Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case

PeppermintPatty said:
What if medical professionals decide for religious reasons not to care for a pregnant woman because she isn’t married?
Click to expand...
Already been happening for years. I was denied birth control before I was married, and then after I was married by my Catholic doctor.
PeppermintPatty said:
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?
Click to expand...
Already covered by equal employment laws. No on ever need worry about their race, orientation or gender during hiring or setting of wages.
 

@Pepper

Due to my life experiences dealing with discrimination , this case brought up emotions I couldn’t ignore. Like yourself, I like to defend the needlessly harassed underdog.


Discrimination targets the very heart of being human.
It harms people’s rights simply because of who they are. It is harmful and perpetuates inequality.

Every one of us has the right to be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are. Unfortunately people suffer cruelty from others simply for being different from those in position of privilege or power.

When people cannot enjoy their legal rights on an equal basis with others due to an unjustified distinction, it’s considered discrimination and is something that hurts us all which I’ll passionately defend.
 
Just so I'm understanding the bottom line here, if a gay store owner refused a straight couple's request to write "one man, one woman, it's Biblical" on a cake because it is against what they believe, would there be the same strong response? My own answer is that of course they could refuse... and should if it's against their morals, values, or beliefs. Why is one "woke-worthy" and one not?

I hope I explained that the way I meant it. Gay rights would dictate that of course the gay owner would have the right to refuse or there would be an immediate blasting starting with social media outrage of why they'd not be allowed to refuse something they didn't believe in... but why doesn't the straight owner have the same right? I have always tried to look at both sides of an issue. I'm reminded of an elderly friend from years ago who repeatedly said "Always, ALWAYS have an open mind, Katie... but never so open that your brain falls out." It's served me well.
 

PeppermintPatty said:
@Pepper

Due to my life experiences dealing with discrimination , this case brought up emotions I couldn’t ignore. Like yourself, I like to defend the needlessly harassed underdog.


Discrimination targets the very heart of being human.
It harms people’s rights simply because of who they are. It is harmful and perpetuates inequality.

Every one of us has the right to be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are. Unfortunately people suffer cruelty from others simply for being different from those in position of privilege or power.

When people cannot enjoy their legal rights on an equal basis with others due to an unjustified distinction, it’s considered discrimination and is something that hurts us all which I’ll passionately defend.
Click to expand...

"Every one of us has the right to be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are. Unfortunately people suffer cruelty from others simply for being different from those in position of privilege or power."

But in the case of the baker [the example used here] both parties are not being treated equally .... you are arguing that only the queer couples desires be met.

The baker must do as they wish ....... And that is just wrong !
 
CallMeKate said:
Just so I'm understanding the bottom line here, if a gay store owner refused a straight couple's request to write "one man, one woman, it's Biblical" on a cake because it is against what they believe, would there be the same strong response? My own answer is that of course they could refuse... and should if it's against their morals, values, or beliefs. Why is one "woke-worthy" and one not?

I hope I explained that the way I meant it. Gay rights would dictate that of course the gay owner would have the right to refuse or there would be an immediate blasting starting with social media outrage of why they'd not be allowed to refuse something they didn't believe in... but why doesn't the straight owner have the same right? I have always tried to look at both sides of an issue. I'm reminded of an elderly friend from years ago who repeatedly said "Always, ALWAYS have an open mind, Katie... but never so open that your brain falls out." It's served me well.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is, it is always the straight Christian doing the refusal. I have never heard of another case otherwise, if you have, the time and place to tell it is now. You know I'm right.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Acting on complaints filed by Mullins and Craig, the Colorado Civil Rights pision DETERMINED THAT the CAKESHOP HAD VIOLATED COLORADO LAW PROHIBITING PUBLIC ACCOMMADATIONS FROM REFUSING SERVICE BASED ON FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS or S-E-X-U-A-L ORIENTATION!!!!
Click to expand...
Later, when baker Phillips appealed Colorado's decision, The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Phillips’s favor. It did so exclusively on free-exercise grounds. Because the government’s hostility toward Phillips’s faith was so apparent, the Court did not need to reach the free-speech question.

In other words, the attitude and language of the Colorado Civil Rights group revealed so much hatred and derision against Phillips and his religious beliefs (as we've seen a little of here) that Colorado's decision was throw out before getting to Phillip's position that as an artist he should be free to express his beliefs in his cake decorating.

You see, no one likes to be hated and discriminated against. No one.
 
Pepper said:
The funny thing is, it is always the straight Christian doing the refusal. I have never heard of another case otherwise, if you have, the time and place to tell it is now. You know I'm right.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's because it's more often the gay couple bringing suit because they couldn't buy a cake.
 
Pepper said:
The funny thing is, it is always the straight Christian doing the refusal. I have never heard of another case otherwise, if you have, the time and place to tell it is now. You know I'm right.
Click to expand...
I'll try to find something, @Pepper . Thank you for your calm response... I know it's a very hot topic. I should say, though, that I was asking if a gay owner would have been getting the same outrage. I try to make sure not to bundle "gay" with "non-Christian" because that's just not accurate and many gays are absolutely Christian.
 
Last edited:
Della said:
Later, when baker Phillips appealed Colorado's decision, The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Phillips’s favor. It did so exclusively on free-exercise grounds. Because the government’s hostility toward Phillips’s faith was so apparent, the Court did not need to reach the free-speech question.

In other words, the attitude and language of the Colorado Civil Rights group revealed so much hatred and derision against Phillips and his religious beliefs (as we've seen a little of here) that Colorado's decision was throw out before getting to Phillip's position that as an artist he should be free to express his beliefs in his cake decorating.

You see, no one likes to be hated and discriminated against. No one.
Click to expand...
The courts were doing their job which is to make sure nobody gets discriminated against.
Considering their actions of upholding the law as acts of hate is merely your interpretation.
Others may view your interpretation as acts as hate also which IS allowed, as long as you( they) don’t act on it. Once again, THATs the distinction.
 
rgp said:
"Every one of us has the right to be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are. Unfortunately people suffer cruelty from others simply for being different from those in position of privilege or power."

But in the case of the baker [the example used here] both parties are not being treated equally .... you are arguing that only the queer couples desires be met.

The baker must do as they wish ....... And that is just wrong !
Click to expand...
The baker just needed to follow the law as we all do. 🤷‍♀️
 
The ops post #1 begins with this.

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Anti-LGBTQ Bakery Case
JUNE 26, 2017

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.

Refusing to sell a cake & refusing to sell a cake based on something written is two distinctly different scenarios. I didn't notice the date being June 2017 So my opinions were based on selling a cake. If it was about speech then I would have gone with the bakers rights.
 
I want to thank @Pepper for challenging me to find some examples of this happening involving things other than refusing to "bake a cake for a gay couple." And now I'm so upset that I'm going to take a jog in the 80 degree heat. Because it DOES happen and it doesn't get to the SC and it doesn't go viral with people clutching their pearls to get in on the action! Veterans are refused service. Russians are refused service. Christians are refused service. In a shocking backward trip to the 1950s, even some black customers are being turned away. Gotta admit my search shocked me.

Where is the Woke Cult for these cases? I'll check back in when I return.
 
Pepper said:
Exactly. The majority threatened by the minority, just like in the Civil Rights Days of Yore.
Click to expand...
I think what we view as the majority has changed a lot since days of yore. There still may be a lot of Americans checking the Christian box on forms, but actual church attendance falls all the time and we are following closely behind countries like Sweden where it is against the law for a fundamentalist preacher to preach against gays, even in his own church.

When was the last time you watched a crime drama where the villain was gay? When was the last time a fundamentalist character wasn't the villain? The majority of TV shows and movies have been anti-Christian for a long times now.
 
CallMeKate said:
Not exactly what I was looking for yet, but it *does* exist. Here's one involving another group:
https://www.wric.com/news/local-new...fuses-service-to-conservative-advocacy-group/

I don't remember an outrage about this discrimination.
Click to expand...
They have every right to take the issue to court, but I'm not sure it would stand up. I'm not sure about this, but have I heard somewhere that discrimination protections only apply to specifically identified targets of discrimination? Now if it did go to court and they won, what unexpected can of worms would that open up? I'm thinking it would set a precedent that a baker would have to bake a gay wedding cake if a customer wanted that, and the last people on Earth that would want such a thing would be a conservative Christian group. Such a group may be better served to make a public issue out of it, but not a legal one.
 
All these (and dozens more) deal with people with disabilities being refused service. None danced their way to the Supreme Court. I heard no outrage. Maybe someday folks with disabilities, veterans, and elderly people (yeah, they've been refused service, too, even at Disney) will rank high enough to be considered for the Woke Agenda.

https://www.ksl.com/article/5068447...atio-refused-service-because-of-her-guide-dog

https://kfor.com/news/deaf-oklahoma-woman-suing-fast-food-restaurant-after-she-was-refused-service/

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loc...ked-at-campbell-fast-food-drive-thru/1960098/
 
Myrtle said:
The decision came from the United States Supreme Court. Here is the decision about the Lorie Smith graphic artists case and it is the most complete decision. It fully addresses all the issues where the 2018 bakery case did not. The issue is the same for both the cases because both involve the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.

Here's a link, in case you haven't read it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf. The beginning is the syllabus from the oral hearing before the court in the fall of 2022 and the court's opinion begins on page 7. Will anyone who hasn't read it, read it now?

The decision has been made by the highest court in the land and there is no appellate court higher. No American can be compelled to create speech they don't believe in.

The issue is speech, not the cake, the speech written on the cake. The issue for the artist is speech, not the website, the artist's speech written on the website. We have freedom to speak our beliefs AND freedom not to speak against our beliefs in this country.
Click to expand...
Thanks Myrtle, your post is very helpful to me anyway. Now I do better understand the issue. I read the key parts of the decision at your link, that was great help.

To me the bottom line is what you said "No American can be compelled to create speech they don't believe in." It does not say that a person could be turned away for reasons of se*ual orientation. So in the bakery example, assuming I actually understand, the baker could not turn away gay clients, but also could not be forced to write something on the cake they did not believe in. Not an unreasonable thing.

The gay couple could of course add whatever writing they wanted to after picking up the cake. But as others have said I am not sure why they would have asked that bakery to do the cake in the first place, there are other bakeries...
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Discrimination targets the very heart of being human.
It harms people’s rights simply because of who they are. It is harmful and perpetuates inequality.

Every one of us has the right to be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are. Unfortunately people suffer cruelty from others simply for being different from those in position of privilege or power.

When people cannot enjoy their legal rights on an equal basis with others due to an unjustified distinction, it’s considered discrimination and is something that hurts us all which I’ll passionately defend.
Click to expand...
Really well said!

Legal or not as you say discrimination based on "race, ethnicity, gender identity, s-e-x-u-a-l orientation, age, health and other characteristics that make us who we are" is evil.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
The courts were doing their job which is to make sure nobody gets discriminated against.
Considering their actions of upholding the law as acts of hate is merely your interpretation.
Others may view your interpretation as acts as hate also which IS allowed, as long as you( they) don’t act on it. Once again, THATs the distinction.
Click to expand...
I think it was the Supreme Court's interpretation, when they stated in their decision that the Colorado's Civil Rights court was so hostile to Phillips that they didn't need to hear the case before striking it.

Can you imagine a court of law ridiculing and mocking a gay person, while making a decision? Well according to people who saw the proceedings and read the transcipts that's how they acted about Phillip's religion.

It may come as a big suprise to you but straight, white Christians, are also discriminared against, bullied and not hired for jobs. Knowing we have larger numbers overall doesn't help when being discriminated against or laughed at on an individual basis.

I once walked into a bar in San Francisco and was immediatly jeered at and told to leave because I was in the wrong place. Someone later told me it was a gay bar but I hadn't known. I've been very obviously not even considered for a job just based on looks before my resume was even glanced at, my resume was blatantly tossed in the trash. I was recently told, by a group of black women that "as a privileged white woman" I had nothing to say to them.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top