[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Maru

For me, it's not so simple to just eliminate all discrimination in commercial services. When it involves individuals, we informing them that they must lay down and allow others to impose rules on how they practice their individual customs... this is why intellectual diversity is such a red herring now... because to employ such a heavy hand on custom, is not only authoritative, but eventually eliminates all individual discredition ...

Nah, if you want to set up a business dealing with the public, then said business should not be discriminatory. Just like we have employment law to protect employee's.

[Oliver_W]

One of the new Will & Grace episodes was similar to this, the cake shop owners didn't wanna make a MAGA cake, so Grace bullied them into doing it. Their first attempt they defaced it to say IMAGAY haha

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

One of the new Will & Grace episodes was similar to this, the cake shop owners didn't wanna make a MAGA cake, so Grace bullied them into doing it. Their first attempt they defaced it to say IMAGAY haha

Yeah... kind of like how Robert De Niro banned Trump from his restaurants... which I don't disagree with, it's his business to ban whoever...

Robert De Niro says he has barred Trump from all locations of his swanky restaurant chain that's beloved by the rich and famous
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...ro-says-2018-5

[Marsh.]

In fact that Indonesian company is pathetic.

Their religious beliefs prevent them from writing "Merry Christmas" on a cake but if you so wish you can have Merry Christmas added to a greetings card on our website.

[Maru]

Interesting article on the Justice's words... may have to look into this in more detail later on as I'm not really following news much right now...

Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31556...pts-daily-wire

GOTTRY: Tolerance And Respect Are Two Separate Concepts

Well, that celebration was short-lived.

On June 4, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While the ink was still drying on the decision, some pundits and advocates lined up to declare that the 7-2 victory for Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop is little more than a guidebook for a future defeat.

The thrust of the argument goes like this:

1. Justice Anthony Kennedy was primarily concerned with the “clear and impermissible hostility” that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated toward Jack and his beliefs.
   
2. Justice Kennedy was also adamant that “purveyors of goods and services” should not be allowed to act in such a way as to “impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”
   
3. Therefore, if government entities simply say it with a smile next time, they will be allowed to strip Jack and others of their First Amendment freedoms.

That sounds awful. It does not, however, sound accurate.

The Supreme Court’s concern is not simply that the government replaces hostility with respect. Justice Kennedy indicated during oral arguments that more than mere respect is required. He specifically stated that “the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs” (emphasis mine).

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy echoed this refrain, stating that “the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs” (emphasis mine).

The court addressed the commission’s outright hostility toward Jack because it was unavoidable. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, that hostility was an assault on “the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.” This hostility alone required the court to set aside the commission’s order.

But the court’s order fails to fully answer the question of what tolerance requires.

And to the extent that the opinion provides some guideposts for that determination in future contexts, it does not forecast a defeat for First Amendment freedoms. To the contrary, the boundary lines that have been sketched out leave ample space for a two-way street of tolerance.

Let’s consider what Justice Kennedy actually said in the majority opinion.

The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the … rights and dignity of gay persons…. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment…. (Opinion, at 1-2)

By acknowledging the need for a reconciliation, Justice Kennedy acknowledges there is room for reconciliation. Constitutionally guaranteed rights can coexist with socially valued principles of nondiscrimination. The trick is simply to find the proper balance.

Now, what balance may be found? The opinion suggests a way:

Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth…. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. (Opinion, at 9)

Here the opinion says that LGBT persons and same-sex couples should be afforded freedom “on terms equal to others.” This includes those with “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage.” Kennedy confirms as much when he condemns the commission for “implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.”

He is essentially validating his remarks during oral arguments. First, “tolerance is essential in a free society.” And second, “tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.” This might be the most pointed rebuttal to those naysayers who claim Justice Kennedy is inviting future conscience cases to be resolved by a more respectful infringement on First Amendment rights. After all, can you really label a society as “mutually tolerant” if it declares “decent and honorable religious” beliefs—language the Supreme Court used in Obergefell—wholly unwelcome in the marketplace?

But the question remains, how can a creative professional like Jack peacefully live and work consistent with his beliefs without violating the parameters that the majority opinion identifies? The opinion provides the framework for an answer, buried in the background section: “the ALJ [administrative law judge] determined that Phillips’ actions constituted prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not simply opposition to same-sex marriage as Phillips contended.”

While the ALJ reached the wrong conclusion, the Supreme Court highlighted a distinction key to reconciliation: namely, there is a difference between opposing an idea or an event and opposing an individual. And this is a principle that Jack Phillips has proclaimed since the case’s inception—he serves all people but cannot celebrate all events or express all messages.

Jack’s conviction not to celebrate messages or events contrary to his faith does not amount to discrimination against a person or class of persons. And no one should be bullied or banished from the marketplace for peacefully living out the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

In a tolerant society, we should expect creative professionals to serve all people. But in a tolerant society, we should also protect their freedom to decline to celebrate events or express messages that conflict with their conscience.

It’s true, the Supreme Court’s decision does not tell us everything that tolerance requires. But it left itself ample room, in future cases, to protect the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.

[Vicky.]

I don't know enough about this case to comment really, but the one in NI..I find very interesting as same sex marriage was not (IS not?) legal there when the whole thing kicked off. So the baker was refusing to bake a message that was supporting something that was not legal, basically. However at the same time, its not legal to discriminate against gay people. So to me, this is a huge conflict of laws? Maybe should just push through same sex marriage really

I am not sure what my opinion is on refusing to put certain messages on cakes. On the one hand, you are there to fulfill the customers request. On the other hand, customers can go elsewhere if you do not wish to serve exactly what they want. I do not see what the issue is in putting a message on that you disagree with BUT I also cannot see anyone objecting if (for example) a Muslim bakery refused to bake a cake that said something about how much the buyer loves pork. Or even, a bakery owned by anyone of a different religion to Christianity refused to bake a same sex marriage cake (and especially if same sex marriage was not legal where the bakery actually was)

Sex is a protected characteristic right, but if I went and asked for a cake that said that women are better than men or vice versa, and the bakery refused..said they would make a cake but not with that message on..it would be annoying but I can't see that its breaking the law? And people would think I was a bit of a twat if I tried to get them done for that. IF however, they completely refused to serve me because I am a woman, that would be wrong in my eyes. I still would not take them to court, as whats the point, but I am sure most would support me if I did take it further than just muttering 'arseholes' and stropping out.

In short, I am kind of conflicted on it all.