The wedding cake case

[Alma]

Can a judge choose not to officiate? Distinguish.

If I could were on the Supreme Court, I would say no.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Every time I think that he has a free speech right to decline to make cakes for a same-sex wedding, I come back to: "What if he declined to make cakes for an interracial wedding?" I don't know what the answer is and I don't know how that would be different.

 

[User 11148]

Every time I think that he has a free speech right to decline to make cakes for a same-sex wedding, I come back to: "What if he declined to make cakes for an interracial wedding?" I don't know what the answer is and I don't know how that would be different.

It’s not different. If he has a free-speech right to decline to make some cakes, he has a free-speech right.

 

[SpeedTchr]

Your analogy would work if they are making cakes with other religious deities on it. If they don't for anyone, then they're not discriminating.

Try proving that scenario in court.

 

[Matt1735]

Every time I think that he has a free speech right to decline to make cakes for a same-sex wedding, I come back to: "What if he declined to make cakes for an interracial wedding?" I don't know what the answer is and I don't know how that would be different.

The answer is he can't refuse and it's not different at all.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The answer is he can't refuse and it's not different at all.

Yeah, OK. Good. That was my instinct, too, but part of me was thinking, "That can't be right are you nuts?"

It's like the other day when my wife got convinced by idiots that the Christmas card really should read, "Merry Christmas from the Whitman's."

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Try proving that scenario in court.

They just send in some of their friends to ask they will make a cake with God or Buddha or any other deity. If the cakemakers do so, then discrimination can be proven.

 

[DanOregon]

If it is a business transaction doesn't it fall outside the bounds of free speech? I suppose it would be allowable if they ran the thing as a religious institution of some kind.
Do we want businesses posting signs in windows letting customers know who they will and will not serve do to their religious or political beliefs? Do businesses want that?

 

[Dick Whitman]

If it is a business transaction doesn't it fall outside the bounds of free speech?

What?

My friend is an artist. People can commission her to make paintings for them.

"Hi, I would like you to paint a wall-sized Swastika for me."

"I don't paint wall-sized Swastikas."

"Here's $1,000. You do now."

 

[User 11148]

If it is a business transaction doesn't it fall outside the bounds of free speech? I suppose it would be allowable if they ran the thing as a religious institution of some kind.
Do we want businesses posting signs in windows letting customers know who they will and will not serve do to their religious or political beliefs? Do businesses want that?

We've gone through this and gone through this, multiple times. Certain lines of business are inherently speech-y. The questions are: A) narrowly, whether this particular manifestation of this line of business is speech-y; and B) broadly, how clearly can we draw the line between business that's speech and business that isn't?

 

[User 149557]

I've read about this case and am still not sure where I stand on it. I see the merits in both arguments.

 

[Matt1735]

Substitute African American for gay and tell me you see both sides....

 

[User 149557]

The law is not Mad Libs. We don't just get to keep changing the words until it seems shocking to our sensibilities.

 

[User 11148]

The law is not Mad Libs. We don't just get to keep changing the words until it seems shocking to our sensibilities.

But, damn, wouldn't Supreme Court arguments be fun if that were the case!

 

[DanOregon]

You're right ****. Dumb point.
It is interesting that this all goes back to the Civil Rights era and black people being told where to sit on busses and where they wouldn't be served. Many of these types of businesses that want to choose who they do and don't serve are now online-only to avoid the public accommodation thing.
This really isn't a free-speech case, it's a matter of the public accommodation law.

 

[trifectarich]

The answer is he can't refuse and it's not different at all.

I guess my question would be, is there a religion where the practitioners are taught this is immoral and against its beliefs?

 

[Dick Whitman]

You're right ****. Dumb point.
It is interesting that this all goes back to the Civil Rights era and black people being told where to sit on busses and where they wouldn't be served. Many of these types of businesses that want to choose who they do and don't serve are now online-only to avoid the public accommodation thing.
This really isn't a free-speech case, it's a matter of the public accommodation law.

No. It's absolutely a free speech case.

 

[DanOregon]

It's public accommodation vs. free speech. Neither side disputes the facts, it's just whether free speech trumps public accommodation. As is law right now, Code 42 does permit discrimination based on sexual orientation - it only covers race, color, religion or national origin.
So I'd guess the SC will rule in favor of the bakers.

 

[heyabbott]

Is tolerating sin in others a sin?

Endorsing the unrepentant sinner is endorsing the sin

 

[heyabbott]

So you want the courts deciding whether you're a good Christian?

I just started a new church, it believes that Jesus is the son of god but the testament that was revealed to me, by Christ himself, is that taxes are a mortal sin. I don’t have the pay them. I build A church for Christ’s return and my tax is a tithe to the church. The amount is between me and Christ. Paying taxes is a sin and against my religion.

Do the courts get to decide whether my beliefs are real, religious and in good faith? Or does my statement under oath or affirmation satisfy and I am removed from paying taxes?