SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion): Eight Becomes Nine

[Athas]

So what was on this cake that was so objectionable exactly? Is it known?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

[Niiro]

They wanted coconut on it.

blech

[Salodin]

They wanted coconut on it.

blech

Thank God we have a judiciary that can prevent things like this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Prim]

So what was on this cake that was so objectionable exactly? Is it known?

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

Never got that far. They walked in together and asked for a cake to celebrate their marriage. The discussion ended there.

[Fiye]

My favorite reactions to this so far are the people comparing it to a nazi walking in and ordering a cake with a nazi symbol emblazened on it.

Like I'm glad you're willing to compare gay people to literal fucking nazis.

[Tymon]

Like I'm glad you're willing to compare gay people to literal fucking nazis.

This is an extreme stretch and you know it.

As stupid as using Nazis in reference to anything (hello Godwin) is, do you really think that guy should be forced to make whatever someone wants? That he has to create it for the customer no matter how personally (or actually) objectionable it is?

This was not a serious issue, and the baker likely is a religious nut, but the legal precedent is very serious indeed. If you were a Muslim and somebody came into your shop and said they want you to make a cake that says "Gas all Palestinians, Mohammed was a pedophile" that you should be FEDERALLY REQUIRED to make them that cake?

Laws like this are intentionally very broad. Paperwork cannot choose on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't work that way. Either you protect certain freedoms in all cases or you restrict these freedoms in all cases.

There is a reason that two otherwise quite liberal Justices concurred on this.

[Tymon]

Never got that far. They walked in together and asked for a cake to celebrate their marriage. The discussion ended there.

That's not the case according to what SCOTUS reviewed at all.

The case indicates that the couple came in, and had apparently several times before without incident, and was offered the opportunity to purchase any of the cakes in the shop, as well as to choose from any of the available cataloged designs the baker presented. They refused all of these options and requested a specific cake that, apparently, the baker found religiously objectionable.

This is what formed the basis of the case. If the baker had refused them service he would have been violating civil rights laws. However he did not do this. He refused to create something that he felt violated his religious beliefs. They declined his available services. This is not a violation of their civil rights.

[Yuri-G]

My favorite reactions to this so far are the people comparing it to a nazi walking in and ordering a cake with a nazi symbol emblazened on it.

Like I'm glad you're willing to compare gay people to literal fucking nazis.

and literally one post later someone compared "let's get married" between two dudes to "Gas all Palestinians, Mohammed was a pedophile"

:D :D :D you can't make this shit up

it's almost as if people can't understand that being forced to create a gay cake (or more accurately, to treat all customers equally, i.e. if you create wedding cakes then you create them for everyone) is not the same thing as being forced to create hate speech

also, this will be my last comment on the matter because this hits close to home and I ain't for getting into it on poopdeck. already wayyyyyyyy too fired up

That's not the case according to what SCOTUS reviewed at all.

The case indicates that the couple came in, and had apparently several times before without incident, and was offered the opportunity to purchase any of the cakes in the shop, as well as to choose from any of the available cataloged designs the baker presented. They refused all of these options and requested a specific cake that, apparently, the baker found religiously objectionable.

This is what formed the basis of the case. If the baker had refused them service he would have been violating civil rights laws. However he did not do this. He refused to create something that he felt violated his religious beliefs. They declined his available services. This is not a violation of their civil rights.

does he create custom cakes for straight weddings? if so, then he is denying these people a service that he offers to others based on their sexuality. that is absolutely a violation of their civil rights. I believe the only time that is appropriate is if you are a prostitute.

if he does not create custom wedding cakes for straight marriages, then no, it is not.

[Tymon]

Also worth mentioning that the court considered that the baker has refused to make Halloween cakes in the past for the same reason. This weighed heavily on the verdict.

[Tymon]

and literally one post later someone compared "let's get married" between two dudes to "Gas all Palestinians, Mohammed was a pedophile"

:D :D :D you can't make this shit up

it's almost as if people can't understand that being forced to create a gay cake (or more accurately, to treat all customers equally, i.e. if you create wedding cakes then you create them for everyone) is not the same thing as being forced to create hate speech

also, this will be my last comment on the matter because this hits close to home and I ain't for getting into it on poopdeck. already wayyyyyyyy too fired up


does he create custom cakes for straight weddings? if so, then he is denying these people a service that he offers to others based on their sexuality. that is absolutely a violation of their civil rights.

if he does not create custom wedding cakes for straight marriages, then no, it is not.

It sure would be nice if laws could automatically react to everybody's personal situation, wouldn't it?

[Tymon]

and literally one post later someone compared "let's get married" between two dudes to "Gas all Palestinians, Mohammed was a pedophile"

:D :D :D you can't make this shit up

it's almost as if people can't understand that being forced to create a gay cake (or more accurately, to treat all customers equally, i.e. if you create wedding cakes then you create them for everyone) is not the same thing as being forced to create hate speech

also, this will be my last comment on the matter because this hits close to home and I ain't for getting into it on poopdeck. already wayyyyyyyy too fired up


does he create custom cakes for straight weddings? if so, then he is denying these people a service that he offers to others based on their sexuality. that is absolutely a violation of their civil rights. I believe the only time that is appropriate is if you are a prostitute.

if he does not create custom wedding cakes for straight marriages, then no, it is not.

He did not deny them that service though. He denied them the specific design that they wanted. This was the crux of the argument, that at that moment he became an artist, and the artist has the freedom to reject a commission if it violates his religious principles.

If he has to make that cake, he has to make every cake. A law saying "you don't have to make a cake, unless its for gay people, then you have to make the cake. but every other time yeah you don't have to do it." doesn't work, man.

[Prim]

But that’s the thing- they never got to the part where they told him what they wanted. As far as the shop owner knew, they were going to order a plain white fondant covered run-of-the-mill wedding cake. He put the kibosh on things as soon as they said “it’s to celebrate our marriage.” In fact the CCRC sided with three other bakers later when another guy looking to prove a point- William Jack, walked in and asked for a cake that said, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22”.

That was one of the pervasive themes through the entire decision, the majority and all 3 concurring. Did the cake itself have to have same-sex “imagery” or “symbolism” literally on it to refuse service? Or is it enough to know that any cake you create (even if it’s identical to one made for a heterosexual marriage) would be used for something you have religious objection to.

It’s interesting to read and see the exact point the justices split over, and very instructive as to how they’ll likely decide similar cases in the future.


Edit:

He denied them the specific design that they wanted.

Can you cite this? Everything I’ve read said he refused to sell them a wedding cake, period. He offered to sell them other baked goods, but not a cake.

[TummieGaruda]

He did not deny them that service though. He denied them the specific design that they wanted. This was the crux of the argument, that at that moment he became an artist, and the artist has the freedom to reject a commission if it violates his religious principles.

If he has to make that cake, he has to make every cake. A law saying "you don't have to make a cake, unless its for gay people, then you have to make the cake. but every other time yeah you don't have to do it." doesn't work, man.

I believe he only offered to sell them premade Birthday Cakes and biscuits instead of making a wedding cake.

[Prim]

From the original CCRC decision:

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.

...

The parties did not dispute any material facts. Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.

I see “because of their intent”. I do not see, “because of their homo imagery”

[Tymon]

The burden of proof falls on me here since I made the claim. The proof I have is from multiple other people making the claim on Reddit so I can't profess to be acccurate.

That is strange though considering he also denied Halloween cakes as mentioned above (this is cited) so did he refuse all cakes to those patrons as well?

[Prim]

That is strange though considering he also denied Halloween cakes as mentioned above (this is cited) so did he refuse all cakes to those patrons as well?

Looks like it. But that’s fine, as long as he denied Halloween cakes to everyone. If he only denied Halloween cakes to those filthy pagans we’d be right back at square one.

[Prim]

The burden of proof falls on me here since I made the claim. The proof I have is from multiple other people making the claim on Reddit so I can't profess to be acccurate.

I did find this in Thomas’s opinion-

While Phillips rightly prevails on his free-exercise claim, I write separately to address his free-speech claim. The Court does not address this claim because it has some uncertainties about the record. See ante, at 2. Specifically, the parties dispute whether Phillips refused to create a custom wedding cake for the individual respondents, or whether he refused to sell them any wedding cake (includ­ ing a premade one). But the Colorado Court of Appeals resolved this factual dispute in Phillips’ favor. The court described his conduct as a refusal to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same-sex wedding.” Craig v. Master- piece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P. 3d 272, 276 (2015); see also id., at 286 (“designing and selling a wedding cake”); id., at 283 (“refusing to create a wedding cake”). And it noted that the Commission’s order required Phillips to sell “‘any product [he] would sell to heterosexual couples,’” including custom wedding cakes. Id., at 286 (emphasis added).

But for the life of me I can’t find what he’s talking about in the actual appeals documents.

Thomas’s opinion (Gorsuch concurring in part) was particularly telling. He believes that a wedding cake itself, regardless of its appearance, cannot be separated from the event it is celebrating. Without a wedding cake, traditionally critical parts of the ceremony could not happen-

A whole series of events expected in the context of a wedding would be impossible without it: an essential photograph, the cutting, the toast, and the distribution of both cake and favours at the wed­ ding and afterwards.

I think this level of traditionalism is a thing of past generations. It certainly still holds sway, but it’s being broken more often and more easily every day. Saying certain things have inextricably become symbols of what they used to simply be a part of isn’t new, but even then there’s precedent that symbolic speech isn’t always protected either.

[Salodin]

Uh, breaking bread with the people at your wedding is certainly not a thing of past generations lol. It doesn't matter that it's cake, it doesn't matter what the food item is, the point is a man with legitimate religious beliefs is being asked to create something for a group/service that goes against his beliefs. Going off what you quoted, he was only refusing to create a new design/cake for them, but offered them items he already had created. I see nothing wrong with that. You can't reasonably argue that a person should be forced to create art that goes against their moral beliefs.

Yuri is wrong on this one.

does he create custom cakes for straight weddings? if so, then he is denying these people a service that he offers to others based on their sexuality.

From the beginning it was based on his religious beliefs. There is no ambiguity here, and this has been a consistent fact this entire time. Religion is as equally a protected class as sexuality is.

[dasva]

Ok now I'm wondering why they didn't want one of the ones already designed/made if that's the case. Were they looking for trouble?

[archibaldcrane]

Ok now I'm wondering why they didn't want one of the ones already designed/made if that's the case. Were they looking for trouble?

who the fuck takes an off-the-rack cake for their wedding?

Spoiler: show

don't answer that, but it's clearly not what these guys were shopping for