By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

massimus on 06 June 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
massimus said:

His bakery is his private business, that is his church. He's not the cable guy denying you service because you are gay. He doesen't want to build a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding and he didn't want to cater it. That's how it had to do with the religion and he didn't want to do it. Who cares? Go somewhere else. The State punished him for not doing it, that's unconstitutional. It violates his first amendment rights. I don't believe there is a human right for cake.

Forget the cake, the cake is just the catalyst here of discrimination, the cake is not important. I never said there is a human right for cake, I said there is, or should be a human right that protects against discrimination so that you can thrive in society without fear of being segregated because of your skin color or sexual orientation.

As for the UK thing, his name is Tommy Robinson and yeah that sucks big time. I am against Brexit but that kind of UK can leave the EU, I don't really want it in.

You say your constitution would have protected him? Well that would be a case where your constitution would be a very positive thing. I don't know all the details of the events surrounding Tommy Robinson's case but I heard he got imprisoned over his opinions. I'm not sure what's going on in the UK but it's rather worrisome. And we must be vigilant over here in the EU, we can never say this would never happen here. I would think it wouldn't but I can never be sure of that.

I guess democracy means constant vigilance and distrust of the government who could be easily tempted into abusing their power.

See but the cake was important. A custom cake is no different than a custom painting, artistic expression. I also prefer assimilation to segregation but I respect individual rights and property rights over group identity. It's just personal preference. His bakery is his church, he's not working in the bakery of walmart denying people service lol. Even then he is legally protected but would probably be fired. This whole thing was to slander this guy nationally, there is no legal basis here. They put him on the national news as a bigot. They were trying to ruin him through publicity, that's how capitalism works here lol.  I don't know how much it damaged him but the state punishment was uncalled for and that's what was ruled on. I was just joking with you about cake being a human right.

 

Have you seen the way Americans talk about our government? Both and all sides. Yeah he would have been free to talk all of the shit he wants as long as he wasn't hurting anyone.

 

Absolutely. The American system was built on that, a reasonably paranoid system made by well read historians lol. You have separation of powers and checks and balances. Two houses in congress, it's very hard to pass legislation. Then the executive signs off and then the judiciary decides if it's constitutional. It's all very difficult on purpose, it's fail safe after fail safe. Our rights are near impossible to reverse without the consent of 3/5 of the states. It's very much designed as a necessary evil kind of thing.



Around the Network
Errorist76 on 06 June 2018

Who’s that Christian Baker everyone keeps talking about?



Kaneman! on 06 June 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:

Didn't know Mensa, I just googled it and apparently it's some group that only accepts people with a high IQ. some kind of elite think tank.

1) First congrats, finally someone who asks me a really tricky question regarding this issue. I can smell the trap you're laying for me, but it's a smart trap so I respect that

Well one could argue that there is a case for discrimination here because they won't accept people under a certain IQ and IQ's like sexual orientation or skin color is not something we choose and what we don't choose should not be held against us...

2) On the other hand (and here is where I avoid your trap ) they discriminate EQUALLY everyone. Gays, Straights, Blacks, Whites, Jews etc. If you don't have the required IQ you cannot join and your sexual orientation or skin color is not taken into account. And since we live in a world where low IQ's or even average IQ's are not considered a social group or a minority that needs to be protected, I'd say Mensa does not really violate any rights, both human or constitutional.

3) They seem to be some kind of elite circle jerk that loves to pat each other on the back and feel superior or something like that

1)

2) I have two issues here. You portray it as if discrimination based on IQ is less emphatic than religion, sexual orientation, or race. Why? For one, you can flip that argument and say that the baker discriminates everyone equally, no matter if their IQ is low or high, either they're Jewish or Muslim, black or white. And secondly, people with a severely low IQ tend to need protection.

3) Don't be so prejudiced. ;)



Aeolus451 on 06 June 2018
Teeqoz said:
Aeolus451 said:

I saw plenty of stuff that says otherwise. If it was as you said it, it would have been clear cut.

I wasn't there of course, but an article that someone linked to in this thread says that this was indeed the case. I quote from the article (my own emphasis):

"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 "

Again, I've seen things that say otherwise and I'm likely to believe them considering that this was overturned in supreme court. If he completely denied service, he would have lost.



Eagle367 on 06 June 2018
Teeqoz said:
From wikipedia:
"The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[29] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".[30][31]"

Unless I'm misunderstanding (and perhaps my memory of how the US justice system works is flawed), this ruling isn't of the same type as the supreme court rulings that sets presedence for how the law is interpreted in future cases - it only relates to how this specific case was handled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Just thought I should add this.

Exactly! And the ruling is not that the baker can deny service to gay couples but rather the the CCRC did not treat the baker and his religious rights fairly. Basically all the SC is saying is that this case wasn't handled very well and not delivering a verdict. This kind of ruling can't set a precedent in any way. The title is just making it seem worse than it actually is



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
dark_gh0st_b0y on 06 June 2018

stupid things where the world has much more serious problems...

it is his damn choice not to make gay-marriage cakes, it is the baker's personal view that gay people should not be allowed to get married, we have freedom of speech, or we don't? forcing one's opinion on someone is not a way to solve things, simply go to another baker, he loses money, you get your job done, simple

and it is not discrimination, it is a refusal to make a damn marriage cake



don't mind my username, that was more than 10 years ago, I'm a different person now, amazing how people change ^_^

TH3-D0S3R on 06 June 2018

Also, I am in the belief that all relationships, whether straight, gay, bi, etc. are all a choice. I don't come out of my mother's womb thinking oh hey, I wanna marry a chick or I feel like getting with a dude. There is no attraction for other people that lasts individuals their entire lives, so is that a by birth thing or do they chose to be alone? There are elements that go into it that can factor in such as genetic deficiencies (but there is no 'gay' gene) and environment, but for the most part it is up to you who you want to be with.



Baddman on 06 June 2018

wait someone actually got took to court for refusing to bake a cake? ...that is absurd



Jon-Erich on 06 June 2018
Pemalite said: 
Jon-Erich said:

That wasn't the issue here. He never denied the same sex couple services. He simply said he could not decorate the cake the way the wanted it. They were even offered alternate options which they refused. If anything, he tried to provide them with a service, and they're the ones who turned down the service.

It comes down to principle in the end. - Sure they could have chosen a cake design that conformed to someone elses religious views, but why the hell should they?

The way I see it, the baker is the equivalent of an artist. Like any artist, there are certain commissions they simply will not do. So let's look at it from this perspective. If the baker should be forced to make a custom designed wedding cake for a gay wedding, does that mean a painter should be forced to paint something that they don't want to paint or should web designer be forced to work on a website that they don't want to work on? 



Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com

The_Yoda on 06 June 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

While this may not be the case in Europe and I'm not trying to equate these two issues together, would you sell a gun to a murderer if you owned a gunstore and you believe that everyone has the right to live their life freely?

If no, while again it doesn't equate to this scope, your making a hypocritical point.

Why would I sell a gun to a murderer? In fact why would I sell a gun to anyone? People who don't plan to kill anyone won't buy a gun in the first place, all those massacres in America kind of rub our noses in this issue again and again and we don't learn from it.

But I digress, No I would not sell a gun to a murderer, I can't help to read what you will do with my answer cause I'm curious to see what your point is?

EDIT: You are making a completely illogical comparison but again I am waiting for you to explain what is hypocritical here?

 

CrazyGamer2017 said:
The_Yoda said:

@ the bolded you seem to be saying that him following in the footsteps of one of your earlier lines of argument is wrong ...  then again you also think people only buy guns to kill people so the fact guns outnumber citizens 101 to 100 would seem to indicate your emotions may be impairing your logic (I really lost most respect for your logic when you sent that line out) otherwise the US gun owners would have already murdered us to the last man.

If I'm missing something in your intent here please point it out.

I don't mind this part of the argument but we are straying from the main topic which in and of itself is a complicated mess judging by the severe dichotomies in opinions expressed in this thread.

However let me answer your statement. If you are going to question my logic you must be sure to not stray from it yourself. I NEVER said that people buy guns ONLY to kill. That line is an ABUSE of logic itself because with that type of reasoning, nothing is lethal or bad or evil. Let's take Hitler one of the biggest monsters in history. He killed Jews but he did NOT ONLY do that as he did lots of other stuff, so would you surmise that Hitler killing Jews is not bad? This is only a test of logic, I don't mean to argue history or your opinions on WW2.

As for my emotions they are not impairing anything. Guns kill and that's a fact. You don't buy a gun cause it's a toy or cause it allows you to call someone like a phone does or cause it can be used as a paper weight on a desk to avoid drafts from scattering your documents all over the room each time you open your windows, you buy a gun cause it makes you feel powerful and it makes you feel powerful because it gives you the power to kill a person simply by pulling a trigger. Fascination for guns and the power they confer is, I suppose, part of human nature. Everybody is at some point in their lives fascinated by that kind of power. I was too when I was a kid, I can't remember but I probably had a plastic toy gun I played with. But then something happened and I lost interest in guns. I GREW UP, matured and began reasoning and realized that guns are weapons that kill and there is NOTHING civilized about it or worth any type of fascination. (beside sick fascination I guess).

Now if you lost respect for my logic, I can't even say that much to you because I see no logic at all to begin with in that last line of your comment I made bold and underlined. Implying that guns are OK because and I quote "gun owners would have already murdered us to the last man" is like saying, war is okay because if war was bad, every last human would already have been murdered...

With all the gun related deaths, massacres that are now a very common thing in the United States, it is literally insanity to even think for a second that there is ANY good reason to own a gun. In fact wanting to own a gun is SO PERVERTED socially and humanly speaking that the logic behind this line "I'm buying a gun to defend myself because I want to be able to protect myself and be on equal footing with an assailant that points a gun at me" is, from a purely logical point of view... almost correct. At this point please note the greater logic that you wouldn't need to buy a gun to defend yourself against gun attacks if guns had NEVER been on sale in the FIRST PLACE. But I know that in the US that ship has long sailed and I don't think a point where no guns are on sale anymore and all guns already sold are destroyed, is even realistic anymore. So in America I'm afraid you guys are stuck with this sick logic of "more guns" to the guns problem. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Sorry for the off-topic reply but I felt this reply to what you said was totally warranted. And I'll be happy to discuss this issue with you or anyone but not here, obviously.

Can you tell me how these two things are not equal:

People who don't plan to kill anyone won't buy a gun in the first place


I NEVER said that people buy guns ONLY to kill.

 

Outside of the word "plan" the first quote certainty seems to contradict the second.  EDIT - snipped a couple paragraphs and PMed you instead since it was off topic.

 

Again why is it ok for you to use a line of reasoning but when someone uses one quite similar it is "obviously" wrong?  That was my question to you before you got sidetracked on the gun tangent (for those reading at home and not privy to the PM I disagree on his reasons for owning a gun).