Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, if you don;t think that a fair and equitable society is a compelling state interest, I suppose.  

[Angrboda]

Yes, the government is justified *at times* in requiring people to perform work against their will in the service of others. That is, after all, what a military draft does. It is what happens when someone is *required* to serve on a jury. It is what happens when people are *required* to pay taxes.

There are many cases where governments do, in fact, have that right and are justified in using it.

There must be a compelling state interest. There is no compelling state interest for the government to insert itself into voluntary and honest private business transactions any more than there is one for the government to insert itself into private consensual sexual behavior. Even in the extreme case of military conscription during times of war, there have always been exceptions for conscientious objectors, such as for Quakers, etc.

You've become a parody of yourself, Neo. Apparently not everyone agrees with you.

[Minimalist]

Shock news! Supreme court full of Abrahamic theists in a proto-theocracy rule in favour of a religionist who wants to discriminate against a minority.

Not that it's any of your business how our Supreme Court rules or how our government here operates since you're a citizen of another country. Two of the Justices who sided with the Baker, Kagan and Breyer, are liberal, and Justice Kennedy who's known as the swing vote on the Court.

Also, refer to Tibs' post. It was more an issue with the Baker not getting a fair hearing by Colorado's own civil rights commission because of what the SCOTUS majority viewed as hostility toward the Baker's religious views by that commission.

Once again, how is a state agency which is appointed to deal with bigotry supposed to react to bigotry?  Do you want them to declare "Be Nice To Bigots Week?"

[Shell B]

Oh, shut up. You're not in a private relationship with our government.

And neither are you. Tough shit if you don't like my response.

You're the one acting like it. Tough shit if you don't like the gays. (Betting you love the gays in secret.)

[A Theist]

And neither are you. Tough shit if you don't like my response.

You're the one acting like it. Tough shit if you don't like the gays. (Betting you love the gays in secret.)

No I'm not, and where did I say I didn't like gays?

[Shell B]

You're telling people it's none of their business what our Supreme Court does if they don't live here. So, does that mean what you see as human right's violations in other parts of the world are none of your business? That kind of goes against the Republican invade and kill mantra.

If you think it's perfectly fine deny service to gay people because they're gay, you're not a fan, buddy.

[Mr.wizard]

It should be noted, that the baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact he offered to make them any other type of baked goods.  He also does not make cakes for bachelor or halloween parties.

Seems like there is a lot of twisting of the narrative in this case, to say something that was not being stated. Similarly designers refused to make dresses for Melania in President Trumps inauguration.   I see hardly anyone advocating that someone should be able to refuse to sell to a person, simply because they are homosexual. Rather it is the right to refuse a particular service that goes against one’s conscience.

Wait your actually trying to twist the narrative, The Baker does wedding cakes except for homosexuals, that is denying homosexuals a service that is offered to everyone else, who cares if he offered them a cookie instead. Also the fact that he doesn't do bachelor and Halloween parties doesn't make your point either, because those services are not offered at all to anyone.

[RoadRunner79]

It should be noted, that the baker did not refuse to serve homosexuals. In fact he offered to make them any other type of baked goods.  He also does not make cakes for bachelor or halloween parties.

Seems like there is a lot of twisting of the narrative in this case, to say something that was not being stated. Similarly designers refused to make dresses for Melania in President Trumps inauguration.   I see hardly anyone advocating that someone should be able to refuse to sell to a person, simply because they are homosexual. Rather it is the right to refuse a particular service that goes against one’s conscience.

Wait your actually trying to twist the narrative, The Baker does wedding cakes except for homosexuals, that is denying homosexuals a service that is offered to everyone else, who cares if he offered them a cookie instead. Also the fact that he doesn't do bachelor and Halloween parties doesn't make your point either, because those services are not offered at all to anyone.

I believe that they would refuse a straight person who wanted a cake for the same reason as well.

[Pat Mustard]

Tizheruk

Saying you won't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple when you would do so for straight couple is straightforward discrimination.

---

When I flew banner planes, we flew all kinds of banners for all kinds of customers. But I recall getting a call from a pro-life organization that wanted to fly an anti-abortion banner. They sent over the art work that wanted to fly. It was a picture of an aborted fetus. We refused to fly it. Why? Because we disagreed with the content and didn't want our business to be associated with it.

So the obvious argument here is well that's a different situation because you wouldn't fly that particular banner for anyone no matter who was paying the bill. 

Now lets go back to our baker. He will happily create a wedding cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Hilary' on it. But he won't create a cake that says 'Congratulations Bill and Jim'. Same as with the banner company, he does this because he disagrees with the content and does not want his business associated with it. And same as with the banner company he would refuse to create this cake even if Bill and Hilary were the ones ordering it. How is that discrimination?

Businesses should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose. Likewise the public should be free to refuse to patronize those businesses.

Big difference between the scenario your company found itself in and the one you describe of the hypothetical cake maker. First of all the picture of the "aborted foetus" is likely to be gross and indecent, designed specifically to horrify and offend. Second it's likely to be a lie (at the most mild, the pro-woman murder group was wanting the picture of a late term abortion to be flown pretending it's an early term one. More likely it was an "artist's rendition").

You cannot claim that the cake does either of these things.

[Joods]

Wait your actually trying to twist the narrative, The Baker does wedding cakes except for homosexuals, that is denying homosexuals a service that is offered to everyone else, who cares if he offered them a cookie instead. Also the fact that he doesn't do bachelor and Halloween parties doesn't make your point either, because those services are not offered at all to anyone.

I believe that they would refuse a straight person who wanted a cake for the same reason as well.

If they refused to make wedding cakes for straight people as well as gay people, we wouldn't be having this discussion.