SCOTUS Vacates Arlene’s Flowers Ruling, Throws Case Back to Lower Courts with New Directions

[HoustonSam]

Right.  Suppose a straight person goes into a baker and orders a cake for a gay wedding, that they are giving to their friend.  Baker refuses.  Is there a claim?

Is it not the case that this very hypothetical did in fact occur with the Colorado baker?  Didn't the mother of one of the homosexuals attempt to purchase the cake the following day, and was refused?  In my opinion the refusal to sell the same cake to the heterosexual mother is strong evidence that no one was discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference - homosexual and heterosexual were both refused.  But I recognize that others see that differently.

[WingNot]

The owner of the Red Hen was perfectly within his rights to ask Sarah Sanders to leave and the left should remember that the next time someone tells Hanoi Jane to get the hell out of their place of business.

Agreed.   And actions have consequences that must be weighed.  In the end one must ask themselves: "Is this the hill I want to die on?"  Then make a choice.

[goatprairie]

The argument is (playing devil's advocate) that political beliefs are not a protected class, while religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation are.

In other words, one can discriminate against someone for political beliefs, but not because they are black, gay, or Jewish.

A Jewish shop owner can kick out a Stormfronter from his restaurant. A Stormfronter however, can't have a 'no blacks allowed' sign.

That's easily circumvented.  A restaurant owner with almost 100% certainly can make a judgement that a black couple are Democrats.  Because almost 95% of black people vote for Dems.
Or they could simply ask the political affiliation of prospective customers as they enter the place of business.
Even if they don't know for sure, lists can be circulated of black Dem operatives and given to Republican business owners.
But at any rate, why is more moral to kick somebody out because of their politics rather than other reasons?  It isn't.
Sanders was a victim of hate.  The owner hates Republicans. Racism/homophobia/anti-Semitism  are forms of hate. Hate is hate.  The principle here is the owner hates somebody not for anything they've done in the restaurant or to the owner.
But it makes no difference why an owner kicks somebody out of their establishment.  That is their right.

[txradioguy]

The baker based his decision on his moral convictions.  According to her interview in the Post so did the restaurant owner.

Did Mrs. Sanders ask for a specialty dish the restaurant doesn't normally make?

[RedHead]

Did Mrs. Sanders ask for a specialty dish the restaurant doesn't normally make?

Just as the baker doesn't bake for gay weddings, apparently the restaurant does not cook for members of the Trump administration.  The baker will bake for other weddings and the restaurant will cook for other people though.

[goatprairie]

That's where the other side's argument gets convoluted, because he wasn't refusing service to them, only to not participate in the event. He was willing to sell them a cake and let them add their own message on it if they wanted, just not go and set it up, etc. To him it was religious, to them it was about sexual orientation, but to everyone else, it is political.

The lines get really fuzzy when the government starts getting involved in all this.

Very good point. Liberals on forums I've frequented reflexively accuse the Christian baker of hating homosexuals when he said he gladly serves the same items to homosexuals as he does to hetersexuals.
But if libs want to go by the "haters have to be punished" maxim, then they should condemn the Red Hen owner who obviously hates Republicans. And you only have to view a few  threads on lib forums on the subject to realize the depth of hate for conoservative Republicans liberals have.

[RedHead]

Is it not the case that this very hypothetical did in fact occur with the Colorado baker?  Didn't the mother of one of the homosexuals attempt to purchase the cake the following day, and was refused?  In my opinion the refusal to sell the same cake to the heterosexual mother is strong evidence that no one was discriminated against on the basis of their sexual preference - homosexual and heterosexual were both refused.  But I recognize that others see that differently.

It was for a gay wedding.  You cannot remove sexual orientation from that regardless of who ordered the cake.  Would what happened to Sanders be any better if another member of her party said they would order for her and the restaurant still refused?

[goatprairie]

On the other hand how can you support this decision and not support the idiot restaurant owner?

I do support her right. It is the right to be stupid which millions of Americans practice everyday. That doesn't mean I approve of what she did, I just approve of her right as an owner to serve whomever she wants for whatever reason.

[RedHead]

Very good point. Liberals on forums I've frequented reflexively accuse the Christian baker of hating homosexuals when he said he gladly serves the same items to homosexuals as he does to hetersexuals.

Discrimination is discrimination.  Personal feelings are irrelevant to that.[/quote]

But if libs want to go by the "haters have to be punished" maxim, then they should condemn the Red Hen owner who obviously hates Republicans. And you only have to view a few  threads on lib forums on the subject to realize the depth of hate for conoservative Republicans liberals have.

And by the same token those who are taking off after the restaurant should do the same to the baker.

[HoustonSam]

Just as the baker doesn't bake for gay weddings, apparently the restaurant does not cook for members of the Trump administration.  The baker will bake for other weddings and the restaurant will cook for other people though.

Your statement here fails to recognize the distinction between an event and a person, yet you argue that the two decisions are indistinguishable.  The baker will actually bake for the homosexual customers, just not a wedding cake, while the restaurant will not serve a member of the Trump administration at all.  While I believe that both business owners have the right to make these decisions, I recognize that they are fundamentally different decisions.

You argued in a separate thread that in the case of the baker, one cannot distinguish *what* from *whom*.  Perhaps you choose not to distinguish them, but they are in fact distinguishable.  The baker distinguished them very clearly, the restaurant owner did not.

[goatprairie]

Right.  Suppose a straight person goes into a baker and orders a cake for a gay wedding, that they are giving to their friend.  Baker refuses.  Is there a claim?

In any case, I think what is really going on here is that the Court is punting on this until after Justice Kennedy is gone.

"Suppose a straight person goes into a baker and orders a cake for a gay wedding"

Do mean if they state at the outset what its for or if they just order a plain, wedding cake?
I would bet that has happened hundreds/thousands of times since the "homosexual marriage is legal" ruling.  I surmise that many of those straight people and their homosexual friends then redecorated the cake to fit the occasion.
If I own a business, like a bakery, and a customer  orders a normal wedding cake, I'm not going to ask if it's for a homosexual wedding. I'll just bake the cake.
But if they say at the outset that the cake is for a homosexual wedding,  they can go somewhere else.  It's like if somebody said the cake is for a Satanic, Weird sex, or Nazi wedding. I view that as making a special cake whether it has special symbols on it or  not. I wouldn't bake a cake for Michael Moore, Matt Damon, and hundreds/thousands of other Hollyweird and other places  national scumbags.
The owner of a business has the right to make or not make anything they want without being forced to by governemnt i.e. men with guns.

[HoustonSam]

It was for a gay wedding.

Precisely.  Not for gay *people*, for a gay *wedding*.  An *event*.  It didn't matter who ordered the cake, it was for an event which the baker could not endorse.  If he were opposed to homosexuals as people he wouldn't have done business with them at all.  Like the restaurant owner and Sarah Sanders.

[txradioguy]

Precisely.  Not for gay *people*, for a gay *wedding*.  An *event*.  It didn't matter who ordered the cake, it was for an event which the baker could not endorse.  If he were opposed to homosexuals as people he wouldn't have done business with them at all.  Like the restaurant owner and Sarah Sanders.

Identity politics...where the person can't separate their personal life from politics.  They take an insult to a political belief or a politician as a personal attack.

[RedHead]

Your statement here fails to recognize the distinction between an event and a person, yet you argue that the two decisions are indistinguishable. 

You can try and make the line as fine as you want, at the end of the day the baker discriminated against the customer because they were homosexual and the restaurant owner discriminated against Sanders because of who she worked for.  Event...person...discrimination is discrimination.

The baker will actually bake for the homosexual customers, just not a wedding cake, while the restaurant will not serve a member of the Trump administration at all. 

So if the baker said that they would be more than happy to bake for an African-American client but they would not make a cake for a mixed-race wedding would that make their actions any more palatable or in any way reasonable?

You argued in a separate thread that in the case of the baker, one cannot distinguish *what* from *whom*.  Perhaps you choose not to distinguish them, but they are in fact distinguishable.  The baker distinguished them very clearly, the restaurant owner did not.

I would say that the baker wants to have his cake and eat it, too. (Pun intended)  He wants to discriminate but claim he doesn't discriminate.  I just don't see how he can make the distinction.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The argument is (playing devil's advocate) that political beliefs are not a protected class, while religion, race, gender, and sexual orientation are.

In other words, one can discriminate against someone for political beliefs, but not because they are black, gay, or Jewish.

A Jewish shop owner can kick out a Stormfronter from his restaurant. A Stormfronter however, can't have a 'no blacks allowed' sign.

reading people's minds is a pretty tough thing to do, don't you think?

[Restored]

I would say that the baker wants to have his cake and eat it, too. (Pun intended)  He wants to discriminate but claim he doesn't discriminate.  I just don't see how he can make the distinction.

Then it is the same with the restaurant owner. We need consistency from liberals.
I'm OK with the restaurant owner refusing service based on moral grounds just as I am OK with the baker refusing service on moral grounds.

[Free Vulcan]

Probably not.  Every state I'm aware of with anti-discrimination laws has religion as a protected class.  Nazis?  Not so much.

And right there lies the problem - 'protected class'. Only if you are in a 'protected class' do you have rights, and the govt decides who's in the 'protected class.'

All under the guise of 14th amendment 'equality' where some pigs are more equal than others.

[HoustonSam]

You can try and make the line as fine as you want, at the end of the day the baker discriminated against the customer because they were homosexual and the restaurant owner discriminated against Sanders because of who she worked for.  Event...person...discrimination is discrimination.

So if the baker said that they would be more than happy to bake for an African-American client but they would not make a cake for a mixed-race wedding would that make their actions any more palatable or in any way reasonable?

I would say that the baker wants to have his cake and eat it, too. (Pun intended)  He wants to discriminate but claim he doesn't discriminate.  I just don't see how he can make the distinction.

No, you can blur the line all you want, but the baker didn't discriminate against any person, he discriminated against an event.  The restaurant owner discriminated against a person.  My fundamental position is that those who generally argue against discrimination should be making a stronger case against the restaurant owner than against the baker; I believe they aren't because of the specific issues and people involved.  Stated differently, the hypocrisy is in the pro-restaurant position, and the only way to pretend otherwise is to maintain that all instances of discrimination are always morally indistinguishable unless the discrimination is permitted by law - unless the person experiencing discrimination is not part of a "protected class".  Of course people are free to argue that should they wish, but it's a weak argument.

I don't know what the baker or the restaurant owner would want to call their policies; I have no problem calling them discrimination because that's what both are.  As I have stated previously I believe that the vendor in a transaction has the same right as the customer to refuse business for any reason he chooses, but I certainly understand that US law does not recognize that right of a vendor.  Nor would I find the exercise of that right necessarily commendable or wise, or in your words palatable or reasonable.  But that's the nature of rights; their exercise is not subject to my, or your, approval.

[Fishrrman]

Vulcan wrote:
"And right there lies the problem - 'protected class'. Only if you are in a 'protected class' do you have rights, and the govt decides who's in the 'protected class.'
All under the guise of 14th amendment 'equality' where some pigs are more equal than others."

There should BE NO "protected classes" of people.
None, at all.

The 14th was THE WORST of ALL the amendments.
I'd like to see it repealed in its entirety (just dreamin', of course).

Actually, I'd like to see ALL amendments after #10 repealed.
Then we could start over with a few good ones... ;)

[goatprairie]

You can try and make the line as fine as you want, at the end of the day the baker discriminated against the customer because they were homosexual and the restaurant owner discriminated against Sanders because of who she worked for.  Event...person...discrimination is discrimination.
So if the baker said that they would be more than happy to bake for an African-American client but they would not make a cake for a mixed-race wedding would that make their actions any more palatable or in any way reasonable?
I would say that the baker wants to have his cake and eat it, too. (Pun intended)  He wants to discriminate but claim he doesn't discriminate.  I just don't see how he can make the distinction.

So your position is that whoever walks into a business must have their requests satisfied by the business owner...regardless of who they are or what they represent?

[INVAR]

You can try and make the line as fine as you want, at the end of the day the baker discriminated against the customer because they were homosexual and the restaurant owner discriminated against Sanders because of who she worked for.  Event...person...discrimination is discrimination.

My person and my business vociferously discriminate against homosexuals, Leftists and their agenda on a daily basis. 

Not a damn thing you are anyone else can do about it because I don't comply with tyrants.

[txradioguy]

You can try and make the line as fine as you want, at the end of the day the baker discriminated against the customer because they were homosexual and the restaurant owner discriminated against Sanders because of who she worked for.  Event...person...discrimination is discrimination.
So if the baker said that they would be more than happy to bake for an African-American client but they would not make a cake for a mixed-race wedding would that make their actions any more palatable or in any way reasonable?
I would say that the baker wants to have his cake and eat it, too. (Pun intended)  He wants to discriminate but claim he doesn't discriminate.  I just don't see how he can make the distinction.

Clearly you didn't read any of the background of the case nor do you know it's history.