SCOTUS rules in favor of Christian bakers in wedding cake case

[Radio Ga Ga 5,671]

So according to this ruling, if a member the kkk opens a wedding cake shop, they could reject colored people because they religion told them they could that? 

[hpmcmill 2,012]

1 hour ago, mmmmmonster said:

Good to know lgbt discrimination is completely legal and supported by the Supreme Court on my birthday. I love living in the U.S. 

It’s my birthday too!

[REALITY 80,166]

It's interesting how most people debate this topic.

From what I've seen and read, there are a lot of people (sadly) who say "Well, it's his private business, he can choose who to serve" and "If the couple wanted a cake, they should have gone somewhere else," and I just have a difficult time trying to wrap my mind around those arguments.

I mean, do these people realize that in the 60s and 70s, black people were beaten and thrown out of restaurants just because of their race? If this was a "I'm not going to bake a cake for you because you're black and my religious beliefs don't approve of that" case, then the majority of people would easily be defending the black person saying "That's racist!" or "That's wrong! We're living in 2018, just bake the cake!"

It's the same thing. This is a case of discrimination. Sure, the gay couple wasn't beaten and thrown out of the bakery, but it's still a matter of principle. 

[Illuminati 15,965]

33 minutes ago, Alexander Levi said:

So is it ok for private businesses to put “no colored people” like a couple decades ago? 

This ruling could lead to many more rulings like it.

I'd rather the bakery was transparent than have them spit in my food behind my back. 

[LordEnigma 11,313]

Just now, Illuminati said:

I'd rather the bakery was transparent than have them spit in my food behind my back. 

Ummm that’s not what this is about. But ok.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

To be completely fair, the narrow ruling really tried to be as fair as possible in stating that the baker was treated wrongly by the colorado commission (and should have won the case for that) but also say that discrimination against LGBT people in service is not okay....

That being said, both sides are going to try to take this to mean whatever they want, so rip  The right's gonna say this guarantees religious freedom to discriminate, the left is going to point out the case specifically cautions against this idea - and does not guarantee that right (the left is "more" right but neither are completely)

 

[Economy 52,854]

Well tbh I don't think they deserved to win the lawsuit. Not because I think it was right for them to have been discriminated against...

 

But because the money that was demanded was insane. Wasn't it something like $180,000 or something crazy like that?

 

There's more severe hate crimes that actually involve physical harm or some kind of interference on a person's life because of their hatred that don't result in lawsuits half as large

 

Just saying. The gay couple clearly took advantage of the situation

 

Trying to be subjective here. Both sides appear to have bad traits in different aspects

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Upon further inspection (I read the whole brief)

The Notorious R.B.G. remains unclockable. Her argument was very very compelling and seemed to be the one that considered the most things including similar cases, etc.

Ya'll should read it. It makes the majority opinion look a huge settlement when it could've easily been more (not that conservatives think discrimination against minorities should be illegal  )

[Eggsy 8,280]

Can someone be my sugar daddy and take me from my god awefull country already?

[Luiz 4,253]

wasnt it 7-2? 

that isnt really narrow :\ 

[Retron 2,605]

16 minutes ago, Luiz said:

wasnt it 7-2? 

that isnt really narrow :\ 

The vote count was not narrow. The ruling was. When you see the word "narrow" in a legal sense, it's referring to the ruling.

The ruling was narrow because it was not won on the merits the cake shop was arguing. They wanted to discriminate based on sexual orientation. SCOTUS didn't say they could, rather that Colorado prosecuted the case wrong by "belittling" religion, in SCOTUS's view.

It's kind of a messy ruling that didn't settle much. 

[BlaqJezus 1,027]

The ruling in this case was by the law and reason, but also spit on the face of equal rights because of the surface argument that originally caused this.

I find that the main problem with discrimination for gays, is that it isn't always obvious when someone is gay, but it is obvious when they are a different race. Getting away with discrimination in a business sense has to be more shady and underhanded when against minorities whereas it can be upfront with gays as no one but gay people themselves understand deeply that being isn't a choice or consequence of a single factor.

I don't know, all minorities need to stick together. Race, gender/sexual identity and sexual orientation all need to work together for common goals as many have in the past. Religion is a choice, other human rights are not, and that needs to be accounted for.