Quantcast
US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

hmm, not sure what to think of this. On one hand businesses should have the right to choose what business they take, but on the other hand refusing customers due to their sexual orientation is not a good precedent.

I guess really it should depend on what the details were. ie. if they wanted a custom made cake then he should be well within his rights to refuse, but if they were just buying a regular cake from the menu or shop window or something then refusing that should be grounds for a discrimination case.

Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network
Insidb said:
Aeolus451 said:
I agree with the ruling. Businesses (except utilities) should be able operate how they want for the most part.

What about property managers and developers?

Every industry is regulated to some degree. Key phrase "for the most part".



Go to a different baker? Problem solved.

LurkerJ said:
Go to a different baker? Problem solved.

And write a fair yet poor review in the public domain 



I don't have a problem with this. A customized wedding cake could be seen as an endorsement of a practice that the baker does not agree with. If they are uncomfortable with that then they should have the right to respectfully decline. I don't believe that's the same as saying, "no, you can't buy that pie in the display case because you're gay."

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
hmm, not sure what to think of this. On one hand businesses should have the right to choose what business they take, but on the other hand refusing customers due to their sexual orientation is not a good precedent.

I guess really it should depend on what the details were. ie. if they wanted a custom made cake then he should be well within his rights to refuse, but if they were just buying a regular cake from the menu or shop window or something then refusing that should be grounds for a discrimination case.

He offered them other goods.. From a VOX article I read before coming here:

 

"Phillips’s attorneys pointed out that he even offered to provide other kinds of cakes, brownies, or cookies to Craig and Mullins — showing that the issue was not that the men are gay. But he did refuse all wedding cakes to the couple, including cakes that were made for other customers before and a “nondescript” cake"



TallSilhouette said:
Sticky situation. Businesses don't have to serve individual customers, but would this fly if it was store policy or religious principle to, say, not serve black people?

It's a different situation to say who he can and can't serve than what he serves. I can't go in into a cake shop and demand they make a chocolate cake if they don't make it. It doesn't work like that



TallSilhouette said:
Sticky situation. Businesses don't have to serve individual customers, but would this fly if it was store policy or religious principle to, say, not serve black people?

honestly. the two things aren't the same. sexuality is a difference subject that has to do with how you view it religiously as well. religion doesn't tell you to be racist tho

tho I mean am not agreeing with any religion is just fairytale crap 



sundin13 said:

I think this is an interesting point that is brought up:

"To Phillips,his claim that using his artistic skills  to  make  an  expressive  statement,  a  wedding  endorsement  in his  own  voice  and  of  his  own  creation,  has  a  significant  First Amendment  speech  component  and  implicates  his  deep  and  sincere religious  beliefs."

This isn't really an angle that I thought about upon first hearing about this case. That being said (and without full knowledge of how this individual runs his bakery), I can't really agree that this is a valid argument, because I do not agree that baking a cake for someone constitutes a "wedding endorsement", unless the baker evaluates the strength and validity of the relationships of each couple he services. I cannot imagine that being a common practice among bakers...

Let's see if he can establish precedence by proving he refused to endorse some straight couples by refusing to bake a cake for them, eh?



From what I read about this didn't he refuse to make the cake but offered other cake as alternatives? perhaps they don't make what they wanted?

In the end who gives a fuck, his store, his loss of business. There are plenty of cake shops out there.