Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon 278 Replies latest social current

  • Hisclarkness
    Hisclarkness

    On another side note, I find it very interesting that opinions are so varied here on this site where we mostly all come from a JW background.

    As Witnesses, and as strongly as we held our beliefs, we would never have forced our beliefs on to others in a commercial setting. A witness doctor would not turn away patients because he didn’t believe in blood transfusions; he would simply get a colleague to do it. A witness waiter in a restaurant would simply ask his fellow waiters to sing happy birthday to his customers; he wouldn’t refuse the customers’ business.

    We always sought to find alternatives.

    I know. I know. The baker didn’t refuse service to the couple. I wonder if there was someone else he could have gotten to do the cake instead of himself?? Though I fear this still would have been an issue because he spoke of being concerned that the name of his business would have been affiliated with the wedding.

    I just feel like there could have been many alternatives in this situation that should have resolved both the baker’s conscience and the couple’s desire for a custom cake.

  • Simon
    Simon
    as long as it’s not discriminating based on a protected class

    I think the protected class thing is pure bunkum, especially as religion is included. Something that you can change from day to day cannot grant you special rights. Same with gender if people truly believe it can be switched at will.

  • Hisclarkness
    Hisclarkness

    Hi simon,

    What you said with religion is precisely why the baker is wrong. Anybody could use religion as a shield to what really amounts to discriminatory behavior. Which is why there has to be a line drawn between your personal life and interacting in a commercial setting. Which is why the baker is entitled to his religious beliefs but they shouldn’t have to adversely affect others in a commercial (neutral) setting. If the baker chooses to open a business then he is choosing to interact with the general public and should not be able to bring his religious beliefs into the picture. Otherwise, he should decide not to offer certain services that he knows might cause potential conflicts with his personal beliefs.

    According to the law, you are either married or single. You are not “gay” married or “straight” married. You are just married. A person’s religious beliefs might not recognize that and that’s fine. But businesses will have a hard time in the future defending these discriminatory actions in the future.

    I know you feel differently. I love the discussion. I just hate the anger, sarcasm, ridicule, etc that often accompany these discussions.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic
    What you can't do is refuse to sell someone something that you are willing to sell to others simply because you don't like some identifiable trait.
    -Simon

    But isn't that exactly what happened? A gay couple came in asking for a "wedding cake". The wedding cake was not gay. It didn't have a rainbow flag on it. It wasn't topped with two people of the same sex. It didn't have a fabulous unicorn throwing up a handful of glitter on it. Etc.

    The business owner was asked to bake a cake for a couple that happened to be gay. They WEREN'T asked to bake a gay cake. This is an important distinction.

    I really enjoyed you analogy you gave about a black business owner asked to bake a cake with the confederate flag on it. I can definitely understand why they'd want to refuse. And conversely, if a Christian fundamentalist were asked to bake a cake with a rainbow flag on it I understand why they'd want to refuse as well.

    But that's not what happened here.

    "The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, goes back to 2012. In July of that year, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to try to buy a cake for a wedding reception. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused the request, arguing that due to his Christian beliefs, he opposed same-sex marriages and did not want to do anything that looked like an endorsement of a same-sex wedding.

    Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination in response, citing a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation by public accommodations (places that are open to the public, such as hotels, restaurants, and bakeries)."

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    I've maintained for some time that I don't think the government ought to be in the business of marrying anybody. If needed, or you so desire, you can go to the government and form some legal entity (partnership, corporation, whatever) which will regulate jointly owned property, estates, etc. If you need some sort of religious blessing on this union, you can get one at any church (or an association of atheists if that floats your boat) that will give it to you, but that union will have only whatever benefits your church wants to give you. It would have no legal force whatsoever. In other words, the secular and religious matters would be kept completely separate.

  • Simon
    Simon
    he opposed same-sex marriages and did not want to do anything that looked like an endorsement of a same-sex wedding.

    ... which was not legal at the time.

    Imagine, being legally obligated by the government to support something that the government has not legalized. What a contradiction.

    But regardless of the legal status, you should have the right to refuse to provide your labor if you want to and the misguided notion of specialist protected classes that can be claimed at will is unworkable and leads to contradictions and paradoxes which is not what good laws do.

    So, a gay conservative wants a cake - can you refuse them or not? If the right or wrong of a case comes down to what we think someone's thoughts were ... well, that's a mess.

    Incidentally, people were making a big issue that Saunders tweeted from her government account instead of her personal one. I see nothing wrong with this - she was refused service because of her role apparently.

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus
    For the record, I think it was wrong for sanders not to have been served regardless of her political beliefs. However, this isn’t the same issue.

    I can respect your position because it is consistant. The silent crowd who resfuses to speak... well if it wernt for double standards they would have no standards at all.

    And i agree that it is not the same issue. At all. The baker didn't want to support something he was morally opposed to. Sarah sanders and her family were simply eating at restaurant along with a random cross sample of society in that area. No support or approval of her job were implied.

    In the end, the red hen will lose buissness from some and maybe gain from others. People will vote with their wallets, for and against. Sanders and her family wont starve. Im more interested in flipper and rest of the crowd who cry over a gay couple who purposely targeted a business to cause them trouble and who very easily could have gone elsewhere and seeing if they cry the same tears over sanders and her family who, in the end, had to go elsewhere.

  • Hisclarkness
    Hisclarkness

    Morpheus, you said,

    “In the end, the red hen will lose buissness from some and maybe gain from others. People will vote with their wallets, for and against.”

    Don’t you think it should be a little more than that? I mean, yes, what you say is true but our laws are set up to ensure that the voices and rights of the minority are not simply washed away. It doesn’t seem sufficient to say, for example, let a business be free to discriminate and simply let the chips fall where they may, good or bad. Shouldn’t the goal of society be to eradicate all forms of discrimination? It is often laws that are put in place first and eventually hearts change as well.

    But a government for all people should be just as interested in protecting the rights of the minority and that would require stepping in and enforcing measures against discrimination.

  • Simon
    Simon
    our laws are set up to ensure that the voices and rights of the minority are not simply washed away. It doesn’t seem sufficient to say, for example, let a business be free to discriminate and simply let the chips fall where they may, good or bad. Shouldn’t the goal of society be to eradicate all forms of discrimination?

    One thing to factor in that in todays society, we're all the minority. Seriously, lots of times you see people direct mobs at others whether it's a business or individuals. The mob doesn't want to have a reasoned discussion, it just wants to ruin someone's life and living, often for the most trivial slight or even something completely invented because "hey, they deserve it for [not being whatever]"

    The internet has given the mob too much power, things have gone from supporting and protecting minorities (a good thing) over to being a club that can be used by a majority in the wrong way.

  • Jehalapeno
    Jehalapeno

    There’s a difference between ordering a product that has already been produced and forcing someone by law to produce a custom product on demand.

    Islamic Web Designers who offer services to the general public are not under obligation to design a custom site for a Christian Church, are they?

    A Gay Web Designer is not under obligation to design a custom site for the Westboro Baptist Church, are they?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit