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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thov420

But in CO, the bar would not have the right to deny service based on sexual orientation, as the bar is a place of public accommodation.

If they were in GA, they could certainly deny service on the basis of sexual orientation ... we don't have laws protecting us.

I'm not aware of any religious prohibition against serving alcohol to gay people, at least not in Christianity.

In this scenario you have to separate the behavior from the person. Phillips did not discriminate against gay people, he refused to make a specific type of product for a specific event. It didn't matter what their sexual orientation was.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if he did that, he's a moron. I still think they should have just moved on and found someone willing to make them a cake instead of suing, but I'm not big on confrontation anyways.

Personally I don't disagree with you. That's perhaps because a) I don't feel the need to telegraph my sexual orientation in public and b) I live in a state where people can freely discriminate based on sexual orientation ... but mostly because I'm not going to give a penny to any SOB that would, in my opinion, pervert religion to harm others.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This law:

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

civilrights.findlaw.com...

Now it's important to remember that ones rights end where another's begin. The cake maker doesn't have to take on the paid services of another if they feel it violates their religious values and the states/feds have no right to force them to.

"Just because" isn't an excuse and it would lend itself toward discrimination.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Again, my understanding is that he did originally state that he wouldn't make a "gay" wedding cake. It was obvious at the outset (before he doubtless received legal advice from concerned political entities) that his issue was with their sexual orientation.

a reply to: Nightrider83


If that happened, some smart enterprising person would open a bakery that only catered to gays. They would turn away straight couples and get tons of praise and business for it too.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am talking about the idea that marriage should be in the realm of religion and that civil gov'ts shouldn't be wading into it by deciding what the civil gov't recognizes as a marriage.

An Ancient Marriage Record

At the beginning of the 20th century, an actual Jewish marriage record during the period of the return from the Babylonian exile was discovered — the oldest marriage contract in Jewish history. The marriage did not take place in Palestine or among the exiles in Babylon, but among the Jews of Elephantine and Aswan, at the southern border of Egypt.

The marriage contract of Mibtachiah [the bride] and As-Hor [the groom] began with a declaration of marriage by As-Hor to Mibtachiah’s father. “I came to thy house for thee to give me thy daughter, Mibtachiah, to wife; she is my wife and I am her husband from this day and forever.”

Following this declaration of betrothal, all terms of the marriage contract were written in detail. As-Hor paid Machseiah, the father, five shekels, Persian standard, as a mohar for his daughter. Besides, Mibtachiah received a gift of 65 1/2 shekels from As-Hor. From this we gather that the mohar that fathers received for their daughters was then merely a nominal payment, the formality of an older custom.

According to the marriage contract, Mibtachiah had equal rights with her husband. She had her own property which she could bequeath as she pleased, and she had the right to pronounce a sentence of divorce against As-Hor, even as he had the right to pronounce it against her. All she had to do was to appear before the court of the community and declare that she had developed an aversion to As-Hor. We do not know to what degree the equality of rights enjoyed by Jewish women of Elephantine was due to Jewish or to Persian-Babylonian law.

www.myjewishlearning.com...

any religious undertones to what was essentially a contractual agreement wasn't originally present it was added later.
religion doesn't have a monopoly on marriage, the followers of any religion can opt to adopt the beliefs of that religion and allow them to confine their actions, if they choose to. thus, a catholic person who ends up being divorced can opt, because of faith not to remarry, or they can, if the wish, revisit their beliefs and opt instead to join a baptist church where remarriage is accepted. and, our gov't, if they find that there are a significant number of divorced people wanting to marry, choose to recognize the marriages of these people, regardless of what the catholic church says... and can choose to offer a different venue for them to marry if they wish, the the justice of the peace.

but at the heart of the marriage, it's still a legal contractual agreement first.

a reply to: JinMI

Are you saying that any personal interpretation of religious beliefs should always trump the rule-of-law?

If the baker doesn't want to operate a business of public accomodation because it might conflict with his religious beliefs, then he shouldn't, but he shouldn't hold out to do business with the public and then refuse to do so for illegal reasons.

(The CO statute adds classes to that language you cited above.)

a reply to: dawnstar

In point of fact, marriage has historically been a matter of property and in some cases that was the wife.

Good point!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

It's my understanding that initially he made the statement that he didn't do cake for "gay weddings."

That's a statement of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

/shrug

That's one way to interpret it. Another way is to interpret it as freedom to not participate in an event.

Does 'gay wedding' define a person?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JinMI

Are you saying that any personal interpretation of religious beliefs should always trump the rule-of-law?

If the baker doesn't want to operate a business of public accomodation because it might conflict with his religious beliefs, then he shouldn't, but he shouldn't hold out to do business with the public and then refuse to do so for illegal reasons.

(The CO statute adds classes to that language you cited above.)

As it pertains to serve another, yes. Also bearing in mind that ones rights end where another's begin. Free speech and expression along with the free market allow for this bakery to fail or succeed. After the hype is gone, I doubt this place will last.

Yes, CO does, but the federal law doesn't....and should.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You're getting into razor fine interpretations and what-ifs ... that's honestly beyond the scope of my interest in this discussion.

The baker was brought before the Civil Rights Commission because he made statements that he was discriminating based on sexual orientation. This Commission made the mistake of addressing the issue of religious rights vs. civil rights (which was beyond their legal mandate) rather than the real matter which was public accomodation. SCOTUS corrected that today while saying that Colorado certainly retained rights to protect it's citizens from unfair/illegal discrimination.

This would be an excellent time to see a very rare win-win situation these days...

The more I think about this the more complex it gets!!! I can see both sides to this case! You can substitute different factors/people into the shoes of the gay couple and ask whether it would be a 'right' or just plain discrimination on part of the baker

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Again, my understanding is that he did originally state that he wouldn't make a "gay" wedding cake. It was obvious at the outset (before he doubtless received legal advice from concerned political entities) that his issue was with their sexual orientation.

And again, that is not my understanding because I read he provided other services/products to gay customers. I want to say that he hired gay people as well, but I might be mistaking that with a florist under a similar situation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You're getting into razor fine interpretations and what-ifs ... that's honestly beyond the scope of my interest in this discussion.

The baker was brought before the Civil Rights Commission because he made statements that he was discriminating based on sexual orientation. This Commission made the mistake of addressing the issue of religious rights vs. civil rights (which was beyond their legal mandate) rather than the real matter which was public accomodation. SCOTUS corrected that today while saying that Colorado certainly retained rights to protect it's citizens from unfair/illegal discrimination.

This would be an excellent time to see a very rare win-win situation these days...

Not how I have seen/read it. He was pulled in front of the CRC because of a complaint from the gay couple who had already made their arguments and put words in his mouth beforehand.

a reply to: Nightrider83

The more I think about this the more complex it gets!!! I can see both sides to this case!

The funny part is that one side DO see other side's point in this. Will the resolution ever arrive?

a reply to: RowanBean

Yeah it's like one part of me says "bake the damn cake" and the other side says "go some where else already' haha

originally posted by: JinMI

Yes, CO does, but the federal law doesn't....and should.

Agreed.

The right to be religious (or not religious) is a fundamental American right, but as you say, how far does that right extend?

If you believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, then my recommendation to you would be to avoid marrying someone of your own sex. You might even contribute to efforts to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

I don't believe that belief extends to contravening the rights that any member of the public has a reasonable right to expect in a place of public accomodation. If you run a cake shop, and I want to buy a cake, sell me one.

If you don't want to sell me one, tell me so, but don't be dumb enough to tell me it's because I'm gay.

a reply to: Nightrider83

Which one of those arguments makes more sense?

Where would you take your business and how would you communicate that to your friends and family (other potential customers?)

a reply to: dawnstar

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. All I'm saying is that marriage has been the union of opposite sexes for multitudes of reasons. In your examples there would have been no advantage to pair two men or women because they would not have produced offspring to maintain the property. Now there may have been multiple women to one man, or in some rare cases multiple men to one women (Mongolia and other low-male-population areas as I recall) but it revolved around producing children and handing down property rights.

a reply to: JinMI

Both sides will have a community of people that supports their opinions. Maybe the baker lost some customers but also gains customers that will rally to support his/her position. Same with the gay couple