The Supreme Court is taking up the highly anticipated case of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

[–] InnocentBystander 2 points (+2|-0)

Good, I've been looking forward to this. I am very interested in the outcome. I think the system is currently fucked up in the US. At the moment there is a double standard where you can discriminate in one direction, but not another.
It needs to be an evenly enforced law.

Either both sides wrong, or both sides right. Hopefully the court will clear this up for people. Personally I would like to see both sides free to associate with who they choose, and not forced to interact with people they don't want to. What ever happened to 'the right to refuse service'?
On the flip-side, if they made all discrimination of this type illegal, then that would also be fair, though a bit violating.

[–] simone [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I've been anticipating this case as well. I'm curious about the agreements presented from both sides.

[–] InnocentBystander 2 points (+2|-0)

What will really make it interesting is that both sides of this dispute have valid arguments. People shouldn't discriminate, but they should also not be forced to interact with people they don't want to. Someone has to have either their freedom, or feelings violated.
In a situation like this you can't convince someone they are wrong, because nobody is. It is two correct ideas in conflict, so we each choose the one that we feel is more important.
End result is two sides, both arguing that they are correct. And since they are, the argument is difficult to resolve.

So, like I said above, I will settle for some consistency. One way or the other I will accept, as long as everyone is held to the same standard.
I tend to value freedoms over feelings, but I value consistency in law, most of all.

[–] simone [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I tend to value freedoms over feelings, but I value consistency in law, most of all

Well said, I concur

[–] TheRedArmy 1 points (+1|-0)

The couple talked about it on TV before, and one of the things they said was (paraphrasing) "when you open your business to the public, you have to serve everyone equally, and not discriminate." OK, that's an argument at least. So being applied equally means Jewish bakers must also make cakes saying "death to all Jews" for a Neo-Nazi customer; or homosexual bakers must make cakes saying "homosexuality is a sin" for evangelicals, and so on. That's the natural conclusion of those kinds of this argument, and it's actually a fundamental change in the idea that you may abstain from certain actions if it would compromise your values, but you have to bear the cost of that.

For another thing, they're in Colorado. It's not like this was something that they couldn't walk two blocks down and just get another cake. The owner only hurts himself by refusing to serve, because now he's lost a customer he would've otherwise had. So voting with your wallet is actually the most effective thing you could do here (except by taking massively overreaching legal action against him instead, costing everyone tons of money so you can be on TV and talk about how oppressed you are that one baker in one state in one city didn't want to decorate a cake for you).

Finally, in the most ironic twist of all, at the time this happened (2012), gay marriage was illegal in Colorado. Meaning the couple is taking legal action against a baker because he refused to decorate a cake celebrating an act that was illegal in the state he lived in at the time.

I've been listing to Ben Shapiro's show on Youtube on my way to work the last few days, and he's brought up this case a few times now; it's not even that the baker refused to sell them a cake (he agreed to sell them a cake). It's just that it was a _plain_ cake; he didn't want to decorate it with things like a 2-groom topper, or write out "happy gay wedding X and Y", or whatever. So it's not even discrimination in the sense that he refused them business; more like, he didn't want to use his own artistic talent in that way. The couple talked about it on TV before, and one of the things they said was (paraphrasing) "when you open your business to the public, you have to serve everyone equally, and not discriminate." OK, that's an argument at least. So being applied equally means Jewish bakers must also make cakes saying "death to all Jews" for a Neo-Nazi customer; or homosexual bakers must make cakes saying "homosexuality is a sin" for evangelicals, and so on. That's the natural conclusion of those kinds of this argument, and it's actually a fundamental change in the idea that you may abstain from certain actions if it would compromise your values, but you have to bear the cost of that. For another thing, they're in Colorado. It's not like this was something that they couldn't walk two blocks down and just get another cake. The owner only hurts himself by refusing to serve, because now he's lost a customer he would've otherwise had. So voting with your wallet is actually the most effective thing you could do here (except by taking massively overreaching legal action against him instead, costing everyone tons of money so you can be on TV and talk about how oppressed you are that one baker in one state in one city didn't want to decorate a cake for you). Finally, in the most ironic twist of all, at the time this happened (2012), gay marriage was illegal in Colorado. Meaning the couple is taking legal action against a baker because he refused to decorate a cake celebrating an act that was illegal in the state he lived in at the time.

[–] simone [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Finally, in the most ironic twist of all, at the time this happened (2012), gay marriage was illegal in Colorado. Meaning the couple is taking legal action against a baker because he refused to decorate a cake celebrating an act that was illegal in the state he lived in at the time.

Had almost forgotten the timeline of this case.

The Supreme Court is taking up the highly anticipated case of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

6 comments

/s/USnews