I'm a little torn on the baker thing. The guy is a religious nut who won't even sell halloween cookies, yet there has been a huge conspiracy to politicize and paint the situation differently. I mean, he has some goofy beliefs, but he didn't refuse to sell the gay couple baked goods in general. He just wouldn't make them a wedding cake. That's why the ruling went the way it did. I don't agree with his decision, but do agree that the SC got it right in this particular case.

The lower courts showed anti-religious bias while trying to protect against anti-gay bias. It's a no win deal.

The bad part is that it opens the door for people to use religious conviction as a tool of oppression. There's no good answer aside from "thought police" type beliefs.

The decision actually didn't hinge on that- it really did come down to the following:

The Colorado Commission had allowed previous bakers to refuse to make cakes that were anti-gay marriage. Because they did that, the Supreme Court found they would be inconsistent in not allowing this baker to refuse. The entire decision hinges pretty much on the inconsistent application, so the ruling is not on religious beliefs versus gay marriage (and why this decision doesn't set any precedents that anyone else can follow on). It's basically a "if you let them do it, you have to let everyone do it" decision.

Had the Commission said that the previous bakers must bake a cake that had anti-gay marriage statements, then the decision would have been very different. It all came down to equal application and enforcement.

And religious bakers who don't want to make gay wedding cakes have lots of options, they just don't like limiting themselves:

- A public accommodation means you can receive anyone off the street, but that you can't refuse service based on a protected class. So you can't refuse to serve someone because they are gay, nor because you don't like that they are Baptist. Any establishment can become a private organization and then discriminate to their heart's content (by becoming a private "baking club", but that means they lose that off-the-street walk-in traffic. These religious bakers don't want to lose the walk-in business, so they must abide by public accommodations law. You can't have your cake and eat it too (pun totally intended).

- A baker can just choose not to do wedding cakes at all; nobody can force you to do something that isn't their regular line of business. Of course, once again, that means they lose any wedding cake business they want. But you can't pick and choose your cake customers based on protected classes.

I don't understand the laws at all, but both parties are acting like absolute children.


It's goofy that the baker wouldn't just make the cake, make his bucks, and apologize to god later on. It's just as goofy that the couple wouldn't just go to another bakery.

If the decision went the other way, would that baker be forced to make me my giant cock cake that I am going to want for my wedding?

This is a legitimate question. What would have constituted "regular line of business" when it comes to an industry that I assume is quite made-to-order?

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 11:08

The decision actually didn't hinge on that- it really did come down to the following: The Colorado Commission had allowed previous bakers to refuse to make cakes that were anti-gay marriage. Because they did that, the Supreme Court found they would be inconsistent in not allowing this baker to refuse. The entire decision hinges pretty much on the inconsistent application, so the ruling is not on religious beliefs versus gay marriage (and why this decision doesn't set any precedents that anyone else can follow on). It's basically a "if you let them do it, you have to let everyone do it" decision. Had the Commission said that the previous bakers must bake a cake that had anti-gay marriage statements, then the decision would have been very different. It all came down to equal application and enforcement.

But my TV said I can now discriminate against people I don't like. That's what I got from it. Facebook also said the same thing.

Mittens @ 7/6/2018 12:34

If the decision went the other way, would that baker be forced to make me my giant cock cake that I am going to want for my wedding? This is a legitimate question. What would have constituted "regular line of business" when it comes to an industry that I assume is quite made-to-order?

The giant cock cake would be considered obscene and thus not protected speech, plus they are turning you down for a specific reason that has nothing to do with being part of a protected class. If they denied you service for a "White Bros Meetup" cake, then yes, you'd have standing, since race, gender, and sexual orientation are all protected classes.

The obscenity part is also in flux, due to a recent case involving the Publix Grocery Store chain which didn't put "Congrats Jacob! Summa Cum Laude class of 2018." on a cake, as the grocery store thought "cum" meant "ejaculation" and thus refused on the ground of obscene language. The software for the cake message filtered it out, but the mother explained in the special instructions section that "cum" meant "with" in Latin. The store stupidly didn't read anything and put: ‘Congrats Jacob! Summa --- Laude Class of 2018.’’

Spin @ 7/6/2018 13:21

vladykins @ 7/6/2018 11:08 The decision actually didn't hinge on that- it really did come down to the following: The Colorado Commission had allowed previous bakers to refuse to make cakes that were anti-gay marriage. Because they did that, the Supreme Court found they would be inconsistent in not allowing this baker to refuse. The entire decision hinges pretty much on the inconsistent application, so the ruling is not on religious beliefs versus gay marriage (and why this decision doesn't set any precedents that anyone else can follow on). It's basically a "if you let them do it, you have to let everyone do it" decision. Had the Commission said that the previous bakers must bake a cake that had anti-gay marriage statements, then the decision would have been very different. It all came down to equal application and enforcement. But my TV said I can now discriminate against people I don't like. That's what I got from it. Facebook also said the same thing.

The TV lies.

LIES!

Teddy Roosevelt would disagree with you.

How could I miss this famous quote?

The decision I read actually cited the open anti religious hostility of the state as an issue, and the unfair application of the law because they had failed to punish people for refusing to make cakes that supported anti gay beliefs.
The court ruled more on the open hostility of the state courts than they did on the actual first amendment rights of the accused or the accusers. He was entitled to fair and impartial treatment which he didn't get.

Even this producer of toilet paper got it right.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-baker-isnt-the-only-winner-in-the-wedding-cake-ruling/2018/06/06/baffc8f6-68dd-11e8-bea7-c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.48c2ce6cc077

Here's the actual court opinion for those who want to read it instead of vlady's thought police version.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

I misread vlady's posts. He still glossed over the important parts of the courts decision.

Basically, the state got called out for applying personal bigotry and calling it the law.