Homophobic bakers win big at Supreme Court

[BotanyBoy]

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.

That's the limit of their "critical thinking" skills.

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.

That's exactly what they think it is though.

 

[Oblimo]

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

Just curious: do you have a law degree?

For one thing, the decision wasn't about GAY anything.

I believe this is 100% correct.

It was about the Colorado Civil Rights' Commission treating the baker differently than they've treated similar defendants in similar cases in the past.

Sssorta. Technically, I guess.

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.

Argle bargle siege mentality paranoia bargle people who disagree with me must be corrupt argle bargle

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.

100% correct again, methinks!

What you can't buy is a cake that promotes your special interests at the expense of my personal beliefs.

Wrong, thinks me! The beliefs of the baker and the “special interests” of the customer are irrelevant. A commercial artist has the right to refuse an artistic commission, and SCOTUS found that in this case that right trumped o) the customer’s right to goods and services. Didn’t matter what the customer wanted or the baker believed.

 

[Oblimo]

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...

Hypoxia, I agree with you on many occasions, but I’m with the right wing nut jobs on this one. The SCOTUS did not base the core of their ruling on religious grounds. They did provide a metric fuckton of dicta about exercise of religion, though, that I believe will prove to be good ammunition to the defense of all those religious freedom statutes, to whomever figures out how to get the SCOTUS to address those statutes on the merits.

 

[HisArpy]

Just curious: do you have a law degree?

Yes. But it is not required to understand this decision. Or any decision for that matter.


I believe this is 100% correct.

It is, according to the SCOTUS.


Sssorta. Technically, I guess.

Nope, not "technically at all. Go read the opinion.


Argle bargle siege mentality paranoia bargle people who disagree with me must be corrupt argle bargle


Hmmm, maybe this is the result of the cat typing your response? I'm not discriminating against cats, I just don't grok feline. So I have no idea what your cat was trying to say here.

100% correct again, methinks!

It's the law. It's supposed to be applied equally to everyone and not specifically for a special few. That it protects a special few doesn't mean those so protected can use it to discriminate against the majority. Equal means equal, not entitled.

Wrong, thinks me! The beliefs of the baker and the “special interests” of the customer are irrelevant. A commercial artist has the right to refuse an artistic commission, and SCOTUS found that in this case that right trumped o) the customer’s right to goods and services. Didn’t matter what the customer wanted or the baker believed.

No. Go read the opinion. It's quite clear that this was a "procedural failure" by the commission and had the commission done its job the way it should have, the outcome of the case may have been different. However, because of the procedural errors, the SCOTUS never decided whether "personal beliefs" were superior to Equal Rights and in fact said so.

 

[Libsam]

At issue is whether "sexual orientation" is "innate" or "conduct".

A substantial number of people truly believe sexual orientation is somehow a "choice", and therefore falls under the "conduct" umbrella. I typically ask these folks when exactly did they "choose" their orientation. They reply they've "always" been hetero, and they never ever had no homo thoughts, so to me that strikes me as "innate".

Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, the legal trend has been to recognize sexual orientation as "innate".

As today's court decision showed, we're not quite there yet.

So, what's your position? That gender identity is fluid and independent of biological gender?

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That baker is light in his loafers if you ask me.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

He has such nicely feathered hair.

All he wants to do is keep making his fancy cakes.


http://c5.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/colorado-baker-case-jack-phillips-r.jpg

 

[Que]

That baker is light in his loafers if you ask me.

Oh, you go girl!

Nothing shows progressive, enlightened tolerance like using "you're gay" as an egregious insult.

 

[Que]

That baker is light in his loafers if you ask me.

Oh, you go girl!

Nothing shows progressive, enlightened tolerance like using "you're gay" as an egregious insult.

 

[Que]

He has such nicely feathered hair.

All he wants to do is keep making his fancy cakes.


http://c5.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/uploaded/colorado-baker-case-jack-phillips-r.jpg

Spoke too soon. This is a more enlightened display of bigoted stereotyping.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Did I say light in his loafers?

He's a Christian. He's a flaming closeted fag.

He wears lavender gloves when he's making his fancy cakes!

Spoke too soon. This is a more enlightened display of bigoted stereotyping.

 

[Taint_mAnn]

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

See, maybe deep down he really does care for you and your ilk.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Are you criticizing my First Amendment Rights?

Calling someone a Closeted Christian Fag is my right of artistic expression, deal with it.

Spoke too soon. This is a more enlightened display of bigoted stereotyping.

 

[bestone4ever]

No they don't.

Welcome to the latter half of the 20th century!

Coma?

Please. Any retail store owner can do whatever the fuck they want. These bakers are just not smart enough to hide their bigotry.

 

[Que]

Are you criticizing my First Amendment Rights?

Calling someone a Closeted Christian Fag is my right of artistic expression, deal with it.

Where do I suggest the government should censor you? I'm just highlighting your obvious hypocrisy and your own internalized bigotry. You wouldn't make such statements if you didn't yourself feel that way about homosexuals.

 

[beew]

Please. Any retail store owner can do whatever the fuck they want. These bakers are just not smart enough to hide their bigotry.

You might have a point here.

I noticed that the rude or openly superior people are more likely to be slapped with an official complaint or a lawsuit.

Those who make mistakes or refuse you, but do it in a gracious manner are more likely to get a pass.

 

[HisArpy]

Are you criticizing my First Amendment Rights?

Calling someone a Closeted Christian Fag is my right of artistic expression, deal with it.

No, it's hate speech. And you've been quite clear about how hate speech isn't the same as free speech. Or as it's now called; artistic expression.

 

[jaF0]

Skips all the blah blah ....

This case never should have gone to court to begin with. Once filed, it should have been dismissed or simply rejected.

 

[nowisthetime]

Sexual orientation is innate. That's settled science. It's not a "choice".

Science has shown a difference in the hypothalamus (rightists don't know what that is) in the brains of gay men compared to that of straight men. Many theorists also believe that homosexuality is an evolutionary limiting factor to control population overgrowth. They are here with us, it is what it is.

You are right, it isn't a choice. Imagine living as a gay man, being forced to repress your innate desires in a heterocentric society.

See, that is the problem with bitter rightist males, they don't have the capacity of empathy for their fellow human beings, only with their damn dogs.

If they can imagine a world that was flipped to an alternate universe where the majority was gay and they were the only straight beings forced to mate with males for whom there is no attraction. What misery for them. This is the reality for gay men in many societies. But yet again, rightist males can't use their imagination, they have none.

Also, many Christians support homosexuality, just not your racist/sexist/homophobe MAGA fundies who drag the United States down. They really want to roll back progress.

 

[HisArpy]

Skips all the blah blah ....

This case never should have gone to court to begin with. Once filed, it should have been dismissed or simply rejected.

So, the LBGT's shouldn't have gotten their day in court?

 

[jaF0]

It's a cake. It's not a Federal Case.

There were other bakeries.

 

[HisArpy]

It's a cake. It's not a Federal Case.

There were other bakeries.

And Rosa Parks could have taken another bus...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by RobDownSouth View Post
Supreme Court just ruled 7-2 that homophobic bakers need not be "forced" to bake cakes for nasssty little faggots.

You're painting them with the same broad brush, Rob.

It's indeed likely that quite a few of them are driven by homophobia +/- religious beliefs (which claim that marriage should be just between man and woman).

But it's just as likely that other religious folks have no issue with gay couples, outside that particular situation.

The baker did not refuse to bake a cake for the gay couple. What he did was to refuse to use his talents to decorate the cake in such a manner as to appear to endorse same sex marriage. I believe SCOTUS got this one right, even though, if I had been the baker, I would have had no problem selling and decorating the cake.

 

[Boxlicker101]

And Rosa Parks could have taken another bus...

Actually, she probably couldn't have, at least not without waiting a long time. I don't know anything about the bus schedules in Birmingham, but it seems unlikely there would have been two busses going from where she boarded to the same destination within a few minutes of each other.

 

[Sean]

Actually, she probably couldn't have, at least not without waiting a long time. I don't know anything about the bus schedules in Birmingham, but it seems unlikely there would have been two busses going from where she boarded to the same destination within a few minutes of each other.

Jesus H Christ.