Is it legal for an American baker to refuse to bake a gay cake?

We still don't know, thanks to SCOTUS's masterclass in needle-threading:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...ing-cake-case/

Conservatives all over the US are losing their shit over AP/CNN/CNBC/etc headlines & articles describing a 7-2 verdict as a "narrow ruling", which was def. an avoidable and unnecessary self-own from established news outlets who should've known how their readers would interpret that phrasing.

Afaict the ruling is very narrow in scope and not really useful for establishing a clear general precedent wrt the legality of denying service on the basis of religiously motivated antipathy toward a protected class, or, more generally, wrt how to untangle this particular kind of clash between different constitutional protections.

Kennedy with the smack down:

Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Seems "the smack down" was aimed at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Seems "the smack down" was aimed at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. :noob:

---

The quote clearly describes that, yes.

It was a narrow verdict in that it was narrow in scope.

If it was 5-4 then that's a narrow decision.

Illiterate fools.

Kennedy's point is narrow, but also a clear warning to pernicious local "rights commissions" that religious beliefs are legitimate. I doubt the Colorado Human Right Commission is the only organization of its type that needs to be reminded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Kennedy's point is narrow, but also a clear warning to pernicious local "rights commissions" that religious beliefs are legitimate. I doubt the Colorado Human Right Commission is the only organization of its type that needs to be reminded.

---

Legitimate? Religious beliefs can be real, but not meet a legal or constitutional standard. SCOTUS punted.

DHS Sec. Nielson was booed out of DC Mexican restaurant. WH press secretary Sanders was asked to leave a VA restaurant by its owner.

The right wing loves to preach about the 1st Amendment, Free Speech and 'religious liberty', but they don't care much for free political speech or individual freedoms after all. These are the same people that subvert legal abortions (Roe v Wade) by enacting restrictive local laws. Then they bitch about denial of service at restaurants? Go figure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

DHS Sec. Nielson was booed out of DC Mexican restaurant. WH press secretary Sanders was asked to leave a VA restaurant by its owner.

The right wing loves to preach about the 1st Amendment, Free Speech and 'religious liberty', but they don't care much for free political speech or individual freedoms after all. These are the same people that subvert legal abortions (Roe v Wade) by enacting restrictive local laws. Then they bitch about denial of service at restaurants? Go figure.

---

They can bitch, so can my fellow Nancy’s about cakes, it’s the suing and fining that some of us disagree with.

Supreme Court is already telling lower courts to revisit cases based on their cakeshop ruling.

Their ruling isn't as narrow, or being treated as such, as one had hoped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

DHS Sec. Nielson was booed out of DC Mexican restaurant. WH press secretary Sanders was asked to leave a VA restaurant by its owner.

The right wing loves to preach about the 1st Amendment, Free Speech and 'religious liberty', but they don't care much for free political speech or individual freedoms after all. These are the same people that subvert legal abortions (Roe v Wade) by enacting restrictive local laws. Then they bitch about denial of service at restaurants? Go figure.

---

To clarify I think a restaurant can absolutely refuse service to people they dislike. *Should* they? Of course not however the government shouldn't try to right all wrongs or be the moral police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

To clarify I think a restaurant can absolutely refuse service to people they dislike. *Should* they? Of course not however the government shouldn't try to right all wrongs or be the moral police.

---

But laws *are* about the 'morality' of right vs wrong, weighed against constitutional and civil rights. Maybe using a term like the moral police is what you do when you want to look like a Libertarian, or something, but you're not fooling anyone. :donkey:

I thought it was rich that both Huckabee and Nielson were at Mexican restaurants during Trump's Family Separation/Zero Tolerance scandal. Talk about tone deaf. And no, they weren't asked to leave or booed because they weren't liked, but because they're associated with Trump's immigration policies they consider immoral. Rather like the Christian wedding cake baker that cited deep, religious objections to gay marriage?

The common denominator is food. And who's to say that only wedding cakes are 'works of art', where 'creative expression' gives the maker license to refuse the client? It's a slippery slope. My personal opinion is that no one should be denied service (unless it's a no-shirt no-shoe health code or something), and that people can make political statements in better ways. They could have seated them by the restrooms, or provided slow service, or given them wrong orders or cold food or.....any number of things already done purposefully in the food industry, to signal to certain clients they're not welcomed there.

But that's not how things are panning out, thanks to an ambiguous SCOTUS ruling....and religious zealots who see that as legitimating their bigotry. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I thought it was rich that both Huckabee and Nielson were at Mexican restaurants during Trump's Family Separation/Zero Tolerance scandal. Talk about tone deaf. And no, they weren't asked to leave or booed because they weren't liked, but because they're associated with Trump's immigration policies they consider immoral. Rather like the Christian wedding cake baker that cited deep, religious objections to gay marriage?
(

---

It shouldn't be illegal to be an ass. Very few people are suggesting it be illegal to refuse to service to Sanders.