So, two straight Men walk into a Bakery..........

[miketx]

I'll bake them a cake.

 

[Valerie]

Baker Jack Phillips had argued that cake-baking is constitutionally protected free speech and that sanctioning him for refusing to bake for a same-sex marriage violated his constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The majority did not completely agree with Phillips. It denied the free speech claim, finding that baking is not “communication.”



The majority opinion argues that the state commission treated Phillips differently from other bakers who refused to bake cakes that offended them. Specifically, it referred to three cases in which bakers were asked to create a bible-shaped cake that explicitly states “homosexuality is a sin.” Those bakers would not bake the cake as requested and were not sanctioned by the state Civil Rights Commission.


In her dissent, Ginsburg points out that the cases offered as evidence of discrimination aren’t actually comparable to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Philips refused to bake any cake whatsoever for any same-sex marriage rather than a particular cake with a single offensive message. Ginsburg explains:



Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakeswhere their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display.

The distinction between a refusal based on offensive messaging and “hateful rhetoric” and one based on identity isn’t small, according to the dissenters. Charlie Craig and David Mullins simply requested a wedding cake. They did not discuss any message or distinguishing element that would have made their cake different from that of any other cake Phillips might bake for any other couple celebrating their union.

“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied,” Ginsburg writes.

Refusing to bake any same-sex wedding cakes, as Phillips did, is equivalent to having a discriminatory policy, the dissent argues. In contrast, refusing to bake a cake that offends the baker’s sensibilities based on the particular message does not indicate a blanket rejection of an entire swath of people.

The US Supreme Court wedding-cake ruling, according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg




Ginsburg's dissent introduces a series of cases about a similar issue, and then relies on one key difference between Masterpiece and the other cases. The past cases concerned a man named William Jack, and they were brought into this case in the form of an amicus brief. Jack, according to the brief, had been denied service at three Colorado bakeries after requesting two cakes shaped like Bibles that showed an image of two men holding hands covered by a red "X." It also asked for several Bible verses condemning homosexuality. The bakeries, according to Ginsburg's dissent, all refused to create cakes that held those messages.

However, the bakeries had not denied Jack based on his religious beliefs, because they frequently created cakes displaying Christian themes. Instead, they declined to create the cakes as he desired because of the messages, which at least one of them called "hateful."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wrote A FIERY Dissent Against The Masterpiece Cake Decision

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Two straight Men walk into a Bakery and requests a Wedding Cake for their Wedding reception. They live in Colorado that has PA Laws.

The Baker responds that he will not supply a wedding cake for them because his Religious belief is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

The Men object and explain that they are both straight, that sex won't play a role in their relationship, and that they are simply getting Married for the financial benefits.

The Baker still refuses based on his previous stated Religious belief.

What law would the Baker be breaking?

Aside from facilitating a fraud?

 

[whitehall]

Why are lefties obsessing and whining about a supreme court victory for the 1st Amendment? The decision wasn't even along ideological lines, Ginsburg' "fiery dissent" notwithstanding.

 

[TNHarley]

This issue has nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Pop23]

Two straight Men walk into a Bakery and requests a Wedding Cake for their Wedding reception. They live in Colorado that has PA Laws.

The Baker responds that he will not supply a wedding cake for them because his Religious belief is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.

The Men object and explain that they are both straight, that sex won't play a role in their relationship, and that they are simply getting Married for the financial benefits.

The Baker still refuses based on his previous stated Religious belief.

What law would the Baker be breaking?

Aside from facilitating a fraud?

Not illegal though

 

[ChrisL]

I'll bake them a cake.

They spelled a word wrong there though.

 

[Pop23]

This issue has nothing to do with free speech.

It's about Religious belief and it's protection.

And, more to the point, treating the heterosexual same sex couple seeking a wedding cake EXACTLY the same way as he would treat a homosexual same sex couple seeking the cake

 

[Valerie]

Why are lefties obsessing and whining about a supreme court victory for the 1st Amendment? The decision wasn't even along ideological lines, Ginsburg' "fiery dissent" notwithstanding.

again, the majority DENIED the baker's "free speech" claim

but based on past similar cake baking cases, the SCOTUS majority determined that the Colorado state commission treated this baker "differently from other bakers who refused to bake cakes that offended them".

so FTR the "fiery dissent" was of THAT argument ^

 

[Pop23]

I'll bake them a cake.

They spelled a word wrong there though.

Obviously not the word Breast?

 

[TNHarley]

Why do religious people get to turn down gays but agnostics or atheists cant? WTF such discrimination.

 

[Pop23]

Why do religious people get to turn down gays but agnostics or atheists cant? WTF such discrimination.

What does that have to do with the OP?

The Men were straight.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Those two men are gay. No self respecting hetero man is going to marry another man for "financial benefits".

No nagging, free reign to sleep with as many women as you want, not having to pay for a deadbeat stay at home spouse....

I can think of quite a few self respecting men who might like that idea.

 

[Pop23]

Those two men are gay. No self respecting hetero man is going to marry another man for "financial benefits".

No nagging, free reign to sleep with as many women as you want, not having to pay for a deadbeat stay at home spouse....

I can think of quite a few self respecting men who might like that idea.

Sometimes I hate being more Progressive than the self proclaimed Progressives.

 

[TNHarley]

Why do religious people get to turn down gays but agnostics or atheists cant? WTF such discrimination.

What does that have to do with the OP?

The Men were straight.

Just asking a question.
I am against institutional discrimination. This thread reminded me of that.

 

[Pop23]

Why do religious people get to turn down gays but agnostics or atheists cant? WTF such discrimination.

What does that have to do with the OP?

The Men were straight.

Just asking a question.
I am against institutional discrimination. This thread reminded me of that.

I have repeated often on these threads that the Baker should have either:

1. Baked the damn cake
2. Sub Contract to a different Baker
3. Told the homosexual couple that he would bake the cake, but would donate the entire amount to a "Defense of Marriage" organization.

That being said, the Baker in the example is treating same sex marriage, no matter the sexuality of the participants, equally, based on his religious principle.

So, based on his refusal to bake a cake for a same sex heterosexual couple (perfectly legal), what law is being broken?

 

[Fang]

Those two men are gay. No self respecting hetero man is going to marry another man for "financial benefits".

No nagging, free reign to sleep with as many women as you want, not having to pay for a deadbeat stay at home spouse....

I can think of quite a few self respecting men who might like that idea.

Choose a female wisely and you won't have to worry about nagging or a deadbeat, or you can go down in the books as having married a man. I choose the former, or I'll just stay single and will find my own way without having to rely on another man to help support me.