First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Justice Dept sides with Baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple
-OlE- 
1291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Online
Posted 9/9/17
here is a more interesting scenario to me, take out the religious motivation, what if it is just somebody who strongly believes in traditional marriage, is that still protected? i would think so given the example of someone who wouldn't want to bake a nazi cake, that is not necessarily religious motivated, obviously lots of the religious don't like nazi's but not liking nazis is not a religious doctrine
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 9/9/17
The comical thing here is that if they never announced that they were gay, "Masterpiece Bakery/Cake Shop" wouldn't have known the wiser.
The wedding cakes that this baker designs are run-of-the-mill and quite generic.
There isn't anything over the top nor artistic outside of using the same stencils each time.
This issue boils down to one thing: personal beliefs.
The complication stems from Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:


42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.


Source: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations


With this being said, based on 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a) within Title II of the Civil Rights Act the baker cannot deny service to another individual based on his own or their religious beliefs.
You can decide to argue that a private place of business should be allowed to do as they wish, technically.
The business owner is the one who is paying the bills and/or supplying the goods.
In order for the baker to get around this particular case, he would have to be consistent in his discrimination.
As it's illegal for him to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin he would simply have to cease in making wedding cakes altogether.
That's the only means of action that he has as long as he's a business owner within the United States of America.
Alternatively, the business owner could force potential customers to have a membership with his bakery as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does state that private clubs or private establishments are exempt to these laws.
runec 
39020 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/9/17

Cydoemus wrote:
In order for the baker to get around this particular case, he would have to be consistent in his discrimination.
As it's illegal for him to discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin he would simply have to cease in making wedding cakes altogether.


That's actually exactly what he did rather than comply with the court. This is the case's second appeal. Local and state supreme court have already ruled against him.



Rujikin wrote:
Really this gay couple could have gone to walmart and they would give them a pre-made one or make it how they want. They are doing this for vengeance and attention. They waited 2 years for vengance... idk if they are still together at this point.


He's not fighting the couple in court. He's fighting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Whom the couple filed a complaint to.

The reason it's not working is because, as the courts have ruled so far, that baking cakes is a service of his business. Thus, said cakes are not an expression of free speech or religious freedom. But rather a product of his business thus must serve everyone equally. The DoJ is trying to argue that baking cake as a business is a form of expression rather than a product of his business.





7379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / Pacific North West
Online
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17
What a farce... I live in Washington state which allows us to "refuse service at any time for any reason" however you just cannot say why. Which is complete nonsense that as a small private business you cannot refuse a specific service without being sued. Another case comes to mind of a baker sued because she refused to make (wedding cake or cupcakes cant remember) for a "gay wedding." Best part was the couple had been buying form the bakery for years. So in that particular case the concept of discrimination gets a bit grey. However I will add that bakery store closed due to death threats and vandalism.

The world is connected. In my mind any reasonable person can order any product or service at a growing number of brick and mortar stores. To say nothing of the online community. If someone doesnt want to sell you products, go buy from their competitor and tell your friends to shop elsewhere. Let your money do the talking, not some blood sucking lawyer.
23046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Really this gay couple could have gone to walmart and they would give them a pre-made one or make it how they want. They are doing this for vengeance and attention. They waited 2 years for vengance... idk if they are still together at this point.


He's not fighting the couple in court. He's fighting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Whom the couple filed a complaint to.

The reason it's not working is because, as the courts have ruled so far, that baking cakes is a service of his business. Thus, said cakes are not an expression of free speech or religious freedom. But rather a product of his business thus must serve everyone equally. The DoJ is trying to argue that baking cake as a business is a form of expression rather than a product of his business.


I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

Attacking a person through their business would become a legitimate form of attack against people. Really most family bakeries could be shutdown pretty easily or extorted.
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:

The justice department is right with this one. Just imagine if a gay couple had an Islamic bakery make a cake for them with a picture of Mohammad on it, this is blasphemy in Islam. If they didn't make the cake they would lose their business and if they made the cake they would be committing blasphemy against Mohammad.

You shouldn't be able to compel artists to make stuff they don't agree with. If one artist won't make it for you then you can find one that will.



Rujikin wrote:
I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.


These examples only really play if the gay couple were asking for some sort of outrageous cake with dicks all over it or something, which I highly doubt was the case. They probably just wanted an extra little man on the top of it instead of a woman.


Rujikin wrote:Go to Walmart, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Dairy Queen, Target, Marsh, Meijer, or any other place with cakes to get a pre-made one instead of waiting to sue this guy for 2 years while waiting on their cake.


Are you stupid or have you just never been to a wedding? People don't buy wedding cakes at the freaking piggly wiggly, and telling someone to get a premade cake from wal-mart for their freaking wedding is ridiculous.


Cydoemus wrote:

The comical thing here is that if they never announced that they were gay, "Masterpiece Bakery/Cake Shop" wouldn't have known the wiser.
The wedding cakes that this baker designs are run-of-the-mill and quite generic.


That's not how wedding cakes work. When people order a wedding cake, they go in to the bakery (usually months in advance) and taste test all the different flavors of cake and frosting to personalize a cake for their big day. So yes, they usually have to meet the baker in person to order one.

All that said, while I believe the baker is an asshole for not just shutting up and baking the cake like he's supposed to, I also think he's well within his rights to be an asshole in this case and I don't think he should be punished in any way by the government for his actions. If anything I think the gay community should drum up some public outcry and try to have this guy's shop boycotted to teach him a lesson (which I'm sure they've l already done/tried).

But if the courts do end up ruling against the guy, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Edit-


Rujikin wrote:
I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

As I said above, this line of reasoning is completely ridiculous and not at all applicable to the situation at hand.
23046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

The justice department is right with this one. Just imagine if a gay couple had an Islamic bakery make a cake for them with a picture of Mohammad on it, this is blasphemy in Islam. If they didn't make the cake they would lose their business and if they made the cake they would be committing blasphemy against Mohammad.

You shouldn't be able to compel artists to make stuff they don't agree with. If one artist won't make it for you then you can find one that will.



Rujikin wrote:
I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.


These examples only really play if the gay couple were asking for some sort of outrageous cake with dicks all over it or something, which I highly doubt was the case. They probably just wanted an extra little man on the top of it instead of a woman.


Rujikin wrote:Go to Walmart, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Dairy Queen, Target, Marsh, Meijer, or any other place with cakes to get a pre-made one instead of waiting to sue this guy for 2 years while waiting on their cake.


Are you stupid or have you just never been to a wedding? People don't buy wedding cakes at the freaking piggly wiggly, and telling someone to get a premade cake from wal-mart for their freaking wedding is ridiculous.


Cydoemus wrote:

The comical thing here is that if they never announced that they were gay, "Masterpiece Bakery/Cake Shop" wouldn't have known the wiser.
The wedding cakes that this baker designs are run-of-the-mill and quite generic.


That's not how wedding cakes work. When people order a wedding cake, they go in to the bakery (usually months in advance) and taste test all the different flavors of cake and frosting to personalize a cake for their big day. So yes, they usually have to meet the baker in person to order one.

All that said, while I believe the baker is an asshole for not just shutting up and baking the cake like he's supposed to, I also think he's well within his rights to be an asshole in this case and I don't think he should be punished in any way by the government for his actions. If anything I think the gay community should drum up some public outcry and try to have this guy's shop boycotted to teach him a lesson (which I'm sure they've l already done/tried).

But if the courts do end up ruling against the guy, I won't be losing any sleep over it.

Edit-


Rujikin wrote:
I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

As I said above, this line of reasoning is completely ridiculous and not at all applicable to the situation at hand.


To these bakers it was offensive enough for them to not do it

Ok Mr rich family. Tell me more about how no one eats any kind of meat but but fillet Minon. Not everyone has enough money to literally swim in.

It's a good thing you are not a judge. When you make a court decision you must both think of the current situation and what could result from your rulings.
90898 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Louisville, KY
Offline
Posted 9/10/17
If a business opens and decides to only make wedding cakes for gay couples and refuses to serve straight couples, that is fine as well. They will likely go bankrupt, but it is their choice. Business owners should have the right to do what ever they want in their establishment within reason (i.e. business practices). The only thing government should care about is how much the item sold for so they can collect the taxes.
28261 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

Cydoemus wrote:

All that said, while I believe the baker is an asshole for not just shutting up and baking the cake like he's supposed to,



Wrong. He's not obliged to make that cake unless he already accepted the payment.
30967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:

The justice department is right with this one. Just imagine if a gay couple had an Islamic bakery make a cake for them with a picture of Mohammad on it, this is blasphemy in Islam. If they didn't make the cake they would lose their business and if they made the cake they would be committing blasphemy against Mohammad.

You shouldn't be able to compel artists to make stuff they don't agree with. If one artist won't make it for you then you can find one that will.




The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious 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.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.




Jesus this is almost as retarded as the conservatives in Australia trying to go against Same sex marriage...(they are idiots)...the guy shouldn't be letting his beliefs impact his business but more power to him.

Granted they should be able to refuse anyone service but in this case you just go to a better cake shop that isn't full of jerks.

Unless there is more to this story... the cake guy did not do anything wrong he is a jerk and stupid as fuck for letting his beliefs control his business but that's on him.

On the other hand why is this guy trying to bring it to court just go to a cake shop not run by complete fools.....urgh.
30967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

-OlE- wrote:

here is a more interesting scenario to me, take out the religious motivation, what if it is just somebody who strongly believes in traditional marriage, is that still protected? i would think so given the example of someone who wouldn't want to bake a nazi cake, that is not necessarily religious motivated, obviously lots of the religious don't like nazi's but not liking nazis is not a religious doctrine


I'm sorry we don't make cakes for black people it goes against my strong belief in traditional whiteness of the people.
2005 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Sacramento, CA
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
To these bakers it was offensive enough for them to not do it


How is making a normal wedding cake for two dudes in any way offensive, or in any way similar to someone asking for a cake with Satan or Mohamed on it? Your examples are ridiculous and you know it. You're just being a pathetic troll at this point.


Ok Mr rich family. Tell me more about how no one eats any kind of meat but but fillet Minon. Not everyone has enough money to literally swim in.


Yeah, I'm mr moneybags over here, absolutely swimming in gold like I'm Scrooge McDuck. It's common knowledge that weddings are expensive as shit. My sister didn't even have a wedding ceremony when she got married because she'd rather not waste the money.


It's a good thing you are not a judge. When you make a court decision you must both think of the current situation and what could result from your rulings.


And it's a good thing you're just a lame troll sitting behind a computer screen, and not in any responsible for making any decisions for anybody because that would be an absolutely frightening world to live in.
runec 
39020 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/10/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:
I can see this turning real ugly real quick if they don't support the rights of the baker. Imagine what an actual neo-nazi could do to a Jewish baker, have a Jew make a Hitler/Genocide cake. Someone could make a Christian baker make a Satan cake then attack them for being unchristian. You could shut down pretty much every Islamic bakery by demanding a Mohammad cake, many more types of businesses than this. Could make a Gay baker make a "homosexuality is a sin" cake too.

Attacking a person through their business would become a legitimate form of attack against people. Really most family bakeries could be shutdown pretty easily or extorted.


"Real quick"? This is the second appeal of this case.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that generally applicable laws that place incidental burdens on individual freedoms are not a violation of said freedoms. They have NEVER ruled otherwise. It's the thing that stops you from committing crimes and claiming they are part of your religion. You can't smoke crack for Jesus. So toss that argument out.

So what they're trying to do instead is make a disingenuous argument that a bakery making cakes is not a function of business by rather an expression that makes the baker an association of the customer. They're basically arguing that making a cake is too personal a creative expression to have to conform to discrimination laws.

But again, the Supreme Court has never ruled that public for profit businesses get Free Speech exemptions in regards to discrimination. Since that reopens the door to the days of whites only businesses.

So no, your argument is absurd and you should actually worry about things getting real ugly if anyone actually ruled the *opposite*.


30967 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
To these bakers it was offensive enough for them to not do it


How is making a normal wedding cake for two dudes in any way offensive, or in any way similar to someone asking for a cake with Satan or Mohamed on it? Your examples are ridiculous and you know it. You're just being a pathetic troll at this point.


Ok Mr rich family. Tell me more about how no one eats any kind of meat but but fillet Minon. Not everyone has enough money to literally swim in.


Yeah, I'm mr moneybags over here, absolutely swimming in gold like I'm Scrooge McDuck. It's common knowledge that weddings are expensive as shit. My sister didn't even have a wedding ceremony when she got married because she'd rather not waste the money.


It's a good thing you are not a judge. When you make a court decision you must both think of the current situation and what could result from your rulings.


And it's a good thing you're just a lame troll sitting behind a computer screen, and not in any responsible for making any decisions for anybody because that would be an absolutely frightening world to live in.


It's offensive in the way that if i hated black people i would refuse to serve them because it's against my beliefs.
23046 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/10/17

DrunkKanti wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
To these bakers it was offensive enough for them to not do it


How is making a normal wedding cake for two dudes in any way offensive, or in any way similar to someone asking for a cake with Satan Mohamed on it? Your examples are ridiculous and you know it. You're just being a pathetic troll at this point.


Ok Mr rich family. Tell me more about how no one eats any kind of meat but but fillet Minon. Not everyone has enough money to literally swim in.


Yeah, I'm mr moneybags over here, absolutely swimming in gold like I'm Scrooge McDuck. It's common knowledge that weddings are expensive as shit. My sister didn't even have a wedding ceremony when she got married because she'd rather not waste the money.


It's a good thing you are not a judge. When you make a court decision you must both think of the current situation and what could result from your rulings.


And it's a good thing you're just a lame troll sitting behind a computer screen, and not in any responsible for making any decisions for anybody because that would be an absolutely frightening world to live in.


If you make a Satan Mohammad cake then expect to have your business blown up with a suicide car (See Charlie Hebdo). So refusing that is in your life's best interests.

You make them expensive as shit. I know lots of people who don't have the money for such stuff so they have a simple wedding and just focus on having friends and family there not spending lots of money.

Heh heh. I am not unemployed nor do I sit behind a screen all day long. I think you should start shivering now.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.