You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

From the Opinion on SCOTUS website:

The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil
rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are
protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional
that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and
services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other
members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is
neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic
skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in
his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First
Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere
religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which
was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed
in the State and before this Court issued United States v.
Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at
the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not
unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time
also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific
messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement
proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division
concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining
to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or
gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful
consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.
Pp. 9–12.
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s
treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating
his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality
of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Essentially: the commission was openly hostile to such a degree that its apparent to SCOTUS that their intent was religious suppression, which violated his right to freedom of expression and association.

Many state that they avoided the free speech issue, but I disagree. They address it in a minor way by pointing out that people have a right to free expression, and that the commission chose to ignore others refusal to perform a service that is considered free speech.

a reply to: mamabeth

Exactly. You can't even dress like the 80's anymore because back then, everything had a rainbow. I had a pair of those short 80's shorts that had a small rainbow on the leg. Ocean Pacific had a rainbow on almost everything they sold.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I'm not going to clutter our chat any further with cut and paste; so, in basic order of your presentation:

Agree that SCOTUS reversed the Colorado Commission's finding. Do not agree that SCOTUS declared the Anti-Discrimination Act unconsitutional.

SCOTUS did not find that Philips "had apparently not acted outside his own rights." IN point of fact the decision states several times (as shown multiple times here) that Colorado was and is completely within her authority and responsibility to protect the civil rights of her citizens against discrimination.

The decision was based on the failure of Colorado to maintain neutrality, not on the merits of Philips' position.

I'm not asking you questions I know the answer to, anymore than you are assuming that I haven't carefully considered all aspects of the matter or am unaware of basic civics knowledge. I didn't ask you to explain the concept of inalienable/natural rights, I asked you what your list was, as you claimed specifically that those rights (known to you in your own mind) are superior to the laws of the United States and the 50 States.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Tsk, you may have to cite yourself for long, unnecessary quotes.

I've quoted parts of your bolded material previously in this discussion, I don't feel the need to restate myself regarding what it means.

Nothing you quoted substantiates the claim that the decision dealt with freedom of speech (expression) or association in the slightest way.

In fact, SCOTUS held:

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech.

Nothing about freedom of association, and the only comment about speech was that it was "difficult" to argue in this case but that wedding cakes are rarely thought of as "speech acts."

As to my claim that the decision supports Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act:

The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed.

The State could have successfully argued its case of discrimination IF they had remained neutral to Philip's religion.

Indeed, SCOTUS makes it clear that it is not the task of government to decide whether someone believes something or not. What is the task of government is to equally enforce the laws of the land, which, as SCOTUS says, could have been done in regard to the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Legislation cannot target religions directly and nothing in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act does so (as reaffirmed by SCOTUS).

Further, Justice Kennedy stated this:

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless.

Far from affirming that Philips had a valid free exercise claim, Kennedy states VERY plainly that there's no way to determine whether he did or not because of the endless possibilities inherent in such a consideration.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You may have misread me re: free speech and expression.

SCOTUS uphel Colorados right to establish the law. They chastised them for using it to trample religious rights. The demeanor by tye commission showed intent.

If tyey trample religious rights while being polite theyd still likely lose. But wouldnt have examples to show intent

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

You're misunderstanding the ruling. The court didn't even comment on speech vs religion, or any other constitutional issue. It essentially came down to the idea that the lower court didn't do their job properly, and that the case as made had no place before the Supreme Court. In fact, the court even specified that it was a narrow ruling, which means their verdict applies to only this case, it is not precedent for anything similar.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hmmm. I think we've about thrashed out our arguments.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission addressed Philip's religious beliefs. There was no reason to do so.

The issue was not with his beliefs, but with his actions, which were discriminatory based on the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

SCOTUS made it as clear as possible:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach.

His right to the free exercise of religion might be limited by generally applicable laws.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hmmm. I think we've about thrashed out our arguments.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission addressed Philip's religious beliefs. There was no reason to do so.

The issue was not with his beliefs, but with his actions, which were discriminatory based on the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendments and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

SCOTUS made it as clear as possible:

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach.

His right to the free exercise of religion might be limited by generally applicable laws.

wow

so everyone that does not agree with your hitlarian stances here should quit their jobs and leave their religion at home cause you seek to shut down freedom in the name of lgbtq.

reality will catch you if you keep up

you care not for the constitution and seek to subvert it at every level

satan loves you much

he loves those that seek to destroy

a reply to: howtonhawky

Dunno man...I think that people have their own passions and their own causes, and we all have different ideas on how to make it all work together.

A difference of opinion isn't evil, nor is Gryphon. Actually, i'd say he's a good guy. Even if he's occasionally wrong.

I baked a gay cake once. I loved it anyways.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: howtonhawky

Dunno man...I think that people have their own passions and their own causes, and we all have different ideas on how to make it all work together.

A difference of opinion isn't evil, nor is Gryphon. Actually, i'd say he's a good guy. Even if he's occasionally wrong.

i see a highly intelligent sinister person using heartstrings to remove freedom slowly by being likable while espousing equality at any price.

srry but i will not let someone talk me out of my freedom and culture without a fight no matter how well mannered or likable they are.

at the end of the day if posters like this have their way then we will not have freedom at all and will see and end of the american dream

toxic thoughts hurt us all when they are accepted as the norm

you think that poster cares if girls get outdone in sports now? no it is a win for satan
you think that if scotus ruled that everyone has to cater to the odd people in life and we all have to go around pretending they are the norm. it is not normal at all and is counter productive to freedom


how hard would it be for the left to accept that my freedom allows me to run a business and serve whoever i want and everyone has the right to shop where ever they want. THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF CAPITALISM and if we allow it to be removed then we will no longer have choice much less freedom and culture.


by all means ats you gotta keep up the popularity contest

a reply to: Edumakated

I've not read every reply to your post so hopefully someone else has already corrected you on this, but in case not here goes: The SCOTUS did not offer a ruling on the broader issue here, but instead ruled exclusively on this one man in this one situation. Those who are claiming this is a victory for their discriminatory views are quite mistaken. It is illegal to turn someone away from your business because they are black or Jewish, and it should be equally illegal to turn away someone who is gay.

In the 1950s most southern "Christians" who opposed inter-racial marriage and voting rights for black people believed that their stance was supported by the Bible. They made the very same arguments as you guys make when they said that they should not be forced to change their views because they are based on their religious faith. Some of the worst things in human history have been done in the name of a god, a religion, or a faith. Interpreting your Bible in a very narrow way as to exclude inter-racial marriage, or homosexual marriage is not protected because it is simply illegal and immoral.

I trust that most of you guys who feel that it's okay to discriminate are beginning to realize you are in the minority now and dwindling fast. Progress is often slow, but ultimately it is for the best for society.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

I agree with you and then some. This owner's reputation has sustained irreparable damage as a result of how high profile this case has been over the years. He should be awarded much more than what he has lost and he should also file a civil lawsuit against the jack ass gay couple who could have simply gone elsewhere.

originally posted by: dovdov
a reply to: Edumakated

I've not read every reply to your post so hopefully someone else has already corrected you on this, but in case not here goes: The SCOTUS did not offer a ruling on the broader issue here, but instead ruled exclusively on this one man in this one situation. Those who are claiming this is a victory for their discriminatory views are quite mistaken. It is illegal to turn someone away from your business because they are black or Jewish, and it should be equally illegal to turn away someone who is gay.

He didn't turn them away. He declined to produce an item that was not in his shop selection.

In the 1950s most southern "Christians" who opposed inter-racial marriage and voting rights for black people believed that their stance was supported by the Bible. They made the very same arguments as you guys make when they said that they should not be forced to change their views because they are based on their religious faith. Some of the worst things in human history have been done in the name of a god, a religion, or a faith.

Even worse things have been done by government force, especially when it is deemed for "the greater good" and "what is best for society." (more on that last part later...)

Interpreting your Bible in a very narrow way as to exclude inter-racial marriage, or homosexual marriage is not protected because it is simply illegal and immoral.

Did the baker's decision to not participate in the get-together somehow stop the gay couple from hosting their event?

Did the baker not offer the couple the products and services that he provides equally to all his other customers?

They were treated fairly and equally. Just not the 'fairly and equally' the social justice warriors would approve of.

I trust that most of you guys who feel that it's okay to discriminate are beginning to realize you are in the minority now and dwindling fast. Progress is often slow, but ultimately it is for the best for society.

Who are you to determine what is progress? Government infringement on a person's peaceful freedom of religion is the opposite of progress.

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: Gryphon66

I dont think alien was saying pedos are same as gays.

all I got was how society can take something that was once considered immoral and just because the law says its legal doesn't change it to moral for some person/group/religion .

now (sorry of topic drift) SOME people and religions consider sex with children ok.
hence the MAMBLA organization and those religions that accept child brides.

now if (I consider pedo vile and always wrong and slim chance ever legal) say the law recognizes child brides and they wanted a wedding cake decorated in that theme if the baker considered it against their religious beliefs they would refuse.

the "couple" could sue just like they same sex couple did and the state could rule the same way they did for them with same arguments.

Now lets be clear...I AM NOT SAYING THE EXAMPLES GIVEN ARE SAME AS SAME SEX COUPLES.
the example he gave is what if something (as vile and disgusting as it is) that is viewed as morally wrong was made legal DOES NOT CHANGE the morality for a group , religion or people.

I think a different example could have been used like multiple partner marriage, but the idea is the same.

dont fall into the trap just because someone used an example it is saying that they are the same.

you could (know you havent just an example) have told me that I was equating nazi wanting swastika on a cake as same as same sex marriage.

Now on to how a color of a cake is morally wrong.

simple answer is if the baker is specifically asked to decorate the cake in something they are morally opposed to , be it same sex, swastika , confederate flag, adult theme, whatever then they are associated / name attached to that cake.

weither they really believe in what they put on it is (sadly) irrelevant.
right or wrong its theirs .

Honestly if it say were a confederate flag or swastika would those groups opposed to that just say "they were just giving what the customer would want" and let it go?

no in hell they would not...there would be protests, boycotts, ect.

now maybe with a same sex cake there would not be that.
but in there church and/or faith that would be wrong to them

overall lets again be honest

one you DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT to a specific cake theme be made for you

two ...the baker ONLY REFUSED TO DECORATE IN THAT THEME.
they were MORE THAN WILLING to sell them any cake pre made and most other themes if they desire AND TOLD THEM THAT.

three.... not getting a cake isnt gonna stop them from their rights...

Scrounger

Thanks, these are my thoughts exactly. I would have quoted this post earlier but somehow i over looked this post. Thank you , you are absolutely right.

Well go figure. The left's ridiculous attempts to define PRIVATE PROPERTY (including businesses) as public spaces is ridiculous. Businesses are not tax payer funded. They are NOT public places. They are PRIVATE institutions who's owners permit public access for the purpose of exchanging cash for goods/services.

Trying to force anyone to do something against their will is ridiculous. The whiny gay could've gotten that cake from anywhere. They just wanted to use more impotent fake liberal outrage to advance their culture war and attempt to harm the definition of PRIVATE vs public property.

Good for SCOTUS.

originally posted by: Edumakated



for example, I am black. If I were a baker and a white guy asks me to bake a cake; I'd bake the cake. No questions asked. For all I know, the guy could take the cake home and put a swastika candle on it. I don't know, it is a just a plain cake as far as I am concerned at that point. What he does after it leaves my store is none of my business, nor do I give a flip as long as I am paid.

However, if that guy came to me and said, "Bake me a cake with a swastika" he is now telling me what the purpose of said cake is and I'd refuse to bake the cake.

See difference?

No I don’t, there is no difference in that scenario.

swas·ti·ka
Origin


late 19th century: from Sanskrit svastika, from svasti ‘well-being,’ from su ‘good’ + asti ‘being.’

Just because a group steals a symbol of power doesn’t make the symbol bad, it makes the people standing behind a good symbol bad.

Otherwise we could claim anyone who reads the Bible is bad, because of the Old Testament telling us to pillage, plunder and rape neighboring towns/villages. And to smile while bashing the heads of the newborns of babalyon against the rocks,
“smile because you are doing gods work”


However I would agree with you if a group creates a NEW symbol of hate. Example images of bezelbaub. (Which I don’t care either on its own) then takes a cake like that to a church.

Mainly because it is purposefully disrespecting knowing that to Christians any image of bezel is a sign of Satan.

If they baked a cake with KKK on it and brought it to an African Meeting, by all means shoot the guy. It’s conplete disrespect, by known hateful groups.

Even refusing to bake a boob cake for “kids” is acceptable to me.

But to deny say a Native American a svastika. is stupid because it means something different to them that goes further back then hitler and his rein of terror.

That above instance would be like me saying to you, you can’t have an origin cake of your native country because your in America. A symbol is a symbol and unless a person plans on doing evil under such a symbol or it is born in hate. The symbol should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unless like I said you are a Christian baker being forced to do bezelbulb or 666 as a cake. At that point if you follow satanism it’s just better to respect their wishes and find someone else.

But all this couple wanted was a wedding style cake. No symbols, no 666, toppers don come with a wedding cake, (if you read my other post by any chance, you would know if the complaintent got his way, lots of rules would have to change, from doctors to teachers, etc because religious views would be tossed out the window. There are hospitals that refuse to work on dying women who need abortions, or Jewish men who need a heart transplant: examples any hospital with saint in their name) and opened that can of worms that would change the way our society is.

a reply to: JBurns

Jim Crow laws, which allowed a shopkeeper to refuse service to blacks in the South, were abolished during the Civil Rights era. Want to know why? Because it was considered discrimination to refuse service to someone simply on the basis of some inherent trait, like skin color. Homosexuality is also an inherent trait.

a reply to: JBurns

Yeah, the SCOTUS ruling didn’t state any of that nonsense,

The common law origin of public accommodation goes back to the 17th century, and there’s nothing leftist about it.

So a gay couple targeted a Christian family owned bakery to harass and didn't get to bully the owner like they thought they could? They were not legally allowed to drive him out of business and destroy his livelihood?

Of course not, the baker has rights too - and he should sue the State of Colorado for infringing on his civil rights.