ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court Seems Ready to Back Web Designer Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage (Article)

This is complete bullshit. It's not that at all. You're trying to spin that the cake was not custom but it was. Whether there was a template or not is irrelevant, the item to be created was to be unique to this couple. Your diatribe in this post simply exposes how much you will try to twist and spin because your base argument is being challenged.

This is why it's hard to take any of your argument, even the ones I agree with, seriously.
LOL...so if he bakes you a sheet cake...the same sheet cake he's made dozens and dozens of times before...he's doing a custom, unique-to-you sheet cake because it's for YOU? This is good for laughs at this point. It's not good for much else.
 
FFS - the refusal in question is about the message. Again, the point you and tarheel don't want to address is that a straight person asking for a gay wedding cake would be refused as well. A gay person asking for a straight wedding cake would not. The discrimination is against the message, not the people themselves. It's still despicable but not illegal.
What does a straight couple asking on behalf of a gay couple have to do with it? If marriage is a message, and bakers can refuse service for that message, then you are basically arguing that bakers can also refuse service for black people, Jewish people, Muslim people, hell even Christians if they see fit. That's a ridiculous argument to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50
LOL...so if he bakes you a sheet cake...the same sheet cake he's made dozens and dozens of times before...he's doing a custom, unique-to-you sheet cake because it's for YOU? This is good for laughs at this point. It's not good for much else.
Even if it is custom, so what? So the baker will make custom cakes for straight people, but not gay? White people but not black people? How is this not discrimination? Riley's arguments in this thread are garbage.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
???? An event doing what? An event celebrating a marriage which is, at the core, a message that these two people are united. As far as your questions, I assume none of them had big enough issues with it to refuse the business.
Let's go with the message of 2 people be united. I assume you believe the union is for life, so what kind of message is it when one or both of the people were previously married and divorced? Do you think the website designer should be able to refuse to create a website for those weddings?
 
A business can be openly racist, promote racist ideas and have racist employees. It just can't discriminate when it comes to hiring or services provided. That's interesting.

Why? (I'm coming at this from the perspective of why the law existing at all)

A) We have multiple values; something along the lines of freedom of expression, B) also something along the lines of caring that citizens can participate fully in society. (securing employment and access to services and good are pretty important)

I'd say item B came to be in response to widespread discrimination in our recent past. So it's tied back to the power a business (or businesses) possess in the marketplace.

If it were so that racist business practices were rare and frowned upon... the free-market essentially disincentivizes and takes care of the issue itself. But that wasn't the case.

The dynamics surrounding a small (non powerful) business that openly discriminates racially in a very societally unpopular way provides a very different context to consider when wondering about how we should regulate (if at all) this type of discrimination.

The business is small and not powerful; it possesses unpopular ideas.

That's why someone might argue that Jimmy's Racist Chicken gets to exist -- it's relatively harmless and we can let marketplace of ideas sort the issue out.
 
Last edited:
Oh, i dunno, I think you are all doing what Justice Gorsuch hates in oral argument: you are resisting the hypotheticals. If one can't answer the hard questions, you can't just change the questions.
What hypothetical? He bakes wedding cake #342 for straight couples. A gay couple comes in because his work has been recommended and asks to see his books. They might choose the same cake. He tells them he won't bake ANY wedding cake for them because he doesn't agree that gay couples should be able to marry.

What's the hypothetical? Here's one that Riley has yet to respond to straight up...can he categorically refuse to bake a wedding cake for black couples? Interracial couples? Jewish couples? Muslim couples?
 
Riley has gone full TJ here. Never go full TJ. ;)
hey-whoa-mikey-day.gif
 
Holy shit....so you're saying they CAN refuse service to a Jewish couple or a black couple or an interracial couple.

He's claiming THE CAKE is the message...no writing on it...no male/male cake topper...no Star of David....no black couple or interracial couple cake topper...not one thing on the cake that identifies who it's for.

71vC9dKiJ9L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
0006478_interracial-wedding-cake-topper-braided-groom-and-half-updo-bride-wedding-cake-topper_5500.jpeg



Just the wedding cake. He objects to the act of baking a generic wedding cake for gay couples. How you can't see that as discriminatory is...baffling. I can't understand how you keep missing this.
You're not doing your argument any favors by twisting and spinning things. Nor putting words in my mouth. I said there is also a question whether someone could refuse to make a Jewish or Muslim cake because of religious freedom. There's no religious rationale for not making an interracial cake that I am aware of.

FTR - I think it's idiotic to have a law that allows people to refuse service based on "religious beliefs" but it's what we have. The restaurant that doesn't want to serve religious zealots and the cake baker who doesn't want to create a gay wedding cake are within their rights as they stand. It's definitely a slippery slope.

Regardless, I think the woman web designer and the gay couple are both pursuing this fir purely political reasons.
 
So what? The gays can find a different biz that will serve them.
This is the idiocy that makes taking a bit more conservative look at an issue so abhorrent. The stink of being associated with a moron like Speedway and others..... I need a shower.
 
LOL...so if he bakes you a sheet cake...the same sheet cake he's made dozens and dozens of times before...he's doing a custom, unique-to-you sheet cake because it's for YOU? This is good for laughs at this point. It's not good for much else.
No - again you're spinning wildly.

"This is about not creating a message and a government forcing me to," Phillips said. "I serve everybody who comes in my store. I just don’t create ... every cake that people ask me to create."

...

"What we're asking the Court to look at is creative professionals, should they be forced to violate the First Amendment, our deeply-held religious beliefs, to create art that violates those beliefs. Which is more important?" he said before the court’s decision. "What I do, I paint on cakes. I sculpt cakes. It's clearly art. It's clearly protected."

Phillips said he couldn’t just create a generic wedding cake available to any customer.

"That would be side-stepping the issue. That’s still the government forcing me to create cakes for ceremonies that go against my faith," Phillips said.

Mullins said he felt the issue was about whether he and Craig were treated differently based on sexual orientation.

"This isn’t about a cake," Mullins said. "It’s about the right of the people to receive equal service at a place of business that anyone else would."


The baker was not going to make a wedding cake for a same sex marriage for ANYONE, regardless of whether they are gay or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ8869
What does a straight couple asking on behalf of a gay couple have to do with it? If marriage is a message, and bakers can refuse service for that message, then you are basically arguing that bakers can also refuse service for black people, Jewish people, Muslim people, hell even Christians if they see fit. That's a ridiculous argument to make.
No. That's incorrect. I could be going into that bakery to ask him to make a cake for my daughters same sex marriage and he would refuse based on his religious beliefs. There's nobody that he would make that cake for - that's not discrimination according to the law.

You are also conflating refusing to provide a specific service with refusing to provide service at all. One of the gay men in this case said:

"This isn’t about a cake," Mullins said. "It’s about the right of the people to receive equal service at a place of business that anyone else would."

They received the exact same service as anyone else would have.
 
Even if it is custom, so what? So the baker will make custom cakes for straight people, but not gay? White people but not black people? How is this not discrimination? Riley's arguments in this thread are garbage.
You're wrong. He would make custom cakes for anyone, just not one that celebrates gay marriage.
 
Let's go with the message of 2 people be united. I assume you believe the union is for life, so what kind of message is it when one or both of the people were previously married and divorced? Do you think the website designer should be able to refuse to create a website for those weddings?
It took me a while to figure out what you are trying to get at. Yes, I think the web designer could choose to refuse that business as well. It's no different, to me, that the Catholic church refusing to marry someone in their church. I think it's stupid, but it's their right as the law stands.
 
What hypothetical? He bakes wedding cake #342 for straight couples. A gay couple comes in because his work has been recommended and asks to see his books. They might choose the same cake. He tells them he won't bake ANY wedding cake for them because he doesn't agree that gay couples should be able to marry.

What's the hypothetical? Here's one that Riley has yet to respond to straight up...can he categorically refuse to bake a wedding cake for black couples? Interracial couples? Jewish couples? Muslim couples?
You get your facts wrong as well - the couple came in with a binder they wanted to review with the baker. He told them he doesn't do wedding cakes for same sex marriages and they stormed out.

The way the laws are he can't refuse all service to people based on race or religion but he does have the ability to refuse to create specific items. I think it gets a LOT stickier if the hypothetical has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And again, I think our laws should be changed so that there are no excuses available based on religion.
 
IIRC, Phillips said that if the gay couple had requested a birthday cake then he would have made it for them.

He wasn’t refusing to serve gay customers, he was refusing to provide a specific service (same-sex wedding cake) to anyone.

And I still find it supremely ironic that at the time this incident happened, same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado. The couple had to travel to Massachusetts to get married. The state of Colorado fined Phillips for refusing to make a wedding cake for a marriage that the state of Colorado neither allowed nor recognized.
 
You get your facts wrong as well - the couple came in with a binder they wanted to review with the baker. He told them he doesn't do wedding cakes for same sex marriages and they stormed out.

The way the laws are he can't refuse all service to people based on race or religion but he does have the ability to refuse to create specific items. I think it gets a LOT stickier if the hypothetical has nothing to do with religious beliefs. And again, I think our laws should be changed so that there are no excuses available based on religion.
No one is trying to force a Catholic or any church to marry someone that doesn't adhere to their religious beliefs, but the website creator is not a religious institution. The law in Colorado says you can't refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, what US law or constitutional right do you think Colorado is violating by requiring a business open to the public to treat all customers equally? If it violates free speech then what would stop a business from discriminating against any group they don't like?
 
You're not doing your argument any favors by twisting and spinning things. Nor putting words in my mouth. I said there is also a question whether someone could refuse to make a Jewish or Muslim cake because of religious freedom. There's no religious rationale for not making an interracial cake that I am aware of.
This is YOUR argument and I'm not twisting or spinning a thing. That falls on you. I want you to explain how a baker or a web designer or any other business person is perfectly ok refusing to serve ONE protected class but refusing to serve any other protected class is somehow problematic. There's no haziness there. And FTR, miscegnation laws were Biblically based. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
FTR - I think it's idiotic to have a law that allows people to refuse service based on "religious beliefs" but it's what we have. The restaurant that doesn't want to serve religious zealots and the cake baker who doesn't want to create a gay wedding cake are within their rights as they stand. It's definitely a slippery slope.
*sigh* The laws allowing a business to refuse to sell something based on their religious objections cover things like refusing to sell morning after pills. They refuse to sell those to EVERYONE. They are not allowed to sell those products to everyone BUT those in a protected class. Yet another case where you are misinformed.
Regardless, I think the woman web designer and the gay couple are both pursuing this fir purely political reasons.
Irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50
It took me a while to figure out what you are trying to get at. Yes, I think the web designer could choose to refuse that business as well. It's no different, to me, that the Catholic church refusing to marry someone in their church. I think it's stupid, but it's their right as the law stands.
Divorced people are not a protected class. How many times does this have to be pointed out?
LOL - you only think that because your argument has a fatal flaw that I've exposed. The baker would not perform this service for anyone.
The baker literally performs this service for EVERYONE except gay couples. It is completely irrelevant that a straight person came in to actually buy the cake...that argument is idiotic on its face. It's the gay couple he's refusing to serve regardless of the proxy making the purchase. You've exposed nothing but your total lack of understanding.
 
IIRC, Phillips said that if the gay couple had requested a birthday cake then he would have made it for them.

He wasn’t refusing to serve gay customers, he was refusing to provide a specific service (same-sex wedding cake) to anyone.
So if you went in and asked for a birthday cake and he refused based on your protected status but offered to sell you a box of doughnuts off the shelf...that's service?
And I still find it supremely ironic that at the time this incident happened, same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado. The couple had to travel to Massachusetts to get married. The state of Colorado fined Phillips for refusing to make a wedding cake for a marriage that the state of Colorado neither allowed nor recognized.
Ironic but irrelevant. The law at the time offered protected status based on sexual orientation.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
No one is trying to force a Catholic or any church to marry someone that doesn't adhere to their religious beliefs, but the website creator is not a religious institution. The law in Colorado says you can't refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation, what US law or constitutional right do you think Colorado is violating by requiring a business open to the public to treat all customers equally? If it violates free speech then what would stop a business from discriminating against any group they don't like?
And that's one of the points - they are trying to force a man to go against his religious beliefs but not applying the same rigor to the Catholic church. That's inconsistent at best.

What you and others continue to get wrong is the notion that service was denied because of sexual orientation. It wasn't. People of any sexual orientation would be denied that service by this cake maker. Everyone is equal.
 
So if you went in and asked for a birthday cake and he refused based on your protected status but offered to sell you a box of doughnuts off the shelf...that's service?
I think you missed the point. If a same-sex couple wanted him to make a custom birthday cake for them, he would have done it. If a same-sex couple wanted him to make a graduation cake for them, he would have done it.

He wasn’t refusing to serve gay people in general. He refused to provide a very specific service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
This is YOUR argument and I'm not twisting or spinning a thing. That falls on you. I want you to explain how a baker or a web designer or any other business person is perfectly ok refusing to serve ONE protected class but refusing to serve any other protected class is somehow problematic. There's no haziness there. And FTR, miscegnation laws were Biblically based. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

*sigh* The laws allowing a business to refuse to sell something based on their religious objections cover things like refusing to sell morning after pills. They refuse to sell those to EVERYONE. They are not allowed to sell those products to everyone BUT those in a protected class. Yet another case where you are misinformed.

Irrelevant.
FFS - you said it yourself, "They refuse to sell those to EVERYONE" - SO DID THE CAKE BAKER! He didn't offer to sell same sex wedding cakes to others and not to a gay couple. JFC.
 
Divorced people are not a protected class. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

The baker literally performs this service for EVERYONE except gay couples. It is completely irrelevant that a straight person came in to actually buy the cake...that argument is idiotic on its face. It's the gay couple he's refusing to serve regardless of the proxy making the purchase. You've exposed nothing but your total lack of understanding.
Religious freedom is. SMFH. And the church will refuse to perform a same sex wedding.

The baker DOES NOT make same sex wedding cakes for anyone. Here's a simple yes or no question for you - if a straight person asked for a same sex wedding cake from this baker would he make it? Remember, it's yes or no, stick to that.

If so, it's illegal. If not, it's stupid and abhorrent but not illegal.
 
I think you missed the point. If a same-sex couple wanted him to make a custom birthday cake for them, he would have done it. If a same-sex couple wanted him to make a graduation cake for them, he would have done it.

He wasn’t refusing to serve gay people in general. He refused to provide a very specific service.
But it's a service he provides to others. You can't pick and choose what services you provide based on protected status. Could he legally refuse to provide a wedding cake for black couples based on his religious beliefs?
 
But it's a service he provides to others. You can't pick and choose what services you provide based on protected status. Could he legally refuse to provide a wedding cake for black couples based on his religious beliefs?
Which religion considers black marriage a sin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
And that's one of the points - they are trying to force a man to go against his religious beliefs but not applying the same rigor to the Catholic church. That's inconsistent at best.

What you and others continue to get wrong is the notion that service was denied because of sexual orientation. It wasn't. People of any sexual orientation would be denied that service by this cake maker. Everyone is equal.
My points have not been about the baker, I'm talking about the current case with the website designer. What's to stop her from refusing to design a website for other groups with which she doesn't agree.
 
Which religion considers black marriage a sin?
Maybe not black marriages, but religion has been used in the past against interracial marriages. Segrationists used religion to justify their beliefs less than 100 years ago.
 
Link

Got any links to any religious texts that denounce black marriage?
Were you aware that the term "homosexual" didn't exist until the 19th century. Yet here it is supposedly found in a 2,000 year old book. Odd, huh?

As for black people, the case has been Biblically advanced that they are subhuman based on the curse of Ham. They are, therefore, not allowed to marry in the eyes of God. That is my sincerely held Biblical belief. I don't have to serve black people.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk
But it's a service he provides to others. You can't pick and choose what services you provide based on protected status. Could he legally refuse to provide a wedding cake for black couples based on his religious beliefs?
No, just no. It's not a service he provides for others. He could, and would, refuse to provide a same sex wedding cake for a black couple, it doesn't make him racist. JFC.
 
My friend had broken both legs and severed nerves, vertebrae, femorals and was wheelchair bound. He loved the movie Mac and Me, in particular the McDonalds dance scene and the cliff scene. He wanted a cake that had Mac flying off the cliff for his last birthday. The cake shop refused and he was pretty bummed. So we made him a cake ourselves. Do we have recourse to sue them?
 
My points have not been about the baker, I'm talking about the current case with the website designer. What's to stop her from refusing to design a website for other groups with which she doesn't agree.
Nothing as long as she does it for everyone. She doesn't have to make a BLM website, for instance.
 
Were you aware that the term "homosexual" didn't exist until the 19th century. Yet here it is supposedly found in a 2,000 year old book. Odd, huh?
Lol. That seemed like a viable counterpoint in your head? Did you even read the link I provided? Nowhere in that link does the specific word “homosexual” exist. But the act of homosexuality is most certainly referenced.

As for black people, the case has been Biblically advanced that they are subhuman based on the curse of Ham. They are, therefore, not allowed to marry in the eyes of God. That is my sincerely held Biblical belief. I don't have to serve black people.
Go ahead and open a business that refuses to serve black people. Good luck making it to the end of your first month of operations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasyHawk
Maybe not black marriages, but religion has been used in the past against interracial marriages. Segrationists used religion to justify their beliefs less than 100 years ago.
And that should be the case for gay marriage but according to our laws, it's not.
 
ADVERTISEMENT