In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay

At least keep your assertions consistent!

 

There should be no employment protection for anyone, and certainly no additional protections of special classes.

 

as long as they are willing to bake birthday cakes, graduation cakes, retirement cakes and other non-marriage related cakes for Gay people, i guess i support the baker.

 

Uh, that's nonsense. Products are made all the time which cannot and should not be sold to particular people.

That's because - previously - society was civil enough to respect religious beliefs enough to honor the hierarchy of rights. Now? Not so much. So: court case.

You lost. Get over it.

 

What you should do is stay out of it completely. People have a right to associate with those they wish to associate, and laws that have been constructed over time - all in the past 50 years - don't make that Constitutional right any less legitimate.

 

So what other possible stand could the Gay hating administration possibly take. Nobody expected Christian behavior from Republicans.

 

What exactly does business descrimination against classes of individuals have to do with freedom of association. Last I heard the bakers were not required to attend the wedding.

 

IMMensa, tough to be you. Hierarchy of rights is of course regulated by law. Your baker's freedom of artistic and religious expression does not surmount the barrier of public accommodation to all when offering a service to all.

 

Fortunately for the world, your Victorian notions are as antiquated as a chamber pot.

 

I was discussing two different cases that you mentioned.

 

The piggy park and Bob Jones U cases were about religious belief and anti discrimination law. Both lost because religious belief does not trump generally applicable law.

 

Did the baker create "unique" cakes for other people? If he did, not baking a unique cake for some people, but baking unique cakes for others is discrimination.

You do know this guy has already lost one court case on this very issue, yes?

The only reason this is in the news is because Jeff Session's DOJ has decided to weigh in politically in an appeal. This is a legal matter, not a political one. There are already ways for the baker to select his customers without being charged with discrimination, but he has chosen not to use those means. The gist of the situation is this- if you are open to the public, you may not discriminate among your customers, and if you wish to cater to only a certain clientele, then you need to open a club, not a public business. Once he opens a bakery club, he can refuse to bake any cake for any reason and there is no legal recourse. If he opens to the public, then he cannot discriminate. Period.

 

We seem to have agreement on what private clubs can do, as far as limiting clientele. So, we should also be in agreement that businesses open to the public must serve all clientele equally.

Bakers that bake wedding cakes in a business open to the public may not discriminate. Bakers that bake wedding cakes in private bakery clubs can refuse to bake cakes, especially if it violates the rules of membership.

The situation isn't about forcing the baker to do anything… other than choose the type of business that best suits him- private, so he can decline to make some items, or public, where he has many more customers and the opportunity to make more money, but where he cannot discriminate. He wants the ability to make lots of money and have lots of customers, yet still discriminate between customers. He is not going to be able to do that. He's already lost this case in court. He may not discriminate among his customer and remain open to the public for business.

 

He got more money from donations from like minded sh1tbags than he ever would have got from his bakery. Is he going to give that back?

You are happy that the SC made this decision? What decision? This was not the SC decision, simply Donnie Dumbfuck's admin piping in with their thoughts.

 

Protections of religious belief are generally applicable law.

 

Ah. You mean the 'like minded sh1tbags' with whom the Supreme Court of the United States is clearly about to agree.

And with whom the kind, big-hearted and religiously tolerant progs disagree.

Why would he? The donations were freely given; the legal costs and business losses have to be covered, and you whining about giving something back is transparently sour grapes.

This was the Justice Department. The Supreme Court will rule on it. Would you like to make a wager?

 

So you believe in slave labor? Forcing one to do work where he or she does not desire such work, or abstains for political, religious, or emotion reason? You say "You don't get to say no, go work!".

It's quite alarming how extreme people are with their political views, willing to overlook basic and fundamental rights so long as the means justify the ends, and in this particular case, the end being progressive liberal policies related to homophobia.

 

If the cake is not taken out of the display case then it *is* a request for a cake from a private bakery club. And the law does not require *anyone* to be a slave and accept all private contract offers.

 

JakeStarkey said: There is no right of private association exception when one holds out his services to the public.

(1) So you learned a fallacy of false equivalency that does not exist. Slave labor? Really??

(2) No one is forcing anyone to work in a private association, but when on holds out one's wares to the public, one is subject to public law.

(3) What is alarming is that the extreme right, one who is jcarlilesiu, or others of the extreme left, seem to believe they can subordinate their personal opinions on the public as a whole.

(4) And since the comment about causes and homophobia are senseless, please explain.

 

The elites have found clever ways to make most middle class Americans slaves to someone or other, while they remain free as birds with their costly lawyers abetting them.

 

I am free as a bird without any costly lawyers at my beck and call.

 

Again, you are wrong.

Phillips refused to provide a wedding cake but offered to bake a plain cake (as he had done in the past). Melissa of Cakes by Melissa did the same as Phillips, she offered a cake without the wedding decorations (as she had done on the past). Phillips and Melissa were take to court and lost. Azucar was taken to court and won. In fact, nationally 13 other gay owned bakeries were tested and refused to bake a Christian cake, none have been convicted.

Your argument that it is about "actual speech" is changing the subject. The argument from those supporting the accommodation law is that a business must provide its service to all. When counter example's (such as Azucar) are presented, suddenly the argument drops to so-called "actual speech" not providing services. It happens in all these threads, you are not the first by a long shot.

Legally, there is no difference between words and symbols (such as 2 men figures on top of a wedding cake), so your "actual speech" argument is completely without merit.

 

Lets play your game.

You just differentiated cakes by topic - Halloween cakes are not the same as other cakes because of the subject matter. Traditional weddings are certainly not the same as same sex wedding cakes, they are 2 different topics. You just lost your argument.

Wrong again.

Religious belief has many, many times trumped accommodation law. Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was amended in 1967 and again in 1972 to prevent discrimination against people based on their religion. Every year, there are several 1,000 cases of religious discrimination brought to court based on Title 7. In the last few years, with the surge in gay politics, that these same sex marriage accommodation issues have been raised.

 

If what you say is true, why was he found guilty?

 

Just wait until the Muslims get going with it. A local restaurant owner told me recently they have already been into his place threatening a boycott unless he eliminates pork from his menu. They;re as bad as the Mafia.