• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

Recommended Posts

techbeck    6,907

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term. 

 

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases. 

 

The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. 

 

"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. 

 

More....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satukoro    1,350
16 minutes ago, techbeck said:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term. 

 

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases. 

  

The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. 

  

"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion. 

  

More.... 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-sides-with-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple.html

As much as I don't like the baker's choice of refusing service to a group of people, I have to agree with the ruling here.

 

You can refuse service to someone and cite free speech, but that doesn't mean you're not an a-hole for doing so.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,581

646.thumb.jpg.b33f127d037c0561392d88ed7e511352.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    6,907

Glad the owner of the bakery stood up and didnt cave/bow to the pressure.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macrosslover    633

I think the ruling is more a warning to governments and governmental bodies that seem hell bent on stomping out religious freedoms for their own agendas.  It didn't necessarily say that he could refuse them.  However, overall I think it's a good decision.

 

Not sure if this is an accurate reading of the decision, but I read a post on another site that said the baker could refuse to make a cake for gays, but couldn't refuse to sell them cakes he already made on the counter.  If that's accurate I think that's fair.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    17,937

Not exactly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,581
1 minute ago, wakjak said:

Not exactly.

 

Which is pretty much what the article said, had you bothered to read it. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wakjak    17,937
1 minute ago, DConnell said:

Which is pretty much what the article said, had you bothered to read it. ?

It sure isn't what the OP was attempting to get across.

As one can see with the other posters have posted. ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    6,907
14 minutes ago, wakjak said:

It sure isn't what the OP was attempting to get across.

As one can see with the other posters have posted. ?

All I said is that I am glad the shop owner didnt give up/bow to the pressure and posted info from the source.  I said nothing about whether or not this was completely settled.   Or are you talking about the person who created the article/source?

16 minutes ago, DConnell said:

Which is pretty much what the article said, had you bothered to read it. ?

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DConnell    6,581
15 minutes ago, wakjak said:

It sure isn't what the OP was attempting to get across.

As one can see with the other posters have posted. ?

It might not have been what you took away from it, but it perfectly clear to me and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
farmeunit    667
1 hour ago, satukoro said:

As much as I don't like the baker's choice of refusing service to a group of people, I have to agree with the ruling here.

 

You can refuse service to someone and cite free speech, but that doesn't mean you're not an a-hole for doing so.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

So following his religious beliefs makes him an ######?  I'm NOT religious, but I fully respect how others want to live.  I would think expecting someone to not follow their religion to cater to someone would make that person the ######...

58 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

 

Not sure if this is an accurate reading of the decision, but I read a post on another site that said the baker could refuse to make a cake for gays, but couldn't refuse to sell them cakes he already made on the counter.  If that's accurate I think that's fair.

That is what happened.  He offered to sell them other cakes, just not that specific cake.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    6,907
1 minute ago, DConnell said:

It might not have been what you took away from it, but it perfectly clear to me and others.

 

1 minute ago, farmeunit said:

So following his religious beliefs makes him an ######?  I'm NOT religious, but I fully respect how others want to live.  I would think expecting someone to not follow their religion to cater to someone would make that person the ######...

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,536

Basically, the state can't trash one person's federal rights on the way to granting others.

 

Vote rundown,

 

Majority: Chief Justice John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch

 

Minority: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satukoro    1,350
33 minutes ago, farmeunit said:

So following his religious beliefs makes him an ######?  I'm NOT religious, but I fully respect how others want to live.  I would think expecting someone to not follow their religion to cater to someone would make that person the ######... 

I'm not saying following his religious beliefs is making him an a-hole, I'm saying having inconsistent business practices and citing religion for it makes him an a-hole. Do whatever you want on your own time, but keep work and home life separate if it's going to interfere with operations.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
farmeunit    667
21 hours ago, satukoro said:

I'm not saying following his religious beliefs is making him an a-hole, I'm saying having inconsistent business practices and citing religion for it makes him an a-hole. Do whatever you want on your own time, but keep work and home life separate if it's going to interfere with operations.

It's HIS business, so it is his home life, as well as business.  It's not inconsistent if he follows the same guidelines.  He has a policy.  He is sticking to it.  It would be inconsistent if he did another couple's cake, but not this couple.  It's also not interfering with the way he wants to do business.  He's not just an employee going against his bosses wishes.  People can decide with their money.  It's a free country with free market.  If you don't like it, don't buy a cake there.  Simple.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satukoro    1,350
1 hour ago, farmeunit said:

It's HIS business, so it is his home life, as well as business.  It's not inconsistent if he follows the same guidelines.  He has a policy.  He is sticking to it.  It would be inconsistent if he did another couple's cake, but not this couple.  It's also not interfering with the way he wants to do business.  He's not just an employee going against his bosses wishes.  People can decide with their money.  It's a free country with free market.  If you don't like it, don't buy a cake there.  Simple.

Again, I'm not saying what you're implying. I'm saying this guy is an a-hole. If you treat people differently based on their sexual preference, you're an a-hole. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
farmeunit    667

He's not treating them differently because they're gay.  It's the ceremony itself he doesn't support.  Two completely different things.

 

Is it OK for a neo-Nazi to order a cake that says "Holocaust Anniversary Party 2018.  You grab them, we'll cook them"?   I assume that if he orders a cake that says "I love bunnies", then that's OK.

 

By you thinking, they are both perfectly fine to make.

 

And I'm not equating hate speech to sexual preference/civil rights, but there are two sides and you can't say in one case it's perfectly fine, but not in the other.  In this case he has a STANDARD that he follows.  It's not pick and choose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
techbeck    6,907

Guy said he would make them a cake, just not the one with their message.  Call the guy an ###### based on this alone all you want but I think it is ######-ish to force someone to do something that is against their religious views.  The guy was polite, nice about it, so calling him an ###### is a stretch.

 

And reading this, I tend to think the guy is not an ######....

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/baker-who-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-i-don-t-n880061

15 minutes ago, farmeunit said:

And I'm not equating hate speech to sexual preference/civil rights, but there are two sides and you can't say in one case it's perfectly fine, but not in the other.  In this case he has a STANDARD that he follows.  It's not pick and choose.

He also will not create a cake for Halloween or one that makes fun of the LGBT community.   The guy is consistent in what he stands for and is not a dick about it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DocM    16,536
1 hour ago, techbeck said:

Guy said he would make them a cake, just not the one with their message.  Call the guy an ###### based on this alone all you want but I think it is ######-ish to force someone to do something that is against their religious views.  The guy was polite, nice about it, so calling him an ###### is a stretch.

 

And reading this, I tend to think the guy is not an ######....

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/baker-who-refused-make-cake-gay-wedding-i-don-t-n880061

He also will not create a cake for Halloween or one that makes fun of the LGBT community.   The guy is consistent in what he stands for and is not a dick about it. 

 

No different than states which refuse to put certain words or phrases on personalized license plates. Also, some sign and T-shirt makers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,655

This whole thing would have been a non-issue if he'd just not said anything about his reasons for denying service.  All he had to do was say "Sorry, I can't do that for you."

 

By making an issue out of his reasons for denying, HE is the one that made the whole thing a big drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conna    108
12 hours ago, satukoro said:

Again, I'm not saying what you're implying. I'm saying this guy is an a-hole. If you treat people differently based on their sexual preference, you're an a-hole. That's all.

So you would bake a cake for a pedophile?  

Of course, you wouldn't.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macrosslover    633
25 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

This whole thing would have been a non-issue if he'd just not said anything about his reasons for denying service.  All he had to do was say "Sorry, I can't do that for you."

 

By making an issue out of his reasons for denying, HE is the one that made the whole thing a big drama.

Maybe they asked him why he couldn't do it for them and he told them the truth.  They could have just went somewhere else.  Having a cake isn't a human right and I'm sure there are tons of other bakers in Colorado they could have went to.  I don't agree with the whole comply with me or else mantra.  If I went to a store where somebody said I don't want to service you because of your skin color or gender, I would tell them "f you" and go on about my business somewhere else, it's not the end of the world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,655
8 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

Maybe they asked him why he couldn't do it for them and he told them the truth.  They could have just went somewhere else.  Having a cake isn't a human right and I'm sure there are tons of other bakers in Colorado they could have went to.  I don't agree with the whole comply with me or else mantra.  If I went to a store where somebody said I don't want to service you because of your skin color or gender, I would tell them "f you" and go on about my business somewhere else, it's not the end of the world.

Sure. Don't get me wrong here, I'm on the side of the baker. I'm sick and tired of all the damned "super special snowflakes" we have in the world these days.  The whole lot of 'em are a waste of oxygen and should be used as landfill.  BUT, the baker could have caused himself a whole lot less trouble and just said he was fully booked or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macrosslover    633
2 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Sure. Don't get me wrong here, I'm on the side of the baker. I'm sick and tired of all the damned "super special snowflakes" we have in the world these days.  The whole lot of 'em are a waste of oxygen and should be used as landfill.  BUT, the baker could have caused himself a whole lot less trouble and just said he was fully booked or something. 

I can agree with that.  Perhaps people in the future will start saying that from now on, but people will probably find a way to still get mad.  Look at those workers at that restaurant in Portland who were fired because they told a black women the store was closed...right after they told several white women the same exact thing.  There's just some people you can't please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FloatingFatMan    18,655
5 minutes ago, macrosslover said:

There's just some people you can't please.

Some people just spend their time waiting to get offended, then go all biblical just because they can.  It's time they got told to f-off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.