OtherGround Forums Gay wedding cake trial in front of Supreme Court

8 days ago
6/25/17
Posts: 658

WASHINGTON (AP) — On a sharply divided Supreme Court, the justice in the middle seemed conflicted Tuesday in the court’s high-stakes consideration of a baker who refused to make a wedding case for a same-sex couple in 2012.

 

The court’s fault lines were laid bare in a riveting argument that focused equally on baker Jack Phillips’ right to refuse to put his artistic talents to use in support of something in which he disagrees and the Colorado couple’s right to be treated like any other two people who wanted a cake to celebrate their marriage.

Both views were reflected in the questions and comments of Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of all the court’s major gay-rights decisions and a fierce defender of free speech. The outcome of the case seemed to rest with the 81-year-old justice, who often finds himself with the decisive vote in cases that otherwise divide the court’s conservatives and liberals.

Phillips and the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were in the courtroom for arguments in the closely watched case that could affect other situations where there’s a clash between social conservatives’ claim of religious freedom and the LGBT community’s fight to preserve hard-won rights.

President Donald Trump’s administration is supporting Phillips in his argument that he can’t be forced to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs. It appears to be the first time the federal government has asked the justices to carve out an exception from an anti-discrimination law.

On the one hand, Kennedy pointed to photographers, florists, graphic designers and even jewelers who might likewise be able to refuse working on a same-sex wedding if the court rules for Phillips.

“It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages,” said the author of the 2015 opinion extending same-sex marriage nationwide.

If you win, Kennedy asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco, could the baker put a sign in his window: “We do not bake cakes for gay weddings?”

When Francisco said that would be permissible, Kennedy said, “And you would not think that an affront to the gay community?”

Francisco replied that there “are dignity interests on the other side here, too.”

On the other hand, Kennedy criticized the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that found Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

“It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said. Craig and Mullins, he noted, could have been served by “other good bakery shops that were available” in the Denver suburbs.

Protesters on both sides filled the sidewalk in front of the court shortly before the start of the argument.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan ticked off other categories of people who are involved in weddings to ask if they, too, might be able to refuse a same-sex couple.

A hair stylist? A makeup artist?

No, Waggoner said, “because it is not speech.”

Kagan replied: “Some people might say that about cakes, you know?”

More generally, Justice Stephen Breyer said, “What is the line? That’s what everybody is trying to get to.”

When Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger and the American Civil Liberties Union’s David Cole stood up to defend the commission’s ruling against Phillips, the conservative justices pounced.

Because same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado in 2012, Justice Samuel Alito noted, Craig and Mullins could not have obtained a marriage license where they lived or gotten a local official to marry them. Yet Phillips supposedly “committed a grave wrong” when he refused to make them a cake, Alito said. That struck him as unfair, he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both Cole and Yarger on whether a Roman Catholic legal services agency that provides free aid would have to take up a case involving a same-sex couple despite the religious opposition to gay marriage.

Yes, Cole said, “if they’ve provided the same services to couples who are straight.”

Colorado native Neil Gorsuch, taking part in the most important gay rights case since he joined the Supreme Court in April, asked Cole whether a baker who made a cake shaped like a red cross to celebrate relief efforts would have to make the same cake for the Ku Klux Klan.

Cole said no because Colorado’s anti-discrimination law refers to race, sex and sexual orientation, among other categories, but does not protect KKK members.

One other possible result that emerged from the argument is that the justices could return the case to the Colorado commission for reconsideration if the court finds its first decision was tainted by the religious bias of a commissioner. Kennedy described comments made by one of the seven Colorado commissioners in the case as hostile to religion.

Colorado is among only 21 states with statewide laws barring discrimination against gays in public accommodations.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111, will be decided by late June.


https://www.apnews.com/7b69e491b9d3445fb89c17ddb855c5d0/Kennedy-wrestles-with-wedding-cake-case-at-Supreme-Court

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 107057

They should have just made the gayest cake ever

8 days ago
2/14/10
Posts: 14578
PatK -

They should have just made the gayest cake ever

Like mixing the ingredients in a guy’s gaping anus or just a lot of rainbows on it?

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 107059
Evil Ash - 
PatK -

They should have just made the gayest cake ever

Like mixing the ingredients in a guy’s gaping anus or just a lot of rainbows on it?


I was thinking giant cocks and rainbows, but you put out an interesting option.

8 days ago
6/29/09
Posts: 8655
Fuck this. My tax dollars at work. Pitiful
8 days ago
8/7/05
Posts: 11828
Lol^
8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 15958
Holy fucking LOL @ Evil Ash.

Perfect.

*slow clap*
8 days ago
1/12/10
Posts: 10023

Fuck those faggots. I hate to say that, but they're acting like it. They could have just been offended like everyone else and gone to another bakery and trash talked this guy, but no, they wanted national attention and to destroy a guys life because he doesnt share the same beliefs as  them. They want to be written into history for being offended pansies. 

 

Boo fucking hoo. Someone told you no because he didnt want his product to be associated with gayness. Oh well. They probably knew about this guy and did all this shit on purpose. 

8 days ago
12/2/05
Posts: 65877
Evil Ash - 
PatK -

They should have just made the gayest cake ever

Like mixing the ingredients in a guy’s gaping anus or just a lot of rainbows on it?


Damn dude.
Edited: 8 days ago
12/2/05
Posts: 65878
I think the right legal answer is the business should be able to refuse to make the cakes. If he said I won't serve gays, that's discrimination (though I don't agree with those laws, those are the laws).

However, I think he has a valid argument that making him design a cake using his artistic endeavors for a specific event that he disagrees with is not discrimination.

No I wont make any cakes for blacks is not the same as refusing to make a BLM cake when asked to by black people. If you don't like my analogy, I spent 3 seconds thinking of one! :)
8 days ago
3/20/15
Posts: 6673
TFK_UGCTT_Sk1tzO420 - 

Fuck those faggots. I hate to say that, but they're acting like it. They could have just been offended like everyone else and gone to another bakery and trash talked this guy, but no, they wanted national attention and to destroy a guys life because he doesnt share the same beliefs as  them. They want to be written into history for being offended pansies. 

 

Boo fucking hoo. Someone told you no because he didnt want his product to be associated with gayness. Oh well. They probably knew about this guy and did all this shit on purpose. 


Actually I thought that was brought out as the plan in the beginning. They knew he wouldn't make the cake so they wanted to make a point.

That's ghey......

8 days ago
4/13/12
Posts: 15425
morotetsuke - Fuck this. My tax dollars at work. Pitiful

you don't think this is something that needs clarification?  i think this is pretty important.  these are the things that define a nation.

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 40494
If I recall correctly, he was willing to bake and sell them a cake, just not decorate it for a gay wedding
Edited: 8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 30290

I'm curious, what's to stop the baker from just making a really crappy cake IF forced to make a cake...?

Why wouldn'the just make the worst cake possible?

I really would NOT want someone to be FORCED to make food for me against their will. I'd be nervous about what they did to it.

8 days ago
6/25/17
Posts: 665
shen -

I'm curious, what's to stop the baker from just making a really crappy cake...?

I really would NOT want someone to be FORCED to make food for me against their will. I'd be nervous about what they did to it.

his integrity

8 days ago
2/14/10
Posts: 14579
shen -

I'm curious, what's to stop the baker from just making a really crappy cake IF forced to make a cake...?

Why wouldn't he just make the worst cake possible?

I really would NOT want someone to be FORCED to make food for me against their will. I'd be nervous about what they did to it.

Like mixing the ingredients in a guy’s gaping anus or just making the writing unreadable?

8 days ago
3/18/10
Posts: 6016

Blatant discrimination. Bake that cake, bitch. 

8 days ago
4/21/10
Posts: 43970
Crazy. My family has used Masterpiece since the early 90's. Such a fucked up case. Let's make one thing clear: Jack never said he wouldn't bake a cake for gay people, he said he wouldn't make a cake for a gay wedding. There is a difference. He isn't discriminating against people, he is saying he cannot participate in a ceremony that is against his religion.

For the record, I support gay marriage, and I think religion is ridiculous. Having said that, Jack has the right to religious freedom and I respect that. I understand our rights don't always protect what we believe in but also what we don't believe in.

This case could have massive repercussions if it plays out wrong. What's next? Will mosques be required to host gay jewish weddings?
8 days ago
2/14/10
Posts: 14580
JasonJ -

Blatant discrimination. Bake that cake, bitch. 

You heard him! The customer’s always right!

 

 

Enjoy your shitty cake, faggot...

8 days ago
6/3/03
Posts: 90456

Whatever happened to "The management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason"?

Secondly, what Shen touched on; why the fuck would you force someone to prepare food for you instead of going elsewhere?

Lastly, I don't think the baker, or anyone else for that matter, should be forced to cater to anybody they don't want to. 

8 days ago
4/21/10
Posts: 43971
sicko - If I recall correctly, he was willing to bake and sell them a cake, just not decorate it for a gay wedding
This exactly. He was not discriminating against them for being gay, he was saying he did not want to take part in a ceremony that goes against his religious beliefs. He would bake them all the cakes and pies in the world but he sees his art as part of the ceremony and does not want to play a part in it.
8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 54154
Didnt some dress makers refuse to make a dress for the first lady? How come they cant be sued?
8 days ago
4/13/12
Posts: 15426
Tim Duncan - Didnt some dress makers refuse to make a dress for the first lady? How come they cant be sued?

anti-discrimination laws protect race, religion, sex, and sexual preference. 

8 days ago
10/2/12
Posts: 7605

Religious freedom is defined as an amendment to the constitution..... wouldn’t that trump 2 homos getting a cake made? This is about the gay lobby forcing everyone to capitulate. Nothing more nothing less. 

8 days ago
4/21/10
Posts: 43973
bakobell -

Religious freedom is defined as an amendment to the constitution..... wouldn’t that trump 2 homos getting a cake made? This is about the gay lobby forcing everyone to capitulate. Nothing more nothing less. 

truth.