BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker

[roamer_1]

But the notion that a shopkeeper who advertises a service should honor his word

Once again, Advertisement is not a contract. There is no word to keep.

[goatprairie]

It is not that simple.   Of course a baker should not be forced to make wedding cakes.  But here,  the baker advertised such cakes as his specialty.  He put himself out before the public as a baker of such cakes.   The question, unfortunately not answered today, is whether and when religious belief provides a basis to refuse service to one customer but not another.  The facts in this case were not easy, because Mr. Phillips had no discussion with his customer regarding the design or message of the cake.   As Justice Kagan pointed out,  this was not a case of refusing to provide a service that he had promised to no one else to provide.  If his customers had been straight, he would have baked the cake.  Because they were gay, he refused.   Is religious belief alone sufficient to permit him to disregard his legal obligation of fair and nondiscriminatory dealing?   

So you really believe that if the baker had specified beforehand,  there wouldn't be people demanding he make them a homosexual-themed cake?
The two homosexuals involved knew full well that this baker would not bake them a homosexual-themed cake for their wedding. There were numerous other bakeries who would have been happy to bake their cake.
Even after the baker said he didn't do homosexual-themed cakes, they still demanded he bake one for them.
But homosexuality has nothing to do with the underlying principle. 
If I am  a Satanist, and a baker refuses to bake me a Satanist-themed cake on religious grounds, I don't file a lawsuit claiming discrimination.  The baker has a right to refuse to bake me that Satanist cake I want...even if he didn't specify beforehand he didn't bake Satanist-themed cakes.
As I recall, homosexuals don't have any more rights than Satanists and other groups.
Because a baker (or any business) doesn't specify they don't make/create certain types of articles in no way justifies a customer demanding the baker make them a cake for their personal bent.
Point me to that section of the constitution that says businesses must make/create whatever a customer demands.

[Oceander]

There are those who are arguing what's right, on one side.

On the other side, there are those who are arguing what is law.

Unfortunately, those two don't align. 

• A baker shouldn't be forced to make a morally repugnant product because he produced and sells similar yet different ones.
• A Jewish baker shouldn't be forced to make Nazi cakes just because he produces Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian ones.
• A homosexual baker shouldn't be forced to make a "God Hates bleeps" cake for Westboro Baptist just because he makes "God Loves You" cakes for Springfield Baptist.

BUT...the law doesn't care what's morally or ethically right.  It reflects what has been legislated upon us by the representatives that We the People have foolishly put in there.

And no matter how foolish, the laws have been written to force people into involuntary acts at the whim of others just because they Pursue their own Happiness.  Liberty is dead, sacrificed at the Altar of "Fairness".

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Then they shouldn’t be engaged in the provision of goods to the public at retail.  It’s just that simple. 

[driftdiver]

The facts, and reality, disagree. A common carrier has always been required - forced if you please - to enter into contracts with all who can pay the fare.

@Oceander

No they aren't.  Carriers refuse people all the time.

[goatprairie]

He refused to sell them a custom cake without ever discussing the design, so for all he knew, they wanted an abstract design that was neither homo- not hetero- themed.  He simply refused to sell them a wedding cake because they were a gay couple.

Doesn't matter in the slightest.  A business owner is under no obligation whatsoever to make/create whatever a customer demands.

[Cyber Liberty]

Once again, Advertisement is not a contract. There is no word to keep.

The argument about "advertising" is specious, as I've pointed out before.  If there was an advertisement that plainly stated "No same-sex marriages" it would not have solved it at all.  Phillips would still have been sued, and that ad would have been added to the list of particulars against him.

[goatprairie]

I will take that even further: No one should be forced to enter any contract they do not want to enter into - for any reason whatsoever.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

No they aren't.  Carriers refuse people all the time.

Look up the definition and regulation of common carriers. 

[INVAR]

So who should make the laws, in your view, in our Republic?   If not judges, and not the peoples' elected representatives?

The judiciary has no authority or power to make laws in the Republic. 

Whatever this socialist mobocracy you champion is - obviously you think judges should make laws.

And obviously so does Congress.

Like it or not,  laws against discrimination in public accommodations reflect the considered will of the people.

If the will of the people contravenes the Laws of God, then whatever the people want is as null and void as if ordered by nine judges in black robes.  i.e.; If they passed some stupid law that says I must work on the Sabbath or have my business open on holy days for 'public accommodation' because they reflect the will of the people - those too will be 'laws' I will ignore,- because they are invalid and null due the fact they contravene the Laws of God that I observe.

So if some homo group wants shirts or a website designed that advocate for their cause or an event that promotes their behavior, I refuse to do business with them.  Because they are asking me to violate my faith to create a vehicle to promote perverted behavior.   I refuse and no one can force me to design and create anything for such people or their cause. 

[Hoodat]

Because they said they wanted a cake for “our wedding”.  The necessary inference is there.

Ah, so you simply assumed it instead of reading the actual court documents in this case.  Now I understand how you can be so wrong about the facts of this case.

[goatprairie]

Then they shouldn’t be engaged in the provision of goods to the public at retail.  It’s just that simple.

Oh, good grief.

[driftdiver]

Look up the definition and regulation of common carriers.

@Oceander

Again, common carriers refuse people every day for various reasons

[jmyrlefuller]

The facts, and reality, disagree. A common carrier has always been required - forced if you please - to enter into contracts with all who can pay the fare.

So tell me how a Christian baker operating a sole proprietorship is even remotely comparable to entities that have common carrier status. Most are publicly held corporations without any inherent religious beliefs. Most have large market share and little competition in their territories. Common carrier was a compromise to ensure competition and interoperability. It is in no way applicable in the case of individuals.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Again, common carriers refuse people every day for various reasons

Read the definition.  Try this for starters:  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+carrier

They cannot refuse for unjustified reasons. 

[Oceander]

So tell me how a Christian baker operating a sole proprietorship is even remotely comparable to entities that have common carrier status. Most are publicly held corporations without any inherent religious beliefs. Most have large market share and little competition in their territories. Common carrier was a compromise to ensure competition and interoperability. It is in no way applicable in the case of individuals.

Size doesn’t matter; what matters is the business you enter into and how you hold yourself out to the public.  One guy with a freight truck, operating as a sole proprietorship, can be a common carrier if he holds himself out as being willing to transport persons or goods for a fee.

[Oceander]

Ah, so you simply assumed it instead of reading the actual court documents in this case.  Now I understand how you can be so wrong about the facts of this case.

Nope. I read the facts of the case, as you did not.  Which explains why you have no clue what you’re talking about.  Which is a shame, because when you read in good faith, you have some excellent things to say, as you did on the tariffs thread the other day.  It’s a real shame you can’t bring that same good faith and honesty to this subject. 

[driftdiver]

Judging from the statements coming out from the leftists this is a major win for conservatives and freedom.

Love it

[driftdiver]

Read the definition.  Try this for starters:  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+carrier

They cannot refuse for unjustified reasons.

@Oceander

They can refuse for any number of reasons.  Heck they dont like your shirt and you are off.

[Oceander]

Judging from the statements coming out from the leftists this is a major win for conservatives and freedom.

Love it

[Oceander]

@Oceander

They can refuse for any number of reasons.  Heck they dont like your shirt and you are off.

/snicker


Why don’t you go read up on the regulation of common carriers instead of farting from the wrong end of your digestive tract. 

[driftdiver]

/snicker


Why don’t you go read up on the regulation of common carriers instead of farting from the wrong end of your digestive tract.

@Oceander

Go look it up yourself .   Its quite obvious you missed that day in school.   Have fun skippy

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Go look it up yourself .   Its quite obvious you missed that day in school.   Have fun skippy

Already did skippy.  Common carriers cannot unjustifiably refuse to carry a paying customer. 

[catfish1957]

7-2?  Should have been 7-1, as one particular activist judge should have recused herself.

[Oceander]

7-2?  Should have been 7-1, as one particular activist judge should have recused herself.

Why?

[catfish1957]

Why?

Nevermind... I got justices mixed up, vs. voting on this case.