The Gay Wedding Cake Case | Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Рет қаралды 90,816

11 ай бұрын

In episode 75 of Supreme Court Briefs, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, which leads to a big national debate between religious freedom and civil rights.
Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by ‪@Dyalla‬.
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.com/document/d/1B...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
Other sources used:
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterp...
www.aclu.org/cases/masterpiec...
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
www.nationalreview.com/bench-...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
How to support and donate to my channel:
Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔
Join for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
Cameo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat
Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On
Patreon for The Beat Goes On: / thebeatgoeson
Connect with me:
Links: linktr.ee/iammrbeat
Website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Podcast: anchor.fm/thebeatpod
Reddit: / mrbeat
@beatmastermatt on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Facebook: / iammrbeat
Instagram: / iammrbeat
Beatcord: / discord
TikTok: / iammrbeat
Merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Fourthwall: link.fourthwall.com/MrBeat
StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/52723408...
#supremecourtcases #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission highlighted the tensions between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. More accurately, it highlighted the tensions between Christians and the LGBTQ+ community. Despite all the progress the LGBTQ+ community has made in recent decades, it’s a community that millions of Americans still refuse to accept.
While Charlie Craig and David Mullins never liked the spotlight and have kept a low profile ever since this decision, Jack Phillips has become somewhat of an activist. He later got in trouble for breaking the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act again for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person. On January 26, 2023, Phillips lost that case in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
While the Court said that gay couples still should have civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and even philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected forms of “expression.” That said, this decision was narrow. The Court did not address the broader question of whether or not businesses had a constitutional right to discriminate against same-sex couples. Still, critics said this decision could lead to further discrimination against marginalized groups under the guise of religious freedom.

Пікірлер: 2 500

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

Did the Court get it correct with this decision? Edit: I should have clarified that he refused to CUSTOMIZE a cake for them. He said they were welcome to buy any of his premade cakes. Phillips argued that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that forcing him to create an artistic expression against his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. I apologize for not adding this important information. I oversimplified it too much.

@franciscoacevedo3036 11 ай бұрын

It promotes anti social behavior in fact that's one of the reasons why Germany bans homeschooling. Overall civics triumph over all. P.S. most of these mfkrs are the ones who whined and screamed about wearing masks

@georgeiii2998 11 ай бұрын

I think so

@AlexKawa20 11 ай бұрын

No. As you said in the video, there are too many unanswered questions, and I compare it to the “states’ rights” excuse that segregationists used back in the day. Sure, some might genuinely believe in it, but all too often, “religious freedom” is just an excuse to be a bigot.

@sabine-potato 11 ай бұрын

history will ultimately see this in the same light as businesses refusing inter-racial couples, which some mainstream religious organizations still object to.

@ruthkatz1998 11 ай бұрын

Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with

@DanielKolbin 11 ай бұрын

Anti-Discrimination laws and the First Amendment have definitely had a rough relationship

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

It's an example of the classic battle between civil rights and civil liberties.

@skoop651 11 ай бұрын

it's very clear that gay couple wanted to start stuff, people can refuse to make things that they don't want to make and it's clear they knew that you can't deny making things for people you don't want to (unless there's a "valid" reason), you can deny making things you don't want to

@zoeybarter3246 10 ай бұрын

@@skoop651 this is not a concern that straight people must deal with. If a queer person has to fear being denied service because of who they are then that is a fundamental injustice. The court is wrong (as they often are).

@funwithfacts9413 10 ай бұрын

@@skoop651 One such "valid reason" is that you object to the message that you are being told to produce. In this case, Philips objected to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, because a wedding cake is traditionally considered an expression of a happy marriage. Phillips did not want to create something that was praising a gay wedding. Philips told the gay couple that he would gladly bake them shower cakes, birthday cakes, etc., but just not wedding cakes. People should be expected to serve other people equally, but they should not be expected to speak in favor of an event they do not support.

@richardsamueljordan1569 10 ай бұрын

@@zoeybarter3246 lmao "queer"

@angryfatguy4503 10 ай бұрын

You did not mention that he refused to customize a cake for them. He said they were welcome to buy any of his premade cakes.

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

I should have mentioned this, yes. Edit: pinned comment updated

@farmerfrugal 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeatthat's an extremely important point left out, I'd pin a comment or something about this information

@horacioelconserjeopina3956 10 ай бұрын

Such a fascist. Didn't comply with the BDSM of a gay couple!!!

@IncredibleStan 10 ай бұрын

@@farmerfrugal Honestly, I don't think it makes that much difference, because a service was still dissallowed that this cake maker would typically make for anyone else.

@kingofhearts3185 10 ай бұрын

@@IncredibleStan Actually no, he claimed that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that compelling him to create an artistic expression agaisnt his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. And the court agreed.

@jpkral 10 ай бұрын

It's funny to me how a cakeshop a 20 minute drive from my house made his case all the way to the supreme court of the United States

@TonyPunkRock 8 ай бұрын

The one thing I always thought was why would you want someone that doesn’t WANT to bake the cake for your event or wedding. If the baker isn’t into it, shouldn’t you just go elsewhere? Is he the only baker? If the baker’s heart isn’t into it, how high can your expectations actually be? Are you going to get the baker’s best work? Wouldn’t you want someone that was 100% behind you and enthusiastic about baking the cake?

@willb.nimble6749 8 ай бұрын

Yeah, which is why the couple got a cake elsewhere. The complaint was because the couple felt like they were being discriminated against, which, in a way, they were. However, to not make a custom cake for them, but have still offered pre-made cakes, makes sense.

@0008loser 2 ай бұрын

Most people don't mind being extremely petty

@mosesherrera530 Ай бұрын

@@willb.nimble6749 they definitely were not. If someone doesn't believe in your view. They shouldn't be force to make ANYTHING that's promotes that view. Stop forcing that nasty life style on other people

@SylvainSybaris Ай бұрын

If I was a baker and told the Dems & Libs I do not make Dem/Lib designs, but the Dems & Libs demanded I make it, then I would make it very sloppy looking and add NO sugar with lots of salt, and I would p1$$ in the cake.... I'll bet the Dems & Libs will never come back again.

@KaDarianSession Ай бұрын

bro being gay is not a choice, or a lifestyle it’s a identity that people are born and freedom of religion does not give you a pass to discriminate

@mrsolarsun7174 11 ай бұрын

You should do Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City next, as it literally saved New York City's Grand Central Station from being demolished.

@hueyiroquois3839 10 ай бұрын

*Grand Central Terminal, although, they've renamed it because of people who don't know its real name.

@TankEngine75 10 ай бұрын

As a Railfan, I agree with this

@goldenvulture6818 5 ай бұрын

Correction: Grand Central Terminal

@UnitedStatesExplained Ай бұрын

honestly i dont really like that case. its pretty ridiculous to me that the government can arbitrarily label a companies property as a "landmark" and then force them to maintain a certain standard. how is that NOT unconstitutional under the takings clause?

@CrisisMonday 11 ай бұрын

I really do enjoy these supreme court briefs. My favorite series.

@CrisisMonday 10 ай бұрын

@Fifi_03 ?

@Remember_Bubblebutt 11 ай бұрын

Yeah, I also have a tough time with this case. Being able to balance anti-discrimination with the First Amendment is extremely difficult. The outcomes of cases like this will probably depend on what party is in control of the Supreme Court at the time.

@paxundpeace9970 10 ай бұрын

That's the most iconclusive answer.

@sirclarkmarz 10 ай бұрын

before i retired i was self employed i had gay and lesbian clients. these people were very wealthy and had enough dignity and self respect not to pull a stunt like this. if anyone ever demanded that i do something for them then they were no longer a customer. i didn't make a scene i just blocked their number and ignored them. these two characters are nothing more. then the alphabet people equivalent of race hustlers.

@dennisd9554 10 ай бұрын

Not sure on that. I honestly have to say I was shocked when I saw it was 7-2. Kegen and Kennedy joined the conservatives on this one. I have to be honest that reading about the decision previously I did not catch on to the the "artistic expression" part, so kudos to Mr. Beats for pointing that nuance out. I'm guessing if he had refused to sell them even a blank cake they would have sided with the couple saying that was just discrimination.

@alpacaofthemountain8760 10 ай бұрын

@warlordofbritannia 10 ай бұрын

@@sirclarkmarz Yknow, I could understand your sentiment until that last sentence. Then I realized you’re just an asshole.

@MaddieHeartsHistory 10 ай бұрын

Another great video Mr. Beat! I learn a lot from your videos, they're super informative. Interesting to hear both of the arguments.

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

Well thank you!

@nautilusshell4969 10 ай бұрын

I wonder what would have happened if the baker had refused a cake based on the fact that the couple were straight, but interracial.

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

People may not get this connection, but it's a strong connection because both are tied to identity. What if someone's religion told them that interracial marriages were bad?

@jeffslote9671 10 ай бұрын

He should be able to deny anyone service

@lollypop00p 10 ай бұрын

@@jeffslote9671 that would be clear racial discrimination, against the law. If you cant run a business following the laws of the land, dont run a business

@jeffslote9671 10 ай бұрын

@@lollypop00p Anti discrimination laws shouldn’t exist

@Compucles 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat If there was one, then sure, respect that belief as long as they aren't discriminating against *people* of other races, just the marriage right. It's not about identity; it's about an action.

@DavidHamada35 11 ай бұрын

It's always about the balance of the Free Exercise Clause. I remember learning about this case a long time ago but also loved to learn about the role religion plays in the everyday lives of Americans. Would love for you to do Stone v. Graham, Greece v. Town of Galloway or Lee v. Weisman. (After reading the case file again had to edit the comment)

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

Establishment Clause? That wasn't involved at all. This was all private actors.

@Sewblon 10 ай бұрын

What does the establishment clause have to do with this case?

@warlordofbritannia 10 ай бұрын

How does the Establishment Clause pertain to making laws that prevent businesses from such discrimination, I do so wonder? Have there been previous cases like this?

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

@@warlordofbritannia It doesn't. Stuff like the CRA of 1964, which is what I believe the original commenter was referring to, are actually done by Interstate Commerce Clause, because you'd think given historical context, the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle... But SCOTUS fucked up the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse and Civil Rights Cases, and they never bothered going back to fix it. And surprisingly enough, the Justice who wants to do that is Thomas.

@johnjones3813 10 ай бұрын

The problem is, the Bible says all kinds of crazy sh!t. So, if the baker is gonna play the religion card, then they also should be against serving customers who wear clothing with a fabric Blend. See Leviticus 19:19

@mark37724 11 ай бұрын

It truly is a sticky wicket. I really just wanted to say sticky wicket, couldn't pass on the opportunity.

@hydromic2518 11 ай бұрын

Thanks I’m definitely going to use that from now on

@cock5268 11 ай бұрын

Hope you're having a great day mr beat. Love your SCB videos

@lec3rd735 10 ай бұрын

I found you channel bc I misspelled mrbeast but I'm glad I misspelled c:

@modame659 10 ай бұрын

LOL!!

@travisbrewer5391 10 ай бұрын

The court actually found that the CRC had been unjustly hostile toward Jack Phillips which was why the decision sidestepped the bigger question. In 303 Creative, the court did find that the 1st Amendment protects creative businesses (e.g. artists and bakers) against being compelled to create wares expressing opinions they disagree with.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

Yay second comment that got it right. Wow. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.

@chaseshepherd6668 11 ай бұрын

Supreme Court briefs is one of my personal favorite types of videos to watch on KZfaq.

@comedycompilations7748 11 ай бұрын

Dude is always as neutral as possible when going about this sort of topic. Massive respect.

@skoop651 11 ай бұрын

he is definitely left leaning

@comedycompilations7748 10 ай бұрын

@skoop651 I'm not saying he isn't. He has been rather open about his positions politically in the past. This is most certainly not the hill that you wanna die on. I disagree with him on many aspects of his political leanings. I'm definitely heavily right leaning personally. But I know good character and lack of Mal intent when I see it. There definitely much worse left leaning political channels than his. I think it simply is a case of understanding that implicit bias is inevitable and to be smart enough to identify it and ignore it. Not attacking you. Not picking a fight. Just making an observation as someone who disagrees with him.

@qwertasdf5044 10 ай бұрын

@@comedycompilations7748 curious what you mean by right leaning? Thinking trump is actually a good president? Or thinking that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't impede other's freedom?

@comedycompilations7748 10 ай бұрын

I'm definitely not a liberaterian if that's what your implying. As for whether or not I think that Trump is a good president, let's just say I've never seen the left more rabid and deliberate in their attacks on a conservative president. Not since the days of honest Abe. That alone tells me he's doing better work than Ronald Reagan or the Bush presidents ever could. His america first policy is also very good imo. My only criticism is that sometimes he needs to stop saying stupid childish stuff on social media. Other than that I have no problem. You are of course free to disagree, as is your right.

@AGHathaway 10 ай бұрын

@@comedycompilations7748 You've gotta be kidding with this take. You honestly compare Abe to Trump? Hilarious. Your argument is so invalid and filled with fallacies it makes one's head spin.

@coyotelong4349 10 ай бұрын

The thing that’s troubling about this ruling is that it leads to a bit of a slippery slope If discrimination is allowed on a religious beliefs basis, where does the line get drawn? Anyone could then be discriminated against, based on any criteria, if the discriminator only says it’s because of their religious beliefs

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

The line is you can't force someone to make an artistic expression that goes against their fundamental beliefs. However, you cannot deny giving public, already made goods to someone. The cake the couple asked for would have been custom made for something the baker did not support. Forcing the baker to do so would be compelled speech.

@ImaginaryIndividual 10 ай бұрын

@@suzerain840 The cake the couple wanted would have been made for a wedding, yes, but it would have been no different from any other wedding cake. It wasn’t that Phillips refused to make a “gay cake,” it’s that he refused to make a normal wedding cake solely because the people who wanted to purchase that cake were gay. There’s really no way to justify that as Phillips asserting his freedom of artistic expression, it’s just clear-cut discrimination because of his “religious beliefs.” It’s no different than if a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

@@ImaginaryIndividual so you're saying he refused to make an artistic expression for something he fundamentally disagreed with. You can't force someone to make artwork for something they don't agree with. He offered them the Pre-made cakes. Are you saying a gay baker must make a cake for the Westboro baptist church as long as it's a "normal" cake even though it's a form of artistic expression?

@ImaginaryIndividual 10 ай бұрын

@@suzerain840 Well, the Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a person, obviously. But yes, he shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against _members_ of the Westboro Baptist Church who want a wedding cake.

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

@@ImaginaryIndividual a wedding... At the Westboro baptist church. I think they should be able to deny that tbh. Personally I don't think you need to devote time and effort towards something that you fundamentally disagree with.

@norahajian8517 28 күн бұрын

No one should be forced to say (or write) something that they don't agree with, or promote something that they think is wrong, or get involved in something they think is sinful. Chasing this kind of thing as if it were serious and actionable discrimination will immensely cheapen the concept of discrimination, and make it harder to pursue serious discrimination cases that actually ought to be pursued.

@JOGA_Wills 11 ай бұрын

One of my favorite segments you do!!! Very informative, that Scottsboro case still strikes a chord with me [which Trumps lawyers tried to invoke recently]

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

I appreciate the encouraging words!

@franciscoacevedo3036 11 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeatthank you for promoting logic reason and civics

@Based_Gigachad_001 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat You are the 🐐.

@RachaelMarieNewport 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeatgreat job of explaining the case as always. There is already related cases. One has been decided based on this precedent based on website development even though the facts were misrepresented. That would make a good follow up video. There are health related cases that have not yet made their way up to SCOTUS. For example, several states allow pharmacists to use religious beliefs to not fill prescriptions and TN passed a law allowing for mental health care to be denied based on religious beliefs. This is far more than just baking a cake.

@anotheroutlier1227 10 ай бұрын

@@RachaelMarieNewportOh dang. You mind sending me that link for the mental health case?

@gabrielfrank-mcpheter736 10 ай бұрын

Please do a follow up video on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which DID have a larger scope ruling on the same topic! And thanks as always for your entertaining, informative, and non-biased presentation. As the son of two moms, this topic matters to me, and I can always appreciate when someone can approach the topic from a non-biased, legal perspective while still supporting the LGBTQ community without necessarily having a specific opinion on the legal questions of the case.

@TheSSUltimateGoku 10 ай бұрын

Here’s my take on this case as well as the case that most recently happened with the web designer. When you draw artwork paid commission for somebody that’s commission work that’s freelance and when you have commissions you set rules on what you will and you won’t draw. And when you do that it should be allowed for you to regulate whatever you want and don’t want to draw. Also something that is completely forgotten about this case with the bakery cake owner here which was also not mentioned in this video is that he refused to draw Halloween cakes as well. Now tell me how many people here are going to complain about a Halloween cake being refused to be made by an cake maker? The way I look at it if you’re a freelancer doing commission work artwork the creator is allowed to set whatever rules they want on what they will or they won’t draw. Now we’re talking about a normal grocery store or restaurant something like that and the stuffs already out and they discriminate that’s different. But we were talking about making customizable artwork from an artist doing commission works there well within the rights to create any specific rules they want on what they will and they won’t draw. I kind of wish this aspect would have been focused more on the case than the whole anti-religion/anti-LGBTQ argument.

@JohnnyAngel8 10 ай бұрын

That's a good position. Thanks for the food for thought.

@dantosinferne 10 ай бұрын

Well put.

@quinardosoto977 9 ай бұрын

I agree on this point entirely, but the crux of the issue and the point of the Anti-discrimination side is that the refusal of service is not based on the nature of the product commissioned, but on the sexual orientation of the customer.

@crimsonfire6932 9 ай бұрын

@@quinardosoto977but that is simply not true. The cake baker refused to make a cake that endorses the practice of homosexuality. He didn’t refuse service to the couple on the simple basis that they were homosexual. If they were a straight couple, and for whatever reason they had asked him to bake a wedding cake designed in a way that endorses homosexuality, then he would have refused it to them as well. To demonstrate the converse, he also offered to sell them anything that did not endorse homosexuality, such as premade goods, or a design that just didn’t endorse something that directly contradicts his personal beliefs. That is fundamentally why the supreme courts decision is correct.

@Xander1Sheridan 9 ай бұрын

@@quinardosoto977 Because that is a total lie, and who the fuck cares? Why do you have the authority to tell a business what it should do? Punishing people for what they think is the single most evil thing any government can do.

@jodhan90 10 ай бұрын

I can agree with the decision, that you can refuse to put a message you don't agree with on the cake. In my opinion, you should be able to refuse to bake the cake, but be able to refuse to put the figure or the names on it. You can't decline customers for what they are, but decide what product you want to sell.

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

That's a reasonable take. Thanks for sharing!

@Avghistorian77 10 ай бұрын

That is what he did. He declined to custom make the cake but he did offer them to get one the pre-made cakes in the store.

@dawnmitchell11 10 ай бұрын

@@Avghistorian77this

@KCH55 10 ай бұрын

I don't agree with you about the name, a name is a part of who you are as a person, it would be discriminatory, a civil rights issue. I do agree however, with the design, such as if they wanted a pride flag, Nazi symbols, etc.

@jodhan90 10 ай бұрын

@KCH55 the name/names can be a message, too. So I would still say that you can refuse to write names. But names are also a part of that person, so I see your reason not to include it.

@sonyskywalker9508 9 ай бұрын

I hate the idea of someone being forced to do something or else. That is oppressive.

@blahajlucie 7 ай бұрын

It is not when the fact that someone doesn't want to do something is just based on bigotry and hatred.

@richardperaza5083 5 ай бұрын

@@blahajlucie uh you do realize that the homosexual couple is basically forcing him to go against his religion you're really not going to say that's hatred

@suspicioususer 4 ай бұрын

So if he denied every black person service it would be ok?

@clipvault9405 3 ай бұрын

@@suspicioususer not at all. I'm sure if you were a baker and someone came in and asked you to make a swastika cake you would deny it. Which you have every right to. He wasn't refusing them service because they were gay. He refused to make and design a cake that went against his religious views. He even offered them to buy a generic cake which they denied. You can't force someone to make something they disagree with.

@cyrenia47 2 ай бұрын

@@clipvault9405 he was literally refusing cuz they were gay tho? he would have made it if they were straight even if its 'religious reasons' the reason is still that they were gay

@michaeltnk1135 11 ай бұрын

Mr Beat should make one about the Dobbs decision

@ch44227 10 ай бұрын

I think it should be important to note (although you are still welcome to disagree with Jack Phillips) that he told the couple he would sell them anything else, including a pre-made wedding cake. So it seems as though it's not about the person(s) but using his art to create something to celebrate a particular event that goes against his beliefs. He also didn't make halloween cakes, erotic cakes or anything conveying a demeaning message to people (including gays). Likewise in the trans gender case, it wasn't just a birthday cake but a cake to celebrate their gender transition. Again fill free to disagree with him, but these are important details.

@mrsatire9475 10 ай бұрын

No, it has nothing to do with art or religion ... just discrimination

@zoeybarter3246 9 ай бұрын

It’s baffling to me that you people are willing to buy these flimsy excuses. It was absolutely about the people.

@mattsains 10 ай бұрын

I just realised these videos are exactly the same as the corresponding chapters in your book 🤯

@bendi3768 11 ай бұрын

Bro I literally just read this in your book thank you

@wordrebel 10 ай бұрын

I enjoy all of Mr. Beat's content (especially the livestreams!) but the Brief series might be my favorite. Mr. Beat gives you the facts as they are and lets you decide. I owe my love of history and social studies to a fantastic teacher I had in 8th grade - shout out to Mr. Rutledge! - and Mr. Beat reminds me very much of him.

@aframs-cctaf-rams-cct6424 9 ай бұрын

this are not the facts, he left out the very important point that the baker refused to do their custom cake NOT cause they were gay but the item they wanted done was against his religion, baker said he could do something else or sell them an already made cake and they could write the words they wanted

@Xander1Sheridan 9 ай бұрын

you mean he omits everything that makes him look like a moron.

@jlstudios69 11 ай бұрын

Wow awesome video! Remember hearing about this cake in 8th grade and always being interested about it in my head. This is my first time hearing about the recent update to the story with the transgender cake, really interesting.

@SylviaRustyFae 10 ай бұрын

it wasnt even a trans cake or anythin... The cake made no mention of trans stuff at all and was a cake the business owner was entirely willin to make... Until he found out the person he was makin the cake for was trans. "Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition" All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin for her birthday; a cake he wudve made for anyone else, but that he feels he shudnt have to make bcuz of Who he is makin the cake for... Bcuz he got an overinflated ego from partial winnin this case and believed he won the right to discriminate 9.9

@aroach7461 9 ай бұрын

Also it's called freedom of speech. A man is not a woman, the buyers could of just gone to any other bakery, but they decide to only go for this one, because it isn't about the cake, it's about political hatred, it's about revenge.

@SylviaRustyFae 9 ай бұрын

@@aroach7461 Its actually not that simple bcuz we can indeed put limitations on ones speech and we can indeed require them not to use their speech in a discriminatory way if they wish to engage in a business that serves the general public. The example of him denyin a trans person a bday cake is one where he has NO freedom of speech argument bcuz the cake in question was a cake he was entirely willing to make; until he found out the cake buyer was a trans person. He doesnt get to claim it stifles his freedom of creative expression (the actual freedom of speech claim in the gay weddin cake case that narrowly was allowed), bcuz he clearly stated he was willin to make the cake and only tried to back out of it when the person in question outed themself as a trans person

@SylviaRustyFae 9 ай бұрын

@@aroach7461 Per your logic btw, this cake seller wud be legally allowed to refuse to make a cake with a weddin topper that had a Black groom and a white bride; bcuz its his right to creative expression... Except, we have a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against Black ppl in that way by refusin to serve them on the basis of their race. Just like we have a law makin it illegal to refuse to serve a Trans or a Gay person on the basis of their status as such

@aroach7461 9 ай бұрын

@@SylviaRustyFae let him discriminate, people are not forced to buy his cakes are they? Therfore the people will decide if he remains open. Do you not have faith in the people? Besides religious people were already discriminated too, but you didn't care about that did you? No, you didn't. You only care about a specific group of people. Men aren't women, no more then a dog is a cat.

@stevejohnson43 10 ай бұрын

You are my All-Out-Favorite KZfaq Channel! 😊 Question: Because of You, I plan to subscribe to "Ground News" . I forget if there is a Code, or other way to Give You Credit for it? You were my only source to learn about it. (I shall praise you more later) I

@larssrensen4353 10 ай бұрын

Have you considered the muslim backery edition? It seems to me it's easier for them to get away with it.

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

Was there a specific case?

@paxundpeace9970 10 ай бұрын

I ask myself a similar question but the bakery could have been owned by muslim how would be the dynamics if a muslim baker would have declined this.

@paxundpeace9970 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeatHave you ever looked into another issue i france. In Paris some stores owned by muslims were forced to sell pork and alcohol and some other products that are considered haram.

@brhiandavila6987 10 ай бұрын

Videos like these make me want to take time out of my day to read the constitution more thoroughly to understand how our justice system works and how the SC interprets cases. For this particular case I am biased to wards the baker because of those same religious beliefs we share, but reading the comments makes me realize I need to set my biases aside and look into federal laws before even thinking about forming an opinion. I really enjoy these types of videos Mr. Beat, keep up the good work!

@andrewphilos 10 ай бұрын

The Constitution is (famously) quite short; you should be able to get through it in no time. Now, reading all the judicial precedent that goes into these decisions... that might take you a scosh longer.

@brhiandavila6987 10 ай бұрын

@@andrewphilos True but as a US citizen I’m a bit ashamed at the fact that I haven’t at least read it from top to bottom. And the same goes for many Americans. We should take the time to study it more

@Xander1Sheridan 9 ай бұрын

Their is a huge difference between the Constitution and the legal garbage. Unfortunately the Constitution is almost totally ignored by most outside of the Supreme Court, and even they have been known to trample it on occasion. It is sickening to think anyone would force someone else to do something for them just because they think they are better.

@ihavetowait90daystochangem67 11 ай бұрын

You know this whole case would’ve been over if they just went into another Bakery

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

They did lol

@franciscoacevedo3036 11 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeatthose same mfkrs are the ones who whined and scream about wearing a mask 😷

@nelsonmlazo4449 11 ай бұрын

And they still decided to sue masterpiece cakeshop

@ECKohns 10 ай бұрын

And all the Civil Rights sit ins could have been avoided if all the black people simply went to a different restaurant.

@javierramirez637 9 ай бұрын

@@franciscoacevedo3036 So you’re saying that wearing masks in the face of a global pandemic was unnecessary? Are you going to next say the masks were suffocating? 🙄

@flamethefurry3516 10 ай бұрын

It's such a complicated issue. I'm not christian and I'm also gay, but I also sympathize with people not being forced to go against their beliefs. I think they should be allowed to turn down a same sex wedding, but not someone ordering a birthday cake for their mom or something and they happen to be gay. Basically I think it's only acceptable if the thing you disagree with is directly relevant to the service being offered

@RobertGrif 10 ай бұрын

I'm a Christian and I think this is a very reasonable take

@Harambae613 10 ай бұрын

I’m bisexual and Christian. I think that take is fair since I’d do the same thing. I also would be courteous and find someone who would. Just because I’m not able to because I don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean I can at least help you find someone who can.

@flamethefurry3516 10 ай бұрын

@@2tallyGr8 however he refused service to a transgender person as well, which I do not believe with since them being trans presumably had little to nothing to do with the actual order

@AnnoyingAllie3 10 ай бұрын

Politely, you are a traitor to your own community. No business merits more protection than the costumers

@flamethefurry3516 10 ай бұрын

@@AnnoyingAllie3 Politely my ass, that's a rude thing to say. I don't want people to be allowed to discriminate against someone for who they are, but I understand that these people have very sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, and while I disagree and find it completely backwards, I respect their right to free speech. Plus if I were to find the man of my dreams and marry him, I would want a wedding cake from someone who supports us anyway. As I said, I only think it should apply to this very specific case, not like a store owner refusing to sell a gay man a hershey's bar. Also out of curiosity, are you a part of the LGBTQ+ community?

@dylanl.7337 10 ай бұрын

A very simple explanation to a very complex case. Great job Mr. Beat!

@IonasalSdorica 11 ай бұрын

Well, the court actually focused more on the way the CCRC handled the complaint to reverse the lower court's decision. And there were some evidence that the CCRC went overboard a bit too much - such as likening the baker's beliefs to Nazism. In a way, the Court punted and sidestepped the more important constitutional questions. Additionally, same-sex marriage wasn't legal in Colorado (but I guess that Colorado did recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state back then?) when this dispute started, so that was a factor as well.

@barnaclejones822 10 ай бұрын

yeah, i don't really see an alternate universe where Christianity and Nazism mix. one of them has to go, and in any case, one is explicitly acting in spite of the other.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

Wow. First comment that actually gets it right. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.

@SylviaRustyFae 10 ай бұрын

Fun fact! The first ppl the nazis went after were the socialists and the queers; they targeted jewish socialists and jewish queers more than anyone else ofc. Magnus Hirschfeld was a queer Jewish researcher who had a ton of research into the transgender community specifically; and his works were some of the first to be seized and destroyed in their purges of heretical views So its not all that ingenuine to pt out that such bigotry can be likened to nazism. If folk dont like bein likened to nazis; they shudnt be like nazis. Back in the 40s and 50s, USA understood this and we saw a reversal of policy when it came to the question of eugenics; bcuz guess what... the Nazis were inspired by USA there, and that was a bit of a wakeup call for ppl over here to suddenly notice that these eugenics movements cud lead to some very disastrous things once they moved on past the poor ppl, undesirables, and disabled ppl (bcuz ofc, who cares about those ppl 9.9)

@authenticallysuperficial9874 10 ай бұрын

@@barnaclejones822Nazism and Hiter were endorsed and supported by the Catholic church, as were many other fascist regimes.

@barnaclejones822 10 ай бұрын

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 speaking in ideology and philosophy, not loose ties and pacts. I'm making the argument that religion is used "for bad things" in spite of the characteristics that actually make it definable. I never claimed that there had never been any ties between fascists and religious groups. However, again, I am saying that in terms of actual philosophy and not individual actors and contemporary decisions, they are literally the furthest thing from mixable. For example, a former Hitler youth left Nazism after the war ended. He became a Catholic priest and a fervent anti-fascist.

@funwithfacts9413 10 ай бұрын

Nice video as usual Mr. Beat. Would you be interested in doing the case 303 creative v. Elenis, which was a broader case about a Christian website designer refusing to make a wedding website that advertised a gay wedding. This case was exclusively about the free speech clause of the First Amendment and had no effect on the Free Exercise clause.

@mattjones354 10 ай бұрын

I actually was able to watch all of the Supreme Court briefs while assembling my new furniture from scratch

@tudorjason 10 ай бұрын

This court case resembles an episode of The Good Wife so much, I'm convinced it served as inspiration for this case, especially considering the case's fake origins.

@rockinfender93 10 ай бұрын

Regardless of what you think about the supreme court case, we all know damn well if a baker refused to bake a cake with a cross on it the religious rite would turn into a bunch of crybabies about it. I don’t like the same standards they set applied to them.

@matthewmccallion3311 10 ай бұрын

Hi Mr Beat! You could compare this case to a UK Supreme Court case we had here in Northern Ireland, called Lee v Ashers Baking Co (2018), which was decided just after Masterpiece Cakeshop. Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, ordered a cake from a Christian bakery for a political event supporting same-sex marriage (which was still illegal in Northern Ireland at the time). The cake was to contain the words "Support Gay Marriage" (and also had a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street). The bakers refused, citing their religious beliefs. Lee won at the County Court and the NI Court of Appeal, but Ashers (the bakers) won at the UK Supreme Court. It was unanimous, 5-0. The Court ruled that it was a matter of compelled speech, and that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. In a postscript to the judgment, Lady Hale (President of the Supreme Court) made some remarks noting the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Here, she distinguished the two cases, noting that the bakers in Lee v Ashers did not discriminate on the grounds of Mr Lee's sexual orientation, as they would have refused to bake the cake he ordered for any customer, no matter their characteristics. All the case details (including the written judgment, the press summary, video recordings of the arguments and the oral judgment) are here: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html

@matthewmccallion3311 10 ай бұрын

P.S. I would also note something that Lady Hale says at the end of her oral judgment: "This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination. It is deeply humiliating and an affront to human dignity to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case." Essentially, she heavily hinted that if a case with the same facts as Masterpiece Cakeshop came before the UK Supreme Court, they would have ruled very differently from their US counterparts.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

I believe in this case the baker said the same as well, that he would have refused the bake the pro same sex marriage cake for any customer. Also Mr. Beat completely got the holding wrong. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. They basically observed the commission acted with animus towards religion, thereby violating the 1st Amendment.

@joemama-ks9ty 10 ай бұрын

Lmao, this country overall is so behind our brother nations. Unacceptable that we put opinions above facts. We have so many blatantly obvious issues that are unsolved, while other countries have solved those exact issues already (some even going back half a century)

@SylviaRustyFae 10 ай бұрын

@@ilikedota5 Yeah tho as we found out when he refused to provide any cake at all to a trans person solely bcuz she was trans; turns out he rly did just want to discriminate on the basis of who they were, he just happened to find a legal loophole that let him do it the first time "Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition" All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin on it that said happy birthday. He agreed to make the cake, bcuz he didnt disagree with the artistic expression requested of him, and then he found out she was trans; so he refused to make the cake citin his religious objections to her existence... He has no doubt refused other ppl similar cakes for similar reasons too

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

@@SylviaRustyFae Interesting. Taking everything as true, because I haven't looked at the court case, your comment would seem correct. That being said I have questions, because I wonder if there are factual differences between the situation. In the original case, he said he would have sold a premade cake, but not a custom cake. Did he take the same stance here? The underlying idea is that a custom cake carries implicit endorsement that an off the shelf cake does not.

@crazydinosaur8945 10 ай бұрын

my religious belief is that i don't have to give services to "non white people" what's the difference between that and this?

@jacob7649 10 ай бұрын

😐

@esotericoutcast641 10 ай бұрын

If it's a public business they should not turn them down. If it's a private businese, they should have the freedom to do so. This is the same standard we share for social media. If you don't like it, go to another platform/build your own.

@hgriff14 9 ай бұрын

The first thing I thought when this actually happened was “You can’t force people to work for you.” And the first thing I thought after watching this video is: YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK FOR YOU.

@jonasastrom7422 9 ай бұрын

Which is extremely reasonable, but since laws prohibiting that are labeled "civil rights" (for some reason) nobody has the guts to oppose them

@Xander1Sheridan 9 ай бұрын

@@jonasastrom7422 they should not be. But everything is now a 'civil right,' because people are morons and have no idea what that even means.

@ericsonofjohn9384 9 ай бұрын

So what if a bakery decides they won’t serve black people? Would you be okay with that on the basis that forcing the bakery to serve black people would be forcing the bakery to work for people?

@jonasastrom7422 9 ай бұрын

@@ericsonofjohn9384 Yes, that's legal despite how awful it is. And anyone doing so would be out of business in seconds, actually imagine the kind of press that would get you

@tennicksalvarez9079 8 ай бұрын

The military and the prison system just enter the chat

@Boatguy624 11 ай бұрын

I wish you were my geography teacher MrBeat!

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

Well at least I can be your KZfaq geography teacher. :)

@Boatguy624 11 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat Aw Shucks! That just makes me even happier!

@JervisGermane 10 ай бұрын

The key questions for me are what are and aren't rights. Does a couple getting married have a right to a cake? Is a business owner running a personal enterprise, or a for-profit public service? If he'd refused them service for any other reason (he suspected they wouldn't pay, he didn't have cake toppers with the right hair color, he was too busy with other cakes to take on new clients at the moment) would it have gone the same way? Where does their right to a cake run into his right to run his business the way he wants? I'm afraid this ruling still didn't answer those key questions.

@Biga101011 10 ай бұрын

The lack of specificity is something that seems to be a common theme for the court under Roberts. They give a lot of opinions that focus so narrowly on the case at hand it leaves everyone else back to square one for anything related to the case. I enjoy a lot of the videos on the topic by another creator Hoag Law, who is a lawyer aside from KZfaq. He definitely has some bias and political leanings, but I find that like Mr Beat he tends to try and keep his presentation as unbiased as can be. I think he did this case, but it is some of the more historical cases that I found the most interesting.

@mathieuleader8601 10 ай бұрын

you might say this case really takes the cake

@zach7193 11 ай бұрын

This was something else. The court sided with Phillips. Even though, he was protected under the 1st amendment. This was a landmark decision.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

And they sided for completely different reasons than what Mr. Beat presented. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. Basically, the commission acted with animus towards religion, and that was the grounds why there was a majority opinion with 6 Justices onboard.

@adamnour9876 10 ай бұрын

He was protected under conservatives judies

@mrsatire9475 10 ай бұрын

@@ilikedota5 The lower courts were correct, this had nothing to do with religion or art

@SamAronow 11 ай бұрын

I continue to support you covering _Coleman v. Miller_ in the future.

@k00lkidz4 11 ай бұрын

nice seeing you here sam

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

Right on

@historicalperspective 10 ай бұрын

Great video mr beat keep it up

@SuperHGB 6 ай бұрын

My opinion: Making a custom cake is art, and thus protected by the first amendment, but premade, and undecorated cakes are a commodity, and protected by anti-discrimination laws

@TheFaustineClaravallPO 3 ай бұрын

Respectable, but you cant really force people to do things they dont want.

@interstatehighwayfan_645 11 ай бұрын

The guy in this case made my parent’s wedding cake I’ve met him before

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

Woahness

@ash_11117 11 ай бұрын

Cool. What’s he like?

@interstatehighwayfan_645 11 ай бұрын

@@ash_11117 he’s a nice guy

@compatriot852 10 ай бұрын

How was the cake?

@brandonl7110 10 ай бұрын

Yeah sure buddy I believe you

@2KDUDE22 11 ай бұрын

I respect gay rights and have championed them for years, but a business should be able to refuse business as I view a business, especially a sole proprietorship, as having the same rights as a person. That being said, why refuse customers isn’t that hurting your business?

@fiskersproductions 10 ай бұрын

Should be allowed to deny services to people of different skin colors or of other religious beliefs as well?

@2KDUDE22 10 ай бұрын

@@fiskersproductions if someone owns a house and they don’t want someone there, they shouldn’t be forced to let them in. And I think our capitalism will weed out the a holes out there by if they turn you away don’t go there no more go somewhere else and hopefully that business will suffer and close. Hopefully society evolves and this type of stuff becomes a none issue.

@CvnDqnrU 4 ай бұрын

@@fiskersproductions "Should be allowed to deny services to people of different skin colors or of other religious beliefs as well?" Yes, why not? Are you afraid of other people's identities and lifestyles? Also if a need is not satisfied, capitalists will run to satisfy it, as long as the state doesn't force people to do things against their will which ruins free markets.

@bricksburger5409 10 ай бұрын

This happened also in Northern Ireland which involved the UK Supreme Court

@lpourmirza 10 ай бұрын

You should do the next Supreme Court Brief on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents!

@westcoastflyers144 10 ай бұрын

It is important to consider that he didn’t refuse them service outright. He just wouldn’t make that specific thing. They could have bought other things. That’s what makes it not illegal discrimination for me. There’s a difference between saying “I won’t make this thing” and “I won’t serve you because of _____”

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

Most definitely! Thanks for bringing this up.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat In fact, he even said I'd sell you a premade pure white sheet cake and let the couple design it themselves, but that wasn't what they wanted.

@joemama-ks9ty 10 ай бұрын

Bro, denying a specific service is still a kind of denying a service

@IncredibleStan 10 ай бұрын

"Look Mr. Jenkins, I won't sell this brand new BMW to you because I have a philosophical belief that people of your ethnicity have an inclination to not pay their car notes on time. But I will sell you this Toyota and you can buy a BMW sticker to put on it later if you like."

@joemama-ks9ty 10 ай бұрын

@@IncredibleStan LMAO

@hydromic2518 11 ай бұрын

The problem I see with this isn’t really about freedom of religion. You should be able to follow your religion. The problem is that this can allow people to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against people. It’s a really interesting case

@Jack209 11 ай бұрын

It certainly is. The issue in this case wasn't simply using religion as an excuse to discriminate. It's whether you can be compelled to actively endorse a message contrary to your beliefs. There is a very fine line between simply serving a gay couple and making them a cake that recognizes what your religious beliefs say is not a legitimate marriage. Likewise, I don't think an event venue would be discriminating against religion if they refused to host Westboro Baptist Church. It's simply wrong to require people to be a platform for views they disagree with.

@idkytchl 10 ай бұрын

I don't think that has to be tied to religon necessarily, ppl will discriminate either because they were raised to or because their envious. Not to say it doesn't happen, I mean look at the middle east and how they treat Gays and women. I'm just saying that you can't blame discrimination on one thing

@Skeloperch 10 ай бұрын

You wouldn't force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake, would you? Would you force a Muslim baker to bake a cake defaming Muhammad? What about a Buddhist baker being forced to bake a cake mocking those trying to achieve Nirvana? Of course all of them have the right to refuse service that they don't agree with. I say that as an Atheist. I wouldn't force a Christian baker to bake me a cake that they disagreed with because, even though I disagree with their religion, I respect them enough to not do so.

@grben9959 10 ай бұрын

The more compelling argument to me is that of an artist being free to decline commissioning of works that they don't support. If a baker has pre-made cakes anyone should be able to buy those cakes for whatever purpose, but the baker should be able to refuse any custom order for whatever reason they want. I feel that freedom of speech must include being free not to say something.

@osco4311 10 ай бұрын

It's very related to freedom of religion if you consider that it's using the law to force someone to do something that supports activities they find morally wrong. Taken from an artistic perspective, it not only supports the activity, but it compells "speech" (creative effort in baking, decorating and writing on a cake) that actively endorses it.

@brennanperry8001 10 ай бұрын

I genuinely thought that you used a picture of Joel Haver and his friend as a stand in for the couple in the beginning.

@professor_kraken 10 ай бұрын

I find this entire case so bizarre. It's your business, you should be able to deny your service to anyone, for any reason. If somebody compels you to serve someone against your own will, isn't that forced labor, after all?

@zoeybarter3246 9 ай бұрын

That’s not what forced labour means & that’s not how businesses work.

@TommyG394 10 ай бұрын

This case always reminds me of the very public local Nazi that lives in my area. All of his children, all by different women who all have restraining orders against him, are named after prominent Nazis. He named his daughter Ava Braun, for example. Some years ago, he went into the local grocery store and asked that a birthday cake be made out to his son, Adolf Hitler. When the store refused to make a cake that said "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler," he made some kind of ruckus and got arrested. I think that's as far as it went, though, and I may be missremembering the details.

@JohnnyAngel8 10 ай бұрын

Parents have had their children taken away from them for refusing to change their name to something not controversial. This man needs to be reported.

@user-ok4il2ty6i 10 ай бұрын

Wow this sounds like a huge double standard legally. Why is a gay couple allowed to force a bakers hand to enforce their sexuality and way of life. Yet a nazi cant do the same? The law should be apolitical and non-biased. But it clearly isn't.

@TommyG394 8 ай бұрын

@user-ok4il2ty6i Well, as far as I know, the Nazi didn't try and take his case to the Supreme Court, so it's hard to say it's a double standard since we don't know how the Court would have ruled.

@CvnDqnrU 4 ай бұрын

This is how this absurd case is seen from the other side.

@jbtechcon7434 10 ай бұрын

Here's what you left out. He was refusing to make a certain PRODUCT, not refusing certain customers. Everything he made and sold to straight people, he ALSO happily made and sold to gay people. The comparison to not serving blacks at the Woolworth's lunch counter is nonsense. It's more like serving all of your beverages to black customers but not carrying grape soda.

@willowwright4638 10 ай бұрын

"Everything he made and sold to straight customers he also happily made and sold to gay people" except of course wedding cakes, so Destinctly Not everything.

@jbtechcon7434 10 ай бұрын

@@willowwright4638 they were willing to sell them any wedding cake they would have sold to a straight couple. They were not willing to put two grounds on it. They don't do that for straight couples either. It is a product they don't make. I'm just presenting the pertinent facts of the case that the leftist media lied through their teeth about

@jbtechcon7434 4 ай бұрын

@@willowwright4638 Don't be dense. They were perfectly happy to sell their wedding cakes to gay people. They just didn't make cakes that had two grooms or two brides on them. The maker of this vid is lying about those details. He didn't refuse gay people's business, he refused to make certain products.

@cyrenia47 2 ай бұрын

@@jbtechcon7434because of the products being about gay people though

@jbtechcon7434 2 ай бұрын

@@cyrenia47 The fact remains that what they sell, they sell to everyone. A restaurant can't refuse to serve black people, but they CAN leave grape soda off the menu.

@Mr.EthanJacksonsRandomSt-zk3mf 10 ай бұрын

Are you able to do a Manhattan and Brooklyn compared video?

@PremierCCGuyMMXVI 3 ай бұрын

This case is another example of how the 14th amendment and 1st amendment can clash. But I do think this case was the wrong decision, yes you have free speech, but you shouldn’t use your freedom to infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. And this decision opens the door not only for religious discrimination against sexual minorities but potentially even discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities.

@noah07601 3 ай бұрын

I do have to say, as a gay man… I actually side with the cake shop owner here. His rights to religious freedom shouldn’t be abridged by mine to marriage.

@TheJalipa 10 ай бұрын

Suppose there is only one Grocer’s shop in town…..can the Christian owner refuse to sell Groceries to the Gay couple ?

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

No. The cake was custom made. Something the video neglected to mention, egregiously so, is that the baker offered them any one of the Pre-made cakes. So no, a grocer cannot deny Pre-made goods to someone but an artist can deny a commission that goes against their beliefs.

@TheJalipa 10 ай бұрын

@@suzerain840 since when have Bakers considered “artists”? So can a Christian Catering company refuse to cater for a Gay Wedding?

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

@@TheJalipa since they made the cake from scratch and put a design on it. Whether you like it or not, that's artistic expression. With the catering company, it'd likely depend. If it was a chef that made every meal, probably. Or a catering company for catholic weddings. But they would also deny civil unions, marriages where they want no kids, and those that had been previously divorced. There's much less of an artistic expression with catering though so I could see it either way. But what you're asking for is requiring people to commit sacrilege. You wouldn't ask a hindu to slaughter a cow for your wedding. You wouldn't force a Muslim to depict Muhammad on a cake.

@TheJalipa 10 ай бұрын

@@suzerain840 there is no comparison to Hindu being asked to slaughter a cow. Nor is the baker or caterer being asked to anything sacrilegious They are being asked to practice their craft…..which they sell. The problem is they don’t like the person buying. If you sell a service, you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against other people…..because of their colour of their skin or who they sleep with.

@suzerain840 10 ай бұрын

@@TheJalipa marriage is a sacrament. Supporting gay marriage is sacrilegous. Making a cake for a gay marriage is supporting it, even if it's a small amount. At the very least it's scandal communicating to people "Oh this is okay to Christians." Would a Muslim artist with open commissions have to fulfill the request of a gay person to draw Muhammad having relations with another man? By your logic, it'd be yes.

@BigIron936 2 ай бұрын

While i completely disagree with his decision NOT to make their wedding cake, i also think that if you run a business offering a service you reserve the right to deny that service to ANYONE for ANY REASON before the payment is received. Whether that reason is racist or homophobic or pedophilic or just because while you were talking to the customer and suddenly got Taco Bell diarrhea. Why? Because you cannot COMPEL someone to work without pay. You cannot force a person to do work for you that they do not want to do on threat of legal punishment. Simple as that. That's called slavery. If he wants to publicly ruin his business by being on the wrong side of history in your eyes then let him do that, but you cannot enslave him to bake you a cake by threatening legal action if he doesnt.

@misalignedmisanthropist 10 ай бұрын

I don't know if youve already made it but I want to see one on NCAA v. Alston in regards to the name image likeliness regulations of the NCAA.

@imsoboredhahaha 10 ай бұрын

We had a very similar case in the U.K. called Lee v Ashers Bakery 2018. Gareth Lee asked Ashers Bakery in 2014 to bake a cake with ‘Support Gay Marriage’ message decorated on the top. Ashers Bakery refused. - U.K. High court= Ashers - U.K. Supreme Court= Ashers - European Court of Human Rights= Ashers

@mrsatire9475 10 ай бұрын

This video was not about what the cake says. This baker also refused to sell a cake to someone that said Happy Birthday

@alter112 10 ай бұрын

W COURT

@anonymouslyopinionated656 7 ай бұрын

@@mrsatire9475nope.

@freddytang2128 10 ай бұрын

Feel like this case and this controversy is very complicated. Imagine if a Jewish/Israeli American has a poster store, and someone comes in and say “I want a poster that say free Palestine”. Is that business obliged to serve that request? Or are they allowed to refuse requests that are against their personal beliefs?

@paxundpeace9970 10 ай бұрын

While i know many jewish families that would support this request even in israel. Most of them are sekulär jews.

@freddytang2128 10 ай бұрын

@@paxundpeace9970 that’s really not the point. Imagine for this scenario that you have a Zionist that support israel. Are they obliged to make a product that say free Palestine?

@andrewphilos 10 ай бұрын

In that case, it's a political statement, not a protected category.

@freddytang2128 10 ай бұрын

@@andrewphilos whether you support gay marriage is a political statement too. If someone came in and said “hi I’m gay and I want a birthday cake”, I’m sure the baker would say “absolutely, happy birthday!”

@goaway9977 10 ай бұрын

@@andrewphilosGay marriage was not even legal in Colorado at the time of this incident so baking a cake for a gay wedding could definelty be classed as a political action.

@thegwynster 10 ай бұрын

I’m surprised this didn’t go further to mention a recent case related this one (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis).

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

Tbh I am not that familiar with this case. I shall learn more, though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat As my previous comment, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." And the reason why they punted? Well let me explain, it comes down to whether the product offered is speech or not. For example, if I had a laptop I wanted to sell you, there is no speech involved. Any speech is incidental. The thing I'm selling you is fundamentally a useful object. Its not an artistic or expressive thing. And the cake has both utilitarian (be a delicious cake) and expressive/speech elements (send a message about gay marriage). And those can't be separated out. So its a line drawing exercise. For purely utilitarian things, or at least products that is mostly utilitarian such that the speech is incidental, we have plenty of precedent compelling business. Because there isn't a 1st Amendment interest. Thus this wasn't a clean case. 303 Creative LLC v Elenis was a better case because the website designer there was selling websites, a pure speech product. Its literally words on a page. There is no utilitarian aspect. In that case, they even discussed why plug and play templates wouldn't be acceptable constitutionally because of implied endorsement, and it still being compelled speech nonetheless.

@thegwynster 10 ай бұрын

@@iammrbeat You're welcome! I'm a huge fan of your videos, especially the "Compared" series.

@blazecrusader100 11 ай бұрын

Mr beat it’s not related to this video but I have a request. Can you make every presidents favorites hobbies? If not I understand

@trueblade3636 11 ай бұрын

A baker or any other business could just say 'no' to any customer, without giving a reason, right? So why he didn't just do that?

@Fazzel 11 ай бұрын

Right. Just say we are slammed and can't get to you. Don't make it a hill to die on.

@applejhon8308 10 ай бұрын

Iirc he didn't outright refuse to do business with them he just said no to baking a custom cake specifically for the couples wedding. So I'm guessing in his eyes it probably didn't seem like a huge deal at the time.

@mrsatire9475 10 ай бұрын

@@applejhon8308 He's not that religious, he just doesn't like LGBT

@TaliyahP 10 ай бұрын

Ask yourself this: Would you be okay with a business refusing service to black person based on religious beliefs? If not, then you shouldn't be okay with this either

@GottlikeDamon 10 ай бұрын

There aren't religious beliefs that constitute "don't bring service to black people." So it's a false equivalent. He refused service for the type of cake they asked him to do, and he has a right to refuse as he has both his religious beliefs and artistic freedom. Besides, why would you force someone who doesn't agree with your way of being to bake a cake, when there are plenty of other buisness that are more than happy to do it?

@jeffslote9671 10 ай бұрын

Yes I would be ok with that. People shouldn’t have to associate with anyone they don’t want to.

@joemama-ks9ty 10 ай бұрын

@@GottlikeDamonthere isn't also religious beliefs that say you can't make a cake for a gay wedding. Plus, it doesn't fucking matter whether it exists or not currently. A person could literally state their personal religion says so at any time and this would count. I could do that exact thing right now. The reason they went for the court is because you can force someone to not receive service for their way of being (which actually is a fact to be apart of their being vs a religious belief which is not apart of their being because they can literally change it)

@IncredibleStan 10 ай бұрын

@@GottlikeDamon You are objectively wrong. Why? Because you can easily create a religion that does. Also a person can use "philosophical" reasons to not sell to a black person. So you are wrong

@IncredibleStan 10 ай бұрын

@@GottlikeDamon But there is no religion that says "don't bring service to a gay couple" either. That man's bible says nothing about selling a wedding cake to a gay couple.

@TamNiaw 9 ай бұрын

A few interesting questions that come up for me: - Does it matter whether or not the baker already offers customized cakes as a menu item? - Is the decision to not bake the cake the same as not decorating the cake? For example: he offered them the opportunity to buy any other pre-made cake, but had they asked him to bake a plain, fresh wedding tower cake so that they could simply stick two male figurines on it afterwards and he said no, would that constitute discrimination? - Was his later case in 2023 the exact same issue? The description makes it sound like he flat out refused service to the transgender person as opposed to refusing to make their style of cake.

@Swedishmafia101MemeCorporation 11 ай бұрын

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable eating a cake baked by someone who thinks my sexual orientation is """wrong""". Still, I don't think that makes discrimination okay. It seems like a very weird hill to die on when it comes to "free speech" or whatever the excuse is.

@sirhenrymorgan1187 11 ай бұрын

Getting away with discrimination on the basis of religious freedom is such a slippery thing. It's how people got away with refusing service to interracial couples back then.

@DGAMINGDE 11 ай бұрын

Let's don't act like the cake creator only used the "free speech" excuse, because he's a bigot.

@idkytchl 11 ай бұрын

That's the beauty of free market capitalism, you can get a cake wherever you want. Whether it be the religious man or the queer man

@pleaseenteraname1103 11 ай бұрын

How is it discrimination though? The couple was literally discriminating against him and they went out of their way when there were multiple other bakeries they could’ve went to to go to his. He wasn’t even against baking them a cake it was specifically a cake that would be celebrating homosexuality which goes against his values, someone should not be forced to make something that goes against their values should a painter be forced to paint some thing that goes against his values?

@pleaseenteraname1103 11 ай бұрын

@@sirhenrymorgan1187 it’s not discrimination though.

@bloodhound1182 10 ай бұрын

Give me money Mr Breast

@my1an3 10 ай бұрын

Give me momey Mr beast

@DarrenReems 6 ай бұрын

Give me mayor Mr. Breat

@JML6988 10 ай бұрын

The 7-2 ruling is rather telling considering that the Court was (barely)split 5-4 during this time.

@mrsatire9475 10 ай бұрын

The most telling part was the last case covered in this video (which the baker lost)

@coffeman3575 6 ай бұрын

This comment section is filled to the brim with people dicussing the matter in a polite way, and also homophobia.

@va1355 6 ай бұрын

@VanquisherOfTroons You don't know what words mean

@DarrenReems 6 ай бұрын

@VanquisherOfTroons But they still hate them for silly reasons. So yeah, it's homophobia.

@loszhor 10 ай бұрын

I'm glad those cry bullies lost. He was actually willing to sell them a premade cake just not the one they wanted and they did what everyone said they should have done in the end, go to another bakery. What gets to me is the retaliatory nature of the complaint after they were still able to get what they were after in the end.

@TheHomerowKeys 10 ай бұрын

So they should also be able to turn away mentally impaired people, or mixed race couples. Right?

@loszhor 10 ай бұрын

@@TheHomerowKeys No one was arguing those things in this case.

@sandersGG 9 ай бұрын

Yeah totally the real issue are the people being denied services that he would 10000% provide for a straight wedding cake and no they didn't get services they wanted they had to leave You people will never understand how it feels to have a wedding then having to Google what places to avoid because they can legally deny u wedding cakes

@loszhor 9 ай бұрын

@@sandersGG They got a cake and were provided with the resources, in house mind you, to decorate it themselves, sorted. Also, to your second part, dump the victim mindset, it's no way to live.

@CentauriSphere 10 ай бұрын

People in 50 years are gonna look back at this the same way we do at people who argued against desegregation. With shock and disbelief.

@RobertGrif 10 ай бұрын

I always come back to the "shoe on the other foot" principle. Should the gay atheist who owns a print shop have the right to refuse an order from a church for a huge banner saying "Homosexuality is sin"?

@cokebear1337 10 ай бұрын

Except religion is ALSO a protected class, my buttblasted friend. Remember the whole “muslim ban”?

@devingiles6597 10 ай бұрын

Hey, Mr. Beat! How about you do a Supreme Court Briefs video on United States v. Paramount Pictures?

@joshuahawkins9847 10 ай бұрын

Have you done a video on Chevron yet?? You should!!!!!

@raptoe1754 11 ай бұрын

Businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone just like customers should be able to protest against them. The real question is if these businesses receive government money should they loose that right to refuse service? If so much of our economy relies on government stimulus then at what point are these businesses no longer private actors. Another point is should insurance and banks have control over what businesses due and say? 🤷‍♂️

@barnaclejones822 10 ай бұрын

based comment and based STALKER profile picture

@EnigmaticLucas 10 ай бұрын

The problem with that is that there are places where literally every business would refuse service to certain demographics if they were legally allowed to do so

@raptoe1754 10 ай бұрын

@@EnigmaticLucas I agree completely and you already see that with certain communities and zoning practices with who people hire and other factors. Either way you go with the ruling the better option is to build a society that has freedom to be ignorant but chooses to pursue virtue and fosters that not by a regime but a community.

@ExemplaryTurtle 10 ай бұрын

Didn’t this decision also say something about the Commission “showing hostility to Phillips’ religion” or something like that?

@ehanoldaccount5893 10 ай бұрын

Didn’t the court rule that freedom of religion does not protect from breaking law when out of religious reasons two Native Americans smoked marijuana? Considering the unanimous lower court rulings this trial seems more like a political agenda, a precursor to what has followed since.

@alonkatz4633 11 ай бұрын

Excellent and we'll nuanced video as always, M. Beat. Unfortunately, the job of a judge is to interpret the laws regardless of their personal opinions. I find it hard.to believe that justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Kahan, who have a history of advocating for LGBT rights, wanted this outcome. I hope this issue is dealt with by the people, and it looks like it is. As for the Hobby Lobby decision which is also about religion freedom vs. civil liberties, I have no words.

@iammrbeat 11 ай бұрын

Thank you Alon. Yeah it's definitely a case where you have to separate reason from emotion. I know they struggled with their decision. Regarding the Hobby Lobby decision....I hear you. :/ I hope to release that episode soon as well!

@zoeybarter3246 10 ай бұрын

Except that’s not actually how judges operate. Everyone makes decisions based on their personal opinions, doesn’t matter how much legalese you dress it up in.

@alonkatz4633 10 ай бұрын

@@zoeybarter3246 Of course.ideolofy is almost always involved, but I believe the Justices, at least at the time, at least tried to be fair in their decisions.

@billsherman1565 10 ай бұрын

Ah yes, justice roberts, the gay rights activist who famously also voted against Obergefell?

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

The reason why the majority opinion had 6 of them, was because they punted, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws.

@BasedChe 10 ай бұрын

This is one of the few things I have a hard stance on. If it's something you can't choose, like race or sexuality, it should be protected under anti discrimination laws.

@johnjones3813 10 ай бұрын

Well said. Of course, religious nuts will start to argue it's a choice, not something you are born with.

@adg9042 10 ай бұрын

@@johnjones3813 well, it is a private business, if it was like the postal service i’d understand but it’s a fucking bakery it really wasn’t that serious.

@NoxStream 5 ай бұрын

If a straight couple asked him to make a cake depicting a gay wedding and he refused, then theres not discrimination. It's not about who he is selling to, but what the cake itself is. Conversely, if he had refused to sell the same cake to a gay couple that he would have sold to a straight couple, then he would have been guilty. Neither was true here. No one should be compelled to make a product available. People saying he refused to make custom cakes is not correct. He refused to make a specific custom cake.

@marcdaniels1394 10 ай бұрын

I don't like it. If the ADF were defending Philips because making a wedding cake for a interracial couple violated his religious liberty, freedom of speech, and artistic expression, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is tacit consent by SCOTUS to discriminate against same sex couples, and it's not cool.

@frostyfrenchtoast 10 ай бұрын

This case always makes my brain explode. At the end of the day I just ask why not make extremely non descript cake writing or something, it’s a cake lol

@horacioelconserjeopina3956 10 ай бұрын

Because he didn't want to. End of story

@bigiron1990 10 ай бұрын

Yeah lol, just give up your beliefs and values that you've held onto for decades and make cake lol. I wish it were that simple. I see both sides of the issue but ultimately I do believe business owners should have the right to refuse customers. While yes he could have just made the cake no biggie, the couple could have just supported another business that would have baked it for them just as easily... which they did.

@jamesburgess2k 10 ай бұрын

If he refused to make a non descriptive cake, it absolutely would've been illegal. However, being a wedding cake, it's unlikely anyone who want to purchase a non descriptive cake, so it's not really a realistic option for either parties (the couple did just go somewhere else after all). It's a case where the intentions of the owner matters, yet the SC can't factor it in as It's on the basis of religious freedoms and not the protection of "personal prejudices" for businesses.

@horacioelconserjeopina3956 10 ай бұрын

@@bigiron1990 this. People are to white and black. Both sides have there point but I'm incline to protect the business owner has well. If "baking" the cake against your views is no biggie, then changing store shouldn't be that difficult as well. The couple only wanted to impose there will

@billsherman1565 10 ай бұрын

@@bigiron1990By your logic should someone be able to refuse service because someone is black? If the answer is no, how is this different?

@madrigaldude1781 10 ай бұрын

It’s extremely ironic that Colorado wanted to force someone to cater to a same-sex wedding when same-sex marriage was still illegal in the state.

@sacramentotoday 10 ай бұрын

If this baker wanted to celebrate his supreme court victory by going to a bakery and ordering a cake that said "Congratulations on Winning Your Supreme Court Case" but the bakery he went to was owned by a lesbian couple who refused to make this cake as they said it would offend them, should the lesbian couple be forced make the celebratory cake anyway?

@patrickian8843 9 ай бұрын

Any company has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

@zoeybarter3246 9 ай бұрын

They should be forced to as this man should have been forced to. But given that the Supreme Court said otherwise no they shouldn’t have had to (in this hypothetical scenario). If the court isn’t going to protect your rights, comply with their rulings maliciously.

@zoeybarter3246 9 ай бұрын

@@patrickian8843that’s absolutely not true.

@creativename7230 10 ай бұрын

i think mr beat should do one on dobbs, bostock, and moore next

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

I'll probably do Bostock before the others.

@squinz3824 10 ай бұрын

The cake was not any different to one that a straight couple would request. Phillips refused to make ANY kind of wedding cake for them. This is a clear-cut example of discrimination, service was refused (with a thinly veiled excuse) based on the couple's identity. Justice Ginsburg points this out pretty clearly in her dissent.

@aa_battery7 10 ай бұрын

Except he offered them a pre-made cake. So it isn't discrimination. It's him exercising his free speech

@ilikedota5 10 ай бұрын

He wouldn't have made a pro gay marriage cake regardless of who asked. Even though a straight couple wouldn't ask for a cake with a gay couple on them, a straight person could ask for a cake with a pro gay marriage message, and he would have refused that. So its not directly about the identity. Now maybe you say that doesn't matter, but that's an argument to be had.

@kingofhearts3185 10 ай бұрын

Not exactly, he offered them off the shelf options, just not to make something gay themed.

@drmajalis1583 10 ай бұрын

@@aa_battery7 free speech to do what, exactly?

@aa_battery7 10 ай бұрын

@drmajalis1583 to excerise your opinions and thoughts without fear of government restriction or punishment. Like burning a flag for example because you protest a war

@ruthkatz1998 11 ай бұрын

Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with

@hydromic2518 11 ай бұрын

But what if I am a disabled black man and the only wheelchair company in my city doesn’t want to sell me a wheelchair and I’m unable to travel somewhere else or pay for one to be delivered?

@ruthkatz1998 11 ай бұрын

@hydromic2518 I'd consider wheelchairs under that label

@mildlydispleased3221 11 ай бұрын

You Americans have no respect for minorities.

@Remember_Bubblebutt 10 ай бұрын

Eh, yeah. But can food be considered a lifesaving service? Every person needs to eat and drink, after all. Cake and desserts, probably not, but what about grocery stores and normal restaurants?

@zoeybarter3246 10 ай бұрын

@@ruthkatz1998except in reality this will never be applied equally. No business is going to refuse straight people. It’s unacceptable for certain members of society to have to fear being denied service because of who they are.

@nelsonr12 10 ай бұрын

I wonder how this case would’ve gone down if he refused service to an interracial couple instead if a gay couple.

@maxroth1985 10 ай бұрын

I don’t understand. From my understanding he wasn’t sued cuz of his beliefs but his actions. So he would have been sued even if he was ok with gay people but still said „ I’m not serving you cuz you’re gay.“ Why would his belief be an excuse to be discriminatory? There was a death row inmate who said god told him if he wanted to go to heaven he needed to kill his family. He failed. Only his grandma survived. By that logic it was „hindering his freedom of religion“ to convict him. Why is it legal to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but not to kill? What am I not getting?

@fairalways 10 ай бұрын

When the structure of your government isn't reflective of "one person, one vote", it becomes irrelevant what I or anybody here individually thinks regarding this case. IOW, if we had a Senate that reflected populations far more fairly, if we didn't have the gerrymandering tomfoolery allowed, if we didn't have the non-democratic Electoral College, we would no doubt have far more focus on a "National character" over the thugs' paradise of "states rights", and such court cases wouldn't have the consequences they've had. Repressed sexuality and the dogma built around it under any name, be it "religion" or something else, is increasingly losing in the court of honest public appraisal as informed by science. Aside from the possible president (not one who loses the popular vote), every other body of our federal government has effectively been gamed to reflect the issues of the Conservative minority. This is one of those bogus issues of ginned-up sky daddy reactionaries. This would never have been a case if our country reflected modern morality as it should. The Enlightenment continues to point the way. And we have no time for stupid.

@guyferrari8124 10 ай бұрын

Dude move over your massive ego is blocking out the rest of the comments

@late8641 10 ай бұрын

@@guyferrari8124 He has a valid point though

@fairalways 10 ай бұрын

@@guyferrari8124Cool response , dude. I hear you. I'm sure you have plenty of well developed thoughts of your own. So sorry if I encroached on some of your ego territory.. I'm 61 and have pretty developed ideas, so "okay Boomer" suffices. My massive ego is also a healthy massive ego. That it bothers you is yours for your therapist. You just spent time watching a long video. Consider my post a freebie. Oh- If was off in what I stated, let's hear it! NOW answer, "okay Boomer".

@notsoaveragejoe7275 10 ай бұрын

People keep comparing bakers making cakes with LGBTQA+ themes and cakes with hateful images like Nazi propaganda and the likes. These are two things no one should be comparing. I think SCOTUS was wrong personally, because I agree it promotes anti-social behaviour and like it or not being gay isn't a choice. You can't discriminate someone for something they have no control over. Using "religious freedom" as an excuse to discriminate is by definition a hateful act, because it doesn't matter why he's discriminating... he's still discriminating someone for something they can't control. Stop using religion as your excuse to be bigoted

@iammrbeat 10 ай бұрын

"he's still discriminating someone for something they can't control." This is the crux of it. That was really convincing.