Gay Wedding Cakes

[All-American]

For those so inclined, here's the transcript of the argument.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...6-111_f314.pdf

[Uncle Ted]

For those so inclined, here's the transcript of the argument.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_ar...6-111_f314.pdf

TL; DR. One of you lawyers needs to give us the legal summary along with some select highlight quotes.

[smokymountainrain]

yes

Okay. Thanks for the answer. Sorry gays- can't argue with that one. If we can discriminate against whites and blacks and all skin colors in between, i can't do anything for y'all.

[falafel]

Okay. Thanks for the answer. Sorry gays- can't argue with that one. If we can discriminate against whites and blacks and all skin colors in between, i can't do anything for y'all.

You discriminate too. All the time. You just accept the discrimination as justified. Ever lock your doors when you see a sketchy person panhandling outside the parking lot of the IMC? Ever see a dude with long hair and 50 tatts and think "no way a dude like that ever gets close to my daughter"? (in fact - didn't you once post about an issue you had with your daughter's choice in young men?)

[Jeff Lebowski]

at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?

Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

(a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)

[old_gregg]

That is most definitely a kooky libertarian take.

no it’s not

[MartyFunkhouser]

Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

(a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)

No. It is not a protected class and shouldn't be a protected class. You aren't born a racist piece of shit that is definitely a decision.

[smokymountainrain]

You discriminate too. All the time. You just accept the discrimination as justified. Ever lock your doors when you see a sketchy person panhandling outside the parking lot of the IMC? Ever see a dude with long hair and 50 tatts and think "no way a dude like that ever gets close to my daughter"? (in fact - didn't you once post about an issue you had with your daughter's choice in young men?)

Yeah, just always saw owning a business, providing a service for the general public differently. Obviously I'm not alone in that thought.

[MartyFunkhouser]

So the compelling interest is "prohibiting discrimination" which in turn means governing people's personal feelings about gay marriage? And Colorado is using the power to grant business licenses as a way to enforce this?

"Prohibiting discrimination" is a pretty wide-encompassing thing that could be used to proscribe all kinds of behavior based on personal beliefs. And that runs up against First Amendment Rights, hence it better be both a very compelling interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. That's where we get the public accommodation cases. Prohibiting discrimination is compelling as to public accomodations. Telling a baker that he must create an artistic work for a gay wedding that also happens to go against his religious beliefs isn't exactly desegregating the University of Alabama. People should be allowed to maintain those beliefs as long as it doesn't infringe on some essential or even important accomodation.

Let's be more precise, the compelling interest in avoiding giving business licenses to individuals that are going to use that government benefit to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Colorado is not stopping people from believing homosexual marriage is wrong. Colorado has just decided that it is going to condition the privilege of operating a business on actually treating all protected classes equally.

[Uncle Ted]

Here is another hypothetical for you: Suppose you have a black baker, and a member of the KKK comes in and ask the baker to make a wedding cake featuring burning crosses, "white power", and other KKK symbols. Should the baker be required to bake the cake? Otherwise it is discrimination, right?

(a similar analogy was used in the SCOTUS arguments today, btw)

Couldn't the baker just say cakes featuring burning crosses, etc. are $2,000 extra because of the emotional demands it puts on the staff of the cake shop to create such a work of art? Not to mention burning crosses present a significant fire hazard as well to the cake shop.

[cougjunkie]

What a boring ass thread. Yawn.

[old_gregg]

Let's be more precise, the compelling interest in avoiding giving business licenses to individuals that are going to use that government benefit to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Colorado is not stopping people from believing homosexual marriage is wrong. Colorado has just decided that it is going to condition the privilege of operating a business on actually treating all protected classes equally.

infringement on free exercise is not itself a compelling interest

[Uncle Ted]

What a boring ass thread. Yawn.

Yeah, no kidding...

Embedded Tweet

[MartyFunkhouser]

infringement on free exercise is not itself a compelling interest

I absolutely disagree that the Colorado statute as interpreted and applied to this cake baker infringes on his free exercise.

[falafel]

Can I, as a Christian baker, refuse to bake a cake for a Satanist that wants me to put a mangled Jesus on a cross on the cake for his anti-christ commitment ceremony?