The cake goes to SCOTUS

[Younggun]

Not really a news article but a newsworthy topic I think.

SCOTUS is hearing arguments on 1A rights of businesses as it relates to bakers and gay marriage. Short commentary on some of the defenses arguments and it sounds like they attempted for a more narrow scope in the ruling, and in doing so are really bungling the case.

[video]

 

[kenboyles72]

"So should a black man be forced to make a cross for the KKK?"

Nobody should be forced to provide services to anyone that they don't want to. Take a look at many restaurants, there is a sign stating they have the right to refuse service to anyone, is this against the 1A?

 

[AustinN4]

Looking forward to SCOTUSes take on this. Hopefully it will come down like Ken's post in #2. The problem, of course, is that we have these "protected" groups that are somehow special.

 

[TexasBrandon]

This kind of shit doesn't belong on the table of the SCOTUS. Here is an idea, go shove your gay cake up your ass since you like everything else there apparently queerbag (the dude in the article of course not yall). I can't stand when people try to force their beliefs and way of life on someone else.

 

[Younggun]

"So should a black man be forced to make a cross for the KKK?"

Nobody should be forced to provide services to anyone that they don't want to. Take a look at many restaurants, there is a sign stating they have the right to refuse service to anyone, is this against the 1A?

The problem is that the defense is totally fucking their arguments making it about art and trying to say "this but not that".

They are making it very easy for the obviously liberal judges to say "you admit that isn't protected so this is not either".

They should be arguing on the grounds of the religious freedom specifically protected by the 1A. They stand to make a major win for the rights of all businesses but are instead throwing it and their own case away attempting to only defend on the basis of "art".

 

[Younggun]

This kind of shit doesn't belong on the table of the SCOTUS. Here is an idea, go shove your gay cake up your ass since you like everything else there apparently queerbag. I can't stand when people try to force their beliefs and way of life on someone else.

It does belong there because lower courts have ruled otherwise. If you'd rather SCOTUS not hear it then the lower rulings stand.

The content of your post is wholly detrimental to the point of your post.

 

[Vaquero]

"Art" is pretty much what got us to this point.

 

[diesel1959]

But the cake-maker told them he'd sell them anything in the shop, so it's not that he wouldn't (or hasn't) served gay folks. But what he refused to do is DESIGN--aka use his artistic skills--and produce a special cake just for them. So the case IS about artistic expression and free speech. The State of Colorado is trying to make it about refusal to serve gays in the cake shop. That's simply not square with the facts of the case.

 

[AustinN4]

...(the dude in the article of course not yall).

Glad you clarified that. I was starting to get pissed.

 

[Younggun]

But the cake-maker told them he'd sell them anything in the shop, so it's not that he wouldn't (or hasn't) served gay folks. But what he refused to do is DESIGN--aka use his artistic skills--and produce a special cake just for them. So the case IS about artistic expression and free speech. The State of Colorado is trying to make it about refusal to serve gays in the cake shop. That's simply not square with the facts of the case.

True. And under that condition I guess the angle does make sense. I guess I'd just rather see a more broad reaching protection of the rights to your own labor.

I still believe they are doing a poor job of articulating their defense amid the obvious (and expected) liberal activist questioning.

 

[vmax]

One thing about this whole deal is that the homosexuals drove 120 miles away , driving past 8 other known bakeries just to ask the Christian bakery owners to make them a wedding cake.

 

[kenboyles72]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

They are arguing 1A, but where in the above does it state that one has to provide services? Actually, if you go by the 1A, the gay couple is infringing on the bakers rights, his religious beliefs. They would have had a better chance of arguing discrimination, rather than 1A rights.

 

[Younggun]

They are arguing 1A, but where in the above does it state that one has to provide services? Actually, if you go by the 1A, the gay couple is infringing on the bakers rights, his religious beliefs. They would have had a better chance of arguing discrimination, rather than 1A rights.

What?

Who?

They are arguing that forcing them to create the cake for something that violates their religious views is a violation of their 1A right. (The part about religion).

In order to prove discrimination they would have to find substantial proof that the law was only designed to discriminate against Christians which would be extremely difficult.

 

[Charlie]

Just glad I don't run a business anymore. You'd probably be reading about me now. If I didn't want to do business with someone, I just tell them no. I'm not required to tell them anything else. Heh!

 

[MTA]

Just glad I don't run a business anymore. You'd probably be reading about me now. If I didn't want to do business with someone, I just tell them no. I'm not required to tell them anything else. Heh!

I dont know why the baker just didnt say we are too busy or we aren't taking on any additional work at this time. Does anyone actually know how the whole situation went down?

 

[AustinN4]

I dont know why the baker just didnt say we are too busy or we aren't taking on any additional work at this time.

Well, maybe he wanted to make an issue of it.

 

[Charlie]

Sometimes it pays to be polite and tell them to GTFO.

 

[Army 1911]

Any way you slice it, the decision will leave a bad taste in someones mouth.

The wedding is over, there probably was a cake there, so there is no remedy available without a time machine. The whole case seems moot. If the gays had waited until the SCOTUS decision, then there would be a possible remedy.

 

[Younggun]

What about a remedy to an unjust law?

 

[TxStetson]

Any way you slice it, the decision will leave a bad taste in someones mouth.

I see what you did there.