Supreme Court Rules for Baker

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Jun 4, 2018.

  1. Huntn, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018

    Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    ... while dodging the larger issue. This case partially centers on free expression. It appears that that if personal creativity is involved, refusal to create an object for a gay couple is acceptable. What muddies the issue is what kind of expression? Drawing flowers? Personally, I don’t see a difference between drawing a flower and mixing up a cake.

    Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake
    https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-rules-narrowly-for-Colorado-baker-12965525.php
     
  2. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #2
    Expect more of these issues to spring up now.
     
  3. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #3
    Wasn’t it a 7-2 decision? How is that narrowly?
     
  4. Huntn thread starter macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    Narrow is not the number of justices, but the terms of the ruling, doing more to address this case specifically, than to establish universal standards.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
    #5
    "Supreme Court rules for baker" otherwise it sounds as if someone called Baker had a ruling in their favour.
     
  6. tshrimp macrumors 6502

    tshrimp

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    #6
    Exactly what I was thinking. Wouldn't 7-2 be a large margin? Nice to see this bakers rights upheld.
     
  7. GermanSuplex macrumors 6502a

    GermanSuplex

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    #7
    Good for him. A man's man of a pastry artist, lol.

    More proof America has come a long way, but has a long way to go.
     
  8. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #8
    Huntn may have already said it, but:

    Usually "narrow" in articles like this means a slight majority.

    Here the term "narrow" means the court chose to carve out this particular, exact situation - this baker, this cake - and avoided making broad rules that could be used for the next, inevitable conflicts. For example, if tomorrow (and I'm making this up off the top of my head) a gay couple asked a florist to create a bouquet for their gay wedding, and the florist refused on the basis that the wedding is for a gay couple, it will be hard for that couple or the florist to grab applicable language from this opinion. Or a dress maker refuses to make a dress for someone's religious celebration on the basis they disagree with that religion. Those instances may require more supreme court opinions because this opinion was "narrow" on the issue in front of it.
     
  9. mac_in_tosh macrumors 6502

    mac_in_tosh

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Location:
    Earth
    #9
    There are all sorts of wacko religions out there. This would appear to open the door to someone not wanting to serve anyone they choose saying it's somehow against their religion.
     
  10. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #10
    The more I’m reading about this the more it seems like the Supreme Court really punted on this. They ruled about his specific case but not the broader question.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2018 ---
    Yep that’s what I’m reading now. Basically the Supreme Court punted.
     
  11. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #11
    I think you're right. Especially in re this paragraph:

    If I read this correctly, he's saying that one size is not going to fit all and the outcome of this case should not be construed as a blanket ruling.
     
  12. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #12
    Sanity prevails, it’s good to know that at least some people are still familiar with the whole first amendment thing. Sadly, judging by the insanity of today’s college campuses freedom of speech, religion and association won’t be around much longer.
     
  13. SoggyCheese Suspended

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Barcelona, España o Londres, Reino Unido
    #13
    Expecting this now to be applied to denying LGBT people all sorts of services right across the country.

    The USA is dead.
     
  14. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #14
    If this was the only cake baker in the world the SC would have to rule on the broader question. Meanwhile people may have to choose from 1 of the other hundreds of bakers out there to bake a cake for them. The ruled the correct way.
     
  15. alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #15
    Not to mention the fact that I would be extremely wary of eating a cake baked by someone who was forced to do it at gun point. The chances of it having some “special sauce” would be alarmingly high.
     
  16. Rogifan macrumors Core

    Rogifan

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #16
    No, people on the Left don’t understand or are being willfully obtuse to push an agenda. The objection here was not to a person it was to an action. A wedding is not a person.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2018 ---
    I think they still could have ruled more broadly, and not just on cake bakers but florists, photographers, people who make wedding invitations, provide video services, catering etc. If I’m a wedding photographer but don’t believe in same sex marriage should I be forced to photograph a gay wedding? Does discrimination apply to a person or an action? If I’m a restaurant owner who doesn’t like cigarette smoke is it discrimination not to allow smokers to smoke in my restaurant (even though I would serve them if they didn’t smoke while in my restaurant)?
     
  17. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #17
    The Supreme Court punted. This is one of those decisions which might fairly be described as a non-decision; we get such decisions from the Court sometimes.

    The majority decided not to decide the core issues and the impact of this decision is likely to be fairly limited - other than, perhaps, to put adjudicating bodies on notice to be more careful in the comments they make and to make judicial assessments of their decision making processes more complicated.
     
  18. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #18
    This, to me, is the crux of the entire argument, and why the Court's ruling was as narrow as it was. There's a big difference between refusing to serve a gay customer and refusing to bake a cake for a certain occasion.

    If the baker was outright refusing all service to a gay customer, I would hope for a different ruling. At the same time, if the baker refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, I would hope that he would refuse to bake that cake regardless of who asked him to do it. The distinction between the customer and the request is critical here.
     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    One thing I do think is important is the ruling was 7-2. No way the left can can claim that Merrick not being appointed was the difference.
     
  20. SoggyCheese, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2018

    SoggyCheese Suspended

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Barcelona, España o Londres, Reino Unido
    #20
    This ruling will be used to deny services against LGBT people, across the spectrum. If you give the Right one inch in an ability to discriminate they will take 100 miles. Every time.

    I fully expect that at some point an LGBT person will die thanks to this ruling, even though the SCOTUS has very carefully worded it so that such an event should not occur. *** will not care about the details. They will seize this and decide they have the right to push their agenda onto anyone and everyone, because you cannot argue rationally against dogma and those who have been brainwashed by it.
     
  21. 0007776, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2018

    0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #21
    Who is going to die because a baker won't bake them a cake and they have to go to a different baker? Or are you just trying to make a slippery slope argument? Usually when people made those arguments against gay marriage they were called out on them...
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2018 ---
    I'm sure some troll will decide that the flying spaghetti monster requires them to not serve Christians the same as people have said that they had to wear a pasta strainer on their head in their driver's license photos. In the end it might rile up a few people, but most won't care.
     
  22. alex2792, Jun 4, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 5, 2018

    alex2792 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    #22
    Yes, this ruling could be fatal to gay people whose diet consist exclusively of wedding cakes. This is an outrage of the highest order, the supreme court is clearly full of Nazis!
     
  23. SoggyCheese Suspended

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Barcelona, España o Londres, Reino Unido
    #23
    Sadly, there is no slippery slope when it comes to crazy religious types. There is only all or nothing, because they hold a fully binary worldview. Exactly why I’m certain how they will interpret this as meaning they can deny LGBT people services, even health services, at will now that the court has decided bakers can choose what cakes to bake. If you don’t see it this way then you don’t see religious crazies for what they are, fanatics.
     
  24. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #24
    Sadly you would be wrong, but you won't allow yourself to see past your biases and realize that you are making a flawed argument.
     
  25. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #25

    I don't believe that. Not all religious types are absolutest fanatics.

    This is what happens with identity politics. People proclaim that they're this group or that group and/or they're a victim of something, putting up barriers and focusing on what makes us different. While what we should be doing is focusing on what makes us similar as humans.
     

Share This Page