Page 7 of 54 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 534
Thanks Tree162Thanks

Thread: SC decides on same sex wedding cake

  1. #61
    Flibbertigibbet Wonderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2014
    Posts
    27,684
    Thanks
    18285

    From
    Missouri
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    From what I understand, this ruling was described as "narrow" because of the particular type of business someone who creates custom wedding cakes is in. In this case, the person was considered an artist, like someone who makes music or art or poetry, and the decision was such that those people cannot be commanded to produce something. A musician cannot be commanded to go put on a performance, whether at a gay wedding or anywhere else. An artist cannot be commanded to paint something.

    It's basic contracting for services, really. There's offer, sometimes counter-offer, sometimes multiple counteroffers, and acceptance or non-acceptance. Both sides have to agree. If one doesn't, there's no sale, and there's no need to drag the side that doesn't agree to court over it every time. There are limitations to being able to compel commerce.
    It's considered "narrow" because of the scope of the ruling -- not based on the type of business, but because, here, the Colorado Commission was openly hostile to the would-be cake-maker's religious claims/beliefs, rather than neutral.
    Thanks from Neomalthusian, Sassy and Ian Jeffrey

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,458
    Thanks
    4150

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Wonderer View Post
    It's considered "narrow" because of the scope of the ruling -- not based on the type of business, but because, here, the Colorado Commission was openly hostile to the would-be cake-maker's religious claims/beliefs, rather than neutral.
    Oh, I guess you're right. I think I read it wrong and thought that was a circumstance that factored in to the decision, but reading it again, it specifically said it did not decide conclusively on that.
    Thanks from Wonderer

  3. #63
    New Member
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    502
    Thanks
    64

    From
    SoCal
    I canít believe it is so hard to get the real truth out in a thread where so many people claim to read.

    I mean how many people in this thread applauded Roseanne getting fired because she is an actual type of artist (actress) and her parent company did not want her real life tweet to as speech to be associated with them or the fictional character she plays on television?!?!

    The baker here offered genetic services and was willing to sell them to the gay couple. Likewise the baker outlined clear messages including messages not at all associated with homosexuality that were types of speech he did not wish to be seen as endorsing. He didnít celebrate divorces, Halloween or gay marriage. He did not refuse service, he refused a message and type of custom cake.

    This isnít about a type of person but a type of message. Amazon does this. Your local bakery does this. Your local store does it as well. They have clear guidelines about what they WONíT put on a cake.

    Should Amazon be free not to carry Confederate flags? Absolutely? What if the person wanting to buy those flags is gay? Is it suddenly no longer a speech issue but an issue or protected status? Nonsense.

    When this discussion occurred previously I looked up the actual cake the couple eventually had made. It had several layers of colors inside depicting the rainbow colors of gay pride flag inside. (Pretty neat trick someone did actually)

    In other words though it wasnít just a generic cake. Most cakes are not cut into and you see in the interior rainbow colors. That is beyond generic.

    However we should support this because a baker should have the right to refuse a Nazi cake, or a Fascist cake or even a Hillary or Trump sucks cake. People should be able to buy generic goods regardless of status but putting speech on the item changes the item. T-shirts are generic. A T-shirt with a Nazi swastika isnít something I would want to sell or be compelled to sell. Speech is speech.
    Thanks from Wonderer, pragmatic and aboutenough

  4. #64
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    45,959
    Thanks
    18325

    From
    God Bless Texas
    I agree with this decision on two counts. One, in all our other discussions on cakes, people say 'nothing is different about the cake, no special message is being asked to put on it' and in this case, there was. Also, the court has specific uissues with the way CO handled this case. They accused the bakers of using religion as an excuse to discriminate, essentially telling them they were not being sincere, and Kennedy is saying we can't attack people's faith. I think they walked a fine line very well.

  5. #65
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,458
    Thanks
    4150

    From
    Boise, ID
    Here's a question that crops up for me on topics like this: How are businesses supposed to defend themselves against "customers" who, for their own not-fully-known reasons, are insisting on being customers with the apparent intent of complaining and expressing continuous negativity about the business, with the apparent intent of causing it to fail?

    Let's say a person with an intense personality disorder seems hell bent on putting a particular private practice psychotherapist out of business. The person insists on being treated by this psychotherapist, but the psychotherapist can tell the person is openly hostile, does not have good faith intentions for seeking the therapy, and is not going to psychologically benefit from therapy, so the psychotherapist does not accept the person as a client and refers the person to someone else. The client sues or threatens to sue, and continues demanding to be the psychotherapist's client despite open hostility.

    The kind of attitude I'm seeing from some people on this topic that are seemingly automatically defensive of customers and automatically against the business would lead me to believe that these sort of disingenuous and militant tactics, whereby customers have no good faith reasons to want to be customers, should be completely acceptable. I really disagree. They seem to think businesses should under no circumstances be able to refuse service, and that even if that exposes businesses to militant tactics intended to shut them down, all the better. This strikes me as a very disturbed way of thinking.

  6. #66
    Moderator HayJenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    55,090
    Thanks
    42617

    From
    CA
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    Agree but this is going to open up a can of worms as I would think a lot of others will attempt something like this and then say "its my religious belief." We will see tons more cases now.
    Yeah, I wonder how the court would rule if someone wearing a cross goes into a place of business and is turned down.

  7. #67
    Member Slartibartfast's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    602

    From
    UK
    Common sense prevails.

  8. #68
    DEEP STATE CEO Blues63's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    9,946
    Thanks
    7431

    From
    SPECTRE HQ
    Artist? What a joke! LOLOL

  9. #69
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,919
    Thanks
    33048

    From
    Border Fence
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Here's a question that crops up for me on topics like this: How are businesses supposed to defend themselves against "customers" who, for their own not-fully-known reasons, are insisting on being customers with the apparent intent of complaining and expressing continuous negativity about the business, with the apparent intent of causing it to fail?

    Let's say a person with an intense personality disorder seems hell bent on putting a particular private practice psychotherapist out of business. The person insists on being treated by this psychotherapist, but the psychotherapist can tell the person is openly hostile, does not have good faith intentions for seeking the therapy, and is not going to psychologically benefit from therapy, so the psychotherapist does not accept the person as a client and refers the person to someone else. The client sues or threatens to sue, and continues demanding to be the psychotherapist's client despite open hostility.

    The kind of attitude I'm seeing from some people on this topic that are seemingly automatically defensive of customers and automatically against the business would lead me to believe that these sort of disingenuous and militant tactics, whereby customers have no good faith reasons to want to be customers, should be completely acceptable. I really disagree. They seem to think businesses should under no circumstances be able to refuse service, and that even if that exposes businesses to militant tactics intended to shut them down, all the better. This strikes me as a very disturbed way of thinking.
    You're assigning motives to the customers that was never proven as their motive.

  10. #70
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,919
    Thanks
    33048

    From
    Border Fence
    Quote Originally Posted by Slartibartfast View Post
    Common sense prevails.
    Common sense means knowledge learned by all. What knowledge did we all know in this case? What was the knowledge common to all us?

Page 7 of 54 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 753
    Last Post: 7th June 2018, 06:23 AM
  2. Now THAT is a wedding cake...
    By The Man in forum World Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 23rd August 2017, 05:20 AM
  3. Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 6th August 2016, 07:14 AM
  4. KKK Wedding Cake
    By aboutenough in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 327
    Last Post: 8th April 2015, 07:09 PM
  5. 13 Pro-Gay Bakers Refuse Christian Wedding Cake Order
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 30th December 2014, 03:41 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed