[Veloce]

MAGA motherfuckers!

Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex wedding cake case

Quote:

The Supreme Court is set aside a Colorado court ruling against the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop who cited religious freedom and wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the highest court in the land is not deciding the big issue in the case – whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The Supreme Court justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. They voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

The clash at the high court pitted Phillips' First Amendment claims of artistic freedom against the anti-discrimination arguments of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the two men Phillips turned away in 2012. The Denver-area baker cited his Christian faith in refusing to make a cake for their wedding celebration.

Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was previously judged through multiple phases of litigation to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law. Through his lawyers, he argued before the highest court in the land that he's an artist who should not be compelled to create a cake that contradicts his religious views.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The Department of Justice welcomed the ruling in a statement, saying they "pleased" the the court's decision. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans," the Justice department said in a statement.

Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Philips said in a statement following the court's ruling, "Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs."

Waggoner added, "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."

Read the full SCOTUS opinion here:

LGBTQ advocates, including Lambda Legal, quickly condemned the court's ruling, citing critical setbacks in equal rights. Lambda Legal CEO Rachel B. Tiven said in a statement on Monday, "The Court today has offered dangerous encouragement to those who would deny civil rights to LGBT people and people living with HIV. "

Tiven added, "This is a deeply disappointing day in American jurisprudence. Today's decision should have been a firm, direct affirmance of longstanding equality law. Instead, the Supreme Court has become an accomplice in the right's strategy to hollow out one of its finest achievements, the right to equal marriage, and create what Justice Ginsberg memorably termed 'skim milk marriages.' We will continue to fight in every arena and in every court until LGBT people and people living with HIV have full equality under the law in every aspect of our lives. We deserve no less."

The ACLU, however argued that Monday's ruling "reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here."

The American Civil Liberties Union argued the case on behalf of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who were refused service at the Colorado bakery.

"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," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU.

Craig and Mullins released a joint statement as well saying, "Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue."

"We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told 'we don't serve your kind here' that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does," the couple added.

This is yuuuuggge. Hopefully this will encourage other business owners to stand up for their beliefs and deny service to gay weddings.

For the record, I'm not even anti-gay, I've got plenty of gay friends. I'm just against gay marriage, and I'm DEFINITELY against someone telling me who I have to take on as a customer. I'm a firm believer in "We reserve the right to deny service to anyone, anytime, for any reason."

If I was the cake shop in question baking for a gay couple, I'd take the payment for the cake up front and insist on delivering it myself. When the driver drops off the cake and unboxes it, there at the top of the cake would be a man and woman.

[WalterBlack]

I'd to see faggots try this on a Muslim owned bakery...

[CynicalContrarian]

So LGBTQXYZ@$% folk cannot have their cake & eat it to?

[Wutang]

I woke up to this news and was excited but after looking into the ruling a bit more, it's only a small victory. The ruling is limited and only applies to this specific case; some bozo in the a Colorado civil rights government organization that was involved with the lawsuit against the baker made some comments that was interpreted as being hostile towards the religious beliefs of the baker and the SCOTUS ruled that in this particular case, he was being unduly discriminated against. The court side stepped the issue of determining the issue that should have been the main focus: whether a private citizen should be forced to act against his conscious in his own personal dealings with another private party.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I don't see how this is even discrimination.

The bakery didn't refuse the gay couple service, so this isn't comparable to the famous Woolworths lunch counters of the 1960s, where the company turned away black customers.

Instead, the baker refused to bake a specific product because of his beliefs. This doesn't necessarily have to be religious beliefs. I'm guessing a Hasidic Jewish bakery would not bake me a cake that says "Hitler Rocks!!" but would let me buy anything else. It's the same issue.

For that matter, I know the bakers at my local grocery store. They sell customized "cookie cakes" that have slogans like "Happy Graduation!" or "Happy 4th Of July." But they would definitely turn away any customer who asked for a cake to say "Rape Is Great!" or "Molest Your Kids -- Then Kill Them!!"

Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?

Speaking of policies like that, Internet companies have tons of them, and ban speech left and right. They don't refuse you service. You can still be online. They just want to control what you say on their turf.

Because as liberals like to say "It's their company, they can do what they want." Same goes for the bakers.

[rpg]

(06-04-2018 11:04 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I woke up to this news and was excited but after looking into the ruling a bit more, it's only a small victory. The ruling is limited and only applies to this specific case; some bozo in the a Colorado civil rights government organization that was involved with the lawsuit against the baker made some comments that was interpreted as being hostile towards the religious beliefs of the baker and the SCOTUS ruled that in this particular case, he was being unduly discriminated against. The court side stepped the issue of determining the issue that should have been the main focus: whether a private citizen should be forced to act against his conscious in his own personal dealings with another private party.

Well the environment will always be hostile towards religious people so I take this as a win.

[Shrodax]

(06-04-2018 11:04 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

I woke up to this news and was excited but after looking into the ruling a bit more, it's only a small victory. The ruling is limited and only applies to this specific case; some bozo in the a Colorado civil rights government organization that was involved with the lawsuit against the baker made some comments that was interpreted as being hostile towards the religious beliefs of the baker and the SCOTUS ruled that in this particular case, he was being unduly discriminated against. The court side stepped the issue of determining the issue that should have been the main focus: whether a private citizen should be forced to act against his conscious in his own personal dealings with another private party.

In all the years I've been hearing about gay wedding cakes, I only realized today that there are actually 2 completely different court cases on the matter. This one's from Colorado, but there's another one in Oregon where the state court recently upheld a $135,000 fine for the bakers. From what I understand, today's ruling from the Supreme Court is so limited that it won't even have any effect on the Oregon case.

[The Catalyst]

(06-04-2018 11:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?

When I debated this with "smart" progressives/left leaning folk online, their biggest argument was that the cake was just a generic wedding cake that didn't say anything. I didn't care enough to look into it futher.

Of course as a libertarian/conservative I still believe in right of refusal, etc etc.

I explained that they likely didn't sell them the cake because it's a wedding cake and they don't believe in gay marriage, but alas progressives just don't(refuse to?) understand.

[T and A Man]

It was clear cut.

The most alarming thing was the vote, 7-2.

The two have to go.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(06-05-2018 01:56 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 11:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?

When I debated this with "smart" progressives/left leaning folk online, their biggest argument was that the cake was just a generic wedding cake that didn't say anything. I didn't care enough to look into it futher.

Of course as a libertarian/conservative I still believe in right of refusal, etc etc.

I explained that they likely didn't sell them the cake because it's a wedding cake and they don't believe in gay marriage, but alas progressives just don't(refuse to?) understand.

Your friends are factually wrong, but I see their point.

According to the court document, the gay couple requested the baker "design and create a cake to celebrate a same-sex weddings." He went on to tell them "he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods."

This is actually different then the gay couple walking in and the baker refusing to sell them a cake off the shelf. That would be refusing service, which would put him in the category of Woolworth's in the '60s.

The difference is: You can't compel anyone (or any company) to create something that goes against their policy -- and in this case, his "policy" was his religious beliefs.

He's the owner. So his policy can be ANY belief, including "We don't make Steelers cakes." (I could swear I saw something like that once in Baltimore -- a town that tends to not like the Steelers.)

Anyway, this gets into some nuance, but the point is that your friends don't seem to have the details right. He didn't turn them away. He refused a specific request.

As I said earlier, I could go to the baker across the street and they'd likely turn down hundreds of my requests, like cakes that said "Murder is fab!" or "I hope you get AIDS! LOL!" or "Muslims and Jews: Blow Me!" It's their business, they can refuse and I can't compel" them to go against their policy or personal beliefs -- and my guess is their policies include bakers not being offended by what they write.

***

By the way, the two dissenting votes were Ginsburg and Sotomayer. There is a breakdown of who thought what on this Quora piece here. Kagan, another liberal appointee, agreed that there is a difference between bakers who refuse "offensive requests" and those who discriminate based on identity.

Even though I personally side with the majority opinion here, I am in disagreement with the conclusions reached by conservatives Gorush and Thomas (which seem muddled and overly political) and think Kagan had the most rational, articulate opinion. If the right wants to win this one in the end, I think using Kagan's approach is the way to go.

[YossariansRight]

Strip away the bullshit and call these cases for what they really are: “They” need to rub it again and again and again and spit on Christianity.

Question: Why aren’t “they” pulling their shit on, say, Muslim bakeries? Hmmmm?

[EvanWilson]

(06-04-2018 10:26 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

So LGBTQXYZ@$% folk cannot have their cake & eat it to?

They may be a way to have their cake and eat it too.

I seem to recall something called "Schrödinger's cat", where the cat is inside a box or something and in two states at the same time; it is considered alive and dead at the same time.

[Horus]

(06-05-2018 05:45 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Question: Why aren’t “they” pulling their shit on, say, Muslim bakeries? Hmmmm?

Because not only are Muslims never forced to apologise for their beliefs, they would never feel the compulsion to apologise even if someone tried to force them to do so. You can't bully someone who refuses to be intimidated by the bully.

[YossariansRight]

(06-05-2018 07:38 AM)Horus Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 05:45 AM)YossariansRight Wrote:  

Question: Why aren’t “they” pulling their shit on, say, Muslim bakeries? Hmmmm?

Because not only are Muslims never forced to apologise for their beliefs, they would never feel the compulsion to apologise even if someone tried to force them to do so. You can't bully someone who refuses to be intimidated by the bully.

I get it. My question was rhetorical. It’s an affront to Christians, most of whom will just sit there and act like sheep.

Bottom line is “they” won’t go after the Muzzies over this shit because it’s not worth losing their heads over.

[heavy]

DOBA should go into the offensive cakes business...he's rolling right now

Rape Is Great!
Molest Your Kids -- Then Kill Them!!
Murder is fab!
I hope you get AIDS! LOL!
Muslims and Jews: Blow Me!


For real though, great breakdown of the issue, including your notes on the specific judge's opinions.

[debeguiled]

Gay couples are really into power relationships.

Unfortunately, sometimes they try and take their private power dynamics out into public for a spin.

Unfortunately for them, the cake sellers safe word was: "THE LAW."

[Belgrano]

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated]

Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. This was one of the most anticipated decisions of the term, and it was relatively narrow: Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

The dispute that led to today’s ruling began back in 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery outside Denver, to order a cake to celebrate their upcoming wedding. But Jack Phillips, the owner of the bakery and a devout Christian, refused the couple’s request because he is not willing to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs. A Colorado civil-rights agency ruled that Phillips had violated the state’s antidiscrimination laws and told him that, if he wanted to make cakes for opposite-sex weddings, he would have to do the same for same-sex weddings. After a Colorado court upheld that ruling, Phillips went to the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

Almost six months to the day after the oral argument, the justices today handed Phillips a victory, even if not necessarily the ruling that he and his supporters had hoped for. Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important principles. On the one hand, society has recognized that “gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” and their rights are protected by the Constitution. On the other hand, “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone. It is clear, Kennedy continued, that in at least some scenarios sincerely held religious beliefs can trump such laws – for example, a member of the clergy who objects to same-sex marriage cannot be required to perform such marriages. But at the same time, Kennedy explained, the exception cannot be allowed to swallow the rule, with the result that “a long list” of people would be allowed to refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages.

In this case, Kennedy suggested, Phillips found himself on the horns of a dilemma: Because he regarded his craft as one in which he uses “his artistic skills to make an expressive statement,” making a cake for a same-sex couple would require him to convey a message that is inconsistent with his religious beliefs. This dilemma was further complicated, Kennedy noted, by the “background of legal principles and administration of the law in Colorado at that time”: Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, and state law also gave Phillips “some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive.”

But the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.”

But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently, particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly. Other cases, the majority emphasized, “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 market.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the court’s ruling, in an opinion joined only by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg stressed that there “is much in the Court’s opinion with which I agree,” but she “strongly” disagreed with the idea that the same-sex couple “should lose this case.” In particular, she argued, neither the commissioners’ statements about religion nor the commission’s disparate treatment of other bakers who refused to make cakes disapproving of same-sex marriage justified a ruling in favor of Phillips.

Justice Elena Kagan joined Kennedy’s opinion for the court, but she also filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer. Kagan agreed with the Kennedy opinion that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not given Phillips and his religious objections the kind of “neutral and respectful consideration” to which he was entitled. But she would not give any weight to the commission’s treatment of bakers who had declined to make cakes bearing messages that disparaged same-sex marriage, because in her view the latter had not violated the Colorado law at the heart of Phillips’ case.

In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed back against both the Ginsburg and the Kagan opinions. In his view, the different bakers’ cases – refusing to make cakes for a same-sex marriage and refusing to make cakes disparaging same-sex marriage – were, from a legal perspective, similar, and the commission was wrong to treat them differently just because it regarded Phillips’ beliefs as “offensive.” Using strong language, Gorsuch emphasized that, in the United States, “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.

“Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ right to free exercise” of his religion, Thomas concluded, “it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day.” Today’s ruling, however, casts at least some doubt on how easy it will be for others in Phillips’ position to prevail going forward, given the majority’s emphasis on the unsettled state of the same-sex marriage laws when Craig and Mullins came to Phillips in 2012 and the open hostility displayed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Phillips’ hearings. Thomas’ discussion of Phillips’ free-speech claim seemed to acknowledge this, with his observation that, “in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing” the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, from being used to “portray everyone who does not” agree with that ruling “as bigoted and unentitled to express a different view.” In short, today’s ruling seemed to leave open as least as many questions as it resolved. The only thing we can be sure of is that these issues will return to the courts, and in all likelihood the Supreme Court, before long.

Some more details on the various opinions and future implications of the case.
In the end all we learned is that Ginsburg and Sotomayor do not belong on the SCOTUS and that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a dangerous instrument of leftist subversion.
No significant or important decisions have been made.

[mammal]

Newspapers and magazines refuse ads all the time because they don't like the message. Yet they're the ones that were covering the gay cake story. Hypocrites!

[Johnnyvee]

So if someone went into a Jewish bakery in New York and ordered this cake, the media would defend their right to do so, and force the bakery to go through with it? What hypocrites! (As usual)

   

[Wutang]

(06-05-2018 05:02 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 01:56 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 11:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?

When I debated this with "smart" progressives/left leaning folk online, their biggest argument was that the cake was just a generic wedding cake that didn't say anything. I didn't care enough to look into it futher.

Of course as a libertarian/conservative I still believe in right of refusal, etc etc.

I explained that they likely didn't sell them the cake because it's a wedding cake and they don't believe in gay marriage, but alas progressives just don't(refuse to?) understand.

As I said earlier, I could go to the baker across the street and they'd likely turn down hundreds of my requests, like cakes that said "Murder is fab!" or "I hope you get AIDS! LOL!" or "Muslims and Jews: Blow Me!" It's their business, they can refuse and I can't compel" them to go against their policy or personal beliefs -- and my guess is their policies include bakers not being offended by what they write.

My thoughts are similar to your but from reading debates online, the objection that a lot of the anti-religious freedom people are making in response to that line of reasoning is that sexual orientation is a protected class while people who want to have Neo-Nazi messages or who simply want to be offensive aren't part of a protected class so therefore a gay couple would have protection under the law against being discriminated against while the guy who wanted "Rape is great - goes well with cake" on his cake wouldn't.

Reading these sort of arguments directed my thinking towards another question - what exactly are the standards for determining if someone has the privilege of being part of a protected class? Why does someone who practices homosexuality get the ability to override other people's personal convictions while someone who has an unpopular opinion about something doesn't? The easy, low hanging fruit answer is that sexuality is something that someone can't change while political/social/cultural opinions are freely adopted but religious identity is also something that is protected and is something that someone chooses to take on and change at their leisure.

There's also the deeper question of why what gender a person is attracted to is considered to be such a core part of someone's identity and seen as vital to one's identity as ethnicity would be. I remember talking to a former co-worker about homosexuality and a lot of his arguments revolved around the idea of "that's a big part of who someone is". How come people who are into scatology don't get to be treated as a protected sexual minority class? I'm assuming their sexual preferences are just as ingrained as a homosexual's sexual preferences are.

[godfather dust]

A gay marriage is a celebration of the end result of two child molestations, the victims now given the right to keep child sex slaves in the house.

And from what I'm understanding, the "conservatives" couldn't even give a strong opinion (like good old Scalia opinions?) Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(06-05-2018 02:52 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 05:02 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(06-05-2018 01:56 AM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(06-04-2018 11:43 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Why? "Because that's against company policy." So why is it any different for this baker? Why can't he also have a company policy that says customers can't get cakes that say certain things?

When I debated this with "smart" progressives/left leaning folk online, their biggest argument was that the cake was just a generic wedding cake that didn't say anything. I didn't care enough to look into it futher.

Of course as a libertarian/conservative I still believe in right of refusal, etc etc.

I explained that they likely didn't sell them the cake because it's a wedding cake and they don't believe in gay marriage, but alas progressives just don't(refuse to?) understand.

As I said earlier, I could go to the baker across the street and they'd likely turn down hundreds of my requests, like cakes that said "Murder is fab!" or "I hope you get AIDS! LOL!" or "Muslims and Jews: Blow Me!" It's their business, they can refuse and I can't compel" them to go against their policy or personal beliefs -- and my guess is their policies include bakers not being offended by what they write.

My thoughts are similar to your but from reading debates online, the objection that a lot of the anti-religious freedom people are making in response to that line of reasoning is that sexual orientation is a protected class while people who want to have Neo-Nazi messages or who simply want to be offensive aren't part of a protected class so therefore a gay couple would have protection under the law against being discriminated against while the guy who wanted "Rape is great - goes well with cake" on his cake wouldn't.

Reading these sort of arguments directed my thinking towards another question - what exactly are the standards for determining if someone has the privilege of being part of a protected class? Why does someone who practices homosexuality get the ability to override other people's personal convictions while someone who has an unpopular opinion about something doesn't? The easy, low hanging fruit answer is that sexuality is something that someone can't change while political/social/cultural opinions are freely adopted but religious identity is also something that is protected and is something that someone chooses to take on and change at their leisure.

There's also the deeper question of why what gender a person is attracted to is considered to be such a core part of someone's identity and seen as vital to one's identity as ethnicity would be. I remember talking to a former co-worker about homosexuality and a lot of his arguments revolved around the idea of "that's a big part of who someone is". How come people who are into scatology don't get to be treated as a protected sexual minority class? I'm assuming their sexual preferences are just as ingrained as a homosexual's sexual preferences are.

Glad you brought this up. I heard similar arguments.

What this doesn't consider is that there are women who slip in and out of their so-called "homosexuality." Beyond the obvious (porn actresses and old women who "discover" their lesbianism like Meredith Baxter), there are the college LUGs. That stands for "Lesbian Until Graduation."

Then there are the men in prison who engage in homosexual acts, but go back to being straight when they get out. There are also men who go "gay for pay." The nickname for this is "trade," and filmmaker John Waters has put this concept in several of his movies.

So who is gay and who is straight there? Hate to sound like a SJW, but sexuality is more "fluid" that the "protected class" concept can contend with. I think eventually this will be realized by the courts.

But if gays and lesbians are a protected class, a court ruling against the baker would give these people carte blanche to do whatever they want. People will rue the day this happened.

There are several high-profile gay conservative writers and vloggers, and I'm sure they'll just love going to Orthodox Jewish bakeries and taking them to court. Imagine how many YouTube hits Milo will get for this kind of a stunt alone.

One final thing: Minorities are a protected class. Does this mean blacks can demand cakes (or engravings or auto paintings) that say "Crippled Children Suck!" and then sue if they're refused? If so, I'd like to see black conservatives do this to all those big, annoying SJW companies, just to wreak havoc.

[Suits]

The key word here is "custom." Has the lawsuit been sent back down to the low court or is the matter considered resolved with this ruling?

[Roardog]

Wasn't there a case in the US where Walmart refused to make a birthday cake for a kids birthday because his parents were white nationalists and had called him "Adolf Aryan" or something like that?
I believe that went to court and Walmart was not forced to make the cake.

How is this case any different?

[Donatan]

Religious freedom? I don't think that God against gays and lesbians. Owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop made a mistake as for me.