Love this ruling and any other action that shoves up the asses of the left wing lunatics who try to force their warped views of society on the majority.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
It is worthwhile to listen to the oral argument at the Supreme Court, a link to which I posted at the time.

It sits at an awkward junction of Constitutional rights, the limits of each of which are in some doubt right now. The Justices don’t seem to have a real good idea of how to resolve it all, judging by the discussions at argument.

Reading the SCOTUS transcript, it was clear the baker made a significant effort to serve them. He offered any cake in the store. What he wouldn't do was to use his artistic skills to design a cake. This seems to be the same issue the judge ruled on Monday.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Surely at this point, no one needs that explanation.

Nope, I'm well aware and versed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, something that IMO is utterly worthless at this point in time. As everyone always likes to pontificate, the world has changed immensely since the '60's. If one hotel in say Atlanta were to discriminate against blacks, not allowing them to book a reservation, two dozen other hotels would be available to them. Hence the basis for the Civil Rights Act is no more. Additionally, in the current world of social media and the internet, any such discrimination would likely be fatal to a business.

It is beyond disgusting, regardless what a group of nine detached elitists in robes decree, that an individual can risk their capital, time, and future to create something, and have corrupt virtue signalling politicians decree who they can and can not transact business with. What's next? Can the government in the future go in and dictate to one bakery that they can no longer make wedding cakes at all, because in some bureaucrat's opinion, that business segment needs to be better allocated to a more diverse group of business owners?

Deja vu all over again (as Yogi Berra used to say).

“A California baker has won a discrimination lawsuit after she refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding - citing her Christian beliefs.

On Saturday, Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, announced that a Kern County judge had sided with her after a years-long battle.

In 2017, Miller refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, claiming that her religious beliefs were grounds to not make a masterpiece for the pair's special day.

At the time, the baker allegedly politely refused to make the cake and gave the couple the name of an alternative bakery.

But the furious couple lodged a lawsuit against her, claiming that they were being discriminated against. Five years later, Miller announced that she had finally won the legal battle. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/11346241

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Deja vu all over again (as Yogi Berra used to say).

“A California baker has won a discrimination lawsuit after she refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple's wedding - citing her Christian beliefs.

On Saturday, Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, announced that a Kern County judge had sided with her after a years-long battle.

In 2017, Miller refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, claiming that her religious beliefs were grounds to not make a masterpiece for the pair's special day.

At the time, the baker allegedly politely refused to make the cake and gave the couple the name of an alternative bakery.

But the furious couple lodged a lawsuit against her, claiming that they were being discriminated against. Five years later, Miller announced that she had finally won the legal battle. …”

DailyMail article:
https://mol.im/a/11346241

Hopefully she got a judgement for attorney fees.

Not to mention pain, suffering, and lost buisness.

It would be great to hear that the "couple" is already divorced.

A) I wouldn’t through out the civil rights act, quite yet - pretty sure it will be the basis for some suits brought for discriminating against white males - and the states which have laws about orientation should provide some more basis for successful suits.

B) Admittedly, some of that is my old blood-sucker instincts and the thought of successfully bringing those kind of cases against Fortune 500s…

C) It would be interesting to make the argument that the gay couple are marrying as an expression of their religion, to bring it under religious discrimination. That would place it directly in conflict with the religious interests of the baker.

I would presume that ends with the result that the couple’s religious need can be met by any member of that profession, so they must seek out one who does not have religious objections.

(I think that’s how it works for pharmacists, provided another pharmacist is available to meet the persons needs. Maybe another test for the urgency/dire nature of it.)

We need some form of elaboration of the “pursuit of happiness” into more formal expression of the right to freely engage in commerce.

This could get very interesting. I wonder if there are cases about funeral homes/mortuaries/wedding venues…

(Mortuaries are what I thought of where “dire nature” may come up. I know quite a few religions insist on rapid burial and no embalming.)

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:

(Mortuaries are what I thought of where “dire nature” may come up. I know quite a few religions insist on rapid burial and no embalming.)

I'm sure you could find no end of volunteers to help with the rapid burial part. Do they have to be embalmed or even dead first?

quote:

Deja vu all over again

As a religious person, I'm happy for another reaffirming judgement on behalf of religious freedom. But I think this is another case where I don't think religion needs to be used as a basis to justify the baker's decision. Does this mean an atheist would have lost this case?

An event that my former neighbor of 20+ years witnessed:

The local head of a Neo-Nazi group came into the independent tire store where we all shopped (formally a rural area) along with a couple of his henchmen to buy tires. The owner of the shop refused to serve him and expressed why. Would the folks who supported this lesbian couple protest what this tire store owner did? I think not.

After learning of this event, That tire store became the only place where I would buy tires. If he was still the owner, I would make the 2 hour drive to buy from him as would many others.

Frankly, a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone that they please. Not in any sense am I a lawyer but it seems to me that in the making of a sale both parties must be free to either complete the transaction or not; government should have no role beyond questions regarding the fulfillment of the commitment.

Silent