Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

I never said they did. Will you please read what I actually write and stop spinning off on meaningless distracting tangents.

Of course not, though I don’t see why a couple shouldn’t have the right to the style of wedding they want just because of who they are. There are things that are required though, like a licenced venue and someone to officiate and the acceptance of discrimination you’re supporting could lead to those things being denied to all sorts of people in some places.

Discrimination in general happens constantly, against all sorts of people. Not usually big legal cases about obvious statements or actions, just day to day casually words, action, often subconscious or perceived to be harmless but discrimination all the same. I think we should continue to try to reduce that. You seem to be happy for it to continue or even increase.

No, because you’re constantly ignoring the distinction between the specific case and general principle. I recognise the legal principle behind this case as the least worst option. If the baker was discriminatory, I think the application of the law as initially ruled would be legitimate.

In part, like admitting killing someone but saying it was in self-defence. The court has to try to assess his true motive which, shock horror, might actually not be what he claims it was.

Again, read my replies! I am repeating myself time and again because of your apparent inability to understand my words. In this specific case, there is zero dispute over what happened. The only question is whether what happened falls foul of the law.

 

Sorry, I'm just not seeing the problem that you seem to be seeing. You appear to see a problem that I'm not aware of. You are clearly aware that gay people don't have any issues in public accommodations other than a few couples who want a wedding service - and when they do have an issue, you are clearly aware that they don't get turned away at more than one place. So what is the problem exactly?

Well nobody has the RIGHT to non-essential services. Gay or straight.

Multiple venues rejecting them? Again, this isn't going to happen. However, I suppose you could challenge me by asking what my opinion would be in the worst possible scenario. To be honest, I may be able to agree to some sort of law which requires venues to be open to same-sex weddings, provided that venues discriminating against same-sex weddings was a widespread enough problem. This is in the same way that I would've supported the anti-discrimination laws in the Civil Rights Act when black people were the victims of discrimination. I still support them, its just that they're no longer needed.

This requires a business owner's attentive labour. This differs to the venue usage. For this reason I wouldn't want the government to hold a gun to their head, even in the case of widespread discrimination. Also, nobody NEEDS someone to officiate at their ceremony in order for their love to be on display in front of their family and friends. They can simply make it legal the next day at the registry office. Anyway, thankfully there are plenty of people who will agree to officiate gay weddings!

No question. Again, I'm talking specifically about public accommodation. Perhaps you are drawing a connection between public accommodation and the rest of society, but I'm failing to see it.

I also think that we should try to reduce that, I'm all for it! However, I don't believe that it should be done by government action, but rather through SOCIAL action. What do you think?

Obviously governments could impose speech codes in attempt to reduce anti-gay words and I imagine that those may exist in the UK. Perhaps you can confirm this.

Based on what exactly? Believing that business owners should be able to choose their customers? For believing
in freedom of association? This is evidence that I'm "happy for it to continue or even increase?" Surely you can't be serious.

Sorry, just confirm for me what you see as the "legal principle."

Also, you missed this and I was hoping for your response: If the law allowed this sort of discrimination and it was the couple's freedom that was being restricted, would you refer to it simply as an "unavoidable consequence?" Or are you only saying this because it suits your views?

Well at least you're open to the possibility that he might not have been discriminatory. That's more than can be said for most people who are on the couple's side. I'll give you credit for that, not that you asked for it.

Can you seriously compare it to a case where there is physical/forensic evidence and eye witness accounts? You have to admit, these sort of cases are unique in this sense as the court is attempting to know what is in someones mind based on what he says. At least with physical/forensic evidence and eye witness accounts the court can be left in little doubt.

Really? I imagine that the couple would say that what happened is that the baker discriminated against them because they were gay. And I image that the baker would say that what happened is that he discriminated against them because he didn't want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

 

Maybe you don’t spend time with people who happen to be gay in places where they’re often discriminated against. There are plenty of social issues I never witness first hand but that doesn’t mean I dismiss them out of hand.

As for the actual business refusals, a key reason that won’t happen very often is because it’s illegal in most places. Rightly or not, few business owners would be willing to put up the kind of fight this baker did and many more wouldn’t risk knowingly breaking the law at all, even if they fundamentally disagree. The problem is that you appear to be arguing for the law to be removed, or at least exemptions be opened up. I mean, why would the law need to be changed if nobody was going to behave differently as a consequence?

Don’t be so literal. I wasn’t talking strict legal rights, I was just talking about human beings wanting to live their lives. The point is that we can have the same kinds of desires, wishes and preferences regardless of whether we’re gay, straight or whatever and there is no justification for treating those differently based on that distinction.

The same kind of laws that apply to the baker will generally apply to venues to and the same arguments and challenges can be applied (in fact there was a case about this in Idaho; https://idahonews.com/news/local/hitching-post-wedding-chapel-sues-over-gay-marriage).

In general I have a couple of issues with your logic though. First, though there is legitimacy in only wanting to legislate where there is an actual problem, I think there is a risk in not legislating against a clearly identified wrong like active discrimination until sufficient examples are brought to public attention, especially given the lack of laws could make it difficult to highlight examples. The other issue is the risk of introducing discrimination itself if you have laws only relating to specified groups. Too much picking and choosing, especially in different contexts (business, employment, schools, government) can only lead to confusion. Simpler general rules can be easier on everyone and if it only covers things we accept as wrong, even if there aren’t examples of all possibilities, I don’t see how it poses any issue.

And again, all of that is generally what exists or is being brought in across much of America (like other Western nations and beyond). The effective argument of this baker in this case and the line you’re supporting, is pushing against this status quo.

 

This requires a business owner's attentive labour. This differs to the venue usage. For this reason I wouldn't want the government to hold a gun to their head, even in the case of widespread discrimination. Also, nobody NEEDS someone to officiate at their ceremony in order for their love to be on display in front of their family and friends. They can simply make it legal the next day at the registry office. Anyway, thankfully there are plenty of people who will agree to officiate gay weddings!

No question. Again, I'm talking specifically about public accommodation. Perhaps you are drawing a connection between public accommodation and the rest of society, but I'm failing to see it.

I also think that we should try to reduce that, I'm all for it! However, I don't believe that it should be done via government action, but rather through SOCIAL action. What do you think?

Obviously governments could impose speech codes in attempt to reduce anti-gay speech and I imagine that those may exist in the UK. Perhaps you can confirm this.

Based on what exactly? Believing that business owners should be able to choose their customers? For believing
in freedom of association? This is evidence that I'm "happy for it to continue or even increase?" Surely you can't be serious.

Sorry, just confirm for me what you see as the "legal principle."

Also, you missed this and I was hoping for your response: If the law allowed this sort of discrimination and it was the couple's freedom that was being restricted, would you refer to it simply as an "unavoidable consequence?" Or are you only saying this because it suits your views?

Well at least you're open to the possibility that he might not have been discriminatory. That's more than can be said for most people who are on the couple's side. I'll give you credit for that. Not that you asked for it.

Can you seriously compare it to a case where there is physical/forensic evidence and eye witness accounts? You have to admit, these sort of cases are unique in this sense as the court is attempting to know what is in someones mind based on what they say. At least with physical/forensic evidence and eye witness accounts the court can be left in little doubt.

Really? Because I imagine that the couple would say that what happened was that the baker discriminated against them because they were gay. And I image that the baker would say that what happened was that he discriminated against them because he didn't want to participate in a same-sex wedding.

 

Though there was a case of a senior register in the US refusing to allow same-sex marriages to be processed at the office they ran at all. That’s what you’re opening the door to, whether you want to or not.

And there are plenty of people who will employ women, let blacks ride in their taxis and serve Muslims in their stores. Does that mean you’d support laws allowing business who want to discriminating on any of those bases too?

Business owners are part of society. Attitudes promoted or allowed to develop though society will inevitably impact every aspect, including business. Your dividing line is entirely illusionary.

I’d much rather people chose to do the right thing than have to be forced and social action is preferable to legal enforcement but there are many examples where both are still required, if only to account for the outliers. It’s also worth remembering that these laws are put in place by democratically elected governments so a major element of the social pressure came first.

Not against “negative speech” alone (and not just relating to sexuality). There are laws here against incitement to hatred based on the common discrimination categories but I’m sure they’re applied much more in relation to race or religion and typically require quite extreme or repeated action to be worthy of any kind of formal police interest.

You’re supporting the defence of this baker. Whether you (or he) intends it or not, the precedent set by his defence being successful would technically allow active discrimination for any reason using the same first/second amendment defences.

Some restrictions to individual freedoms are necessary to prevent potentially harmful actions. Don’t go getting in to technical specifics, that’s just a general principle that applies to pretty much all criminal and civil law. It’s essentially the fundamental basis of civilised society.

It would still be the unavoidable consequence – that’s how we know it’s unavoidable . I just believe it would be the wrong direction to go, for all the reasons I’ve repeatedly explained.

I’m not, you keep trying to. One last time so read slowly and carefully; In this specific case, there is zero dispute over what happened. The only question is whether what happened falls foul of the law.

Yes, and from either viewpoint, the actual physical events, words and actions are exactly the same. The only difference is the perceived/claimed motive of the baker and that is the core basis the commission/courts have had to decide on.

 

I don't. You said that friends of yours have been violently assaulted, but have they been discriminated against by a business? If so, what was the situation?

I'm saying that there is no social issue here to be able to dismiss out of hand. To confirm, I'm talking about public accommodation discrimination.

It is true that without these laws, it would make it much easier for business owners to discriminate against certain customers. It is true that with these laws, business owners know that if they discriminate and are investigated, they will be faced with a big legal fight that they won't have the time, energy, money or will power to embark upon. However, there is no evidence that without these laws, widespread anti-gay discrimination would break out, however this doesn't stop the left from believing exactly that.

I'm happy enough for the laws to remain, but I just don't accept that they are even necessary. Nobody has been able to tell me that prior to the laws being introduced, whether or not widespread public accommodation discrimination against gays was happening and that these laws were brought in to address that. I fully expect that the gay lobby just lobbied for recognition in the law alongside the other categories of race, gender and religion. I have no idea when this started to happen in the world but it may be possible that in some countries, it was done in preparation for when same sex marriage became legal so that the law can be used to target wedding services who may not want to be involved in a same sex wedding.

Regarding exemptions, I would argue that the exemption should be for wedding services which are providing an attentive and personal/custom service. So think bakers, photographers and florists, all of which have been the target of these laws.

Because these laws get misused and people like this baker get unjustly targeted by them.

 

I’ve seen issues getting in to bars/nightclubs which seemed to be based on their perceived sexuality and I know someone who had to fight to have their same-sex spouse formally recognised in relation to carers leave from their workplace.

There have been reports for similar incidents here in the UK and I see no reason to believe similar can’t and won’t happen in the US; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43683033 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

The social issue is discrimination against homosexuals (and occasionally, heterosexuals). If you’re claiming that never happens, you’re an idiot or a liar!

I don’t care that you only want to talk about “public accommodation”. The discrimination doesn’t magically become OK just because it happens in a subtly different context and there is no magical barrier to prevent a prevalence of discrimination spreading to all aspects of society. That’s like only caring about it happening Monday-Friday.

It wouldn’t need to be “widespread” unless you believe just a little discrimination is perfectly OK. Also, that principle applies to all discrimination laws (and quite a lot of other laws and regulations). I don’t hear you arguing for a complete reversal of all that legislation though, only that this single baker shouldn’t be punished.

Homosexuality was all but criminalised in living memory in the US (and the UK). Even as those laws were slowly reversed or ignored, there remained a massive social taboo around homosexuality (which still exists to some extent, especially in particular regions and communities). Given all that, there was limited possibility for open discrimination against homosexuals and if/when it happened, it wouldn’t be reported, either officially or in the media.

You should have stopped at “I have no idea” there. You’re just slinging our random accusations because of your apparent inability (or unwillingness) to understanding the real problems that led to the creation of such laws. If you don’t know, just admit it.

Just exemptions to same-sex discriminations, for all discrimination laws or all restrictive business regulations? If it’s unjustified to require them to work for a same-sex wedding if they don’t want to, how can you justify requiring them to do anything they don’t want to?

Any law could be misused but there is actually zero evidence that this baker was targeted in any way. Stop trying to slander the victims.

 

I agree entirely! However, I don't believe that bigotry can be eradicated by state enforcement. Isn't it better to expose it and then attack it?

Yeah and I don't care about that, I just don't believe that they should be applied to the baker.

That is a business operation under a church organisation. Ever heard of the separation of church and state?

Are you saying that there shouldn't need to be sufficient examples?

Do you know of anywhere where this is the case?

"Things WE accept as wrong?" Who is "we?"

How is it "pushing against the status quo" if we're not advocating for the removal of the laws? The "status quo" is that the laws exist, not that they are used against wedding services.

 

What made you think that it "seemed to be based on their perceived sexuality?"

Doesn't UK law protect this? Why did it have to be a fight? I would expect that it should be no more a fight than two people of the same sex being able to marry. It is simply the law, isn't it?

Do you think that the same thing would've happened to two straight mates? In the case of the B&B, the straight mates would be wanting to share a room to save money - that happens doesn't it? Should it be against the law to turn away the straight mates?

Haven't I made it perfectly clear that I'm NOT saying that discrimination against homosexuals doesn't exist? I think I have.

I'm only talking about public accommodation discrimination because that is what this thread is related to. Discrimination in public accommodations is obviously less common because of market forces driven by social tolerance. This makes it distinct to other forms of discrimination as it has a natural solution, and this makes it barely existent.

I agree. I didn't say that it DOES become okay.

There is no evidence that without these laws, anti-gay discrimination would increase AT ALL in any degree that could be measured.

What principle?

A complete reversal of the legislation is entirely unnecessary.

Are you suggesting that directly before these laws were introduced, your above description of an anti-gay society was the reality? I mean it might have been, I don't know. Do you?

So what were these "real problems that led to the creation of such laws?"

What restrictive business regulations are you referring to?

Because some things that people don't want to do can lead to serious injury or death.

I said targeted by the LAWS (through government using them), not targeted by the so called 'victims.'

After he received abusive phone calls and death threats which started just 20 minutes after the disgusting and spiteful couple left his shop, after he lost 70% of his business through no longer being able to do what he loved and losing more than HALF of his staff, would you consider the baker to also be a victim?

 

Look, we're just going around in circles on most of these points and I've no real interest in picking through each and every one of your responses. I don't think we're as far apart on the issues are appears but we're never going to agree on everything so there's not point in continuing. I suggest we respectfully agree to disagree.

 

And I suggest that you at least answer if you think that the baker is also a victim.

 

A victim of the abuse and threats he received, all of which were entirely indefensible, when the story went public, most certainly yes. That is sadly a common trend these days for anyone who finds themselves in the public eye, especially in any kind of controversial or hotly disputed issue. That’s an issue (sometimes a crime) in and of itself though and doesn’t have any impact on the rights and wrongs of the underlying incident.

 

I don't think we're trying to convince each other to agree with each other are we? Does that have to the aim here?

I was also really looking forward to seeing what you think would happen to two straight guys in those scenarios. I think that it is a challenging question and I have a feeling that you were conveniently dodging it.

 

It's highly unlikely two straight men (or two straight women) would marry each other, to the point that you could probably count the contemporary examples world-wide on the fingers of one hand. The natural assumption when any two people are getting married is that they're in a romantic and/or sexual relationship. I believe the baker would presume they were in a same-sex relationship just like anyone else would.

Anyway, even if you exclude the sexual orientation aspect, discrimination against same-sex couples could still fall under gender discrimination. It's still treating people differently on the basis or what they are for not practical or consequential reason so it's still fundamentally wrong.

 

Sorry, I meant the scenarios in the two stories that you linked to:

Do you think that the same thing would've happened to two straight mates? In the case of the B&B, the straight mates would be wanting to share a room to save money - that happens doesn't it? Should it be against the law to turn away the straight mates? How is it possible to identify two males who are together as gay partners or merely straight mates?

 

I think two straight men could well be refused in the same circumstances but only on the basis of the presumption that they’re a homosexual couple, which still legally counts as discrimination even if the presumption is wrong.

With the B&B, the key was that they’d booked a double room - two friends sharing would generally book a twin. The presumption for any two people specifically booking a double would be a romantic/sexual relationship. The B&B owners claimed their objection was to sex outside marriage though the couple were in a civil partnership (legally equivalent to marriage in the UK) and IIRC, they had no measures in place to identify unmarried straight couples.

In the bar case, it appeared to be an individual act by the bouncer rather than any company policy, which seems to make discrimination more likely given there seemed to be no other reason for the two men to be refused entry. Anyway, based on the alleged statements by the bouncer, they’d probably have a case on the basis of gender discrimination too.

 

They never made public what the customers wanted on their cake.

 

Not that it should've mattered.

 

What if a twin wasn't available for the two straight mates and their only option was a double?

It still isn't marriage though. However, the owners saying that their objection was to sex outside of marriage is ridiculous. as they could not assume to know that sex would take place. They should've have just said that their objection was to two unmarried people sharing the same bed, as that was at least all but certain to happen, unless one of them took the floor.

The only legitimate legal problem in this case was the fact that the couple pre-booked and made a deposit but were still turned away, thus being a violation of consumer laws.

Do you think that they should've had measures in place to identify unmarried straight couples?

Dude, seriously? You've never heard of the stereotype of the nightclub not wanting too many men inside and so refusing them entry unless they are joined by some girls? What are you, 10 years old?

Ridiculous. Obviously straight men don't need this sort of protection. I'm not sure that you're being serious when you say this though. I'm sure that you're just doing it to get to me.

 

That my have been the issue itself.

 

If the couple requested certain messages on the cake that the baker disagreed with, then I'm pretty sure that it would've been widely reported and mentioned by the baker himself during his many interviews. In this case, even the useless, incompetent, biased, JOKE of a Colorado Civil Rights Commission would've dismissed the case on the grounds of free speech, just as they did with the secular bakers who refused to bake cakes with messages for the Christian guy.

 

That baker needs to sue the Colorado Snivel Rights Commission for damages and legal fees. I have no doubt he is STILL getting death threats.

 

Actually, he Is suing them! But for a totally different case. I just don't know why he is suing them over this case first, before the much older case. https://slate.com/news-and-politics...fusing-to-make-transgender-birthday-cake.html

 

I’m being entirely serious. I’d only brought up these cases to demonstrate the fact that there can be discrimination on the basis of (perceived) sexual orientation beyond cases about same-sex weddings. The details of these cases are largely irrelevant but your desperation to dismiss or excuse each and every one of them very telling.

Again, I’m really not up for all this petty back and forth on details any more.

 

How is it "petty" exactly? That implies that your contributions are also "petty."