SCOTUS to Hear Baker vs. Gay Couple Case

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

This should be an interesting one. What is your opinion.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/gay-wedding-cake-controversy-heads-to-supreme-court.html

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Largely, this:

 

In short, I think you should be able to decline being a material participant in an event that violates your beliefs or conscience.  You should not be able to simply not serve certain customers.  In other words, if an openly gay person wants to purchase a birthday cake or rent your facility for a graduation party for instance, you make the cake and you rent the facility.  If they want you to make a cake or rent the facility for a same sex wedding for instance, you can refuse.  Refusing the wedding event is about the content of the event.  Refusing to sell them any other kind of cake or renting the facility for other events is not about the event, it's about them being gay and should be illegal.   It's really no different than refusing to do a photo shoot for a black rap artist's album cover whose lyrics are vulgar, overtly sexual, misogynist, violent, etc vs refusing to do a photo shoot for black couple's family photos.  Refusing the rapper's photo shoot is refusing because of the nature of the content involved.  Refusing the couple is refusing them for being black.

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Largely, this:

 

In short, I think you should be able to decline being a material participant in an event that violates your beliefs or conscience.  You should not be able to simply not serve certain customers.  In other words, if an openly gay person wants to purchase a birthday cake or rent your facility for a graduation party for instance, you make the cake and you rent the facility.  If they want you to make a cake or rent the facility for a same sex wedding for instance, you can refuse.  Refusing the wedding event is about the content of the event.  Refusing to sell them any other kind of cake or renting the facility for other events is not about the event, it's about them being gay and should be illegal.   It's really no different than refusing to do a photo shoot for a black rap artist's album cover whose lyrics are vulgar, overtly sexual, misogynist, violent, etc vs refusing to do a photo shoot for black couple's family photos.  Refusing the rapper's photo shoot is refusing because of the nature of the content involved.  Refusing the couple is refusing them for being black.

Your view is pretty close to what this baker has stated: 

Quote

 

"It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event -- a religious sacred event -- that conflicts with my conscience," he said earlier. "My bakery, my family, my life, the work I get to do, is a gift from God and I want to honor Him in everything I do."

The soft-spoken Phillips adds that like other artists, he has turned away cake requests for a variety of reasons: baked goods with profanity or obscene images, racial stereotypes, even those that he says would disparage homosexuals.

 

I've always thought these kind of cases (similar cases involving florists & bakers in WA & OR) are 1st Amendment issues at their core.  I predict the SC will side with the "artist." 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

If you can get your hands on some of the amicus briefs that have been filed, check them out. Should be available through a google search.