First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last

Supreme Court rules 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple

Post Reply
790 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

He refused them a service based on their sexuality that is bigotry, He is not treating ever customer even handily
29805 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
Odd that this was decided on pride month.
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

runec wrote:

Given the way the commission treated the case this ruled the right way. Reading the full ruling the court really threaded the needle to avoid ruling on the central issue.



Ummmmmm. ok. I guess compulsory service is a banal thing to some.

Here. Have a read

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_marriage

Dur dur histrionics!
12539 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

MysticGon wrote:

Odd that this was decided on pride month.


Well, it does come before the fall. Pride: the one trait shown by people who Jesus consistently rejected.
5581 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

Cato_Sicarius wrote:


He refused them a service based on their sexuality that is bigotry, He is not treating ever customer even handily


It goes against his religious beliefs. It even said in the document he'd be happy to make a birthday cake, etc.

So by that logic, we should force people to do things against their beliefs? So no, he is not a bigot. He's not intolerant of their opinions, they are of his, though.

They easily could have just gone to a bakery that would have done the cake.

87364 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
46 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
Justice Thomas did warn of a conflict with religion in his dissent on the redefinition of marriage; glad to see the court (7-2!) protecting religious liberty and slapping down Colorado.
790 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
100
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

D4nc3Style wrote:

It goes against his religious beliefs. It even said in the document he'd be happy to make a birthday cake, etc.

So by that logic, we should force people to do things against their beliefs? So no, he is not a bigot. He's not intolerant of their opinions, they are of his, though.

They easily could have just gone to a bakery that would have done the cake.


if his religious beliefs prevent him from treating each and every customer fairly then maybe he is in the wrong business, Even Chick-fil-A knows that you have to treat every customer fairly and evenly to the best of your ability
4507 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18
There's a word for this type of behavior: discrimination. Here's another example of discrimination:



Are you guys who are defending this also going to defend it if businesses start doing that again? It's more or less the same thing, it's just a question of on what basis you're discriminating.
87364 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
46 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/5/18
The cake shop did not have a sign that said “heterosexuals only”; they did decide not to endorse or participate in behaviors that violated their conscience.

No to your first question; and its NOT the same thing.
qwueri 
26982 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M / TN
Online
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/5/18

dougeprofile wrote:

The cake shop did not have a sign that said “heterosexuals only”; they did decide not to endorse or participate in behaviors that violated their conscience.

No to your first question; and its NOT the same thing.


Of course, as long as someone doesn't hang a sign up front, it's totally a different thing when they practice a "straight only" business model.
613 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

D4nc3Style wrote:

It goes against his religious beliefs. It even said in the document he'd be happy to make a birthday cake, etc.

So by that logic, we should force people to do things against their beliefs? So no, he is not a bigot. He's not intolerant of their opinions, they are of his, though.

They easily could have just gone to a bakery that would have done the cake.



Hm, I suppose that's one way to spin it. Those who want to be treated equally are bigots now. Eh.

I'm actually a little torn on the issue. On the one hand, discrimination against gay people is messed up. On the other hand, sure, people have their sincerely held and quite wrong religious beliefs. I used to hold such beliefs myself so I'm somewhat sympathetic towards people who hold such beliefs. More sympathetic towards some than others as some are kind of mean-spirited and some aren't.

I don't like the idea of telling gay people to go somewhere else. There are instances that might be fine and many times, people may prefer to do that. But what if it's a small town? People shouldn't have to go from business to business hoping that maybe this business will accept them. Being turned away can't be a pleasant experience.

Eh, I don't have a really strong opinion on this exact issue, but it shouldn't be an issue because ideally people wouldn't be prejudiced to begin with. But some are.
87364 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
46 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/5/18

qwueri wrote:

Of course, as long as someone doesn't hang a sign up front, it's totally a different thing when they practice a "straight only" business model.


But they didn’t practice a “straights only” business model - all the products in their store were available to all no matter what their orientation.
4507 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/4/18

dougeprofile wrote:

But they didn’t practice a “straights only” business model - all the products in their store were available to all no matter what their orientation.


On paper maybe. In practice, they denied service to the gay couple on account of them being gay, which is ultimately what matters. The sign itself is just a way of avoiding the inconvenience of having to turn them down in person. They may as well have put up a sign saying "wedding cakes for heterosexuals only"
15709 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/5/18
am i reading this right? in the past, a Coloado court sided with bakers refusing to make cakes with offensive messages against gay people, so the supreme court ruled it's also perfectly ok for bakers to refuse making cakes for gay couples. i probably misred it.
16654 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 6/4/18 , edited 6/5/18
I think this is an interesting point that is brought up:

"To Phillips,his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs."

This isn't really an angle that I thought about upon first hearing about this case. That being said (and without full knowledge of how this individual runs his bakery), I can't really agree that this is a valid argument, because I do not agree that baking a cake for someone constitutes a "wedding endorsement", unless the baker evaluates the strength and validity of the relationships of each couple he services. I cannot imagine that being a common practice among bakers...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.