It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 03:37 AM

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The ruling, as I and others have pointed out, revolves around the application of Colorado's law unfairly on the baker and based solely on the actions/comments/views of the people on the hearing board who found he violated the law.

Why people would run a business and then refuse that business is beyond me

Surely the bottom line is, He is in business, and to be successful in business

he needs to make money.....So turning away business is loosing him money AND

'good will' and good reviews.

I fail to see what this has to do with either the governments or law, running a

business like he is doing doesn't bode well for success?

The old adage *the customer is always right* (even when the're not) will without

the law take the business down anyway?? ..... KARMA

posted on Jun, 6 2018 @ 04:33 PM
a reply to: eletheia

Because in Colorado they have a law that says a private business cant refuse a customer service based on certain criteria and sexual orientation is one of those items listed in the law.

The baker violated Colorado law. The issue was how the commission that reviewed his case acted and the personal opinions they expressed. When you make comments that clearly indicate a bias towards a certain viewpoint the person in question cannot receive a fair hearing. It says the people on the commission already have preconceived notions and cannot render a fair hearing for this persons side of the story.

The Colorado law is valid and constitutional. It was how the commission applied that law that violated the bakers constitutional rights. By citing /attacking his religious views to reach their decision the court found the commission exhibited anti religious behavior and by extension violated the 1st amendment of the baker. Instead of the facts their own personal views on the bakers religious views / religion he belongs was the basis for the decision.

The government cannot violate a persons rights solely to protect the rights of another by using freedom of religion and freedom of association against them. At that point they are selectively choosing what constitutional amendments apply and, and again selectively, whom they apply to. The same holds for the state law where they decided who is subject to the law and how its applied and how evidence is accepted based on the suspects constitutional rights verses the commissions personal opinions.

There are plenty of cases where business who failed to serve certain segments of our society have been forced out of business.

Just as the business owners and business can decide who they will or wont serve people have the right to decide to shop elsewhere and spread by word of mouth / social media their opinion on why they wont shop at any given location anymore.

Caveat Emptor comes to mind..

posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 11:00 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

I usually don't agree with you on anything but you're explaining this case in plain terms and there are still people who believe the SCOTUS just gave carte blanche to discriminate against LGBT couples.

Thank you for not being completely unreasonable.

posted on Jun, 8 2018 @ 07:05 PM
Here's how I think the law should be interpreted :

A bakER has the right to refuse service to any client because they are an individual human being and are entitled to freedom of beliefs.
A bakERY - meaning an entire business or subsection of a business that specializes in baked goods - does not have the right to discriminate against any clientele because it does not have the same rights as a human being and is subject to nondiscrimination laws.

So, if you're a bakery manager and the best baker in town is a Jehova's Witness that doesn't do birthday cakes or Christmas cakes, you can hire them, but you also need to hire another baker that WILL make birthday/Christmas cakes.

If a bakery is a sole proprietorship or all your employees hold similar beliefs, then the bakER or manager who knows they will refuse service has to make that publicly known in their ads and signage outside the business who exactly they will refuse service to, and also be able to give the name of at least 1 other baker/business that will do such a job within 50 miles.

So if you do business in the middle of nowhere, you either be of service to all clientele in your area, or you're breaking the law. If the area is remote enough you might not even have to have your beliefs challenged. You can skirt the law and hope you don't get caught until you relocate, if you so choose, but the penalty for doing so should be fines that would go into entrepreneurship support for minorities. Then minorities who want to own a business could apply for grants from that fund to open businesses in under-served areas.

And nobody would ever be forced make those tacky genitalia cakes if they don't want to as that can just be "not a service we offer" because those would, I'm guessing, require specialized pans. But if you DO want to make those kinds of cakes, you can't restrict that they only be sold to certain types of people, unless you can recommend another business that WILL cater to that need. So, you wouldn't be forced to offer a service you wouldn't normally provide anyways.

The goal is to have service for all while protecting freedom of individuals. But that's just my opinion on how to reach a compromise on the issue.

posted on Mar, 23 2019 @ 09:59 PM
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the clarifications on this thread, by the way.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in