Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

Yeah, we do. His problem was a wedding that was not between a man and a women, going against what he believed is true marriage. Simple.

Why would he serve gay customers if he had a problem with who they are as gay people?

Yeah, a wedding in itself is an entirely non political event, but I'm talking about the cake. Same sex marriage is a political matter
and the cake does represent marriage between two people of the same sex, which is not true marriage in the eyes of this baker.

If he discriminated of the basis of sexual orientation, doesn't that mean he hates gay people? Why else would someone discriminate of the basis of someone being gay?

Wouldn't this baker have refused to make a same sex wedding cake regardless of the characteristics (actual or assumed) of the customer requesting it?

And that's where you're wrong! You very conveniently say "and by presumption." How can you say that?
Absent of someone explicitly saying it, Sexual orientation CANNOT be presumed I'm afraid! It can only be GUESSED!

Also, what if it was a friend of the couple who ordered the cake on their behalf. After being told that it was for a same sex wedding and he refused,
would this also be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

 

None of them are valid.
Any argument should be supported by the evidence.
There was no evidence have ever been presented why same sex couples should have special rights, while close related couples cannot have those rights.

For instance, when I say that homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples, I have a valid argument.
The argument is that heterosexual couples should be regulated by the government, while homosexual couples do not need to be regulated.
This argument is 100% valid because you can't deny the fact that rules of relationship between man and woman need to be enforced.

You, on the other hand, do not have any valid point other then constantly repeating script written by stupid gay activists.

 

Those feelings do not qualify for the public benefits.

 

No, that specific cake doesn't represent anything other than that individual wedding. They didn't order the cake to send a political message, they ordered the cake because they were getting married an it's traditional to have a cake at a wedding. It remains an entirely different scenario to the people who tried to have a cake made with a specifically political message written on it to make a political point.

Hate is often a factor but isn't a requirement of discrimination. Some people think homosexuals are victims of some kind of social/psychological influences that makes them gay so are more likely to feel sorry for them than hate them. That doesn't mean their behaviour treating them differently is any less discriminatory.

No. The straight parents of one of the partners could have ordered the cake and it would have been refused while gay parents could order exactly the same cake for their heterosexual sons wedding and been accepted. The couple could have also avoided letting the bakers know they were a gay couple and ordered exactly the same cake.

The cake itself isn't the key here. The refusal is to provide a service for an event - a wedding - because the people getting married were both male rather than a male and a female.

It shouldn't be presumed. It is presumed all the time. Note that discrimination laws are about the reasons the accused acts regardless of whether they're correct in their assumptions or not. If someone refused to serve you because they thought you were gay, that would be discrimination even if you're not gay.

As a fundamental principle I don't see why it should make any difference but I don't know how the legal technicalities would apply.

 

Gay people have no special rights

This is a statement, not evidence. Evidence is usually provided along with a source, I would try to explain what a source is but I have a feeling you couldn’t comprehed it. Your argument is opinion based, mine is fact and legal based,

You have listed exactly zero reasons why same sex couples should be banned while allowing infertile and non-sexual couples to wed. The only argument you have made is that there cannot be procreation without marriage which is complete nonsense.

I have listed several, the benifit to potential or current children, tax benifits of a single household, financial and psychological stability, increase of homeownership, decrease of depression drug use and sexually transmitted disease, spousal support such as medical leave shared insurance and hospital visitation; you have refuted none of that.

 

None of those is a poll to determine how many people are religious who responded to the poll about whether homosexuality should be illegal. Which one were you referring to?

 

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I said, "Wouldn't this baker have refused to make a same sex wedding
cake regardless of the characteristics (actual or assumed) of the customer requesting it" and you said no. Why?

How do you know that they DIDN'T avoid letting the baker know that they were a gay couple?

EXACTLY! And there is no law that says that it is illegal to refuse service based on a couple being the same sex! The law says that it is illegal to refuse service, BASED OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION!

And are any assumptions that this baker made known?

I'm not sure that they would be found guilty. The laws protect the customer and their class identity! The person would surely have to identify as being gay.
Of course, the person could lie to the civil rights court and say that they were gay and this would have the same effect.

Don't you understand that these laws are to protect the customer and their class identity? They are NOT extended to protecting end users too!

 

Sorry, I mixed up the direction of the question; that should have been a "yes". I agree that the baker would refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding regardless of who was actually putting in the order.

Because if there had been any dishonesty like that in this case, it would have surely come out in court and been reported in the media. I doubt they said "We're gay and we're getting married!" and I doubt the baker specifically asked but the common assumption would be that a same sex couple getting married aren't heterosexual.

It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender too but that's getting in to more petty technicalities. The bottom line is that two people were planing an entirely legal marriage that is formally recognised as being equal to any other marriage and they were treated differently by this business.

I don't know the wording of the laws in the relevant jurisdiction but the legalisation from elsewhere I have seen does base the offence on the business owners intent and perception, regardless of the reality. That's exactly to avoid issues of alleged victims needing to prove they actually have the characteristic the discrimination was based on (imagine how messy that would get with racial discrimination after all).

The laws are to try to prevent discrimination and playing with these technicalities don't make the bakers policy any less discriminatory. I'm sure it'd be possible for them to get away with it if the couple themselves didn't put in the order, just as they might get away with it on the basis of religious exemption. In either case though, the behaviour and intent would still be discriminatory.

 

That is can be done by any couple, not just gay couple.
What is a unique with gay couple that they need special rights?
You can't answer that question.


Remember marriage benefits are the special rights.

 

You ignored everything I posted to reply with the same rhetoric as typical.

You have no argument

I am not continuing this back and forth without you even attempting a rational discussion. Goodbye

 

And, I was right.

The baker claimed that he was an artist and thus his art was speech. Then, he claimed he couldn't make that speech because it was against his religious beliefs, turning it into a first amendment speech case(!)

Of course, the "speech" argument could be made as an excuse for breaking LOTS of civil rights law.

Obviously, that same baker could refuse to rent an apartment to a same sex married couple on the grounds that the act of renting is speech that is against his religious belief. There is clear precedent that public acts are speech.

AND, there is no reason for this religious exemption to apply ONLY to civil rights cases involving sexual orientation.

The central element of the case is that his religious belief is an exemption from civil rights law.

 

How can we know that Jack made this assumption? Have you never heard of two straight men getting married for the benefits? Never seen, "I Now Pronounce you Chuck and Larry?"

 

I’ve never claimed to know the baker made that assumption, only that it is the likely assumption anyone would make and the implication of the court proceedings. If it hadn’t been the opinion of the various courts that he was acting on the basis of their sexual orientation, he wouldn’t have lost at each and every stage.

Outside fictional comedy films, I’ve not heard of any heterosexuals actually going through with same-sex marriage for the benefits and even if it has happened, it would be a very rare occurrence.

 

might as well get a woman for that.

 

And you think that it is fair to be judged on an assumption?

 

Not on its own but it can be a factor. There would be a valid defence against a change based on an incorrect assumption. I don’t believe this was the case here anyway as the baker didn’t deny the discrimination as per the law but argued that he should be exempted on first amendment grounds.

Again, I’m less interested in the legal technicalities and more in the moral and social principles.

 

My sister in law is legally married to another female, and is a the legal parent of her adopted son.

 

But your arguments are not relevant because you are ignoring the equality part.
Gay couples are equal to any couple that is capable to receive a handout from the government.

So you have failed miserably to prove your point.
But people like you want me to believe in nonsense and threaten me to bring a lawsuit against me.
Do you realize what you are doing?

 

but

Yea, but if some other female wants to adapt a child and live together with her grandmother, you want them to live without marriage benefits. Why is that?
It seems like you kind of agree that gay benefits are the special rights.

 

No different than any other married couple. Nothing special. You are welcome to make a case for marrying your own grandmother if you like.

 

Case already have been decided by the Supreme Court, the ban on marriage benefits for related couples is in effect.
What is a point to file new case if Supreme Court has extended special marriage rights specifically to gays only?

 

You are incorrect. All married couples have the same rights. Nothing special or different for married gay couples. I don't understand why you would want to marry a relative.

 

I am 100% correct.
Married couples always had the same rights.
Supreme Court has delivered marriage rights to gays only.

 

If marriage rights are for gays only, my wife and I would have lost our rights. We still have them and you are still wrong.

 

Your argument that gay couples shouldn’t be able to wed because a mother and her son cannot is absurd.

Then those couples should have no problem arguing their case to SCOTUS, since they are already family members which is what marriage creates they may have a few issues though.

You have yet to address my point. Or anyone’s point

I don’t care what you believe tbh, failure to abide by law has nothing to do with personal belief.