all 32 comments

[–]WolfeBane84 8 ポイント9 ポイント

If this is the story I think it is, this is such bullshit.

It's a PRIVATE business. They can serve or not serve whoever the fuck they want.

WTF is going on around here?

[–]Nizzo 3 ポイント4 ポイント

It sounds an awful lot like Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US, which essentially said the same thing as this case, back in 1964, but regarding race and not sexual orientation, and basing it on the well-abused commerce clause.

[–]ericcanton 1 ポイント2 ポイント

That should be the way that it works, but Colorado's civil rights laws prohibit discrimination against someone based on sexual orientation in a public place. I don't agree with a lot of the laws that the government passes, but I weigh the consequences of them carefully before deciding whether or not to break them. I think that I should be allowed to carry an open beer in front of a cop in public, but I understand that we live in a country with an uptight government and that I could get cited. It isn't worth the risk to me so I choose not to.

This business owner should have known the state law beforehand and known that he could be sued. Again, I don't like that they did that to him and agree that they should let private businesses do their thing, but part of being a business owner is realizing that the government likes to stick its nose into everything you do.

Also, he is the one that chose to top making wedding cakes. He decided that giving up what is likely a decent part of business was worth having the right to stop selling wedding cakes to gay couples. I respect his decision to do so, but at the end of the day that was his call. The government isn't forcing him to do that.

[–]rcglinsk 0 ポイント1 ポイント

States aren't allowed to make laws which limit the free exercise of religion. They probably expected the first amendment to protect them.

Ain't no amendment about having a brew outside the police station, though maybe there should be;)

[–]The__Imp 0 ポイント1 ポイント

You understand why the clause of the first amendment that prevents the passage of laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion has no effect on laws that have general applicability, right?

As you know, the first amendment prevents any religion from becoming the "official" religion, and prevents the elevation of one religion over another. If one can chose not to follow a generally applicable law that was not passed specifically to infringe on religious rights because it is against their religion, then we would have no laws whatsoever. Anyone could invent a religion that circumvents any given law.

I don't want someone to be able to claim that a major tenant of their religion allows them to cook meth and sell it on schoolyards, and to have potential law enforcement action against them overthrown on the grounds of the free exercise of religion. It is an absurd argument, but is meant to illustrate the logical conclusion the interpretation of the first amendment that you espoused in your comment.

[–]rcglinsk 2 ポイント3 ポイント

If a law compels and action which violates religious beliefs it is preventing free exercise, even if it's a generally applicable law. I don't think SCOTUS has ruled on whether that would apply in the case of a baker and a gay wedding cake. But the baker would certainly seem to think it does (I mean wedding cakes are serious dinero, he wouldn't stop making them if he didn't really care).

[–]The__Imp -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I am several years out of my constitutional law class, and I don't practice in this area, but this directly contradicts my recollection of the state of the law.

If this is the case, imagine I get a couple million people to join my church, which I will name "The All Drugs are Legal Church." Assume we build some really nice churches and gather for a very pleasant service every Sunday. Does this mean that the laws outlawing the possession of the drugs that are absolutely critical to my religion are a violation of my free exercise of religion?

[–]rcglinsk 1 ポイント2 ポイント

For example

Sherbert v. Verner. Strict scrutiny applies when unemployment benefits denied to First Adventist for not working a work schedule conflicting with religious beliefs.

Wisconsin v. Yoder, state law compelling Amish children to attend high school violated parent's right to free exercise when strict scrutiny applied.

If this is the case, imagine I get a couple million people to join my church, which I will name "The All Drugs are Legal Church." Assume we build some really nice churches and gather for a very pleasant service every Sunday. Does this mean that the laws outlawing the possession of the drugs that are absolutely critical to my religion are a violation of my free exercise of religion?

Employment Division v. Smith, the peyote case. Yeah, it's an odd bird. I don't see how it squares with prior precedent. I suppose it's arguable that overturned prior precedent. But I suspect the real issue was religious bias (against the Peyote users) which probably won't be an issue for mainstream Christians.

[–]The__Imp 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Thanks for the case cites. Some good leisure reading for later.

[–]The__Imp 3 ポイント4 ポイント

I can't get behind it. It is hard to draw the line between individual freedom and discrimination. Would the conservative community support the right of an individual to refuse to do business with African Americans based solely on their skin color? What about refusing to grant a marriage license to an interracial couple, which may violate the personal beliefs and values of the person issuing the license?

I want to respect the rights of an individual to be as prejudiced as they want, but I think this crosses the line. I think that special attention does need to be paid to service industry jobs, but your rights end where mine begin, and I think that gay people, like everyone else, have a right to exist in society free from outward discrimination and exclusion.

[–]NordlichenUbermensch 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Would the conservative community support the right of an individual to refuse to do business with African Americans based solely on their skin color?

I support the right of an individual to refuse to do business with people whose names start with the letter 'F', or people who are left-handed, or people with bad haircuts.

[–]The__Imp -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Actually, me too. I think there is a difference when it comes to turning away someone because of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

[–]NordlichenUbermensch 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Only because liberals told you to think that way. Those are completely arbitrary factors picked out from the rest. You aren't analyzing; you are just accepting what liberals have taught you is right.

[–]SaladProblems 2 ポイント3 ポイント

The main thing is that conservatives believe sexual orientation is a choice, and thus don't believe it should be a protected class.

[–]The__Imp -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I suppose that is at least a logical support for what appears to me to be blatant discrimination.

I don't think the position has support in scientific studies. Anecdotally, I have discussed the matter with several gay friends, and I firmly believe that, while I can't say that it is totally genetic, that there is little if any conscious choice involved. My best friend through law school was a lesbian, and she asked repeatedly why anyone would willing to choose a lifestyle that subjected her to so much hate and discrimination. In my experience, parents often know that their child is gay prior to being told, and in some cases, before the child is fully aware themselves.

I personally believe that conservatives, who stand for individual liberties, and who played a large role in ending slavery and opposing segregation, are on the wrong side of this issue.

[–]Fazaman 0 ポイント1 ポイント

while I can't say that it is totally genetic

I'd go so far as to say that it's not genetic, as evidenced by identical twins where one is gay and the other is not. There may be a genetic pre-disposition to it, but I've not seen evidence to that extent. The evidence I've seen seems to indicate a developmental cause, likely with hormone absorption during pregnancy (I'm no expert. Just going by what I've seen, so take that for what it's worth... not much). But I'd say it's not really a choice except in cases where the person is in the middle of the spectrum, but even in that case it falls into the 'what business is it of yours who someone else is attracted to' camp.

But as for conservatives standing for individual liberties, that's more the libertarian stance, and there's sections of the conservative spectrum that are not for individual liberties in some cases. You're thinking more libertarian leaning conservatives, which, I think, is now the party should be leaning, but, annoyingly, is not always how it is.

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

and I think that gay people, like everyone else, have a right to exist in society free from outward discrimination and exclusion.

Thats a positive right not a negative right.

It is the antithesis of conservatism.

I want to respect the rights of an individual to be as prejudiced as they want, but I think this crosses the line.

What prejudice would you allow? How does this not interfere with the bakery owners freedom of religion and right to property and contract law. Which are all more fundamental rights than a gay persons feelings.

[–]The__Imp -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Well put. I don't have time to submit a full answer now. I'd like to come back to this later.

[–]ShillCrusher -1 ポイント0 ポイント

I just want to know what the cake was supposed to look like. If it had two giant dicks sword fighting, that's one thing, and I side w/ the baker - but if it was no different than any other wedding cake he really should have just made the fucking cake. Tell them you won't wright Gary and Larry on it or whatever if that part offends you as the baker.

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Tell them you won't wright Gary and Larry on it or whatever if that part offends you as the baker.

What is the difference between refusing to do an icing decoration and refusing to bake the cake? That's not a rhetorical question.

And how does your morality on obscenity (ie pictures of dicks) any more valid than the bakers view on obscenity (same sex marriage).

[–]ShillCrusher -1 ポイント0 ポイント

Making a cake is an art. Nobody could force an artist to do a portrait of two guys french kissing.

But if the cake is just a cake - WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT ITS FOR? If the gay guy came in and said, I want a white cake w/ this and that - and made no references to it being for a gay wedding, then the dude would have made the cake. That's why I'm asking - how did he know it was a "gay cake", lol...

What about the cake was offensive, other than their intention to use it as part of a wedding ceremony.

A Nazi could buy a cake from a jewish baker - and nobody would be the wiser, unless the Nazi wanted it to be a swastika cake... you catch my drift? Then the baker might say, hey fuck off. (and that should be his right)

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

Would writing "Gary and Dave" on a cake in icing sugar qualify it as "art" or are you floundering in irrelevancy?

[–]Astrixtc -1 ポイント0 ポイント

The way I see it, if it's part of your job, you don't have the right to discriminate, but you do have the right to quit. If they make wedding cakes, they should make wedding cakes for everyone. If they don't want to make them for some people, then they don't have to make them. I feel the same way about health workers who don't want to distribute birth control. It's their right to quit, but it's not their right to refuse service.

If your religion or beliefs get in the way of your career, my opinion is that you've made a poor choice.

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

If your religion or beliefs get in the way of your career, my opinion is that you've made a poor choice.


If your sexual orientation gets in the way of your marriage, my opinion is that you've made a poor choice.

Why do you advocate, pragmatically, what you do?

In your scenario:

Person A grants person B service and refuses person C service

Person A is now out of business and can no longer do work for person B. Both B and C no longer receive a service.

A is worse off. B and C are unchanged.


In a society that doesn't follow your structure:

Person A grants B service and refuses C. B receives service and C does not.

B and A are better off. C is unchanged.

[–]Astrixtc -1 ポイント0 ポイント

How about someone else steps in and fills the roll left by person A?

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 1 ポイント2 ポイント

There is not an infinite pool of labor, especially in small businesses (like bakeries), trades (like baking) and in remote communities (like some towns in Colorado).

Furthermore, person A now either has to find a new job and thus potentially puts person Z out of work - or they have to stop having a job (and contributing to the economy) all together and take up welfare.

Why not just have person C, GO TO YOUR OTHER HYPOTHETICAL BAKER? The free market solution would be to allow Baker A to be out-competed by the gay friendly bakers.

This is exactly how the free market with minimal regulation works

Forcing small business owners to change occupation because the government decided who they have to trade with is not "free market" or "minimal regulation". It is massive over-reach.

A wedding cake is a non-essential service.

[–]narcedmonkey -1 ポイント0 ポイント

was a great country we once had

[–]EatSleepDanceRepeatSocial Conservative 2 ポイント3 ポイント

Careful, sounds like you want people to be free from government over-reach.

[–]narcedmonkey 2 ポイント3 ポイント

congrats to CO. they voted for weed and got huge-government, uberliberals.