Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 06, 2017

Ria Tabacco Mar: Is there a constitutional right to discriminate? That should be an easy "no." But in President Trump's America, that question will be argued in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, whom I have represented since 2015. ... What should have been a special day became memorable for the wrong reasons. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused even to discuss a cake with them because Mullins and Craig are a gay couple.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

In the 1960s, Piggie Park, a South Carolina chain of barbecue restaurants, opposed serving black diners in its sandwich shop because the owner believed that racial integration "contravenes the will of God." The Supreme Court found that Piggie Park violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, calling its religious defense frivolous.

In the 1980s, Bob Jones University refused to admit students who engaged in or advocated for interracial dating because of its view that the Bible forbids such relationships. The Supreme Court found that the university's policy discriminated based on race, notwithstanding the sincerity of its religious beliefs. ...

Allowing businesses to turn away L.G.B.T. people, even if limited to the wedding context, would put the government's imprimatur on discrimination. Now the Supreme Court must decide whether to turn back time or to continue our nation's progress toward recognizing the humanity of L.G.B.T. people.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I think religious freedom for a vendor should come down to whether they have to personally participate in something. The act of making a cake or a flower arrangement doesn't seem to have anything to do with participating. If someone wanted a cake for their ritual human sacrifice, the act of making and selling doesn't really make one an accomplice to the sacrifice. If they wanted a photographer to come, stay for the ceremony, and take pictures, I think that would make the photographer a party to the actual sacrifice.

#1 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-12-06 04:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"If someone wanted a cake for their ritual human sacrifice, the act of making and selling doesn't really make one an accomplice to the sacrifice."

What if they asked them to make it a human sacrifice themed cake? Or a gun themed cake, and the vendor didn't want to?

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-06 05:35 PM | Reply

The should have posted a sign.

No shoes, no shirt, no service, no gays.

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 05:40 PM | Reply

It's gonna be okay to discriminate against blacks again, is the desired outcome.

#MAGA

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 05:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

If Christians have to make a cake then so do Muslims and when that happens heads are gonna roll.
😀

#5 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I think religious freedom for a vendor should come down to whether they have to personally participate in something.
#1 | POSTED BY LEGREGIUS

what they chose to participate in was business with the general public. they're on a public street with
tax funded utilities available. they need to serve whomever comes through the door. if the bakery were
on fire and the firemen who arrived were all gay..should they just let it burn.

#6 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply

If Christians have to make a cake then so do Muslims and when that happens heads are gonna roll.
😀

#5 | POSTED BY HANOVERFIST

Based on your posts, are you a really bad amateur troll?

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-06 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Found me out.

#8 | Posted by HanoverFist at 2017-12-06 06:38 PM | Reply

The difference between the two examples and this case is that in the examples, the businesses were refusing to sell their regular wares to a specific class of people.
In the modern case, the business is not refusing to sell their regular product to a guy person, they are refusing to make a custom, gay-themed product.

#9 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-12-06 06:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The difference between the two examples and this case is that in the examples, the businesses were refusing to sell their regular wares to a specific class of people.
In the modern case, the business is not refusing to sell their regular product to a guy person, they are refusing to make a custom, gay-themed product.

#9 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST

Well stated and NW.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 07:21 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Public discrimination, no.
A private establishment, yes.
You have the right to refuse anyone service if it's a private business.

#11 | Posted by bat4255 at 2017-12-06 07:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

You have the right to refuse anyone service if it's a private business.

Blissfully unaware of state and federal public accommodation anti-discrimination laws in general and specifically this case.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

In the modern case, the business is not refusing to sell their regular product to a guy person, they are refusing to make a custom, gay-themed product.

#9 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2017-12-06 06:48 PM | REPLY | NEWSWORTHY 1

Custom cakes ARE their regular product, you fool. They are a bakery.

#13 | Posted by Dirkstruan at 2017-12-06 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are men involved in the wedding cake industry that aren't gay?

The Baker doth protest too much, methinks.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 07:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"What if they asked them to make it a human sacrifice themed cake? Or a gun themed cake, and the vendor didn't want to?"

Human sacrificers and gun owners are not protected classes, right?

#15 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 08:17 PM | Reply

The rights of a protected class are not before the court.

The question presented is:

Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. www.supremecourt.gov

"Human sacrifice" or "guns" could easily be substituted for "marriage."

#16 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 08:44 PM | Reply

Dont want to make a cake for gay people? Then dont run a cake store. Nobody barged into his house and forced him to start making a gay cake at gunpoint.

Taken to its end, his position is akin to a doctor refusing to amputate a leg and instead letting a patient die because of his "sincerely held religious beliefs." People can have all sorts of ------ up "sincerely held religious beliefs," but they shouldn't voluntarily enter into a position in the service economy that might butt up against those beliefs if theyre really that triggered by it.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-06 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

"The rights of a protected class are not before the court."

Isn't it? Then why is the refusal to provide service even an issue? Your own link says that the baker is found to have commited sexual discrimination. Would they have found likewise over guns or human sacrifice?

#18 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 09:00 PM | Reply

What if a gay man walks into a Jewish owned bakery and demands a swastika cake? If the baker declines has the gay man been discriminated against because he's gay?

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19

Why? Is Milo Yiannopoulos getting married?

#20 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 09:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage"

So, here's what's gonna happen:

When the Court decides his sincerely held religious belief wins, the entire GOP is going to remember their sincerely held religious beliefs that black skin is the Mark of Cain, that schi integration goes against the Bible, and that paying taxes is immoral.

And this is how Trump will Make America Great Again.

And Boaz will be happier than a little piggy that goes wheee all the way home.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 09:17 PM | Reply

In the modern case, the business is not refusing to sell their regular product to a guy person, they are refusing to make a custom, gay-themed product.

#9 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2017-12-06 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are still discriminating against a gay or lesbian couple. Which isn't allowed. Nor should it be.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-06 09:27 PM | Reply

Laura,

Does that apply to my example in #19?

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 09:28 PM | Reply

What if a gay man walks into a Jewish owned bakery and demands a swastika cake? If the baker declines has the gay man been discriminated against because he's gay?

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 09:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

You've tried to use that POS argument before. It's still garbage.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-06 09:29 PM | Reply

Does that apply to my example in #19?

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 09:28 PM | Reply

In a word NO in two words HELL NO.

#25 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-06 09:30 PM | Reply

Taken to its end, his position is akin to a doctor refusing to amputate a leg and instead letting a patient die because of his "sincerely held religious beliefs."

Only if you think amputation is "artistic expression."

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 09:33 PM | Reply

Isn't it? Then why is the refusal to provide service even an issue?

Because of a public accommodation statute common to a few states, there is no federal counterpart. On these facts, it's contended the statute violates the First Amendment rights of the cake artist. Whether or not the First Amendment is violated is the only question before the court.

#27 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 09:41 PM | Reply

I think JeffJ should put his money where his mouth is.

Find a Jewish bakery and ask for a Swastika cake.

However, you do run the risk your usual White Power baker finds out you've been getting your weekly Swastika cakes -- which simply celebrate your heritage and aren't intended to be racist or anti-Semitic -- from another guy. So keep that in mind.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 09:42 PM | Reply

Anyone can claim anything is a religious belief. If your religion prevents you from doing a job or running a business in accordance with the law, that should really be your problem and not the public's.

Let's say a conservative Christian runs a gas station in the Nevada desert and it is the only place to buy fuel for a few hundred miles in either direction. And a gay couple on their way to Vegas to get married pulls in to fill up. Without the gas, they ain't making it to Vegas. Should the gas station guy be allowed to refuse to sell them gas? Where does this BS end?

Nobody is saying that any religion has to change its stance on gay marriage as is applies to its practitioners. And that is really all the deserves to be protected.

#29 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 09:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#29 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2017-12-06 09:43 PM | FLAG: NEWSWORTHY

Amen, SULLY.

#30 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-06 09:46 PM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY ET_AL

And isn't the question tied to WHOSE freedom of speech is being considered? Is it the party asking for the artist to write the language (i.e., speech)? Or is it the artist that's actually writing the language?

#31 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-06 09:48 PM | Reply

"They were planning their wedding in 2012, and one of the details they were excited about was the cake. Mr. Craig's mother, Debbie Munn, was set to visit them that summer, so they decided to wait for her to choose it.

What should have been a special day became memorable for the wrong reasons. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused even to discuss a cake with them because Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig are a gay couple. The bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, told them that he would not bake a cake of any kind for their wedding."

If this is true then it has nothing to do with an offensive custom cake. I could see refusing to promise something that is very different from the baker's typical product line because it could be that they are just not capable of producing it. But refusing to sell even a standard tiered wedding cake? Ridiculous.

#32 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-06 10:05 PM | Reply

#31

The party asking for the particular artistic expression has no First Amendment protection against a private party refusing. Here, the contention is the statute (i.e. the government) compels the artist to express something which the First Amendment says the government cannot do.

#33 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 10:09 PM | Reply

Whether or not the First Amendment is violated is the only question before the court.

As with Sully, my opinion is that this has nothing at all to do with anyone's First Amendment rights and everything to do with public licensing and contract law as it pertains to business. When you accept a publicly issued license to do lawful business in whatever profession one chooses, it then becomes the public's right to expect access to your services under the prevailing public laws which outlaws discrimination. The business owner and his workers fully expect that all public services such as police and fire protection be provided them as a matter of their legal citizenry so why should they be allowed to deny other citizens access to their services because of their personal religious beliefs? Are we willing to allow public servants these same rights to deny their services to those who offend an individual's religious beliefs too?

This entire line of BS is just that, BS. If you want to make money from the public then you cannot pick and choose which customers you'll agree to serve outside of previously acknowledged limitations, often having to do with public health concerns or attire requirements only enforced within the premises of the businesses themselves. But certainly not as a matter of by whom someone's work product will be used after the fact of its delivery as long as said use is legal.

One's religion is a personal thing that no one nor any government should dictate how one feels. But there is a reason we acknowledge the separation of church and state. The role of state is to foster a community that respects individuality. If one wants the benefits of a government-regulated business environment, then one has to serve every citizen without prejudice. If one wants to claim their religious belief trumps equal treatment under the law then that person wants a Sharia-type mentality to supercede the Constitution. And I hold no illusions that the right-leaning justices on the SCOTUS might see it that very same way. One's individual personal religious rights should never supercede anyone else's constitutional rights when they conflict with each other. If you don't want to serve a sector of the public for religious reasons then do not expect to sustain yourself and utilize a public marketplace supported by the very people you wish to discriminate against.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-12-06 10:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If a baker is an artist, then I guess my coffee barista will soon be claiming to be a virtuoso of froth and refuse to serve me because I am part Cherokee and part vegan.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-06 10:16 PM | Reply

The whole thing is ridiculous and is a result of taking the religious beliefs of Christians to their illogical and insane conclusion.

If Christians cannot respect the beliefs of others why is it they think everyone else has to respect theirs?

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 10:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What if a gay man walks into a Jewish owned bakery and demands a swastika cake? If the baker declines has the gay man been discriminated against because he's gay?
#19 | Posted by JeffJ

Where on Earth do you come up with this crap? StormFront?

A gay couple wanting a gay wedding cake is not even remotely similar to a Nazi wanting a Nazi cake. The swastika is an easily recognized symbol of hate. A gay wedding cake is an easily recognized symbol of love. So they are actually polar opposites.

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 10:42 PM | Reply

#34

As is typical you bounce all over the place.

This is a narrow case. It involves artistic expression. Expression is protected by the First Amendment. That amendment, as interpreted, says the government cannot compel government's chosen expression. Application of the CO public accommodation statute in this case, it is contended, compels an artist to express (create) that which he has a sincere religious objection.

Wild eyed speculation and analogies about gas stations, public servants, fire departments, health care professionals, etc ad infinitum is just that. Wild eyed speculation.

If you want to find a reasoned position against the First Amendment in this case it can be found among the forest of trees killed to write on this subject. www.scotusblog.com

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 10:54 PM | Reply

Because of a public accommodation statute common to a few states, there is no federal counterpart. On these facts, it's contended the statute violates the First Amendment rights of the cake artist. Whether or not the First Amendment is violated is the only question before the court.

#27 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2017-12-06 09:41 PM | FLAG:

And that statute deals with the issue of discrimination. The court is dealing with whether the baker's religious convictions are a defense in a case where his conduct was found discriminatory against the would be customers on the basis of their sexuality. So, could the same statute lead to a finding of discrimination in the case of the gun cake or human sacrifice cake? If so, how does it avoid labeling any and all refusals of service discriminatory? This is why the notion of protected classes exists, right? To prevent precisely that sort of ambiguity in laws intended to prevent discrimination.

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 10:54 PM | Reply

"This is a narrow case. It involves artistic expression."

Does it though? What keeps every fry cook from claiming the same at every segregated lunch counter in Old Dixie? They DO call it the culinary ARTS, you know...

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 10:58 PM | Reply

If a baker is an artist ...

Take it up with Baker Botts and their clients. Brief amici curiae of Cake Artists in support of neither party filed. They think the baker in this instance is an artist. And they got pictures to prove it.

#41 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 11:02 PM | Reply

#41

That doesn't change a thing. The baker is a worker producing a made to order product, as is done in many other professions (who would surely be just as willing to furnish their own 45 pages of pretty pictures to make the point if it allowed them to discriminate against people they didn't like).

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 11:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where does "art" stop?

Here perhaps?

en.m.wikipedia.org

Or how about here?

www.google.com

#43 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 11:12 PM | Reply

As I've said before, when I agree with Sully on something, I mean, come on people. You know he's right. We can't just let any old person claim "religious hoo-haa" because as Et_Al won't say the Courts are extremely unlikely to engage in the Fool's Errand of deciding which religious beliefs are "deeply held" for the very obvious reason that doing so opens a can of worms that probably holds fascism in it, and didn't really start showing signs of wear until after the Civil War, and is really struggling now in the age of Civil Rights."

Crass right-wing ne'er-do-wells are going to ruin the country by not understanding, in some cases deliberately, what I'm saying here.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 11:15 PM | Reply

The court is dealing with ...

You can spin it any way you want. You cannot change the question presented before the court. I quoted it above. Deal with that instead of your preferred spin.

Or this.

In contrast, while this case was still ongoing, the Commission found that three secular bakeries did not discriminate based on creed when they refused a Christian customer's request for custom cakes that criticized same-sex marriage on religious grounds. App. 293-327a. And it did so despite "creed" under CADA encompassing "all aspects of religious beliefs, observances, and practices ... [including] the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion," 3 C.C.R. 708-1:10.2(H) (emphasis added), App. 96a. The Commission reasoned that -- like Phillips -- (1) the bakeries declined the request because they objected to the particular message of the cake and (2) the bakeries were willing to create other items for Christians. App. 297-331a. Unlike Phillips, the Commission exempted these secular bakeries from CADA's scope. www.scotusblog.com

#45 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 11:18 PM | Reply

Just imagine if a pacifist baker refused to make a cake for a member of the military or for a veteran. Could a Christian baker refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? Or could an inter-racial couple be refused a cake by a White Supremacist baker, who claims miscegenation is against his religion? Once you start down this road, it quickly becomes a slippery slope indeed.

#46 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-12-06 11:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"They think the baker in this instance is an artist."

I loved his work in Sponge, but the Devil's Food left me unsatiated.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 11:20 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Where on Earth do you come up with this crap? StormFront?

#37 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

You did notice the question marks, right?

I was probing to see if the baker has any rights of refusal if the request is coming from a protected class.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 11:20 PM | Reply

That doesn't change a thing.

Of course, it counters your confirmation bias.

#49 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-06 11:40 PM | Reply

#45

I am afraid you are the one spinning. Discriminatory and is the underlying issue. Your own link confirms as much. Hence protected class is an issue. You can pretend all you like that this would be a case for the high court if the Baker has refused service for no reason in particular, but your doing so merely shows your own dishonesty.

#50 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 11:47 PM | Reply

Of course, it counters your confirmation bias.

#49 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2017-12-06 11:40 PM | FLAG:

What Confirmation bias? I ask for an argument and you give me something that any of a number of professions could produce. And still no real argument. What Cracker Jack box did you fish your degree out of again?

#51 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-06 11:49 PM | Reply

Hence protected class is an issue.

Not at all. But if you can find "protected class" raised somewhere in the link at 38 or the court's gay marriage opinion in Obergefell I'll address it. Until then, it's just a deflection from the question presented which is the First Amendment. Why do you not want to deal with that?

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-07 12:10 AM | Reply

You did notice the question marks, right?

I was probing to see if the baker has any rights of refusal if the request is coming from a protected class.

Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 11:20 PM | Reply

Question marks make all the difference Lokisfur posting under the handle Derfla5.

#53 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-07 12:20 AM | Reply

#46

Gal, how about three secular bakers in CO refusing to create a cake for a christian that criticizes same sex marriage?

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-07 12:21 AM | Reply

Not at all. But if you can find "protected class" raised somewhere in the link at 38 or the court's gay marriage opinion in Obergefell I'll address it. Until then, it's just a deflection from the question presented which is the First Amendment. Why do you not want to deal with that?

#52 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2017-12-07 12:10 AM | FLAG:

The issue is whether the refusal of service being found DISCRIMINATORY per the statute violates the First Amendment. The issue of discrimination is the context in which the First Amendment issue comes up. No need to ask why you are so set on ignoring THAT inconvenient reality...

#55 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-07 03:30 AM | Reply

Hopefully this issue before the SCOTUS will bring into stark relief the fundamental flaw of asserting that businesses are people.

#56 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2017-12-07 05:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hopefully this issue before the SCOTUS will bring into stark relief the fundamental flaw of asserting that businesses are people.

Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2017-12-07 05:45 AM | Reply

AMEN Honey AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-07 06:17 AM | Reply

"Masterpiece Cakeshop refused even to discuss a cake with them because Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig are a gay couple. The bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, told them that he would not bake a cake of any kind for their wedding."

If this is the case then I would agree it's discriminatory and not protected expression to refuse service. I don't think bakers should be forced to decorate cakes in a specific theme they disagree with, though, whether it's gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, whatever. That would violate the First Amendment, and would be the government regulating the content of art.

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 09:51 AM | Reply

#38 how is about artistic expression when he wouldn't discuss selling then a cake of any kind?

He could have played along and listened to what they wanted and then made some artsy excuse for why he couldn't do it.

But he chose to specifically tell them he wouldn't provide a cake because they are gay.

Doesn't his behavior have to pass a common sense test as to whether it matches what he is claiming now? Seems pretty obvious that the artist excuse is what he came up with after discovering his actual position is illegal.

#59 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 09:56 AM | Reply

"would be the government regulating the content of art."

Using that logic, the owner of Kandy's Kozy Kwik-Lunch can refuse to serve certain folks due to their culinary arts.

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 10:02 AM | Reply

Initially, I thought What if they'd approached a songwriter? Could/Should the songwriter be forced to write a love song?

And then it occurred to me: what the guy is saying is Yeah, I write love songs for everyone else, but I won't write one for you...because you're gay.

So yeah, this guy deserves to lose.

#61 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 10:05 AM | Reply

One thing I find interesting about this case is that the Colorado Civil Rights Division found this to be an illegal act of discrimination, the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts found this to be an illegal act of discrimination, the Civil Rights Division affirmed their decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals then also agreed this was an illegal act of discrimination, and the Colorado Supreme Court then found the baker's arguments so weak that they declined to even review the case.

It is only when the case gets in front of the most partisan Supreme Court to ever have existed, a court that also has the least experience with Colorado's state anti discrimination law, that the baker's arguments appear to be getting some traction. That should tell you all you need to know about this case.

#62 | Posted by JOE at 2017-12-07 10:49 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

He's probably going to win. Even Kagan and Ginsburg are asking pointed questions which poke holes in Colorado's argument. The SC can decide in favor of the baker, without throwing out Colorado's AD law.

#63 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-12-07 10:59 AM | Reply

"Using that logic, the owner of Kandy's Kozy Kwik-Lunch can refuse to serve certain folks due to their culinary arts."

You mean like halal or kosher meat market refusing to serve people who want pork or vegan products?

#64 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 11:12 AM | Reply

#64 silly comparison. You're talking about products that the butchers don't sell to anyone.

The baker does sell wedding cakes. Just not to gays couples.

#65 | Posted by Sully at 2017-12-07 11:27 AM | Reply

Sully, yes I agreed that in this case a cake maker refusing to sell any type of cake to a gay couple is not chido. Danforth appeared to be taking issue specifically with my other comment, though.

#66 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-12-07 11:34 AM | Reply

I've read that the problem is easily avoided by going the route that bars do.

Too often the bars state they are private clubs and can deny access - claiming they only allow members.
But, if you ask about a member list, you may discover they don't have one.

They're not really private. Like the public bakery, the so-called private club, enjoys the benefits of society, the roads that lead to their door. So, are there really any private entities with a door open to the public, but can only accept those they want?

What they do is look at who is at the door and whether the bouncer lets them in. They refuse access to those they were told to prevent -but the reason they stop you won't match the reasoning their employers have.

Discrimination without definition given. The baker defined his decision.

#67 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 12:33 PM | Reply

"The baker defined his decision."

Which was "I make cakes for straight weddings, but I won't make one for you because you're gay".

Pretty clear definition.

I'll be most interested to see the differing viewpoints from the SCOTUS decision.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 12:42 PM | Reply

"Discrimination without definition given. The baker defined his decision."

I am in this camp.
If the baker had just said no without saying why, this would be more acceptable.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-07 12:44 PM | Reply

I don't believe there should be a list of 'classes' for discrimination to apply. All I have to do is find a class that isn't in the list and then I can discriminate.

I pulled this from the UK:

Here's some discrimination classifications:

age
being or becoming a transsexual person
being married or in a civil partnership
being pregnant or on maternity leave
disability
race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
religion, belief or lack of religion/belief
sex
sexual orientation

So, all you have to do is find something else to use for discrimination.

What I find interesting is, we allow discrimination. My in-laws used to live in a special community - totally based on age since they were retirees.

That shouldn't be legal.

Why can you draft me at 18, but I can't get alcohol until I'm 21. Listen to the reasons for 21 being the age for buying it and you wonder why you give an 18 year old a gun.

#70 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-12-07 12:57 PM | Reply

As a group, the religious right are cool with an old man ******* a 14 year old but they think baking a cake for 2 girls who want to play house with each other will send them straight to hell..

#71 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2017-12-07 07:01 PM | Reply

"Is there a constitutional right to discriminate? "

Of course there is. That's not the issue. The issue is to what level we are allowed to discriminate. If we weren't allowed to discriminate at all, we would all be in jail. I prefer not to date certain types of girls but if I couldn't discriminate, every girl could take me to court for turning them down (and vice versa, which happens a lot more of course :-)). So the issue isn't discrimination, it's that there is an unspoken baseline of what can be discriminated against and once that baseline is met, the topic is worthy of society to fight against it. The baseline is different depending on if it is a religious reason or not, but there is always a baseline. Until we as a society accept that discrimination exists we will never make it better. There need to be acceptable baselines to control this or every single social issue will turn into a discrimination case and the entire topic of discrimination will never be settled.

#72 | Posted by humtake at 2017-12-08 12:58 PM | Reply

"... every girl could take me to court for turning them down..." - #72 | Posted by humtake at 2017-12-08 12:58 PM

Reminds me...

humtake was sitting at a table at his high school reunion, and kept staring at a drunken lady swigging her drink as she sat alone at a nearby table.

Someone at the table asked, ‘Do you know her?'

‘Yes,' humtake sighed, ‘She's my old girlfriend. I understand she took to drinking right after we split up those many years ago, and I hear she
hasn't been sober since.'

‘My God!' said someone else at the table, ‘who would think a person could go on celebrating that long?'

#73 | Posted by Hans at 2017-12-08 01:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-#73

Funny flagged. I will be stealing that one from you, Hans.

#74 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2017-12-08 01:32 PM | Reply

"I don't believe there should be a list of 'classes' for discrimination to apply."

Well, there is.

"All I have to do is find a class that isn't in the list and then I can discriminate."

That's true too.

So is your problem the list, or the discrimination?

Should there be no protected classes or should we all be protected classes?

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 01:41 PM | Reply

"There need to be acceptable baselines to control this"

There is.
The protected classes are the baseline.
Some people have a hard time accrpting The Gays on the list.
And some people have a hard time with The Blacks being on the list too.
So they try to find loopholes, like "Religious Freedom."

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-08 01:44 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort