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

[MakeDigitalLove]

It’s not very complex, people shouldn’t demand a business to do what they don’t want to do whether you agree with or not. Is it shitty in this case? Yes, instead of all this fuss get your cake somewhere else and just inform people of this particular place. Hit them where it hurts, their revenue.

Also people shouldn’t put themselves in a position where people are going to come into your business looking for something you provide, but your “beliefs” get in your way of doing it. The whole point of having a business is to make money, why would you put yourself in a position that hurts that? I’d rather suck it up and make more money. In the end they could have more business in the end even when disagreeing with what was going to be on a cake.

At the end of the day both parties need to get over themselves.

 

[MakeItTonite]

It’s not very complex, people shouldn’t demand a business to do what they don’t want to do whether you agree with or not. Is it shitty in this case? Yes, instead of all this fuss get your cake somewhere else and just inform people of this particular place. Hit them where it hurts, their revenue.

Also people shouldn’t put themselves in a position where people are going to come into your business looking for something you provide, but your “beliefs” get in your way of doing it. The whole point of having a business is to make money, why would you put yourself in a position that hurts that? I’d rather suck it up and make more money. In the end they could have more business in the end even when disagreeing with what was going to be on a cake.

At the end of the day both parties need to get over themselves.

I didn't perceive this as being aggressive. The feeling that came to mind was 'cold.' That's how I perceived this response.

 

[ChickenGuy]

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"...Martin Niemoller

I could easily make a variation of this for fundamentalist Islam.

But I would be wasting my time. Most in the 'LGBT' 'community' do not speak out.

 

[MakeItTonite]

I could easily make a variation of this for fundamentalist Islam.

But I would be wasting my time. Most in the 'LGBT' 'community' do not speak out.

How passive-aggressive can you possibly get? Let us count the ways, Ramsgate. Say what you mean, mean what you say.

 

[peeonme]

And then they came for the bakers who wanted freedom of speech.
The oppressors here are not the bakers but those who want every detail of life, including the decorating of cakes, to be controlled by the government.

So, you then think it's oppressive if the government tells the baker that he must treat gays equally? That he can't hate and ostracize them?
Was free speech being practiced when the sign over the drinking fountain said "whites only"?

 

[peeonme]

And then they came for the bakers who wanted freedom of speech.
The oppressors here are not the bakers but those who want every detail of life, including the decorating of cakes, to be controlled by the government.

I might add that free speech and hate speech are two different things. To say publicly that you will not deal with this "kind" of person in your establishment is an expression of hate.

 

[mydrew1]

Plenty of Muslims have no problems serving alcohol at liquor stores & so on. Also a PERSON has religious beliefs. A business deosn't have any; it is the businesses that is conducting the transaction.

 

[Benvolio]

I might add that free speech and hate speech are two different things. To say publicly that you will not deal with this "kind" of person in your establishment is an expression of hate.

Labeling as hate speech does not avoid the First Amendment. Any thing you don’t like can be called hate speech.

 

[Kulindahr]

Plenty of Muslims have no problems serving alcohol at liquor stores & so on. Also a PERSON has religious beliefs. A business deosn't have any; it is the businesses that is conducting the transaction.

Wow -- it just hit me:

A family from India bought one of our local convenience stores, then another, then another. One reason they came to the U.S. was Muslims aren't that well accepted in India.

The last time I was there I didn't even think about it, but the owner didn't hesitate as he rang up beer and pork rinds.

 

[zoltanspawn]

A family from India bought one of our local convenience stores, then another, then another. One reason they came to the U.S. was Muslims aren't that well accepted in India.

I wonder if they considered moving to any of the Muslim majority states, cities or neighborhoods in India first or if they were just like fuck it, all that Mughal history is sooo yesterday, let's try Freeville.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Wow... I know not that many folks have voted on this poll, but I'm really disappointed. :/

I think it's disappointing, too. My point of personal reference is the couple of times I've accommodated customers at my business who were wearing anti-gay buttons during the dark years when the marriage debate (etc) was topical. I admit, it was hard to not just tell them to get the fuck out. And no, I didn't enjoy serving the bastards or go out of my way to give them a good time. But I have a real, real hard time (a harder time) not taking seriously the choice I made to serve the public. I kick out people who are disruptive, egregiously rude or dishonest. I also make a point of letting it be known, as most people in this city do, that we happily serve a diverse clientele. As a member of a society that includes viewpoints that aren't my own, my notion of diversity includes serving people whose ideas I don't like. I just can't wrap my head around making the choice to open your doors to the big, wide world for sales, and then saying ohhhhh nooooo, not you. That absolutely defies my idea of what it means to deal with the public; unlike JUB, when you are dealing with everyone, there's no "ignore" feature.

I don't see any reason why any business manager shouldn't express their opinion in matters of conscience, on the other hand: "I will serve you as a member of the public, but just so you know I'm anti-gay and regularly donate my profits to anti-gay marriage causes." Then, the customer is free to patronize, or not. I've never been the obsequious type.

 

[frankfrank]

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist...

Today it's a cake, tomorrow a motel room, then a restaurant can't serve you with a clear conscience.

And,. next month, the right to let you DIE from your heart attack because you're wearing your T-shirt with two guys on it. BECAUSE RELIGION, or should I say "alleged" religion (atheists can claim religious objection, it will never be tested).

 

[G-Lexington]

"Leaving SCOTUS now. Terrible argument for pro-equality side. Kennedy all but sure to side with anti-gay baker. Kennedy appears to view Masterpiece Cakeshop as a case about animus against people of faith. There is a possibility of a narrow loss for Team Equally, but little chance of a victory." - Ian Millhiser.

He's a Democrat, in case that matters.

Lex

 

[Benvolio]

I think the Court will hold that the state can prohibit discrimination in selling cakes, but may not require decoration or writing which the baker does not choose to make.

 

[ChickenGuy]

UPDATE:

Legal arguments were heard today.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/05/supreme-court-torn-over-gay-wedding-cake-case-kennedy-stresses-need-for-religious-tolerance.html

Supreme Court torn over gay wedding cake case, Kennedy stresses need for religious ‘tolerance’

A constitutional fight over a wedding cake drew hundreds of activists on both sides to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a hot-button case pitting religious and artistic conviction against discrimination targeting the LGBT community.

The justices heard nearly 90 minutes of spirited oral arguments, appearing equally divided along ideological lines over perhaps the most-closely watched appeal so far this term-- whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a local baker to create commercial "expression" violates a business owner's constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

The article also provides quotes from what the various Supreme Court justices said. From what every commentator and pundit appears to say, the judgement will be split 5-4 or 4-5 depending on how Anthony Kennedy decides. Anyway, for the benefit of this thread, I'll repost here the selected and mentioned quotes:

Sonia Sotomayor:

"If you want to be a part of our community, of our civic community, there's certain behavior, conduct you can't engage in," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "And that includes not selling products that you sell to everyone else to people simply because of their either race, religion, national origin, gender, and in this case sexual orientation. So we can't legislate civility and rudeness, but we can and have permitted it as a compelling state interest legislating behavior."

Samuel Alito:

"One thing that's disturbing about the record here," said Justice Samuel Alito about the commission's decisions, "is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint."

Anthony Kennedy: (on the one side)

"If you prevail, could the baker put a sign in his window, we do not bake cakes for gay weddings?" he asked the lawyer for Phillips. "And you would not think that an affront to the gay community?"

Anthony Kennedy: (on the other side)

"Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."

Stephen Breyer:

"So in other words, Mies [Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, a German-American architect] or Michelangelo is not protected when he creates the Laurentian steps, but this cake baker is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding?" asked Justice Stephen Breyer. "Now, that really does baffle me, I have to say."

John Roberts:

"So Catholic Legal Services," which he said might want to help the poor, "would be put to the choice of either not providing any pro bono legal services or providing those services in connection with the same-sex marriage?" which in the hypothetical, "they say we're not going to do it because, as a religious matter, we're opposed to same-sex marriage."

By the way....

The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (16-111). A ruling is expected by June 2018.

JUNE 2018????



I thought a decision was pending fairly imminently! Oh well! We wait to see!

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Wow... I know not that many folks have voted on this poll, but I'm really disappointed. :/

Join the club honey.

 

[nycguydowntown]

this moronic Supreme Court also thinks money is speech ---which gives billionaires a loud roar of a voice compared to the average Joe and money here in politics is the beginning of the end of a democracy . I think this couple should form a boycott of this bakery ---but if it passes---if a landscaper arrives at a house and see's 2 guys living there can he choose to not work---can a gay couple in a restaurant be refused service cause the waiter hates gays and it's against his religion---can a gay couple be refused any kind of service in any form if it's defined as speech? We're fucked as a minority if that happens---

 

[eastofeden]

To the hard core Bernie Bros....If all the other "stuff" hasn't convinced you yet....THIS is why Hillary would have been a much better choice....

...and FUCK OFF SUSAN SARANDON

 

[mcbrion]

Sure...he shouldn't have to make it BUT he must have a sign on his window stating that he will not serve gay people.

He wants to live by his convictions..well so does everyone else pal. Let people know EXACTLY the kind of establishment you run and then let the market do what it will.

I would be pissed off if I accidentally gave him a dime....

So...a conditional no and since it isn't an option..no poll vote for me...

Ideally, that would be the case. But since it isn't, I don't agree with the sign on the window. If he's going to put a sign on the window for gays, then he'll need to put one on for anyone else he has objections to. So, if he doesn't like Muslims, then he needs to put a sign out stating he doesn't serve them, or atheists, or anyone else his "religion" allows him to refuse. Although, since you mention it, it would be a bit like life in this country up until 1965, when The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by LBJ, and places could no longer refuse to serve Black people. Up until that point, there were signs everywhere, and what did they allow? They allowed allowed people to discriminate. Legally. And even when the signs came down? People still discriminated. A sign (pro OR con) is just a gesture, and meaningless. And ironically, gay culture demands "fairness," but is not itself known for its open arms to lesbians and minorities, although that is somewhat less the case now than even 10 years ago.
If he doesn't want to make cakes for gays, why force him to? I wouldn't patronize a company that had a poor history of its treatment of women, Indians, Muslims or Blacks: I just wouldn't go there.

 

[mcbrion]

I agree BUT there should be some way whereby potential customers are made aware of their bigotted views and are therefore able to boycott them

There is. It's simply called word of mouth.