US Supreme Court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

DredFX

In July 2012, gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to buy a wedding cake. The owner Jack Phillips refused to bake it for religious reasons. The issue found its way into the hands of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who sided with the couple. It then ended up in the halls of the Supreme Court, who have ruled 7-2 in favour of Phillips. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“The laws and the constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

“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 law."

“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.”

Two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, disagreed with the ruling as it violated Colorado anti-discrimination law. Pro-LGBT groups across the States condemned the ruling, among them Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

“This case was never just about a wedding cake. It was about all people – no matter who they are – having the right to celebrate their love without facing discrimination:

“The Democratic party believes that no individual has a license to discriminate. We believe in the dignity of every human being. And we will continue to fight for equality for LGBT people in all areas of our society – from housing and healthcare, to bathrooms and boardrooms, to bakeries and the ballot box.”

Guardian article can be found here.

What do you guys think? Did the bakery have the right to refuse service or does this set a dangerous precedent for equality in the US?

TheValeyard

This way dude >>>>

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057245070/84/#post107179438

Pac1Man

Another Gake thread!

DredFX

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

This way dude >>>>

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057245070/84/#post107179438

Whoops! :eek:

Hector Bellend

Wouldnt it have been more efficient to go to another cake shop

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

I kinda agree with that. He wouldn’t bake the cake because of his religious views. It’d be discriminatory if the equality laws forced him to. Either way, someone had to end up offended, and my opinion is that the only thing you have to do in this world is die, so if I don’t want your business, I don’t have to accept it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Well done the US Supreme Court. Why should anyone be made do something against their will or religious belief. There are plenty of other willing cake shops that the couple could have gone to but they chose to make pricks of themselves by taking the owner to court. I’m delighted they lost, it was ridiculous and a complete waste of time and money.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people but being gay does not give them the rights to impose their views or desires/needs on someone who does not agree with them.

Cabaal

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Well done the US Supreme Court. Why should anyone be made do something against their will or religious belief. There are plenty of other willing cake shops that the couple could have gone to but they chose to make pricks of themselves by taking the owner to court. I’m delighted they lost, it was ridiculous and a complete waste of time and money.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people but being gay does not give them the rights to impose their views or desires/needs on someone who does not agree with them.

So imagine of it was against somebody's religion to interact with black people, that would be ok then in your view to refuse black people service?

Cupcake_Crisis

They provide a service though. If I decided I didn’t want to do a treatment on someone because of their sexuality I’d be sacked and rightly so! If you work in a service industry you have to accept that at some point you’re going to be dealing with people you don’t like/don’t agree with.

Manic Moran

It is worth noting it was an extremely narrow ruling which did not express an opinion on the validity of the baker’s argument. The Supreme Court objected to the displayed prejudice that the Colorado commission held to religious beliefs and that it did not act in a neutral, fair and impartial manner. The US must allow freedom of religion, not smother religion underground, equating having religious beliefs with slavery or the holocaust, as they did.

So the big question remains unanswered.

facehugger99

Manic Moran wrote: »

So the big question remains unanswered.

How do they get the figs into fig rolls?

suicide_circus

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

They provide a service though. If I decided I didn’t want to do a treatment on someone because of their sexuality I’d be sacked and rightly so! If you work in a service industry you have to accept that at some point you’re going to be dealing with people you don’t like/don’t agree with.

But they serve plenty of gay people. They just won't make a product for an event they find immoral.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

They provide a service though. If I decided I didn’t want to do a treatment on someone because of their sexuality I’d be sacked and rightly so! If you work in a service industry you have to accept that at some point you’re going to be dealing with people you don’t like/don’t agree with.

If you’re employed by somebody, then yes. But if you were self employed, you’re within your rights to turn down any business you choose.

Cupcake_Crisis

suicide_circus wrote: »

But they serve plenty of gay people. They just won't make a product for an event they find immoral.

It’d be akin to me refusing a brides makeup for her wedding because she was marrying another woman. I just wouldn’t be allowed to refuse it. I’d just have to get over myself. That’s life, and that’s business.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cabaal wrote: »

So imagine of it was against somebody's religion to interact with black people, that would be ok then in your view to refuse black people service?

They didn’t fail to interact. They were asked to bake a cake that depicted a gay marriage and they refused. I’m sure they would have sold other products to the couple if they had been asked. They never stated it was against their religion to interact with the couple. There is a difference.

suicide_circus

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

It’d be akin to me refusing a brides makeup for her wedding because she was marrying another woman. I just wouldn’t be allowed to refuse it. I’d just have to get over myself. That’s life, and that’s business.

Compelled tolerance?

hullaballoo

We don't have the same protection in place for religious beliefs here as they do in the US. Even at that RBG (an absolute legend in her own right) was probably more correct in her reasoning imo.

LGBT rights are better-protected here than the rights of someone to object to providing a service on the basis of their religious views. A funny paradox of Irish law, too, considering that there are many controversies over the church's influence on Irish society and politics.

The gay cake issue actually would be easily resolved here as there is specific legislation around discrimination on the basis of sexuality and as above, the right not to be discriminated against trumps the right to believe in fairytales.

BoJack Horseman

Cabaal wrote: »

So imagine of it was against somebody's religion to interact with black people

Name that religion....... if you know the names of any religions..... which you may or may not.