A shop like that will not survive the free market, and if it does then that's just an opportunity for a black person to start the same business elsewhere. Honestly today, I think it's a bit more likely for a black owner to reject a white person, since no one says anything when people are racist against white people.

Free market is deciding. He has more business than ever. I love it! The little snowflakes are probably trying to figure out how to sue over that now.

This have nothing do with black against white. It about religious freedom.

Aaron Scarpa unfortunately he lost his buisnes

You do realize we had a civil war over the issue of "let the free market decide" and slavery right? I understand the appeal of libertarianism but it certainly attracts shallow thinkers.

Dennis O'Rourke it's so simple.. the gay couple wanted to play victim and be heroes. It didn't work out.

Thats also a service that was denied to them. This bakery could have avoided this point of conflict by putting their "sincerely held religious views" right at their entrance door as a big NOTE, just like many other business state e.g. to "keep all weapons outside when entering" or "pets stay out please". They did not! and in doing so, they invited this point of conflict to take place. They dont do these things because they lack the courage to come out clean on their deeply held religious views because even many Christians would not go to them if they find out the real intentions of such bakers or shopkeepers. These business guys are simply acting evil clever as they dont want to take the risk of reducing their customer base unnecessarily, just pick and choose by themselves whom to discriminate against.

Hans K Bullshit. The gay couple had access to every service offered at the bakery. A pro-gay wedding cake isn't a service they'd offer to anyone regardless of any social demographic. A straight person couldn't get a pro-gay cake there, either. They were requesting a service not offered, period. It wasn't selectively refused.... it would've been refused to anyone.

E

Drayonis see, you get it. I hope your business is successful.

Now that’s what we call free business practice, finally a sane person.

Exactly!

But supporting confederacy is a choice though and being gay isn't. There's a difference.

@@sphumelelesijadu you can't force someone to make something they don't want to. While I would make the cake, (I'm not homophobic) I'd be damned if you forced me to paint a confederate flag. It's not about "them" it's about me.

HankBlockOG true

That boy ain't right.

That is beside the point. Equal protection under the law is a thing, or else.

Gage Acosta Fixing your car for your safety and buying a cake for your pleasure at two different things

Gage Acosta nobody is entitled to anyone's labor

an ethereal llama He was denying them service based on their sexuality. That is discrimination. They didn’t even get to say what kind of decorations they wanted before he refused service. And he even stated he would have given them the exact same cake if they were straight. How is that not discrimination?

He absolutely offered them services, he refused to do a specific type of decoration but did not deny them general service. That's a very important distinction.

an ethereal llama He denied them the service of a wedding cake, a cake he said he would have made if they were straight. That is discrimination.

No, he denied them the decoration they wanted but offered them a template cake to take elsewhere and also offered them the name and number of other bakers who would do what they requested. Again, he did not discriminate against them.

an ethereal llama No. He denied to make them a wedding cake before he heard what kind of decoration they wanted. He also said he would have made the cake if he thought they were straight. Refusing to make a cake for one group of people but saying you would make it if they were straight is discrimination.

Discrimination = an important matter.

I love how people from 3rd world countries and idiots from dying Europe think they know better then we do about what we should do.

It’s not about a cake. If you think it’s about cake, you’re dense.

You completely missed the point.

Martin Rangel its important.

business shouldn't have religious beliefs

AomiN Yes they should.

Mark Jr. So? People can run their businesses according to their religion.

Ok for the people who call this discrimination. By that same logic, let me make hypothetical situation. Say KKK member waltz in to this bakery owned by Baker who believes in same sex marriages. He has not committed any crimes he just a guy who believes in the KKK he doesn't like gays, black, etc, and is just member. He walks up to the counter and ask the owner, "can you make me this cake for this KKK rally I'm going too?" The baker would obviously say no right? The thing is he's now discriminating against this KKK member. You'll probably answer, "no that guy is part of a hate group". The thing is at the end of the day that KKK member is still human, and his hate is still part of his religion, and moral beliefs. Now that Baker is discriminating against that man's religious beliefs. Would you defend that KKK member, because his religious beliefs are being discriminated against, or would you say it's the baker right to refuse him service?

Thomas Gedak I'd side with the baker. Because by making a cake that's for a KKK rally, you are supporting it.

He has food on the brain.

YoMama2143 I wonder how regressive would have reacted if it was a Muslim couple? Can’t be double standarded.

YoMama2143 why would Christians want cakes from a openly gay bakery?

I wonder what would happen if it was a Muslim bakery owner.

They'd be screaming "discrimination, they hate us because we're christians!" But if you're Gay...(ahem) then it's alright to discriminate against you.

Tom Gary but it wont

Great.😁🙄

Tom Gary yeah @@ lets divide people more 🖒

Im Lieutenant Hoe And why would it not?

They would go out of business...

Tom Gary Less then 2% of the population is gay lol, no gay cake shop would stay in business by denying service to straight people 😂

Im Lieutenant Hoe Yah because this had to do with freedom of religion not sexual orientation , some people just lack common sense, denying gay people or straight people service based on their sexuality would be illegal unless so to religious beliefs

really dude if Jed is too complicated for you I'm okay with just J? I know I struggle for a lot of years to get the last two letters right!

100

Not everyone is addicted to money....

Ralph B. From a business stand point: What would be rational reason to not accept money? Like isn't that the whole point of a business. provide a service to make as much money as possible.

The Inquisitor because money is not everything, to some people

The Inquisitor Becuase not eberyone is a morally bankrupt money grubber. Weather his morals are right or wrong is mute. He has a principle and he sticks to it. I applaud him for being a man that stands firm in his beliefs.

The Inquisitor no...you clearly have never been in business for yourself. Money isn't everything plus it's one customer probably won't affect his revenue much, well...not at all. Novice

James Volk if they would have said ok never mind we just want a regular cake he would have accepted... just not that specific cake. It was the cake not the people.

The baker was not aware they were gay and were happy to make them any cake at that point. Once they told them were looking for their wedding cake he refused ANY service. He could later claim he'd make them a cake that wasn't a wedding cake. Not only is that suspicious but at the very least it indicates his reason for refusing service wasn't based on it being a wedding cake but that it was for a gay couple.

penguins forall you literally just said the guy said he would make them any cake not a wedding cake...

Nonsense.

Gage Acosta I won't sugarcoat it. Civil rights aren't necessary in a world where the norm is tolerance. Most people aren't the extremes used by Fox or TYT to peddle their bullshit.

Gage Acosta Not really. They're free to not serve or not serve whomever they want to, and everyone is free to take their business elsewhere. Unless you're of the mindset that literally everyone is an unthinking, unfeeling monster, there shouldn't be a problem. Are you of that mindset?

Gage Acosta Because there's no option in the matter of roads, they're ALL public. Privatise roads, *then* we can talk. Why do some people get to impose their thoughts and opinions into public schools? At least there's the option of private and home schooling. You won't answer my question any more completely than I have *your* question.

Also you ignored my question. Are you or are you not of the mindset that everyone is an unthinking, unfeeling monster?

YOur bias.

+James Simpson Fair enough. One question comes to mind, though. What is a "blatant homosexual" cake and who is to determine what's "blatantly homosexual" and what's a "standard cake": the store owner or the buyer of the cake? This seems awfully arbritrary too me, and very easy to get around if you as an owner wants to discriminate against homosexuals. They can then say that a cake with a Formula 1 theme is "blatantly homosexual".

Why didn't the black people just sit at the back of the bus and give up their seats for whites?

HRPufnsting your comparing public transportation which is a necessity to a whole people and a cake to a gay couple are you brain dead?

I'm comparing discriminating against people to discriminating against people, saying "lol just go somewhere else" isn't the answer to this problem just like black people just going to a different seat or different transportation wasn't a solution to that problem. I'm sorry if it's too complicated for you.

HRPufnsting there is a range of behavior of discrimination which is normal and specifically to which party is discriminating against and how serious of offense it is. The government shouldn’t be forcing a Christian person to comply with an act that he believes is sinful. Ie forcing someone to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. It’s like complaining about why your health instructor won’t let you eat cake because he’s fat shaming you.

Nope sorry saying "muh belief" doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. We put realistic constraints on people religion all the time, i.e. you couldn't have sex with children no matter how much you might think your gods tell you to. So saying you can't just refuse to offer service you offer to the general public based on what you think your imaginary sky wizard wants is a perfectly acceptable restraint to place on a business. If your religion tells you that you can't bake cakes for gay weddings(still don't remember the "thou shalt not bake confections for thine homosexual brethren" part of the bible but I digress)then guess what don't open a bakery to the public, stick to making cakes for friends and family on the side.

Thank you. It makes me happy that this is the first comment I see. Just dropped by to see what the Young Turks said about this situation.

North Uttara we favour no religion and protect religious rights

So did Americans...

can't legally run for office in most states if you're not a Christian

We are which means government can't make us bake gay cakes

I'm not sure what a gay cake is but i bet it looks awesome

Agreed. Indeed thats basically what the court says in this case but they don't want to get wet feet because its dangerously shy of making one freedom supersede another. However how other freedoms have been debt with in the past is by slightly chipping away and etching them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can lie about someone elses reputation or screen fire in a theater etc. They don't want to have to do that here where they'd basically have to see freedom of religion until it affects other people and then you'd have to wonder well to what degree.. etc. So they just punted the whole thing down the line to the next case.

Infinessia b

Liberty? You don't have the "right" to a private service 😆! Entitled much?

+Monifa Kamaal Thats not really the point. If you are providing that service it can't be discriminatory. You can just not provide the service at all. Another issue is this idea that a service can even be "private" what does that even mean? Unlike say a private property or a private contract or private deal, baking cakes in a store with a publicly listed number and a store front means you are "open to the public" and the government does regulate what you can and can't do in that situation. In fact you need a business license in most state. So even if "private service" was a thing.. that sounds dirty actually.. it wouldn't mean you could simply not follow any regulations or use rat poison as food coloring or something. We have laws that say you can't discriminate so there is no relevance to it being "private."

@@Furiends And that's why I'm for limited government. If you're not paying my rent you have no right to tell me how to run my business. You have no right to force me to serve you. If someone comes in and I don't like them for whatever reason I shouldn't have to serve them. What is even the point of owning your own business if it's actually the government that owns it? I paid for it, I should get to call the shots. Are you saying that a business is not allowed to kick someone out, say for instance not obeying a dresscode? There is a big difference in regulations for health and social regulations.

Pseudonyymi the left doesn't care about that.. they want social justice

dude stop upvoting your own comment, its sad.

Shrenk Ogre yes keep fooling yourself into thinking that you're some kind intellectual debating genius and not a prick who doesnt know a damn thing.

rouge1ful, it looks to me like you are the troll! Think about this: why is it wrong to discriminate if you don't agree with or believe in the beliefs of someone else? Why does EVERYONE have to agree with progressive thinking for "progress" to be made? The bakery had every right to deny the gay couple service based on THEIR beliefs. Get used to diversity, beta males, it's what you fem-boys keep telling us we must have but you don't want diversity of opinion or belief.

Still one in the win column.. Lol!

Reality Bite how when i'm just stating what the supreme court is stating that this case was VERY specific and it doesnt mean that their ruling here means that you can start discriminating whenever you want for whatever claimed religious reasons. did i say that everyone has to agree? no i didnt. i dont think the bakery is right (considering from a business stand point it cuts off an entire supply of revenue) but this guy clearly wasnt doing it for malicious purposes. i've see this guy's case he doesnt outright refuse to serve gay people which if he did he totally would have lost this case, he just doesnt make them custom cakes for weddings and such because of what he believes in which i still say is wrong because it is discriminating on a certain level.

Jesse Torres a brown illegal in a suit? LOL this isn’t Halloween JOSE!

Dumb comment. Gay couple specially targeted a christian baker to make gay themed cake. They can buy any cake they want but can't forced the baker to make the cake in that theme. Plus, there's a lot of others bakery they can choose but they choose the religious baker to get attention.

Can I ask black painter to paint the Confederate flag on my t-shirt and write "kill dem niggas" below? Asking for a friend

OK you are incredibly misinformed about this case he wasn’t discriminating against them they were discriminating against him they specifically wanted him to make a cake and write stuff on it and bring the cake into the wedding and he refused to do that, they were telling him to go against his personal beliefs, they do not have the right to do that.

For instance if somebody asked the painter to paint a portrait of something that went against his own values, and some thing he did not wanna paint would you say he has to paint that portrait.

Being nice while you discriminate is still illegal. "That 'Whites Only' sign says, 'Thank you' so it's okay."

T Adelana - If you were really a liberal then you should DEFINITELY agree with the supreme court ruling. You want the government to be as far away from infringing on your rights as possible. As a gay person myself, I agree with their ruling. This baker has been serving gay people for so many year who came into their stores without asking their sexuality. The problem with this gay couple is they were forcing the baker to bake them a gay themed wedding cake which he refused to do because of his religious belief. Whether you agree with him or not. It is a privately owned business.

zammmerjammer this isn’t discrimination , this literally a form of religious freedom

+Juan This is the definition of discrimination. His "religious freedom" to be a piece of shit is not infringed in the slightest. His BUSINESS requires him not to discriminate against protected groups. He can think they're sinners all he wants, but HE put up a shingle to bake for people. THEY were people who wanted to pay for the service HE WAS OFFERING. Discrimination is illegal. This isn't complicated.

+devonferris Privately owned businesses have to abide by the law because they serve the public. Discrimination is illegal.

Welcome to conservative packed courts like we've had for decades now. I agree with your analysis. There actually is an argument to be made although I think its weak that you could discriminate based on some related conduct (like the fact that they are getting married) but still the bases of anti-discrimination in the constitution is based on freedom of speech that includes forms of expression that defines ones identity. Getting married and indeed why its now unconstitutional to ban would imply you couldn't discriminate "gay marriage" either.

A lot of commenters here are overlooking this fact. They're also overlooking how owning a business is NOT a protected right, but, at least in Colorado, not being discriminated against based on orientation IS a protected right. If you don't want to follow the rules that apply to all businesses, then don't do into business, and if you do anyway, then don't claim that it's discrimination against you that the same laws that apply to everyone else also apply to you.

+Aria Clements Theres a lot of lazy thinking in which people assume their morals and their understanding of them must somehow line up with actual law which is why every few commenters tries to say private businesses have a right.. to infringe on peoples constitutional rights because somehow "private" to them means not government therefor not under the law. Also it gets awkward trying to explain there's layers to anti-discrimination law. There's the constitutional rational for it but theres also just laws that protect groups of people because they are historically discriminated against.

The Problem is that religion is also somewhat protected. You can't discriminate someone based on religion. So those laws come in conflict, rather often. Same with morals in general for some people. Just take a less religious example. If I work for a company that manufactures weapons, but I don't agree with who the company sells them to, I can theoretically go and build my own company that has stricter guidelines on that. Or a bank employee, and this is more or less a real example that exists, who is muslim and does not agree with the policy of the bank, because they invest in weapons, or meat production, or taking interest rates, since taking interest rates is forbidden in the quran, just as it is in the bible, just that the christians scrapped that law. So they go and open their own bank that applies to sharia law and does not invest in weapons or meat production or take interst rates, and has a different system for loans, without interest rates. That bank does exist, and is getting quite popular among non-muslims as well apparently. In this case there is no problem, since the bank does not refuse service, rather their morals don't infringe on anything, just offer a different kind of banking service and different investments. The problem comes in when these morals, be it religious or not, infringe on other peoples right directly or discriminate. In the case of the baker, it is no problem that he does not use alcohol in his cakes, but discrimination obviously is. But religious believes are also protected, and in other cases it is also usually the case that laws try to not force someone to go against their morals. The military usually has the option to refuse an order if it goes against their morals, like torture, or shooting and unarmed prisoner. So in the case of the baker, there are two laws, or ideas, opposing each other, no discrimination, but also freedom of religion and the idea to not force people to go against their morals. Another constructed example that seems more obviously problematic on both sides would be a doctor who believes abortion is wrong, but it is necessary in a case to safe the mother. Would you force the doctor to do the abortion, that is, from his moral standpoint, murder? Its a generell problem with morals, and especially with religious ones that have a bit more protection in the US. Edit: Also, in the end, if the baker can't open a bakery following his religious believes, then he can't be a baker, unless he goes against his morals, which is in a way discriminating against a religion, since they are indirectly banned from a certain business. Of course that can be ok, it depends on the situation. But its not like he advocates to shoot gay people, for all I know he might not even be against gay marriage as long as it does not affect him, and he does not have to take part in that ceremony in any way, like providing the wedding cake. I doubt that is the case and he is probably against gay marriage all together and would like it to be not allowed, but in this case, it is just about a cake. So I think this is a point where it is not that big of a deal to give a little bit of room if the laws are in conflict. Since there are many bakeries that do sell cakes to gay couples, so it does not quite compare to the situation where black people were denied basic access to a lot of restaurants or restrooms.

Jarnauga - Your argument is undermined by the simple fact that religion is belief and there is no guarantee it is based in reality. You can't compare this to non-religious, similar situations. A person who disapproves of working with weapons because weapons hurt people is not the same as a person who disapproves of left-handed people because his divine guide told him so. Regarding your edit: Just no. If a person's religion conflicts with their profession, that is the person's problem. If you haven't read the case, what Phillips is saying is that if only one of Craig and Mullins had gone into the shop, ordered the cake and never revealed he was gay, Phillips would have had no problem with selling him a cake. It was the fact that it was a gay couple that Phillips objected to. So it is NOT about the cake at all. Your claim that "it is just about a cake" is completely wrong.

This is a big win for the First Amendment and religious freedom, and a brutal defeat for government activists who are hostile to people of faith

This doesn't set precedent though, its a ruling based on how the courts in Colorado made their decision, not based on whether the religious rights were violated or if the gay men were discriminated against. This doesn't set precedent because they even made note to claim this decision was for this case alone. Discrimination, whether its by religious beliefs or otherwise, is still not going to be upheld by the Supreme Court, your first amendment rights to religious freedom and speech still have limits, like most other amendments. If not ,who's to stop a person from claiming Atheism as a religion, we could easily get the required numbers of signatures to verify it (Jedi managed it, so did Pastafarian) and using that to discriminate against anyone who held any religious beliefs. Do you understand why this can't set precedent, its as dangerous for religious people as it is anyone else if it does. You have the right to believe as you wish but your always gonna have limits on the actions you can get away with inspired by those beliefs, otherwise polygamy would still be legal.

I said the public (many of which are bigots) would take precedent from this. Don Jr. even took "Narrow ruling" the wrong way and concluded false things based on his perspective. You think the American people won't do the same?

Clutchyfinger I totally agree with you, meant to reference Jason at the start of my comment but must have deleted it when proofreading. If our president doesn't even understand what a narrow ruling is, and makes a fool of himself on Twitter commenting about it, it's unlikely a large portion of the population knows or will bother to educate themselves. I still strongly stick to my beliefs that the SC would rule in favor of preventing discrimination before religious rights in more broad cases because the ramifications would be widespread and would no longer make us a religion neutral government otherwise. It's the job of the educated to make sure the rest understand now, even through the SC did everything they could to to explain their ruling.

Read the decision. This is not to be used as precedent.

King Reo Yep! 👍 The American people, with their demons, didn't defeat the man.

Chalk it up as another win for Trump.

Look, I'm about freedom of sexuality, but what I'm not ok with is to use it as an excuse to hurt someone. How this concept didn't come across the discussion is beyond me.

Not getting a cake, is not getting hurt more than a man who would have had to hurt his conscious. How is that not clear?

Collin Grimes - There are plenty of Muslim bakeries that would refuse to write messages on cakes that go against Islam as well.

Daniel, the difference is that LGBTQ are a protected class in many states. Islamophobes aren't.

LGBTQ are a protected class in many states. We've been over this--during the civil rights era, when it was determined that other protected classes had to be served.

If you can eat it, it's food, O brain-dead one.

erzan Thank you. I wish people would actually look at the case and the facts. So many people falsely think it is a license to discriminate or that the Supreme Court disagreed with the court’s decision. There’s a reason they said their decision was specific to that case.

James Simpson Not if you’re in the places in America where it’s illegal. I hate to break it to you, but they’re shopping there because they are also bigoted or agree with bigotry. It has nothing to do with morality.

James Simpson Yes. You can. That’s what laws and business regulations are. Personal rights do not always apply to businesses. Part of being in business is being forced to do things a certain way, either because of safety or laws or other reasons. I understand freedom, but I also understand that your rights end where someone else’s begins. If your actions infringe on someone else’s rights, they are no longer protected as rights. Freedom does not mean being able to do whatever the heck you want whenever you want with no consequences. There are reasonable limits. You’re right. People have a right to believe whatever they want. It’s their actions that aren’t always covered as a right, and refusing service for discriminatory reasons is not covered as a right.

James Simpson Incorrect. He didn’t want to make them a cake because they were gay. He even stated he would have made them the same cake they wanted if they were straight. It had nothing to do with the decoration on the cake. It had everything to do with them being gay. And, no, I don’t argue because that is a rule applied to everyone equally. It is not a rule of discrimination.

Bakery is still active

This is a big win for the First Amendment and religious freedom, and a brutal defeat for government activists who are hostile to people of faith

Yes let’s shove our religion on everyone else shall we?

Jamali Jackson Bro it’s 2018 not 2004. Nobody cares if someone’s gay anymore.

Jackson Cowdrey I’m pretty sure he did. Put your religious freedom aside and serve the patron that is even generous to give you their money!

Jackson Cowdrey No I haven’t. Also I’m actually a Catholic so I don’t have a problem with religion at all. I just think it is plainly foolish to force your religion on to others who want nothing to do with your beliefs. Also he could’ve just baked the cake and still have his moral Christian beliefs to himself in private. He doesn’t have to be forced to follow EVERYTHING the Bible says. For example, I may be Catholic, but I’m pro-choice, it’s against my religion but I don’t think it is right for a female to be controlled by a decision she has the freedom to take. You see how I can be able to see that some things in my religion are right and some are wrong? I think he should’ve done what I just explained. Just because your religion outlaws a certain type of rule, doesn’t mean you have to agree with it.

Mrs. W did he cancel the concert for the reasons written in the civil rights act of 1964 or North Carolina’s anti discrimination law, which covers race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, and handicap? If not, then he can cancel it without legal repercussions

Nope. He's in the same situation as the cake baker. At this moment in time, the Civil Rights Act doesn't cover discrimination based on sexual orientation. So by my thinking, if we support Bruce Springsteen's right, we have to acknowledge the cake baker's too.

"Nope. He's in the same situation as the cake baker." No he's not. This makes no sense from the onset because everyone at the concert was denies his "business" But lets ignore that for the sake of argument. As gamer7916 points out discrimination laws protect *certain* groups from discrimination. The precedent set through the constitution is that people need to be able to express themselves freely to be able to have legitimate political discourse. Institutionalized discrimination of a *minority* infringes on their ability to participate in the political process therefor if you make this case you have to demonstrate canceling the concert was expressly to prevent people from exercising their civil rights. Which is simply not the case the opposite in fact. However the way discrimination law actually works is through laws enacted under the constitution which can be more specific or even protect certain minority groups as a matter of course.

Penguins, I think I understand you to be saying that even if the Civil Rights Act doesn't protect gay people from discrimination, the Constitution does because gay people are a minority. Also, that Springsteen's refusal to sing for North Carolinians wasn't discrimination because he wasn't trying to prevent a minority from having access to something. He prevented all North Carolinians equally. Although I think that is the best argument to make, I still think religious freedom will trump it. The gay couple wasn't exercising a civil right when they wanted to purchase a cake, but the baker WAS exercising a civil right to practice his religion. Still, I think you could structure an argument with merit following the argument you've stated.

Mrs. W You have no right to act however you want based on religion. You just have the right to believe whatever you want. Acts are not protected. Only thoughts and speech. Also, in the place where this occurred, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. He broke a law. Simple as that. There is no law against refusing to perform in a certain state. If there was, then that would be different.

Then you're free to get another job. It's called freedom.

No teacher should be forced to teach a black kid. They are so unruly and hard to understand. They should have the freedom to teach who they choose.

penguins forall Not the same.

My religion says to be naked in your rites. So everyone walk in my business naked or you dont get served

penguins forall Being black isn't sexual perversion, this is what y'all fail to realize. If it is a persons beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, why should this guy be forced to be made a sinner too?

Nic Lastname The problem is, he refused service to a gay couple. He did not refuse service of a custom cake. He even stated he would make the same cake if they had only sent one of them in and he thought the man was straight. If you refuse to make a cake for a gay couple, but would make the same cake for a straight couple, you are discriminating against the gay couple.

Hun Ta I don't know the specifics of the actual cake in question. However does the purpose of the cake matter at all to you? Should a black baker be forced to bake a custom cake for a KKK meetup if the cake doesn't have a KKK design? Say the guy walks in wearing his hood and robe, and the baker says "if you came in dressed normal and I thought it was just a birthday cake I would have made you the cake". Should that baker be forced to make it? What about David Duke's birthday cake if it doesn't have his name on it? To me it comes down the the state forcing you to do something you're against vs the state keeping you from doing something against the law. I see a difference in principle between making someone actively do something they're against, and stopping someone from actively discriminating. I also just don't understand the mentality of wanting to force someone to make me a food product that doesn't want to and doesn't like me. I certainly wouldn't want some guy that hates atheists making my food against his will. There's no way that cake is getting to me unblemished...

Nic Lastname No, because the KKK is not a legally protected group. Gay people are. I would say it was wrong if that same person said they would make the exact cake for someone not in the KKK. A lot of people are forced to do things. That’s just how life goes. When you run a business, you have to follow the law. If you break the law, you should be punished. Saying you would make the exact same cake for one group but not another is discrimination and breaking the law. There are reasons we have these laws. If you don’t want to serve wedding cakes to a certain group, don’t serve wedding cakes. No one is forcing you to serve wedding cakes. If you choose to serve them, you have to serve them to everyone. You cannot pick and choose based on discrimination. Separate but not equal is unconstitutional.

Hun Ta The Kkk are legally allowed to be racist scumbags. If you're going to say you can discriminate based on beliefs of the customer, that's WAY more vague and anyone could be refused arbitrarily. So you're okay with the black guy being forced to do David Duke's cake right? He's an individual.

Nic Lastname That is exactly what people are trying to say with this case. That you can refuse service based on beliefs of the customer. That’s not what I’m saying. A business can refuse service to anyone, as long as the reason of the refusal of service is not discrimination. That’s what I’m saying. Would I be ok with it? No. However, if he became part of a protected group and it was illegal to discriminate against him like that, then I would have to accept it.

Shut up idiot

Part of believing in the constitution is the idea it can be changed 👍and part of living in a free society is having the privilege to dissent

1st amendment protects your phones, newspapers, internet use, but the 2nd amendment that only applies to muskets.

A straw man if I’ve ever seen one.

You do know what the word "amend" means right? As in to change, hence why they are called amendments, so they can be changed. Guns don't need protection but people need protection from guns.

leonard brown No he refused to serve them because he loved them.

leonard brown There is no religion that says you can't support gay people.

when you deny people a right to be served, that is the very definition of "hateful".

Music3ox What?

The gays were the ones being hateful. They went out of their way to force the baker to do something that was against his religious principles.

I actually don't care about "equally to both sides", I just want them to get a taste of it being done to them, so they can see how incredibly ridiculous they are about all of this.

Mike Lofky He won't.

He will.

Robert Vysther You don't know that.

He has, he even said it himself in an article. He used to have 4 employees went down to one employee working for him now.

He has been forced by Colorado to stop selling custom wedding cakes for the last five years, a 40% loss in his yearly income. He's suffered more than enough, considering all the gay couple had to do was stop at ANY other bakery on their way to a same sex marriage state. By the way, to all the hypocrites here, the laws that would have protected that gay couple if they were actually discriminated against for their sexuality are the exact same laws that let this man practice his religion how he wishes without legal discrimination.

Petrazenka There are plenty of openly Gay Bakers.

I hear you, but I think it's to protect businesses who want to have strict policies like "if you argue in our store, if you don't dress properly, if you don't buy anything for a long period of time, we can ask you to leave." just to make sure people aren't taking advantage of businesses and claiming discrimination.

Jeff K Well, I understand that but those strict policies hurt the customers' rights (specially denying access to bathrooms and or prohibiting loitering). In here, you can have a dress code, for example, but then that has to be informed at the entrance. You can't expel the customer unless they are doing something that is illegal, though (like threatening and/or being violent). What you absolutely cannot do is deny service to someone who is willing and has the funds to pay the price (trade is an impersonal relation), if you offer that service.

Yeah I guess it comes down to whether there are public places to stand around or use the bathroom. If so, then I think the nicer bathrooms and hangout places aren't really a "right" (unless the person's in an emergency, then the businesses should take it easy). Just my opinion though - I can see how discrimination could be an issue if the business took things too far.

Jeff K i am not saying it is a right, but if I go to a Starbucks and want to go to the toilet before buying something, or if I want to take half an hour eating and chatting with friends in a McDonald's it must be allowed. That's what people expect here, that's what we pay for, and I think people mostly don't abuse that since we all have common sense and all services work like that. Now, on the cake issue, this is something that has never been discussed here so I don't know how it'd be treated (if you can deny personalizing a product in a certain way), but if the cake is sold or is on the menu, it can't be denied.

~ a private business can refuse service. Or at least they should in America. But if you work federal government you can't refuse to help based on sex, religion, race, creed... If you receive federal funding you can not refuse service and so on.....

Discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, orientation, and creed is illegal.

What if every business denied gay people service? Then that whole argument falls apart. If you have freedom of speech then your identity and ideas need to be able to be expressed without limiting your ability to participate in society.

penguins forall what if you are a gay caterer and an anti gay rights group wants you to cater an event where they're going to protest you. Would it be ok for you to decline it?

Michael 마익흘 Aronson but forcing the owner of the bakery to serve them is a type of discrimination against his creed. Personally, I think he has the right to decline service, and I would never patron his establishment and would encourage others to stop doing business with him.

+WiruSenpai a) no business need be a groups soap box so right there your example doesn't make sense. b) discrimination is about protecting *minorities* rights in the interest in ensuring they maintain their civil rights. So this argument doesn't actually go both ways

Oh yeah? What happens when "sincerely held Religious believes" say people should be allowed to discriminate against blacks? Who are YOU to say their believes are less valid than the people who hates gays?

Right buddy, the left is the "real" racist, they hate whites right?

Unbelievably, a tremendous percentage of the population believe that discrimination should be entirely legal.

Aria Clements, and they put the rest of us in a position that requires us to fight back using the same methods. It kills me taking food off of people's tables. Unfortunately the religious conservative response to a labor ruling is rather clear. I am starting to realize, hardline conservatives make bad employees and are bad for business. Just like hardline liberals.

Jon Popa - when I did event videography I quit doing white weddings because there was a high probability the bridal parties would be self absorbed, bitchy and too irritating. I'm glad I was not forced to used my artistic ability to make content for them.

zomgitzpoo I think you should rewatch this more closely.

Kevin Montrond sure

Shhhhh, TYT is trying incite riots.

Ummm tyt said multiple times that the ruling was based off of this case alone and the verdict was against how Colorado handled the case... So much for misrepresenting the story huh?

"TYT, why are you misrepresenting this story?" Do you really have to ask?

kobaltkween Mental gymnastics

People have the freedom to associate. The baker has to a right to associate with whoever he wants. He also has the right to freedom of religion. The government has no right to tell what he can or cannot do with his bakery.

kobaltkween Such a Communist.

kobaltkween When ever the government gets involved in a private business and threatens imprisonment for stuff like this, it's a form of government tyranny! Even if I felt like these guys were being discriminated against, I would still say the government has no right here. Capitalism has no other color but green, if a bussiness honestly uses discriminatory policies in this day and age. They will probably not be in bussiness too much longer. That is the price of freedom and if you dis-agree with what I just said, that makes you a communist. You could never call your self an honest and consistent liberal and fyi in case you didn't know, The Civil Rights movement was for blacks. This idea that being gay in this day and age or any other minority makes is ridiculous and any one that would dare to say other wise is insulting all African Americans. It's idiotic to think that the government is the solution to all of these problems.

I'm happy other people see the parallels to this and the problems of separate but equal.

video link?

Or more recently "I want Trump to assign the worst people to his cabinet, so progressives stand up and fight...who cares about the damage they do to real people here and now?!" - Jimmy Dore

Pretty much

MaGarthur To be somewhat fair one seat wouldnt reverse a 7-2 decision. Their kind of sentiment is dangerous and ignorant though. That I agree with.

Jimmy Dore is an idiot.

James Volk shall I find one for you?

jejejejeje jejejejje There was a recent case where a musilm woman refused to massage a trans person. Never saw tyt report it

then denied Armenian genocide.

No they think muslim's religion getting in the way of their job is bullshit too. Like the guy they bring up all the time, who was muslim, a cashier and got fired because he refused to touch pork products. They sided with the firing consistently.

Fuzzy Bear stop lying son remember the Charlie Hebdo massacre did cenk and Ana side with the Muslims then?

lol yeah probably. Thats a completely logical argument. 👏

.......oh......

Why Does the Left Hate America? Actually there are discrimination laws that say otherwise.

Music the majority of Americans are white Christians and it's ok to discriminate against them. The left will let you put up signs on college campuses that say "it's ok to be black, brown, etc" but if you post a sign saying "it's ok to be white" its hate speech and people go on record saying it's NOT ok to be white and there are no repercussions for what is obvious hate speech towards white people.

Conservatism is a MENTAL disorder.

IF the left hated America we would have ignored the red flags and voted FOR trump.