Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case

The link in post #15 leads to a 2013 thread which references the Advocate about the baker losing an earlier case in Colorado. That's another point and the reason why there can be so much confusion and why it's so easy to get things mixed up. The cases start locally and work their way up through appellate courts to the Supreme Court which makes the final decision. It can take years as you can see. That was 10 years ago and it's just been settled.
 
Last edited:
Myrtle said:
The link in post #15 leads to a 2013 thread which references the Advocate about the baker losing an earlier case in Colorado. That's another point and the reason why there can be so much confusion and why it's so easy to get things mixed up. The cases start locally and work their way up through appellate courts to the Supreme Court which makes the final decision. It can take years as you can see. That was 10 years ago and it's just been settled.
Click to expand...
No, it was just not settled. It was decided Years ago!
 

ohioboy said:
No, it was just not settled. It was decided Years ago!
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court decision for the baker came down in 2018 when it overturned the Colorado Human Rights Commission. I'm sure the case can be traced through the courts and can be found online. The wedding designer case decision in 2023.

The decision for the wedding designer helps clarify the issues for both defendants.

Again, what makes these cases confusing is that they have been tried in the originating state, appellate courts and finally the Supreme Court. Then it's easy to mix them up because they were so similar.

Look up the timeline. It's entirely possible I mixed up a date. As I said the track of the cases is confusing and I don't mind being corrected if I get something wrong.
 
Sunny said:
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.
Click to expand...
It actually was a test case. The bake shop was never asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple so the ruling was made based on a hypothetical situation. Anyway, as a gay man I'd be more comfortable buying from someone who respected me and wanted my business. I'd just spend my $$$ elsewhere.
 
bobcat48 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with your post but I'm highlighting this because it was my first thought. I wouldn't want to eat a cake made by those people if they disliked or disagreed with me so much. There have to be plenty of people willing to bake a very nice and safe cake. Even a home baker. One home baker won one of Food Network's baking champion seasons.
 
Sunny said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, in many cases like this, the rights of both are conflicting. If a person has a dog outside that barks at most everything, he may feel that his dog has that right and that's what he's there for. However, the next door neighbor also has a right to peace and quiet. It seems they need to come to some sort of amicable agreement.
I don't know if it could work in this case, but perhaps the bakery could just bake the cake, hand the people the two groom figures and just say "Do whatever you want with them, I don't want any part of that", or just say: "I will bake the cake, ice it, but with no words". I dunno, just some sort of compromise. After all, if the customer hadn't mentioned it, it probably would have been just fine. If it was to say "Congratulations Jim & Ted", the customer could have said "Oh Ted is my wife's nickname". No one would have been harmed. This is all about changing the law, not the cake.
 
seadoug said:
It actually was a test case. The bake shop was never asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple so the ruling was made based on a hypothetical situation. Anyway, as a gay man I'd be more comfortable buying from someone who respected me and wanted my business. I'd just spend my $$$ elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Test case?? Do you realize the legal trouble they would be in? Test case? Who paid for the cost of litigation?
 
seadoug said:
It actually was a test case. The bake shop was never asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple so the ruling was made based on a hypothetical situation. Anyway, as a gay man I'd be more comfortable buying from someone who respected me and wanted my business. I'd just spend my $$$ elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I don't know, not according to this report. It seems that it was a real case and the bakery was fined $135,000 dollars, and then reversed by the Supreme Court. Maybe it's another case?
Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple | Fox News
 
Reading all of this has made my head spin. I see good arguments for and against the subject matter.

In cases like these I sometimes remember the question, "How much will this matter in 100 years?" and I stop agonising about it. This is how I manage to stay reasonably sane in an insane world.
 
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...
In the military this is called "Selective Discrimination and enforcement of the laws," or wanting to have your cake and eat it too. (No pun intended.) Unfortunately, in life, we don't get to have it both ways, unless we reach a reciprocal agreement or compromise, which in this case, there is very little room for any of that. Someone has to choose who is right and who is wrong. This is why the complainant decided to allow the courts to make that decision.

I would also add that just because some people don't agree with the new laws on discrimination, that doesn't make them a dinosaur. We all have our convictions and if we are true blue to ourselves, we will stand up for those convictions, although many others may push back against them. It takes a lot of moxie sometimes to be the one to stand up for yourself, especially when you know you could go down in flames. I am sure that the baker's attorney made his client aware that he could lose this case, in which case, he would be spending a lot of money on attorney's fees for no return.

In this case, some members of the high court may agree with the defendant, but the Jurist isn't suppose to make his decision based on who has the better argument, but whose case is best is inline with the Constitution and laws. The Rule of Law should always prevail over "point of view." Back in 1993 when DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) was being applied, the military was challenged in several cases, until the SC made a determination of the new law. (This is another long story that ended up in the SC. Mostly, it was about who has the rights to the benefits because at that time, the military did not accept marriage as being between two partners of the same sex.)
 
Last edited:
seadoug said:
Anyway, as a gay man I'd be more comfortable buying from someone who respected me and wanted my business. I'd just spend my $$$ elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Glad you weighed in on this, Doug... I wondered about that since the first time I heard it. Why not just go elsewhere, write a letter to the editor about it, give a negative online review about a bad experience... but to have gone the path this did, I had even wondered if maybe they chose a Christian bakery purposely to stir things up. I can *so* see that happening. @seadoug
 
Bobcat, the link you posted in post #36 is for the case of an Oregon bakery, "Sweet Cakes by Mellissa". That bakery closed. The article also mentions a Christian florist from Washington who was sued in the same way. It's not in the article you linked but there was at least one case against a wedding chapel around the same time. There were a lot of these cases, all set up the same way.

The bakery case we were discussing earlier is a Colorado case, "Masterpiece Cake Shop". The men who filed suit in that one were customers of Masterpiece Cake Shop. The baker had sold them products before. There is a difference between selling cookies and being forced to put a message you don't believe in on a cake.

The court battles aren't over. Muslims are feeling pressured to accept LGBT teachings for their children in public schools in America. Are you aware that this is going on? The following articles are from last month.

US: Muslim parents protest losing right to opt out of LGBTQ school books​

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/muslim-parents-protest-losing-right-to-opt-out-lgbtq-school-books

Muslim activist gives powerful speech against forced LGBTQ curriculum: ‘Our people are not backward’​

https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/musli...lgbtq-curriculum-our-people-are-not-backward/

Muslims opposed to LGBTQ curricula for their kids aren’t bigots​

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/...o-lgbtq-curricula-for-their-kids-arent-bigots

Parents protest outside MCPS Board of Education meeting over LBGTQ+ opt-out policy​

https://wjla.com/news/local/montgom...sive-books-us-constitution-maryland-education

​

 
Been There said:
In the military this is called "Selective Discrimination and enforcement of the laws," or wanting to have your cake and eat it too. (No pun intended.) Unfortunately, in life, we don't get to have it both ways, unless we reach a reciprocal agreement or compromise, which in this case, there is very little room for any of that. Someone has to choose who is right and who is wrong. This is why the complainant decided to allow the courts to make that decision.

I would also add that just because some people don't agree with the new laws on discrimination, that doesn't make them a dinosaur. We all have our convictions and if we are true blue to ourselves, we will stand up for those convictions, although many others may push back against them. It takes a lot of moxie sometimes to be the one to stand up for yourself, especially when you know you could go down in flames. I am sure that the baker's attorney made his client aware that he could lose this case, in which case, he would be spending a lot of money on attorney's fees for no return.

In this case, some members of the high court may agree with the defendant, but the Jurist isn't suppose to make his decision based on who has the better argument, but whose case is best is inline with the Constitution and laws. The Rule of Law should always prevail over "point of view." Back in 1993 when DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) was being applied, the military was challenged in several cases, until the SC made a determination of the new law. (This is another long story that ended up in the SC. Mostly, it was about who has the rights to the benefits because at that time, the military did not accept marriage as being between two partners of the same sex.)
Click to expand...
Apparently you misread what I said and garnered the wrong conclusion. I never said that if people didn't agree with the law, that makes them a dinosaur. What makes people a dinosaur is the inability to adapt to the new changing world. Also, as I stated, that a person going into business needs to become familiar with the law, and if they don't feel they can comply with it, then perhaps they should choose something else.
 
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...
Yes this couple could have easily turned around and left to find another baker who would treat them more respectfully.

At the same time, I think if you have a business to serve the general public then that is what you should do and without prejudices. If you have prejudices, then it’s considered discrimination. The baker could have put his prejudices aside and made the cake.

In the bigger picture, there are the movers and shakers of the world. These are the types that want to see dramatic change and it takes these types of people who stir the pot to do it.

Claudette Colvin did just that when she bravely refused to give up her seat to a white person. She’d get arrested and the next day do the same thing.

Soon others joined in and shortly after the laws were changed to allow women of colour to sit wherever they chose. The first day she refused to give up her seat was March 2, 1955. That’s not that long ago.

Theres a wide range of discrimination and unfortunately most people discriminate to a certain degree but the KKK who claim to be a faith based Christian organization, used secrecy, intimidation, violence, and murder to prevent formerly enslaved African-American men from voting.

Black officeholders and their supporters were especially targeted but this white supremacy group hate many different groups including the LGBTQ community , Jewish community as well as many others and did some horrific things to them.

Bringing the KKK as an example of why someone would discriminate is from the far end of the spectrum but certainly adds perspective.

Serving the public without having any prejudices would truly be difficult and probably a tough one to judge. Nobody is 100% unbiased.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Yes this couple could have easily turned around and left to find another baker who would treat them more respectfully.

At the same time, I think if you have a business to serve the general public then that is what you should do and without prejudices. If you have prejudices, then it’s considered discrimination. The baker could have put his prejudices aside and made the cake.

In the bigger picture, there are the movers and shakers of the world. These are the types that want to see dramatic change and it takes these types of people who stir the pot to do it.

Claudette Colvin did just that when she bravely refused to give up her seat to a white person. She’d get arrested and the next day do the same thing.

Soon others joined in and shortly after the laws were changed to allow women of colour to sit wherever they chose. The first day she refused to give up her seat was March 2, 1955. That’s not that long ago.

Theres a wide range of discrimination and unfortunately most people discriminate to a certain degree but the KKK who claim to be a faith based Christian organization, used secrecy, intimidation, violence, and murder to prevent formerly enslaved African-American men from voting.

Black officeholders and their supporters were especially targeted but this white supremacy group hate many different groups including the LGBTQ community , Jewish community as well as many others and did some horrific things to them.

Bringing the KKK as an example of why someone would discriminate is from the far end of the spectrum but certainly adds perspective.

Serving the public without having any prejudices would truly be difficult and probably a tough one to judge. Nobody is 100% unbiased.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think many times we as people get overly involved with other's lives and beliefs. Just because I listen to a song, or like it, doesn't mean that I approve of everything that musician does or says. Would I avoid buying a house I really like if it is being sold by a gay couple (Assuming I had objections to that)? ..... No. My interest is in the house, not their life.
I think if you're baking a cake, it's best to just do what you do, and don't get confused about it signifying an approval of how that person lives their life. Just my thoughts.
 
Most of this thread has been about a Supreme Court decision and the course of the cases involved, along with some links to current events that may well end up before the court. Court decisions are real and affect people's lives. The court process and the constitutional issues interest me but the discussion is wandering into advocacy and history now.

I will leave the politics to others.
 
As I understand the issue it's about a bake shop owner refusal to make a cake based on religious belief.

In 1 John 3 we are told that we are children of God, born of Him. As a mark of God's great love, we are His children.

If that is true

What religion promotes the idea that God rejects his children?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top