EXACTLY what I just said! I would've delayed it and then refunded for some bogus reason like "we dont have that flavour or frosting colour, sorry :smile:

. Please try the bakery down the road. :smile:

"

Do you think they'd make this kind of cake?

Reply 63

Bang Outta Order

20

Original post by Axiomasher

Do you think they'd make this kind of cake?

Reply 64

Drewski

19

Original post by TimmonaPortella

What an appallingly totalitarian worldview.

I didn't say it was my worldview, I'm merely stating how a decision like that will be interpreted.

We've all seen how some idiots took the brexit vote to be a tacit indication that being xenophobic was ok. Suggesting discrimination of the type being discussed here is ok would result in similar things happening.

It's a sad, cynical state of affairs, for sure. But nonetheless accurate.

Reply 65

stoyfan

20

It is rather funny to see that people didn't actually understand what the Supreme court has ruled.

They didn't say that it is ok to now refuse services to homosexuals, all they said was that Colorado supreme court should have taken the man's religious beliefs into consideration.

Infact they don't mind that Colorado has a law that states that companies should provide their services no matter what sexuality they have, etc...
What they do mind is that whilst the law was applied neutrally towards sexuality, it wasn't applied neutrally towards religion.

Reply 66

Underscore__

21

Original post by Axiomasher

I guess you either believe in democracy or you don't [shrug].

I wouldn’t say it’s all or nothing

Reply 67

username3832246

17

Original post by Drewski

As I said above, in the case of something relatively frivolous like a cake shop, fine.

But what if that practise was followed by the ambulance service?

Where do you draw the line?

Well yeah public services shouldn't discriminate obviously.

Reply 68

username3832246

17

Original post by Bang Outta Order

EXACTLY what I just said! I would've delayed it and then refunded for some bogus reason like "we dont have that flavour or frosting colour, sorry :smile:

. Please try the bakery down the road. :smile:

"

You don't need a certain flavour to make a gay cake though :lol:

Wouldn't be hard to pick another colour either.

Reply 69

Observatory

20

Freedom was only ever meant to be for the left.

Reply 70

Bang Outta Order

20

Original post by johnny.snow

You don't need a certain flavour to make a gay cake though :lol:

Wouldn't be hard to pick another colour either.

You need fruity flavour and rainbow colour :yy:

and no. Just keep telling them you don't have it. They'll get the message without it being obnoxiously said to them. I also said, take forever to process the order, till the patrons get so annoyed that it's taking forever and take their business somewhere else with a refund. Not even in this instance, cordially refusing service is pretty much done everywhere, by right.

Reply 71

Napp

OP

22

Original post by Observatory

Freedom was only ever meant to be for the left.

What has "the left" got to do with this?

Reply 72

Guru Jason

21

Original post by Wired_1800

That is debateable.

Let us use a radical example. Imagine, 15 years from now, the Government reduces the age of consent to 13 and legalises sexual encounter with persons of 13 and above. The argument may be that 13 year old girls are mature enough and should be allowed to make their own decisions.

You have a cake shop and a 43 year old man comes in with his 13 year old girlfriend. They want to buy a cake for his 44th birthday. As this is an alien sight, you refuse to serve them based on your own morals and views. They then sue you for discrimination. They are within their rights to be served and you cannot discriminate against them.

How do you react? Now, also remember that the gay marriage was legalised in 2013, so before then it was illegal in many parts of the country. Now, tell me how you will react?

I would have to rule against the shop owner. Age is not something we control. Should it become legal then you cannot rule against someone for something outside their control provided it doesn't harm anyone. This is on the assumption that your example shows that 13yrd olds are physically and mentally capable of making such decisions.

Reply 73

username2752874

22

Original post by Axiomasher

I believe Christianity to be morally abhorrent, can I refuse to serve Christians?

Sure

Reply 74

Joleee

19

what i thought was interesting about this case was that the defence was able to argue the difference between customising and selling. they argued that customising a cake was a form of 'artistry'; that the baker was an 'artist' and you can't force an artist to create something against their religious beliefs. this would be different from selling a cake that was just sitting in the display case. just saying, right or wrong, i can see how the majority was persuaded on this one.

if it makes anyone feel better, that man almost went out of business if he hasn't already. so not worth the effort, imho.

Reply 75

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Joleee

what i thought was interesting about this case was that the defence was able to argue the difference between customising and selling. they argued that customising a cake was a form of 'artistry'; that the baker was an 'artist' and you can't force an artist to create something against their religious beliefs. this would be different from selling a cake that was just sitting in the display case. just saying, right or wrong, i can see how the majority was persuaded on this one.

if it makes anyone feel better, that man almost went out of business if he hasn't already. so not worth the effort, imho.

The problem is I do not think you can ever bring about a socially acceptable solution via a judicial process.

The USA was founded on a legislative compromise between slavery and freedom and that compromise held for four score years. A court could not have created that compromise. How can a judge construe "all men are created equal" into black men are citizens in New York and they are goods and chattels in South Carolina.

The tension inherent in my freedom to exercise my religion that exhorts me to discriminate in ways that are illegal is irreconcilable and the only way a lot of TSRians and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission can deal with it, is by dismissing that freedom out of hand and usually with scorn.

Legislative compromise is a lot more subtle than the judicial process. Your religion may demand that that your daughters are disinherited if they marry an untouchable and that your widow jumps on your funeral pyre. We, the state, will allow you to disinherit your disobedient daughters but no suttee.

A legislative solution here might say, privately owned cakemakers up to a certain size may discriminate on grounds of the religious beliefs of the owner but stock market listed businesses or those over a certain size cannot.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 76

Wired_1800

20

Original post by Guru Jason

I would have to rule against the shop owner. Age is not something we control. Should it become legal then you cannot rule against someone for something outside their control provided it doesn't harm anyone. This is on the assumption that your example shows that 13yrd olds are physically and mentally capable of making such decisions.

You see, there are many people who would support the shop owners in this case. If the decision to reduce the age of consent from 16 to 13 determines that 13 year old girls are mature enough to make sole decisions, then there would be solid grounds for discrimination.

The point is that not more than 10 years ago, homosexual marriage was not legal and, as a result, the shop owner had grounds to reject the request. The major issue is the clash between the state’s new doctrine and the morals of some individuals. As an example, whether a shop keeper would be morally justified to reject an offer to sell to a 43year old man and his 13 year old girlfriend.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 77

SmileyVibe

11

Its his business, and no one can be forced to bake a cake that they don't want to make. He also does not bake Halloween cakes or anti-American cakes too.
He did not refused to bake them a cake cuz they're gay, he refused to bake a cake that promoted gay marriage.

There is a big difference between refusing service due to race/religion and refusing to bake a cake of idea/belief you don't support. Everyone has something they believe in.

I think it is unfair to want to destroy a person reputation and career over a cake design he politely refused to bake. How is that justice?
No one is trying to sue him for not baking Halloween or anti-american cakes.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 78

Observatory

20

This headline is really weird. Did everyone who condemned McCarthyism back Soviet communism? The court only affirmed a right to refuse to bake the cake.

Reply 79

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Observatory

The court only affirmed a right to refuse to bake the cake.

I'm not sure it even went that far.

The court affirmed a right to an unbiased tribunal to determine the question of whether refusing to bake this cake in these circumstances (about which it thought the court was not well informed) was lawful.

As these were proceedings between the State and the baker and not between the baker and the couple, there was clearly no enthusiasm to send the case round again to get the judiciary involved in the minutiae of the cake order. The State had failed to investigate allegedly discriminatory cake baking properly and it wasn't going to be given a second chance to see if it could do better.

One of the interesting things was that this appeared (unlike the NI case) to have been a bona fide cake and not a political stunt. The Supreme Court is going to have to face and find a way of preventing combatants turning culture wars into confectionery battles. The Court has faced many controversies about the erection or removal of public sculpture but a limiting factor has been the costs related to the physical object. Cakes are cheaper to order.

US supreme court backs bakers gay-wedding snub

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you