Supreme court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same sex couple

[DieHardBrownsFan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html

[tiamat63]

On one hand I believe no business (especially if you've received federal grant money, tax breaks etc etc) should have the right to refuse any customer based on skin, religion, sexual orientation and the like....  

But on the other hand I tend to like the free market deciding things so I don't see why it would be so hard finding another Bakery and then watching the one that refused you lose business over their choice. 

It's just one of those things that floats in purgatory for me.

[Westside Steve]

And this topic was big quite a while ago and still begs the question would you expect a kosher bakery to make cookies with swastikas on them? A soul food restaurant to cater a Klan meeting? How about we sue every one of the musical acts who refused to perform at the Trump inauguration?

There are a hundred places that couple could have gotten a cake but that's not really what they wanted.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

It's true. It is this whole business of fighting a culture war. They get help launching the lawsuit, and they can get rich.

What's to lose? AND, they make legal ground for their leftwing cause(s). ObaMao DID tell them to "get in their faces".

Meanwhile, who pays the belligerently directed lawsuit legal bills for the good people owning the bakery?

[MLD Woody]

40 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

And this topic was big quite a while ago and still begs the question would you expect a kosher bakery to make cookies with swastikas on them? A soul food restaurant to cater a Klan meeting? How about we sue every one of the musical acts who refused to perform at the Trump inauguration?

There are a hundred places that couple could have gotten a cake but that's not really what they wanted.

WSS

All of your examples are based on a choice. Sexual Orientation, Race, Gender, etc. are not a choice. I'd say that's an important distinction.

[MLD Woody]

57 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

On one hand I believe no business (especially if you've received federal grant money, tax breaks etc etc) should have the right to refuse any customer based on skin, religion, sexual orientation and the like....  

But on the other hand I tend to like the free market deciding things so I don't see why it would be so hard finding another Bakery and then watching the one that refused you lose business over their choice. 

It's just one of those things that floats in purgatory for me.

The only concern I have with that approach, the free market approach, is when it applies to something like gender, race, etc. Would a free market South still be segregated?

[Westside Steve]

6 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

All of your examples are based on a choice. Sexual Orientation, Race, Gender, etc. are not a choice. I'd say that's an important distinction.

One has to believe that discriminating on the basis of religion is included with the statute? Race Creed color religion Etc?

WSS

[MLD Woody]

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

One has to believe that discriminating on the basis of religion is included with the statute? Race Creed color religion Etc?

WSS

True. I guess religion gets an exception. Freedom of Religion and all that. 

[Comeonman]

2 hours ago, tiamat63 said:

On one hand I believe no business (especially if you've received federal grant money, tax breaks etc etc) should have the right to refuse any customer based on skin, religion, sexual orientation and the like....  

But on the other hand I tend to like the free market deciding things so I don't see why it would be so hard finding another Bakery and then watching the one that refused you lose business over their choice. 

It's just one of those things that floats in purgatory for me.

Agreed. Private businesses should be exactly that. If I own a private business, I should be able to serve or not serve anyone based on nothing other than I want to or not. Not serving people without a really, really good reason (gay couple wanting a wedding cake and me being a Christian is not a really, really good reason IMO) would be very detrimental to my business and I would expect my business to suffer if I chose to not serve certain people without a really good reason. 

[Comeonman]

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

True. I guess religion gets an exception. Freedom of Religion and all that. 

I’m glad we have freedom of religion. I’m not glad some people take that freedom and act like jackasses, like in this case. 

[DieHardBrownsFan]

5 minutes ago, Comeonman said:

I’m glad we have freedom of religion. I’m not glad some people take that freedom and act like jackasses, like in this case. 

You have it wrong.  The jackasses were the queer couple who sued.

[Comeonman]

1 minute ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

You have it wrong.  The jackasses were the queer couple who sued.

Thanks Diehard, I did forget to hit on that part. All people involved in this case are stupid IMO, including the couple that sued.  

[Clevfan4life]

If a gay couple expects a florist, baker or photographer to attend their wedding...than im all for the exemption. Just making a cake or giving someone flowers that they come and pick up....that you can't allow business's to refuse. The slope that is slippery is real. Last year a coffee shop owner told a bunch of Christians who were in his place to gtfo. I forget the exact reason but just so you guys know, the slope is real. And you may find yourself not being welcome at a lot of restaurants who tend to have lbgt employees. And clientele that would 'absoulutely" support their decision to not allow people with overt signs of Christianity displayed on their cars or on their person. It's coming. Draw a distinct yet FAIR line. That's all I ask. 

[Comeonman]

1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said:

If a gay couple expects a florist, baker or photographer to attend their wedding...than im all for the exemption. Just making a cake or giving someone flowers that they come and pick up....that you can't allow business's to refuse. The slope that is slippery is real. Last year a coffee shop owner told a bunch of Christians who were in his place to gtfo. I forget the exact reason but just so you guys know, the slope is real. And you may find yourself not being welcome at a lot of restaurants who tend to have lbgt employees. And clientele that would 'absoulutely" support their decision to not allow people with overt signs of Christianity displayed on their cars or on their person. It's coming. Draw a distinct yet FAIR line. That's all I ask. 

Not sure if I completely understand your post, but I would definitely, respectfully, disagree that businesses should be told to what to do unless they are doing something illegal (private businesses that is). Again, if a business owner would decide to do something like refuse someone an order because of sexual orientation, they should, and most likely would lose business by the reviews of the people they refuse and word of mouth. They would definitely lose mine. Sorry if I misunderstood the last part, but are you saying businesses will start refusing Christians business because of things like this?

[Clevfan4life]

6 minutes ago, Comeonman said:

Not sure if I completely understand your post, but I would definitely, respectfully, disagree that businesses should be told to what to do unless they are doing something illegal (private businesses that is). Again, if a business owner would decide to do something like refuse someone an order because of sexual orientation, they should, and most likely would lose business by the reviews of the people they refuse and word of mouth. They would definitely lose mine. Sorry if I misunderstood the last part, but are you saying businesses will start refusing Christians business because of things like this?

do you understand the concept of pandora's box? what if a grocery store owner decided to stop serving jews, or Christians or black people etc, etc. YOu allow business's to refuse service for "whatever reason", we're heading down a bad road. I promise that rightists will start pussyaching if all of a sudden they can't go to their favorite restaurant cause the owner or head chef is...I dunno, gay, black...black and gay. You name it. Now let's start talking about pharmacists....see where this is going?

[Comeonman]

1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said:

do you understand the concept of pandora's box? what if a grocery store owner decided to stop serving jews, or Christians or black people etc, etc. YOu allow business's to refuse service for "whatever reason", we're heading down a bad road. I promise that rightists will start pussyaching if all of a sudden they can't go to their favorite restaurant cause the owner or head chef is...I dunno, gay, black...black and gay. You name it. Now let's start talking about pharmacists....see where this is going?

Nope. Can’t see it. In this day and age, what would happen to a manager at Walmart that refused service to a person because he was a Jew? This was a small business owner that decided to make a bad decision and it hurt his business. The Supreme Court took his side because although he was stupid, he did not break any law. And why would a “rightest” care if the head chef in his favorite restaurant is a gay black man? I sure wouldn’t as long as he was a good cook. 

[Clevfan4life]

"ofc" a national.chain like walmartisnt going to fall either way on this. but in big cities the best restaurants are locally owned and operated. we've already had some pharmacists claim their religion exempts them from fullfilling birth control prescriptions. so pls undrtstand the slope is real. 

[calfoxwc]

so, back when we were arguing the merits of the case, woody was on the wrong side, typical as always.

I think when scotus overrules a federal judge, that federal judge's decision should be a red flag on his judgement.

  Sure, there are fine points of interpretation, but we have some lefty federal judges who don't care about our Constitution at all - they just decide based on how they FEEL. It's what liberals do.

[htownbrown]

You do not have the right to someone's labor.  That's slavery.  If I don't feel like it, too bad.  If you don't like it, eat a d!ck shaped cake.  That being said, I'd make d!ck shaped cakes for $500 a piece.

[Clevfan4life]

6 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

You do not have the right to someone's labor.  That's slavery.  If I don't feel like it, too bad.  If you don't like it, eat a d!ck shaped cake.  That being said, I'd make d!ck shaped cakes for $500 a piece.

yeah this was all hashed out like in the 50's and 60's before most of us were born......or when diehard came of retirement age.

anyway....to run a cohesive fluid market it was determined a baseline level of decency was in order. long story short our economy would be nowhere near where it is nor gavevthe global inflyence it does without those landmark decisions from decades ago. ofc, as ive stated numerous times...certain professions should have limited exemptions. a wedding photographer fir example should not be compelled to attend a gay wedding. theres certain common sense exemptions im sure we can all agree on.

im also sure that if u realky needed a certain product and the only manufacturer was in pgh or the owner was a steelers fan and he did research on a pirential customer and found him to be a browns dan and duly rejectef the sale..........im sure u can see the problems here. and dont act like its not possible sonething like that could happen. cause im dead sure therevare guys here atvthe brownsboard that would "gleefully" refuse sale to a steelers fan. its pandoras box and u know it. thats just s reflection of who americans are.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/christian-activists-booted-from-seattle-coffee-sho/

[Clevfan4life]

those christians didnt even do anything in that guys shop, they had just been passing around pro life pamphlets in the area. so while i dont agree in orinciple with that owner refusing to serve them...i understand perfectly why he did it. and its going to.happen again both ways. 

[htownbrown]

Do gay bars have the right to refuse you service if you're straight?  

 

 

[FairHooker11]

When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December. 

Ginzburg and Sotomayor notwithstanding .... ( It mustve pained Kagen but she ruled in favor of Phillips too) 

 

while the  "broader issue" of the gay couples rights are being looked at in time

it would do those militant leftist / activists well to check their anger at conservatives here?

isnt it refreshing to those of us on the right - that the SCOTUS justices also heard the "voters"  last election? 

(remember John Roberts splitting the tie on the ACA calling it a tax - and largely because the country ( back then) had voted for it - by re-electing the phony) 

[MLD Woody]

I don't think religious freedom should be an immunity to discriminate. 

 

I'd also wonder what certain areas of the country would look like if businesses could refuse service to certain races and ethnicities. 

[Westside Steve]

4 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think religious freedom should be an immunity to discriminate. 

 

I'd also wonder what certain areas of the country would look like if businesses could refuse service to certain races and ethnicities. 

This is just my guess but I would imagine it wouldn't be very much different than it is now. I'm having a hard time imagining a really nice place owned by the KKK. As we speak there are many black organizations and businesses and schools around the United States. I know that there are a good many gay bars. My original hometown of Carrollton Ohio had one of the last stag bars in America. Not because anyone hated women but just for a place the hard-working old mill workers and farmers could get away from the old lady for a few hours.

Just let people be comfortable if they want to hang with their own kind. Forcing the issue doesn't make anybody love each other anymore it creates hostility. Unfortunately I think that's the goal in too many cases.

WSS

 

[MLD Woody]

I'm talking about a time in this country where you didn't have to be the KKK. You say "hang out with your own kind", and I'm thinking back to when that was just straight up segregation. What if businesses in the south were just able to refuse to provide any services to blacks. Would that have been alright? That would be a situation that would require to person being denied service to move. What if you're the one gay guy in a small, very Christian town, and the refusal of service impacted your ability to live there. Should you have to move?

[Westside Steve]

I understand your point but I think the world has by and large moved on from 50 60 70 100 years ago.

For instance forced busing to achieve racial parity did more to exacerbate racial tensions that anything else. Like race-based affirmative action. And the Colorado gay couple didn't care about getting a cake,  they could have gotten the cake anywhere, they just wanted to fuk with this guy. Even more unpleasant they wanted to make a profit assuming they had a greedy lawyer on this case.

As far as Jim Crow which was over probably before your parents were born the concept of separate but equal doesn't really bother me but as I've said often enough human nature ruins everything. It would be separate but rarely equal.

WSS

[MLD Woody]

Regardless of how you perceive these lawsuits and their motivation, I don't think we should have businesses refusing service based on genetics. 

I'm not surprised you have no issue with separate but equal. I disagree. I don't think white shop owners should have the ability to deny blacks. Or Christians deny non Christians. Or whatever. Someone shouldn't be potentially put in a situation where they need to move. I don't think continued legalized discrimination in the south would have helped at all.

[Canton Dawg]

2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

I'm talking about a time in this country where you didn't have to be the KKK. You say "hang out with your own kind", and I'm thinking back to when that was just straight up segregation. What if businesses in the south were just able to refuse to provide any services to blacks. Would that have been alright? That would be a situation that would require to person being denied service to move. What if you're the one gay guy in a small, very Christian town, and the refusal of service impacted your ability to live there. Should you have to move?

You mean like the "Black Only" graduation day at Harvard last week?

I'm sure MLK is rolling over in his grave about that.

[Westside Steve]

Woody, if you were in charge of the doj would you force the disbanding of any at all organizations geared towards African-Americans? Issue injunctions against any at all separate activities? If not, why? Why specifically meeting why is the balkanization okay and why is it not counterproductive to this the homogenization of everyone?

WSS