Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[The Grand Nudger]

What they didn;t decide...was that the baker (or anyone) had a right to discriminate against teh gayz...that was the whole point of issuing a narrow decision - they can;t be used as precedent.

Sorry bud, I;m immune to the koolaid.

They agreed that a couple of admins in the proceeding were mean to the bigot in ways that could justify action. End..of story. Yes, the wingnuts are giddy because the weakining of civil rights -in any way- is their holy grail..and yes the wingnut left is equally interested in pointing out that this is an effective, if not actual.,.weakening of civil rights.....but wingnuts gotta wingnut, as you well know.

Until such a time as you actually manage to get anti discrimination laws written off the books...why don;t you start a hateful christian cake club? Until then you're going to have to follow the law, no matter how upset it makes you to be forced to treat gay people like human beings in the tiny sphere of commerce.

[Mr.wizard]

The Painter has already created the paintings nobody had any say as to went into them and they are art, now he is going to sell these paintings to the public. So a gay couple walks into the gallery and says I like that painting I want to buy it and the artist says no I don't sell to homosexuals. That is discrimination I don't give a flying fuck if it's art.

And I would agree with you on this point. 

Now you have the Baker who provides a public service that he advertises to make wedding cakes and you have a gay couple asking for the service that the Baker provides and he says this service isn't available for homosexuals. That is also discrimination and it I don't see why it would matter if it was art?

This is where we disagree. Because there is creative input from the couple, before the construction of the cake. If they were talented enough to make their own cake, they could easily do so, but because they need to go to a baker, they need to discuss with that person what is to go on the cake. In particular - designs to include the cake topper and any wording that might appear on the cake. The baker is the one constructing the cake, using his or her talents. If the baker doesn't feel comfortable putting certain things on the cake, it should be his right to refuse to do it.

No this isn't where we disagree, I think the Baker should be able to refuse a service as long as he refuses it to everyone. If you put a "congrats Chuck and Mary" on a cake I don't see "congrats Chuck and Larry" as asking for something outside of his regular service. It is the same message with different names and the only problem the Baker has, is that the people associated with those names are gay, so it has nothing to do with the message but everything to do with the people.

Also I'm not sure the couple ever got to the design of the cake, seems like they were denied right out the gate.

[paulpablo]

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the
premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

....unless they sell art or cake or cake art...?

-ah, but what about a private club?

(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).

LOLNope, still on the hook.

In relation to the first part the baker is offering the same services to everyone. Everyone is entitled to the full extent of the services he's offering.

It doesn't matter if you're straight, black, trans or whatever.  Everyone can buy the same products he's offering and no one can buy the products he isn't offering.  He's not offering anyone same sex wedding cakes.

[Amarok]

He's offering wedding cakes period

[Brian37]

....unless they sell art or cake or cake art...?

-ah, but what about a private club?
LOLNope, still on the hook.

In relation to the first part the baker is offering the same services to everyone.  Everyone is entitled to the full extent of the services he's offering.

It doesn't matter if you're straight, black, trans or whatever.  Everyone can buy the same products he's offering and no one can buy the products he isn't offering.  He's not offering anyone same sex wedding cakes.

That is bullshit. If he is being fair then he should stop selling all wedding cakes. But do not try to sell me the bullshit idea he isn't discriminating.

[Mr.wizard]

....unless they sell art or cake or cake art...?

-ah, but what about a private club?
LOLNope, still on the hook.

In relation to the first part the baker is offering the same services to everyone.  Everyone is entitled to the full extent of the services he's offering.

It doesn't matter if you're straight, black, trans or whatever.  Everyone can buy the same products he's offering and no one can buy the products he isn't offering.  He's not offering anyone same sex wedding cakes.

Cakes do not have sexual orientation, they are cakes.

Gay Person: "I would like to order a wedding cake"
Baker: " Sorry we don't sell gay wedding cakes"
Gay Person: "Damn! I guess I will just take one of the straight cakes"
Straight Guy In Line: "Sorry honey they don't carry the gay cakes"
Baker: "Sorry my religion prohibits me from Baking gay cakes, I didn't want to discriminate so I decided I wouldn't Bake the gay cakes for anyone"

[Brian37]

In relation to the first part the baker is offering the same services to everyone.  Everyone is entitled to the full extent of the services he's offering.

It doesn't matter if you're straight, black, trans or whatever.  Everyone can buy the same products he's offering and no one can buy the products he isn't offering.  He's not offering anyone same sex wedding cakes.

Cakes do not have sexual orientation, they are cakes.

That is what is so fucking absurd about that moron. Those asshole bigots act like if they make a cake for same sex that suddenly there will be orgies in his business. LGBT have magic super powers you know.

[robvalue]

"The Bible says we should kill gays, but since we're not allowed to do that anymore, I'll just have to inconvenience them to the best of my ability. I'm sure God will be pleased with that."

[johan]

No this isn't where we disagree, I think the Baker should be able to refuse a service as long as he refuses it to everyone. If you put a "congrats Chuck and Mary" on a cake I don't see "congrats Chuck and Larry" as asking for something outside of his regular service. 

I do. But lets have it your way. So my question is where do we draw the line then? Because what you're suggesting, probably without intending to, is that the law require some who offers on-demand creation of something to now produce any and all variations of that something. 

I mean in essence what you're saying is cake is a cake is a cake and the details of it don't matter. One cake is exactly the same as any other in the eyes of the law. So where do we draw the line on that? If we say that a cake is a cake is a cake, mustn't we also say that a painting is a painting is a painting? Or that a house is a house is a house? 

If the gay couple in question went to the baker and asked for a cake that congratulations Edgar and Harriett, I bet the baker would have been more than happy to sell it to them gay or not. I believe the baker has said as much. 

Because whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not, wedding cakes are an item that generally involve individual design and customization. Just like paintings. Just like houses. So where do we draw the line? Should a gay couple be able to force a builder to build a house of any design they can think of? The baker would not create a cake that said Congratulations Bill and Steve on it for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. And people here arguing discrimination because of it. So wouldn't the same apply to a builder of houses? If a cake is a cake is a cake, doesn't the same apply to everything that can be built to order?

If a cake is the same as any other why isn't one house the same as any other? If a builder builds houses with vinyl siding but doesn't like to build houses with cedar siding, should a gay couple be able to legally force the builder to do so lest he be discriminating against them? Where do we draw the line?

[A Theist]

What they didn;t decide...was that the baker (or anyone) had a right to discriminate against teh gayz...that was the whole point of issuing a narrow decision - they can;t be used as precedent.

Sorry bud, I;m immune to the koolaid.

They agreed that a couple of admins in the proceeding were mean to the bigot in ways that could justify action.  End..of story.  Yes, the wingnuts are giddy because the weakining of civil rights -in any way- is their holy grail..and yes the wingnut left is equally interested in pointing out that this is an effective, if not actual.,.weakening of civil rights.....but wingnuts gotta wingnut, as you well know.

Until such a time as you actually manage to get anti discrimination laws written off the books...why don;t you start a hateful christian cake club?  Until then you're going to have to follow the law, no matter how upset it makes you to be forced to treat gay people like human beings in the tiny sphere of commerce.

What they did decide...was that state agencies, public office holders, the courts, etc didn't have the right to pick and choose who gets equal protection under the law. The precedent is that intolerant anti religious bigots can't discriminate based on a person's religion. 

Yeah, sorry dude. There's a lot of alcoholics and drug addicts who will deny they have an addiction problem. You can deny it all you want but you're addicted to the koolaid.

They agreed that a couple of anti religious bigots in the proceedings injected their religious intolerance when making their determination. End of..story. And the left wingnuts are all butt hurt 'Chicken Littles' over the Supreme Court decision, running around and screeching, "Civil Rights are weakened! Civil Rights are weakened!".....when actually, nothing was weakened. Nothing was taken from gays. It's just that the bigoted anti Christian wingnuts are disappointed that the Supreme Court decided that a governing body and the courts can't discriminate based on a person's religious faith.

...and you're going to have to get used to the fact, no matter how upset you get, that people of faith are also guaranteed equal protection under the law.