[BartSimpson]

$1:

By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake
that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.

That's not true. An opposite-sex couple would not have asked for a custom designed cake that was intended to bless a gay marriage.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

$1:

By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake
that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.

That's not true. An opposite-sex couple would not have asked for a custom designed cake that was intended to bless a gay marriage.

They asked for a wedding cake.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

You can read it the way you wish. As I am reading this if they were neutral about his Christian beliefs (which you are not) then the ruling should be consistent with the three other similar rulings the same commission made that protected people's beliefs.

Several justices mentioned that as well. The three bakers denied someone a cake they would not make for anyone. He denied them a wedding cake, and he would make a wedding cake for a straight couple. That's the difference. You want to distinguish a straight vs gay wedding cake. I don't see a difference, I see it as a wedding cake. This is not something we will likely come to an agreement on, as you view gay people fundamentally different than I do.

$1:

What makes the state agencies’ consideration yet more
disquieting is that a proper basis for distinguishing the
cases was available—in fact, was obvious. The Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) makes it unlawful for a
place of public accommodation to deny “the full and equal
enjoyment” of goods and services to individuals based on
certain characteristics, including sexual orientation and
creed. Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017). The three
bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack
requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people
and same-sex marriage) that they would not have
made for any customer. In refusing that request, the
bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but
instead treated him in the same way they would have
treated anyone else—just as CADA requires. By contrast,
the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake
that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.
In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA’s
demand that customers receive “the full and equal enjoyment”
of public accommodations irrespective of their
sexual orientation. Ibid. The different outcomes in the
Jack cases and the Phillips case could thus have been
justified by a plain reading and neutral application of
Colorado law—untainted by any bias against a religious belief.

$1:

I'm pulling this line out because where you find his beliefs to be disgusting then why aren't you asking the question of why this man was singled out or targeted by these activists? Why did they behave as if the only cake shop in town was this one?

You would never favor him with your business so why did they INSIST that he serve them?

Perhaps they favoured his work above others? Perhaps they were unaware of his reprehensible beliefs, and didn't expect to be turned away because of them? Did he advertise that he has an issue with gays? Did he have a sign outside that said "no wedding cakes for gays"?

$1:

Again, it's like trying to force the halal/kosher butcher shop to make you a pork roast instead of just going to a butcher shop that handles pork.

Not a valid comparison, as they likely advertise themselves as halal or kosher. I would know how they think going into the butcher, and they likely don't have pork on site because of it. It's also not based on hateful belief. It's not a belief that coincides with persecution, discrimination, and restricting of rights. It's not a belief that has caused a remarkable suicide rate among a population.

Sorry, not the same thing. Not even close.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This isn't an either/or issue.

Like has been noted, the gay couple were never told they could not buy a standard cake. They wanted something that the bakery did not offer in the first place and then they went to the commission to try to force the bakery to bake the cake or else they wanted the bakery bankrupted with fines.

Imagine going into a Jewish or Muslim butcher shop and demanding they make you a pork roast.

Do you have a right to make them do that?

No. Because it violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

But they also don't have right to bar you from buying any of the products that they offer to anyone else.

That's the heart of this issue and the Colorado HRC should have got this right the first time and they would have were it not for that they hate Christians and have a socio-political bias in favor of gays...and two liberal Justices saw this, too.

Spot on. As someone who is completely neutral in this matter, I agree wholeheartedly. To look at this from any other angle and/or to put any other spin on it is nonsense.

-J.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

It's also not based on hateful belief. It's not a belief that coincides with persecution, discrimination, and restricting of rights. It's not a belief that has caused a remarkable suicide rate among a population.

This is an example of what the Supreme Court ruled on here. Your opinion of the man's beliefs has no bearing whatsoever on his right to hold those beliefs and on the obligation of the government to rule only on the substance of the complaint and not on the bias of the commission against Christians.

And to reiterate a point from the case the gay couple were NOT denied a standard wedding cake, they were denied their request that the baker produce a custom 'gay' design cake for their gay wedding.

He has every right in the world to refuse that request.

* * *

Slightly different subject here is that I support this decision because it helps to nudge our society back a bit from the precipice we've been dancing around with the past decade or so.

Let's say the decision went the other way and the Court ruled that gay people had a right to force Christians to perform services at gay weddings.

Then our next election might see Trump voted out in favor of someone far more radical.

More or less, this is happening in Europe. Slovenia went hard right this week and Italy now has a coalition government that features the Five Star Movement which is a no-shit fascist revival party.

Not 'fascist' like some of the assholes around here use the term but actual fascists who are just a few clicks away from killing people they don't like.

See, that's the problem with social pendulums is that when you swing them too far in one direction then they inevitably swing just as far in the other direction.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is an example of what the Supreme Court ruled on here. Your opinion of the man's beliefs has no bearing whatsoever on his right to hold those beliefs and on the obligation of the government to rule only on the substance of the complaint and not on the bias of the commission against Christians.

I agree. That's why I can see why the ruled how they did. I can also see why they are ruling this way because of the disdain he was shown, and not on the facts of the case. Like if there is a video of someone committing a murder, but because of actions by police/lawyers/judge it brings the administration of justice into disrepute, the case can be thrown out. What the person did was wrong, but because it was approached wrong the system corrects against that. Ultimately, while people don't like it, it's a fundamental part of protecting the populace from the government. I'm also not the government, so I'm allowed to say the guy is a flaming pile of shit. I feel that way about anyone who thinks it's okay to deny rights and privileges to someone based on how their born. Whether it's a far left loony who thinks conservative speakers be shut down or put in jail, or a far right person who decides to shits on gay people. Different sides of same coin as far as I'm concerned.

$1:

And to reiterate a point from the case the gay couple were NOT denied a standard wedding cake, they were denied their request that the baker produce a custom 'gay' design cake for their gay wedding.

He has every right in the world to refuse that request.

I've read they were denied a wedding cake. They could buy a pre-made cake, but they were denied any sort of custom cake. Nobody buys pre-made wedding cakes. So they were denied access to a service he would provide to a straight couple. I'm sure they weren't asking for a cake with a bunch of dicks on it. In fact it was probably no different than any other wedding cake, other than who was buying it. Have you heard differently? Do we know what the design even was? What is a gay design anyways?

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I've read they were denied a wedding cake.

Nope, they could have had a standard wedding cake from the bakery's catalog. I'd lifted out that info a few posts back but I'll admit it took a while to find it.

Tricks Tricks:

I'm sure they weren't asking for a cake with a bunch of dicks on it. In fact it was probably no different than any other wedding cake, other than who was buying it. Have you heard differently? Do we know what the design even was? What is a gay design anyways?

The design they were requesting was custom and whatever it was they had no right to force the man to make it for them.

The Supreme Court adroitly sidestepped this particular aspect of the case and instead sought the narrower ruling that spoke to the bias of the Colorado HRC.

But...had not a majority of the court felt that there was no right to force anyone to make a cake that offends their sensibilities then they may have written an opinion that sanctioned the bias while letting the underlying ruling stand.

There is plenty of precedent for that kind of ruling so where this sits now is the prevailing line of interpretation is that you do not have a right to compel religious people to perform specific services that they object to.

Meaning that special people have a right to be served but they do not have a right to demand special service.

So I can't go to Freeport Bakery (which is adamantly pro-gay) and demand they produce a custom cake for a Christian Coalition event.

The net result here is that even with this ruling I expect a lot of smart people to start producing catalogs of their services and products and henceforth being very clear about what custom services they do and do not offer.

That's the best way forward from this point for everyone.

[Tricks]

The question is, will he make a special customized cake for a Christian client. If so, then he's in violation of the Colorado Law, as he is compelled to provide the same service to everyone. One of the Justice's even touched on that.

$1:

By contrast,
the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake
that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple.

If he would make a specialized custom super awesome special time cake for a conventional marriage, the law states he must do it for a same-sex one as well. If they don't like it, challenge the law.

[Thanos]

At that stage if turns from a rights issue into a farce. If that guy doesn't want to do it then go to another bakery because there's probably about five hundred other ones them in the greater Denver area alone that will put their own personal politics on hold and gladly take gay money to make a cake. It's not like there was any lack of choice available to the buyers, which in the end makes this entire scene about nothing more than using the power of social media and the extra-legal rights commissions to beat up on someone (as silly as he is in his own way to refuse their money in the first place) that they don't like.

[BartSimpson]

Listening to the radio this morning a couple more facts surfaced:

1. Phillips has a policy of refusing to make cakes that go against his particular beliefs regardless of who asks for them. As such he refuses to make cakes for Halloween, he does not make cakes with anti-Christian sentiments, and he refuses to make anything sexually suggestive. The denial of the custom gay wedding was consistent with this policy and it is evidence that he does not discriminate against persons but he does select what business he wishes to conduct.

2. The Colorado Commission also got their ass kicked by the Supreme Court because in three previous decisions they had ruled that Christians did not have a right to ask secular bakers to produce cakes that supported an anti-gay marriage measure that was on the ballot in Colorado. In those decisions the commission also evidenced an hostility to Christian viewpoints while making the correct decision that the bakers in those cases were not subject to sanction for their refusal to bake cakes with sentiments that they opposed.

[PluggyRug]

Good ole CNN

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Listening to the radio this morning a couple more facts surfaced:

1. Phillips has a policy of refusing to make cakes that go against his particular beliefs regardless of who asks for them. As such he refuses to make cakes for Halloween, he does not make cakes with anti-Christian sentiments, and he refuses to make anything sexually suggestive. The denial of the custom gay wedding was consistent with this policy and it is evidence that he does not discriminate against persons but he does select what business he wishes to conduct.

What's the source on that? Because if true, then you're right, I'd say he violated nothing.

[Tricks]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Good ole CNN

Poor writing, they mean the ruling was narrow, not that it narrowly won. Classic journalists.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Good ole CNN

Poor writing, they mean the ruling was narrow, not that it narrowly won. Classic journalists.

Exactly right.

A narrow ruling applies just to the case at hand or else the term is a caution to note that the ruling speaks to something that was not obvious in the case.

In this case the ruling was about the way the HRC treated Mr. Phillips and the ruling mostly distanced itself from the cake issue.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Listening to the radio this morning a couple more facts surfaced:

1. Phillips has a policy of refusing to make cakes that go against his particular beliefs regardless of who asks for them. As such he refuses to make cakes for Halloween, he does not make cakes with anti-Christian sentiments, and he refuses to make anything sexually suggestive. The denial of the custom gay wedding was consistent with this policy and it is evidence that he does not discriminate against persons but he does select what business he wishes to conduct.

What's the source on that? Because if true, then you're right, I'd say he violated nothing.

CNN confirms this.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics ... index.html

$1:

Baker emphasizes Christian beliefs

Phillips opened the bakery in 1993, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs.
"I didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith," he said in an interview with CNN last year, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.