Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Human Decency

Comments

1

Looking at California, I fear we are fucked, not nearly as bad as the trump/rethuglican voting idiots have fucked themselves*, of course, but still fucked

*https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-blacklung-insight/coal-lobby-fights-black-lung-tax-as-disease-rates-surge-idUSKCN1IX4EG

2

Part of me thinks that it's unfortunate that the case reached all the way to SCOTUS over an innocuous silly wedding cake (let's hope the newlyweds were't planning on following that stupid trend of smashing cake and frosting in their faces at the reception), now LGBT adversaries can attempt to hang their hat on this narrow decision.

But, yes a wedding cake today, EMT services tomorrow.

3

The federal government already is operating under the principle that private businesses don't have to serve anyone, unless you run a business like a restaurant, hotel, gas station or entertainment venue, which are considered "public accommodations."

https://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/title-ii-of-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964-injunctive-relief.html

Generally, a specialty cake shop doesn't qualify under federal law, but could if the business makes food that is to be consumed on the premises.

4

I support the separation of church and state.

6

The Seattle City Council overzealous and ill-conceived response will begin in...3...2...1...

8

Blame the electoral college which makes a vote in Buttblast County, North Dakota worth more than a vote in Seattle. More people voted for Hillary. If it was a truly representative election, she would have won.

The entire election process is fucked, and by nature, nobody elected to office will change it or even be in a position to change it, since they have a direct incentive once in office to keep things the way they are. The lesser of two evils is less evil, but when the greater of two evils runs the show, don't place all your bets on the lesser. Right now we have to look out for one another, no authority from on high is necessarily going to do that for us.

9

What was at stake? The right for an artist to not have to make art conveying something he morally/religiously opposes?

SO MANY VICTIMS!!!

10

@1 "Rethuglican"?

Every time I see a comment with an awful pun insult like that (slung in either direction), I never think, "Ha! How clever!" Instead I think, "Well, no point in reading any more from that person." And I sense I'm not alone in this.

11

@9,

You're smarter than that.

12

@9 sadly I can't go to a Muslim bakery and demand that they make my gay wedding cake now.

13

@10, you've got that right.

Craft a cogent response or go home.

14

@9- Actually the Seattle City Council has removed Freedom at least that is what the courts have ruled recently. But hey, stay ignorant if it works for you.

15

We knew it was all downhill after 2016, might as well try to enjoy it while you can.

16

Dan - the Supreme Court stocked with partisan judges could run wild regardless of this decision. I'm having difficult envisioning a dangerous meaningful application of this ruling under the rule of law. Nothing that anyone is worried about (the "No cakes? EMTs are next" argument isn't supported at all) is enabled by this ruling. Today no different than yesterday in that regard.

19

@11. As much as people wanted to frame this as an issue where SCOTUS was deciding whether or not McDonald’s could put a “we don’t serve gays” in their window...it wasn’t. It was about a specialty cake maker (artist) being trolled by two rich assholes with nothing better to do than force their sexuality into his art.

Also, the cake maker was an asshole for not just saying “you know what? I’m actually booked solid that week/month. Here’s the number for another cake maker who can probably fit you in “.

20

Scalia made his imprint, and it is here in this rather desperate attempt at a legal decision. He taught his fellow herp-derps that you can rule however your heart desires if you just dress it up fancy enough. That is what they have done. They cite no standing precedent. The ruling is based strictly on the majority's belief that religion got an unfair deal. Helicopter mommies to the rescue.

21

Missing from the power equation here: their all-powerful christian god who could put an end to the controversy by simply acting all-powerful.

22

@19: I feel like although the post was pretty clear, the fact that this ruling only applies to this one guy and the biased actions of the CCRC is being lost on a lot of people.

It should not be forgotten that this is not a case of a guy seeing two gay guys come in and yelling "You homos get out!"

They asked for a very specific and very explicit cake. The guy said, he did not want to bake that specific cake, but was happy to sell them a generic cake, a less explicit one, or give him info for people that would bake such a cake. It makes for a much thornier legal question, as he did not exactly deny service, he just said his business did not do that service. Likely why the SC decided not to make a broad ruling on the case.

I also find it sad that so many people are so naïve as to think the couple went into the shop for a cake, and not a civil rights case.

23

"If a Seattle gym can refuse service to someone because they disagree with that person's politics, why can't a bakery?"

Stupid fucking point. First. This isn't about politics. Being gay is not a political position. There are gay republicans who want to get married.

But. Golly. Oh. Yes. Won't somebody please think of the poor Nazis! Or is it in your world of shit bags being a Nazi shit bag is the same as being gay?

Second. The Gym in question had a stated policy of NO racial or sexual orientation discrimination. That was in the terms of service agreement your shit bag Nazi buddy Greg Johnson agreed to.

He wore paraphernalia of his Nazi shit bag beliefs. Other patrons who were non-white and or gay knew who racist bigot Nazi shit bag Greg Johnson was. Making the gym an unsafe space for those patrons who went to that gym specifically because of it's stated anti-bigot anti-shit bag policies.

Therefor Nazi shit-bag Greg Johnson violated that agreement.

And lastly forced repatriation, genocide, and the stripping of human rights from large sections of the law abiding population are not "political positions."

They are the beliefs of dangerous terrorist organizations. And no sane society tolerates these sickening beliefs.

In fact they sane societies should treat those that hold these racist Nazi terrorist beliefs like my grandfather did during the battle of the Ardennes and shoot them on sight.

24

Bad cases make bad law ... and bad headlines ... but this SCOTUSblog analysis:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
may shed light on the casein point.

Among other things, CRCC apparently had shit the civil right bed by ruling the opposite way in cases of customers who persisted in demanding cakes that disparaged gay marriage.

What kind of people would do that? People who were looking for a legal food-fight, same as the baker ... AND the lucky couple (though gay marriage was not then legal in CO).

Note several opinions in dissent and others joining with the 7-2 majority may suggest where later more directly justiciable cases are heading.

Now, who wants pie?

25

The ACLU already mentioned that the ruling wasn't setting long term precedent on the part of the court but instead specifically related to this one case. It sounds like a lot of fire breathing for nothing when we could save that energy to elect better officials into high office.

26

The lesson the Left needs to learn isn't about purity, it's about personality. What do Gore, Kerry, and HRC (and HW Bush and John McCain) have in common, besides being losers? They're boring.

27

This is the fault of the Democratic party. Full stop. They are the ones who need to learn a lesson, not the voters. They need to produce candidates and positions that people want to vote for. It is their responsibility to get votes, it is not the people's responsibility to vote for the 'right party.' The post-Ronnie Washington consensus has failed. The Republicans are offering an alternative. An awful alternative, but an alternative. The Democrats keep trotting out candidates and policies from the failed post-Ronnie consensus. THAT is the problem. And until that problem is solved, expect more and more of these terrible things to become the norm.

28

@23 please update your medication, you've been on a weird kick for the past 2 months or so. Dadddy's further to the left than you are and you're raving that he's a secret nazi? Where do you stand?

29

@19, 22,

Agreed. This is one case about one person and it really has nothing to do with cakes. The customers went in there looking for a fight and they got what they asked for.

On the other hand, that's exactly what blacks did in diners during the civil rights era. They didn't go into the diners because they were hungry. They went in there looking to be attacked.

When Gandhi went to the sea to make salt, he wasn't doing it because he wanted salt, he did it because the government expressly forbid making salt.

Civil disobedience. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

30

The most telling, worrisome liberal guilt news item actually came out last week as we learned that right after Trump was elected Obama was remorseful, worrying he went too far and scared people away.

I call cow’s manure on this ever-guilty notion. People like decisive leaders, they appreciate action. Say what you will about the current administration, they are moving swiftly to change the US for years to come.
Obama had both houses on his first two years yet was way too busy “reaching out,” only to be humiliated time and again and lose the majority shortly after.

32

Different approaches to healthcare, foreign policy, or school praying should not be confused with supporting the ideology a murderous, super-racist regime.

34

@29: Agreed, and I hope I did not imply that this was a bad thing that the gay couple did. These cases have to be pressed before a court at some point, although perhaps they could have picked a more essential service than high-priced, speciality baking.

I just think everyone should be aware that these two are not victims, and they were not even really discriminated against. They got exactly what they wanted, more or less. Although the spirit is the same, comparing them to Ghandi and civil rights marchers/sitters is a bit of an insult for what the latter two went through.

35

@ 31 - "Supporting gay marriage is a political position, and one that also touches on religion."

Since religious institutions are in no way obliged to celebrate gay marriages, and taking into acount the principle of separation of church and state, no, it does not touch on religion. It's just the religious bigots who twisted the debate that way, as if they were the sole owners of the notion of marriage, which they aren't (in fact, in many countries, only civil marriages are considered legally valid).

36

Democrats are going to have to get a lot more bigoted if they want to start winning.

37

@33
Beliefs are a choice.
Sexual orientation is not.

38

@33 there is no argument.
There is your logical fallacy of a false equivalency equating a shit bag Nazi with a gay couple. And there are people fighting for rights. A gym not wanting a dangerous terrorist in their midst is in no way equivalent to a Christian not wanting to bake a cake.

So, no, being a Nazi is not a “political position” any more than being a serial killer or rapist is.

That our fucked up country tolerates these positions legitimate is root of the problem. But there is zero moral authority for doing so.

So, nope. People who advocate racial genocide don’t get equal treatment.

39

@31 "You seem to be advocating for the outlawing of beliefs you don't share."

This is precisely what he believes. This is what numerous people and societies have believed throughout history. His stance is normal and natural and fundamentally at odds with democracy and multicultural societies. He wants to live in a "pure" society untainted by... well you know.

40

@29. You have to be able to see the difference between this and civil rights causes! The difference is in state sanctioned discrimination. Laws that impose or support racism, sexism, bigotry are abhorrent and should absolutely be fought against tooth and nail.

This is a private citizen choosing to exercise their beliefs (however backwards they may be) through their art/craft. This isn’t a government sanctioned two tier cake system where gays have to pick theirs up at the back door. (Pun intended).

Trying to make people accept other people with laws is stupid and counterproductive. There are always going to be ignorant people who are bigoted, the question is, can they do any harm or inhibit others freedoms with that bigotry? I think we have a pretty good system in place that prevents that. You can be racist, homophobic, misogynist if your dumb ass wants, but you can’t get in anyone’s way and prevent their success or happiness with that trash.

41

There is so much freaking injustice out there, I have a hard time getting too upset about one couple's rejection by the cake-maker of their choice. Seriously, have you noticed the homeless problem? I doubt a homeless couple would be able to get a wedding cake from 90% of the cake makers in Seattle. Even if they had $500 in cash in their hand.

42

I have a question for everyone who is against this ruling.

Should an atheist LGBTQ baker be forced to bake a cake for a church group that reads: "Homosexuality is sinful"?

43

Hey, no one bothered to tell us that the Two Parties are really exactly the same, and we should all vote for 3rd party candidates so that fascism can get REALLY bad...which will make Lenin/Castro/Chavez/Hoxha bring The Revolution down the chimney for all the good little cadres....

44

Adam @ 42 - In such cases, you tell them: "I know! And sin is so much more fun than religious virtue!" and camp it up so they get the fuck out of there ASAP.

Alternatively, you make their cake and you piss, spit or sneeze in the cake batter, like people who work in kitchens have been doing for centuries to clients they don't like. Simple!

45

CMDwannabe @30

Obama only had 60 votes in the Senate (enough to override Republican filibusters) from June 30, 2009, when the dispute over seating Franken was settled, until Ted Kennedy died on August 25. That’s less than two months.

46

In other words, there's a reason Obama tried to reach out to Republicans -- he needed them.

47

@31 I guess walking around in a shirt that essentially says, "I hate faggots and anyone else who is remotely different from me and I'll harm you physically if I get the chance", is not discrimination.

48

"outlawing of beliefs you don't share"

Yes, that's totes what happens. When a business discriminates against an unprotected belief, something entirely chosen and not at all biological, is the same as the government outright banning a political ideology. Totes.

"are civil rights really going to be advanced by forcing small business owners to bake them cakes, or is this just going to hand more elections to the Republicans? Do black people really need/want to buy cakes from bigots?"

Historically speaking, yes, you moron.

@40 You're intentionally ignoring Civil Rights and it's impact on private enterprise.

49

@48. Read the comment again. I am ignoring nothing of the sort. I’m not advocating only being able to sell products to the people of your choosing. That would be in direct conflict with the statement I made that you can believe what you want, but those beliefs shouldn’t have any power behind them to impede on others lives and choices.

You want to be indignant about something? Go fuck with someone else, I’m not selling indignant to your kind today.

50

EricaP @ 45-6
Obama still had the majority for two years and could have done so much more, not to mention showing the public that republicans have no interest in working with him instead of continually "reaching out." At the very least he could have started some programs before the first mid term election, like pitching health care reform as an election issue.
I may be wrong, but his guilty, thoughtful, inclusive, considerate hand always started with a middle of the road candidate when it came to a judicial position of any level. Can you think of one flaming liberal appointed as a judge during his 8 years in office?

51

I always love hearing how this is no big deal from cishet folks. It's not like you've ever had to go to the courts to justify your personhood right?

52

@51. Nope. And neither have the assholes who tried to buy that cake.

Thanks, try again.

53

if, instead of pivoting to the "i was promised to be seeing dead persians en masse by now and my dang dan feelings are hert consequently" bit, he did a "well at least we can find other straights to bake us the dream cake, but detained teen immigrants still can't get access to abortion services" then he would've been cool, but alas the tacit and explicit racism driving his homosexual agenda remains pumped.

54

@52 -- What? Are you saying the folks that bought that cake didn't even have a passing interest in Obergefell v. Hodges?

Holy shit, man, it ain't about a fucking cake. It is about a history -- a long, nasty history -- of the majority in the country fucking over the minority. Dan and I have some things in common, even though he likes men, and I like women. We both remember when it was fucking common to see shops that simply wouldn't serve black people. No big deal, right? Just find another shop. But being told you are a second rate citizen, that you are somehow a lesser human being sucks for the same reason that being told that your marriage means less because it is between two people of the same sex.

Fuck that shit. I get it, a shop keeper should be all about freedom. But it doesn't work that way. I wonder how many people defending this prick have actually owned a small business. Unless you want to open up a lemonade stand, you have to jump through multiple hoops. There is paperwork. There are taxes. There are rules -- so many fucking rules. So if one of those rules happens to be "don't discriminate based on race, creed, color, gender or sexual preference" it really isn't the hardest thing in the world. You just do it. Unless you are an asshole (like this guy) who thinks Jesus is really upset about the gays, and not about the fact that we have little children going hungry every night in the richest fucking country in the world.

55

CMDwannabe @50

1) Obama isn't a flaming liberal or he would never have been elected President in the first place (so it's hardly surprising he didn't nominate flaming liberal judges).

2) Many of the Democrats in Congress are conservative ("blue dog Democrats"), who would not have voted to confirm "flaming liberal" judges even if Obama had nominated some.

56

I think the appropriate response to a business that refuses to serve gays is for gays to absolutely deluge the business with requests for service. That will have two effects: 1) show the owners just how much their bigotry is causing them to turn away, and how much emptier their pockets are as a result; and 2) it will tie up their phone lines and service counters on business that could be theirs right up to the point where they turn it down. The owners themselves will be the ones destroying their own business, because it is their choice that sends away each and every service request, business that they could have accepted and gotten the money from.

57

@22 "They asked for a very specific and very explicit cake"
From what I've read they had a binder of concepts, but were rejected as soon as they said the cake was for them. Where do you get that they asked for a specific, and/or explicit cake? citations? These men were refused service, not for what they asked for, but who they were.
@19 "It was about a specialty cake maker (artist) being trolled by two rich assholes with nothing better to do than force their sexuality into his art.
Are they assholes for being rich, because I assume that is considered admirable nowadays, or for asking him to make a two-tiered cake with huge balls and a cock sliding up into the second tier with an ass and cock squirting out at the top?

58

Do artists get to dictate who can and cannot buy their art?

59

@58 Does a person get to dictate to the artist just what his art will be?

60

Erica p @ 55
A thoughtful approach to please everyone at any given time made him look weak. One of the few groups he constantly neglected was the democrats left wing. He could have easily pumped up “the base” with at least some symbolic moves. Bernie tapped into this energy early on.
Did Obama ever single out those blue dogs legislators and called them on their bull? Did he ever tell their voters that their rep is standing in the way of universal healthcare/ sound environment/ immigration reform?

61

muffy-
It's ok to stay in mom's basement this morning and continue playing video games.
Your hateful words and abusive distortions aren't needed.

62

@44

The Baker at Masterpiece cakeshop tried to Jesus it up to scare the gay couple away, and that didn't work.

So instead of baking them a fucked-up cake (which you suggested bakers should do when confronted with customers they don't like [which is illegal]), he told them he would not make their cake.

The LGBTQ community has to realize that if it uses its designation as a protected class to do something like force of Baker to bake a gay wedding cake, then Christians will use their designation as a protected class to force gay Bakers to make anti-gay cakes.
I guarantee you, if the Supreme Court had ruled for the couple, then every gay Baker in America would have been bombarded with conservative Christians ordering anti-gay cakes.
"homosexuality is sinful" written on a cake is the least offencive thing I could think of that they would ask for.

The guy at Masterpiece cakeshop is an asshole. The only reason this couple wanted him to make their cake is because they wanted to make a political statement and piss him off.
I don't know if you paid much attention to the internet in the past few years, but all conservative Christians are interested in is making political statements and pissing off liberals.

I would prefer to live in a world where a gay Baker is not forced to make an anti-gay cake.

63

Opposition to homosexuality is in the bible, the baker's objection to gay marriage was not arbitrary but instead founded on sincere devotion to scripture. He objected to making a Halloween cake. I am agnostic, and religious literal-ism seems silly to me. But it's real to the baker along with the majority of the country whose views on tolerance of gay marriage have undergone a seismic and nearly unthinkable shift towards acceptance and compassion in a generation. For those of us who want to win support for gay marriage from the remaining hold-outs, compelling a baker is counter-productive.

That some who favor gay marriage see zero room for sincere dissent is disappointing and also a political loser - middle America increasingly sees "the left" as intolerant and this is exhibit A to that belief.

The baker did not refuse to sell a cake off the shelf. A gay, atheist baker should be allowed to refuse to make a cake adorned with biblical scripture referencing the sin of homosexuality.

Live and let live is a both a guiding philosophy and a political winner.

64

@ 62 - I was joking. Calm your tits, indeed.

65

@ 62 - By the way: I have worked in kitchens. I am aware that what I suggested is illegal (thanks for stating the obvious anyway). I am also aware that it happens all the fucking time, which is why I always find it stupid when people try to get any type of food from someone who obviously doesn't want to make it for them.

Note that I am not debating if it works as a way to enforce civil rights. Have your day in court, fight it out, but for your own sake, just don't eat the cake.

66

And on this subject, a general word of advice: always be nice to food service employees. You just never know - they have access to your food when you can't see it.

67

@63 I asked my godfather - an honest for goodness, religious jamaican rasta - what he thought about white people getting dreads. He said "one thing we teach - stop judging so much".

68

@ Ricardo

I know you were joking, and that's fine, but this is a serious issue, and that's why I felt the need to reply to your comment.

This issue isn't going to go away anytime soon, and we need to have an open and rational discussion about how to handle these sorts of situations.
Protected groups with opposing interests exist. There's no denying that, and I don't see that changing anytime in the near future.

I'd also like to say that I completely agree with you. People should always treat the people making their food with respect and dignity.

69

The fact that people are more upset about someone being forced to make a cake for a gay couple than the fact that two american citizens can be denied service for who they love is this whole fucking issue. Is it really so hard to see the big picture here or was Jesus not about empathy and stuff

70

And a gay atheist baker should have to make a jesus cake if they're open to the public. If you don't want to serve all sections of this society, then you have no place in it.

71

Adam @ 68 - Not living in the States, this situation seems incredibly absurd to me. I couldn't imagine this happening IRL in my environment. Some government agency would intervene and that would be the end of that.

But as far as the discussion goes, I think beeees has the whole thing worked out @ 70 : "If you don't want to serve all sections of this society, then you have no place in it". (I do hope he meant "as a business owner", though, or else we'd have to start eliminating a lot of people.)

72

@70

Not a Jesus cake, an anti LGBTQ cake.

Opening a print shop shouldn't force you to make posters for a Nazi rally just because a Nazi walks through your front door with a credit card.

73

Adam Kadmon- your insistence on equating a couple asking a commercial baker to make them a cake for their wedding, a "celebration", to a hateful group imposing its hateful ideology on others is worrisome at best.

74

Those in the know may recognize that the decision was narrowly defined but I doubt the religious right will see it that way. I suspect they will see it as "we won" and we'll begin to see more instances of "No way. My religious freedom" responses to LGBTQ people who are simply wanting a service. Back to the courts again. Meantime the Orange Menace continues to pack the courts with wingnut bigoted, homophobic conservatives at the federal (and SCOTUS) level and federal and state elected officials of the wingnut persuasion will continue to chip away at the rights we managed to get while at the same time passing more "religious freedom" legislation that will make it harder for LGBTQ people (and other minorities, ethnicities, etc.) to be treated as equals.

75

The saddest thing about this cake nonsense is that if a gay/atheist/whateverstrawliberal baker were asked to bake a cake stating "God bless this child" or any other Christian affirmation, they would probably have done so without incident. The fact that we have to equate baking a cake for a gay wedding with requesting a Pro-Nazi, or severely anti-LGBTQ message just shows how far we still have to go. It seems obvious that people shouldn't have to decorate a cake to say abhorrible things, and if gay marriage is, to a baker, an abomination, then they shouldn't be compelled to write "gay sex is awesome" on the cake. But they should, in some capacity, be required to serve customers their product and services indiscriminately.

76

@72 The print shop example should be kept separate from the cake decorators argument. If you are a print shop, regardless of your personal feelings, you would be distributing en masse, Nazi propaganda, I don't think that's comparable to providing a cake to a couple, whom we can only hope are catering to mostly supportive family members.

77

@73 legally, there is little distinction. If you believe in the rule of law, and the rule of fairness, you have to equate extremes. How can one differentiate, within the law between two political stances?

Remember, these folks aren't members of the National Socialist German Workers Party. An swastika, on it's own, isn't inherently illegal. Other groups with no association to the symbol have used the swastika. The issue of course isn't about Nazi's in particular - what about, say, ISIS, who uses a modified version of the flag that many muslims fly in their home and look, to the untrained eye, identical? Certainly we don't want to LEGALIZE discrimination against muslim americans because their flag looks like the ISIS flag.

There are so many issues from a legal standpoint, and it's not good enough to get most of them wrong in name of reactionaryism. The PATRIOT ACT was bad enough, let's not double down on bad process because two guys couldn't get a cake.