Gay Wedding Cake Controversy Heads to Supreme Court

[Kacper]

Public accommodation law should be found unconstitutional.

More likely they will say there is a religious exception in some way even if they don't elect at this point to define the bounds of it.

[Chris]

More likely they will say there is a religious exception in some way even if they don't elect at this point to define the bounds of it.

There's really no religious right grounds for it though.

As I understand it, the cake was just going to be a wedding cake, there was no further discussion. So there's nothing to argue it was against his religious beliefs or violated his free speech rights. All that came after the fact.

That's why I think he should have challenged public accommodation violating his freedom to associate with and contract with whom he wants.

[Kacper]

There's really no religious right grounds for it though.

As I understand it, the cake was just going to be a wedding cake, there was no further discussion. So there's nothing to argue it was against his religious beliefs or violated his free speech rights. All that came after the fact.

That's why I think he should have challenged public accommodation violating his freedom to associate with and contract with whom he wants.

The people wanted a custom cake for a same sex marriage and the guy said no. That is enough. I expect this will be some variant of the Hobby Lobby case in the end ruling using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I am not sure the government has a compelling interest in wedding cakes, but even if they decide the government has a compelling interest in protecting gays from discrimination, then there are less restrictive ways than making this one company make same sex wedding cakes.

[Cletus]

I think they will have to rule against the baker. The free speech argument is specious. Had the same-sex couple asked him to create a gay-themed wedding cake, or one with a message supporting same-sex marriage, and he refused, he would have won his case, just as others have (the t-shirt maker asked to print Gay Pride shirts comes to mind.) Here, he is simply being asked to make exactly the same product for one couple that he routinely makes for every other couple, solely because of who the customer is. That isn't free speech - it's discrimination.

I think it is interesting how so many people get their panties in a wad because some people couldn't buy a cake from a particular vendor, but those same people don't care a rat's ass about the fact that the vendor is being punished for not engaging in forced labor against his will. Framing this as a religious issue is just clouding the issue. the real issue should be whether the state has the right to force, under penalty of law, a citizen to perform labor against his will. If they can force you to bake a cake, what else can they force you to do?

[Chris]

I think it is interesting how so many people get their panties in a wad because some people couldn't buy a cake from a particular vendor, but those same people don't care a rat's ass about the fact that the vendor is being punished for not engaging in forced labor against his will. Framing this as a religious issue is just clouding the issue. the real issue should be whether the state has the right to force, under penalty of law, a citizen to perform labor against his will. If they can force you to bake a cake, what else can they force you to do?

Agree, but it was bake shop owner Jack Phillips who made it a religious issue. He should've file his rights were violated by public accommodation law.

[Cletus]

Agree, but it was bake shop owner Jack Phillips who made it a religious issue. He should've file his rights were violated by public accommodation law.

I agree completely.

[Chris]

The people wanted a custom cake for a same sex marriage and the guy said no. That is enough. I expect this will be some variant of the Hobby Lobby case in the end ruling using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I am not sure the government has a compelling interest in wedding cakes, but even if they decide the government has a compelling interest in protecting gays from discrimination, then there are less restrictive ways than making this one company make same sex wedding cakes.

It could well be Jack Phillips will win on religious grounds, we'll see. There was a a similar case in which a famrer was barred from a farmer's market by the city because he refused to have wedding recetions on his farm for gay weddings--he won.

[Standing Wolf]

The people wanted a custom cake for a same sex marriage and the guy said no.

By all accounts - including that of the baker - the refusal to make the couple's cake came before any discussion had taken place about what kind of cake they wanted. There was no request for a "custom cake" - not even rainbow-colored frosting.

[Captdon]

The Court almost certainly has to rule against the baker. He couldn't have refused a black couple. It's the same thing. He wasn't asked to be a part of this wedding. He wasn't going to carry the cake in with some flourish. h

His name wasn't gong to be on it.

His religious right doesn't hold up. Baking a cake isn't abortion; it isn't justifying anything.; it isn't anything.
The right of free association has nothing to do with this. If he refused to bake a cake for a Catholic couple or a Baptist couple or midgets we wouldn't be talking about this.

I don't have any regards for gays but I'm not the Constitution. If they can marry legally they can buy a damn cake legally.

[Captdon]

This should be left up to the States. The SCOTUS should not be imposing its will on the entire country through judicial FIAT. That is the real issue here.

The Constitution is for all of us. Think about the Jim Crow laws.