• Department of Justice sides with baker who refused to bake LGBT Cake
    198 replies, posted
[quote] In a major upcoming Supreme Court case that weighs equal rights with religious liberty, the Trump administration on Thursday sided with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs. The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe. “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.[/quote] [url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/in-major-supreme-court-case-justice-dept-sides-with-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple/2017/09/07/fb84f116-93f0-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html]Washington Post[/url] Shockingly, people are allowed to refuse service for whatever reason they please, and people are allowed to not buy services from said person if they disagree with them.
But, but... Trump held up the flag. Fucking pathetic, imagine if atheists denied services to christians, they would scream bloody murder. They don't care as long as their rights aren't infringed. What ever happend to some fucking basic empathy.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52663463]Are you allowed to refuse service like serving food if someone is black or gay? Where's the line?[/QUOTE] The line is where you can prove that the reason you choose not to serve someone is due to freedom of expression, if you follow the DoJ logic. This could include anything considered an art, so mainly providing a service instead of providing a good. In this case, the argument is that the baker isn't providing the cake as a good, he is providing his time making the cake as a service.
No objections to this - in this particular case.* However, when it comes to state run organisations, public service or concession (single provider of a service) employees, the customer or rather citizen's rights must take priority over any kind of religious freedom of the employee. If you don't like serving customers you don't like, work in the private sector - if your employer allows you that, that is. *Edit: I should probably explain this a bit. Making a cake and then someone saying "that guy made the cake" makes it sound as if you endorse the creation in some way at least. Gay marriage is a political issue, even if you and I both think that it shouldn't be. Would you make a cake with some other political mesasage? Do you think someone must make a "Congrats Trump" cake even if they absolutely hate Trump, regardless of who the customer is? Hopefully I didn't sound too dismissive of the issue. I just always thought of it as a political issue, especially since gay marriage is not exactly universal yet, and getting married grants you benefits from the state**, rather than granting some basic human rights. **And I am well aware that not being able to get married can also mean you might also not be able to visit your partner on their death bed. There's plenty of things you miss if you don't get married, but I wouldn't say your [U]basic[/U] rights are being infringed.
[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52663463]Are you allowed to refuse service like serving food if someone is black or gay? Where's the line?[/QUOTE] Private enterprise, and the man told them he would not take the order in the first place. If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52663479]Private enterprise, and the man told them he would not take the order in the first place. If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] So you do not see a problem with a private enterprise serving whites only?
As someone with absolutely no political or economical education (and as such, every argument someone can make towards me here might feel about like [URL="http://puu.sh/xvoo6/1c0af11682.jpg"]this[/URL]), I feel like it's fine to deny service to someone, for any reason, whatsoever... [I]if[/I] you're a private, independent business who has absolutely no say on any other enterprise's actions. Would this garner negative press for them? Absolutely. Do I think it's bad to discriminate upon another person for their skin tone, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc? Of course. Is their right to do so? Yes. I feel it's their right to garner all the negative press they want, however it's also the consumer's right to [I]give[/I] that negative press, as well as not purchase from them. It'll hurt the company in the future and I feel that that's punishment enough for actively pressing a worldview that's hurtful onto other people. They aren't the only cake shop.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663487]So you do not see a problem with a private enterprise serving whites only?[/QUOTE] You and I both know he didn't mean that. Stop fishing for zings. Besides nobody in the private sector has to work for everyone. Call them a dick sure but they have that right to be a dick.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663555]You and I both know he didn't mean that. Stop fishing for zings.[/QUOTE] But that is pretty pretty much what he says though
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663487]So you do not see a problem with a private enterprise serving whites only?[/QUOTE] Personally, I think it's a huge problem. But I've got no problem with a private enterprise doing it at their own discretion. They've got their own right to be an asshole. I've got my right to not shop there.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663487]So you do not see a problem with a private enterprise serving whites only?[/QUOTE] [del]lit's not about who they're serving but what they're serving. important distinction[/del] i can't tell with the article is it because of who they are or what they're doing? would they be served a regular cake and not a special cake for their marriage?
[QUOTE=Marbalo;52663535]You don't necessarily get to stretch the logic to its extreme in this case.[/QUOTE] When responding to JoeSkylynx's argument which consists solely of "Private entity = They can serve whoever the fuck they want", I do, actually. [QUOTE]Drawing comparisons to refusing to serve based on race is also a misunderstanding of this verdict. This quote from the OP sums it up nicely enough; Whose First Amendment rights matter more, here? The LGBT side, or the religious baker? Both are directly encroaching on one another here. The only deciding factor here is the LGBT couple that approached the baker to begin with has instigated the situation, effectively imposing the predicament. They are free to choose a different baker. The baker is free to refuse them service.[/QUOTE] What if my religion forbids me from serving black people? What's so special about religion that it warrants special privileges over non-theistic opinions anyway? They may be free to choose another baker, but because of that decision they have less choice to begin with. What if that baker is the only one they can afford? What if they live in a remote village and that baker is the only one available? Refusal of service should be based on concrete, justifiable reasons, not arbitrary ones such as here. [QUOTE]To the very zingy question of; where do you draw the line, this verdict distinctly draws the line at refusing to bake a cake for a LGBT couple. If a case came up that involved some white supremacist refusing to bake for a black couple the verdict might be different. I think it's a mistake to slippery-slope this verdict and treat is as a sweeping precedent when it's quite clearly a case-specific trial with an even more specific set of circumstances.[/QUOTE] And what exactly is different between refusing to bake for a couple for being gay and refusing to bake for a couple for being black? The DoJ provides no justification for this distinction, nor do I see any plausible one. Their decision, much like the baker's refusal itself, is entirely arbitrary and unjustified.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52663559]But that is pretty pretty much what he says though[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52663479]Private enterprise, and the man told them he would not take the order in the first place. If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] He never said that. The only reason you're adding that subtext is because you dislike his opinion and making him sound like a racist is an easy way to invalidate his opinion here.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663555]You and I both know he didn't mean that. Stop fishing for zings.[/QUOTE] Oh, I do know he wouldn't be okay with racially discriminatory denial of service. Which is why his argument is hypocritical. [QUOTE]Besides nobody in the private sector has to work for everyone. Call them a dick sure but they have that right to be a dick.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663564]Personally, I think it's a huge problem. But I've got no problem with a private enterprise doing it at their own discretion. They've got their own right to be an asshole. I've got my right to not shop there.[/QUOTE] Would you say the same thing if it was one of many (quasi) monopoles doing the same thing? What if the only ISP available in your area refuses you service for an arbitrary reason? Again, what if the company refusing you service is the only one you can actually shop at given your budget? Or is the only one available in the area? Sure, people in the private sector should be able to refuse service, but only if they can provide a credible reason for doing so. "They're gay" isn't a credible reason.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663577]He never said that. The only reason you're adding that subtext is because you dislike his opinion and making him sound like a racist is an easy way to invalidate his opinion here.[/QUOTE] But he does sound like a racist. "I think it is okay for [business] to serve whomever they want" also means that they are okay with businesses serving whites only. Or we can apply the anti sjw"replace white with black and if you think it's racist then it's racist" too: [QUOTE]If you are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] Gives [QUOTE]If black people are denied service before even starting, I do not see a problem.[/QUOTE] Oh look. It's pretty racist now
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663585]Would you say the same thing if it was one of many (quasi) monopoles doing the same thing? What if the only ISP available in your area refuses you service for an arbitrary reason? Again, what if the company refusing you service is the only one you can actually shop at given your budget? Or is the only one available in the area? Sure, people in the private sector should be able to refuse service, but only if they can provide a credible reason for doing so. "They're gay" isn't a credible reason.[/QUOTE] Yes, I would say the same thing. Because it'd make the news, they'd be shit on left and right, and there's a good chance they'd change their stance. I think it's a safe assumption to make that a 'quasi-monopoly' wouldn't be stupid enough to jeopardize their entire company by refusing to serve like that. That's economical suicide. A private company, I think, [I]doesn't[/I] need a 'credible' reason to refuse business because what's not credible to you may seem perfectly credible to them. Credibility, in this case, is a concept and an opinion.
Seems fine to me. He didn't refuse to make a cake, he refused to make it an LGBT-themed cake. There's a difference.
Atleast it's just a fucking cake.
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663596]Yes, I would say the same thing. Because it'd make the news, they'd be shit on left and right, and there's a good chance they'd change their stance. I think it's a safe assumption to make that a 'quasi-monopoly' wouldn't be stupid enough to jeopardize their entire company by refusing to serve like that. That's economical suicide.[/QUOTE] How's that economical suicide if no other company can compete with them? People have no choice but to use their service in the first place. People suck at boycotting enough to begin with, it's simply not going to work when said company is the only one that can provide them a service they need. Same thing if several companies cooperate to arbitrarily ban certain demographics. The law should protect from this kind of abuse. Shit, has the bakery in question changed their stance? If anything I'd wager it may very well have increased its sales thanks to the publicity of being in the news, and the amount of homophobic retards you can find in the US. Catering to cunts may very well be a viable strategy depending on your location.
[QUOTE=Bertie;52663604]Seems fine to me. He didn't refuse to make a cake, he refused to make it an LGBT-themed cake. There's a difference.[/QUOTE] Exactly. You cant go to mcdonalds and demand they wrap your burger in a rainbow theme lbgt wrapper. Dont compare this to back in the day when you wasnt allow to get any cake at all if youre not white. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663596]Yes, I would say the same thing. Because it'd make the news, they'd be shit on left and right, and there's a good chance they'd change their stance. I think it's a safe assumption to make that a 'quasi-monopoly' wouldn't be stupid enough to jeopardize their entire company by refusing to serve like that. That's economical suicide. A private company, I think, [I]doesn't[/I] need a 'credible' reason to refuse business because what's not credible to you may seem perfectly credible to them. Credibility, in this case, is a concept and an opinion.[/QUOTE] Why ruin somebody's only source of income to feed his family because he doesn't want to make some LGBT cake that could be brought anywhere else.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52663619]Exactly. You cant go to mcdonalds and demand they wrap your burger in a rainbow theme lbgt wrapper. Dont compare this to back in the day when you wasnt allow to get any cake at all if youre not white.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure a baker who does wedding cakes is specialised in making customized ones. Your comparison with a fast food chain that relies on optimising its production to drive costs down is not very apt.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663610]How's that economical suicide if no other company can compete with them? People have no choice but to use their service in the first place. People suck at boycotting enough to begin with, it's simply not going to work when said company is the only one that can provide them a service they need.[/QUOTE] It's economical suicide because saying 'Oh by the way, I'm a total asshole' is a good stepping stone for someone else (another company) to say 'But [I]I'm[/I] not an asshole! Buy my stuff instead!', thus toppling their 'quasi-monopoly'. (A 'quasi' monopoly implies, by definition, that it's not [I]actually[/I] a monopoly, which means that they have competitors ready, willing, and able to undercut them.) [QUOTE]People suck at boycotting enough to begin with, it's simply not going to work when said company is the only one that can provide them a service they need.[/QUOTE] Except it isn't the case, and finding a case like that is nigh impossible. [QUOTE=Sky King;52663619]Why ruin somebody's only source of income to feed his family because he doesn't want to make some LGBT cake that could be brought anywhere else.[/QUOTE] Why ruin your own business by injecting your personal beliefs into your production?
[QUOTE=Sky King;52663619]Exactly. You cant go to mcdonalds and demand they wrap your burger in a rainbow theme lbgt wrapper. Dont compare this to back in the day when you wasnt allow to get any cake at all if youre not white.[/QUOTE] Of course, McDonald's doesn't decorate their food, why bother comparing the two.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663585]Oh, I do know he wouldn't be okay with racially discriminatory denial of service. Which is why his argument is hypocritical. Would you say the same thing if it was one of many (quasi) monopoles doing the same thing? What if the only ISP available in your area refuses you service for an arbitrary reason? Again, what if the company refusing you service is the only one you can actually shop at given your budget? Or is the only one available in the area? Sure, people in the private sector should be able to refuse service, but only if they can provide a credible reason for doing so. "They're gay" isn't a credible reason.[/QUOTE] It would suck for sure but I wouldn't think I'd have any legal grounds to take it to court. Private companies don't have to abide by anyone's feelings or opinions. As long as they're not breaking the law they're free to pick and choose whoever they want to serve as virtue of being private. The repurcussions of their actions are societal. Also you're arbitrarily limiting the number of isps in this scenario in a way that doesn't reflect the situation. The couple had plenty of other options for their cake.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52663619]Exactly. You cant go to mcdonalds and demand they wrap your burger in a rainbow theme lbgt wrapper. Dont compare this to back in the day when you wasnt allow to get any cake at all if youre not white. [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] Why ruin somebody's only source of income to feed his family because he doesn't want to make some LGBT cake that could be brought anywhere else.[/QUOTE] ?????? What a fucking retarded comparison.
[QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663627]It's economical suicide because saying 'Oh by the way, I'm a total asshole' is a good stepping stone for someone else (another company) to say 'But [I]I'm[/I] not an asshole! Buy my stuff instead!', thus toppling their 'quasi-monopoly'. (A 'quasi' monopoly implies, by definition, that it's not [I]actually[/I] a monopoly, which means that they have competitors ready, willing, and able to undercut them.)[/QUOTE] You do not seem to understand the effect of scale on competition. No matter how YouTube sucks, or how controversial their statements may be, they won't be toppled anytime soon because to provide a service of such quality requires an extensive infrastructure that costs billions to maintain. Sure, it's not strictly a monopoly, you have websites like Dailymotion that provide a similar service, but none of them can realistically compete with YouTube. Same thing with ISPs, building and maintaining a network costs lots of money, it's not something some dude in his garage can achieve. Competition isn't as simple as you make it out to be. "Huge Company does bad thing -> Small Company topples their monopoly" is not a very realistic scenario and rarely happens. [QUOTE]Except it isn't the case, and finding a case like that is nigh impossible.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure your ISPs wouldn't suck so hard if boycotting them was an option.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52663591]But he does sound like a racist. "I think it is okay for [business] to serve whomever they want" also means that they are okay with businesses serving whites only. Or we can apply the anti sjw"replace white with black and if you think it's racist then it's racist" too: Gives Oh look. It's pretty racist now[/QUOTE] Your the only one talking about race though. This argument is only about religion and sexual orientation. Thats it, nothing else.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52663648]You do not seem to understand the effect of scale on competition. No matter how YouTube sucks, or how controversial their statements may be, they won't be toppled anytime soon because to provide a service of such quality requires an extensive infrastructure that costs billions to maintain. Sure, it's not strictly a monopoly, you have websites like Dailymotion that provide a similar service, but none of them can realistically compete with YouTube. Same thing with ISPs, building and maintaining a network costs lots of money, it's not something some dude in his garage can achieve. Competition isn't as simple as you make it out to be. "Huge Company does bad thing -> Small Company topples their monopoly" is not a very realistic scenario and rarely happens. I'm pretty sure your ISPs wouldn't suck so hard if boycotting them was an option.[/QUOTE] Are we talking conceptually in 'what-ifs' still? Because if we are, I'd like to let us assume that the companies in question aren't that big, this is a locally owned cake shop, and that their local competitors probably took advantage of this and are raking in the big bucks at their expense. I'd also like to assume that whatever YouTube did to bring them such negative press was so catastrophic that it completely toppled their 'monopoly'. Sarcasm aside, you've been talking in what-ifs for most of this. Spinning it into an unrelated real-world scenario (which ALSO hasn't happened) changes the argument.
Imagine how much money this person spent trying to refuse to serve gay people when they could have just made the cake and be done with it. But they won so I expect more cases of LGBT people being refused service in the future. Seems like you can get away with anything as long as you say "but my religion'
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;52663638]It would suck for sure but I wouldn't think I'd have any legal grounds to take it to court. Private companies don't have to abide by anyone's feelings or opinions. As long as they're not breaking the law they're free to pick and choose whoever they want to serve as virtue of being private. The repurcussions of their actions are societal. Also you're arbitrarily limiting the number of isps in this scenario in a way that doesn't reflect the situation. The couple had plenty of other options for their cake.[/QUOTE] You bringing up the law when it's precisely your law that I'm arguing against is irrelevant. No country operates on a completely free market. Even the US, despite how economically liberal they may be, have anti-trust laws and limitations that prevent companies from doing whatever they want. Why shouldn't a law that prevents arbitrary customer discrimination exist? [editline]9th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Gunteen8;52663667]Are we talking conceptually in 'what-ifs' still? Because if we are, I'd like to let us assume that the companies in question aren't that big, this is a locally owned cake shop, and that their local competitors probably took advantage of this and are raking in the big bucks at their expense. I'd also like to assume that whatever YouTube did to bring them such negative press was so catastrophic that it completely toppled their 'monopoly'. Sarcasm aside, you've been talking in what-ifs for most of this. Spinning it into an unrelated real-world scenario (which ALSO hasn't happened) changes the argument.[/QUOTE] Dude, since the beginning I'm arguing against the argument that companies should be able to serve whoever they want based on the sole fact they're private entities. Such a broad statement needs to hold up to scrutiny. This includes what you call "what-ifs" because the argument I'm criticizing is supposed to apply to any situation. That it doesn't yield blatant contradictions in the specific scenario you keep bringing up doesn't mean it's a valid argument. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.