supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[KCfromNC]

Wedding cake bakers don't serve the public.
They serve individuals.

And in this case, the baker illegally discriminated against certain individuals.

 

[bhsmte]

And in this case, the baker illegally discriminated against certain individuals.

And, they do serve the public, because they are invited in the door.

 

[Liza B.]

And in this case, the baker illegally discriminated against certain individuals.

Actually, I believe that is disputed. It is "public accommodation" vs. religious freedom. We shall see which one prevails. Right now, I'm leaning very slightly religious freedom.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, I believe that is disputed.

But also upheld by the courts so far.

It is "public accommodation" vs. religious freedom. We shall see which one prevails. Right now, I'm leaning very slightly religious freedom.

Why would the courts suddenly change direction after 2 generations of established law?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually, I believe that is disputed. It is "public accommodation" vs. religious freedom. We shall see which one prevails. Right now, I'm leaning very slightly religious freedom.

I guess it all depends on who the next Christian decides not to accommodate.

 

[pat34lee]

Not that I know of - that should give you a hint of the relevance of it.

This baker would also sell plain cakes, at least if the customer wasn't the wrong kind of minority.

Price could make a difference, but only to determine how
popular or expensive his cakes normally were.

He would have sold homosexuals the cake too, if they
weren't buying it for a homosexual union.

 

[pat34lee]

Why would the courts suddenly change direction after 2 generations of established law?

The same reason they granted special rights for deviants.
Too many left-wing progressives on the court who are in
the business of social engineering and don't care about
the law or Constitution.

 

[pat34lee]

And in this case, the baker illegally discriminated against certain individuals.

Do you think he would have sold them a cake
if it were for a friend's heterosexual wedding?
If so, it isn't discrimination, it's not supporting a
deviant union by providing a cake to celebrate it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Price could make a difference, but only to determine how
popular or expensive his cakes normally were.

I'd love to see case law backing up this idea.

He would have sold homosexuals the cake too, if they
weren't buying it for a homosexual union.

He would have sold black people the cake if they weren't buying it for a black union.

 

[KCfromNC]

The same reason they granted special rights for deviants.

Citation needed.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you think he would have sold them a cake
if it were for a friend's heterosexual wedding?
If so, it isn't discrimination, it's not supporting a
deviant union by providing a cake to celebrate it.

Nice rhetoric, but pointing out the idea that certain types of minorities are icky isn't going to help the case that he's not intent on discriminating against them.

 

[jardiniere]

Price could make a difference, but only to determine how
popular or expensive his cakes normally were.

He would have sold homosexuals the cake too, if they
weren't buying it for a homosexual union.

Just as a thought experiment, do you think it would be moral for the baker to provide a cake that looks like a wedding cake, but isn't? I mean, someone asks for a 'wedding' cake, but plans to use it for a party that isn't a wedding? (I'm thinking like, for a movie set party, or someone celebrating all their friends' recent weddings at one party).

Honestly, I'm not sure it would be moral to make such a cake, since it would be indistinguishable from a wedding cake. But I'm trying to come at this from the baker's perspective.