Can you be a racist while rooting for a player of a different race?

[Spider-Dan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.

The baker refused to make the cake, not because of what was on it - they literally hadn't discussed any details of the cake - but solely because it was for a gay couple.  So it doesn't sound like you "completely agree with" this ruling after all.

Just to be clear, here: SCOTUS' ruling was NOT about the content/appearance of the cake, but whether the baker had the right to refuse service because they disapproved of the wedding.

[CF DolFan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.

The baker refused to make the cake, not because of what was on it - they literally hadn't discussed any details of the cake - but solely because it was for a gay couple.  So it doesn't sound like you "completely agree with" this ruling after all.

Just to be clear, here: SCOTUS' ruling was NOT about the content/appearance of the cake, but whether the baker had the right to refuse service because they disapproved of the wedding.

You need a different source. That's fake news and a cleaned up version of the truth. That's not what was brought before the courts. 

[Spider-Dan]

I'm almost inclined to think this is a waste of time once we get to the "FAKE NEWS" willful-denial-of-fact part of the discussion, but let's have a go.

Directly from the actual court ruling of the Colorado Court of Appeals:

Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct — entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey. [...]

We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and, in such cases, First Amendment speech protections may be implicated.  However, we need not reach this issue.  We note, again, that Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullins’ request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions.

The above is straight from the Colorado Supreme Court Court of Appeals.  That is not "fake news."

Just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Colorado Supreme Court Court of Appeals has accurately described the facts of the case.  Do you agree or disagree with their ruling that a baker should NOT be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple solely because the product ordered would be used in a same-sex wedding?

edit: The ruling is from the Colorado Court of Appeals, not the Colorado Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal on this case.

[Fau Teixeira]

You need a different source. That's fake news and a cleaned up version of the truth. That's not what was brought before the courts. 

looks like you need a different source

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

If you sell a cake that says "Happy Birthday", you should be forced to not discriminate who you sell it to based on class (race, gender, preference, disability).

But you shouldn't have to make a cake that says "Happy Gay Birthday".

Is anyone in disagreement with this basic idea?  It seems like people are largely arguing in circles with the same basic position.

in a nutshell that is what the sct said.  and yes, there are plenty of people in disagreement with that position.  The lawsuit was demanding that bakers be forced to do that just that.  On the other side you have many including the vp who feel Hardwick should still be the law of the land and disagree with Lawernce v Texas

[CF DolFan]

in a nutshell that is what the sct said.  and yes, there are plenty of people in disagreement with that position.  The lawsuit was demanding that bakers be forced to do that just that.  On the other side you have many including the vp who feel Hardwick should still be the law of the land and disagree with Lawernce v Texas

Instead of being pretentious ... why not just say this in English? You know that very few, if any, know what these cases are.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Instead of being pretentious ... why not just say this in English? You know that very few, if any, know what these cases are.

making homosexuality a criminal act.

[CF DolFan]

making homosexuality a criminal act.

Mike Pence wants to make homosexuality a criminal act? Lol ... I'd have to see some evidence of that. Outside of Westboro Baptist and a few other extremists I can't imagine anyone thinking that.

[Spider-Dan]

in a nutshell that is what the sct said.  and yes, there are plenty of people in disagreement with that position.  The lawsuit was demanding that bakers be forced to do that just that.

Again: that is NOT what the lawsuit was about, nor what either the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decided.

No one was demanding that a baker be forced to make a cake saying "Happy Gay Marriage" or "Adam & Steve Not Adam & Eve".  The lawsuit in question was over whether a baker could refuse to bake any cake if he knew it was going to be used in a same-sex wedding.  In this case, the customer had not even discussed any details of the cake before the baker refused to make it.

There are many people in this thread who recognize the reasonable position: that you shouldn't be forced to make a cake with content you disapprove of, but that you also shouldn't be able to refuse service just because you disagree with someone's marriage.  However, they are NOT recognizing that SCOTUS ruled otherwise: you may refuse service to a customer solely because you disapprove of their marriage.

That is the current state of law in these United States.  I ask you all: do you agree with SCOTUS's ruling, or disagree with it?

[CF DolFan]

Again: that is NOT what the lawsuit was about, nor what either the Colorado Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) decided.

No one was demanding that a baker be forced to make a cake saying "Happy Gay Marriage" or "Adam & Steve Not Adam & Eve".  The lawsuit in question was over whether a baker could refuse to bake any cake if he knew it was going to be used in a same-sex wedding.  In this case, the customer had not even discussed any details of the cake before the baker refused to make it.

There are many people in this thread who recognize the reasonable position: that you shouldn't be forced to make a cake with content you disapprove of, but that you also shouldn't be able to refuse service just because you disagree with someone's marriage.  However, they are NOT recognizing that SCOTUS ruled otherwise: you may refuse service to a customer solely because you disapprove of their marriage.

That is the current state of law in these United States.  I ask you all: do you agree with SCOTUS's ruling, or disagree with it?

From Wikipedia ...
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[2]:

They did not refuse service to gay people.

[Fau Teixeira]

From Wikipedia ...
Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[2]:

They did not refuse service to gay people.

it's the same as a gay couple going to a men's warehouse and being told that they won't be sold matching suits because men's warehouse doesn't support gay weddings, but they can buy any other piece of clothing in the store.

unless the content of the wedding cake somehow violated someone's religious principles (which it never got to) then the decision is morally wrong

[CF DolFan]

it's the same as a gay couple going to a men's warehouse and being told that they won't be sold matching suits because men's warehouse doesn't support gay weddings, but they can buy any other piece of clothing in the store.

unless the content of the wedding cake somehow violated someone's religious principles (which it never got to) then the decision is morally wrong

I get what you're saying but that isn't the case. That's an apples to oranges type of thing. Wedding cakes are for a specific purpose. I'm sure if they ordered a vanilla or chocolate birthday cake they would have made it ... as they said they were welcome to "purchase other baked goods".

Honestly to me the biggest thing is why would you want to force someone anyway? I'd never think of going to a Muslim bakery for a Hanukkah cake. It doesn't make sense unless I just want to go out of my way to be an ass.

[Dave Gray]

I get what you're saying but that isn't the case. That's an apples to oranges type of thing. Wedding cakes are for a specific purpose.

I totally disagree.  This seems like a 1:1 comparison.  Wedding cakes are made to be eaten at weddings.  If you make cakes for this purpose, you shouldn't be able to determine who gets that cake and who doesn't.  If you only make cakes shaped like top-hats, then you shouldn't be forced to make a cake outside of that, for any purpose.  But if the product itself is the same, a seller shouldn't be able to discriminate because of the user's intended use.  This is especially true for things that are (or should be) protected classes.

Honestly to me the biggest thing is why would you want to force someone anyway?

This has already been fully litigated by society and you're re-treading an issue that we've gotten past 50 years ago.  "Why would a black want to eat at a place that wouldn't want to serve blacks" is the same tired argument.  There is a cost to functioning in a society.  Businesses benefit from the system we have and they have to follow the rules to make it fair for everyone who contributes to that system.  It's the entire reason that the government creates protected classes.  You might not want to be the gay guy that orders the cake from the person that doesn't want to make it because they're a bigot.  But it's important that the person is legally required to.

[Spider-Dan]

CF, I find it incredibly bizarre that you are citing the exact same Wikipedia passage that you decried as Fake News when I cited it.  Nevertheless:

I get what you're saying but that isn't the case. That's an apples to oranges type of thing. Wedding cakes are for a specific purpose. I'm sure if they ordered a vanilla or chocolate birthday cake they would have made it ... as they said they were welcome to "purchase other baked goods".

No, they would not.  The objection that the baker made was that baking a cake with the knowledge that it would be used in a gay wedding was against his principles.  For the third time: he refused them service before any details of the cake itself were discussed.

And to be clear: the baker absolutely did refuse service.  They are not a vending machine or a factory outlet; they offer the service of baking custom cakes for weddings, and they refused that service to a gay couple solely because they disagreed with same-sex marriages.  (The fact that they offered to sell them a cake off the shelf is irrelevant. If i tell you that I will not seat your kind in my restaurant but you are free to order take-out, I have still denied you service.)

Fau's analogy is perfect.  This is no different than a tailor refusing to do alterations because the suit will be used in a gay wedding.

Honestly to me the biggest thing is why would you want to force someone anyway?

For exactly the same reason that blacks in the '60s wanted to force whites-only businesses to serve them.

So once again: do you agree or disagree with the ruling that a business may refuse service to a customer solely because they disapprove of their lifestyle?

[Phishfan]

it's the same as a gay couple going to a men's warehouse and being told that they won't be sold matching suits because men's warehouse doesn't support gay weddings, but they can buy any other piece of clothing in the store.

unless the content of the wedding cake somehow violated someone's religious principles (which it never got to) then the decision is morally wrong

I have never been to a Men's Warehouse. Do they create the suit? If not, it isn't the same thing.