Judge rules in favor of Baker refusing to make cake for same sex couple.

[Akivah]

I would like to understand how "genial" one must be to spend lots of money on a lawsuit instead of looking for a more open-minded bakery.

Actually the couple brought this matter to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. After the department sided with the homosexual couple, the baker sued the department.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the baker did not want to violate his own faith in God.

He did not want himself to do anything bad in the eyes of his God.

He did not want to get himself in trouble with his God.

This doesn't pass the smell test, though, because the baker had a way to not violate his faith OR the law: just don't sell wedding cakes.

This wasn't a choice between the baker's conscience and the customers' rights; it was a choice between the baker's profit and the customers' rights.

Whatever the baker's beliefs, his conscience would have been clear if he simply didn't sell wedding cakes... but then he would have had to get rid of a lucrative part of his business. That's the real issue at play here.

 

[Nakosis]

Given that same sex marriage is legal in the US, in all 50 states per the SCOTUS, and public opinion turning in favor, it won't be long before this baker, and others like them begin to lose business from their entire customer base. Let them have their fun, other bakers will be more than happy to see two people, of any orientation be happy.

That's the way it should be in most cases IMO. Let the customer base decide whether or not to support a business.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am pretty sure they have not. Do you have a particular instance about which you were thinking?

Nothing specific for First Amendment, I'm apparently thinking of state laws and rulings. Can Your Business Legally Refuse to Serve Gays? "However in some states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law." And this happened in California.

 

[Akivah]

Too bad I can't say that for the religion.
Then people act surprised that many of us consider your religion immoral.
Tom

Then like the people that avoid the baker standing for their morals, I will avoid and give no weight to your opinions.

 

[Stanyon]

Then put up a sign where all can see that you don't do homosexual weddings so no one is subjected to your bigotry.

They could always go down the street and give their money to someone else who will do it, just less money for the "bigot", I think that would be a far more useful and fair response than suing someone and putting them out of business because they hurt your feelings.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's nice to see a moral Judge.

Why would you consider this decision moral?

 

[Curious George]

Nothing specific for First Amendment, I'm apparently thinking of state laws and rulings. Can Your Business Legally Refuse to Serve Gays? "However in some states like California and New York, discrimination based on sexual orientation by private businesses is prohibited by state law." And this happened in California.

Absolutely. These laws are not derived from the Bill of Rights though. These are separate laws that are made. In some cases federal laws are made that regulate citizens and these laws need to have a jurisdictional hook. For instance, the Civil Rights Act is rooted in the interpretations of the commerce clause, so are the laws that make drugs illegal. And laws limiting automatic weapons. The Commerce clause is a popular clause for the government to invoke with federal laws because the nearly anything can be said to affect interstate commerce.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They could always go down the street and give their money to someone else who will do it, just less money for the "bigot", I think that would be a far more useful and fair response than suing someone and putting them out of business because they hurt your feelings.

Plenty of towns only have enough market demand to support one wedding cake baker; if another one tried to open, they'd both be unsustainable until one of them folded. The fact that the one bigoted bakery already exists often prevents other bakeries from existing in the same market.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Commerce clause is a popular clause for the government to invoke with federal laws because the nearly anything can be said to affect interstate commerce.

Fortunately, the USSC has seen thru the excesses of claiming that everything is "interstate".
Example....
HIGH COURT KILLS LAW BANNING GUNS IN A SCHOOL ZONE

WASHINGTON, April 26— The Supreme Court today dealt a stinging blow to the Federal Government's ability to move into the realm of local law enforcement, ruling in a bitterly divided 5-to-4 decision that Congress acted beyond its constitutional authority five years ago when it made possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school a Federal crime.

The decision, with a majority opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was based on the Court's interpretation of the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. While not overturning any precedents, the decision marked a sharp departure from the modern Supreme Court's expansive view of Congressional power to regulate commerce.
:
:
The Constitution's grant of authority to Congress to regulate interstate commerce has been the basis for the development of the Federal Government in many of its most familiar aspects, particularly since the Supreme Court reversed course in 1937 and began to uphold the regulatory laws at the heart of the New Deal.

The last time the Court overturned a Federal law on the ground that it exceeded the Congressional commerce authority was 1936, when it struck down minimum-wage and maximum-hour requirements in the coal industry.

The ruling today, declaring unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, cast doubt on the ability of Congress to exercise jurisdiction over a range of activities it has recently defined as Federal crimes, including car jacking, drive-by shootings and violent demonstrations at abortion clinics.

 

[Revoltingest]

Plenty of towns only have enough market demand to support one wedding cake baker; if another one tried to open, they'd both be unsustainable until one of them folded. The fact that the one bigoted bakery already exists often prevents other bakeries from existing in the same market.

In matters of "artistic expression" I don't think it's essential enuf of a service that
we should have public policy requiring people to do things which violate their
religion (no matter how backward it is). It's right up there with tattoo parlors.
If they can buy a frosted buy undecorated cake, that is accommodation enuf.

 

[Curious George]

Fortunately, the USSC has seen thru the excesses of claiming that everything is "interstate".
Example....
HIGH COURT KILLS LAW BANNING GUNS IN A SCHOOL ZONE

I am aware of that case. Like I said "nearly anything."

 

[Koldo]

This settles the issue to me: "The couple did not want any words or messages on the cake, just the cake."

Nothing in the cake had to be supportive of same-sex marriage. The baker wasn't being asked to adapt her 'artistic expression' to accommodate the couple. The only reason for this ruling is: The baker has found a judge that is as much of a bigot as she is.

 

[Curious George]

In matters of "artistic expression" I don't think it's essential enuf of a service that
we should have public policy requiring people to do things which violate their
religion (no matter how backward it is). It's right up there with tattoo parlors.
If they can buy a frosted buy undecorated cake, that is accommodation enuf.

Yes but is this "artistic expression" and is it compelled speech. And can you bake and prepare a cake without artistic expression or speech. I can draw a picture to convey meaning but I can also trace a stencil without conveying any of my own meaning.

Does baking a cake necessitate speech?

 

[Father Heathen]

Perhaps it's better that businesses freely wear their bigotry on their sleeves so that consumers can know who to and who not to give their money to.

 

[Curious George]

This settles the issue to me: "The couple did not want any words or messages on the cake, just the cake."

Nothing in the cake had to be supportive of same-sex marriage. The baker wasn't being asked to adapt her 'artistic expression' to accommodate the couple. The only reason for this ruling is: The baker has found a judge that is as much of a bigot as she is.

Hmmm, I am at least willing to hear arguments that baking a cake is speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes but is this "artistic expression" and is it compelled speech. And can you bake and prepare a cake without artistic expression or speech. I can draw a picture to convey meaning but I can also trace a stencil without conveying any of my own meaning.

Does baking a cake necessitate speech?

I don't really know enuf to say with any certainty.
I'm just going by the summary of court's ruling.

 

[columbus]

Then like the people that avoid the baker standing for their morals, I will avoid and give no weight to your opinions.

I don't much care.
Secular humanist values have been sufficiently widely adopted to stop religious people from indulging in the genocide and oppression that they are famous for.
So, I find this cake business insufficiently important to require legislation. We should get rid of most of the laws. They're obsolete, and now generally used as a provocation.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I don't really know enuf to say with any certainty.
I'm just going by the summary of court's ruling.

Forget legally. Do you think baking a cake is a form of speech.
Let me temper this though: not the act of sharing or giving someone a cake. So don't think of baking a loved one a cake. We are talking about baking preparing and selling a cake.

Honest opinion. Yes or no?

 

[Shad]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject. What do you think? Be nice please.

A wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

Good ruling as the case was about compelling an action not a fine.