The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker that turned away a gay couple.
Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
U.S. Supreme Court rule for CO baker over turning away gay couple
- Thread starter Shaul
- Start date
-
- Tags
- gay rights supreme court
Just goes to show that progress isn't always linear. Sometimes we misstep, take a step backwards.
Just like last time, this opens the door to banks, grocery stores, or even hospitals applying religious or other tests to people who want their services, and denying those services to large populations simply by asserting "religious freedom."
Just like last time, this opens the door to banks, grocery stores, or even hospitals applying religious or other tests to people who want their services, and denying those services to large populations simply by asserting "religious freedom."
It was a very specific, very narrow ruling from what I heard. Making cakes is an art. You can't legislate requiring an artist to create art they don't wish to create.
So while they still can't refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple. They can refuse to create a cake for a gay marriage.
Looks like it's even narrower than that. More about the behavior of the Colorado Civil Righs Commission less about any equal rights decision or decision about the arts business.
It also sounds like this isn't finished. They just kicked it down to the lower courts to get the proceedings right which means this could go back to the SCOTUS again.
That's interesting, and I'm sure some religious bigot will claim their service of selling lunch to a Muslim family is an "art form" and refuse on religious grounds to create an artistic roast beef sandwich for infidels because it violates their religion freedom.
In 2018, religions founded by ancient nomads are driving people to turn an issue like this into a court case while there are other issues such as insufficient health insurance, weak student funding, and homelessness.
This would almost sound like a dystopic reality if it weren't real.
This would almost sound like a dystopic reality if it weren't real.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I would rather that businesses wear their bigotry on their sleeve, that way customers know who not to do business with.
That's interesting, and I'm sure some religious bigot will claim their service of selling lunch to a Muslim family is an "art form" and refuse on religious grounds to create an artistic roast beef sandwich for infidels because it violates their religion freedom.
How long can it be before we read about somebody about refusing to hire Christians, rent to them, or seat them in a restaurant for wearing a cross or carrying a Bible because it offends someone's religious sensibilities.
Wouldn't it be more logical to obligate such "bakers" to put signs like this on their shop windows ?
If you're an homophobic baker...people have the right to know
If you're an homophobic baker...people have the right to know
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Wouldn't it be more logical to obligate such "bakers" to put signs like this on their shop windows ?
But what if it turns out that they're just British and don't want any smoking in their bakery?
You know, they say that when problems arise over moral issues, when trying to deal with them, the pendulum often swings too far the other way. This is what I see in this whole gay marriage issue.
I am sick of hearing that this baker did anything wrong. He did not refuse to serve gay people in his bakery. He would even have sold them a cake that they could have decorated themselves with pre-made decorations to be as gay as they wished.....he simply said that his own principles, based on his strongly held religious beliefs prevented him from making a specific cake decoration that would have been as offensive to him, as his refusal was to them....so who has the right to be more offended?
Seriously.
For goodness sake...get over yourselves and try to understand that you can't force people to give up their principles in order to uphold yours. Surely more is accomplished by each respecting the other's right to live as they choose and to hold onto the principles (or lack of them) that agrees with their individual sensibilities. Nothing is accomplished by forcing either side into a legal showdown.
If a bakery is not going to make specific gay wedding cakes, then a sign in in the window, much the same way as we sometimes see 'refusal to provide credit as it may offend', might just allow the gays to assess the situation and go and order their cake from someone else.
If the bakery loses gay patronage, then so be it. I don't know who has a right to complain. This is nothing but a vendetta IMO.
I am sick of hearing that this baker did anything wrong. He did not refuse to serve gay people in his bakery. He would even have sold them a cake that they could have decorated themselves with pre-made decorations to be as gay as they wished.....he simply said that his own principles, based on his strongly held religious beliefs prevented him from making a specific cake decoration that would have been as offensive to him, as his refusal was to them....so who has the right to be more offended?
For goodness sake...get over yourselves and try to understand that you can't force people to give up their principles in order to uphold yours. Surely more is accomplished by each respecting the other's right to live as they choose and to hold onto the principles (or lack of them) that agrees with their individual sensibilities. Nothing is accomplished by forcing either side into a legal showdown.
If a bakery is not going to make specific gay wedding cakes, then a sign in in the window, much the same way as we sometimes see 'refusal to provide credit as it may offend', might just allow the gays to assess the situation and go and order their cake from someone else.
If the bakery loses gay patronage, then so be it. I don't know who has a right to complain. This is nothing but a vendetta IMO.
Last edited:
Well yeah, you can. There are public accommodation laws already in place. The baker did not "win". The ruling seemingly went in his favor only because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission seemed to show an anti-religious bias. If it weren't for that, the SCOTUS would have ruled against the baker. Their decision says as much. Their decision was a reluctant one. Their decision clearly says that society has progressed sufficiently that there is no reason to treat gay couples any differently than any other couple.
Is that what you think this is about...? Winning? Why is it a competition? Tell me why one person should have to surrender their own strongly held principles to accommodate someone else's? Why is one person's "offence" more important that another's? Balance should indicate that each is entitled to their beliefs and practices. This seems to be more about 'payback' than justice. It's not like this is a life or death issue. It's a cake for goodness sake!
If a gay baker decided not to make wedding cakes for straight couples...who would care? I would not see that as anything but an exercise of their right to value their own principles. I would just go somewhere else.
The law cannot dictate someone's principles. Nor can the law require someone to go against their own strongly held beliefs. No one can legislate someone else's morality. If we understand and respect the fact that we are all entitled to "be" whatever we choose to be without harm to anyone else, then each should respect the others position on moral issues without expecting the opposing side to surrender their equally valuable principles. How is that not obvious?
Whatever happened to balance? Live and let live obviously can't be tolerated in a letigious society.....it's all about winning and using the law to force others into submission. How sad. Why can't it be about letting everyone keep their own principles without getting all offended?
Read any of the news articles that keep referring to winning or losing the case. Not my words, theirs.
Because we have laws to prevent one group from running rough-shod over another and not have legal recourse.
Right. So why not bake it?
Discrimination is discrimination, and our laws don’t permit it. Discrimination is a slippery slope.
Yet we had state and federal bans on same sex marriage because of people’s morality. We legislated their morality.
Because that’s fantasy. We all have our rights, but my right to throw a punch stops before it hits your nose. Because it’s all too easy, as history has shown time and again to violate each other’s rights claiming my own rights.
That is the sad truth...there are really no winners when someone's "rights" are overridden by the so called "rights" of others. Who is to say whose "rights" have more importance...? Do you not see how ridiculous this all is?
If there was give and take on both sides and a little less sensitivity and emotion attached to this issue, then perhaps sanity and good manners might prevail. (I won't hold my breath though)
But can't you see that the shoe is just on the other foot now? The ones who were being oppressed are now responsible for oppressing others.....how can you become what you hate and not realize that you are just like them?
Principle. Is a cake worth ruining someone's livelihood and mental health over? Isn't is easier for them to just go to a baker who can accommodate their wishes without having to sue someone.....? I cannot understand all this suing. Its absurd. Someone smells money or notoriety and there you have the basis for a court case over what? Hurt feelings?
Where are the adults?
Indeed. We 'discriminate' every day of our lives...it is a necessary part of human existence. We should all have the same ability to discriminate, based on our chosen beliefs. What we don't have the right to do is harm other people in the process. Having sensibilities that are easily offended is what I see as the problem.....since when was it an offense punishable by law to make someone feel offended? It happens every day of our lives without a law suit....
Laws are a reflection of society's moral standards at the time. Society has always swung from one extreme to the other. You cannot legislate people's morality because gay people have not been prevented from cohabiting and living as gay couples for decades. Legislation was about the word "marriage". Which is strange, seeing as how marriage is a Biblical arrangement....and straight people are not bothering about it so much anymore....but gay people seem to have a fetish about it for some reason, known only to themselves.
So that makes it all OK then?
Why is fairness and respect a fantasy? Can't we teach our kids these things? What is wrong with us when we consider ourselves to be the superior species? Animals seem to work things out better than we do....without a court or greedy lawyers in sight.
Truth to tell, I don't disagree with you. I've seen comments that the couple were simply spoiling for a fight, looking for someone who would refuse them, to make a test case. I don't know how true that actually is, but it would not surprise me.
On the other hand, Colorado already has a law barring the kind of refusal of service from the baker. He may not have been aware of that. He may not have been aware he could be the subject of a lawsuit. After all, we don't know all the laws of our respective jurisdictions. The only entity in this case that's blameless is the SCOTUS. They proceeded by the letter of the law.
Principle. Is a cake worth ruining someone's livelihood and mental health over? Isn't is easier for them to just go to a baker who can accommodate their wishes without having to sue someone.....? I cannot understand all this suing. Its absurd. Someone smells money or notoriety and there you have the basis for a court case over what? Hurt feelings?Seriously? Time to "suck it up princess"...don't you think?
Where are the adults?
Again, in principle I don't disagree with you. Many lawsuits are frivolous. I don't agree with a blanket "suck it up princess" in all cases of perceived mistreatment or hurt feelings. There are times our frustrations reach a melting point. I personally don't have the mental energy to constantly tilt at windmills, so I would probably just give the baker a nasty review on Yelp.
That's where I have to disagree with you. The Bible doesn't hold sway over any civil marriages in the US. People, gay or straight, can be married without ever setting foot in a church. A church wedding is not even valid without a civil license. I was married by a judge in a civil ceremony. We will never be married in a Vedic (traditional Hindu) or Catholic ceremony because we understand our respective religions don't do it. As a side note, Hinduism has no fundamental problem with homosexuality, there's simply no ritual for a same sex wedding. And Hinduism loooves its rituals.
And that's OK with us, we understand.