Supreme Court rules narrowly for baker who refused to create same-sex couple's wedding cake

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY


https://i.imgur.com/0oSFCeS.jpg

WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's 7-2 decision against the same-sex couple, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

The five-year-old legal battle between Phillips and customers Charlie Craig and David Mullins represented a test between the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religion and laws in 22 states prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.

Phillips, 62, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was fighting for the rights of "creative artists" to choose what they will sell. Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, were fighting for the rights of LGBT customers to choose what they will buy.

Craig and Mullins won before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the state Court of Appeals, thanks to the state's inclusion of sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law. Twenty-one other states have similar laws.

But the Supreme Court, bolstered last April by the addition of stalwart conservative and fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, represented a tougher test.

The high court had weighed in twice before on the subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled that the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states that had legalized them. In 2015, it extended same-sex marriage nationwide.

But even as he authored the court's landmark decision, Kennedy held out an olive branch to religious conservatives.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," Kennedy wrote in 2015.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I like the headline from the liberal USA Today...."narrowly". It was a 7-2 decision :roll:

[Goofy]

I like the headline from the liberal USA Today...."narrowly". It was a 7-2 decision :roll:
Rangers narrowly lost 4-0 to Celtic a month ago [-(

[RBP]

I am more interested in watching heads explode today. :lol:

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I am more interested in watching heads explode today. :lol:

It's going to be AWESOME.

[RBP]

:lol: :tup:

[DemonGeminiX]

I'm gonna show my libertarian colors here, but no level of government should have ever been involved in this case at all. The free market should have decided.

The couple could have gone to another cake shop and had their cake made there. They could have told everyone they knew to avoid this cake shop, and/or gone on social media and told people there what happened to them. Maybe it would have put a dent in his business, or maybe it wouldn't have. They could have inspired someone to open another cake business to compete with his, maybe even next door from his business, and take the business that he turned away. Eventually, maybe it would have forced him to close his cake shop from loss of business. Either way, it would've been the proper barometer at where we're at in this country, socially speaking. The government should not be telling us where we're at and where we need to be. Government should never interfere with social issues such as these.

[Griffin]

So is it considered gay bashing if I refuse to go to a gay couples wedding?


...or only after I say I have no desire to watch a couple of rope suckers swapping spit.

[lost in melb.]

I'm gonna show my libertarian colors here, but no level of government should have ever been involved in this case at all. The free market should have decided.

The couple could have gone to another cake shop and had their cake made there. They could have told everyone they knew to avoid this cake shop, and/or gone on social media and told people there what happened to them. Maybe it would have put a dent in his business, or maybe it wouldn't have. They could have inspired someone to open another cake business to compete with his, maybe even next door from his business, and take the business that he turned away. Eventually, maybe it would have forced him to close his cake shop from loss of business. Either way, it would've been the proper barometer at where we're at in this country, socially speaking. The government should not be telling us where we're at and where we need to be. Government should never interfere with social issues such as these.

Don't fully understand, but I think it's something to do with legalising same-sex marriage ( which would be a government issue). Somehow this fellow's refusal to make a cake celebrating two guys getting married is seen as an threat to the validity of that marriage? I imagine this is the line that the gay guys took. Therefore the full kit and kaboodle of legality has stepped in.

[DemonGeminiX]

Don't fully understand, but I think it's something to do with legalising same-sex marriage ( which would be a government issue). Somehow this fellow's refusal to make a cake celebrating two guys getting married is seen as an threat to the validity of that marriage? I imagine this is the line that the gay guys took. Therefore the full kit and kaboodle of legality has stepped in.

Same-sex marriage is a social issue, not a legal one. The only reason states make you get a marriage certificate is to extort money out of you, which they will do at every turn, for any reason, as long as they can think of it. The government are whores like that. Your idea of legality and mine are entirely different. A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. That's how business should work. If the patrons don't like it, they can go to another establishment and get the service they are seeking elsewhere. The money will go into that business' hands, not the one that refused them service to begin with. If the people are smart, and they don't like the refusal, they will start patronizing the other business en mass, taking money away from the discriminatory business, effectively killing the discriminatory business. That's how the free market is supposed to work in situations like these. The market, i.e. the consumers, the people, decide. The government should not be holding anyone's hand, nor forcing anyone else's hands, for any reason beyond which is a legitimate crime that legitimately causes harm to another, and I'm not talking about hurting somebody else's feelings. The government should not be involved in marriage, either. It's ridiculous that the government redefined an institution that was understood for the past 3000 years. Congress didn't even do it themselves, the Supreme Court did and they overstepped their constitutional boundaries by doing it. The courts have no right to legislate from the bench, it's not their job. In any case, these are things that should be hands off. The people should decide for themselves. That is true freedom.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I'm gonna show my libertarian colors here, but no level of government should have ever been involved in this case at all. The free market should have decided.

The couple could have gone to another cake shop and had their cake made there. They could have told everyone they knew to avoid this cake shop, and/or gone on social media and told people there what happened to them. Maybe it would have put a dent in his business, or maybe it wouldn't have. They could have inspired someone to open another cake business to compete with his, maybe even next door from his business, and take the business that he turned away. Eventually, maybe it would have forced him to close his cake shop from loss of business. Either way, it would've been the proper barometer at where we're at in this country, socially speaking. The government should not be telling us where we're at and where we need to be. Government should never interfere with social issues such as these.

While I agree with you wholeheartedly, the government became involved because of "anti-discrimination" laws that were passed, so they pretty much stuck their nose into it.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Karma Allen - ABC News


https://i.imgur.com/kUnUrKz.jpg

The Colorado couple that lost a Supreme Court discrimination case on Monday said it plans to remain "hopeful" and continue with its fight for gay rights in America.

Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins said they were devastated on Monday afternoon when the top court sided with the Colorado baker who refused to make their wedding cake because it violated his religious beliefs.

“We remain hopeful. And throughout this journey, we have heard so many stories about people and their discrimination and part of the reason, you know, that we decided to follow this through is for our community,” Craig said in an interview with ABC affiliate KMGH on Monday. “That's not going to change.”

The court ruled in favor of an appeal by the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, in a 7-2 vote, striking down a Colorado court's previous ruling that said the couple had been discriminated against based on sexual orientation. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the only dissenters.

Despite the outcome, the couple said it doesn’t consider the case “a lost cause.”

“Obviously we're disappointed with this ruling. We were hoping it would go a different way,” Mullins told KMGH. “But you know we live in a country where we believe that turning people away from businesses just because of who they are is wrong and we are going to continue to stand for people who face this kind of discrimination.

“I don't think this is a lost cause in any way. I think the issue of public accommodations, discrimination against LGBT people, will continue," he added.

The ruling does not immediately set a precedent that future cases will rule in favor of businesses, according to Kate Shaw, ABC News' Supreme Court contributor and a professor at Cardozo Law School.

"The biggest thing we want people to take away from this is that today's verdict does not invalidate Colorado's anti-discrimination act," Mullins said. "It rules very narrowly based on details to our case."

Craig said it was “devastating to feel like you lost,” but he and his husband will continue to push for equal rights.

“Life as a gay man has its own unique challenges and that's not going to change, but you know, the fight's going to continue,” Craig said. “I feel like, that has been a victory for us, that just getting a national dialogue and helping change the public opinion about civil rights laws is a big win for us.”

[Teh One Who Knocks]

They just won't go away :facepalm:

Since this story is local to me (and has been for almost 6 fucking years now) we get a TON of local coverage on it. The guy on the right is nothing more than an attention whore. He has yet to find a mic or a camera that he doesn't like so he can bleat about how 'oppressed' he is and the whole gay community is. He's the reason this shit went all the way to the Supreme Court and he just won't go away.

https://i.imgur.com/wmkmag7.jpg

[lost in melb.]

Same-sex marriage is a social issue, not a legal one. The only reason states make you get a marriage certificate is to extort money out of you, which they will do at every turn, for any reason, as long as they can think of it. The government are whores like that. Your idea of legality and mine are entirely different. A business should have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason. That's how business should work. If the patrons don't like it, they can go to another establishment and get the service they are seeking elsewhere. The money will go into that business' hands, not the one that refused them service to begin with. If the people are smart, and they don't like the refusal, they will start patronizing the other business en mass, taking money away from the discriminatory business, effectively killing the discriminatory business. That's how the free market is supposed to work in situations like these. The market, i.e. the consumers, the people, decide. The government should not be holding anyone's hand, nor forcing anyone else's hands, for any reason beyond which is a legitimate crime that legitimately causes harm to another, and I'm not talking about hurting somebody else's feelings. The government should not be involved in marriage, either. It's ridiculous that the government redefined an institution that was understood for the past 3000 years. Congress didn't even do it themselves, the Supreme Court did and they overstepped their constitutional boundaries by doing it. The courts have no right to legislate from the bench, it's not their job. In any case, these are things that should be hands off. The people should decide for themselves. That is true freedom.

I mostly agree, except for the first bold bit. What about refusing a black person, a jew or a muslim based on considering them being less than fully human? A slippery path, no?

I guess that is covered under the second bold bit, but still, being refused a service by a company due to one's personal life is not clear cut to me. The more I think about it, the more the cake dude seems in the wrong. Without his religious excuse I don't believe he would have such a strong case.

[Muddy]

I mostly agree, except for the first bold bit. What about refusing a black person, a jew or a muslim based on considering them being less than fully human? A slippery path, no?

I guess that is covered under the second bold bit, but still, being refused a service by a company due to one's personal life is not clear cut to me. The more I think about it, the more the cake dude seems in the wrong. Without his religious excuse I don't believe he would have such a strong case.

It's his personal business, he can sell to whoever the fuck he wants to. :2cents:

[lost in melb.]

It's his personal business, he can sell to whoever the fuck he wants to. :2cents:

I agree he should be able to - it's the reason that he gave that is the issue. He could have easily said "I don't have time", but he wanted to make as much of a point as the gay couple. He wanted to fight. It's a battle of ideologies here.

[Muddy]

I agree he should be able to - it's the reason that he gave that is the issue. He could have easily said "I don't have time", but he wanted to make as much of a point as the gay couple. He wanted to fight. It's a battle of ideologies here.

If he worked for some corporate entity, I would agree.. But because its solely his business, I respect his right to be a bigot. Don't like it? Don't spend money there and tell your friends the guys a bigot.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

I mostly agree, except for the first bold bit. What about refusing a black person, a jew or a muslim based on considering them being less than fully human? A slippery path, no?

I guess that is covered under the second bold bit, but still, being refused a service by a company due to one's personal life is not clear cut to me. The more I think about it, the more the cake dude seems in the wrong. Without his religious excuse I don't believe he would have such a strong case.

The owner of the cake shop didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to make a custom wedding cake because gay marriage goes against his religious views. He offered to sell them any of the other pre-made wedding cakes he had or anything else in his store, he just wasn't going to make them a custom wedding cake. He didn't discriminate against them at all. Their view that gays should be allowed to marry should in no way trump his views about marriage being between a man and a woman.

The civil thing would have been for the gay couple to say, okay, no problem, do you happen to have another cake shop that you could recommend? But no, they had to whine and cry and tell EVERYONE how they were being oppressed by this ONE baker who didn't want to compromise his core religious beliefs. And while I am not religious, why should his views be seen as "less" than the views of the gay couple?

[DemonGeminiX]

I mostly agree, except for the first bold bit. What about refusing a black person, a jew or a muslim based on considering them being less than fully human? A slippery path, no?

I guess that is covered under the second bold bit, but still, being refused a service by a company due to one's personal life is not clear cut to me. The more I think about it, the more the cake dude seems in the wrong. Without his religious excuse I don't believe he would have such a strong case.

Muddy's right. It's his business. He's not obligated to sell anything to anyone if he doesn't feel like it. Sure, he's being an asshole by doing it, but there's no law against being an asshole. You can't legislate that. People have the right to be assholes. He can be the biggest asshole he feels like whenever he feels like to whomever he feels like. That's the point of the free market. People have the right to choose who they do business with, on both ends. If consumers don't want to do business with the asshole because of his assholish ways, then the asshole won't get any business and his business will close. I think this is the point that you're not getting. The free market will take care of itself. The people will decide. It might take a while, but it'll come naturally. The government doesn't need to step in. They shouldn't step in. People don't need their hand held. They shouldn't be told to choose to buy or sell something to whomever, whenever by big brother. That's crossing the line into tyranny. Freedom to choose is freedom, period.

Slippery slope? I don't think so. If it was the 1920s or 30s, maybe. But people have moved on since then. Generations have moved on since then. People get better. There aren't guys like this on every street in every town of the USA. C'mon, man.

[lost in melb.]

If he worked for some corporate entity, I would agree.. But because its solely his business, I respect his right to be a bigot. Don't like it? Don't spend money there and tell your friends the guys a bigot.


The owner of the cake shop didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to make a custom wedding cake because gay marriage goes against his religious views. He offered to sell them any of the other pre-made wedding cakes he had or anything else in his store, he just wasn't going to make them a custom wedding cake. He didn't discriminate against them at all. Their view that gays should be allowed to marry should in no way trump his views about marriage being between a man and a woman.

The civil thing would have been for the gay couple to say, okay, no problem, do you happen to have another cake shop that you could recommend? But no, they had to whine and cry and tell EVERYONE how they were being oppressed by this ONE baker who didn't want to compromise his core religious beliefs. And while I am not religious, why should his views be seen as "less" than the views of the gay couple?

Presented like this I broadly agree. I think if he didn't have the religious argument he would have lost though (which is worrying because a religious belief shouldn't trump a personal one, right?)

I will say this though. Gone are the days when you can say what you think in public. As a prejudiced psychologist, I am happy to help a gay dude to understand why he is gay due to childhood trauma. But if I am expected to celebrate how great gay culture is I will palm him off to another psych pretty quickly - but I dare not openly say why to any colleagues.

[RBP]

It's his personal business, he can sell to whoever the fuck he wants to. :2cents:

https://i.imgur.com/CEvn52Y.jpg

[lost in melb.]

Muddy's right. It's his business. He's not obligated to sell anything to anyone if he doesn't feel like it. Sure, he's being an asshole by doing it, but there's no law against being an asshole. You can't legislate that. People have the right to be assholes. He can be the biggest asshole he feels like whenever he feels like to whomever he feels like. That's the point of the free market. People have the right to choose who they do business with, on both ends. If consumers don't want to do business with the asshole because of his assholish ways, then the asshole won't get any business and his business will close. I think this is the point that you're not getting. The free market will take care of itself. The people will decide. It might take a while, but it'll come naturally. The government doesn't need to step in. They shouldn't step in. People don't need their hand held. They shouldn't be told to choose to buy or sell something to whomever, whenever by big brother. That's crossing the line into tyranny. Freedom to choose is freedom, period.

Slippery slope? I don't think so. If it was the 1920s or 30s, maybe. But people have moved on since then. Generations have moved on since then. People get better. There aren't guys like this on every street in every town of the USA. C'mon, man.

I take your points. I don't think the law suit would hold water here in aus. I think that these kind of law suits are taken more seriously in the states due to your history.

There is also a bit of a left-wing trend for over-amplifying sensitivities into full blown media dramas. Somehow these transform into legal rather than free market battles ( where they arguably should be).

Something unsettles me though, I'm not as clear cut as you guys. And the vote wasn't clear cut either, it's clearly a very delicate issue at the moment, ridiculous or not. A good time to be a lawyer :)

[lost in melb.]

https://i.imgur.com/CEvn52Y.jpg

See, that's what I'm talking about. That's were you're heading under Trump. Danger!!






Just kidding :hand:

[Muddy]

https://i.imgur.com/CEvn52Y.jpg

I'm not sure what you mean by this..? The guy should be forced to make the cake? That guy above would be sorted out by the free market on it's own in this modern day and age.

[RBP]

I'm not sure what you mean by this..? The guy should be forced to make the cake? That guy above would be sorted out by the free market on it's own in this modern day and age.

I don't disagree and no he shouldn't be forced to make the cake. At the same time, I can understand someone drawing the parallel in good faith.