Homophobic bakers win big at Supreme Court

[bbvi]

I think that's a bit over the top, but the concern is that there seems to be 3 votes on the Court for the general principle that any business owner may legally discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and the current president would like to make that 4.

not discriminate based on sexual orientation, cause they coulda BOUGHT any cake there

but NOT be forced to use their OWN ARTISTIC EXPRESSION that opposes their OWN RELIGIOUS VIEWS


so you misrepresented FACTS there, NIGGER

 

[IrezumiKiss]

This means nobody can sell perverted cakes or even Jewishy edibles to this motherfucker:

oh happy day!

https://media.giphy.com/media/14abHf7vah20RG/giphy.gif

 

[BotanyBoy]

This means nobody can sell perverted cakes or even Jewishy edibles to this motherfucker:

oh happy day!

They can, they just don't have to.

Wouldn't you rather be able to tell him to take his "white power" cake and fuck off if you were a baker?

Or would you rather the government force you to make a Klan Kake it for him??

 

[RobDownSouth]

Always bizarre to see BobsDownSouth fronting as a spokesmodel for the GLBT community.

Kinda throws cold water on your continual overheated "Rob is a homophobe!" rehetoric, doesn't it?

 

[Que]

Kinda throws cold water on your continual overheated "Rob is a homophobe!" rehetoric, doesn't it?

No more than your insistence that you have a black friend tell you that blacks can't swim throws cold water on your obvious condescending attitude you exhibit towards people of color.

That's kind of the point of the sort of vacuous virtue signalling you are engaging in here. Trying to buy goodwill credits from a community you display wide ignorance about and open disdain for the activities they engage in.

You can still be a racist after donating to the NAACP.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

They can, they just don't have to.

Wouldn't you rather be able to tell him to take his "white power" cake and fuck off if you were a baker?

Or would you rather the government force you to make a Klan Kake it for him??

The gubbmint don't have to force me to bake a cake or pie for the Klan...

https://pics.me.me/i-made-you-a-specialpie-happy-national-pie-day-%F0%9F%98%8F-12839114.png

I got that work for 'em, bruh!

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxpj6grFIe1qcaomb.gif

 

[Hypoxia]

The no-compelled-commercial-artistic-expression principal is rock-solid US jurisprudence. I can see why they chickened out and ruled based on that principal rather than touching the constitutionality of religious freedom laws.

SCOTUS ruled that religious belief trumps law. They are fucking insane. They just legalized faith-based lynching. Enjoy.

 

[Wrong Element]

SCOTUS ruled that religious belief trumps law. They are fucking insane. They just legalized faith-based lynching. Enjoy.

We'll see how important the majority in this case really finds religious belief when the travel ban opinion comes down.

 

[bbvi]

SCOTUS ruled that religious belief trumps law. They are fucking insane. They just legalized faith-based lynching. Enjoy.

we can only HOPE

 

[BotanyBoy]

The gubbmint don't have to force me to bake a cake or pie for the Klan...

I got that work for 'em, bruh!

Oh well then I'm glad you agree with the SCOTUS and side with freedom and civil rights over oppressive government forced "progress".

 

[Que]

SCOTUS ruled that religious belief trumps law. They are fucking insane. They just legalized faith-based lynching. Enjoy.

We'll see how important the majority in this case really finds religious belief when the travel ban opinion comes down.

They did not address the free-exercise of religion aspect of this case.

Feel free to get histrionic about what you think they ruled, though.

 

[Oblimo]

They did not address the free-exercise of religion aspect of this case.

Feel free to get histrionic about what you think they ruled, though.

Que’s correct I believe. They even come out and reaffirm that religious belief is not grounds for denying equal access to goods and services to a protected class. As I read it, what tips the balance of rights in the baker’s favor is the long-standing principle against compelled commercial artistic expression.

 

[bestone4ever]

Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. How this retarded effort made the SCOTUS is a testament to our wasting taxpayer's money.

 

[Que]

Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. How this retarded effort made the SCOTUS is a testament to our wasting taxpayer's money.

No they don't.

Welcome to the latter half of the 20th century!

Coma?

 

[Wrong Element]

They did not address the free-exercise of religion aspect of this case.

Feel free to get histrionic about what you think they ruled, though.

The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against the baker based on his religious beliefs (I didn't say a thing about free exercise).

Again, we'll see re the travel ban if the majority today believes some sincerely held religious beliefs are more important than others.

Que’s correct I believe. They even come out and reaffirm that religious belief is not grounds for denying equal access to goods and services to a protected class. As I read it, what tips the balance of rights in the baker’s favor is the long-standing principle against compelled commercial artistic expression.

I guess I fail to see how compelled artistic expression is at issue when the baker made it clear that any combination of flour, eggs, and icing created for the purpose of commemorating the wedding of these two men was something he would refuse to do. The couple wasn't asking him to put "Yay! Sodomy!" on the cake. They didn't get any farther than saying they were interested in a wedding cake before they were shot down.

if we're going to argue that the creation of food is artistic expression per se, that seems to come uncomfortably close to saying that a restaurant can refuse to seat gay customers if an owner claims his religion compels it — though I have little doubt Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito would be OK with that.

Ginsburg was correct: the business of the two men was refused on the basis of their identities, not because of any message they were requesting.

My guess is that Kennedy (and I suppose Roberts, who was the only other justice who didn't dissent or write/join in a concurrence) don't really want to grapple with the inconsistencies in the majority opinion, and decided to punt. Kennedy will likely be retired the next time a similar issue arises.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Oh well then I'm glad you agree with the SCOTUS and side with freedom and civil rights over oppressive government forced "progress".

Progressive, schmegressive!

If some Klan bitches wanna to come to MY shop to get their cake on, not only will I give them what they want, I’ll give ‘em what they deserve.

Take that whichever way that makes yo’ pickle perk!

 

[Oblimo]

The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against the baker based on his religious beliefs (I didn't say a thing about free exercise).

No, they didn’t, I think. They said the Commission ruled based on the baker making his decision on his religion, but that was the wrong standard. His reason for making his decision didn’t matter. His right to decline an art commission did.

I guess I fail to see how compelled artistic expression is at issue when the baker made it clear that any combination of flour, eggs, and icing created for the purpose of commemorating the wedding of these two men was something he would refuse to do.

They ruled, for better or worse (I personally think worse, because cooking’s next), that cake making is an art. It doesn’t matter what the customer asked him to make, as long as it qualified as art. They asked him to make an object d’art, and he said no.

if we're going to argue that the creation of food is artistic expression per se, that seems to come uncomfortably close to saying that a restaurant can refuse to seat gay customers if an owner claims his religion compels it — though I have little doubt Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito would be OK with that.

I blame the Food Network cake baking contest reality shows for giving them the idea that wedding cake making is an art. Shows like Chopped make me share your worries, that someone might try to make the crazy argument that a diner can’t refuse to serve a gay guy a rootbeer float, but a Michelin 3 star restaurant can refuse to serve a lesbian their unique twist on foie gras.

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

Oh well then I'm glad you agree with the SCOTUS and side with freedom and civil rights over oppressive government forced "progress".

Progressive, schmegressive!

If some Klan bitches wanna to come to MY shop to get their cake on, not only will I give them what they want, I’ll give ‘em what they deserve.

Take that whichever way that makes yo’ pickle perk!

LOL! This is the funniest shit I seen all day! Maybe I should have brought some popcorn.

 

[Que]

The Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against the baker based on his religious beliefs (I didn't say a thing about free exercise).

Again, we'll see re the travel ban if the majority today believes some sincerely held religious beliefs are more important than others.





I guess I fail to see how compelled artistic expression is at issue when the baker made it clear that any combination of flour, eggs, and icing created for the purpose of commemorating the wedding of these two men was something he would refuse to do. The couple wasn't asking him to put "Yay! Sodomy!" on the cake. They didn't get any farther than saying they were interested in a wedding cake before they were shot down.

if we're going to argue that the creation of food is artistic expression per se, that seems to come uncomfortably close to saying that a restaurant can refuse to seat gay customers if an owner claims his religion compels it — though I have little doubt Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito would be OK with that.

Ginsburg was correct: the business of the two men was refused on the basis of their identities, not because of any message they were requesting.

My guess is that Kennedy (and I suppose Roberts, who was the only other justice who didn't dissent or write/join in a concurrence) don't really want to grapple with the inconsistencies in the majority opinion, and decided to punt. Kennedy will likely be retired the next time a similar issue arises.

Is there another clause in the constitution protecting "sincerely held religious beliefs?"

Yes the Civil Rights Commission did violate the baker's civil rights, but SCOTUS did not, as you asserted, address the validity or relevance of the baker's religious beleifs. It is quite the opposite of what you are asserting. What they were saying was that the commission could not consider his religious beliefs, and ascribe those beliefs to his actions.

 

[Hypoxia]

Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Except protected classes. You don't get to tell nigs, spix, jooz, gooks, and Scientologists to take their business elsewhere.

Except now you do. Now you can wave a cross or a dried fish and chant, "Begone, hell-spawn!" And if your religion says to crucify cats, go right ahead. SCOTUS is on your side. Here, kitty kitty...

 

[ThatsTheGuy]

I see Que done come in here and tucked everybody's shit up.

 

[Que]

Except protected classes. You don't get to tell nigs, spix, jooz, gooks, and Scientologists to take their business elsewhere.

Except now you do. Now you can wave a cross or a dried fish and chant, "Begone, hell-spawn!" And if your religion says to crucify cats, go right ahead. SCOTUS is on your side. Here, kitty kitty...

Again, SCOTUS decided nothing of the sort.

You really should stick to the story ideas section you have such a lot of great ideas and you have actually nothing valid, relevant, or interesting to say on anything involving political discourse.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No more than your insistence that you have a black friend tell you that blacks can't swim throws cold water on your obvious condescending attitude you exhibit towards people of color.

That's kind of the point of the sort of vacuous virtue signalling you are engaging in here. Trying to buy goodwill credits from a community you display wide ignorance about and open disdain for the activities they engage in.

You can still be a racist after donating to the NAACP.

oh look, diddums is trying to pivot a discussion about religious freedom to race!

 

[beew]

Except protected classes. You don't get to tell nigs, spix, jooz, gooks, and Scientologists to take their business elsewhere.

Except now you do. Now you can wave a cross or a dried fish and chant, "Begone, hell-spawn!"

I understand that you guys (the 'trannies' obsessed Rob included) are into Liberalism and SJW.

But you Do realize that this measure is far more likely to enable Muslims, do you?

There was an undercover video posted on youtube, showing that Not One muslim baker agreed to bake such a cake.

 

[HisArpy]

Ok, I've read the opinion, as usual, all you goofs get it mostly wrong.

For one thing, the decision wasn't about GAY anything. It was about the Colorado Civil Rights' Commission treating the baker differently than they've treated similar defendants in similar cases in the past. Half of the commission were openly hostile to the defendants on the basis that the commission supported LBGT Rights. They didn't CARE about the law, or any defense presented. The fact that there was an LBGT case, in their minds, automatically meant the LBGT complainants won.

This is not how justice is supposed to be upheld REGARDLESS of whether the defendant did anything wrong or not.

And that was the reason the court ruled the way it did. Note that 2 "liberal" Justices sided with the majority in this decision. That ought to tell you something. But, as usual, you guys seem to think that if you don't like the decision, you can just blame the side you don't agree with for being a racist or bigot or whatever.

For another thing, anti-discrimination laws aren't meant to be enforced the way the plaintiffs wanted them to be. Yes, it's a club designed to be used to force people to be fair and neutral. What it's not is a spiked mace to be used to legally maim those whose views you don't agree with.

In this case, the plaintiffs didn't want to use the anti-discrimination laws to buy a cake. They wanted to use the laws to force the baker to make a SPECIAL CAKE which featured elements that the baker didn't want to create. That's an application of the law that's backward. The law doesn't force people to act in ways which promote that which they don't agree with. It forces people to NOT act in ways which are detrimental to those things that society believes should be fair and equal regardless of certain characteristics.

No law can FORCE someone to accept LBGT's. What the law does is PREVENT that person from behaviors which harm those in the protected class. You can buy a cake in my shop. What you can't buy is a cake that promotes your special interests at the expense of my personal beliefs. Nor should the law require me to create that special cake for you.