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

by Simon 277 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon
    How is a 7-2 vote a narrow decision?

    Two answers:

    One, it was 'narrow' in the specifics of the case that it addressed.

    The other is that it favours conservative opinion so much be painted as "only just" by the press. By comparison, a ruling on Obamacare with a 5-4 vote would be described as a "massive win".

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    If a person doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay couple, even a generic one, and the person is then compelled by law, how do you think that will play out? Perhaps the person really is that asshole we all love to hate. It seems rather plausible that the asshole will make the cake, but make it taste horrible. Nothing unsanitary, just heavy on the turmeric and crab cakes. What now? Are you going to compel the baker to make “good” cakes? Should there be a “Department of Good Cakes” regulating the making of cakes?

    Just let the baker do what he/she wants with his/her property. The business will go under, and the asshole will feel every painful loss of revenue as more and more customers go somewhere else.

  • Simon
    Simon
    Are you going to compel the baker to make “good” cakes? Should there be a “Department of Good Cakes” regulating the making of cakes?

    Yes, it would be crazy and unworkable in reality. Of course it's nothing todo with cakes really - it's gay activists persecuting white Christians for their beliefs and "make me a cake with all this stuff you find objectionable on it" is just something they can use. If it were any other group, the MSM and left would be up in arms. That was one of the things the SCOTUS ruling pointed out.

  • jws
    jws

    Ah good! This case specifically said it's for this case only and the state of Colorado vs. the baker only. And that it's not as precedent.

    And that the issue should be elaborated further:

    “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

    As far as Simon's claim that these activists particularly tried to prompt this case, In the Colorado decision, it was found that the design of the cake had not even be discussed yet when they were turned down.

    Justice Kennedy took objection to the fact that Colorado said that religion had been used to justify all kinds of horrible acts throughout history.

    Bottom line is yes, the court ruled in the baker's favor. But, to my concerns, this case, according to the Supreme Court is NOT to set precedent. It's about the Colorado ruling vs the baker. Not to say that religious people can now discriminate.

  • freddo
    freddo

    A similar case has been plodding through the courts in Great Britain/UK (specifically Northern Ireland)

    NOW GET THIS - it is still illegal in Northern Ireland for same sex marriage and yet right now the Supreme Court of the UK is hearing this case ...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43976101

    And if you want to sit through it you can go to the UK supreme court and watch the video record of all four sessions. (Spoiler alert - decision reserved not expected before summer 2018 or even 2019)

  • Hisclarkness
    Hisclarkness

    As far as I see it, the baker dodged a bullet by winning this case. Future similar cases will most likely swing the other way. Here’s why:

    1. The court’s decision was mainly based on evidence that the Colorado courts showed evidence of bias and hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs in the context of 2012 when gay marriage was not even yet legal. This would most likely not happen again today when gay marriage is legal.

    2. The bottom line is that the baker did discriminate. Yes, he only refused to make a custom cake; he didn’t refuse the couple general services. BUT... his business offers custom cakes as a service. If you offer custom cakes to everybody EXCEPT the gay couple, then you are discriminating based on sexual orientation, even if that is your sincerely held religious belief. At that point the baker should either cease to make custom cakes or else make the custom cake for the gay couple as well.

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right but it cannot extend into the public sector such that it infringes on others’ rights to have or not have their freedoms as well.

    The baker mentioned that he also refuses to serve Halloween cakes or adult themed cakes as this would also violate his religious beliefs. He was fortunate that the court did not follow this line of thinking further because it actually does not hold up. If he doesn’t make Halloween cakes, then he is not making them for ANYBODY. If he doesn’t make adult themed cakes, then he is not making them for ANYBODY. But he IS making custom cakes for some people, just not the gay ones.

    Future cases will almost certainly swing the other way. Just my thoughts.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    If you are a business, how can you refuse to make a cake for someone’s wedding, if your business is making wedding cakes? On the grounds that you don’t agree with their sexuality? How can that be legal? I think reactionaries probably ought to enjoy their victory here while it lasts, because it surely can’t stand. It’s no different than a hotel owner claiming they are at liberty to refuse other races as guests if they wish. An argument that isn’t likely to impress many people these days,
  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister
    Bottom line is yes, the court ruled in the baker's favor. But, to my concerns, this case, according to the Supreme Court is NOT to set precedent. It's about the Colorado ruling vs the baker. Not to say that religious people can now discriminate.

    How can they say that it doesnt set a precedent? If a lower court hears a similar case its going to be extremely persuasive, at the very least I would have thought.

    Simon is right about these cases strengthening the religious right's rights.

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister
    Also to be pointed out is that this took place in 2012 before gay marriage was legal, so the court had to take in to consideration all of the context and laws in 2012. This is why the court emphasized that future similar cases could potentially be different

    Ahhh...just read this. Now the "no precedent"makes a little more sense.

  • cofty
    cofty
    It’s no different than a hotel owner claiming they are at liberty to refuse other races as guests - SBF

    It's a bit depressing how often people comment on threads without first checking how often their point has been made and refuted.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit