The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

Should the baker be forced to make the cake?

  • Total voters
    47
Kulindahr said:
No -- it's already well established that no one can refuse service based on the prospective customer's membership in any certain class. There has to be an actual activity which treads on the free exercise of an individual's religion.

If they're on the ball, they'll nail this one with the same provisions that protected conscientious objectors from the draft: you can't just say it's against your conscience, you have to show membership in a religious or similar group which has an objection to the specific activity. So if this baker belongs to a church which specifically states that participation in or support of anything on the "homosexual agenda" is forbidden, he's golden; if he doesn't, he's probably screwed.

Yes, they'd love to be able to not even allow gays into their shops, but that isn't something any federal court is going to hand them. The decision is going to be narrowly tailored, and if they follow precedent in dealing with objections of conscience it will be very narrow indeed (and I expect all sorts of "evangelical" churches will be adding items opposing supporting gay rights to their statements of belief).
Click to expand...

Kennedy seems to be focused on the freedom of speech argument—he is in favor of freedom of speech. So focused, it could be a 9-0 decision.
 
peeonme said:
So, just to get us on the same page, is being gay the activity? Or is it 2 men getting married? Or is it practicing homosexuality?
If it's gay sex, what if the guy sold mattresses? Would he be contributing by selling 2 men a mattress?
Click to expand...

Read the case!

It's two men getting married.


If selling mattresses counted, then every mattress store in the world has contributed to out-of-marriage sex.
 
Benvolio said:
Kennedy seems to be focused on the freedom of speech argument—he is in favor of freedom of speech. So focused, it could be a 9-0 decision.
Click to expand...

I don't see any freedom of speech issue involved. The baker isn't choosing any "speech" on any cake he makes, he's being paid to help others express their speech, if anything. From a freedom of speech point of view, the issue would come down on the side of the people wanting the cake: the baker is helping others engage in speech but refusing to help them.
 
Kulindahr said:
I don't see any freedom of speech issue involved. The baker isn't choosing any "speech" on any cake he makes, he's being paid to help others express their speech, if anything. From a freedom of speech point of view, the issue would come down on the side of the people wanting the cake: the baker is helping others engage in speech but refusing to help them.
Click to expand...

No, he is like a newspaper being required by the government to print what it does not choose to print. Freedom of speech and the press includes the freedom not to speak.
 
Kulindahr said:
Read the case!

It's two men getting married.


If selling mattresses counted, then every mattress store in the world has contributed to out-of-marriage sex.
Click to expand...

By not providing his services he is saying "these people are not entitled, they don't deserve, they shouldn't exist".
 
peeonme said:
By not providing his services he is saying "these people are not entitled, they don't deserve, they shouldn't exist".
Click to expand...

I don’t think that is what he is saying, those are your words, but freedom of speech includes the right to say unkind things.
 
moniker said:
Judges should be leery when one side makes bad faith arguments. When the side that wants to force the baker to make the cake obviously just wants to harass the baker and not enjoy a cake they are acting in bad faith. After all, who would even taste a cake made by someone who probably doesn't like you very much?
Click to expand...

How did you determine this to be a bad faith argument? You have to keep in mind that this is "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission"

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the gay couple; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."

The baker contested and here we are.
 
The social justice gay warriors picked the guy out to test the law. They won. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission then required the staff of the cake shop to undergo reeducation, etc., etc. (Shades of the Cultural Revolution, which is what the SJGW crowd wants for anyone they deem a "hater".) Crap like this is one of the reasons Trump was elected.

The federal government, by the way, has yet to establish that gay men and women are a protected class. Don't hold your breath.

http://takimag.com/article/have_your_cake_but_dont_eat_it_joe_bob_briggs/page_2#axzz51vdGkU2c
 
LatimerRd said:
The social justice gay warriors picked the guy out to test the law. They won. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission then required the staff of the cake shop to undergo reeducation, etc., etc. (Shades of the Cultural Revolution, which is what the SJGW crowd wants for anyone they deem a "hater".) Crap like this is one of the reasons Trump was elected.
Click to expand...

That's essentially the same thing the "bad faith" guy said. I can understand the claim but how do you know or at least what makes think this was always a calculated effort?

Meet the couple behind the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case

Mullins, an office manager, and Craig, an interior designer, never thought they’d be at the center of a major civil rights case.

“I have to admit, we were really surprised,” Mullins said. “The idea of going to the Supreme Court — it’s not something a lot of people consider in their lives.”
Click to expand...

Seems their account of how this legal battle came to be is very different from yours.
 
smokeshadow said:
The appeals courts ruling in a different case:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen..._same_sex_couple_s_request_for_a_wedding_cake
Click to expand...

Just noting that this one is a state case, though it may yet be appealed to a federal court.

There's also a significant difference between this and the one SCOTUS heard: in this one, the baker actually called the couple "abominations" and based the refusal on their identity not on his perceived participation in something against his beliefs/conscience. There's really no argument that can sustain such a position.

There really does need to be a way for people to freely exercise their religion; government is getting too eager to tell churches and believers who to behave regardless of their beliefs. But there also has to be a way for people to be pointed to someone who will serve them.
 
Kulindahr said:
Sure does. It sounds like they just took advice from someone as to who was the best cake maker.
Click to expand...

That's their side of the story. It's consistent with all accounts I've read from both sides, so why question them?

But one of the things that bothers me about this case is that the initial interaction took all of about 30 seconds? In such a short frame of time how could there have been any attempt at any kind of reconciliation?

Considering the penalties imposed, Colorado overstepped its bounds. And here we are.
 
Who gives a fuck. It's a sodding cake. As for the queeny snowflakes who think this is a big principle issue - go out and get a life sweet cheeks :wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top