cake guy has to make cake for gays - how exactly will this work?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I think the SCOTUS did right here. I didn't like there being a precedent set on a case like this, especially after hearing more about how it went down. Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs, but stores also shouldn't be able to refuse general service to people based solely on something like sexual orientation. Had the gay couple won, we should just steamroll over this question and go even further toward removing legit nuance. But had the SCOTUS set a strong precedent in favor of the cake guy, more and folks would use flimsy excuses to discriminate. Neither extreme gained ground, and I'm happy for that. This question needs to settle with real laws, not be up to the court to determine based on the limited parameters of a single case.

---

I agree with all this

spurraider21 why are you working for free, scrah? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Det white flag

but to recap:

you said scotus didn’t invoke cra because they had no balls

i said cra probably wouldn’t apply because the bakery didn’t involve interstate commerce (aside from the fact that cra doesn’t cover sexual orientation)

you thought that that notion was laughable

i shower your cra section that says food establishments must involve interstate commerce for it to apply

you then showed me a case that you thought proved all restaurants are automatically considered to be engaged in interstate commerce

i showed you that the case didn’t say what you wanted it to say, and mentioned heaps of testimony supporting the notion that discriminating black people in Alabama in the 50’s affected interstate commeece

you asked me to show the heaps of testimony

i showed you TE heaps of testimony

then you gave your white flag where supposedly i was arguing a stupid point

---

Racial discrimination itself affects interstate commerce. SCOTUS said so. You agreed.

That's why racial discrimination is illegal in every public accommodation in the United States. That's why this would be a slam dunk case if the customers were denied for being black.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this simple concept, counselor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I think the SCOTUS did right here. I didn't like there being a precedent set on a case like this, especially after hearing more about how it went down. Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs, but stores also shouldn't be able to refuse general service to people based solely on something like sexual orientation. Had the gay couple won, we might have seen governments just steamroll over this question and go even further toward removing legit nuance under the banner of protecting individual rights. But had the SCOTUS set a strong precedent in favor of the cake guy, more and more folks would use flimsy excuses to discriminate. Neither extreme gained ground, and I'm happy for that. This question needs to settle with real laws, not be up to the court to determine based on the limited parameters of a single case.

---

Why do you think this case would force artisans to create works they disagreed with? This case was a scenario where two guys walked in (with zero discussion about what would actually be on the cake) and were straight up told that they would not be given a cake because it was for a gay wedding. Within 20 seconds of them walking in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

spurraider21 why are you working for free, scrah? :lol

---

I need my pro bono hours

big timing, tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Racial discrimination itself affects interstate commerce. SCOTUS said so. You agreed.

That's why racial discrimination is illegal in every public accommodation in the United States. That's why this would be a slam dunk case if the customers were denied for being black.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this simple concept, counselor.

---

Looking back i did overstep in my first sentence on post 377.

But even if the cra was amended to add sexual orientation as a protected class, they’re not going to automatically apply it was liberally as they do with race. The case let you posted shows how much analysis the court relies on before determining that the racial discrimination there affected interstate commerce.

Its quite a leap to think sexual orientation would be held at that same level.

"Artists should never be forced to create works that go against their beliefs"

how about:

"I have "deeply held belief" against various locations and/or amounts of tatoos and body piercings, Confederate flag clothing, MAGA hats,

so "No Soup For You"

Similar to dress codes if "tie and coat only" for high-end emporiums, and

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" for low-end joints.

I've never heard that those uncontested dress-code discriminations required "deeply held beliefs"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

read headlines

dont get an understanding of what the decision was about

make rage post

???

profit

---

Conclusion: Fucking interstate commerce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

I need my pro bono hours

---

Bend over, I'll fucking show you pro bono.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Conclusion: Fucking interstate commerce

---

:tu

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Looking back i did overstep in my first sentence on post 377.

But even if the cra was amended to add sexual orientation as a protected class, they’re not going to automatically apply it was liberally as they do with race. The case let you posted shows how much analysis the court relies on before determining that the racial discrimination there affected interstate commerce.

Its quite a leap to think sexual orientation would be held at that same level.

---

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.

cal is discriminated against 9 states because they think those states pick on gays

people pick on gays because people pick on people
people pick on people being to skinngy to fat to small diablities to tall to short

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.

---

thats why i point to the congressional hearings SCOTUS relied upon in the case you brought up. they required an intensive analysis of that question before just assuming it would affect commerce

its also why a lot of states have their own CRA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I don't see why sexual orientation wouldn't be held at the same level.

If gays are discriminated against, it would deter them from traveling, affecting interstate commerce just the same.

---

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?

---

1950s white guy rant

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

thats why i point to the congressional hearings SCOTUS relied upon in the case you brought up. they required an intensive analysis of that question before just assuming it would affect commerce

its also why a lot of states have their own CRA

---

I think it's an easy assumption to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

1950s white guy rant

---

Snowflake cuck rant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Are you really claiming you are so discriminated against that you cant travel? Cant buy an airline ticket? Cant drive a car? Cant book a hotel room? Cant eat at a restaurant?

---

the idea behind it was that if you have a state where a lot of establishments openly discriminate by race, it will deter people of that race from traveling to that area, which affects interstate commerce

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Snowflake cuck rant.

---

Do you really believe a four word post making fun of you is a rant?

Lol you have been ranting for two pages about protecting lgbtq under interstate commerce regulations. Seems important to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Lol you have been ranting for two pages about protecting lgbtq under interstate commerce regulations. Seems important to you.

---

It's a discussion board. Was discussing/researching the way the CRA works for the last two pages. I barely mentioned protecting lgbtq under the CRA other than saying "it should".

You try so hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

It's a discussion board. Was discussing/researching the way the CRA works for the last two pages. I barely mentioned protecting lgbtq under the CRA other than saying "it should".

You try so hard.

---

... unless it is holding his President to account for the rampant corruption going on in his administration. That gets a pass in CC's book. Anything goes as long as the magic "R" is involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Why do you think this case would force artisans to create works they disagreed with? This case was a scenario where two guys walked in (with zero discussion about what would actually be on the cake) and were straight up told that they would not be given a cake because it was for a gay wedding. Within 20 seconds of them walking in.

---

Yes. I didn't know how it went down, which is why I'm glad that the court didn't set a precedent agreeing with baker. Had the court come down and supported Colorado's actions, I think that precedent would make it harder for more nuanced parsings of situations. Like if another baker had later had that long conversation with another gay couple and then rejected putting pro same-sex marriage messaging on the cake, then no one would have looked at the case. The baker would have been dismissed. By rebuking the behavior of the government rather than of the goal itself, the Court set up a situation where we have to take these as case-by-case rather than being able to look to this particular decision to override everything. I think that was the best outcome possible, especially if it forces Colorado to alter their practices to not leave themselves open to this again.