Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

I didn't understand either why they where calling it narrow. Besides the fact that the news reports are liberal and downplaying the ruling, here what Fox news wrote about it.

 

"In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. 

The narrow ruling focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips." 

 

So while they did rule in the bakers side, they did not go deeper into the question of what is allowed and not allowed in refusing to serve gay people. Which of course will cause more confusing and alot more cases.

 

 

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow.  Even Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the conservatives here.  

Quote

"I'm not judging these two gay men," he continued, "I'm just trying to preserve my right as an artist to decide which artistic endeavors I'm going to do and which ones I'm not." - Mr. Baker Dood

Glad to see that common-sense, justified, justifiable notion of personal rights got a bit of a bolstering today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
40 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh wow.  Even Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the conservatives here.  

The OP (a very wise man, even though you disagree with his fashion tastes) already said that, you plagiarist! 
(Kidding!) 

 

24 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Maybe narrow because it was only applying to this specific baker, and not a more wider ruling regarding all businesses?  

Perhaps. I think @miav is right. The mainstream media leans heavily to the left. If it's a 5-4 decision legalizing abortion-it's settled law. If it's a 8-1 decision supporting gun rights, the court is "divided". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Maybe narrow because it was only applying to this specific baker, and not a more wider ruling regarding all businesses?  

This was my understanding - that the scope was narrow, not the difference between the number of  for judges vs against judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just skimming the opinion’s syllabus, it looks like the Court was torqued off because Colorado had allowed other bakers to decline to make cakes with anti-gay messages in at least three other cases; plus some pretty anti-religious remarks made by the state commission members during the commission’s hearing.  I read the syllabus as saying “maybe you could force someone to bake a cake—but ya gotta force everyone to make any cake; otherwise you’re just bullying religious people.  Now, tee us up a case with a less sympathetic appellant.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just skimming the opinion’s syllabus, it looks like the Court was torqued off because Colorado had allowed other bakers to decline to make cakes with anti-gay messages in at least three other cases; plus some pretty anti-religious remarks made by the state commission members during the commission’s hearing.  I read the syllabus as saying “maybe you could force someone to bake a cake—but ya gotta force everyone to make any cake; otherwise you’re just bullying religious people.  Now, tee us up a case with a less sympathetic appellant.”

Sad, isn't it?  They have to make an excuse to side with liberty for all, while asking for a chance to sink a nail into a different coffin.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in countryism summary format:

"Today the Supreme Court found that various members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission are a bunch of jerkwads, and enshrined that opinion forever in their ruling."

By the way, here's Anthony Aragon, one of the members of the 7-member Colorado Civil Rights Commision. He's on the left, in his wedding photo, taken shortly after midnight in May 1 2013, where he become one of the first same-sex couples in Colorado to be issued a Civil Union license.  I wonder if he was the one who made the comments hostile to religion?

Same Sex Unions Become Law In Colorado

You ain't been smack talked, until you've been smack talked by the Supreme Court.  I envy the guy - I'll probably never do anything important enough to warrant such a distinction.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just skimming the opinion’s syllabus, it looks like the Court was torqued off because Colorado had allowed other bakers to decline to make cakes with anti-gay messages in at least three other cases; plus some pretty anti-religious remarks made by the state commission members during the commission’s hearing.  I read the syllabus as saying “maybe you could force someone to bake a cake—but ya gotta force everyone to make any cake; otherwise you’re just bullying religious people.  Now, tee us up a case with a less sympathetic appellant.”

 

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sad, isn't it?  They have to make an excuse to side with liberty for all, while asking for a chance to sink a nail into a different coffin.

Would you guys rather the court ruled in favor of the homosexual couple? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

You ain't been smack talked, until you've been smack talked by the Supreme Court.  I envy the guy - I'll probably never do anything important enough to warrant such a distinction.

The technical term is “bench-slapped”. ;) 

55 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Would you guys rather the court ruled in favor of the homosexual couple? 

No; but I’d rather they’d have resolved the issue everyone thought they were going to resolve.  This decision seems likely to give the circuit courts enough leeway to do whatever they want in similar cases going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No; but I’d rather they’d have resolved the issue everyone thought they were going to resolve.  This decision seems likely to give the circuit courts enough leeway to do whatever they want in similar cases going forward.

True, though it's always better to win then to lose. So it's better than the alternative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Would you guys rather the court ruled in favor of the homosexual couple? 

Yes, of course.  That would be equal rights for all. :) 

No, you're right. I get your point.  It's a small victory that we should be happy for.  Thanks for setting me straight. (no pun intended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

  Thanks for setting me straight. (no pun intended).

Hey pal, whatever your private life is, that's your business. I ain't got nothing to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall, good news.  One thing did bug me though:

Quote

Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. Otherwise, he said, "a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws."

(Bolded by me)

It's important to emphasize that the baker was NOT refusing service to gay people.  In fact, he had gay customers who were regulars at the shop.  To refuse service purely on the grounds that they're gay WOULD constitute discrimination on the basis of their sexuality.  What he wanted to refuse was to participate in an event which violated his conscience.

It's a very important distinction that almost nobody talks about, especially on the left.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Overall, good news.  One thing did bug me though:

(Bolded by me)

It's important to emphasize that the baker was NOT refusing service to gay people.  In fact, he had gay customers who were regulars at the shop.  To refuse service purely on the grounds that they're gay WOULD constitute discrimination on the basis of their sexuality.  What he wanted to refuse was to participate in an event which violated his conscience.

It's a very important distinction that almost nobody talks about, especially on the left. 

I haven't really paid a lot of attention to all this, so I'm not that familiar...  Are you saying they wanted him to come to the wedding?  Or...?  (Do people do this?  Have the baker attend the wedding?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zil said:

I haven't really paid a lot of attention to all this, so I'm not that familiar...  Are you saying they wanted him to come to the wedding?  Or...?  (Do people do this?  Have the baker attend the wedding?)

No, by participating I refer to the guy having to create the cake.  To have contributed something to the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
22 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Are not the faithful strong supposed to come along side the weaker brothers??? :superman:

When I told  @Carborendum I was tempted to smoke pot he sent me a plane ticket to Colorado. So.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil said:

I haven't really paid a lot of attention to all this, so I'm not that familiar...  Are you saying they wanted him to come to the wedding?  Or...?  (Do people do this?  Have the baker attend the wedding?)

So, artists create art.  The baker had all sorts of stock cakes available, he also did custom designs tailored to specific individuals.  The dudes could have bought a cake off the shelf.  But they wanted one of his custom artistic masterpieces.  He said no.

From what they tell me, every artist, no matter what their faith, no matter what their artistic medium, goes through this:  Once they start having a clientelle, they start having to figure out where they draw the line in what they'll make and won't make.  Someone always wants porn, or bigotry, or pictures of poo, or other things that would injure the sensibilities of this group to discover even exist.  

So Dood wanted to be a Christian baker and his efforts were spent trying to be a good disciple of Christ.  He didn't want to do a cake celebrating a same sex wedding, any more than he wanted to do one for a KKK rally, or a 'recently divorced' cake with all sorts of horrible things written on it about someone's ex, etc, etc..  

But yeah, he'd sell a regular cake to anyone.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

When I told  @Carborendum I was tempted to smoke pot he sent me a plane ticket to Colorado. So.... 

Hmmm...

@Carborendum I'm tempted to become extremely wealthy.  Start sending me winning lottery tickets.

(Technically, neither of us would even be gambling, since he has no chance of winning, and I stand to lose nothing.  What a great loophole.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share