RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[Irving]

YES! THIS! What I've never understood is why people WANT to give their money to someone who doesn't like them. I can understand that early Civil Rights actions were a necessary "evil" because there actually WAS a lack of opportunity, but now that you can basically get anything anywhere at any time, and people have never been more accepting, why do we still have these sorts of things?

I haven't formed a full opinion on this overall argument, but how can you utter these two statements, in the same sentence, without considering that perhaps they are related?

On the other hand, I feel the same way about unions, even though I've never been a member of one.

[Honey Badger282.8]

it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.

Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).

Anything else was considered discrimination.

This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.

You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.

Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.

The SCOTUS ruling didn't address the core point of contention here: where does the First Amendment take a back seat to anti-discrimination laws. The majority opinion did say that the baker's rights were trampled on by the state commission, that's it. Further, the baker never refused to serve the gay couple as he agreed to sell them any baked goods that weren't a wedding cake.

[Ah Pook]

I still believe this was never about the cake. I think These two guys picked that shop based on the knowledge Jack wouldn’t make them a cake.
I’m incredibly surprised but pleased. If I was still back in CO I’d hit up his shop and buy something today.

+ 1

They wanted to cause a stink. CO is now screwed up enough that it got traction. If the tables were turned, the hype and outcome would be different.

[Hoser]

SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.

Remind me again where you got your law degree and how many years you have been a lawyer?

[BPTactical]

"Reserve the RIGHT to Refuse Service"

As a private business this should be all that is necessary.

[buffalobo]

What’s wrong with discrimination, really?

I’d be happy to be discriminated against so we could once again have a healthy distrust. And it would save me the trouble of giving money to those who’d rather not take it.

Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason is just as important as being able to refuse the service of anyone.

Well said.

[CoGirl303]

For the other conversation... Like I said pages ago, the unique aspect of this case was that Phillips was forced to endorse the behavior he personally found immoral.

He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony.

He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.

His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.

His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else.

The SCOTUS ruling didn't address the core point of contention here: where does the First Amendment take a back seat to anti-discrimination laws. The majority opinion did say that the baker's rights were trampled on by the state commission, that's it. Further, the baker never refused to serve the gay couple as he agreed to sell them any baked goods that weren't a wedding cake.

The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.

But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public.

In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay.

What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology and that's exactly what happened in this case.

"Reserve the RIGHT to Refuse Service"

As a private business this should be all that is necessary.

it's not quite that simple.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/t...-of-appearance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mazin]

Where does Freedom of Religion come Into play then?
You wont see a Muslim hotdog vendor. Just because he was a Baker doesn't mean he has to give up his religious beliefs.
Its funny to hear "weaponize his beliefs", isn't that exactly what muslims have done yet we still allow that religion of peace..............

So just to be clear it's only Weaponizing when its Judao Christian Values being expressed right?

[Vic Tory]

This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.

You must not have read the decision. As specifically stated by Kennedy it had EVERYTHING to do with the gay couple targeting this Christian baker.

You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.

Nonsense. The day the government interferes because some idiot thinks he can force me to provide my services to someone I choose not to is the day I'll simply close my business.

I suggest you read the decision.

[Fentonite]

Running a business, or offering services to the public, does not automatically make that businessman an endentured servant to the public. He wasn’t simply asked to bake a cake - heck, he offered to provide a cake. He was asked to decorate the cake, using his creative talents, in a manner he could not abide. Slavery has long been abolished - he is not obligated to perform any task asked of him, simply because he owns a business. Could you go into a Chili’s and demand that they make you the Applebee’s special? I guess you could, but they would be within their right to refuse, and offer to provide what is on their own menu. A Physician who practices medicine can elect not to provide abortions based on their own beliefs. Do you think that just because a doc is in practice, he/she should be obligated to provide a service against their conscience? There are plenty of other bakeries that would’ve made a cake with two grooms on it, this businessman was not preventing the couple from getting what they wanted. This entire drama was created as an opportunity to bully, intimidate and stifle someone based on their beliefs, by a “culture” who claims bullying and intolerance are wrong. Freaking hypocrisy.