Thank dog there are no more important issues facing this country, that SCOTUS can rehash this.
My thing is why would you want or trust someone like that to make your cake?
Will the justices, in their majesty (/s) define what constitutes a religion? (âFor where two or three are gathered in my name???â). Can Rastafarian plumbers refuse to fix âJust say noâ Episcopaliansâ toilets coz religion?
Bad AP, noting Gorsuchâs recent appointment while glossing over the unprecedented and controversial manner of the appointment is an irresponsible whitewashing of the truth.
â[Mr. Phillips] declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.â From NYT.
An even better question is what constitutes discrimination. I wonder if the SCOTUS would be hearing this case if the plantiffs wanted an atheist cake, or if the plaintiffs wanted pumpkins and a ghost in icing. What if the baker were a Christian Scientist who refused to make a birthday cake? It seems to me that the legality of discrimination â a right reserved to all business owners to choose who they do and donât do business with â depends on the broader social environment and the civil-rights status of the aggrieved. Establishing a pattern of discrimination that follows from one business to the next, one town to the next, one class or generation to the next, seems to be the crux of determining when the state may and must step in and exercise moral control, which is what it is.
Also from the Times, quoting the coupleâs lawyer: âIt is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-Americans could eat at another restaurant.â Thatâs precisely the way this should be looked at.
I had really hoped that Phillips would be out of business by now, but it goes to show that the market doesnât punish bad business after all. Who knew?
Circu$MegaChurches to get a boost in cash flow at the Government trough⌠along with their built in tax-exemption. Prai$e Je$u$âŚ
âŚ
I think the problem with this case might come down to the date on which the refusal was made. Colorado didnât pass its law until two years after the couple ordered the cake. OTOH, the Supreme Court had already decided that gay marriage was legal. Presumably, anti-discrimination laws would immediately cover this situation. Substitute a black couple coming in to order a cake to celebrate âBlack Powerâ (I know Iâm dating myself) or a win of Black Lives Matter somewhere. Would he be able to discriminate, and think itâs legal? What about a Jewish couple? And if he made a cake for them, would he be willing to make one for a Muslim couple?
How many times have we heard about âthe slippery slopeâ from the right wing? Doesnât the hill have two sides, and isnât the slope just as slippery in the other direction?
A bit OT âŚGorsuch--------- writes 3 opinionsâŚ
We had a similar case here in Oregon; the cake bakers, rightfully, lost. But they were really jackasses about itâDoxxed the would-be cake buyers (which of course opened them up to tons of online/offline abuse), and went immediately on the RWNJ grift/dole.
That case turned on public accommodation laws. Perhaps that, and our ostensible separation of church and state, will be enough to end this charade.
Unfortunately I donât think the legality of gay marriage figures into it. Mr. Phillips answers to a Higher Court, after all. See my comment above â he reserves the right to refuse business involving a number of perfectly legal institutions, like rum cakes or Halloween. He also wonât bake a cake for the KKK, which seems redundant â he already said no liquor and no ghosts.
In the case of Black Power or BLM (either the one you mentioned or the Bureau of Land Management), I think Phillips would have an easier time justifying his refusal to make a âpoliticalâ statement with one of his cakes, as long as he could demonstrate a record of making more innocuous products for black customers or forestry officers. It would be very interesting to know if gay customers had patronized him in the past for other things; whether he refused service based on the customer, or on the particular order. This would distinguish him favorably from whites-only lunch counters, but would leave him uncomfortably in the company of Kim Davis. Itâd make for a more fascinating and contentious case that could settle more questions, or maybe backfire horribly, which might happen anyway.
Feeling really conflicted about this. I tend to think these laws really gin up resentmentâŚand just as gay rights are becoming widely accepted. Seems like they might have the opposite effect from whatâs intended. I can also see the other side of this. If I were required to produce products honoring something I strongly oppose (Trump presidency, for example), Iâd fight that too.
Absurd hair-splittingâŚwonder how Justice Scab will vote?
First, this is not a ânew clashâ â for those of us who are part of the LGBTQ community, this has been going on for quite a long time.
Nor is this âreligious freedomâ nonsense new â the same folks have been trotting this out for other groups â namely racial separation â for years as well. Itâs high time people connect those dots â even if they might be (now) included in a federally protected class (which sexual orientation is not).
The question is one of this: Will SCOTUS slip down the slope towards religious nullification of all public accommodation and equal protection laws to placate a narrow slice of religious bigots?
Because it is a slippery slope â at what point does a bakerâs refusal of service towards gay couples become acceptable? The wedding cake? Baked goods for their anniversary? Their childâs birthday? Or just anytime in general?
What about other moral objections? Adultery. Divorce. Working on the sabbath? Women on their periods? Men who are clean-shaven? Or donât wear the right hats?
Oh â and the âwhy would you want them to bake your cake anyway?â Why not just go to another vendor? That kind of talk reeks of the privilege of not having to experience wondering just which businesses are open to you and which arenât â every time you step into the marketplace.
Itâs not really possible to know, but itâs likely that Gorsuch provided the 4th vote to hear the case (otherwise it would have been granted before). That means, assuming that Kennedy doesnât retire now, that there will not be 5 votes to reverse the Colorado decision.
For those of us who hoped Gorsuch couldnât possibly be as conservative as he was advertised to be, his glomming onto Thomas as his BFF on the Court is truly disheartening/
Heâs out of business â but being propped up by the Alliance Defending FreedomâŚ
Well, if you are a gay American long having lived under reduced civil rights, as well as every sort of calumny from a protected class of right -wing religious carnival barkers trying to determine our laws âSharia-styleâ, yes this is rather important. This decision will be a massive bellwether for how society can legally discriminate against us (for starters!) for the rest of our lives. It actually is a very big issue for ALL Americans.
Iâm saddened your straight white privilege has given you the option to prioritize the civil rights of others to such a casual place.
If Phillips is allowed to demonstrate what a âgood Christianâ he is by refusing the cake order and Jones down the street provides a cake, does this mean that Jones is not a good Christian? For Jones to maintain his standing and business in town, must he also decline gay business? Can social pressure from activist extremists overcome anti-discrimination laws set to protect a vulnerable class - gay people? This is the direction Phillips refusal to provide a public service to all comers would steer not-so-equal rights if his cake refusal issue is deemed valid.
I guess you missed the DISCRIMINATION part? Baking a cake and selling it in a public business is not âhonoring somethingâ, itâs selling a cake. I suspect you think gay people would do better to just âpipe down and quit asking for equality, because they were doing fine beforeâ, right?
No, you have the second half of your analysis wrong. Nobodyâs asking you to produce something you donât want to produce. Rather, once you make the choice to produce goods or services, do you have the right to refuse to sell them based on the customerâs religion or sexual orientation? Although itâs a slightly different question (because the Civil Rights Acts were based on powers given to Congress by the 14th Amendment), at this point the analysis is consistent.
The problem really began in this country when courts and states began allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives based on their personal religious beliefs. For my money, you donât want to deal in certain medically approved products, donât open a pharmacy.