Join the Bitchfest >>

WSJ Live Coverage of Same Sex Wedding Case

Two moments from the proceedings-

Justice Breyer jumps in to say that he hasn’t been able to figure out how the baker could win the case narrowly. Any court decision in that direction could cause “chaos” in anti-discrimination laws, he said.
Near the end of Mr. Francisco’s time (pleading for the baker), Justice Kennedy asks what would happen if the court rules for the baker and then bakers all across the country receive requests (pressure) from the public not to serve gay weddings. Would the federal government feel vindicated if that happens, he asks.
The Supreme Court hears arguments Tuesday in one of the highest-profile cases of the year, involving a Colorado baker who refused to prepare a cake for a gay wedding.
WSJ
--Anonymous
replies 204Dec 5, 2017 6:55 AM +00:00
Justice Kennedy offered his comments about tolerance that we referenced earlier on the live blog. He says tolerance “is essential in a free society” but says it needs to work both ways. And he questions whether the state has been tolerant of Mr. Phillips’s (the baker's) views.
--Anonymous
replies 1Dec 5, 2017 7:05 AM +00:00
Justice Kennedy is back, raising deep concerns about comments made by one commissioner on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (that opposed the baker) who said it was “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others. The justice makes clear he’s troubled by the statement and asks if the state disavows it.
--Anonymous
replies 2Dec 5, 2017 7:07 AM +00:00

I never liked this case. And thought it would be a complete disaster if eventually ruled in favor of the baker.

--Anonymous
replies 3Dec 5, 2017 7:17 AM +00:00

Yeah Kennedy clears favors the bakers here. They will win 5-4.

--Anonymous
replies 4Dec 5, 2017 7:30 AM +00:00
(Kennedy) says tolerance “is essential in a free society” but says it needs to work both ways.

He's now drafting language for his pro-baker opinion right from the bench, it seems.

--Anonymous
replies 5Dec 5, 2017 7:33 AM +00:00

If tolerance needs to work both ways, where is the tolerance on the baker's part? That he doesn't burn a cross in the gay couple's yard?

--Anonymous
replies 6Dec 5, 2017 7:35 AM +00:00

I'm sure SCOTUS will find for the baker for the same reason they found for Hobby Lobby.

So if this sort of thing becomes common practice - and it will - then businesses should have to advertise that they do not serve gay weddings so that gay couples don't have to waste their time contacting them or visiting the storefront.

--Anonymous
replies 7Dec 5, 2017 7:41 AM +00:00

A ruling against the gay couple will allow hotels/motels/inns to deny rooms to gay couples. Expect some small inns to start discriminating.

--Anonymous
replies 8Dec 5, 2017 7:43 AM +00:00

Fuck the enitled gay couple. I hope someone pee in their cake

--Anonymous
replies 9Dec 5, 2017 7:44 AM +00:00

This was not a necessity like receiving health care service or housing. They simply had to go to another baker who would do it. They would never have hassled an Orthodox Jewish baker or Muslim baker this way. And the media threw gay people under the bus by giving such coverage to these fools.

Now there WILL be discrimination and they will feel emboldened by the Supreme Court to do so.

--Anonymous
replies 10Dec 5, 2017 7:45 AM +00:00

Kennedy ought to think about the country that a decision in favour of the bakers would create. Businesses will be free to hang signs saying "Gays not welcome here." It would be segregation all over again.

--Anonymous
replies 11Dec 5, 2017 7:48 AM +00:00

"Fuck the enitled gay couple."

Yeah. Who do they think they are? Regular people?

--Anonymous
replies 12Dec 5, 2017 7:49 AM +00:00

R10, the impetus around so-called "religious freedom" laws began with Scalia's opposing opinion of the SCOTUS marriage equality ruling - long before this wedding cake case. Right-wing evangelicals, Catholics, etc. have been sounding the alarm for the last several years and "religious freedom" laws have been put in front of state legislatures. So this Cake Case will not be the single reason for any future discrimination issues.

--Anonymous
replies 13Dec 5, 2017 7:51 AM +00:00
A ruling against the gay couple will allow hotels/motels/inns to deny rooms to gay couples

It will also mean that Muslim cab drivers can refuse service to women they feel are immodestly dressed, or to customers coming out of the liquor store, etc. Unintended consequences!

--Anonymous
replies 14Dec 5, 2017 7:53 AM +00:00

If they rule for the baker, will doctors and dentists be allowed to refuse treatment to gay patients?

--Anonymous
replies 15Dec 5, 2017 7:53 AM +00:00

Antigay discrimination is already legal in most places in the US. There is no federal law against it, and won’t be for decades. And most states do not outlaw antigay discrimination, and few additional will do so with religious liberty being such a huge buzzword now.

--Anonymous
replies 16Dec 5, 2017 7:54 AM +00:00

Yeah, why do y’all act as if antigay discrimination is illegal in most places already? It isn’t

--Anonymous
replies 17Dec 5, 2017 7:55 AM +00:00

Would this allow gay bakers to refuse to serve Christians then?

--Anonymous
replies 18Dec 5, 2017 7:55 AM +00:00
then businesses should have to advertise that they do not serve gay weddings so that gay couples don't have to waste their time contacting them or visiting the storefront.

That's a good point, but it's even more than wasting a customer's time. A business, especially a Christian, Jesus-loving business, should not want to HUMILIATE its customers by saying something that the customer will interpret as "we don't serve your kind (in this instance)." The business should want the customers to know before they step into the shop that they won't be served, but the business also doesn't want to advertise its discriminatory policy for fear of aliening straight, gay-friendly customers.

Those business want to discriminate and humiliate with no consequences to their business, and they would be able to do that if only gays would cooperate by silently leaving the store with their heads held in shame when they are refused service. But the gays don't seem to be cooperating anymore.

--Anonymous
replies 19Dec 5, 2017 7:57 AM +00:00

There's an Op-Ed piece from David Brooks who basically says the gay couple should have done this:

"At this point, Craig and Mullins had two possible courses of action, the neighborly and the legal.

The neighborly course would have been to use this situation as a community-building moment. That means understanding the concrete circumstance they were in.

First, it’s just a cake. It’s not like they were being denied a home or a job, or a wedding. A cake looks good in magazines, but it’s not an important thing in a marriage. Second, Phillips’s opinion is not a strange opinion. Barack Obama was elected president arguing that a marriage was between a man and a woman. Most good-hearted Americans believed this until a few years ago. Third, the tide of opinion is quickly swinging in favor of gay marriage. Its advocates have every cause to feel confident, patient and secure.

Given that context, the neighborly approach would be to say: “Fine, we won’t compel you to do something you believe violates your sacred principles. But we would like to hire you to bake other cakes for us. We would like to invite you into our home for dinner and bake with you, so you can see our marital love, and so we can understand your values. You still may not agree with us, after all this, but at least we’ll understand each other better and we can live more fully in our community.”

So the gay couple has to take it on the chin and accommodate the baker's need...and give him other business on top of it. The baker OTOH, has to compromise nothing, accommodate nothing. A very one-sided approach to being "neighborly."

I doubt Brooks would expect any other group of people to do this, but when it comes to religious conservatives, he tends to propose a very one-sided approach that strikes me as condescending.

--Anonymous
replies 20Dec 5, 2017 7:58 AM +00:00
. So this Cake Case will not be the single reason for any future discrimination issues.

It certainly has popularized it.

There is not even protection for gay people nation-wide in terms of housing or employment?

Where wer the media and the "LGBTQ" organizations about this?

--Anonymous
replies 21Dec 5, 2017 8:03 AM +00:00

If companies make it known to, or are found out to, discriminate against gay customers, to what extent will they turn off gay-friendly customers? That is, I wonder how many of my friends and family would really boycott places that discriminate.

--Jesus wept
replies 22Dec 5, 2017 8:05 AM +00:00

You mean the "gay allies" who see nothing wrong with making kids that seem gay trans?

--Anonymous
replies 23Dec 5, 2017 8:06 AM +00:00

LGBTQ organizations have been fighting for ENDA for years now, but it's been stalled by the GOP which claims it isn't necessary any longer (but they actually just want to bury it), despite the fact that there are states with no legal job or housing protections for gay people.

R22, I suspect that in some areas businesses who discriminate will find it backfires on them when gays and gay-friendly customers no longer patronize their business. In some other very conservative areas, the discrimination would probably get applause.

This whole thing is about religious conservatives insisting on acting out their belief that gay people are a lesser form of humanity.

--Anonymous
replies 24Dec 5, 2017 8:09 AM +00:00

There is no chance that ENDA or other anti discrimination law can pass under republican rule. Trump is appointing judges who will rebuff attempts to interpret laws against sex discrimination as also outlawing sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Elections have consequences. There is not much you can do if you lose elections

--Anonymous
replies 25Dec 5, 2017 8:10 AM +00:00
LGBTQ organizations have been fighting for ENDA for years now,

No, gay and lesbian organizations were fighting for it for years. "LGBTQ" organizations have tied it to "Transgender" which makes it unlikely to pass now, and frankly should not pass as the transgender push is anti-gay and anti-women and harming children. Political infiltration by T killed it long before the GOP.

--Anonymous
replies 26Dec 5, 2017 8:14 AM +00:00

And r26 is blocked.

--Anonymous
replies 27Dec 5, 2017 8:15 AM +00:00

Both parties are supporting "religious freedom." The Dems may be doing it more in the future as they are so obsessed with changing demographics. Those changing demographics are a range of conservative and extremist religions.

--Anonymous
replies 28Dec 5, 2017 8:15 AM +00:00

And R27 cannot handle the truth.

--Anonymous
replies 29Dec 5, 2017 8:16 AM +00:00

Cannot fucking wait to open an atheist-only bakery. Looking at the demographic projections, my business should be booming with no end in sight.

--Anonymous
replies 30Dec 5, 2017 8:20 AM +00:00

R26 does have a point though - tying trans rights to ENDA will ensure it will not be acted upon for some time. The "all or nothing" approach in politics rarely works out.

--Anonymous
replies 31Dec 5, 2017 8:20 AM +00:00

If I knew a store/bakery/business was actively discriminating against gay people I would damn well not only not give them my money anymore, but would make it a point to publicize their inhumanity to everyone I know.

--Anonymous
replies 32Dec 5, 2017 8:22 AM +00:00

"So this Cake Case will not be the single reason for any future discrimination issues."

"It certainly has popularized it."

No, the Kim Davis case popularized it, even though she eventually lost.

--Anonymous
replies 33Dec 5, 2017 8:23 AM +00:00

The people who would want to discriminate are clearly forgetting that they will be called out on social media in a heartbeat. Unless they exist in Bumfuck, AL, do they really want that publicity?

--Anonymous
replies 34Dec 5, 2017 8:24 AM +00:00

Culture wars in full swing. Just what the doctor (and Putin) ordered.

Thanks, Susan Sarandon!

--Anonymous
replies 35Dec 5, 2017 8:24 AM +00:00

They should never have given them their money or attention. They gave them free publicity and now they may help to kill gay rights.

--Anonymous
replies 36Dec 5, 2017 8:25 AM +00:00

R36, they gay couple was simply asking for CO law to be applied here. State laws forbid public businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation, and that's what happened here. The "I'll bake you anything but a wedding cake" exception doesn't cut it.

--Anonymous
replies 37Dec 5, 2017 8:29 AM +00:00

The religious freedom angle on this is a combination of "be careful what you wish for" and "unintended consequences." The origins date back to liberal Democrats wanting to protect the religious beliefs of Native Americans.

Can we get past the 'this is just a cake" discussion? These bakeries are operating int he public market place taking advantage of all that has to offer. Whether it's a cake or a heart transplant the merchant shouldn't be allowed to turn customers away based upon religious beliefs.

The same-sex couples are participating in and supporting the same marketplace that is essential for the baker. If an individual decides to operate in this marketplace they must serve the marketplace.

--Anonymous
replies 38Dec 5, 2017 8:32 AM +00:00

This is not just about a baker and a cake, it is about equal access to the market. It is about allowing discrimination by stores, hotels, caterers, etc etc etc.

--Anonymous
replies 39Dec 5, 2017 8:34 AM +00:00

The baker broke Colorado law and now claims he's an artist and his cake is his art.

It will lead to discrimination being allowed by any business that wants to.

...and each business that does will pay mightily.

--Anonymous
replies 40Dec 5, 2017 8:38 AM +00:00

The evangelicals will cheer this as a historic victory but I'm telling you right now, this will backfire spectacularly. Because once all cards are on the table and fewer people support these discriminatory businesses, the market forces will only accelerate the demise of religious-based businesses.

--Anonymous
replies 41Dec 5, 2017 8:38 AM +00:00

R20 Brooks is wrong, particular when he spouts, "It's just a cake."

Was the Rosa Parks case about "just a bus ride"?

--Anonymous
replies 42Dec 5, 2017 8:39 AM +00:00

Chic a Fil's business went up 73% since the "LGBTQ" boycott

There is no intelligent gay organization so they are losing battles

--Anonymous
replies 43Dec 5, 2017 8:40 AM +00:00

Omg, we're gonna lose.

--Anonymous
replies 44Dec 5, 2017 8:42 AM +00:00

R44 It's definitely already lost and any further litigation should be suspended until the liberals retake the bench.

--Anonymous
replies 45Dec 5, 2017 8:45 AM +00:00

I also think the ruling will be in favor of the baker, but I can only hope that the wording is so narrow and specific that it can't be interpreted as blanket permission for anyone to claim "religious beliefs" when it comes to picking and choosing your customers or what you will do for them.

"This is not just about a baker and a cake, it is about equal access to the market. It is about allowing discrimination by stores, hotels, caterers, etc etc etc."

Exactly, and I think even Kennedy has at least some awareness of this.

--Anonymous
replies 46Dec 5, 2017 8:56 AM +00:00

Kennedy, An 81 year old will again be deciding our fate. Let's not our hope this time.

Offsite Link
--Anonymous
replies 47Dec 5, 2017 8:59 AM +00:00

You can narrow the wording as much as you want, but you can't tailor the final decision to fit this one person alone. They will latch onto this in all sorts of other areas of public life.

--Anonymous
replies 48Dec 5, 2017 9:00 AM +00:00

The pic in OP's link shows the silliness of this whole case -- who in their right mind would want a cake that looks like that ? Yuck.

--Anonymous
replies 49Dec 5, 2017 9:13 AM +00:00
Would this allow gay bakers to refuse to serve Christians then?

Nope, because Christians are a protected class. Gays are not.

--Anonymous
replies 50Dec 5, 2017 9:14 AM +00:00
“Christian conservatives used to try to promote traditional morality for everyone, but now there seems to be a recognition that they just aren’t going to win over the culture,” said Andrew R. Lewis, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. “So they’re going to the courts to argue that they’re vulnerable like other minorities and they need protections from the broader culture.”

Expect this fight to go on for decades to come.

The wedding cake case before the Supreme Court signals a shift in status for evangelicals.
FiveThirtyEight
--Anonymous
replies 51Dec 5, 2017 9:15 AM +00:00

The war against Christianity is real! Those poor people are under a cake attack! Could you survive layers of chocolate and vanilla being hurled your way? Jesus is weeping for the sweet sweet loss.

--Anonymous
replies 52Dec 5, 2017 9:18 AM +00:00

One semi-hopeful statement at R47's link:

"It has been speculated that the justices could solve the problem by remanding the case back to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission with instructions to be more tolerant to Phillip’s beliefs or crafting the decision to only apply to Colorado law and not nationwide."

The first of these would be much better, as the second will only embolden other red states to follow CO's lead.

--Anonymous
replies 53Dec 5, 2017 9:19 AM +00:00

R53 Other red states will follow regardless of how narrow the decision is. And instructing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to be more tolerant of his beliefs will have the exact same effect down the line as crafting the decision to apply to Colorado only, it will just have bought some more time before another case reaches the SC.

Either way, we're going backwards with no end in sight. I think it will take another couple of years before people realize just how much 2016 fucked us over, for a whole generation.

--Anonymous
replies 54Dec 5, 2017 9:27 AM +00:00

According to SCOTUS, beliefs can be anything you want them to be.

If I hate red shirts, I can stop selling to people who wear red shirts.

--Anonymous
replies 55Dec 5, 2017 9:31 AM +00:00

If the baker wins, will every gay person have to announce he's gay to every business he goes to to determine if the business will serve him?

--Anonymous
replies 56Dec 5, 2017 9:35 AM +00:00

Interesting commentary that was brought up in the case for when faith did not trump state law:

"...he turns to the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v. Smith, a 1990 opinion rejecting a claim that members of the Native American Church could not be penalized because they used peyote, a sacrament in their faith that nevertheless was illegal under state law.

Justice Scalia’s reasoning followed Reynolds v. U.S., an 1878 case rejecting a Mormon’s claim that his religious faith exempted him from bigamy laws. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances," the court said then."

Of course when dealing with gays and christianity, the court will favor christianity.

--Anonymous
replies 57Dec 5, 2017 9:38 AM +00:00

The transgender and religious liberty issues are the two biggest obstacles to the advance of gay rights today. In fact, there will very likely be major rolling back of gay rights nationwide, especially with increasing rightwing courts deciding these matters

--Anonymous
replies 58Dec 5, 2017 9:45 AM +00:00

I personaly wouldn't want anyone dealing my my food/cake that hated me, you never know what they might do to the food/cake.

--Anonymous
replies 59Dec 5, 2017 9:52 AM +00:00
I think it will take another couple of years before people realize just how much 2016 fucked us over, for a whole generation.

Tell me about it!

--"Transkids"
replies 60Dec 5, 2017 9:54 AM +00:00
transgender and religious liberty issues are the two biggest obstacles to the advance of gay rights today.

What do you mean? What does transgender have to do with obstacles?

--Anonymous
replies 61Dec 5, 2017 9:54 AM +00:00

If you're serving the public...then you have to serve everyone.

If the customer of a Black baker wants his cake decorated with Confederate flags...tough.

And if I ask a Muslim baker to decorate mine with sliced ham...well too bad.

And that's just the way it is. If you don't want to serve the public then stay home.

As for me, personally, I simply would have chosen another baker. I'd want someone who could do the job with some love and enthusiasm.

--Anonymous
replies 62Dec 5, 2017 9:54 AM +00:00

Masterpiece has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide on 2 core issues that have been at the center of this case from the very beginning. Both of these questions involve rights that are guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

1.tJack Phillips of Masterpiece claims that he is not concerned about one’s sexual orientation, but he has deeply held religious beliefs, including that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Does a law requiring him to make cakes which inherently express messages about marriage that he considers objectionable, interfere with the practice of his own religion?

2.tPhillips believes that as a creator of custom cakes, he is an artist. And as such, his works are considered free speech. Does a law which compels artists to produce works which convey opinions that are not in their minds or thoughts interfere with and violate the artist’s own constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech?

It only takes a favorable ruling on one of them for Masterpiece to have won its case.

--Anonymous
replies 63Dec 5, 2017 10:00 AM +00:00

By design by both sides, trans issues are tied to gay issues now, which was not so pre-2005 or so. Note that every gay rights bill now includes protections for transgender people. There is no doubt trans rights have much less popular and political support than gay rights. As such, by hitching Trans rights to gay rights, gay rights will advance slower than they would independent of trans issues.

--Anonymous
replies 64Dec 5, 2017 10:01 AM +00:00

R62 Completely wrong, and you proved it yourself with those examples. You know those two cases would never see the light of day; in fact the customer could be charged with a hate crime. This is the double-standard that will sink this case. The examples you cite are aggressive and obviously incitement -- but where is the line where the baker is being targeted ? It's going to happen.

--Anonymous
replies 65Dec 5, 2017 10:02 AM +00:00
The transgender and religious liberty issues are the two biggest obstacles to the advance of gay rights today. In fact, there will very likely be major rolling back of gay rights nationwide, especially with increasing rightwing courts deciding these matters

There will be lawsuits and certainly bad press for dragging children and minors into the "transgender" stuff. They were too young to consent to any of it. It will screw up their lives and bodies. Expect a big backlash from that as LG is now connected to T

And no one wants deranged men in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and battered women's/rape crisis shelters. How many attacks until it "counts"? Another disaster coming.

Anyone with a brain in their head can predict that. Anyone with a brain in their head could predict that this cake stupidity would be a total disaster.

And basic rights for housing and employment for gay people which should have been secured a long time ago, definitely before gay marriage, will never go through as Trans is using LG to push their agenda which has nothing to do with gay rights.

It has been turned into a total disaster.

--Anonymous
replies 66Dec 5, 2017 10:02 AM +00:00

Sorry, that should be R62

--R65
replies 67Dec 5, 2017 10:03 AM +00:00
And if I ask a Muslim baker to decorate mine with sliced ham...well too bad.

1. No one will ask him to do that. 2. He will not have any sliced ham. 3. If anyone pressured him to do so he would charge discrimination and he would be backed up by govt.

--Anonymous
replies 68Dec 5, 2017 10:05 AM +00:00

Poor R62. This is what the Cons think is logical thinking.

In the case, the couple wasn't asking for anything more than what the baker has done for so many others.

If a black baker baked Confederate Flag cakes for everyone, you better believe he better bake one for you. If a Muslim makes sliced ham cakes for everyone, he better make one for the White Supremacist who wants one.

--Anonymous
replies 69Dec 5, 2017 10:06 AM +00:00

R63 this baker is as much of an artist as the cook who made my sandwich at the deli.

Give me a fucking break

--Anonymous
replies 70Dec 5, 2017 10:07 AM +00:00

I'm so sick of this "His belief's are deeply heal so he should be able to do what he wants within those beliefs."

People who believed that blacks didn't deserve equality also had deeply-held beliefs and many used the Bible as their source too.

--Anonymous
replies 71Dec 5, 2017 10:08 AM +00:00

R63, in both cases I would simply answer, in David Brooks' words, "It's just a cake."

In the first case, nothing about making a cake has any impact on how, when, and where he worships. It's nothing more than a business transaction. Unfortunately, the definition of "freedom of religion" has been broadened to include forcing your religious beliefs on others...but only if you're Christian.

In the second case, he's really stretching the "artist" thing, primarily because basing this strictly on religious freedom puts him on potentially shaky ground (see R57's posting).

--Anonymous
replies 72Dec 5, 2017 10:20 AM +00:00

I don't understand why religious nuts like this baker are allowed to discriminate in the public sphere. Why hasn't this religious freedom stuff been sued to oblivion? Once a religious nut opens a public business, they deal with the public. The public is a collective by definition, no law says the public is only those who conform to the particular views of that particular religious nut.

--Anonymous
replies 73Dec 5, 2017 10:21 AM +00:00

R73, it's because conservative Christians have convinced themselves that they are a besieged minority who are being oppress (LOL!) and there are plenty of politicians who are a). of the same belief or b). willing to use this imaginary martyrdom to fuel their own ambitions.

--Anonymous
replies 74Dec 5, 2017 10:23 AM +00:00

"..being oppressed.."

--R74
replies 75Dec 5, 2017 10:23 AM +00:00

Western countries are passing "Islamphobia" laws now. A vague term that can silence criticism about anti-gay policies.

--Anonymous
replies 76Dec 5, 2017 10:25 AM +00:00

Also I don't get why this "sincerely held religious beliefs" crap hasn't been challenged on the basis of, it has to be all or none. You can't pick and choose which particular "belief" to discriminate on, you have to discriminate on all prescriptions of that religion or you forgo this "sincerely held" cover. We know there's a lot in the Bible that these so-called Christians turn a blind eye to and pretend isn't there.

So, if this is upheld, next a Catholic baker can start denying service to divorcees? The logical extension of such a ruling is allowing for arbitrary discrimination.

--Anonymous
replies 77Dec 5, 2017 10:34 AM +00:00

Yeah, it is really bad for G&L, women, science , free speech., modern life etc.

Muslims and Jews can discriminate, too. And the media would hesitate criticizing them.

--Anonymous
replies 78Dec 5, 2017 10:36 AM +00:00

Approximately when will the court announce their ruling?

--Anonymous
replies 79Dec 5, 2017 10:40 AM +00:00

R79, maybe June.

--Anonymous
replies 80Dec 5, 2017 10:48 AM +00:00

What would happen if a Christian baker refuses service to a Jew or Muslim on the basis of this religious freedom? Both baker and client would be from the same protected class.

--Anonymous
replies 81Dec 5, 2017 10:49 AM +00:00

No, they will all be on the same page refusing to G&L

--Anonymous
replies 82Dec 5, 2017 10:51 AM +00:00

R80 - June?! I thought the decision would be on the evening news lol. What I don't get is how these types could get away with claiming they are oppressed and being silenced when they are anything but. I mean they are the friggin majority.

--Anonymous
replies 83Dec 5, 2017 10:52 AM +00:00

R77, That won’t and shouldn’t happen. The government cannot Question or interrogate peoples’ good faith religious beliefs. The state doesn’t get t tell people how to interpret or apply the Bible or religious text,

--Anonymous
replies 84Dec 5, 2017 10:53 AM +00:00

R84 and by that same token then so called Christians can't pick and chose which parts of the Bible they 'sincerely believe'

--Anonymous
replies 85Dec 5, 2017 10:54 AM +00:00

Don't they get to test that belief, however? If I claim to be a conscientious objector on the grounds of my religious belief, but never go to church, doesn't that disqualify me from that claim?

--Anonymous
replies 86Dec 5, 2017 10:55 AM +00:00

But R84,it says "beliefs" not belief. The anti-gay is only one belief of the totality of beliefs that all must simultaneously be "sincerely held". Also what's the law's definition and interpretation of "sincerely held"?

--Anonymous
replies 87Dec 5, 2017 10:58 AM +00:00

[quote There will be lawsuits and certainly bad press for dragging children and minors into the "transgender" stuff. They were too young to consent to any of it. It will screw up their lives and bodies. Expect a big backlash from that as LG is now connected to T

Oh, give it a fucking rest and keep your bullshit to your own threads. You morons have been predicting "backlash" and "disaster" for over two years now. It hasn't happened yet and there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future. Get a fucking life.

Back on topic: this case was inevitable. You can pretend all you want but this was going to happen no matter what. It's easy to say that they should just hire another [x], where [x] is baker, photographer, etc., but there are small towns and communities where that is simply not practical. You have a group of people who want to be bigots and you have a group of people who do not want to let bigots walk all over them. Conflict is inevitable.

It is a conflict that we will eventually win but we still have some education and a whole lot of fighting to do. Win or lose on this particular case, it's not over.

--Anonymous
replies 88Dec 5, 2017 11:00 AM +00:00

How can they have live coverage when we will know in June?

What are they covering today?

--Anonymous
replies 89Dec 5, 2017 11:26 AM +00:00
Oh, give it a fucking rest and keep your bullshit to your own threads. You morons have been predicting "backlash" and "disaster" for over two years now. I

They are still kids now, dunce. Or are you playing dumb?

--Anonymous
replies 90Dec 5, 2017 11:27 AM +00:00
It is a conflict that we will eventually win

How do you know?

--Anonymous
replies 91Dec 5, 2017 11:27 AM +00:00
They are still kids now, dunce. Or are you playing dumb?

Moron, you've been predicting a "backlash" on *all* of your stupid talking points for years, from "deranged men" in restrooms to insisting that we would already have ENDA if it hadn't been for transgender individuals, to insisting that we should have gotten anti-discrimination before trying for marriage, and all of the other bullshit that you and those like you have been pushing for years. You've also been predicting total political disaster, which the recent election in Virginia demonstrated is clearly bullshit. And, just as bad, you insisted that "Anyone with a brain in their head could predict that this cake stupidity would be a total disaster," which is an incredibly stupid thing to say.

None of what you write about is true, none of it is backed up by reality. No, we wouldn't have the ENDA, because the same people blocking it now don't want it for gay men and women and more than they want it for transgender women. No, this isn't a political disaster because, as we saw in Virginia, this just isn't that big a deal. No, this case isn't "stupidity" nor is it a "total disaster." No, we shouldn't have waited for the ENDA before moving on same-sex marriage. If we had listened to you, I wouldn't have the right to marry now and I still wouldn't have the ENDA. And none of this has anything to do with this thread.

Back on topic: How do I know we will win, R91? Because of a knowledge of history. There will always be people fighting us but those bigots get fewer every year and the younger generation gets more and more tolerant every year. That's why LGBT issues get less and less divisive, less and less of use as a wedge, less and less of an issue in elections. As we come out, as we gain these rights that we are entitled to, more and more people see that the doom and gloom predictions from the religious right and the bigots just don't come true. And that we want, and are entitled to, the same rights they enjoy.

--Anonymous
replies 92Dec 5, 2017 11:44 AM +00:00

The backlash already started with gay rights bills that were connected with T being shot down. The children are still children - that one will come later and it will be huge. Like the church cases, it took adulthood for it to begin. They couldn't do it while they were children and it was happening to them and it was covered up.

--Anonymous
replies 93Dec 5, 2017 12:02 PM +00:00

Rolling Stone offers this opinion of today's oral arguments--

Supreme Court Seems Headed Toward a Terrible Decision for LGBT Americans
--rollingstone.com
replies 94Dec 5, 2017 12:07 PM +00:00
There will always be people fighting us but those bigots get fewer every year and the younger generation gets more and more tolerant every year. That's why LGBT issues get less and less divisive, less and less of use as a wedge, less and less of an issue in elections.

That may have been the case decades ago but the world is changing and not always in a "progressive" way. I think we are in a regressive backlash. Gay rights began to get somewhere in the 70s because in general it was more liberal times and despite the right in the 80s there was still a belief in gay rights and genuine progressive thought . I think this period is dead and there are multiple anti-gay forces now. Younger generations became more gay tolerant, yes, but they were fooled with the anti-gay T propaganda. So these perceived "allies" are not very reliable. As demographics change, it could also change toward more conservative or extremist religious groups growing. I think we are in a backlash period and I do not see a lot of supporters.

--Anonymous
replies 95Dec 5, 2017 12:09 PM +00:00

Will a tranny please hurry up and stab the deranged lunatic who feels the need to bring in "T" to every fucking thread on DL?

--Anonymous
replies 96Dec 5, 2017 12:13 PM +00:00

Discussing T is actually crucial to the destruction of gay rights and existence, dunce at R96. Look forward to your Iran-like trans existence. Religious and T freedom!

--Anonymous
replies 97Dec 5, 2017 12:18 PM +00:00

Yeah, progressives became irrationally cocky and lazy during the Obama era, and actually believed gay rights and acceptance are inevitable. Well they are not. In fact, there is regression happening globally and domestically. Antigay forces are zealous and will never give up. Whoever slacks in the fight will lose

--Anonymous
replies 98Dec 5, 2017 12:25 PM +00:00

Yes, R98

--Anonymous
replies 99Dec 5, 2017 12:27 PM +00:00
The backlash already started with gay rights bills that were connected with T being shot down.

And gay rights bills that aren't connected with "t" are also being shot down. Did you have a point to make, moron?

--Anonymous
replies 100Dec 5, 2017 12:27 PM +00:00
That may have been the case decades ago but the world is changing and not always in a "progressive" way.

That's not what the polls and the available data show, moron. Look at same-sex marriage as a case in point.

I think we are in a regressive backlash.

We were. We're coming out of it, which is why LGBT issues just didn't play a significant role in the 2016 election. And why your claims of doom and gloom aren't backed up by anything other than your usual bullshit.

I think this period is dead and there are multiple anti-gay forces now.

I think you're a moron. One of us has the evidence to support his point.

Younger generations became more gay tolerant, yes, but they were fooled with the anti-gay T propaganda.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the polls or to the younger generation.

Discussing T is actually crucial to the destruction of gay rights and existence, dunce at R96.

LOL... Speaking of "moron"....

Look forward to your Iran-like trans existence. Religious and T freedom!

What a fucking drama queen. Get a fucking life and stop shitting all over every thread with your unhealthy obsession.

--Anonymous
replies 101Dec 5, 2017 12:31 PM +00:00

You are the pro-T troll so you will never tell the truth

--Anonymous
replies 102Dec 5, 2017 12:32 PM +00:00
Yeah, progressives became irrationally cocky and lazy during the Obama era, and actually believed gay rights and acceptance are inevitable. Well they are not.

Yeah, actually they are, which is what all of the available data show. We've been down this road before with other issues and other bigots.

You are the pro-T troll so you will never tell the truth.

LOL... So you claim and yet, when challenged to point to a single lie I've said, you never can come up with any. Funny how that works.

--Anonymous
replies 103Dec 5, 2017 12:33 PM +00:00

A guy decorates CAKES for a living and has a problem with fags??

Self-loathing closet queen. Someone has hooked-up with her on Craigslist.

--Anonymous
replies 104Dec 5, 2017 12:36 PM +00:00

Back on topic again, the real problem for the Supreme Court will be to come up with a ruling that won't have unintended consequences. I don't think they can narrow this down sufficiently to the point where they won't see it coming back again. The more deference they give to "religious freedom," the worse it is for everyone else and the more you have state-sanctioned bigotry.

There is only so much "just go sit in the back of the bus" that people will tolerate, for themselves and for others.

--Anonymous
replies 105Dec 5, 2017 12:38 PM +00:00

All of your 'points" can be challenged. What is the point? You lie about it all. Ok, here goes

And gay rights bills that aren't connected with "t" are also being shot down. Did you have a point to make, moron?

No, they were passing. There was progress. T stopped that. This was reflected in bills being shot down and young people suddenly becoming "T"

That's not what the polls and the available data show, moron. Look at same-sex marriage as a case in point.

You didn't get what I was talking about and appear to be a few decades behind. We have been in regressive mode since at leas 2005.

You clearly haven't been paying attention to the polls or to the younger generation.

I actually talk to them, unlike you. T has effectively killed gay progress.

LOL... Speaking of "moron".

Another nothing comment.

What a fucking drama queen. Get a fucking life and stop shitting all over every thread with your unhealthy obsession.

another nothing comment

LOL... So you claim and yet, when challenged to point to a single lie I've said, you never can come up with any. Funny how that works

You haven't made any points.

I think you're a moron. One of us has the evidence to support his point.

This is meaningless and says nothng

--Anonymous
replies 106Dec 5, 2017 12:42 PM +00:00

I just used the "block" button for the first time ever. (So sick of the anti-T argument getting dragged into unrelated threads and knocking them off track.) So after blocking r95, this thread went from 105 posts to 81 posts. So out of 105 posts in this thread, the anti-T troll made 24 of them (roughly 23%).

--Anonymous
replies 107Dec 5, 2017 12:43 PM +00:00
No, they were passing. There was progress. T stopped that.

Too bad you don't have the data to back up that assertion. But then, that's pretty much par for the course for you, moron. Strike one.

You didn't get what I was talking about and appear to be a few decades behind. We have been in regressive mode since at leas 2005.

Which is why anti-gay measures were so prominent in the 2016 election. Oh, wait...no, they weren't.

I know exactly what you were talking about, moron. You were wrong. Strike two.

I actually talk to them, unlike you.

Clearly not, since you are misstating their views. Strike three.

T has effectively killed gay progress.

Gee, if only you had any actual data to support this. You don't. Strike four.

This is meaningless and says nothng [sic]

LOL.... Oh, it says something, all right. I'm not surprised that that comment went sailing past you, though.

All of that work and you couldn't find a single thing I said that wasn't true. Sucks to be you.

--Anonymous
replies 108Dec 5, 2017 12:47 PM +00:00
So sick of the anti-T argument getting dragged into unrelated threads and knocking them off track.) So after blocking [R95], this thread went from 105 posts to 81 posts. So out of 105 posts in this thread, the anti-T troll made 24 of them (roughly 23%).

I'll stop responding, which should help. Apologies for assisting in the derailment. They are obsessed, that's for damn sure, and completely unhinged.

--Anonymous
replies 109Dec 5, 2017 12:49 PM +00:00

I think the baker will win because the justices seem to be pivoting to a very specific distinction being made in this case is this: The baker isn't saying "I won't serve gays" (he has said he has no problem selling pre-made stuff to gays) but that he won't bake a requested cake for a gay couple. If the baker is forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, the law could also be used to compel a restaurant to bake a gluten free cake for an individual with a wheat allergy.

--Anonymous
replies 110Dec 5, 2017 12:52 PM +00:00

But the result will be no service to gay people, in a wider range, supported legally, than before.

--Thanks Cake Assholes!
replies 111Dec 5, 2017 12:55 PM +00:00
The state doesn’t get t tell people how to interpret or apply the Bible or religious text,

But they do get to regulate business.

--Anonymous
replies 112Dec 5, 2017 1:14 PM +00:00

True but the Court seems destined to say that the state cannot force business owners to violate their religious beliefs absent an overriding compelling reason, which is absent in this case

--Anonymous
replies 113Dec 5, 2017 1:34 PM +00:00

John Corvino spells it all out here. As someone said upthread, this is about equal access to the marketplace. It has nothing to do with ridiculous analogies like a black baker asked to make a Confederate flag cake; it's about all customers having access to whatever the business *does* provide.

Offsite Link
--Anonymous
replies 114Dec 5, 2017 1:34 PM +00:00

Essentially, it’s an expansion of Hobby Lobby. Future Trump justices will expand it even further

--Anonymous
replies 115Dec 5, 2017 1:35 PM +00:00
Whether it's a cake or a heart transplant the merchant shouldn't be allowed to turn customers away based upon religious beliefs.

Exactly.

Freedom of religion does not mean the State or Federal governments exist to step in and make sure you're comfy in your religious beliefs in every aspect of your life.

--Anonymous
replies 116Dec 5, 2017 1:50 PM +00:00

Kennedy was incensed the state seemed to denigrate and devalue The importance of the bakers’ religious beliefs in assessing which side should win.

--Anonymous
replies 117Dec 5, 2017 1:52 PM +00:00

True, but I wonder why he thinks the state is obligated to care about an individual's religious beliefs? Is the state obligated to care that I have an entire folder of photos of Paul Mercurio's ass from Exit to Eden, so I may worship from the privacy of my own home?

--Anonymous
replies 118Dec 5, 2017 1:57 PM +00:00

Kennedy is likely to agree that baking cakes is expressive, and as such, can implicate religious liberty. It’s different than merely providing a neutral service such as selling a car that would not involve endorsement of same-sex marriage or homosexuality which is considered sin by many. Wedding cakes have two grooms on them, or two brides, and making such a cake for people with religious objections would involve them in creating something that violate their religious beliefs.

--Anonymous
replies 119Dec 5, 2017 1:59 PM +00:00

The wedding cake at issue, R119, never had two grooms on it. The customers were just looking to buy a cake that the baker made for other customers. They were turned away because of what they were going to do with the cake (eat it at a gay wedding reception), not for the specific kind of cake they were asking for.

--Anonymous
replies 120Dec 5, 2017 2:13 PM +00:00

Hmmmm, did the Cake have anything on it such as names indicating the marriage is same-sex?

--Anonymous
replies 121Dec 5, 2017 3:15 PM +00:00

If so, R120, let's move to ban the sale of firearms to people who are going to kill other people ("don't kill" must be a sincerely held religious belief due to the Commandments, right) with them.

--Anonymous
replies 122Dec 5, 2017 3:19 PM +00:00

I'm not sure that's right r120. From the WSJ coverage...

Justice Ginsburg wanted to clarify -- Ms. Waggoner was not challenging the baker's obligations to sell all his ordinary wares? No, Ms. Waggoner replied -- in fact, Mr. Phillips offered to sell the couple anything else in his shop, she said. The issue, as she has argued on his behalf, is that he doesn't want to participate in the wedding by selling something directly made for it.

It's not clear but I assume that included standard cakes for sale in his store but what he was objecting to was a custom order specifically made for this particular event. Even though he has made custom cakes for other weddings I would guess he and other bakers would also turn down custom orders for someone wanted, say, a black and red cake because they're Satanists. Or one decorated with some sort of racist symbols.

If the couple wasn't asking for something specific I'm not sure why the baker would have any reason to question what sort of wedding it was. I might be mistaken but I believe one of the grooms went to order the cake with his mother.

--Anonymous
replies 123Dec 5, 2017 3:21 PM +00:00

How many businesses were shown to suffer in the market after being exposed for discriminatory conduct? Chik-Fil-A? No. Denny's? No. Wal-Mart? No. Hobby Lobby? No. Google? No. Goodyear? No. ...

--Anonymous
replies 124Dec 5, 2017 3:24 PM +00:00

Damn that's a shitty cake.

It bugged me listening to that weepy guy feeling sorry for himself.

--Anonymous
replies 125Dec 5, 2017 3:26 PM +00:00

I want to open a bakery just to doscriminate against straight Christians.

--Anonymous
replies 126Dec 5, 2017 3:35 PM +00:00

I want to open a bakery and refuse to sell to girls with vocal fry, women in capris, and men in baseball caps.

--Anonymous
replies 127Dec 5, 2017 3:46 PM +00:00

I wonder when the first test case will show up of someone refusing to sell a cake to a Jewish individual or couple? Or to a black individual or couple?

--Anonymous
replies 128Dec 5, 2017 4:15 PM +00:00

It's not about cakes. The Christers are just using this to get a foothold so they can deny gay marriage because it hurts their feelings.

--Anonymous
replies 129Dec 5, 2017 4:41 PM +00:00

I think SCOTUS thinks of racial discrimination as different from sexual orientation discrimination. They are likely to note that strict scrutiny applies To racial discrimination and federal statues forbid against racial discrimination. Sexual orientation discrimination is subject to a much lesser constitutional scrutiny and no federal laws forbidding it.

--Anonymous
replies 130Dec 5, 2017 4:44 PM +00:00

Has anyone linked to the bakery's website yet? The cakes are completely underwhelming, outdated, and average-looking! I realize this is the Midwest we're talking about, but the engaged couple could have probably found a much better cake shop elsewhere. By bringing attention to the shop, I'm afraid there's now going to be a rise in business from Bible-beating Fundies.

Btw, in the Specialty section, there's a cake with Martin Luther King on it with the words "Nobody has the Right to Rain on your Dreams." Oh, the irony.

masterpiececakes.com
--Anonymous
replies 131Dec 5, 2017 4:46 PM +00:00

Who are the couple? Are they still together?

--Anonymous
replies 132Dec 5, 2017 4:48 PM +00:00

Colorado is not the Midwest bro

--Anonymous
replies 133Dec 5, 2017 4:53 PM +00:00

My fave is "Happy Birthday Jesus"

--Anonymous
replies 134Dec 5, 2017 4:53 PM +00:00

Here is the issue. The baker benefits from public tax dollars. The roads, the infrastructure, the power, the fire and police who service their business. This is why it was ruled discrimination. If they were a privately run online business or a membership of some kind that only serviced christians then they would be fine.

--Anonymous
replies 135Dec 5, 2017 5:01 PM +00:00

R100 = T

--Anonymous
replies 136Dec 5, 2017 5:08 PM +00:00

"The cakes are completely underwhelming, outdated, and average-looking!"

I wonder if he became a Cakemeister just to deny homos?

--Anonymous
replies 137Dec 5, 2017 5:11 PM +00:00

Echoing Rolling Stone, ThinkProgress.com says

LGBTQ rights just had a horrible day in the Supreme Court. There are almost certainly five votes for the anti-gay cake baker Jack Phillips.

The Nation.com says

Justice Kennedy Appears Ready to Undo His Own Legacy on LGBTQ Rights

So, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

--Anonymous
replies 138Dec 5, 2017 5:37 PM +00:00

I can’t believe the guy openly admitted crying over this. He should have kept that to himself.

--Anonymous
replies 139Dec 5, 2017 6:18 PM +00:00

GHhmmmm

--Anonymous
replies 140Dec 6, 2017 3:18 AM +00:00

R10 Excellent points. Denver has plenty of openly gay bakers and the couple could have easily found one. I knew this would backfire.

--Anonymous
replies 141Dec 6, 2017 3:27 AM +00:00

The gay couple don't have 10 cents invested in that bakery, they haven't worked to build the business, the owner has. He/she has every right to say who they want to serve. These gays went to this bakery to start trouble, not for a wedding cake. They think they are entitled gays and they give being gay a bad name. Gays have worked to hard to be accepted to allow this entitled crap. Like posters have said, there were gay bakeries they could have used.

--Anonymous
replies 142Dec 6, 2017 4:00 AM +00:00

Damm those uppity blacks... er um gays r142. Don't they know they have their own water fountains they can use. How dare they want to use the same accommodations as normal er um... white people

--Anonymous
replies 143Dec 6, 2017 4:08 AM +00:00
I wonder when the first test case will show up of someone refusing to sell a cake to a Jewish individual or couple? Or to a black individual or couple?

They’re protected classes unlike gays.

--Anonymous
replies 144Dec 6, 2017 4:16 AM +00:00

Business owners are not slaves, they should be able to pick and choose who they want to serve. By forcing them to serve someone they don't want to? It's discriminationing against the business owner.

--Anonymous
replies 145Dec 6, 2017 4:22 AM +00:00

"Business owners are not slaves, they should be able to pick and choose who they want to serve."

Let's bring back Jim Crow!

--R'145
replies 146Dec 6, 2017 4:27 AM +00:00

R144 I think the question may have meant that the cake baker is also protected class let's say a Christian fundie claiming religious freedom. Then what?

--Anonymous
replies 147Dec 6, 2017 4:41 AM +00:00
The gay couple don't have 10 cents invested in that bakery, they haven't worked to build the business, the owner has.

We all have invested in the infrastructure that this business owner counts on to conduct his business.

He/she has every right to say who they want to serve.

Not in most cases. Sorry, but once you have decided to sell to the public, you don't get to pick and choose which portion of the public you want to serve to.

They think they are entitled

To the same service that everyone is entitled to. If you think otherwise, you're a moron and/or a bigo.

and they give being gay a bad name.

Not to anyone with more than one brain cell.

Gays have worked to hard to be accepted to allow this entitled crap.

"Accepted" means that we are entitled to the same rights that everyone else has, the same service that everyone else gets.

--Anonymous
replies 148Dec 6, 2017 6:20 AM +00:00

bigo -> bigot.

--Sorry for the typo
replies 149Dec 6, 2017 6:20 AM +00:00

R141, this isn’t a matter of just bakeries, it covers all other businesses and services, nationwide. What if you go to a doctor and he refuses to treat because you’re gay and it’s against his or her religious beliefs? What if there are no gay or gay friendly businesses nearby? Do you suggest that only gay men and lesbians should only go to gay or gay friendly bakeries? It’s akin to Catholics who should only go to Catholic bakeries. There was a time when Protestant businesses refused service to Catholics. This will tear this already tattered nation apart.

--Anonymous
replies 150Dec 6, 2017 6:25 AM +00:00

Bravo, R148!

--Anonymous
replies 151Dec 6, 2017 6:26 AM +00:00
this isn’t a matter of just bakeries, it covers all other businesses and services, nationwide

Yup, and in small towns and communities, there may not be any other option.

--Anonymous
replies 152Dec 6, 2017 6:29 AM +00:00

This baker is about to get more protection from SCOTUS than Native Americans who smoke peyote as part of their religious rituals do.

So the law will soon be you can be fired for ingesting a drug that's part of your religious ceremony, but you have the right to blanket refuse service on anyone you deem unworthy.

When the religion in question was not Christian, SCOTUS applied the test of whether the infringing law law was a "neutral law of general applicability." In the last 2 major cases where the religion in question is Christianity (this one and Hobby Lobby), they are deeming any infringement unacceptable.

We need some Muslims to file free exercise claims. Tax money for madrassas, no pork products in publicly funded food, no services for alcohol addiction, etc.

Monday’s decision in Hobby Lobby was unprecedented. Much of the commentary has focused on the Supreme Court’s decision to extend rights of religious fr ...
Slate Magazine
--Anonymous
replies 153Dec 6, 2017 6:44 AM +00:00

For a long time conservative Christians (and Catholics) howled endlessly about gays wanting "special rights", when what we wanted was equal rights. Based on the Hobby Lobby decision and what could well happen in this case, it's religious conservatives who are really expecting to get special rights.

Since the Right lost the gay marriage battle - at least for now - they want to make sure that at least some kind of second-class citizenship for gays is preserved.

--Anonymous
replies 154Dec 6, 2017 7:01 AM +00:00

If this ruling goes against us, we should set up a national database of businesses/organizations who will not serve gays and lesbians either in part (in the case of this baker) or as a whole based on "religious beliefs." We can call it THE MUST TO AVOID LIST.

I'm sure there are some businesses who will be happy to add their names to the list, and the rest can come from individuals who are the subject of discriminatory behaviors.

--Anonymous
replies 155Dec 6, 2017 7:06 AM +00:00

For me it boils down to this...replace gays with any other protected minority group i.e. women, AA, Jews, Muslims. Would it be okay to post a sign that said, "We don't serve [fill in the blank with a minority]. If I'm a christian baker, can I choose to not serve jews? If the SC sides with the baker, then they are opening up a real can of worms for all other minorities - unless they can carve out some special lower class of citizenship for gays. You can't discriminate against women or ethnic minorities but it's okay to hate on the gays. I just don't think the SC will move in this direction. They have to side against the baker or they will really case a huge mess with anti-discrimination laws.

--Anonymous
replies 156Dec 6, 2017 7:09 AM +00:00

I predict both, R156: they will side with the baker and they will open up a huge mess that they will be dealing with for years until they finally get the point and overturn the original ruling.

--Anonymous
replies 157Dec 6, 2017 7:14 AM +00:00

R156 - what makes this more galling is that there is a non-discrimination law that covers sexual orientation in CO (and thus the basis for this case), and this ruling could poke a hole in that, but ONLY for gays. We have the same "protected class" status as the other minorities you mention in that state, so now religious conservatives are asking for permission to discriminate, but only against one group of people.

--Anonymous
replies 158Dec 6, 2017 7:15 AM +00:00

Those cakes are ugly. I wish we could hack his site and include a cake with a couple of grooms 69'ing.

--Anonymous
replies 159Dec 6, 2017 7:18 AM +00:00

There seems to be some misinformation creeping into this thread.

Below are the facts, as recorded by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in its 2013 decision on the matter. In particular, note items 4 through 8. You can read the entire document at the link.

1. Phillips owns and operates a bakery located in Lakewood, Colorado known as Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop are collectively referred to herein as Respondents.

2. Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of § 24-34-601(1), C.R.S.

3. Among other baked products, Respondents create and sell wedding cakes.

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.

5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”

6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

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

9. The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.

10. Colorado law does not recognize same-sex marriage. Colo. Const. art. II, § 31 (“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state”); § 14-2-104(1), C.R.S. (“[A]marriage is valid in this state if: . . . It is only between one man and one woman.”)

11. Phillips has been a Christian for approximately 35 years, and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. As a Christian, Phillips’ main goal in life is to be obedient to Jesus and His teachings in all aspects of his life.

12. Phillips believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, that its accounts are literally true, and that its commands are binding on him.

13. Phillips believes that God created Adam and Eve, and that God’s intention for marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Phillips relies upon Bible passages such as Mark 10:6-9 (NIV) (“[F]rom the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.”)

14. Phillips also believes that the Bible commands him to avoid doing anything that would displease God, and not to encourage sin in any way.

15. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art and creative expression, and that he can honor God through his artistic talents.

16. Phillips believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

--Anonymous
replies 160Dec 6, 2017 8:12 AM +00:00

The cake as ordered had a huge, life-like anus on it made with marzipan and fresh raspberry coulis and it said, "FUCK ME! I'M GAY MARRIED!" Or at least you'd think it was given the baker's incensed feelings.

--Anonymous
replies 161Dec 6, 2017 8:16 AM +00:00

If baking a cake for a gay wedding means you support homosexuality, what does voting for a child molester indicate?

--Anonymous
replies 162Dec 6, 2017 8:17 AM +00:00

By virtue of his own website, Jack Phillips isn't an artist and is expressing nothing of himself with his cake making. He's just a gun for hire. It says right there, "If you can think it up, Jack can make it!" Which seems to clarify that very little of Jack's personal thought goes into it. What a fucking charlatan.

--Anonymous
replies 163Dec 6, 2017 8:22 AM +00:00

Some of the Supreme Court Justices are having difficulty accepting that Jack Phillips is an artist. Below are quotes from the oral arguments held yesterday:

Justice Sotomayor:

“Since the cakemaker is claiming protection under the principle of artistic free speech, “Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo? [What about] the makeup artist? ….you know, a makeup artist…might feel exactly as your client does, that they’re doing something that’s of great aesthetic importance to the wedding and that there’s a lot of skill and artistic vision that goes into making somebody look beautiful.”

“And why wouldn’t that person or the hair stylist also count [as an artist]? A hairdo is to show off the person, not the artist. Some people may say that about cakes, you know? And I guess I’m wondering…if that’s the case…how do you draw a line? How do you decide…the chef and the baker are on one side [i.e. they are artists], and you said…the florist is on that side [meaning he/she is not an artist]. The chef, the baker, the florist, versus the hairstylist or the makeup artist? Where would you put a tailor…who makes a wonderful suit of clothes? The baker is engaged in speech but the chef is not engaged in speech?”

“So that begs the question: when have we ever given protection to a food? The primary purpose of a food…is to be eaten. I can see it if they’ve created a cake and put it in a museum as an example of some work of art…but explain how [creating a cake to be eaten] becomes expressive speech. …there are sandwich artists now. There are people who create beauty in what they make, but we still don’t call it expressive and entitled to First Amendment protection.”

Justice Ginsberg:

“[Besides the cake-maker,] who else is an artist? Say -- the person who does floral arranging owns a floral shop. Would that person also be speaking at the wedding? How about the person who designs the invitation? We’ve gotten the answer that the florist is in the same place as the cake-maker. So is the person who designs the invitations and the menus. I don’t see a line that can be drawn that would exclude the makeup artist or the hairstylist. ”

Justice Kennedy:

“But the problem for you is that so many of these examples – and a photographer can be included – do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages. If you prevail, could the baker put a sign in his window: ‘We do not bake cakes for gay weddings’?

Justice Alioto:

“What would you say about an architectural design—is that entitled to First Amendment protection…? [In amazement after the attorney’s response] You mean an architectural design is not protected?

Justice Breyer:

“So in other words, Mies or Michelangelo or someone is not protected when he creates the Laurentian steps, but this cake baker is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding? Now, that – that really does baffle me, I have to say.”

--Anonymous
replies 164Dec 6, 2017 8:38 AM +00:00

You know, go ahead and let the bigots keep their bigoted little opinions and act out their bigoted little dramas BUT they should, by law, be required to place a visible sign on their entrance door that states, outright, "We do not serve gay people." I mean, are gay people supposed to go from bakery to bakery, like beggars, asking to be served?

--Anonymous
replies 165Dec 6, 2017 4:23 PM +00:00

We do not fuck gay people. Stop sending me your naked pic.

--Anonymous
replies 166Dec 6, 2017 8:35 PM +00:00

This is a difficult case because the baker is not refusing service to gay people. They can buy everything in the store the same as straight people. The baker doesn't sell the specific product, or a product for a specific purpose, to anyone, regardless of their orientation. SCOTUS will probably create such a narrow ruling that it will only apply to very few situations and won't lead to any widespread discrimination.

--Anonymous
replies 167Dec 6, 2017 9:00 PM +00:00

Also they don’t sell Halloween cakes nor stuff that commemorates divorces

--Anonymous
replies 168Dec 6, 2017 11:29 PM +00:00

You can pick and choose who you want to serve and sell too, if you live in a vacuum. If you got a small business loan if you use publicly funded roads, telephone lines, electricity, water, sewer well gee sorry you are subject to the laws of society. The owner refused to make a cake, which is his business because he disagreed with two men getting married. In the US it is legal for two men or two women to get married. He is refusing to service someone based on his religious beliefs. He has every right to do that but is subject to the laws of the community in which he operates. What they are asking the supreme court to do is Legally allow someone to discriminate based on their personal religious beliefs. To side step the law because of your personal convictions. Many Christians believe abortion is murder. If they kill someone who performs an abortion are they guilty of murder or because of religous freedom can they be let go? Sounds extreme? It's the same argument. They stopped a murderer. How can they go to jail?

--Anonymous
replies 169Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM +00:00

Interesting that other naughties in The Bible (murder, shellfish, working on Sunday...) get a pass, but Sodomites must be barred at the door.

--Anonymous
replies 170Dec 7, 2017 2:34 PM +00:00

"gay people... can buy everything in the store the same as straight people."

For now.

www.ushmm.org
--Anonymous
replies 171Dec 7, 2017 2:37 PM +00:00

COURTS cannot secondguess religious doctrine, but Christianity does not observe the Old Testament rulings on dietary and Sabbath because the New Testament says Jesus makes observance of those matters no longer binding for Believers. The moral Law is repeated in the NT and still binding on Christians, including prohibition on murder and all sexual behavior and thoughts not allowed by the NT.

--Anonymous
replies 172Dec 7, 2017 2:45 PM +00:00
Expect a big backlash from that as LG is now connected to T

Gay Rights was always pretty connected to transsexuals....in that the whole Stonewall Riots business was sparked off at a drag bar.

--Anonymous
replies 173Dec 7, 2017 3:23 PM +00:00

"The moral Law is repeated in the NT and still binding on Christians, including prohibition on murder"

Why CAN'T I buy them cupcakes, nigga?!

--O.J.
replies 174Dec 7, 2017 3:27 PM +00:00

1. T is now "transgender" not transsexual 2. There were decades of gay and gay and lesbian rights movements and organizations before Stonewall. 3. The majority protesting at the Stonewall riots were gay men. 4. Transgender did not exist at the time of Stonewall. 5. Transgender is anti-gay.

--Anonymous
replies 175Dec 7, 2017 3:32 PM +00:00

Transgender is, of course, not anti-gay. It's only you morons, endlessly and mindlessly regurgitating your slogans, that think so. Nor do transgender rights have anything to do with this particular case. Your obsession, however, is duly noted.

--Anonymous
replies 176Dec 7, 2017 3:42 PM +00:00

Once again, gays and lesbians have to sit in the back of the bus. If the US Supreme Court sides with that detestedable baker, then all other equal rights we’ve gained will be eventually overturned.

--Anonymous
replies 177Dec 7, 2017 4:29 PM +00:00

But, R176, the notion that behavior and belief (not biology) is what makes one a man or woman IS anti-gay.

And, I agree that Trans rights have nothing to do with this case. So let's not use the LGBT label when discussing it. In fact, let's not use the LGBT label when discussing any of the issues that only affect homosexuals. Deal?

--Anonymous
replies 178Dec 7, 2017 6:24 PM +00:00
And, I agree that Trans rights have nothing to do with this case. So let's not use the LGBT label when discussing it. In fact, let's not use the LGBT label when discussing any of the issues that only affect homosexuals. Deal?

Sorry, no deal for you. The model for civil rights protest has always been that such protections are in the interest of every American. We see that in the Supreme Court decisions, when the judges ask things like, "So, if a baker were a devotee of the Old Testament, does that mean they could deny a cake to a black person who was not in chains, as they were considered Children of the Curse of Ham?"

Your view that this is merely a "gay issue" is misguided.

--Anonymous
replies 179Dec 8, 2017 8:25 AM +00:00

A couple of thoughts" The customers and the baker never got around to any sort of "artistic" design or styling - baker simply stated he would not bake a cake for any gay couple's wedding, which is clearly discriminatory and illegal.

If the baker had a real religion, say Catholicism, he could simply bake the damn thing and go to confession. (semi-joking)

And three, "Will a tranny please hurry up and stab the deranged lunatic who feels the need to bring in "T" to every fucking thread on DL?"

Knowing how trannys work these day, that shouldn't take long.

--Anonymous
replies 180Dec 8, 2017 9:28 AM +00:00

And yet, poor and misguided R179, he's not refusing to bake a Trans cake.

What about when gays are being arrested and murdered in Chechnya? Is that about the Trannies?

When the major religions are preaching that Homosexuality is a sin...is that about the Trannies, too?

We are not stronger together. Trans ideology is anti-Gay, anti-Lesbian, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-science and anti-reality. The T's have piggybacked and hijacked our movement long enough. End the LGBTQ+ bullshit.

--Anonymous
replies 181Dec 8, 2017 10:18 AM +00:00
In fact, let's not use the LGBT label

This I can live with.

--Just Say Gay
replies 182Dec 8, 2017 10:23 AM +00:00
And yet, poor and misguided [R179], he's not refusing to bake a Trans cake.

And yet, poor and misguided R181, he would undoubtedly refuse to do so. Did you have a point to make or did you just want to continue to confirm that you're a fool?

What about when gays are being arrested and murdered in Chechnya? Is that about the Trannies?

Do you really think that transgender individuals are any safer in Chechnya? Did you have a point to make or did you just want to continue to confirm that you're a fool?

When the major religions are preaching that Homosexuality is a sin...is that about the Trannies, too?

Actually, yes. Did you have a point to make or did you just want to continue to confirm that you're a fool?

We are not stronger together.

Of course we are.

Trans ideology is anti-Gay, anti-Lesbian, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-science and anti-reality.

We have the answer to my question: yes, you do want to confirm that you're a fool.

--Anonymous
replies 183Dec 8, 2017 10:46 AM +00:00
But, [R176], the notion that behavior and belief (not biology) is what makes one a man or woman IS anti-gay.

a) That's not an accurate description of gender identity and b) of course it isn't. Seriously, just stop. You don't know anything and your every post here is empty-headed bigotry.

--Anonymous
replies 184Dec 8, 2017 10:48 AM +00:00

You guys really need to go re-watch too wong fu.

--Anonymous
replies 185Dec 8, 2017 10:52 AM +00:00

That is the only description of gender identity, R184. Sex is biological (your genes). Gender is sociological (external actions/behaviors assigned to the sexes by society in general).

"Wong Foo" was about drag. Trans don't like drag.

--Anonymous
replies 186Dec 8, 2017 10:54 AM +00:00
they should, by law, be required to place a visible sign on their entrance door that states, outright, "We do not serve gay people.

I don't think this should be encouraged.

--Anonymous
replies 187Dec 8, 2017 10:57 AM +00:00
R181 We are not stronger together. Trans ideology is anti-Gay, etc.

You're not throwing our trans brothers and sisters away because you think it benefits YOU. They fought for your freedoms alongside gays and lesbians throughout the riots.

Learn a little history some time...

i.pinimg.com
--Anonymous
replies 188Dec 8, 2017 10:59 AM +00:00

They're more than happy to throw gay people, gay identity, gay culture, lesbians' rights not to have penises forced on them, and gay men's rights not to have vaginas forced on us, on the sword.

They are not our brothers or sisters. They are the enemies of homosexuality and of sexual equality.

D R O P

T H E

T

Australia’s 60 Minutes program failed to air a segment on a transgender teen Sunday night after advertising it all week. The promoted story featured a young man named Patrick Mitchell, who was admi…
GenderTrender
--Anonymous
replies 189Dec 8, 2017 11:19 AM +00:00

Some fucking allies they are:

A brief foreword. This is the sixth of my essays on sex, gender, and sexuality. (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 available here.) I suspect it’s also the least polished, as I was shaken by the assault of M…
Sister Outrider
--Anonymous
replies 190Dec 8, 2017 11:20 AM +00:00

R188 is so obviously a troll.

--Anonymous
replies 191Dec 8, 2017 11:36 AM +00:00

R187, in 80% of the country, they wouldn't be in business for very long. Plus, it would make the point by equating it with the 'whites only' signs formerly covering the South. And, it would save the gay people the time and humiliation necessary to go begging for someone to provide a service for them without having to face these bigots face to face on their home turf. And, finally, it would show how many of these bigots are still out there to the people who argue that we've got all the equality we fought for so we need to stop asking for 'special rights'.

On balance, the long term good outweighs the short term bad.

--Anonymous
replies 192Dec 8, 2017 2:44 PM +00:00

No, I don't think it is a good idea at all, R192. I think you are too optimistic in terms of liberal allies. They are completely ignorant /supportive of the transing of children suspected to be gay, so I would not count on them at all.

It would not make a point, and would just normalize aggressive anti-gay discrimination.

--Anonymous
replies 193Dec 8, 2017 3:28 PM +00:00
Kennedy ought to think about the country that a decision in favour of the bakers would create. Businesses will be free to hang signs saying "Gays not welcome here." It would be segregation all over again.

If they even try that, then gay businesses will need to exclude heterosexuals out of necessity for gay people's safety.

--Anonymous
replies 194Dec 8, 2017 3:58 PM +00:00

If they rule in favor of the baker, expect "Gays Only" signs to start going up the morning after in every gay neighborhood in America.

--Anonymous
replies 195Dec 8, 2017 3:59 PM +00:00
That is the only description of gender identity, R184.

Seriously, just stop. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're making shit up, and with each new post you expose yourself even more as an ignorant, bigoted fool.

--Anonymous
replies 196Dec 8, 2017 4:01 PM +00:00

r186 --

Noxeema Jackson: When a straight man puts on a dress and gets his sexual kicks, he is a transvestite. When a man is a woman trapped in a man's body and has a little operation he is a Transsexual.

Miss Chi-Chi Rodriguez: I know that.

Noxeema Jackson: When a gay man has way too much fashion sense for one gender he is a drag queen.

Vida Boheme: Thank you.

Noxeema Jackson: And when a tired little Latin boy puts on a dress, he is simply a boy in a dress!

--Anonymous
replies 197Dec 8, 2017 4:05 PM +00:00

R196, go ahead an enlighten us with your definition of gender identity that has nothing to do with behavior or belief or a set of standards set forth by society and assigned to each sex.

I await your answer with the full knowledge that it will never, ever come.

--Anonymous
replies 198Dec 8, 2017 4:06 PM +00:00

Dear heart, I'll be happy to provide my response the day you actually back up any of your ridiculous claims on this thread.

I await your answer with the full knowledge that it will never, ever come.

--Anonymous
replies 199Dec 8, 2017 4:31 PM +00:00
Noxeema Jackson: When a gay man has way too much fashion sense for one gender he is a drag queen.

And saying the g-word instead of sex was the screenwriter's biggest mistake. Even Punky Brewster didn't make that mistake in the episode where she pretended to be a boy to compete in an RC car competition that didn't allow girls.

--Anonymous
replies 200Dec 8, 2017 4:33 PM +00:00

Exactly what I expected from you, R199.

--Anonymous
replies 201Dec 8, 2017 5:09 PM +00:00

BTW, R199, I'm not the person you were arguing with to begin with and have made no proclamations to defend other than the wacky 'science is science, make-believe is make-believe' one. Really, though, what is so hard about defining gender identity if you're so invested in it not being any of the biological/sociological definitions already put forth by those of us with brains?

To paraphrase, you seem to be all dick, no dress.

--Anonymous
replies 202Dec 8, 2017 5:17 PM +00:00

Gggf

--Anonymous
replies 203Dec 9, 2017 6:41 AM +00:00

Sex is the steak.

Jenn-durr is the sizzle.

--Joan Crawford was right: Meat loses its vitamins when it's overcooked
replies 204Dec 9, 2017 6:45 AM +00:00