Supreme Court to take up wedding cake case

[Dick Whitman]

Ooooh, this is going to be a fun one.

Supreme Court agrees to hear religious liberty case next term - CNNPolitics.com

 

[The Big Ragu]

I thought we had already figured this one out when it was blacks that the bigotry was leveled against.

This is one I just don't get. On the one hand, "my religion" shouldn't be a license that makes some laws not apply to you -- for obvious reasons.

In this case, though, I think we really should just leave it in the court of public opinion -- where it actually belongs. This is one of those things that the side of decency has actually been winning. There has been a compelling argument over the last 20 to 30 years that gays shouldn't be treated any differently than straight people. And the world has definitely shifted in that direction. There are still intolerant people who use their religion as crutch because they feel threatened by that change. But in a free live-and-let-live society, I think this is best settled in the court of public opinion, not in an actual court. I am not sure why supplying a cake to an event signify's your endorsement of the event. Even so, though, if your cake business suffers because enough people are turned off by your stance and boycott you, it's way more powerful than being compelled to behave decently because of a law. And you lose the ground to try to make yourself into a martyr. Even if it doesn't play out that way in some places, why would you want to force someone to bake a cake for your wedding if they seemingly have such hatred for you? You can't legislate people's attitudes, so why not just say, "**** you very much," and head down the block to the next cake baker?

 

[User 149557]

In my mind there will be a cake testing for the justices while on the bench.

 

[Batman]

In my mind there will be a cake testing for the justices while on the bench.

It's the highest-stakes episode of "Iron Chef" ever.

 

[Shropshire Slasher]

In my mind there will be a cake testing for the justices while on the bench.

If it's Colorado cake, watch the ingredients!

 

[DeskMonkey1]

Even so, though, if your cake business suffers because enough people are turned off by your stance and boycott you, it's way more powerful than being compelled to behave decently because of a law. And you lose the ground to try to make yourself into a martyr.

You underestimate the power of bigotry. There will be enough homophobes who will go out of their way to support this bakery because of their stance. If that wasn't the case, Chick-fil-A wouldn't be as successful as they are.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I know that the liberal instinct is to feel like these cake makers shouldn't discriminate against same-sex couples.

On the other hand, a competing liberal instinct should be that the First Amendment may protect these cake artists.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You underestimate the power of bigotry. There will be enough homophobes who will go out of their way to support this bakery because of their stance. If that wasn't the case, Chick-fil-A wouldn't be as successful as they are.

You didn't quote the next sentence in my my post:

Even if it doesn't play out that way in some places, why would you want to force someone to bake a cake for your wedding if they seemingly have such hatred for you? You can't legislate people's attitudes, so why not just say, "**** you very much," and head down the block to the next cake baker?"

I'm not underestimating bigotry. I know it can be suffocating. I was saying that IF that bigot pays a price due to the court of public opinion destroying his business, great. It's much more effective than if you try to legislate decency and giving him the ground to try to play martyr. And if it doesn't work out that way (as in, he doesn't pay that price). ... why not just say screw em? I wouldn't want to pay someone for a cake who seemingly hates me that much.

 

[Buck]

I know that the liberal instinct is to feel like these cake makers shouldn't discriminate against same-sex couples.

On the other hand, a competing liberal instinct should be that the First Amendment may protect these cake artists.

The second point is the crux of the biscuit.
Making a wedding cake is protected expression. You legally cannot compel someone to amend the content of his or her artistic expression.
It's a slippery slope from censoring cake artists to thought police.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The second point is the crux of the biscuit.
Making a wedding cake is protected expression. You legally cannot compel someone to amend the content of his or her artistic expression.
It's a slippery slope from censoring cake artists to thought police.

OK, sure, but you overlook the vital fact that liberals disagree with the cake artists!

 

[Buck]

OK, sure, but you overlook the vital fact that liberals disagree with the cake artists!

They shouldn't be eating cake anyway. They're all allergic to gluten.

 

[SnarkShark]

Could you consider making milkshakes or a sandwich at a diner artistic expression in Montgomery, Alabama?

Sorry. You're black and think you are part of an inferior race. You can't partake in my milkshake art.

 

[The Big Ragu]

The second point is the crux of the biscuit.
Making a wedding cake is protected expression. You legally cannot compel someone to amend the content of his or her artistic expression.
It's a slippery slope from censoring cake artists to thought police.

I have no idea how they will butcher the constitution to become de facto legislators with regard to this, the way they typically do it.

But this seems like a tough "free speech" claim to me, because he has already admitted that he discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation, not due to anything regarding his um, "cake artistry." If a heterosexual couple came in asking for the same cake, he'd gladly sell it to them. His objection has to do with the people buying the cake. That is discrimination. And it's not something you can easily get around. I don't see the slippery slope quite the same way. He's free to think, "Ewww, those gross homos." He can even say it out loud. The question would be more, regardless of what he thinks about their sexual orientation. ... should a public business be allowed to discriminate against people that way? And can a locality legally legislate that they can't?

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

It was fun while it lasted, homos!

Gorsuch Hints That He’s Deeply Critical of LGBT Rights – Mother Jones

 

[User 11148]

I tell you, that they'll look at the cake baker but they passed on the New Mexico wedding photog ... shaking my head.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Could you consider making milkshakes or a sandwich at a diner artistic expression in Montgomery, Alabama?

Sorry. You're black and think you are part of an inferior race. You can't partake in my milkshake art.

That's not the analogy.

The analogy would be if they wanted the sandwich to look like, say, a black power fist.

 

[Big Circus]

That's not the analogy.

The analogy would be if they wanted the sandwich to look like, say, a black power fist.

Not in this case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

"The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like."

The decision to deny this cake had nothing to do with design. It was solely because it was being used for a gay wedding.

 

[QYFW]

It was fun while it lasted, homos!

Gorsuch Hints That He’s Deeply Critical of LGBT Rights – Mother Jones

Their recent parades didn't help the cause.

 

[CD Boogie]

equal access to wedding cake. The Federalist Papers anticipated the **** out of this one.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Not in this case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

"The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like."

The decision to deny this cake had nothing to do with design. It was solely because it was being used for a gay wedding.

True.