4 ms·

> I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they c

by dlp211 7y ago

> I think these bakers suck, but I do agree with the Supreme Court. A private business should be allowed to refuse to serve customers for whatever reason they choose. This was not the conclusion of the SCOTUS case. It pushed the case back down to the State on procedural consideration. We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes.

squilliam 7y ago
>We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes. I don't think this is relevant to this specific case. The baker didn't refuse to do business with the gay couple. He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake. He refused to sell them a personalized cake, which is considered a form of expression. The government cannot compel you to express yourself a certain way if it goes against your religious beliefs.
- dlp211 7y ago
  But that was not determined by this SCOTUS case and remains an open question to the best of my knowledge.
- pgcj_poster 7y ago
  > He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake. If you're talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, he didn't say that until the lawsuit was in-progress. At the time that the couple went in, he refused to serve them without discussing what they wanted.
kelnos 7y ago
> We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes. I would absolutely support adding sexual orientation to that list in every state, or at the federal level. But if it's not there in the bakers' state, then, legally, they are (unfortunately) in the clear.
- mike00632 7y ago
  Colorado does indeed have anti-discrimination laws to protect gay people which the baker was in clear violation of. The Supreme Court made a narrow ruling on a procedural matter.

by dlp211 7y ago

squilliam 7y ago

>We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes. I don't think this is relevant to this specific case. The baker didn't refuse to do business with the gay couple. He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake. He refused to sell them a personalized cake, which is considered a form of expression. The government cannot compel you to express yourself a certain way if it goes against your religious beliefs.

dlp211 7y ago
But that was not determined by this SCOTUS case and remains an open question to the best of my knowledge.
pgcj_poster 7y ago
> He was happy to sell them a generic off-the-shelf wedding cake. If you're talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop baker, he didn't say that until the lawsuit was in-progress. At the time that the couple went in, he refused to serve them without discussing what they wanted.

kelnos 7y ago

> We also have a bunch of reasons (protected classes) that a company cannot refuse to do business. Colorado specifically includes sexual orientation in their definition of protected classes. I would absolutely support adding sexual orientation to that list in every state, or at the federal level. But if it's not there in the bakers' state, then, legally, they are (unfortunately) in the clear.

mike00632 7y ago
Colorado does indeed have anti-discrimination laws to protect gay people which the baker was in clear violation of. The Supreme Court made a narrow ruling on a procedural matter.