Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[SteveRogers]

I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide a service directly related to any wedding.

Again, why the strange exception to only "weddings" ?
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for celebration of their 1 year dating anniversary (many couples of all types celebrate dating anniversaries) ?
That would be OK then, right ? Well it's not a "wedding."
What if a gay couple wanted a cake for their adopted daughter's birthday, and the owner refused because he was "repulsed" (like the good, loving Christians that they are) just by the sight of the couple in his/her store ?

Where do the strange exceptions start and stop ? When is it acceptable or not acceptable to everyday, normal social contact that WE WANT IN OUR NATION ?

I've been clear, and I've held this position for a long time. Wedding = Wedding. If it's not directly related to a wedding, then you are required to provide the service. An Anniversary or Adoption or Birthday celebration is not a Wedding.

But you understand that there's no Constitutional argument for limiting the scope of the ruling in this case to "just weddings," right? Make no mistake: If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker here, the Court will be saying that that baker gets to deny such services to anyone for any reason they see fit.

[SteveRogers]

1. If SCOTUS rules in favor of the baker, it will likely make some sort of statement on the scope of the decision, and as the chief interpreters of the constitution, SCOTUS has the freedom to set the scope of any decision it makes. It could say that the ruling is narrow, and applies only to wedding cakes. Or it could essentially say that the ruling endorses the full "First Amendment Defense Act". Or something in between.

2. I would prefer this matter is settled through the passage of a scaled back version of the Democrats' 'Equality Act of 2017'. It would be very easy to start from that framework and add any necessary exceptions, including the wedding exception.

The court will be weighing whether or not a business owner's first amendment rights trump a state's power to pass broad anti-discrimination laws regulating private businesses. Yes, this particular case is about a baker with a religious objection to gay marriage. But if a conservative majority of the Court rules in favor of the baker, the Court will be holding that the legislature's anti-discrimination measures must give way where such regulation conflict's with a business owner's sincerely held religious beliefs. In that case, the Court may very well make clear that its holding is limited to "small businesses" and/or to individualized services like custom cake-making. Yes, the Court would articulate some sort of test for determining when a business's religious concerns trump anti-discrimination measures. But there is absolutely no scenario under which the precedent established by such a ruling could be limited to just wedding cakes (or to discrimination against gays for that matter).

I can see the legal and Constitutional arguments on both sides of this case, but if we're going to have this debate we should be clear on what a ruling in favor of one side or the other would mean.

[SteveRogers]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Since liberals seem to think that whenever you say the word sex, you are also talking about sexual orientation or gender identity, I decided to clarify that I was not referring to those categories in that specific sentence. The only case where I think I would oppose 'LGBT Equality' outside of weddings is in the area of Bathroom/Locker Room Access for Transgender Individuals who have not undergone reassignment surgery (I support having a requirement that a Unisex facility is provided for such individuals, but oppose allowing them into their new sex's bathroom or locker room pre-surgery for reasons of safety and privacy.), but to be perfectly honest, I have not read the Equality Act of 2017 in full so it is possible there are other provisions I cannot support.

Again, the Court's ruling in this case (one way or the other) won't be limited to just discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[SteveRogers]

This is a subject where even Democrats and homosexuals are on the baker's side.The baker said he could sell them any cake except a wedding cake, An attempt to earn money and attention.

People generally want wedding cakes for their weddings. Offering to sell them a birthday cake instead isn't a remedy.

[SteveRogers]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

[SteveRogers]

This is why Evangelicals largely voted for Trump.  Not because the like him but because he doesn't think that they are the equivalent of the KKK.

No one is saying "they are equivalent to the KKK."
The KKK is pure hate. The Christian religion (all faiths) have some flaws, but I do believe that they at least try to preach some basic standards of decency, morals and love.

But for whatever reason, social liberals are obsessed with Christian teaching against homosexuality.  They think that people who hold such views are a threat to society.

... Bigotry isn't a threat to society?

It's not bigotry any more than Islam or Judaism is bigoted against me, a person who likes bacon.

You realize dietary restrictions are completely different right? No Jewish person looks down on you for eating bacon.

I'm aware.  But the same principle applies.  A Muslim believes that it is immoral to eat bacon, I eat bacon, yet I am not offended.  I'm not Muslim and therefore I have no right to dictate to them what they should or should not believe.  And everyone accepts that.  And people accept that.  But for some reason, the Christian prohibition on sex between people of the same gender is considered a crime against humanity by some people.

That analogy fails on every level. Did the Muslim or Jewish communities in America ever spend decades petitioning their state legislatures and pouring millions into ballot initiatives for the purpose of stripping basic civil rights and other privileges from bacon-eaters on account of their moral disdain for eating bacon?

That post assumes that SSM is a civil right.

Indeed it does. And the Supreme Court agrees with me. But you can call it whatever you want. The point is that it wasn't enough for bigots to express moral disapproval of SSM. They actively sought to use the power of the state to keep priveleges that they enjoyed away from the group they disapproved of. That's the harm that bigotry does to society, and that's where your dumb analogy falls apart.

[SteveRogers]

Your disagreement with the Court's legal reasoning on the Constitutional issues in Obergfell is an issue for a separate thread. You asked how church teachings against homosexuality represent a danger to society. The harm to society occurs when those groups demand that their religious beliefs and prejudices be codified into law to be imposed on all. You tried to analogize this bigotry to other groups who do not behave that way.

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

Sadly that is not the case. But I wasn't aware we were talking about alcoholics. The question was about "drinking alcohol" and whether or not disapproval of such was morally equivalent to bigotry against homosexuals. Did I miss something?

[SteveRogers]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

You sound as if you have zero experience with alcoholics or other addicts.

Sadly that is not the case. But I wasn't aware we were talking about alcoholics. The question was about "drinking alcohol" and whether or not disapproval of such was morally equivalent to bigotry against homosexuals. Did I miss something?

Your words implied that alcohol consumption is a choice in much the same manner as some would say that whether homosexuals have gay sex is a choice.

Again, I read the post I was responding to as asking whether or not religious disapproval of alcohol consumption is bigotry in the same way that discrimination against those who have gay sex is bigotry. Obviously for the vast majority of the population drinking is a choice, and my point was that I do not believe that "people who choose to drink" are a class that needs protection from discrimination in the same way that people need protection from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. But yes, I understand your point that for alcoholics the urge to drink is a biological predisposition that is indeed an immutable characteristic. I believe decent people should have basic human empathy for alcoholics and also not hate people based on their sexual orientation.

[SteveRogers]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

You answered your own question. Do you know how many millions of Americans don't live in a big city full of bakeries.

[SteveRogers]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

People who care about getting married care about getting a quality wedding cake for their ceremony. Your attempt to play dumb about why someone wants "some dumb cake" is unconvincing. If you truly don't understand the place that a person's wedding ceremony can occupy in someone's heart, then there is no point in trying to explain it to you here.

The fact that someone living in a community with limited options who is discriminated against in that market might still be able to get a wedding cake another way if they try hard enough isn't a solution. No person should be forced to suffer the indignity of jumping through five extra hoops for an opportunity that is afforded to everyone else merely on account of an inherent trait they can't control.