SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[rogue06]

Unless the Christian baker was specifically targeted for a test case with the Commissars....

And it would take a bit of work to find them since they didn't exactly advertise the fact. One has to wonder just how many bakers the couple went to in order to find someone they could coerce?

This isn't like some small town back in the 1950s where there is maybe only one diner or like riding a bus. There are literally dozens of competitors who would be thrilled to do the job. But they don't want that. Instead they hunt for someone who doesn't want to do it and then force them to do it.

OTOH, Muslim bakeries often advertise the fact that they're halal compliant indicating that they follow Islamic practices. And they aren't hard to find. Out of curiosity I made a quick check and found several halal bakeries in my area who also make wedding cakes. But for some reason gay couples never seem to look for a Muslim baker/florist/photographer... whatever. It is almost like they're afraid that the cake or flower arrangements might explode or something.

And while the MSM seems determined to paint this as evil bigoted Christians against poor oppressed loving gays, as Steven Crowder discovered when he posed as a gay man wanting a wedding cake, Muslim bakers are very quick to refuse (often telling them to leave and go elsewhere)

[Sparko]

Gorsuch's concurring opinion is interesting reading.

He refutes the claim that it was a matter of Mr. Phillips refusing to server gay people. (He refused to make a cake celebrating a gay wedding for anyone--including the couple's heterosexual mother. And in general served homosexual customers.)

And responds to all the objections.

E.g., It might be argued that the effect is to discriminate against homosexual people. But then the refusal to make the anti-gay cakes would have to use the same reasoning that it has the effect of discriminating against those of a certain religious belief.

E.g., the argument that the anti-gay cake would have had a message on it, while the cake for the gay wedding would have been the same as any other wedding cake:

I find that my vote was well spent.

[Cow Poke]

...But they don't want that. Instead they hunt for someone who doesn't want to do it and then force them to do it.

When I was testifying in Austin on the Religious Liberty thing, there was a young gay man who was also registered to testify - we wrongly assumed he was against us. He actually testified that he as sickened by the fact that some in his own community were actually doing that with Churches -- trying to join or have a wedding or anything they could get rejected for so they could file suit.

[NorrinRadd]

Judge My Cousin Vinny Napolitano noted that in order to get more concurrence in the decision, Roberts narrowly focused it on the specific details of just this one case. If he had not, he would probably have lost at least two of the Justices, maybe three (Breyer, Kagen, and Kennedy, in addition to Sotomayor and Darth Bader Ginzberg). If he'd lost all three, it would have totally flipped the verdict.

As it is, the decision is so narrow that it effectively "kicks the can down the road" as far as the underlying *principles* are concerned. SCOTUS will eventually have to address those principles. My hope is that does not happen until we have at least one more First-Amendment-friendly Justice in place.

[Sparko]

Or a ready made cake!

cakebots will take over all bakeries in the future, and you will order your wedding cake from Amazon.

[rogue06]

cakebots will take over all bakeries in the future, and you will order your wedding cake from Amazon.

00000000000000ars3aa.jpg

[DesertBerean]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28102[/ATTACH]

[One Bad Pig]

cakebots will take over all bakeries in the future, and you will order your wedding cake from Amazon.

I can only imagine what a wedding cake would like like after going through shipping.

[Cow Poke]

I can only imagine what a wedding cake would like like after going through shipping.

[firstfloor]

But dropping a crucifix in a jar of pee is, eh?

[firstfloor]

Tell me how the explicit custom order of a product that contradicted his sincerely held beliefs is not an explicit invitation to join the celebration.

If what goes on in the world offends you, be a monk and go live in a monastery. Otherwise, learn to love your neighbour as yourself, all of them. Give extra love to the outcasts.

[Cow Poke]

Who are you to determine what's art? Or, as I asked before, are you just trolling?

[One Bad Pig]

If what goes on in the world offends you, be a monk and go live in a monastery. Otherwise, learn to love your neighbour as yourself, all of them. Give extra love to the outcasts.

You're a real piece of work, FF. Nice false dichotomy you've set up here.

[DesertBerean]

If what goes on in the world offends you, be a monk and go live in a monastery. Otherwise, learn to love your neighbour as yourself, all of them. Give extra love to the outcasts.

That is a non responsive answer. I and you have the right to say no thanks to an invitation. Even if we lose business over it. As numerous people have pointed out, bakers and such have refused to serve people whose beliefs they disagree with. Why was this one different?

[DesertBerean]

You're a real piece of work, FF. Nice false dichotomy you've set up here.

Right?