RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[Bailey Guns]

This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.

I think you're thinking on this is bassackwards.

[Irving]

Think outside a bakery. This could apply to a gas station, an emergency room, a hospital, a tow service, mechanic shop, etc. This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.

This absurd ruling is an open license to discriminate against people simply because they don't believe a certain way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uhhhh, that's what happens on this website, and every other politically driven website every single day. That's what every boycott is about.

[CS1983]

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.

[CoGirl303]

I think you're thinking on this is bassackwards.

pretty sure it's not.

Uhhhh, that's what happens on this website, and every other politically driven website every single day. That's what every boycott is about.

The only difference is, you and I don't get paid to post on here and you don't give me a good or service in return for said payment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hollohas]

This ruling isn't inclusive to only a bakery.

It's not even inclusive to bakeries in general. It's even more limited than a "bakery". This SCOTUS rulling ONLY applies to this specific bakery.

[Gman]

pretty sure it's not.

Is too.

Just wanted to get in on the fun.

Not sure selling gasoline to non-muslims is a freedom of religion argument. Gas is gas. There's not much effort on the creative side so that anyone's values come into play.

[RblDiver]

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.

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?

If someone says they don't like a thing I like (*cough* Dicks *cough*), why on Earth would I WANT to spend my money there?

In short, let people discriminate away! It's just another business opportunity for someone else down the street!

[CoGirl303]

Is too.

Just wanted to get in on the fun.

Not sure selling gasoline to non-muslims is a freedom of religion argument. Gas is gas. There's not much effort on the creative side so that anyone's values come into play.

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.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TRnCO]

Bingo. From what I'm reading, it was NOT a ruling that religious freedom trumped the protection for gays, but more a finding of disparate treatment. Gorsuch cited that this was a case where a religious baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, and was found to have discriminated. Meanwhile, separately, a religious man went to 3 bakers and asked them to put an anti-gay statement on a cake, and they refused, but were found NOT to have discriminated. Essentially, the exact same case, just with the roles reversed.

There is a difference between this case and the other 3 bakers. The difference being in the other 3 cases the bakers asked what the gays wanted put on the cake and in this most recent case the baker never asked what the gays wanted put on the cake. Doesn't seem like much of a difference, but it is the primary difference between the cases.

[Skip]

Do you think the enemy will try again under a different disguise?

Already being discussed on Twitter... The belief is that had the Colorado Civil Rights Commission Commissars simply been less openly bigoted they could have gotten a narrower (SWIDT?) decision. Many are estimating 4-5/5-4. It would drive the issue directly back to 1A and make it less about due process while forcing the Court to resolve the conflict created between "civil rights" and freedom of religion.

The conflict that exists now that civil rights means forced acceptance of and with a behavior.

---

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 was forced by the state (government). Yes, the state of Colorado actually tried to be arbiter of personal ethics and create a precedent, absent the legislative process, that would force Coloradans to violate their conscious if found unpopular by the politically appointed CCRC.

That's Fascism. And there's no way around the obvious conclusion.

This wasn't a gay couple turned away for gas, healthcare, or any other service/good. As a Christian, if I were a Dr., I would have no problem treating a gay patient. As a biz, I have no problem selling to anyone/everyone. Again, not an endorsement, not a violation of my conscious because it requires no endorsement.

This is the difference that is specifically protected by 1A and, IMHO, moves it well outside of Civil Rights law (public accommodation). Those who think Phillips violated the civil rights of the gay couple have it exactly backwards.

Diana DeGette isn't even sure it's a matter of civil rights laws...

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...cakeshop-owner

One way we can achieve this aim is by passing the Equality Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Together, we can work to guarantee that no one is denied rights, services or accommodations simply because of who they are and who they love.”

Why would they need to amend if it is already superior to 1A?