What do you guys think about this case? How do you think SCOTUS will rule?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/26/534417186/high-court-to-hear-case-of-cake-shop-that-refused-to-bake-for-same-sex-wedding

I can see it both ways, but I'm pretty sure I know how I would rule unless something turned up in court to sway me.

Discuss. NICELY.

On one hand, you've got a bunch of historical civil rights case law that says that you can't refuse business to someone based on who they are/something outside their control.

On the other hand, you've got the foundation of the country being free association, and concepts like businesses not being compelled to serve customers they don't like.

Given the trend, I would place my money on the courts forcing retail companies to produce their goods and services agnostic of the purchaser, and to levy fines against those that provably don't.

Gorsuch is the addition to the court, and he would almost certainly vote on the strict constitutional reading, but I think that still leaves the court 5-4 against the cake shop.

It is not an easy case. On the one hand, who would want someone to tell them your business is not wanted? No one. And it reeks of whites only lunch counters, I grant you. On the other hand, why should a business owner be compelled to do business with someone? Would you like it if you owned a business and I told you who to buy from? For example.
Part of the problem is people are far too reactionary. If it were me, I would never have called the lawyer in the first place. I would have told them to fuck off and given my business to someone else. Pretty simple.

Should be thrown out not even a matter for federal court. Discrimination is no where in constitution other than feds and states can not discriminate. State right issue. I think to get a business license you have to agree not to discriminate though. So state court should have ruled against bakery.

I doubt it will be thrown out though. Activist judges have ruled court since FDR threatened them.

Does the bible say tho shall not bake cakes for gay people? Will be hard to argue religion is being violated too. I think USSC will rule agaist bakery too.

With the recent Fascist appointed to the high court, Neil Gorsuch, along with the Fascist circle jerk that's already the "high court", not only is this likely to be overturned, but homosexuals are going to be rounded up and put into camps. On Trump and Gorsuch's orders.

"

MrSmiley21 wrote:

With the recent Fascist appointed to the high court, Neil Gorsuch, along with the Fascist circle jerk that's already the "high court", not only is this likely to be overturned, but homosexuals are going to be rounded up and put into camps. On Trump and Gorsuch's orders.

Yeah I could totally see that happening.

EDIT: Added an extra layer of obvious sarcasm.

As far as government action goes, I would defend a private business owner's decision to refuse service to someone because they believe that person to be a crab demon from Jupiter. It doesn't matter how stupid or wrong your reason is, you are not a slave to someone else simply because they can afford your price.

As far as nongovernment action goes, I boycott Chick-Fil-A.

Governments of course shouldn't be allowed to discriminate on such factors. I guess this also applies to contractors in government service.

Hell, I don't even think the government should mess with private businesses that discriminate against skin colors. Good fucking luck maintaining a customer base, racists; thanks for offering, Senator, but don't worry, we got this.

"

pneuma wrote:

Yeah I could see that happening.

Someone has to fill in for SarahAustin in her absence.

It's very easy case... Some of you posting here need to really go back to school. It's discrimination, you can't hide bigotry behind religion. Back then blacks were considered demons, so there were signs outside "no n's may enter."

Now if a person is lacking social respect, being destructive... etc. Than yes. There is nothing in that old mans religion that states to alienate himself from LGBT members.

Hiding a simple discrimination incident behind "religion" is the main obfuscating facet of this. If the storeowner asserted that he refused to serve black people because the Bible said so, this wouldn't have gone anywhere near the US Supreme Court.