-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake.
- Thread starter Deleted member 431
- Start date
How is my post pro-discrimination? I think the refusal of service is horrible. Depending on individual state laws, though, private business do have the right to refuse service.
Last edited:
No.
Anti-discrimination laws apply to the government, not private businesses. The government cannot discriminate against you, but private business/individuals can. So, how then did Congress and the Courts force businesses to stop discriminating? Good ol' legal creativiy through the use of the Commerce Clause. The underlying rationale being that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and the activities that effect it. A business that discriminates against other people effects interstate commerce and thus Congress can regulate to stop such discrimination. The problem is that only applies in situations when interstate commerce exists. However, if a business is purely local as in its business is located entirely within one state (ie its supplies are purely local, its product is distributed only locally) then Congress can't really do anything. This is how many Country Clubs are allowed to be discriminatory, though they have to be painstakingly sure all their business is local as even one supply coming from out of state can invite regulation from Congress.
Jesus fucking Christ people, read the mod edit in the OP and stop jumping to fucking conclusions. No, this is not a win for either side, it's just the SC saying "proper due process was not followed."
This is what I thought.
I mean, I know it's the "unpopular opinion" here, but I tend to agree that you should be able to refuse artistic services. Being selective on what you can and can not refuse gets into cases like the swastika or anti-LGBTQ example.
That's literally the basis of the ruling. He didn't want to make that cake and he shouldn't have been forced to do so.
Nope
Read the ruling
The Supreme Court said the anti-discrimination board didn't give the baker a fair hearing and nothing else. This sets no precedent and it's not known if the baker has the right to refuse their service or not.
Not saying I agree with that line of logic but that is the logic the defense used. Doesn't seem like the SCOTUS actually agreed with it.
How about no? Racism and homophobia aren't reasons to not serve someone.
No.
They decided to exercise the principle of constitutional avoidance: not ruling on a constitutional issue unless it's necessary to do so.
In other words, their job.
They are not. Anyone can go in and buy a cake. No one is refusing service. The question is regarding a custom order, which anyone can refuse. In this case, their religious beliefs regarding gay marriage had them refuse a custom order. While I do not share those beliefs, I don't think they should also be forced to provide a custom order that goes against their beliefs. There are plenty other bakeries to go.
Discrimination would be if they refused normal service.
Put it this way. The Jewish market I have gone to for years and years, they will not do a custom order of anything related to Christmas, Easter, First Communion. And that is their right. But anyone can go in and buy their goods and services.
I mean it's been like 2 seconds and not everyone has a chance to read the decision. Even the nyt article on this doesn't mention anything about it being a more techjival ruling than a free speech ruling. Why don't you enlighten us.
Well-considered post.
No blacks, no Irish, no dogs.
The decision doesn't even say what you think it says.
It wasn't racism or homophobia, he was more than willing to make them a cake, just not that one. Not to mention, it's his business, he should be allowed to make his own decisions
So you'd be okay with them not serving black people and other minorities?
Doesn't make what they said any less true. Fuck the GOP.
Last edited:
You know the answer. He might not say it, but you know.
User Banned (Permanent): Homophobia, history of infractions, account still in the junior phase.
Not the same thing
its worth it to read the dissenting opinion too, Ginsberg basically says nobody in their right mind, even other pastry chefs, could claim that a wedding cake serves a communicative purpose or explain what message a cake sends. SCOTUS has never ruled that wedding cakes can be considered expressive speech.
She also sys that the idea that the purported hostility to Christianity was lacking in evidence, and the standard of actually violating Free Exercise was lacking.
She also sys that the idea that the purported hostility to Christianity was lacking in evidence, and the standard of actually violating Free Exercise was lacking.
This is a good point here. It seems very similar contextually since it's based upon a similar reasoning of "religious beliefs".
That doesn't seem to match up with anything that I'm seeing when I look this up honestly. Everything that I'm seeing says that you can't refuse service to someone who is a protected class because of the reason that they're a protected class. As in, you can't refuse to serve someone who is black, just because they're black.
I'm not seeing the legal loophole about it having to be interstate when I look at a few places.
Not really most wedding cakes I have seen are pretty much out of a catalog and can be bought in many places. This baker apparently makes elaborate artistic cakes that people commission and design with him. However in this case he offered to make the couple a normal wedding cake but not one of the special designs. I believe argument was that one was a product and the other was an artistic expression that he shouldn't be forced to do.
Equally irrelevant is the discussion on serving certain customers, when the issue is what qualifies as compelled speech (in a commercial context).
Seems RBG teed this part up nicely.
Wouldn't this case be more similar to a Jewish rabbi, walking into a Muslim Butcher's shop and asking for a custom non-halal, Kosher cut of a steak?
I'm being kinda facetious
His decision to not make the cake under the guise of "religious rights" is still homophobia. I mean you can justify it however you want, but if you offer custom services to the public and then deny someone that service based on their sexuality, it's still discrimination. Whether it's legal or not is dependent on the courts. And this ruling doesn't even affect that, since it was based on court procedure and due process.
Thank you for this explanation. I wanted to make sure I had this understanding correct.
You can read up on it here. It seems the laws depend on the state. Especially when it comes to religion.
Refusing to serve someone simply because they are black is illegal same as refusing to serve someone simply because they are gay is illegal, refusing to make a very specific cake while also offering to make the person a different cake isn't illegal
lol yes it was.
Explain to me how if you're not homophobic, that making the most mundane custom cake for a gay wedding is problematic?
I think this is constitutionally the right ruling, and that the court did the right thing not tackling the wider first amendment issues, which may be applied unequally in less progressive states if they had. Especially given that this court leans conservative, had they tackled the first amendment issues, it likely would have lead to a sweeping confirmation of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender association.
While leaning conservative, nobody on the court (Aside from maybe Clarence Thomas) wants to do that. No justice wants to be perceived, 100 years from now, as participating in this generation's Plessy v. Ferguson.
While leaning conservative, nobody on the court (Aside from maybe Clarence Thomas) wants to do that. No justice wants to be perceived, 100 years from now, as participating in this generation's Plessy v. Ferguson.
Last edited:
Now imagine how the conversation is going in the rest of the country.