Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian baker in same sex lawsuit

[CF DolFan]

It wasn't even close at 7-2.  It has always seemed clear to me that the baker didn't refuse service to a gay couple but he refused to make a cake that violated his beliefs. He made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items like birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers but he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.

I bring this up because I truly believe that is where mainstream society has gone. We have lost all common sense in any area we do not agree. If you simply do not "believe and participate" that something is acceptable then you are a homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever intolerable title they want to give it.

With that said I think there is a case against a florist who refused service to a gay wedding that will get approved. I do think refusing service altogether is not acceptable.

The real truth is unless you actually treat someone badly then you are not guilty of anything.  Sadly this is where we have gone. It is no longer actions but the fact of even disagreeing with people that make you evil. That is a scary world and a gateway to a place where people who do not comply with mainstream will be removed.  Somehow extremism seems to be the only views we hear these days and I'm not sure how we are going to recover.

[Sunstroke]

If a baker decides that putting two men on a wedding cake is offensive to their religion, then no problem.

If the same baker decides against selling the same gay couple "any" of the products in the bakery, then big problem.


I am curious on the flip though. Let's just say that an atheist owns a bakery, and a Christian customer comes in and wants a cake with crucifixes, angels and other religious imagery. Does the atheist have a similar right to turn down that customer?

[pondwater]

If a baker decides that putting two men on a wedding cake is offensive to their religion, then no problem.

If the same baker decides against selling the same gay couple "any" of the products in the bakery, then big problem.


I am curious on the flip though. Let's just say that an atheist owns a bakery, and a Christian customer comes in and wants a cake with crucifixes, angels and other religious imagery. Does the atheist have a similar right to turn down that customer?

Yes, atheist should have the same right. I seem to remember Walmart turning down making a Confederate Flag cake a couple years ago. You don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

[CF DolFan]

If a baker decides that putting two men on a wedding cake is offensive to their religion, then no problem.

If the same baker decides against selling the same gay couple "any" of the products in the bakery, then big problem.


I am curious on the flip though. Let's just say that an atheist owns a bakery, and a Christian customer comes in and wants a cake with crucifixes, angels and other religious imagery. Does the atheist have a similar right to turn down that customer?

Absolutely. If he refuses to serve me something he would serve you because I'm wearing a cross or a Jesus shirt then that's an issue. That's why I think the florist who refuses to provide flowers is going to lose.

[Dave Gray]

Sounds reasonable.

[masterfins]

What I never understand about these types of cases is Why would a person want to give business to a person/store that clearly doesn't like them or their beliefs?  Why sue to force them to take your money?  I could understand if say the electric company said we aren't going to supply your house with electric because your gay; but if a baker or florist doesn't want to serve you there are plenty of others that will.  It's the complete opposite of what is normally done, such as boycotting businesses or companies.

[pondwater]

What I never understand about these types of cases is Why would a person want to give business to a person/store that clearly doesn't like them or their beliefs?  Why sue to force them to take your money?  I could understand if say the electric company said we aren't going to supply your house with electric because your gay; but if a baker or florist doesn't want to serve you there are plenty of others that will.  It's the complete opposite of what is normally done, such as boycotting businesses or companies.

How would the electric company know you're gay? Normally most people wouldn't know you're gay unless you advertise it or force it on people. This is one of the few instances that I can think of that someone would know you're gay due to the product being purchased. The reason they are suing over it is because they want to force people to accept their way of life. I can't think of many other products that would apply in this situation.

[BuccaneerBrad]

Yes, atheist should have the same right. I seem to remember Walmart turning down making a Confederate Flag cake a couple years ago. You don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

I remember a bakery refusing to put a little boy's name on his birthday cake.  His parents named him Adolf Hitler Campbell

[Fau Teixeira]

What I never understand about these types of cases is Why would a person want to give business to a person/store that clearly doesn't like them or their beliefs?  Why sue to force them to take your money?  I could understand if say the electric company said we aren't going to supply your house with electric because your gay; but if a baker or florist doesn't want to serve you there are plenty of others that will.  It's the complete opposite of what is normally done, such as boycotting businesses or companies.

It's the same concept as black students sitting in a whites only diner in the 60s.

In this specific case, i think the ruling is fair. you can't force someone to produce a product they don't want to produce. My problem is that this is such a slippery slope when it comes to religion.
Going to a jewish deli and having them tell you that they can't make you a ham and cheese sandwich is one thing, if they keep kosher they obviously can't give you that product, but it doesn't single out an entire class of people. Would a muslim car dealer be able to refuse to sell cars to women because his deeply held religious beliefs tell him that women aren't permitted to drive? Seems to me to be the same principle argued in this case.

[fyo]

Would a muslim car dealer be able to refuse to sell cars to women because his deeply held religious beliefs tell him that women aren't permitted to drive? Seems to me to be the same principle argued in this case.

No, there's a fundamental difference, as also pointed out by Sunstroke above. The store doesn't have to provide every service or product, but the services and products that it DOES provide, it needs to provide equally for all.

I think a more contentious version of the Supreme Court case would have been if it the shop had been asked to make a cake with a non-white couple and saying that they only wanted to make white couples for the topper.

[CF DolFan]

One of the Justices said yesterday that they would most likely clarify the law in the case of the florist. Obviously I don't know exactly how it will go but I see it this way. If you are Jewish and went to a restaurant then they couldn't force them to serve kosher. If that same Jewish person wanted something on the menu and was denied service because they were Jewish then it would be illegal. 

[Dave Gray]

One of the Justices said yesterday that they would most likely clarify the law in the case of the florist. Obviously I don't know exactly how it will go but I see it this way. If you are Jewish and went to a restaurant then they couldn't force them to serve kosher. If that same Jewish person wanted something on the menu and was denied service because they were Jewish then it would be illegal. 

This seems to be the best interpretation of the ruling.  You can discriminate against the product, but not against the customer.

[Fau Teixeira]

so if the gay couple asked for a generic wedding cake without a topper there's no grounds for the baker to refuse ?

[Dave Gray]

^ Right.

[Fau Teixeira]

Years ago my wife was contacted by a gay couple of out miami. they found her through word of mouth and asked her to make them a cake for their commitment ceremony (cause weddings were still illegal) They had tried 4-5 bakeries or individuals that were referred and were turned down by all of them.

She agreed and we delivered a cake to the ceremony. What they asked for was completely normal, it was a white cake with silver edible grape decorations (the family owned a vinyard) and flowers. It made no reference to the sexual orientation of anyone. Yet they had been denied service by multiple people. I thought it was wrong then, i think it's still wrong now. If there's a religious justification to discriminate against good people then the religion is morally corrupt. If the government allows it then we are all morally complicit in this.