How is my post pro-discrimination? I think the refusal of service is horrible. Depending on individual state laws, though, private business do have the right to refuse service.
What you posted has nothing to do with the rulingA private business absolutely should have the right to decide who they serve and who they don't serve, this was 100% the right decision
A person/business's rights is a technicality?So, they just decided to ignore the issue and rule on a technicality rather than the real issue.
Fucking cowards.
No, they do not have that right. There are anti-discrimination acts in place in the US.
A private business absolutely should have the right to decide who they serve and who they don't serve, this was 100% the right decision
I believe the baker was more than happy to supply such a cake in this case. It would have been the standard default cake they provide everyone that comes in. What he refused was to be commissioned to make a specialty cake to their specifications. So what would be in debate here would be whether you can force an artist to create a piece of art that they do not want to make for whatever reason.
I mean just wasn't the case for that.So, they just decided to ignore the issue and rule on a technicality rather than the real issue.
Fucking cowards.
That's literally the basis of the ruling. He didn't want to make that cake and he shouldn't have been forced to do so.
NopeThat's literally the basis of the ruling. He didn't want to make that cake and he shouldn't have been forced to do so.
Not saying I agree with that line of logic but that is the logic the defense used. Doesn't seem like the SCOTUS actually agreed with it.But isn't a substantial part of their business to make wedding cakes? All of them are customized.
I mean the customers were not requesting to put the word "gay" in the cake or specifically making a gay wedding cake, right? (Like a rainbow flag or something).
So what is the difference of serving other couples requesting wedding cakes? If you are providing (serving) wedding cakes, you are serving wedding cakes (for all).
How about no? Racism and homophobia aren't reasons to not serve someone.That's literally the basis of the ruling. He didn't want to make that cake and he shouldn't have been forced to do so.
No.So, they just decided to ignore the issue and rule on a technicality rather than the real issue.
Fucking cowards.
Read the ruling pleaselol at any liberal that thinks their victories on gay rights are secure or safe.
Gonna have to dismantle the GOP, thoroughly. Scour them from the earth.
This case has nothing to do with the gop.lol at any liberal that thinks their victories on gay rights are secure or safe.
Gonna have to dismantle the GOP, thoroughly. Scour them from the earth.
lol at any liberal that thinks their victories on gay rights are secure or safe.
Gonna have to dismantle the GOP, thoroughly. Scour them from the earth.
That's not a pro-LGBT stance to say that people should be allowed to discriminate because they're gay. Businesses are not allowed to refuse goods and services based on sexual orientation because that is literally just discrimination.
I mean it's been like 2 seconds and not everyone has a chance to read the decision. Even the nyt article on this doesn't mention anything about it being a more techjival ruling than a free speech ruling. Why don't you enlighten us.ITT people aren't reading the decision. Reading beyond the headline will show this is a ruling based on improper procedures, not "against LGBT+"
A private business absolutely should have the right to decide who they serve and who they don't serve, this was 100% the right decision
It wasn't racism or homophobia, he was more than willing to make them a cake, just not that one. Not to mention, it's his business, he should be allowed to make his own decisionsHow about no? Racism and homophobia aren't reasons to not serve someone.
A private business absolutely should have the right to decide who they serve and who they don't serve, this was 100% the right decision
You know the answer. He might not say it, but you know.So you'd be okay with them not serving black people and other minorities?
Not the same thingSo you'd be okay with them not serving black people and other minorities?
What ?A private business absolutely should have the right to decide who they serve and who they don't serve, this was 100% the right decision
They are not. Anyone can go in and buy a cake. No one is refusing service. The question is regarding a custom order, which anyone can refuse. In this case, their religious beliefs regarding gay marriage had them refuse a custom order. While I do not share those beliefs, I don't think they should also be forced to provide a custom order that goes against their beliefs. There are plenty other bakeries to go.
Discrimination would be if they refused normal service.
Put it this way. The Jewish market I have gone to for years and years, they will not do a custom order of anything related to Christmas, Easter, First Communion. And that is their right. But anyone can go in and buy their goods and services.
ABSOLUTELY the same thing. How is it not? Are you that dense?
No.
Anti-discrimination laws apply to the government, not private businesses. The government cannot discriminate against you, but private business/individuals can. So, how then did Congress and the Courts force business to stop discriminating? Good ol' legal credibility through the use of the Commerce Clause. The underlying rationale being that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce and the activities that effect it. A business that discriminates against other people effects interstate commerce and thus Congress can regulate to stop such discrimination. The problem is that only applies in situations when interstate commerce exists. However, if a business is purely local as in its business is located entirely within one state (ie its supplies are purely local, its product is distributed only locally) then Congress can't really do anything. This is how many Country Clubs are allowed to be discriminatory, though they have to be painstakingly sure all their business is local as even one supply coming from out of state can invite regulation from Congress.
Not really most wedding cakes I have seen are pretty much out of a catalog and can be bought in many places. This baker apparently makes elaborate artistic cakes that people commission and design with him. However in this case he offered to make the couple a normal wedding cake but not one of the special designs. I believe argument was that one was a product and the other was an artistic expression that he shouldn't be forced to do.But isn't a substantial part of their business to make wedding cakes? All of them are customized.
I mean the customers were not requesting to put the word "gay" in the cake or specifically making a gay wedding cake, right? (Like a rainbow flag or something).
So what is the difference of serving other couples requesting wedding cakes? If you are providing (serving) wedding cakes, you are serving wedding cakes (for all).
Equally irrelevant is the discussion on serving certain customers, when the issue is what qualifies as compelled speech (in a commercial context).
It wasn't racism or homophobia, he was more than willing to make them a cake, just not that one. Not to mention, it's his business, he should be allowed to make his own decisions
This is easily the worst thread I've ever read in my life. What a disaster.
They are not. Anyone can go in and buy a cake. No one is refusing service. The question is regarding a custom order, which anyone can refuse. In this case, their religious beliefs regarding gay marriage had them refuse a custom order. While I do not share those beliefs, I don't think they should also be forced to provide a custom order that goes against their beliefs. There are plenty other bakeries to go.
Discrimination would be if they refused normal service.
Put it this way. The Jewish market I have gone to for years and years, they will not do a custom order of anything related to Christmas, Easter, First Communion. And that is their right. But anyone can go in and buy their goods and services.
You can read up on it here. It seems the laws depend on the state. Especially when it comes to religion.That doesn't seem to match up with anything that I'm seeing when I look this up honestly. Everything that I'm seeing says that you can't refuse service to someone who is a protected class because of the reason that they're a protected class. As in, you can't refuse to serve someone who is black, just because they're black.
I'm not seeing the legal loophole about it having to be interstate when I look at a few places.
Refusing to serve someone simply because they are black is illegal same as refusing to serve someone simply because they are gay is illegal, refusing to make a very specific cake while also offering to make the person a different cake isn't illegal
It wasn't racism or homophobia, he was more than willing to make them a cake, just not that one. Not to mention, it's his business, he should be allowed to make his own decisions
That has nothing to do with this case.As for the subject of a private company refusing to serve someone, didn't a NY bar get the right to refuse Trump supporters or something recently? This is a country of free speech. It goes both ways.
This is easily the worst thread I've ever read in my life. What a disaster.