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'

Laws/customs/culture can be very strange sometimes.

Here in Belgium, if a store refuses to serve someone based on their gender/beliefs/sexual orientation/color etc... That store would be guilty of discrimination.

I am really surprised that this is not the case in America. This ruling is clearly discriminatory, it's NOT the job or responsibility of the bakery to judge a customer's personal choices or life style. What's next? A store not serving a customer because he/she is black and then a tribunal upholding the ignorance of such a racist store?



.

No more bullying from mods with their abusive bans against me.

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

That's not the point. it's as if that young black girl that couldn't sit with whites in a bus in Alabama in the 1950's was told to just take another bus, problem solved.

If she had and if subsequently all the people fighting for racial equality had too then racism would still be legal today in America. Things changed because she refused to go along and stood against this discrimination.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 04 June 2018

.

No more bullying from mods with their abusive bans against me.

I think the problem here is not that this guy has the right to choose how to run his business and will reap the results.  The problem is that the Supreme Court set a precedence for future actions in the country.  So now, any business has the right to do the same with their services.  Suddenly, it becomes trendy to refuse services to a minority.  They still make money, even moreso because they were in the news and have the backing of those also against the minority.  Then those ideas start to strengthen as the majority cannot fully relate to the minority and superiority is a very addictive quality to humans.  If you cannot be a success in life, at least you can be better than this one group of people.

These are the seeds that can blossom into a widespread and common distaste for that particular minority which can eventually escalate to mass actions such as camps or forced migration.  Not long and we have a culture obsessed with a task that doesn't benefit anyone and anything but their own egos.

It shouldn't be up to companies and citizens to protect the rights of minorities and stand up for them.  It should be the job of the nation's leadership to protect every citizen.

Last edited by zygote - on 04 June 2018

Aeolus451 said:
Insidb said:

What about property managers and developers?

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

I'm concerned with the legal precedent being set here.

You could literally have communities that don't serve specific sexualities or races.



zygote said:

I think the problem here is not that this guy has the right to choose how to run his business and will reap the results.  The problem is that the Supreme Court set a precedence for future actions in the country.  So now, any business has the right to do the same with their services.  Suddenly, it becomes trendy to refuse services to a minority.  They still make money, even moreso because they were in the news and have the backing of those also against the minority.  Then those ideas start to strengthen as the majority cannot fully relate to the minority and superiority is a very addictive quality to humans.  If you cannot be a success in life, at least you can be better than this one group of people.

These are the seeds that can blossom into a widespread and common distaste for that particular minority which can eventually escalate to mass actions such as camps or forced migration.  Not long and we have a culture obsessed with a task that doesn't benefit anyone and anything but their own egos.

It shouldn't be up to companies and citizens to protect the writes of minorities and stand up for them.  It should be the job of the nation's leadership to protect every citizen.

You and insidb need to check your hyperbole 



Around the Network
There have been a couple of similar cases in the U.K., including another cake shop. Also a b&b that refused to allow a gay couple to stay.

I think the shop owner is wrong to deny service to the couple. However, if I owned a cake show I would refuse to make a cake with Nazi symbols - Har to say where the line is draw on protecting free speech and discrimating against people.
The B&B case is more clear cut for me.

CrazyGamer2017 said:

Laws/customs/culture can be very strange sometimes.

Here in Belgium, if a store refuses to serve someone based on their gender/beliefs/sexual orientation/color etc... That store would be guilty of discrimination.

I am really surprised that this is not the case in America. This ruling is clearly discriminatory, it's NOT the job or responsibility of the bakery to judge a customer's personal choices or life style. What's next? A store not serving a customer because he/she is black and then a tribunal upholding the ignorance of such a racist store?

So in Belgium, you can go to a Jewish owned bakery and demand a cake that says kill all Jews?



LiquorandGunFun said:

its his business to lose as he will not make money for the job. its the right ruling. plus are there not other bake shops around? victimization BS.

I guess some think the police should bust in his shop and force him to make it.

While I agree that he should do whatever he wants to with his business, I wouldn't call that victimization by the couple. Going through an experience like that is humiliating and disgusting. I wish people had an opportunity to experience something like that. It would probably change their perspectives on prejudice a bit.



Bet with Teeqoz for 2 weeks of avatar and sig control that Super Mario Odyssey would ship more than 7m on its first 2 months. The game shipped 9.07m, so I won

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.

You are exactly right 



Insidb said:
Aeolus451 said:

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

I'm concerned with the legal precedent being set here.

You could literally have communities that don't serve specific sexualities or races.

I don't think you understand why the supreme court ruled in his favor. A gay couple wanted a customized wedding cake from a Christian baker for their wedding. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. To me, that almost seems like they were wanting this to happen considering this wedding cake thing has become a trend as a way to troll or protest christians. They can't force him to make a cake for them.

They could have just went to a different baker if his refusal bothered them but years of fighting in courts over this was worth it to them. Personally, I would have written a bad review and went elsewhere.

There's already cases of that. A college wuth a no white people at school day. Women only movie showings.