[LeatherTrumpet]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The case – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple’s right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S.

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the Court said in its decision. "While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/04...ne-events.html

[arista]

Yes Every state
has their own views.

[Oliver_W]

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

[LeatherTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

often in these cases it rather tells you more about the people involved than it does about what they claim the issue is...

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

often in these cases it rather tells you more about the people involved than it does about what they claim the issue is...

Yeah if the shop in question doesn’t offer gay wedding cakes then go to one that does.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

True.If you’re spending that much on something you want the people making it to take a bit of pride in its creation.Plus they might spit in it or something.
I’d go to another cake shop.

[Cherie]

The correct decision, plenty other cake shops and like other people have said why would you want something so special from them

[Jamie89]

A small victory for them but homophobia loses in the long run.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

I doubt they took them to court just because they wanted the cake, I think it's more likely they did it to punish them and deter other companies from discriminating against gay people. This is what the courts (and anti-discrimination laws) are for. They probably would get a cake from somewhere else even if they'd won for all we know. (in fact this all started years ago didn't it so they're probably already married and don't need one anyway )

[AnnieK]

Whilst this is a court win I would imagine the business has been damaged.

[Shaun]

How proud he must feel...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I doubt they took them to court just because they wanted the cake, I think it's more likely they did it to punish them and deter other companies from discriminating against gay people. This is what the courts (and anti-discrimination laws) are for. They probably would get a cake from somewhere else even if they'd won for all we know. (in fact this all started years ago didn't it so they're probably already married and don't need one anyway )

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

It's not just because of that though. It's walking into a shop and being refused the service you'd expect to receive based on how they advertise themselves, just for being gay. What the shop sells isn't important it's the principle that that shouldn't happen to people. I wouldn't want it happening to me. I don't think it's petty to want to defend that principle.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

[Tom4784]

Just another step backwards for a country that's been somersaulting backwards since 2016.

Unless it's something grossly offensive, I don't think bakeries that offer custom cakes should be able to deny services based on their beliefs, especially when it's discriminatory to someone else.

There's a **** ton of contradictions within the bible and if people choose to ignore the illogical teachings yet still believe in the anti-gay stuff then they don't deserve to use their religion as a shield.

[Maru]

Good... I would feel very uncomfortable to be forced into that situation myself. Like if commissioned to do a work celebrating an act that goes against my core... I can respect a person who refuses on those grounds. I would not walk into church and do something to disrespect their space.,, just the same, I would not want to put another person through that kind of distress... I feel like tolerance should work both ways... If they were the only bakery in town, then maybe the bakery could make it right somehow ... but their call to make if it is not a reasonable request... companies have to accommodate religious practice, etc... so I feel a sole proprietorship or small business shouldn't be forced on that basis... if the requests are frequently unreasonable then they will develop a majorly bad rep and go out of business... but I think most folk might complain but not sit there and argue... it just can't be on unreasonable grounds... but I'm not a lawyer so not sure how that law would be written... but I have had to follow weird requests on those grounds in the past and I prefer to respect that ... anyway I would probably talk their ear off if they are respectful about it and then be on my way... maybe that could even change their mind some... but belittling someone on the basis of something they believe to the core and treating them like sh** for it won't help either person to grow... it is quite weak to try to force our views on others... it means we don't believe enough in our views, that we can't affect their hearts the right way... a missed opportunity imo...anyway I try to respect, but also understand, we aren't all the same make up... but it's hard when both sides want to cheat their way out with petty move... create a stalemate and then try to box your opponent in... my way or the high way... and they say we shouldn't stigmatize Muslim folk... and here it is being done to Christians... anyway, I feel strongly in freedom of expression... like someplace in Europe, burqas were banned... cultural identity and religious beliefs are very often intertwined and so we can't protect one and then not the latter... same for Christians in the West.

[thesheriff443]

People in business turn down work all the time based on their personal views, they just use the line, sorry I/we are too busy.

[Maru]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

People in business turn down work all the time based on their personal views, they just use the line, sorry I/we are too busy.

Yes. I have to do this in my line of work... usually to avoid a money-draining time-sink, which is practice to avoid. However, if it were a situation where I would be too uncomfortable to work with them on creative/principled grounds, the same move would apply... I've not had that issue yet, but I know others who have and it's a very stressful situation for that person if they ignore their gut and accept the job anyway.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Maru

Good... I would feel very uncomfortable to be forced into that situation myself. Like if commissioned to do a work celebrating an act that goes against my core... I can respect a person who refuses on those grounds. I would not walk into church and do something to disrespect their space.,, just the same, I would not want to put another person through that kind of distress... I feel like tolerance should work both ways... If they were the only bakery in town, then maybe the bakery could make it rightsomehow ... but their call to make if it is not a reasonable request... companies have to accomodate religious practice, etc... so I feel a sole proprietorshio or small business shouldnt be forced on that basis... if the requests are frequently unreasonable then they will develop a majorly bad rep and go out of business... but I think most folk might complain but not sit there and argue... it just can't be on unreasonable grounds... but I'm not a lawyer so not sure how that law would be written... but I have had to follow weird requests on those grounds in the past and I prefer to respect that ... anyway I would probably talk their ear off if they are respectful about it and then be on my way... maybe that could even change their mind some... but belittling someone on the basis of something they believe to the core and treating them like sh** for ir won't help either person to grow... it is quite weak to try to force our views on others... it means we don't believe enough in our views, that we can't affect their hearts the right way... a missed opportunity imo...anyway I try to respect, but also understand, we aren't all the same make up... but it's hard when both sides want to cheat their way out with petty move... create a stalemate and then try to box your opponent in... my way or the high way... and they say we shouldn't stigmatize Muslim folk... and here it is being done to Christians... anyway, I feel strongly in freedom of expression... like someplace in Europe, burqas were banned... cultural identity and religious beliefs are very often intertwined and so we can't protect one and then not the latter... same for Christians in the West.

[kirklancaster]

I've researched this case quite a bit and once all the B.S is stripped away we are left with this being nothing to do with cake and all to do with the deliberate targeting of a KNOW staunchly Christian baker to invoke a guaranteed response for political purposes.

The USA Supreme Court got this decision oh so right.

I am waiting for the day when a staunchly Muslim Cake Shop is targeted instead of these 'easy target' Christian ones.

Now THAT will be interesting.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I've researched this case quite a bit and once all the B.S is stripped away we are left with this being nothing to do with cake and all to do with the deliberate targeting of a KNOW staunchly Christian baker to invoke a guaranteed response for political purposes.

The USA Supreme Court got this decision oh so right.

I am waiting for the day when a staunchly Muslim Cake Shop is targeted instead of these 'easy target' Christian ones.

Now THAT will be interesting.

I say this all the time Christianity & Catholicism are always easy targets, there is no way a huge fuss to this degree would be made about a Muslim bakery or Jewish bakery being taken to court over their beliefs.

And i bet the civil partner couple would just be on their way and go to another cake shop, sure they might be a bit upset but hmm would they care as much and would it go to court ? i doubt it .

This is all a terrible political petty act to shame a particular religion once again .

[LeatherTrumpet]

There is truth in the fact that Christians are easy targets and the pair would not have the balls to take on a Islamic baker for example imo

that kind of makes them lo-key bullies

[Jamie89]

I'm more than tolerant of someone else's beliefs. But if somebody is running a business that conflicts with their beliefs then that is their problem, not mine or anybody else's. What they have to do, like anybody running a business, is figure out a way of solving that problem or compromising. Instead, their solution was to offload the problem onto the public so they didn't have to deal with it themselves. For want of a better expression they are having their cake and eating it.

From the publics point of view its very simple. See a service is advertised, request that service, get refused service on the grounds of sexuality. Would that be acceptable if we were talking about race? Sex? Of course it wouldn't (and that is just as valid a point as 'what if it were an Islamic bakers'). Anybody serving the public can serve someone whilst retaining their feelings of prejudice against them, nobody's actually being asked to change their beliefs.

It doesn't have to be a case of 'who's rights are more important' both sides deserve their rights to be respected but there is only one side that had no choice in this situation occurring and that's the gay couple. There was no way for them to know they would be refused service or for it to happen because of their sexuality. The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place. So the 'it works both ways' thing, it's not exactly equal looking at it both ways, there's quite a big difference. In terms of one side's reasonable expectations of what service they will receive, those expectations are managed entirely by the other side. For it to be twisted into 'the gay couple are being prejudiced or intolerant towards christians', or 'so gay rights are more important than religious rights?'.. I can't fathom any of that at all as it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by TomC

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

This is true as well, why are accusations of pettiness being directed towards the gay couple? They didn't take this to the supreme Court, the bakery did. And this obviously factors in quite heavily to that decision...

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place.

True, as soon as gay marriage was legalised, a shop selling wedding cakes would know that they were at some point going to be asked to make one for a gay wedding... so, I guess, it is in some ways up to that service provider to make a choice, and if they're so opposed to making a wedding cake for an "unconventional" marriage then they should simply stop offering wedding cakes altogether.

I also don't really buy that it's all about religious rights here. Are they refusing to make wedding cakes for couples where one or both of them are divorcees? I highly doubt it as that would significantly impact their business... but the bible says no to that too .

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

[LeatherTrumpet]

you cant really win against a man who says he believes in an invisible god and murmurs under his breath each night to him. A god that he thinks has blessed him with good luck when he won a marmalade making competition on the same day he watched 20,000 die of preventable disease and hunger

its a no win situation. until that country stops pretending to believe in some random middle eastern cult then things like this will keep on keeping on

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

I agree with this and I reckon most people wouldn't want that but I think there's something more fundamental which is being able to walk into a shop without worrying that you'll be turned away because of something like sexuality, for me that's the core of it. If I was to be turned away then no I wouldn't want to force them and I wouldn't want their products, but it's that the situation is allowed to happen in the first place that I think is the problem, and yes I think I would do something about that.
If the bakers problem is the conflict between their religion and their business, the solution to that shouldn't have to be the customer walking away after being refused service to find someone else, that's putting their problem onto the customer when it's theirs to deal with.