Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case

Pinky said:
@Sunny
I get a 500 Server Error with that link.
Click to expand...
Here's the bottom line.

Acting on complaints filed by Mullins and Craig, the Colorado Civil Rights pision determined that Cakeshop had violated Colorado law prohibiting public accommodations from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or s e x u a l orientation. That ruling was affirmed by a Colorado Administrative Court judge, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and, in August, 2015, by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

After the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Cakeshop asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review, which it has just done.
 

I don't know much about this case, but I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court will make a FABULOUS decision either way!
 
I can see both sides of this argument. It's a tough call. I think business owners should have some right of refusal. If someone comes in wearing a shirt that says "I'm a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan, you should be able to point them to the door. On the other hand, if someone is Jewish, or Italian, or gay, it seems like you could just do business, and not get emotionally involved.
However, I think it is still the case that a priest in the Catholic church will only perform a ceremony if one or both are catholic because that is the long standing rule of their church. You would think, that if you weren't catholic, you would just go to anyone else who doesn't have a problem with it.
It's like girls wanting to be admitted to boy scouts, and vice versa. Why not just go to the one designated for you. The same applies to bathrooms. It's worked for years to just go into the one that is your birth gender.
I dunno, but I think even if they win the case, the bakery is going to give them a cake that will cause diarrhea for a week, so it will probably be a sad ending.
I suppose anyone going into business should familiarize themself with the laws, and if they can't abide by them, then maybe they should consider something else. It's a crazy world, and I guess it's hard for dinosaurs to get used to.
 
bobcat48 said:
On the other hand, if someone is Jewish, or Italian, or gay, it seems like you could just do business, and not get emotionally involved.
Click to expand...
I wish that were the case... then we wouldn't need laws and court cases like this one. If it were my bakery I would only discriminate against those who couldn't pay...

However I suppose I'd draw the line at the KKK cake...
 


istock-527373183.jpg

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it has granted review in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – the Colorado case involving a Denver bakery that cited religious beliefs and refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple contrary to Colorado’s civil rights law.
Lambda Legal submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case for Lambda Legal, One Colorado and One Colorado Education Fund, with assistance from John McHugh and Anthony Giacomini of the Denver-based firm Reilly Pozner LLP.
From wedding cakes and flowers to haircuts and lodging, we are seeing some business owners claiming religious rights to turn away LGBT people, ignoring that the public marketplace must be open to everyone regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs. Legal arguments trying to win new religious rights to reject customers easily can open the floodgates of religiously motivated discrimination.
This case is about a same-sex couple and baked goods, but its implications are far reaching because religious beliefs vary widely.
What if medical professionals decide for religious reasons not to care for a pregnant woman because she isn’t married? Or, if an employer believes that men should be the head of the household and so pays men more than women? Or if a landlord believes that gender is determined at birth and its expression must never change, and so refuses to rent to transgender people?
Courts that have considered the arguments pressed by the bakery in this case consistently have come to the same conclusion: the Constitution does not give anyone the right to harm others based on religious beliefs. And laws requiring business people to follow civil rights laws when selling goods or services do not violate free speech rights. These basic principles have been settled for decades and we hope this Supreme Court will reaffirm them without creating anti-LGBT exceptions.
This case actually involves the exact concerns that Lambda Legal raised during the confirmation hearings for newly-installed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch about his Court of Appeals opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, in which he ignored Supreme Court precedent and catered to the religious beliefs of employers, trumping federal law and not even acknowledging the harmful impacts on workers.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the appeal of a 2012 case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Denver-based bakery on behalf of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple who sought to purchase a cake for their wedding reception.
At that time, Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
Acting on complaints filed by Mullins and Craig, the Colorado Civil Rights pision determined that Cakeshop had violated Colorado law prohibiting public accommodations from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. That ruling was affirmed by a Colorado Administrative Court judge, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and, in August, 2015, by the Colorado Court of Appeals.
After the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case, Cakeshop asked the U.S. Supreme Court to grant review, which it has just done.
 
bobcat48 said:
I can see both sides of this argument. It's a tough call. I think business owners should have some right of refusal. If someone comes in wearing a shirt that says "I'm a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan, you should be able to point them to the door. On the other hand, if someone is Jewish, or Italian, or gay, it seems like you could just do business, and not get emotionally involved.
However, I think it is still the case that a priest in the Catholic church will only perform a ceremony if one or both are catholic because that is the long standing rule of their church. You would think, that if you weren't catholic, you would just go to anyone else who doesn't have a problem with it.
It's like girls wanting to be admitted to boy scouts, and vice versa. Why not just go to the one designated for you. The same applies to bathrooms. It's worked for years to just go into the one that is your birth gender.
I dunno, but I think even if they win the case, the bakery is going to give them a cake that will cause diarrhea for a week, so it will probably be a sad ending.
I suppose anyone going into business should familiarize themself with the laws, and if they can't abide by them, then maybe they should consider something else. It's a crazy world, and I guess it's hard for dinosaurs to get used to.
Click to expand...
I agree, Bobcat. While I think the baker is wrong (assuming that the plaintiffs are real people and this is not just a test case), how would I feel about a Jewish baker being forced to bake a cake for the local Proud Boys or Nazi party, with a big swastika on top? What a slippery slope this is!

I also wondered why anyone would want to order their wedding cake from someone who has expressed his dislike and disapproval of them. Who knows what he would put in that cake? In any case, he probably wouldn't exactly knock himself out creating a masterpiece.

If I were them, I'd find a friendlier bake shop. As a social or legal principle, I'm really not sure who is right.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I thought it was the same case, although it had been decided in the state of Colorado. There was a lawsuit or something, that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
Sunny said:
Yes, I thought it was the same case, although it had been decided in the state of Colorado. There was a lawsuit or something, that made it all the way to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yes, the case I cited in post 7 was also from Colorado. That case however was filed in Federal Court initially, whereas the Cake case was filed in State Court.
 
Last edited:
Yes, both LGBT and the state of Colorado were trying to force individuals to do something against their personal beliefs.

Whether you agree with one side or the other it basically comes down to whether you think it's ok for government to force an individual to do something against their own beliefs.

Of course, the decision has been made and it is final. At least it's final until another case makes it's way through the courts and puts things in a different light.

I'm glad to see that some here see the catch in this. While you might support LGBT in forcing a Christian baker to make an LGBT cake or a Christian designer to design for an LGBT wedding, some here recognize that they wouldn't want the KKK to be able to force a baker or a designer to make a cake with a burning cross on it.

Personally, I don't want the government to be able to force anyone to act against their principles. It would be just as wrong to force a gay baker to make a Christian wedding cake with a cross on it, if he didn't believe in doing so, as it was to try to force the Christian baker.

Again, the Constitution protects individual Americans from the government.
 
Myrtle said:
Yes, both LGBT and the state of Colorado were trying to force individuals to do something against their personal beliefs.

Whether you agree with one side or the other it basically comes down to whether you think it's ok for government to force an individual to do something against their own beliefs.

Of course, the decision has been made and it is final. At least it's final until another case makes it's way through the courts and puts things in a different light.

I'm glad to see that some here see the catch in this. While you might support LGBT in forcing a Christian baker to make an LGBT cake or a Christian designer to design for an LGBT wedding, some here recognize that they wouldn't want the KKK to be able to force a baker or a designer to make a cake with a burning cross on it.

Personally, I don't want the government to be able to force anyone to act against their principles. It would be just as wrong to force a gay baker to make a Christian wedding cake with a cross on it, if he didn't believe in doing so, as it was to try to force the Christian baker.

Again, the Constitution protects individual Americans from the government.
Click to expand...
There’s a huge difference between feeling animosity between a gay couple marrying and a group of people who capture coloured people and burn them to a stake.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
There’s a huge difference between feeling animosity between a gay couple marrying and a group of people who capture coloured people and burn them to a stake.
Click to expand...
I know that and it wasn't my example. It was an example brought up by someone earlier in the thread who recognized that the legal principle could apply to things other than an LGBT cake. It was post #5 by Bobcat and he obviously realized the difference too.
 
Been There said:
Why would I want someone to bake me any kind of cake that doesn't want to do it for whatever reason? To prove a point? No, I will take my money somewhere else and have peace of mind that the cake is OK to eat and no one will get sick. But, to each his own.
Click to expand...
There have been a number of these cases brought by LGBT in an effort to force the businesses to comply with their wishes or shut down. I would have gone across the street to a different baker but this was political. I expect some people in this thread would have tried to force the businesses too.

I'm wondering what comes next. There may be civil suits filed by the businesses to recapture what all this has cost them for legal defense.
 
bobcat48 said:
I can see both sides of this argument. It's a tough call. I think business owners should have some right of refusal. If someone comes in wearing a shirt that says "I'm a proud member of the Klu Klux Klan, you should be able to point them to the door. On the other hand, if someone is Jewish, or Italian, or gay, it seems like you could just do business, and not get emotionally involved.
However, I think it is still the case that a priest in the Catholic church will only perform a ceremony if one or both are catholic because that is the long standing rule of their church. You would think, that if you weren't catholic, you would just go to anyone else who doesn't have a problem with it.
It's like girls wanting to be admitted to boy scouts, and vice versa. Why not just go to the one designated for you. The same applies to bathrooms. It's worked for years to just go into the one that is your birth gender.
I dunno, but I think even if they win the case, the bakery is going to give them a cake that will cause diarrhea for a week, so it will probably be a sad ending.
I suppose anyone going into business should familiarize themself with the laws, and if they can't abide by them, then maybe they should consider something else. It's a crazy world, and I guess it's hard for dinosaurs to get used to.
Click to expand...
I love your comments
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top