cake is a luxury.

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities. It's pretty simple to not be a homophobic/racist/religiously discriminatory asshole. That's not an unreasonable expectation to place on people. It's also pretty reasonable to say it's not okay to force people to spend more or accept poorer service because of who they are, regardless of how necessary the service in question is.

I cannot disagree more. Why should a private business owner, emphasis on private, be forced to provide service for something that goes against their beliefs? Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a swastika cake? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for the KKK?

Getting gay married isn't hating Christians, though. You're confusing identity with actions, unless you really believe that getting married can ever be comparable to having a party to celebrate hating black people (in which case you should probably re-evaluate your life).

Basically, denying somebody service because they're openly hostile to you? Fair. Denying somebody service because you don't like something inherent to them that doesn't actually affect you? Not fair.
---

adjl posted...

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities.

I'd say getting a cake from a fancy cake-shop constitutes craftsmanship, so I doubt there's an argument there for why it would not be a luxury.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

adjl posted...

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities.

I'd say getting a cake from a fancy cake-shop constitutes craftsmanship, so I doubt there's an argument there for why it would not be a luxury.

So what if we say that growing vegetables and raising livestock constitutes craftsmanship? Does it then become legal to refuse to sell gay people meat and vegetables?

That really doesn't work as a basis for defining necessities. It's far too open-ended.
---

Lokarin posted...

Freedom of consequence is the freedom, otherwise it means nothing.

Freedom from legal consequences, that's all the government can and may guarantee.
---

adjl posted...

So what if we say that growing vegetables and raising livestock constitutes craftsmanship? Does it then become legal to refuse to sell gay people meat and vegetables?

Fancy pancy craftmanship more expensive variants? Probably. From what I can find there is no legal obligation to just accept every customer.
---

Man, y'all have a big hardon for saying freedom is on your side.
---

Zangulus posted...

Which is why the list of illegal reasons to refuse someone is absolutely minute. Theres only a handful of protected classes for that very reasons.

Reasons which store owners apparently do not have to share with the customer in question.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

adjl posted...

So what if we say that growing vegetables and raising livestock constitutes craftsmanship? Does it then become legal to refuse to sell gay people meat and vegetables?

Fancy pancy craftmanship more expensive variants? Probably. From what I can find there is no legal obligation to just accept every customer.

And what qualifies as fancy pancy? Farming is a skilled trade. Surely you're not going to say that organic farmers are craftsmen but regular farmers aren't, and that organic farmers therefore have more privileges.

Zangulus posted...

Which is why the list of illegal reasons to refuse someone is absolutely minute. Theres only a handful of protected classes for that very reasons.

That too. It's also worth noting that said list is populated exclusively by groups that have had troubles being discriminated against in the past. If not for homophobic assholes, there'd be no rules against being a homophobic asshole. These rules exist to help disadvantaged classes stop being disadvantaged. If you don't like them, help with that process until such rules stop being necessary.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI" data-time="

FinalFantasyVII posted...

it perfectly within this man's freedom to be a dumbass who doesn't want more money

This. He's free to refuse business, and others are free to avoid him for it.
---

ITT: People that refuse to read the actual story
---

beast911 posted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ixvPz1PIHI" data-time="

adjl posted...

denying somebody service because they're openly hostile to you? Fair.

---

adjl posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

adjl posted...

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Zangulus posted...

It... actually isnt. History has shown that the free market doesnt work like that. There are protections in place for a reason.

For necessities, sure, but a wedding-cake is a luxury.

That may be, but I'm fine with using blanket regulations instead of having to pick and choose what constitutes necessities. It's pretty simple to not be a homophobic/racist/religiously discriminatory asshole. That's not an unreasonable expectation to place on people. It's also pretty reasonable to say it's not okay to force people to spend more or accept poorer service because of who they are, regardless of how necessary the service in question is.

I cannot disagree more. Why should a private business owner, emphasis on private, be forced to provide service for something that goes against their beliefs? Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a swastika cake? Should a black baker be forced to make a cake for the KKK?

Getting gay married isn't hating Christians, though. You're confusing identity with actions, unless you really believe that getting married can ever be comparable to having a party to celebrate hating black people (in which case you should probably re-evaluate your life).

Basically, denying somebody service because they're openly hostile to you? Fair. Denying somebody service because you don't like something inherent to them that doesn't actually affect you? Not fair.

Your right, it's more like forcing someone who is Jewish to eat bacon, not sure if they are able to cook it. Also it isn't that it effects them directly, but helping them form a bond that goes against GOD. To them, helping a homosexual will send them to hell. So absolutely yes, they want to refuse service to them.

Now that's not saying they should be bigoted and hate these people. But others should have some understanding and just accept that they don't have to help with your wedding. Why would you force someone to make something they don't want anyways? It's not flinging hate speech or anything like that. Their religion just prevents them from helping out, that's it.
---

I'm on whatever side offends the sjws and/or feminists the most.
---

Zangulus posted...

yutterh posted...

Their religion just prevents them from helping out, that's it.

Except for the part where it doesnt actually say that in the Bible.

It does talk about loving thy neighbor and forgiving sinners though.

There is nothing in the Bible saying that baking a cake or offering a service equates to supporting them.

Because of the bond of marriage. It is considered unholy for anyone that isn't a man and a woman to be married. Love thy neighbor means to respect them and their customs. It doesn't mean break your customs for theirs. Most of these cake places are okay with servicing gay people, it just when it comes to making a wedding cake that they can't. They can do gay birthday cakes just fine.
---

We could try to make an analogy: imagine a limousine company refusing to provide its flashiest vehicle because it would be used in a same-sex marriage ceremony. The company would provide a drab passenger van, instead. Does this change anything? I think in this analogy, the craftsmanship/artistry argument wouldnt really apply, but I see more discrimination in the hypothetical case.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

If he wants to deny service to gays, fine, but then he risks losing business in doing so.

Legally nobody can do that due to discrimination laws. Also I'm against pharmacists refusing to fill out birth control too. They should automatically be fired for not doing their job.

yutterh posted...

it just when it comes to making a wedding cake that they can't.

Well as that post you responded to said: "There is nothing in the Bible saying that baking a cake or offering a service equates to supporting them."
---

Mead posted...

ITT: People that refuse to read the actual story

Mhmmmmm

The court sided with the cake maker because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated him unfairly based on the basis of his religion. Really, nothing was accomplished within the scope of freely discriminating against gays.
---

Lol at the leftists who think they should be forced to. Give me a break. Why should any bakery regardless of religious orientation be forced to bake any cake whatsoever? Nobody NEEDS a cake. What if a gay couple wanted a cake with a giant cock on it? Should the bakery be forced to bake the cake just so they don't offend sjws?

Good ruling
---

Revelation34 posted...

XlaxJynx007 posted...

If he wants to deny service to gays, fine, but then he risks losing business in doing so.

Legally nobody can do that due to discrimination laws.

Private businesses can deny service to anybody for any reason
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Final vote was 7-2, so pretty strong consensus of the Supreme Court. I have to side with the Court on this one.

Well, the court's reasoning was certainly on-point, although it sounds like it's going t be a pretty limited ruling.

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Im a firm believer that a private business should be able to run their business however they want and let the free market decide how that works for them. If he wants to deny service to gays, fine, but then he risks losing business in doing so.

He's denying one specific service, not all services. While I personally believe that businesses should be allowed to sell (or not sell) whatever they choose to whoever they damn well please, that's really not the outcome here.

Zangulus posted...

It would allow areas to create basically dead spots where people cant live and function.

If that were the actual motivation, then the scope of the laws should be far more limited, both in terms of what it covers and where it's applied.

Zangulus posted...

Theyre not being defiled. Nor are they actually doing something that goes against their religion to bake a cake.

...you completely are. And forcing somebody to act against their beliefs is worse than simply not honoring somebody's beliefs.

adjl posted...

So what if we say that growing vegetables and raising livestock constitutes craftsmanship? Does it then become legal to refuse to sell gay people meat and vegetables?

...he says ignoring that this pertains to one specific service and has precedents in other types of cakes they choose not to make because it violates their beliefs.
---

yutterh posted...

Your right, it's more like forcing someone who is Jewish to eat bacon, not sure if they are able to cook it.

Not remotely. Nobody's forcing the bakers to attend the wedding, which would be the closest analog to making a Jew eat bacon. It's slightly closer to making a Jewish person serve bacon, but that analogy also falls apart completely when you consider that serving bacon is not a service that a Jewish person would be offering in the first place. Wedding cakes were offered to all, but then denied to specific people on the basis of their sexual orientation. That's where the discrimination comes in.

yutterh posted...

Also it isn't that it effects them directly, but helping them form a bond that goes against GOD.

Cakes don't help weddings happen. Nobody has ever said "welp, we couldn't get a cake, wedding's off." Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is nothing more than an act of petty, impotent spite from people who have no further means to object to gay marriage after the supreme court told them all to go **** themselves. Nobody with a shred of common sense actually thinks they're doing anything to keep the wedding from happening.

yutterh posted...

To them, helping a homosexual will send them to hell.

That directive shows up nowhere in the Christian faith.

OhhhJa posted...

What if a gay couple wanted a cake with a giant cock on it?

Then that would fall under my previous comment of it being okay to refuse service to people who are being openly hostile to you. That's a significantly less hostile gesture than trying to get a Jewish caterer for a Neo-Nazi meeting, but it can still be reasonably assumed to be offensive to the baker. Being offended by the existence of a gay wedding, however, is not considered reasonable, and is therefore not accepted.

Zeus posted...

...he says ignoring that this pertains to one specific service

You know full well that this discussion has expanded far beyond the scope of this particular ruling (and, in fact, has never been so limited). Don't be disingenuous. If you're going to chime in on a question I asked, answer the question.
---

adjl posted...

Then that would fall under my previous comment of it being okay to refuse service to people who are being openly hostile to you

A giant cock is hostile? Lol

Either way, this falls under a non necessity item anyway and if someone doesn't want to bake a cake with any kind of gay implication or what have you they shouldn't have to. I bet you wouldn't force an Islamic run bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding

The_tall_midget posted...

I'm on whatever side offends the sjws and/or feminists the most.

Youre on every side?
---