Judge: Baker can refuse to make gay wedding cake

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Very good. Forcing a baker to design gay wedding cake violates free speech. (please note: this was a STATE judge ruling, not federal. SCOTUS is visiting the same issue in months to come).

https://www.turnto23.com/news/local-news/judge-rules-in-favor-of-california-baker-who-refused-to-design-wedding-cake-for-same-sex-couple

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I'm surprised, especially from California.  But I'm sure it will get knocked down by some appellate court out there.  Tolerance isn't sufficient these days for some.  

[AUDub 11,184]

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm surprised, especially from California.  But I'm sure it will get knocked down by some appellate court out there.  Tolerance isn't sufficient these days for some.  

I would think its prevalence would only remain until SCOTUS makes a decision with regards to the Colorado lawsuit that's on the docket. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

 

The last post in that thread was December 18. Sorry I did not notice it. However, the ruling in that case broke headlines today. A temporary restraining order was requested and denied in December. It wasn't until just recently that the parties returned to court for a hearing on a preliminary injunction. 

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Next thing you know someone will do a single woman only showing of Wonder Woman or something and heterosexual and homosexual men regardless of religion will unite into one mega man baby!

[shabby 1,958]

just curious. how would you feel about allowing religious objections from businesses to baking cakes for blacks getting married? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 minutes ago, shabby said:

just curious. how would you feel about allowing religious objections from businesses to baking cakes for blacks getting married? 

My first reaction is I think the owner of a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone he/she wants to as long as no law is violated.

[AUDub 11,184]

35 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

My first reaction is I think the owner of a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone he/she wants to as long as no law is violated.

Colorado has an anti-discrimination law that considers sexual orientation a protected class, as does California.

[homersapien 11,453]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

My first reaction is I think the owner of a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone he/she wants to as long as no law is violated.

Passing of the civil rights act must have been a sad day for you.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

Colorado has an anti-discrimination law that considers sexual orientation a protected class, as does California.

When does Colorado's anti-discrimination law preempt my First Amendment Right to artistic freedom? I.e., is it artistic freedom or discrimination? 

These are hard cases man!!

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 hours ago, shabby said:

just curious. how would you feel about allowing religious objections from businesses to baking cakes for blacks getting married? 

That would be a frivolous lawsuit. There's a case called Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.. In 1964, two African-Americans were refused service at a Piggie Park drive-in in Columbia, S.C., because of their race. In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever." By the time it made it to the Supreme Court in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."

It's not totally irrelevant that you asked that hypothetical because Civil Rights lawyers are using the footnote in contending that it should be applied to the gay wedding cake case. However, the court is not going to consider the footnote as persuasive for an array of reasons. I can explain in more detail if you wish. 

 

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

That would be a frivolous lawsuit. There's a case called Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.. In 1964, two African-Americans were refused service at a Piggie Park drive-in in Columbia, S.C., because of their race. In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever." By the time it made it to the Supreme Court in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."

It's not totally irrelevant that you asked that hypothetical because Civil Rights lawyers are using the footnote in contending that it should be applied to the gay wedding cake case. However, the court is not going to consider the footnote as persuasive for an array of reasons. I can explain in more detail if you wish. 

 

sure. please do. 

[shabby 1,958]

and moving away from the legal argument how about we get to the heart of the issue. the morality of it. we all know justice moves slowly. the law will eventually catch up and it won't be on the side of the bakers. in 1850 one could easily make a legal argument in favor of slavery. the law eventually caught up with the morality of the issue.. so that said. I would like very much to hear you differentiate between the two morally. would you find it mortally and socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks. how about against gays? if your answer differs I would very much like to hear the justifications for d8fferentiating the two.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

and moving away from the legal cop out... I would also like very much to hear you differentiate between the two morally. would you find it mortally and socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks. how about against gays? if your answer differs I would very much like to hear the justifications for d8fferentiating the two.

Legal cop out??? These are judicial determinations and legal issues we are discussing, so to use the term "legal cop out" is incoherent. To answer your question, no it is not morally acceptable to discriminate against against ANYONE. No one ever said that. That's precisely what the case wasn't even about. Rather, it was about artistic freedom - as you would have gathered had you read the case. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, shabby said:

sure. please do. 

Ok, well for starters, the legal issue before the SCOTUS in Newman was entirely different. Thus, the Court won't be bound by its holding or stare decisis. So to use that opinion, a FOOTNOTE at best, really is irrelevant and will not bare on the Court's decision. 

[shabby 1,958]

the cop out is to avoid the moral issue which was absent from all discussion here. hooe that clarifies. no one saying that the legal argument doesn't matter. but you can't seperate the moraliylty from discrimination either. The only reason to do so is to avoid if one of you that might be contrary to your belief. That was my point with the cop out. But I actually edited my post to try to clarify that before you responded. My bad if that wasn't clear

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok, well for starters, the legal issue before the SCOTUS in Newman was entirely different. Thus, the Court won't be bound by its holding or stare decisis. So to use that opinion, a FOOTNOTE at best, really is irrelevant and will not bare on the Court's decision. 

don't courts look for similarities and not exact matches when pouring through past litigation? I'm unsure of your argument. you seem to state that it was a similar case and then state it was completely different. seems pretty similar to.me.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, shabby said:

don't courts look for similarities and not exact matches when pouring through past litigation? 

Stare Decisis is more prevalent to lower courts. The Supreme Court does look for similarities - that is correct. SCOTUS is bound by its own precedent. It can overrule its own precedent but rarely does; i.e., in the case of error, durability, etc.

 However in regards to Newman, by the time that case even reached the Supreme Court, the issue was attorney fees. Subsequent of that case reinforces my proposition that it won't be considered - namely because its treatment and use is in cases revolving around attorney fees. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

13 minutes ago, shabby said:

and moving away from the legal argument how about we get to the heart of the issue. the morality of it. we all know justice moves slowly. the law will eventually catch up and it won't be on the side of the bakers. in 1850 one could easily make a legal argument in favor of slavery. the law eventually caught up with the morality of the issue.. so that said. I would like very much to hear you differentiate between the two morally. would you find it mortally and socially acceptable to discriminate against blacks. how about against gays? if your answer differs I would very much like to hear the justifications for d8fferentiating the two.

There's a difference in discriminating against someone as a person, vs an activity they are wanting your material participation in.

If I refuse to take photos of a black man and his family when I will take family photos of white people, I am discriminating against him because he is black.  If I refuse to do a photo shoot for a black rapper because the lyrics to his music promote violence, misogyny, sexual obscenity, I am discriminating against the specific activity (promotion of such material), not against him as a person because of his race.  This remains true even if I accept photo shoots of other musical artists.  The content is the issue.  It is demonstrably true if I accept photo shoots for other black people whether it be family photos, modeling head shots, promoting their businesses and so on.

If I refuse to bake a cake for gay people period (birthday cake, graduation party, etc.), I am discriminating against them because they are gay.  If I refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the content or premise of this wedding violates my conscience and religious beliefs on what marriage is, yet I will serve gay customers for other kinds of cakes and occasions, I am discriminating against the specific activity, not because they are gay.  This remains true even if I accept cake orders for other kinds of weddings.  The content is the issue.  Similarly I should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for hetero weddings regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin for similar reasons - like if I know that the groom has left his first wife to marry his mistress, or if there was a polyamorous group wishing to celebrate their unique union, or if it was some weird sect that practiced unofficial polygamy (even if all these things were made legal tomorrow).

There is not reason the law can't understand or handle such nuances.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, shabby said:

the cop out is to avoid the moral issue which was absent from all discussion here. hooe that clarifies. no one saying that the legal argument doesn't matter. but you can't seperate the moraliylty from discrimination either. The only reason to do so is to avoid if one of you that might be contrary to your belief. That was my point with the cop out. But I actually edited my post to try to clarify that before you responded. My bad if that wasn't clear

Are you saying it's immoral to allow the baker to refuse baking the cake? 

[shabby 1,958]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

Are you saying it's immoral to allow the baker to refuse baking the cake? 

I am saying allowing discrimination is immoral. yes. 

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There's a difference in discriminating against someone as a person, vs an activity they are wanting your material participation in.

If I refuse to take photos of a black man and his family when I will take family photos of white people, I am discriminating against him because he is black.  If I refuse to do a photo shoot for a black rapper because the lyrics to his music promote violence, misogyny, sexual obscenity, I am discriminating against the specific activity (promotion of such material), not against him as a person because of his race.  This remains true even if I accept photo shoots of other musical artists.  The content is the issue.  It is demonstrably true if I accept photo shoots for other black people whether it be family photos, modeling head shots, promoting their businesses and so on.

If I refuse to bake a cake for gay people period (birthday cake, graduation party, etc.), I am discriminating against them because they are gay.  If I refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the content or premise of this wedding violates my conscience and religious beliefs on what marriage is, yet I will serve gay customers for other kinds of cakes and occasions, I am discriminating against the specific activity, not because they are gay.  This remains true even if I accept cake orders for other kinds of weddings.  The content is the issue.  Similarly I should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for hetero weddings regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin for similar reasons - like if I know that the groom has left his first wife to marry his mistress, or if there was a polyamorous group wishing to celebrate their unique union, or if it was some weird sect that practiced unofficial polygamy (even if all these things were made legal tomorrow).

There is not reason the law can't understand or handle such nuances.

the only difference in the wedding scenario is one is gay and one is straight. you are trying to add other criteria that is based on bigoted view points. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

I am saying allowing discrimination is immoral. yes. 

Who is allowing discrimination? The judge decided the case based on artistic freedom under the First Amendment. Also, by your own standard, wouldn't it then turn into, "not protecting artistic freedom is immoral" ? Do you see what I am getting at?

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There's a difference in discriminating against someone as a person, vs an activity they are wanting your material participation in.

If I refuse to take photos of a black man and his family when I will take family photos of white people, I am discriminating against him because he is black.  If I refuse to do a photo shoot for a black rapper because the lyrics to his music promote violence, misogyny, sexual obscenity, I am discriminating against the specific activity (promotion of such material), not against him as a person because of his race.  This remains true even if I accept photo shoots of other musical artists.  The content is the issue.  It is demonstrably true if I accept photo shoots for other black people whether it be family photos, modeling head shots, promoting their businesses and so on.

If I refuse to bake a cake for gay people period (birthday cake, graduation party, etc.), I am discriminating against them because they are gay.  If I refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding because the content or premise of this wedding violates my conscience and religious beliefs on what marriage is, yet I will serve gay customers for other kinds of cakes and occasions, I am discriminating against the specific activity, not because they are gay.  This remains true even if I accept cake orders for other kinds of weddings.  The content is the issue.  Similarly I should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for hetero weddings regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin for similar reasons - like if I know that the groom has left his first wife to marry his mistress, or if there was a polyamorous group wishing to celebrate their unique union, or if it was some weird sect that practiced unofficial polygamy (even if all these things were made legal tomorrow).

There is not reason the law can't understand or handle such nuances.

Thank you for clarifying the distinction.