19 9

The US Supreme Court has sided with the baker who refused, on religious grounds, to make a wedding cake for a gay male couple. Is this a portent of what's to come . . . The dissolution of gay marriage, the rolling back of Roe v. Wade? We're heading backward, backward, backward, and it seems the inmates are running the prison. To add to the misery I'm feeling, our illustrious president stated that he "has the absolute right to pardon himself". Note the choice of the word "absolute". These are frightening times in the USA, and I'm beginning to wonder if the country can be pulled back from the brink or if it will inexorably slide into a despotic theocracy.

RobLawrence 7 June 4

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


You really should change the post to the true holding of the case unless of course youre just trying to instigate discussion--the court held: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the
context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved
with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere
religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to
indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
The court ruled in his favor because at the time Colorado hadnt recognized gay marriage so he thought it was ok to discriminate and the commission handling the case didnt make a neutral ruling considering his religious beliefs. They didnt "side" with discrimination.

lerlo Level 8 June 4, 2018

@RobLawrence Yes it will happen but we can't exacerbate the problem here and in other places by saying the Supreme Court said it was ok. If the same baker did the same thing tomorrow he probably loses. Of course there are no shortage of idiots who don't care about facts these days...I'm just trying to set the record here straight.

@RobLawrence I did read it and she did get it right. Thanks for reading it


Think about this would you rather:
a) Force someone to not disclose their beliefs and force them to provide services to someone they hate.

b) Force someone to disclose their beliefs and not provide services to someone they hate.

I opt for b.
I'd rather give my money to someone that doesn't hate me and I know it...
... than give my money to someone that does hate me but I don't know it.

Also, the decision was narrow and at most covers custom artistic work on non-essential items.
It has nothing to do with providing basic services or essential services.


I'm also of the school of thought that says screw the bigots, just take your business elsewhere. EXCEPT, this establishes a precedent for all sorts of prejudice where LGBTQ can be denied access to housing, jobs, education, medical care, etc. And if you can discriminate against LGBTQ, then why not blacks, Muslims, Jews, ...?

Elections have consequences and this is an early warning of what we can expect from right-wing politics down the road if we don't start voting like it matters!

Not at all. All this set's precedent for is for not providing custom artistic work on non-essential items like cakes. Housing, jobs, education, medical care etc neither involve custom artistic work nor are they non-essential.

Except that’s not what the ruling said. They determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was anti-religion in its decision. So it looks to me like the theocracy is gaining more support. Something, something, .. establishment of religion...

@TheMiddleWay sorry the case doesnt say that at all. The court was clear:
"... it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other
members of the public..." The court left open the question of how the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Since it is narrowed to the specific facts of this case there really is no precedent in general terms on the "right to discriminate against gay people" as those who think it's ok will be touting

I hate to drag this out but "The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation."

I understand that this was supposedly a "narrow" ruling, not supporting blatant bigotry, but it sure looks to me that this undercuts our state law banning discrimination.

You are correct. I read more about it and the narrowness of the ruling is clear about how colorado handled the case and not on the actual merits of the case.


Wow, America and Northern Ireland united in bigotry, well I guess you both have your orange men!!!!


Just something I'd like to point out.
When anyone purchases a business license, they are agreeing to serve the public. That means ALL the public.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service", is in reference to health codes.
Hate groups can be denied. They are not a protected class, they are criminals.
This whole "We have the right to refuse service to anyone" is NOT any kind of law.
I'm so sick of this bullshit. These religious assholes use their delusions as justification to discriminate. SCOTUS got this one REALLY WRONG.


The verdict may be considered positive when one considers that the justices in their arguments left it wide open for interpretation by the Supreme Court, and some of their comments are based solely on the notion that the original decision was handed down by a biased commission. If it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, and I think it will, it is still possible that they will find in favor of the couple and remain consistent with previous decisions and Roe vs Wade will not be affected. We can but hope.

You know this was a Supreme Court decision right?

@lerlo -- Yes, but their decision was related to the idea that he didn't get a fair hearing in the case, not on whether rights to free speech and religious exemption. What that means is that they dodged the bullet and the case is remanded back to the original court for a new/fair hearing. If, when the case goes back to court and he loses to a more fair hearing ----- In other words, what they did was leave the case open without making any committal statements.

@evidentialist They didnt remand. They reversed the decision. End of case. But yes they dodged the question but clearly said you can't discriminate against gays.

@lerlo -- Oops. I thought they had remanded. Crap. Still some positive there, though.


I'm not surprised to see straight, white male privilege defend the supreme court in comments here.

Privilege is a wonderful thing.


Everyone thinks that societal progress is a hard line that is either moving forward or backwards but it is not. Progress is a pendulum being pulled along a track. You're not only going to see the bottom of the pendulum, but the top is where it counts. Obama was a big step forward racially and with health care so all the conservatives hated him and came out in droves the next chance they had. That's Trump.

Point being, we're still moving forward, this is just the expected backslide. Conservatives pushed because they were angry and liberals sat on their heels because they had gotten what they wanted. The next will be another big push forward because liberals are back in the angry seat.

@Crimson67 Well the problem really is when. Although it's swinging back to the left, I can't tell you at what speed and when it'll arrive at center. Hopefully in November in the US we'll start to see some improvement but who knows. I will say I'd be hard pressed to see the right keeping the White House in a few years.


I'm not bothered much about the cake issue. Mostly it was about gay activists targeting fervent Christians. And it's not about the cake, it's about what goes on top. Having a socialist tendency, I never thought I would be happy to hear 'let the market decide'. I never heard of the decorations, such as two guys kissing, being sold separately. Maybe they are. That could help too.

@RobLawrence I am defending the right of the Christian bigots to limit their services to what they find morally acceptable. The market will resolve the issue because their limitations open up opportunities for other bakers. I also believe that the gay people making the case did so as a political move, and not just as ordinary consumers.


It was a narrow decision, luckily, applicable only to the facts of that case. Are we a scarier country? Definitely. We're stuck with this Supreme Court for a while but not with the president. Originally when it wasn't possible for him to get elected, I said don't worry. Now, if the idiots prevail a second time, then we're toast.

lerlo Level 8 June 4, 2018

Hate is always hate -- no matter how it is cloistered. People are naturally prejudiced against everything not of their 'click' (however that is defined at the moment). In this case I agree with the Supreme Court -- all businesses have the right not to serve anyone. Haven't you ever seen the sign 'no shirt, no shoes, no service'? There is a balance to this -- boycott or protest the business. Needing the government to enforce this seems like giving up. Fight back (not violently). The Native Americans and Black people have had to deal with this same hate.

Just as well you're not gay.

Sorry, per the U.S. Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) all businesses DO NOT have the right not to serve anyone. So far we have protected classes that cannot be discriminated against. The poor (no shoes, no shirt) and maybe just slobs, are not protected. This case DOES NOT say that businesses can serve who they want. One of the main bases for the Court's opinion today was that Colorado had not recognized gay marriage at the time this case happened, so the guy thought it was legal to discriminate. Add that to some bad comments by the commission handling the case and they sided with the baker but the Court clearly stated that businesses can't discriminate against gay people


It's not really accurate to say that the court sided with the baker, but rather that they found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was actively hostile to religion (rather than being neutral) in this case. They also cited as a factor the timing: this occurred in 2012, when neither the state of Colorado nor the federal government recognized same-sex marriages as legal. The wording of this ruling was narrowly written based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case.

It's also worth keeping in mind that a key element in this case was the degree of artistry involved in making a custom wedding cake, which goes far beyond just "baking a cake". There's not only a freedom of religion issue but also a freedom of speech issue. Although I don't share the baker's religious beliefs, these are factors that tend to make me sympathetic to him.


Donate to the ACLU today!


I don't have the time, heart, or the will to wait and see... I'm already planning my escape.


Do I have an issue with the baker's? Sure, they're bigots. Do I have an issue with the Supreme Court's decision? Not really. Now the public can decide whether to give the bakers their business, or show their disapproval and take their business elsewhere. Like the free speech issue, if you don't allow people to say and act as they wish, regular people don't know who the bigots, nutters, etc are. The old saying, "give someone enough rope, and they'll hang themselves."
As for Trump, I have neither the time nor the energy to attempt ti answer that. But at least we know he's a bigot, nutter, etc!! ?

I was thinking exactly along the lines of taking my business elsewhere

And what if the next bakery was the same?

And the next?

How would you feel if YOU were turned away by a shop because they didn't approve of who you shared your bed with?

When was the last time you were discriminated against?

Before you decide to agree with the Court's decision that you think says it's ok to discriminate against gays because free speech wins, please read the opinion because it doesn't say that.


This from CNN:

“Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.

‘The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people,’ Melling said in a statement.”

There is no reason to panic.

Panic no, but if you read some of the comments here you can see that people don't care what the opinion actually says and why, when they hear the baker won, that means its ok to discriminate against gays to them. I'm sure Fox news will spin it that it's ok to decide who to serve and who not to serve but that's not the law of the land and this case even says that.


The mid-term elections in Nov will have a significant bearing on determining the answer to query.


I'm shocked, dismayed, sickened, horrified.

What's worse is witnessing the right wing media celebrating the event.

This is what happened:

A gay couple, much in love, wanted to a buy a wedding cake for their reception.

The shop owner decided they were immoral.

He offered to take their money for the cake but wouldn't decorate their cake - because they're immoral.

These religious bigots have complained about being 'attacked'. Perhaps they now have an inkling of what it feels like to be gay.



I'm so over all of this bullshit.

If everyone decides that they are "over it" the idiots will prevail again. Just sayin. It's one thing not to pay too much attention to it because otherwise our heads will explode..but never get over it.

@lerlo I said that out of extreme exasperation.. I'm not done fighting the stupidity.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:98890
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.