Gay Cake Controversy!

B.A._Baracus

Gael23 wrote: »

Hello again
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/15/gay-marriage-cake-customer-takes-case-to-european-court

5 years ago? where is the time flying.
So this guy couldn't accept the northern ireland court ruling and now going to the european court? well he can f-off.

He tried. He failed. He should move on. If this was me suing over something and I kept on and on what would people say? move the f*ck on B.A. thats what

But we live in a society now where if you don't get your way keep trying and trying until you do huh.

ittakestwo

DeVore wrote: »

Thats akin to saying "we don't sell fried chicken in our shop. We dont sell it to anyone, white or black. We don't sell it cos we disagree with black people eating it but thats not the point, we dont sell it to whites either so its not racist!".

If you divide down a racist act into its very atomic actions, none of them can be pointed to and called racist. Bigotry is an emergent phenomenon. You have to look at the over all effect and its intent in the first place and in that way this cake business is clearly bigotted.

In that example it would be bigoted if your reason for not selling fried chicken was because you dont want black people eating it. Black people eating fried chicken would certainly not be held to be a political act under the law.

In this case it was about the message "support gay marriage" which the court found to be political and therefore were not obliged to carry out the order.

If the activist worked in the bakery. And a priest wearing a collar walks in and orders a cake with a message "dont support gay marriage " and the Baker said sorry I feel really strongly about supporting gay marriage so wont make the order.

Could the priest claim he was discriminated on his religious beliefs? Under the discrimination Act you cant discriminated on grounds of religious belief.

How could the baker explain that they were not discriminating the customer because of thier religion despite clearly being a priest and ording a cake with a message that the church would support.

NIMAN

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

5 years ago? where is the time flying.
So this guy couldn't accept the northern ireland court ruling and now going to the european court? well he can f-off.

He tried. He failed. He should move on. If this was me suing over something and I kept on and on what would people say? move the f*ck on B.A. thats what

But we live in a society now where if you don't get your way keep trying and trying until you do huh.

Who is paying for all this?

B.A._Baracus

NIMAN wrote: »

Who is paying for all this?

I'm not the one suing how would I know :pac:

randd1

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

5 years ago? where is the time flying.
So this guy couldn't accept the northern ireland court ruling and now going to the european court? well he can f-off.

He tried. He failed. He should move on. If this was me suing over something and I kept on and on what would people say? move the f*ck on B.A. thats what

But we live in a society now where if you don't get your way keep trying and trying until you do huh.

I pity the fool?

Varik

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I thought May was taking the UK out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR as well, not sure what Boris's plans are, or what way it might end up, at all

Before she was PM and before/during the Brexit referendum she proposed this instead of leaving the EU.

Quantum Erasure

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

But we live in a society now where if you don't get your way keep trying and trying until you do huh.

seems to be the way all-right...

Overheal

https://lawandcrime.com/first-amendment/masterpiece-cakeshop-promises-to-appeal-judges-ruling-in-favor-of-transgender-woman-who-wanted-a-birthday-cake/?utm_source=mostpopular

Yep he's back, tell a friend...

This time mr. man himself at the center of MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL. finds himself appealing a new court ruling where a court ruled that baking a pink cake with blue frosting for a trans woman is not compelled speech. He says he's being unfairly targeting by the gay community after the landmark ruling (which is like the diner saying blacks are targeting you for lunch when it becomes legal for them to eat there). Some pro-lifers in government have his back basically saying 'ugh how dare people try to test the limits of judicial opinion, we would never do anything like that'

Feisar

I really don't get all this nonsense. If someone doesn't want yer business, jog on to a shop that does. Where opinions collide e.g. gay vs religious, surely the world is big enough for everyone to co exist?

SouthWesterly

Feisar wrote: »

I really don't get all this nonsense. If someone doesn't want yer business, jog on to a shop that does. Where opinions collide e.g. gay vs religious, surely the world is big enough for everyone to co exist?

But that's not how minorities think, doesn't matter what that minority is. They want to the world to be like them and if they shout load enough they'll have their way. Whether it's rainbow flags or the end of eating beef burgers.

Overheal

Feisar wrote: »

I really don't get all this nonsense. If someone doesn't want yer business, jog on to a shop that does.

I don't think we need to go backwards and have to have gays follow their own version of the Negro Motorist Green Book.

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want without being told what to do.

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want without being told what to do.

Can you find me a tech monopoly that deplatformed someone for being a woman? the wrong skin color? The wrong gender?

robinph

Religion doesn't like it when their "right" to discriminate is challenged and then they try to claim they are being discriminated against because they can't discriminate.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called the district court’s decision an act of “religious persecution.”

Overheal

robinph wrote: »

Religion doesn't like it when their "right" to discriminate is challenged and then they try to claim they are being discriminated against because they can't discriminate.

I believe the same lines were trotted out against interracial couples...

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Can you find me a tech monopoly that deplatformed someone for being a woman? the wrong skin color? The wrong gender?

Can you find me a bakery that did that?

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

Can you find me a bakery that did that?

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD yes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

You can read all of the facts and findings of the case here, along with the decision of the Supreme Court.

In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to samesex marriages—marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Commission determined that the shop’s actions violated the Act and ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado state courts affirmed the ruling and its enforcement order, and this Court now must decide whether the Commission’s order violated the Constitution.

The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless.

Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD yes.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

You can read all of the facts and findings of the case here, along with the decision of the Supreme Court.

I still don't see anything about being a woman, gender or skin colour in there.

"Private company bro"

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

I still don't see anything about being a woman, gender or skin colour in there.

"Private company bro"

They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.

The "private company bro" doctrine doesn't hold up against jurisprudence.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.

The "private company bro" doctrine doesn't hold up against jurisprudence.

I don't believe it says that in the ruling either?

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

I don't believe it says that in the ruling either?

okay then, believe that.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

okay then, believe that.

If you can show me where in the ruling or the facts of the case that the couple were discriminated against "for not being a cis couple" I'll stand corrected.

Meanwhile:

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want based on political bias without being told what to do because they're "a private company bro"

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

If you can show me where in the ruling or the facts of the case that the couple were discriminated against "for not being a cis couple" I'll stand corrected.

Meanwhile:

Tiny little bakery shops have no right to decide what cakes they do and don't want to make based on their religious and moral principles.

Tech monopolies are private corporations and can platform or not platform whoever they want based on political bias without being told what to do because they're "a private company bro"

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

But this is what you said previously...

Overheal wrote: »

They were discriminated against for not being a cis couple.

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

But this is what you said previously...

Correct it was discrimination on the basis of sex.

United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission wrote:

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy.

Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. For more information about LGBTQ+-related sex discrimination claims, see https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/what-you-should-know-eeoc-and-protections-lgbt-workers.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act here

Now this is not an issue of employment but the federal definition of sex discrimination still applies.

Overheal

How do you reconcile these two statements

Overheal wrote: »

Correct it was discrimination on the basis of sex.



Now this is not an issue of employment but the federal definition of sex discrimination still applies.

Overheal wrote: »

Religious and moral principles are only protected so far under the first amendment, you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc. and indeed, refusing service because someone is transgender is not protected practice. This should be unsurprising, we've had a number of modern rulings in this regard, like Obergefell v. Hodges which was cited here, and Kim Davis v. Ermold which was decided in a lower court that SCOTUS declined to hear an appeal to, in which a government clerk lost where she attempted to deny marriage certificates to homosexuals, having cited her profound religious and moral principles for not doing so.

Overheal

brenbrady wrote: »

How do you reconcile these two statements

it was discrimination on the basis of sex; you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex.

What do you find logically incongruent about that?

Gael23

I thought this thread was finally dead

I don't understand why they don't just deliberately make really sh/tty cakes for gay people, or black people, or women or whoever it is they are 'against'? That'd get word out when a certain person orders from them, that they'll half-ass it, and also give them the ability to say "well we did serve them"? Help them to avoid all the courtroom drama of it all.

SupaCat95

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand why they don't just deliberately make really sh/tty cakes for gay people, or black people, or women or whoever it is they are 'against'? That'd get word out when a certain person orders from them, that they'll half-ass it, and also give them the ability to say "well we did serve them"? Help them to avoid all the courtroom drama of it all.

There isnt that many of them, they are just really loud and vocal on twitter. If there were that many Tesco would be knocking them out like they were going out of fashion.