U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[Copernicus]

I agree with Jimmy Higgins' interpretation here that there was a false equivalence in the majority decision, but I believe that Justice Ginsberg (joined by Sotomayor) also made that point in her dissent. The majority presented no evidence that the discrimination was based on messaging. It was a fairly straightforward case of discrimination, which the commission decided fairly. The baker had told the customer that he simply did not make cakes for same-sex marriages. The message-on-a-cake issue was irrelevant. There were some prejudicial statements made by a few members of the commission afterwards regarding the baker's religion, but there was no clear evidence that their religious "viewpoint" had anything to do with the actual decision by the full commission. That aspect of this case seems to have been inferred by the majority without sufficient reason, in Ginsberg and Sotomayor's opinion. And, as members of the Court, they would have had an opportunity to become aware of evidence, if it had been given.

Another point made by Ginsberg was that the Colorado court, whose decision was overturned by this ruling, had not just looked at the attitudes of the commissioners. They considered the case "de novo"--on its own merits. The baker had actually violated the Colorado antidiscrimination law, which (presumably) the SCOTUS decision was not actually overturning. So Ginsberg reasoned that there was insufficient reason to overturn the Colorado court.

Now, the majority disagreed with Ginsberg, so her opinion is just a footnote here. Nevertheless, it is a point in favor of the counterargument by Jimmy Higgins, IMO. Moreover, the practical effect of the ruling--regardless of the technical, nuanced explanation of the majority--was that the public gained the impression that SCOTUS had overturned the Colorado law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of homosexuality and same-sex marriage. It did not technically do that, but the perception of most of the media and the public is that it did. So the rhetorical logic chopping and technical nuance in the SCOTUS decision did no favors to the law that wasn't somehow being overturned. It effectively crippled the law in the eyes of the public. This is yet another example of the Roberts SCOTUS handing down a decision that will have unintended consequences in subsequent application of the law and probably end up clogging up the courts with more lawsuits seeking clarification.

 

[Emily Lake]

So to end viewpoint discrimination they allow the baker to discriminate?

Technically, they didn't "allow" the baker to discriminate. They overturned the prior ruling because the law was applied in a way that wasn't neutral. Consider it more of a case of a court decision being thrown out and declared a mistrial. It doesn't mean that the defendant was innocent - it means that the judicial system failed to do it's job correctly. Same sort of a situation here. They didn't rule that it was okay for the baker to discriminate, they determined that the process used to decide he was guilty of discrimination was not appropriately applied. Whether the baker's actions are considered discriminatory hasn't actually been addressed.

It might be worth noting that the fact that it hasn't been addressed was a pretty decent bit of the discussion on the first few pages of this thread. Thus referring to the decision as "sidestepping" the issue.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nope. Read the opinion. The Court said the law was not applied neutrally. The remedy is to apply the law neutrally.

My understanding is that the Court did not opine on the appropriate outcome of a neutral application of the law. In other words, it is my understanding that if a neutral application of the law (per the SCOTUS standards) was that the baker was violating the law, that ruling would be constitutional.

That was my understanding as well. I also thought that was what James Madison had said.

- - - Updated - - -

My argument is that there isn't an actual outcome distinction, only a morality distinction.

Well, if the establishment is closed, then my wife, my sons and I all get the same treatment.
But if they're open, my wife, my son and I could get treated differently, if they deny service due to either race, religion, or gender preference.

So there is an outcome distinction.

Would Curves be a better example than Chik-fil-A? In that they deny service to men outright, and limit membership to only women?

 

[Emily Lake]

This is one of those conflicts of rights situations that really leaves me fence-sitting. I end up trying to come up with alternative scenarios where I would decide differently, so I can figure out if it's my own personal sentiment and values guiding my reaction, or whether it's objective application of law.

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So to end viewpoint discrimination they allow the baker to discriminate?

Technically, they didn't "allow" the baker to discriminate. They overturned the prior ruling because the law was applied in a way that wasn't neutral....

Actually they inferred it wasn't neutrally held.

Consider it more of a case of a court decision being thrown out and declared a mistrial. It doesn't mean that the defendant was innocent - it means that the judicial system failed to do it's job correctly.

Allegedly failed.

Same sort of a situation here. They didn't rule that it was okay for the baker to discriminate, they determined that the process used to decide he was guilty of discrimination was not appropriately applied. Whether the baker's actions are considered discriminatory hasn't actually been addressed.

Which would have been a nice thing for the Court to actually address instead of this BS pussyfooting.

Also, you are wasting your time with him. Most input goes ignored in the replies to him in this thread.

 

[dismal]

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is one of those conflicts of rights situations that really leaves me fence-sitting. I end up trying to come up with alternative scenarios where I would decide differently, so I can figure out if it's my own personal sentiment and values guiding my reaction, or whether it's objective application of law.

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

I hate bad parallels. The baker sells wedding cakes. The gay couple didn't go into his place of business and ask for pork.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

A consumer can not be denied services because of who they are. If the consumers were black, this isn't a case to begin with. Right-wingers are desperately trying to keep a hold of one of the last groups of people they can withhold rights to.

 

[Emily Lake]

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

Nope That's why I said my opinion is very much influenced by my own beliefs!

 

[dismal]

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

Nope That's why I said my opinion is very much influenced by my own beliefs!

So, you endorse one viewpoint but not the other. That's fine in your capacity as an individual, but the government may not do it.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is one of those conflicts of rights situations that really leaves me fence-sitting. I end up trying to come up with alternative scenarios where I would decide differently, so I can figure out if it's my own personal sentiment and values guiding my reaction, or whether it's objective application of law.

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

I hate bad parallels. The baker sells wedding cakes. The gay couple didn't go into his place of business and ask for pork.

So why did you ignore my good parallel? You know, this one:

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

A consumer can not be denied services because of who they are. If the consumers were black, this isn't a case to begin with. Right-wingers are desperately trying to keep a hold of one of the last groups of people they can withhold rights to.

What does that have to do with my post? Or is this intended to just be a follow-on message, not a disagreement? I can't really tell.

 

[Playball40]

This is one of those conflicts of rights situations that really leaves me fence-sitting. I end up trying to come up with alternative scenarios where I would decide differently, so I can figure out if it's my own personal sentiment and values guiding my reaction, or whether it's objective application of law.

In this case, I tend to think the baker is a jerk. But I know that is also very much influenced by my own beliefs regarding homosexuality (more to the point, my belief that what any consenting humans do together, in whatever combination pleases them, is not my business nor the governments). But religion is also protected in the US. So we've got a conflict of belief here: the belief that homosexuality is a sin versus the belief that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against.

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

So, if this baker has made cakes celebrating divorce, a child out of wedlock or any other of the myriad of things deemed 'sins' in Christianity, then he DID in fact discriminate and the decision is wrong.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?

”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.

No, it's about businesses' ability (or inability) to use their business to freely express the values of their owners.

When a company forces its employees to sign-on to LGBTQ acceptance value statements and restricts their free speech (on social media) even outside working hours, that is in the same category as a business which doesn't want to operate in the gay wedding sector of the market.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?

”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.

No, it's about businesses' ability (or inability) to use their business to freely express the values of their owners.

When a company forces its employees to sign-on to LGBTQ acceptance value statements and restricts their free speech (on social media) even outside working hours, that is in the same category as a business which doesn't want to operate in the gay wedding sector of the market.

Agree. The example was the free speech allowed by Kaepernick but not allowed by Roseanne.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?

”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.

The distinction, though subtle, between denying service and not serving is critical. I sell (and only sell) Pepsi--not Coke. If someone wants to buy Coke from me, then although I'm not selling that someone Coke, I'm not denying to sell him Coke. On the other hand, if I do sell Coke but refuse to sell it, then that is a denial.

What if instead of coke you're selling a photography service. Coke = clothes on. Pepsi = naked.
Should you have the right to turn away clients who want you to film their 'Pepsi' honeymoon snaps? If yes, that's discrimination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So why did you ignore my good parallel? You know, this one:

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

That wasn't a good parallel.

I don't think there's a clear answer to these sorts of questions. The best we (as laymen) can do is to consider the way in which we rank our own values. It's up to the courts to decide with right wins out... and I don't envy them the job.

A consumer can not be denied services because of who they are. If the consumers were black, this isn't a case to begin with. Right-wingers are desperately trying to keep a hold of one of the last groups of people they can withhold rights to.

What does that have to do with my post? Or is this intended to just be a follow-on message, not a disagreement? I can't really tell.

You make it sound like it is discriminating against one person or the other and we need to rank it. My comment indicated that if this were about color, there wouldn't be a question. It merely exists for gays because it is still a bit acceptable to discriminate against gays... for religious reasons, of course. Just like how inter-racial marriage bans were for religious reasons.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, it's about businesses' ability (or inability) to use their business to freely express the values of their owners.

When a company forces its employees to sign-on to LGBTQ acceptance value statements and restricts their free speech (on social media) even outside working hours, that is in the same category as a business which doesn't want to operate in the gay wedding sector of the market.

Agree. The example was the free speech allowed by Kaepernick but not allowed by Roseanne.

Kneeling regarding unarmed people being shot by cops verses 19th century racist humor. Yeah... those two examples are so unbelievably similar.

- - - Updated - - -

The distinction, though subtle, between denying service and not serving is critical. I sell (and only sell) Pepsi--not Coke. If someone wants to buy Coke from me, then although I'm not selling that someone Coke, I'm not denying to sell him Coke. On the other hand, if I do sell Coke but refuse to sell it, then that is a denial.

What if instead of coke you're selling a photography service. Coke = clothes on. Pepsi = naked.
Should you have the right to turn away clients who want you to film their 'Pepsi' honeymoon snaps? If yes, that's discrimination.

Do you work for AiG? That argument is just so dense.

 

[Juma]

Why is it that pro-gay businesses like Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon are allowed to impose their LGBTQ values but not this cake baker?

”Impose values” ? This isnt about ”impose values”. Its about denying service.

No, it's about businesses' ability (or inability) to use their business to freely express the values of their owners.

When a company forces its employees to sign-on to LGBTQ acceptance value statements and restricts their free speech (on social media) even outside working hours, that is in the same category as a business which doesn't want to operate in the gay wedding sector of the market.

? No it isnt. You shouldnt discriminate gays. you shouldnt discriminate blacks. There is people that gets married. Wether they are straight or gay isnt your business.

 

[untermensche]

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

Most definitely.

Their stupidity should not be protected.

 

[dismal]

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

Most definitely.

Their stupidity should not be protected.

OK, so you agree that the State of Colorado was being improper in allowing some bakers to refuse to bake cakes based on message but not others?

 

[untermensche]

Were the bakers who refused to bake the bible verse cakes also jerks?

Most definitely.

Their stupidity should not be protected.

OK, so you agree that the State of Colorado was being improper in allowing some bakers to refuse to bake cakes based on message but not others?

I agree that a baker is not in the business of publishing.