The supreme court's opinion can be found online. To me it seems like an acceptable ruling. One of the major points was that the committee investigating the baker was extremely hostile against him,...
To me it seems like an acceptable ruling. One of the major points was that the committee investigating the baker was extremely hostile against him, calling his religious beliefs "most despicable pieces of rhetoric", which is not how a committee investigating in good faith should act.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to set a dangerous precedent that the LGBT community should be worried about. Overall, I think it's a good ruling as well. If the court had overlooked the committee's lack of...
Yeah, it doesn't seem to set a dangerous precedent that the LGBT community should be worried about. Overall, I think it's a good ruling as well. If the court had overlooked the committee's lack of religious impartiality, it would make me worried about the impartiality of the court as well.
I have to admit though, even though I lean left, I don't like the idea of the baker being compelled to do something even if it's discriminatory. I have a problem with LGBT people not being able to buy candy from a candy shop, but if a plumber doesn't want to fix a gay couple's toilet then I feel that's his prerogative. But both are a form of business that everyone should have access to. I don't know how to reconcile that cognitive dissonance.
I side with the baker on this one when he says that his cake is a form of art. If he was refusing to serve them anything, I think it would be discrimination, but only refusing to create a wedding...
I side with the baker on this one when he says that his cake is a form of art. If he was refusing to serve them anything, I think it would be discrimination, but only refusing to create a wedding cake seems reasonable to me.
I have the same difficulty resolving some hypotheticals as you do. I can't imagine supporting the right of every business owner to deny most aspects of their business to various members of the...
I have the same difficulty resolving some hypotheticals as you do.
I can't imagine supporting the right of every business owner to deny most aspects of their business to various members of the public based on the business owner's personal beliefs. If you're going to own and operate a public business, that's a choice, and serving everyone equally should generally be considered a requirement that comes with that choice. I'm thinking things like "filling up my car's gas tank", "buying groceries", and "making a deposit at the bank".
But I do understand some cases, such as "artistic efforts", in which it seems reasonable to me to take the personal views of the business owner into account. I mean, it could be genuinely difficult for someone to engage in a highly personalized endeavor in support of someone they have a genuine moral disagreement with. And should I really expect someone to do so, particularly if the service I'm requesting isn't essential and is readily available elsewhere?
But I'm not someone's who's ever felt discriminated against, nor do I belong to a group of people who have had to legitimately fight for basic equal and fair treatment, as the LGBT community has. Possibly though, I think there are cases where an expectation of "equal rights" is being taken too far.
Again though, it's hard to reconcile, especially in a way that covers all the situations that are going to arise.
This story has really underscored the editorializing problem that my news feed has. I have a bunch of FB friends who are saying the SCOTUS ruled against gay rights with this decision. They didn't;...
This story has really underscored the editorializing problem that my news feed has. I have a bunch of FB friends who are saying the SCOTUS ruled against gay rights with this decision. They didn't; they overturned what they saw to be an improper investigation and specifically avoided commenting on whether the baker was exercising free speech by refusing service
As an aside, I love how the commenters here are calmly discussing the actual implications (and lack thereof) of this ruling rather than knee-jerk panic and rage that I've seen over the same story...
As an aside, I love how the commenters here are calmly discussing the actual implications (and lack thereof) of this ruling rather than knee-jerk panic and rage that I've seen over the same story on reddit.
An interesting caveat from SCOTUSBlog: "Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative...
An interesting caveat from SCOTUSBlog:
"Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The court seemed to leave open the possibility that a different outcome could result in a future case, and it did not rule at all one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech."
The supreme court's opinion can be found online.
To me it seems like an acceptable ruling. One of the major points was that the committee investigating the baker was extremely hostile against him, calling his religious beliefs "most despicable pieces of rhetoric", which is not how a committee investigating in good faith should act.
Yeah, it doesn't seem to set a dangerous precedent that the LGBT community should be worried about. Overall, I think it's a good ruling as well. If the court had overlooked the committee's lack of religious impartiality, it would make me worried about the impartiality of the court as well.
I have to admit though, even though I lean left, I don't like the idea of the baker being compelled to do something even if it's discriminatory. I have a problem with LGBT people not being able to buy candy from a candy shop, but if a plumber doesn't want to fix a gay couple's toilet then I feel that's his prerogative. But both are a form of business that everyone should have access to. I don't know how to reconcile that cognitive dissonance.
I side with the baker on this one when he says that his cake is a form of art. If he was refusing to serve them anything, I think it would be discrimination, but only refusing to create a wedding cake seems reasonable to me.
I have the same difficulty resolving some hypotheticals as you do.
I can't imagine supporting the right of every business owner to deny most aspects of their business to various members of the public based on the business owner's personal beliefs. If you're going to own and operate a public business, that's a choice, and serving everyone equally should generally be considered a requirement that comes with that choice. I'm thinking things like "filling up my car's gas tank", "buying groceries", and "making a deposit at the bank".
But I do understand some cases, such as "artistic efforts", in which it seems reasonable to me to take the personal views of the business owner into account. I mean, it could be genuinely difficult for someone to engage in a highly personalized endeavor in support of someone they have a genuine moral disagreement with. And should I really expect someone to do so, particularly if the service I'm requesting isn't essential and is readily available elsewhere?
But I'm not someone's who's ever felt discriminated against, nor do I belong to a group of people who have had to legitimately fight for basic equal and fair treatment, as the LGBT community has. Possibly though, I think there are cases where an expectation of "equal rights" is being taken too far.
Again though, it's hard to reconcile, especially in a way that covers all the situations that are going to arise.
This story has really underscored the editorializing problem that my news feed has. I have a bunch of FB friends who are saying the SCOTUS ruled against gay rights with this decision. They didn't; they overturned what they saw to be an improper investigation and specifically avoided commenting on whether the baker was exercising free speech by refusing service
As an aside, I love how the commenters here are calmly discussing the actual implications (and lack thereof) of this ruling rather than knee-jerk panic and rage that I've seen over the same story on reddit.
An interesting caveat from SCOTUSBlog:
"Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The court seemed to leave open the possibility that a different outcome could result in a future case, and it did not rule at all one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech."