Anyone have an update on the gay wedding cake case at the Supreme Court?

[FAUlty Gator]

The two plaintiffs could have simply went someplace else instead of trying to ruin the baker because he disagrees with their lifestyle.

They're total douchebags, IMO.

So, having to nominate one party as "douchebags"...

Do you really think the douche bags are the people who simply wanted a wedding cake made, and not the cretins who wouldn't make it for them because the customers do something in a bedroom miles away from the business that has no bearing on it? The customers who are being refused service for virtually no reason are the douchebags? Really?

 

[Joes Place]

We're also supposed to have freedom of association in this country. If someone wants to have a business that deals exclusively with Christians, I honestly don't have a problem with that.

...but he didn't ADVERTISE that.

 

[TJ8869]

Narrator: "But, indeed, NO ONE was forced to participate in any gay wedding here, something the silly Conservative didn't seem to be able to process through his feeble mind"

Being forced to bake and decorate a custom, artistic cake for the reception is, in fact, a level of participation.

I have made this analogy before but I don’t recall whether you have responded to it. Let’s say you own a print shop. One day a couple of people walk in and tell you they represent a group that is going to be holding a pro-life rally in a few weeks and they want you to make custom signs and banners for them. They will feature graphic depictions of aborted fetuses and the caption “ABORTION IS MURDER!

Should you be required to make these signs and banners for them? Or should you have the option of declining?

 

[Joes Place]

Of course it is.

The government is requiring that he use his artistic skills to endorse an event that he believes to be blasphemous, or else the government will take his property from him.

It's a short walk from there to requiring people to publicly endorse the government, or the president.

They didn't ask him to "endorse" anything. They asked him for a cake.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

If it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, then it's supreme. Certainly a religious belief that we have to throw virgins in the volcano to prevent disaster cannot be allowed in a free society, because it violates the rights of the virgins.

Again, no one is saying that gays be prohibited from purchasing a wedding cake with two grooms on top. What we're saying is that a cake maker cannot be compelled by the government to enter into a contract to provide such a cake. That is clearly a violation of the first amendment. It's not even debatable.

So you are okay with gender discrimination then, as it was pointed out this is. That's acceptable then under the Constitution?

 

[Joes Place]

Being forced to bake and decorate a custom, artistic cake for the reception is, in fact, a level of participation.

No, it is a financial transaction.

 

[pablow]

You don’t have a Constitutional right to start a business.

We don't? . . .

It was the genius of the old common law, grounded in reason, that it grasped that point. And the common-law judges understood a pair of corollaries as well: that property, broadly conceived, separates one individual from another, and that individuals are independent or free to the extent that they have sole or exclusive dominion over what they hold. Indeed, Americans go to work every day to acquire property just so they can be independent.

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato....ato-handbook-policymakers/2009/9/hb111-34.pdf

The United States Supreme Court has recognized doing business as a right -

It was said by Mr. Justice Bradley, in Butchers' Union Company v. Crescent City Company, 111 U.S. 746, 762, in the course of his concurring opinion in that case, that "The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right."

Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 17 S. Ct. 427, 431 (1897)​

And more recently, confirmed -

The Nonresident Lobster Law discriminates against nonresident commercial lobstermen (such as Appellee Volovar) by preventing them from pursuing their livelihoods in the Restricted Area. Quite simply, a nonresident commercial lobsterman may not obtain a permit to take and land lobsters in the Restricted Area while any and all resident commercial lobstermen may obtain such permits. The right to pursue a lawful calling has long been recognized as a fundamental right, see, e.g., Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 41 L. Ed. 832, 17 S. Ct. 427 (1897) ("The 'liberty' mentioned in [the Fourteenth Amendment] . . . is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; [and] to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation . . . ."),

Conn. ex rel. Blumenthal v. Crotty, 346 F.3d 84, 94-95 (2d Cir. 2003)​

 

[The Tradition]

So, having to nominate one party as "douchebags"...

Do you really think the douche bags are the people who simply wanted a wedding cake made, and not the cretins who wouldn't make it for them because the customers do something in a bedroom miles away from the business that has no bearing on it? The customers who are being refused service for virtually no reason are the douchebags? Really?

If someone clearly doesn't want to serve you, WHY would you demand service from that person?

Again, this didn't happen in some one stop light town and he was the only baker in the three county area. This was in DENVER. I'm sure there is no shortage of bakers who would've happily baked this couple a cake.

This couple was out to make a point, not get a cake, and that makes them douchebags.

 

[TJ8869]

No, it is a financial transaction.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

[The Tradition]

No, it is a financial transaction.

That doesn't mean it's not participation. He didn't want their money in exchange for participation.

 

[IAHawk2011]

If someone clearly doesn't want to serve you, WHY would you demand service from that person?

Again, this didn't happen in some one stop light town and he was the only baker in the three county area. This was in DENVER. I'm sure there is no shortage of bakers who would've happily baked this couple a cake.

This couple was out to make a point, not get a cake, and that makes them douchebags.

That is the way many civil rights cases arise. Of course this couple could have found a different baker, but what about the gay couple living in BFE, North Dakota with only one option in a 50 mile radius?

 

[The Tradition]

That is the way many civil rights cases arise. Of course this couple could have found a different baker, but what about the gay couple living in BFE, North Dakota with only one option in a 50 mile radius?

Then maybe that baker might be required to participate because he has a monopoly on the local wedding cake market.

 

[IAHawk2011]

Then maybe that baker might be required to participate because he has a monopoly on the local wedding cake market.

Do you see the complications that would arise in administering the rule in that manner?

 

[TJ8869]

That is the way many civil rights cases arise. Of course this couple could have found a different baker, but what about the gay couple living in BFE, North Dakota with only one option in a 50 mile radius?

For one thing, these two guys flew all the way from Colorado to Massachusetts to get married. I think they might have been willing to drive 50 miles for a cake.

 

[IAHawk2011]

For one thing, these two guys flew all the way from Colorado to Massachusetts to get married. I think they might have been willing to drive 50 miles for a cake.

Again, that’s not really the point. What this specific couple was or was not willing to do has no bearings on what other gay couples are willing to do in other situations.

 

[TJ8869]

They didn't ask him to "endorse" anything. They asked him for a cake.

Jack Phillips isn't just cranking out Walmart "Summa --- Laude" graduation cakes. Every cake he makes is a custom work of art. Some of his cakes are depicted at the bottom of this post.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my earlier question about making signs and banners for a pro-life rally. While you're crafting your response to that query, ponder this one as well. Suppose you are a sculptor. One day you are contacted by two members of the George W Bush Library in Dallas. They want you to create a bust of former VP Dick Cheney to be displayed in the library.

Should you be forced to do it whether you want to or not? Or should you have the option of saying "no, thank you"?

 

[The Tradition]

Do you see the complications that would arise in administering the rule in that manner?

No. We enforce rules against monopolies all the time.

 

[IAHawk2011]

No. We enforce rules against monopolies all the time.

Interesting. I took you for a “small government” type, now you want the federal government to regulate bakeries?

 

[BrianNole09]

Democrats do NOT believe in freedom. They only support freedom when it suits their agenda.

 

[The Tradition]

Interesting. I took you for a “small government” type, now you want the federal government to regulate monopolies?

FTFY.

And we already do that.

 

[TJ8869]

Again, that’s not really the point. What this specific couple was or was not willing to do has no bearings on what other gay couples are willing to do in other situations.

It alludes to my earlier point about the state of Colorado refusing to let two gay men get married, but levying a huge fine against Phillips for not baking a cake for the occasion when they did get married.

 

[IAHawk2011]

It alludes to my earlier point about the state of Colorado refusing to let two gay men get married, but levying a huge fine against Phillips for not baking a cake for the occasion when they did get married.

That is nothing new or noteworthy.

Heart of Atlanta Motel (1964)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)

 

[pablow]

Suppose a store owner refused to sell rubbers to a gay couple claiming sex between men violated his religious beliefs. Well, seems to me that nobody making Mr. Store-owner have anal sex with a man, so his religious freedoms are not threatened - even if he knows the couple is going to be "sinning."

Now, making a custom order wedding cake is not so benign. There is an element of conscription that could violate the cake maker's freedoms.

If I had to guess, this is where the court goes.

 

[naturalmwa]

Except no religious text supports any of that.

BS

 

[TJ8869]

That is nothing new or noteworthy.

Heart of Atlanta Motel (1964)
Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Neither of those cases is analogous to this one.

 

[TJ8869]

Suppose a store owner refused to sell rubbers to a gay couple claiming sex between men violated his religious beliefs. Well, seems to me that nobody making Mr. Store-owner have anal sex with a man, so his religious freedoms are not threatened - even if he knows the couple is going to be "sinning."

Now, making a custom order wedding cake is not so benign. There is an element of conscription that could violate the cake maker's freedoms.

If I had to guess, this is where the court goes.

The key distinction is the phrase "business of public accommodation". If you run a restaurant and two gay men want to sit down and eat lunch, they have every right to do so. If two gay men want you to cater their wedding reception then that no longer is a "public accommodation" in my mind.

Jack Phillips sells cakes and tortes out of a display case at his shop and he is perfectly willing to sell those to homosexuals. He even makes birthday cakes for homosexual customers. He simply chooses not to create custom wedding cakes for gay couples.

That is a far cry from "Sharia Law" that JP and Menace keep invoking.

 

[SotaHawk87]

When did I play the Sharia Law card?

You didnt. They've been reduced to the "I know you are but what am I" game..

 

[LuciousBDragon]

Jack Phillips isn't just cranking out Walmart "Summa --- Laude" graduation cakes. Every cake he makes is a custom work of art. Some of his cakes are depicted at the bottom of this post.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my earlier question about making signs and banners for a pro-life rally. While you're crafting your response to that query, ponder this one as well. Suppose you are a sculptor. One day you are contacted by two members of the George W Bush Library in Dallas. They want you to create a bust of former VP Dick Cheney to be displayed in the library.

Should you be forced to do it whether you want to or not? Or should you have the option of saying "no, thank you"?

I'm afraid you are making too much sense for HROT to handle TJ. The level of correct logic you are positing here is way too much for these rubes to handle thus no intelligent responses. Bravo Sir!

 

[IAHawk2011]

Neither of those cases is analogous to this one.

Loosely speaking - Discrimination against blacks was outlawed before laws prohibiting interracial marriage were.

Whereas here, discrimination against gays (the Colorado law) was outlawed before laws preventing gay marriage were.

As I said, this dichotomy is not new. I’m not sure how you think it has any legal significance.

 

[TJ8869]

Loosely speaking - Discrimination against blacks was outlawed before laws prohibiting interracial marriage were.

Whereas here, discrimination against gays (the Colorado law) was outlawed before laws preventing gay marriage were.

As I said, this dichotomy is not new. I’m not sure how you think it has any legal significance.

Was anyone prosecuted or fined for refusing to marry interracial couples or provide servies for their weddings, by the same state that refused to allow those couples to marry? Because that would be a good analogy.

The difference is that you are posting examples of state laws that contravened federal laws. The Colorado case is an example of a state fining one of its citizens for refusing to provide a service for a same-sex wedding, even though the state of Colorado banned same-sex marriage.

 

[theiacowtipper]

The key distinction is the phrase "business of public accommodation". If you run a restaurant and two gay men want to sit down and eat lunch, they have every right to do so. If two gay men want you to cater their wedding reception then that no longer is a "public accommodation" in my mind.

Jack Phillips sells cakes and tortes out of a display case at his shop and he is perfectly willing to sell those to homosexuals. He even makes birthday cakes for homosexual customers. He simply chooses not to create custom wedding cakes for gay couples.

That is a far cry from "Sharia Law" that JP and Menace keep invoking.

Does a gay home owner have a responsibility to rent to a gay couple? What if every homeowner in a small town bands together to effectively drive the couple out of town? To me, it seems that the central argument here boils down to sex. Not butt sexxxx, but make/female. The baker is choosing to sell/not sell his product based on the sex of the patrons. Is that not against the rules? I understand that may be an infringement of his religious liberties, but where is the balance. Is it more of an inconvenience to the baker or to the customer?

Someone posted pictures of the cakes in question. You might not be able to get a comparable cake anywhere else.

 

[BrianNole09]

I'm afraid you are making too much sense for HROT to handle TJ. The level of correct logic you are positing here is way too much for these rubes to handle thus no intelligent responses. Bravo Sir!

But...bigotry!!!!!!

 

[ANYCHawk]

the point is you are a bigot who hates liberty and enjoys discriminating against people with religious beliefs.

I know nowhere in the bible that says you hate someone who is gay or refuse service or what not.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

Jack Phillips isn't just cranking out Walmart "Summa --- Laude" graduation cakes. Every cake he makes is a custom work of art. Some of his cakes are depicted at the bottom of this post.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my earlier question about making signs and banners for a pro-life rally. While you're crafting your response to that query, ponder this one as well. Suppose you are a sculptor. One day you are contacted by two members of the George W Bush Library in Dallas. They want you to create a bust of former VP Dick Cheney to be displayed in the library.

Should you be forced to do it whether you want to or not? Or should you have the option of saying "no, thank you"?

I'm afraid you are making too much sense for HROT to handle TJ. The level of correct logic you are positing here is way too much for these rubes to handle thus no intelligent responses. Bravo Sir!

But...bigotry!!!!!!

Um, no. It's a stupid argument and easily refuted for one simple reason: being gay is something someone is born being, being pro-life is a definite choice. It's not that hard unless you are being as intentionally obtuse as you are.

 

[TJ8869]

Um, no. It's a stupid argument and easily refuted for one simple reason: being gay is something someone is born being, being pro-life is a definite choice. It's not that hard unless you are being as intentionally obtuse as you are.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[BrianNole09]

Um, no. It's a stupid argument and easily refuted for one simple reason: being gay is something someone is born being, being pro-life is a definite choice. It's not that hard unless you are being as intentionally obtuse as you are.

First, do you have solid scientific evidence that all gay people are born gay?

Second, even if these two gentlemen were born gay, no one forced them to have a wedding...or to try to ruin a baker because he didn't believe in their choice.

It's scary how you liberals want to ruin anyone that disagrees with your values...you clearly have no respect for freedom.

 

[naturalmwa]

If someone clearly doesn't want to serve you, WHY would you demand service from that person?

Again, this didn't happen in some one stop light town and he was the only baker in the three county area. This was in DENVER. I'm sure there is no shortage of bakers who would've happily baked this couple a cake.

This couple was out to make a point, not get a cake, and that makes them douchebags.

You already answered this question with your Madison quote that rights are a form of property. If you let the Baker steal your rights, you lose them. Constant vigilance is the work these heroes are doing.

 

[Joes Place]

As I said, this dichotomy is not new. I’m not sure how you think it has any legal significance.

Because "Christians" should be able to make their personal religious beliefs decide "law", bro.

 

[Joes Place]

It's scary how you faux-Christians liberals want to ruin anyone that disagrees with your values...you clearly have no respect for freedom.

I know.

 

[Joes Place]

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be. In this case, they are.