Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

WSJ Live Coverage of Same Sex Wedding Case

Two moments from the proceedings-

[quote] 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.

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 204Last Saturday at 6:45 AM

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 112/05/2017

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 212/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 312/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 412/05/2017

[quote] (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.

by Anonymousreply 512/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 612/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 712/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 812/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 1012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 1112/05/2017

"Fuck the enitled gay couple."

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

by Anonymousreply 1212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 1312/05/2017

[Quote]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!

by Anonymousreply 1412/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 1512/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 1612/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 1712/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 1812/05/2017

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 1912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 2012/05/2017

[quote]. 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?

by Anonymousreply 2112/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 2212/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 2312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 2412/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 2512/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 2612/05/2017

And r26 is blocked.

by Anonymousreply 2712/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 2812/05/2017

And R27 cannot handle the truth.

by Anonymousreply 2912/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 3012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 3112/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 3212/05/2017

"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.

by Anonymousreply 3312/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 3412/05/2017

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

Thanks, Susan Sarandon!

by Anonymousreply 3512/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 3612/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 3712/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 3812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 3912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 4012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 4112/05/2017

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

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

by Anonymousreply 4212/05/2017

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

There is no intelligent gay organization so they are losing battles

by Anonymousreply 4312/05/2017

Omg, we're gonna lose.

by Anonymousreply 4412/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 4512/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 4612/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 4712/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 4812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 4912/05/2017

[quote] Would this allow gay bakers to refuse to serve Christians then?

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

by Anonymousreply 5012/05/2017

[quote]“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.

by Anonymousreply 5112/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5412/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5512/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 5612/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5712/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 5812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 5912/05/2017

[quote] 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!

by Anonymousreply 6012/05/2017

[QUOTE] 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?

by Anonymousreply 6112/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 6212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 6312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 6412/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 6512/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 6612/05/2017

Sorry, that should be R62

by Anonymousreply 6712/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 6812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 6912/05/2017

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

Give me a fucking break

by Anonymousreply 7012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 7112/05/2017

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).

by Anonymousreply 7212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 7312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 7412/05/2017

"..being oppressed.."

by Anonymousreply 7512/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 7612/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 7712/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 7812/05/2017

Approximately when will the court announce their ruling?

by Anonymousreply 7912/05/2017

R79, maybe June.

by Anonymousreply 8012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 8112/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 8212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 8312/05/2017

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,

by Anonymousreply 8412/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 8512/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 8612/05/2017

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"?

by Anonymousreply 8712/05/2017

[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.

by Anonymousreply 8812/05/2017

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

What are they covering today?

by Anonymousreply 8912/05/2017

[quote]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?

by Anonymousreply 9012/05/2017

[quote]It is a conflict that we will eventually win

How do you know?

by Anonymousreply 9112/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 9212/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 9312/05/2017

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

[quote] Supreme Court Seems Headed Toward a Terrible Decision for LGBT Americans

by Anonymousreply 9412/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 9512/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 9612/05/2017

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!

by Anonymousreply 9712/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 9812/05/2017

Yes, R98

by Anonymousreply 9912/05/2017

[quote]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?

by Anonymousreply 10012/05/2017

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

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

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

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 10112/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 10212/05/2017

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 10312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 10412/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 10512/05/2017

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

[quote]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"

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]LOL... Speaking of "moron".

Another nothing comment.

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

another nothing comment

[quote]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.

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

This is meaningless and says nothng

by Anonymousreply 10612/05/2017

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%).

by Anonymousreply 10712/05/2017

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]I actually talk to them, unlike you.

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

[quote]T has effectively killed gay progress.

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

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 10812/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 10912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 11012/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 11112/05/2017

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 11212/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 11312/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 11412/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 11512/05/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 11612/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 11712/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 11812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 11912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 12012/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 12112/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 12212/05/2017

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

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 12312/05/2017

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. ...

by Anonymousreply 12412/05/2017

Damn that's a shitty cake.

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

by Anonymousreply 12512/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 12612/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 12712/05/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 12812/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 12912/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 13012/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 13112/05/2017

Who are the couple? Are they still together?

by Anonymousreply 13212/05/2017

Colorado is not the Midwest bro

by Anonymousreply 13312/05/2017

My fave is "Happy Birthday Jesus"

by Anonymousreply 13412/05/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 13512/05/2017

R100 = T

by Anonymousreply 13612/05/2017

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

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

by Anonymousreply 13712/05/2017

Echoing Rolling Stone, ThinkProgress.com says

[quote] 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

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

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

by Anonymousreply 13812/05/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 13912/05/2017

GHhmmmm

by Anonymousreply 14012/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 14112/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 14212/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 14312/06/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 14412/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 14512/06/2017

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

Let's bring back Jim Crow!

by Anonymousreply 14612/06/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 14712/06/2017

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]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.

[quote]and they give being gay a bad name.

Not to anyone with more than one brain cell.

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 14812/06/2017

bigo -> bigot.

by Anonymousreply 14912/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15012/06/2017

Bravo, R148!

by Anonymousreply 15112/06/2017

[quote] 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.

by Anonymousreply 15212/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15312/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15412/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15512/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15612/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15712/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 15812/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 15912/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 16012/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 16112/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 16212/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 16312/06/2017

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.”

by Anonymousreply 16412/06/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 16512/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 16612/06/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 16712/06/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 16812/06/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 16912/07/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 17012/07/2017

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

For now.

by Anonymousreply 17112/07/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 17212/07/2017

[Quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 17312/07/2017

"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?!

by Anonymousreply 17412/07/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 17512/07/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 17612/07/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 17712/07/2017

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?

by Anonymousreply 17812/07/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 17912/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 18012/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 18112/08/2017

[quote]In fact, let's not use the LGBT label

This I can live with.

by Anonymousreply 18212/08/2017

[quote]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?

[quote]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?

[quote]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?

[quote]We are not stronger together.

Of course we are.

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 18312/08/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 18412/08/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 18512/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 18612/08/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 18712/08/2017

[quote]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...

by Anonymousreply 18812/08/2017

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

by Anonymousreply 18912/08/2017

Some fucking allies they are:

by Anonymousreply 19012/08/2017

R188 is so obviously a troll.

by Anonymousreply 19112/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 19212/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 19312/08/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 19412/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 19512/08/2017

[quote]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.

by Anonymousreply 19612/08/2017

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!

by Anonymousreply 19712/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 19812/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 19912/08/2017

[quote]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 [italic]Punky Brewster[/italic] 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.

by Anonymousreply 20012/08/2017

Exactly what I expected from you, R199.

by Anonymousreply 20112/08/2017

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.

by Anonymousreply 20212/08/2017

Gggf

by Anonymousreply 203Last Saturday at 6:41 AM

Sex is the steak.

Jenn-durr is the sizzle.

by Anonymousreply 204Last Saturday at 6:45 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!