He was willing to make them a cake, just not that one due to religious beliefs.
-
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
Trump supporters aren't a protected class. LGBT people are in Colorado.
No, the crux of this issue (which SCOTUS did not decide on ) is that there's a free speech element to making custom wedding cakes. It'd be similar to going to somebody going into a Muslim Painter's shop and asking for a portrait of Mohammed and denying you based on that.
I tend to agree with the ruling (as apparently so do some of the liberal judges). It dealt more with how the baker was treated rather than the consumer. Anyone that thinks this opens the door to refuse service to gays is sorely mistaken, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
From what I understand the couple wanted a specific designed cake versus the bakery's generic wedding cake designs. The baker was more than happy to sell them a generic wedding cake but would not take a commission/job on a custom cake.
I guess the generic cakes come with a premade template and the custom would make him more personally involved in the cake making?
A cake specifically for their gay wedding as gay people, the exact same service a straight couple would receive for their straight wedding.
But isn't this just saying what I'm saying? That you can't discriminate against people for being a protected class, and you can't single them out specifically, which is part of discrimination?
LegalZoom isn't the best here — there are better sources. That said, you're substantially correct.
It's a question as to whether something is a place of private accommodation. If so, federal anti-discrimination laws would apply (and we get to protected class inquiries).
States have their own, often more expansive, definitions.
Colorado's undergirds the main issue in this case.
The issue is that he considers the cakes a form of artistic expression and that is generally protected from prosecution. So in this case the question is what is the difference between a product and art. It would be a much more open and shut case if he refused to serve the couple completely like the other baker but in this case he offered them a wedding cake but not his artistic work. This is going to come back to the Supreme court later I am pretty sure since they need to give the courts the limits of artistic protections but they punted it back since the lower courts screwed up in their opinion.
Well this thread turned into a trash fire.
Please Please PLEASE read the OP edit and the SCOTUSblog explanation folks.
Please Please PLEASE read the OP edit and the SCOTUSblog explanation folks.
lol I mean, arguing this was the right ruling is one thing but denying the baker's homophobia is another. And chanting "religious belief" isn't gonna make it go away.
Wouldn't the correct analogy in this case be:
"They had asked for a cheeseburger with no cheese. We don't serve burgers without cheese because that is against our beliefs"
The legal argument is not about service to gay people, but the performance of a bespoke service in countenance to the religious beliefs of the service provider.
I'm firmly with the customers here and think that the bakers should be obliged to perform the service which is reasonable in its nature and which they advertise for. Its not as clear-cut as you suggested and it is a legally grey area.
At least for the purposes of understanding, a better analogy that you can read up on involves same-sex country clubs — like Augusta National used to be.
My example doesn't sound too far off from yours though.. and I totally get it! If a Muslim Butcher prides in their halal meat, and according to their faith halal is the only way to sell edible meat, wouldn't it make sense for the Butcher to tel the rabbi: I cannot proceed with your order because every meat we have here is halal?
Anyway I feel like I'm getting off topic, since the court's ruling had nothing to do with this.
Regardless, it's good to look into details with situations like this and not just paint everything with a broad brush.
Please read the OP before posting a hot take. You will be less angry than you are now, I promise.
Interesting.
I'm not a legal analytic, so I'm beyond my scope here, but I feel that the Hobby Lobby ruling lingers a little, too.
I mean, I knew that. We were talking about anti-discrimination laws in general though, and not specifically just about gay people.
Does this sentence not scare anyone else? Protected class? What is that supposed to imply? No "class" of people are better than anyone else and no "class" deserves more rights than anyone else.
I still think that the guy is a dipshit for losing out on money and costing himself way more money in the long run for it.
You'd have to argue that there's an expressive element to meat butchering. Which I'd argue there is not.
That's not true. Like at all.
First of all, the anti-discrimination laws do apply to private businesses, that was one of the main points of the civil rights act of 1964. It is limited to public accommodations, which is why (some) private clubs are able to get away with discriminatory policies. But you can't open a restaurant that don't allow black people, even if it's just one location in one state.
Are you basing this off that LegalZoom blog post? *sigh* This is why you don't rely on sites like LegalZoom look towards the actual law/statute:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically spells out that it only applies to "public accommodations" that affect interstate commerce because Congress cannot regulate purely local activity.
EDIT:
See above
We're all aware it's the gay wedding portion of the custom cake he took issue with.
Homophobia under the guise of religious pedantry is still homophobic.
Man, this is a tough one. I think a privately-owned business should be allowed to refuse service on any basis they see fit, especially if it's something involving religion. The free market means that competition will always be available to serve that customer anyway. That bakery's loss will be another bakery's gain.
Now government services, non-profits, and other publicly-funded operations? They obviously shouldn't be allowed to turn anyone away.
If this was a story about a muslim-owned business not wanting to deal with pork for religious reasons, would a similar stink be raised? They're refusing customer service because of religious beliefs.
Now government services, non-profits, and other publicly-funded operations? They obviously shouldn't be allowed to turn anyone away.
If this was a story about a muslim-owned business not wanting to deal with pork for religious reasons, would a similar stink be raised? They're refusing customer service because of religious beliefs.
But there are religions who believe there's an expressive element to meat butchering.
are you really arguing against the concept of anti-discrimination laws?
No it different from this case, this isn't a free excerise case, it is a free speech case.
Those who have been historically marginalized, stripped of their rights, and treated with brutality are absolutely deserving of greater protections. This isn't just historical either, these attacks continue to this very day, and are even increasing under Trump.
There are several quotations and examples in both the majority and dissenting opinion. It seems like Colorado had a restorative justice praxis and that some of the comments the authorities made could be construed as hostile to Christianity/Religion.
It's a bunch of bunk honestly, because you'd be hard pressed to find anything they said that was observably false. Religion (particularly Christianity in America) has been used as a bludgeon to propagate oppressive and hateful opinions in America, and the CRC was (probably a bit too) hyperaware of that.
Protected classes were developed due to the actions of others. In some ideal future maybe we won't need them anymore but I think worrying about giving extra protections to minorities and other vulnerable people doesn't seem like a bad plan. I mean eventually we all become a protected class since age discrimination is also built into there.
I'm not sure if you don't understand how anti-discrimination laws work or if you're just being purposely dense.
Depends, the Baker is saying he will serve them, but not a custom wedding cake for a gay couple. I used the anology to say it's a custom burger, but yours works as well. Either way he is a public business and can't turn down people because of beliefs. Don't want to create cakes for certain people, then become a private business.
Are there really? I think there's a difference between "my religion dictates these foods halal or kosher" and religious belief being a part of the art of cutting of meat products.
No because everyone is a protected class. For example race is a protected class, and everyone has a race. White people and straight people (in states that protect sexual orientation) are protected also, it just doesn't come up as much because they are the majority.