Author Topic: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.  (Read 998 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2018, 02:48:07 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9950
  • Tommy Points: 1122
Good ruling for those of us upholding free speech as sacrosanct. Supporting the ability for a private business or person to discriminate is not the same condoning or supporting their reasoning.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2018, 03:13:54 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41647
  • Tommy Points: 2339
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Surprised at the ruling and looking forward to reading the arguments for and against when I get the chance. I didn't think we were a country where you could just opt to not serve a person based solely on something like sexual orientation. But reading the CNN article it seems like they don't believe it sets any kind of meaningful precedent, which is confusing.

So...I dunno really. Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2018, 03:26:42 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17800
  • Tommy Points: 1277
Surprised at the ruling and looking forward to reading the arguments for and against when I get the chance. I didn't think we were a country where you could just opt to not serve a person based solely on something like sexual orientation. But reading the CNN article it seems like they don't believe it sets any kind of meaningful precedent, which is confusing.

So...I dunno really. Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.
Apparently a wedding cake is a piece of art, therefore refusing to make a gay wedding cake is protecting an artist's freedom of expression. Go figure.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2018, 03:31:12 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34888
  • Tommy Points: -27828
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2018, 03:46:26 PM »

Offline Rondo2287

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13001
  • Tommy Points: 816
Iím all for the baker being allowed to refuse and the community boycotting and putting the baker out of business if they feel his decision is out of line with community values.

Also will and grace did a take off on this issue in the reboot this year where a baker refused to make a ďMAGAĒ cake.  It was a good episode
CB Draft LA Lakers: Lamarcus Aldridge, Carmelo Anthony,Jrue Holiday, Wes Matthews  6.11, 7.16, 8.14, 8.15, 9.16, 11.5, 11.16

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2018, 03:51:08 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1865
  • Tommy Points: 103
This ruling was interesting to me.  I consider myself fairly socially liberal, at least with the context that people should be allowed to live however they want as long as it's not hurting anyone, and really dislike how religion is leaned upon to justify things... but after researching the supreme court ruling I found myself agreeing with it.

The part that struck me was that a wedding cake is indeed more artistic than functional.  I never thought of it that way.  The baker actually had offered to bake any regular food for the couple, which I think is key here in this case.  I also liked the comment of "An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write."

That said, I think this narrow case will be mistakenly used to push the envelope in inappropriate ways.  I.e. a store owner completely denying service to someone because they think they are a sinner.  But that is to be expected in our society.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2018, 03:56:01 PM »

Offline Bucketgetter

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Tommy Points: 10
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.
CB Mock Deadline - Minnesota Timberwolves
Kemba Walker / Tyus Jones / Aaron Brooks
Jimmy Butler / Jamal Crawford / Treveon Graham
Rodney Hood / Nic Batum / Marcus Georges Hunt
Taj Gibson / Nemanja Bjelica / Jonas Jerebko
KAT / Derrick Favors / Cole Aldrich
Picks - 2018 CHA 1st (Lotto protected), none out

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2018, 04:16:47 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34888
  • Tommy Points: -27828
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2018, 04:44:38 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18871
  • Tommy Points: 886
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
As a Jew, I have a very hard time with anyone in modern society relying on often mistranslated texts from 2500 years ago to support their bigotry, especially when those same people ignore all of the other teachings from those same texts.  You can't pick and choose what you want to believe and practice just to support your own bigotry.  That isn't religion, it is using religion to support your own hatred.  It was what we as a society did to find support for slavery, or to keep women at a lesser level then men, or the countless other bigotries that have existed because of religion. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2018, 04:58:25 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34888
  • Tommy Points: -27828
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
As a Jew, I have a very hard time with anyone in modern society relying on often mistranslated texts from 2500 years ago to support their bigotry, especially when those same people ignore all of the other teachings from those same texts.  You can't pick and choose what you want to believe and practice just to support your own bigotry.  That isn't religion, it is using religion to support your own hatred.  It was what we as a society did to find support for slavery, or to keep women at a lesser level then men, or the countless other bigotries that have existed because of religion.

Some people are like that.  Other people are devout.  Why lump them in all together?

What you view as bigotry many people legitimately believe is an edict from God.  They're not making it up; people have been reading the same passages from the same book for centuries. 

Free exercise is at the center of our country.  You can't ignore it just because you disagree with it.  "Live and let live" is such an interesting concept.  Generally, it's interpreted as "Let me live the way I want, while I impose my views on you".


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2018, 04:58:31 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3920
  • Tommy Points: 319
I don't see this as a big win for anyone (makes me kind of sad actually).  If a cake maker does not want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, as a business owner, I feel he should have some level of discretion as to who he does business with.  In this case, the story also eluded to the fact that this baker's business has gone down as word spread that he refused to accept the gay couple as customers.  That is fair too.  But is there really winner here?  The gay couple didn't get the cake they wanted and business owner suffered as well.

What I don't get is where it says in the religious scrolls that it is forbidden to make a cake for a gay couple.  Pope Francis had perhaps the best answer I have ever heard.  He was asked how he felt about gay men getting married.  His answer was along the lines of "if they want to get married, who am I to judge"?  Who am I to judge is what religion is all about based on everything I understand, not "no cake for you heathen".

This isn't really about religion.  This is about one person who doesn't believe gay people should get married and doesn't want to sell them a cake.  Religion is simply being weaponized and used as an excuse.  I don't see this as a win for religion.

"Conservatives" will spin this as a win in the battle against liberals trying to outlaw religion or something like that which is as much nonsense as liberals want to take your hunting rifles away or not have boarders.  People will buy it though and get all worked up over this for all the wrong reasons.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2018, 05:03:26 PM »

Offline rondofan1255

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1804
  • Tommy Points: 10
I donít get what the big deal is given itís a custom design request


Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2018, 05:05:33 PM »

Offline Bucketgetter

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1222
  • Tommy Points: 10
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
Doesn't matter. Size of religion would have no difference in a case like this. All religions would supposedly be protected, regardless of whether or not this is "a pretext to justify hate", which many think it is.
CB Mock Deadline - Minnesota Timberwolves
Kemba Walker / Tyus Jones / Aaron Brooks
Jimmy Butler / Jamal Crawford / Treveon Graham
Rodney Hood / Nic Batum / Marcus Georges Hunt
Taj Gibson / Nemanja Bjelica / Jonas Jerebko
KAT / Derrick Favors / Cole Aldrich
Picks - 2018 CHA 1st (Lotto protected), none out

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2018, 05:15:58 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34888
  • Tommy Points: -27828
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
Doesn't matter. Size of religion would have no difference in a case like this. All religions would supposedly be protected, regardless of whether or not this is "a pretext to justify hate", which many think it is.

It matters in determining the legitimacy of the religious objection.

Somebody claiming a religious exception based on a religion followed by 12 people started last year is a lot more suspect than somebody who is a member of a 2000 year old religion with a billion followers.

I think itís bad business to turn away customers, but people should have that right. 

Me, Iím happy to have all the gay divorces I can get. If my more devout Catholic colleague feels differently ó and legitimately believes heís contributing to a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah ó he should have the right to turn down that client.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...