The Gay Wedding Cake Case | Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Added 2023-08-30 18:27:45 +0000 UTCDon't get it twisted- the wedding cake itself was not gay. However, the wedding cake was for a same-sex wedding. I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.
It's another episode of Supreme Court Briefs! The 75th episode, as matter of fact! This was quite a recent case, but quite a doozy. I still don't know exactly where I stand on the decision. I'm curious what you think. Let me know down below if you want and stuff.
Thank you for your continued support!
Comments
Then yet again I am biased since i am Hubert Humphrey who was one of the OG liberals.
Hubert Horatio Humphrey!
2023-09-17 03:38:36 +0000 UTCI personally disagree with this case. I don't think religious freedom gets precedence over civil rights.
Hubert Horatio Humphrey!
2023-09-17 03:37:33 +0000 UTCOne thing i have noticed post this case is that the conflict overall i dont feel is so much between LGB and Christians. But between actavist who want to force the other side into compliance. The few gay people ive talked to aboutt his case had the view that "I dont want someone participating in my wedding or attending my wedding who dosnt belive it is a wedding, sees it as violating their faith to participate, or are forced to participate." i think most people regardless of there orientation want people to be happy at their wedding and to celebrate it with them. Most Christians who believe the bible is Gods word tend to have great conversations and get along fine with people of the LGB community but dont want to be forced to accept a sexual action as being a good thing or harm to come to them. Christians over all view that they must show respect and love to all people. So i think that the conflict is drummed up. LGB views are being used as a hammer by people who want to force conformity on Christians and Christians were being used as a hammer who want to force conformity on LGB.
Devin Canada
2023-09-07 13:10:29 +0000 UTCThe case was really about should you be compelled to participate by means of your art in something that violates your religious conscience. one thing you didnt mention was that Phillips did give the couple suggestions on other bakery that could bake there cake a service he didnt have to do and is not in line with someone who would simple be bigioted in their actions. A similar situation took place around that time but didnt have to go as far as the supreme court were a state employee refused to sign a marriage certificate because it would violate her faith. The court settled on her behave that her assistance had the right to sign whenever an event like that took place. This case was important too because it put up some form of defense for Christians who believe the bible "is" Gods word. i remember leading up to that case having the feeling that the liberals wanted to put up signs on bakerys, photography shops, catering busnesses, and floral shops of "christians need not apply."
Devin Canada
2023-09-07 13:01:24 +0000 UTCI like Dillahunty. I will check his commentary on this stuff out. Thanks for suggesting it.
Mr. Beat
2023-08-31 12:25:44 +0000 UTClol true
Mr. Beat
2023-08-31 12:24:58 +0000 UTCWhile this case certainly didn't help, I think the backlash came mostly from right-leaning, Trumpist pundits in recent years more than anything.
Mr. Beat
2023-08-31 12:24:38 +0000 UTCI don't want to commit a breach of etiquette by pointing to another source but there is a debate by Matt Dillahunty who just demolishes this case. It's called, "How do we resolve conflicts between LGBT rights and religious liberties." It's certainly your prerogative if you want to take a look; if you haven't already.
DANTE VERONA
2023-08-31 02:59:43 +0000 UTCSometimes I have to remind myself what is legal and what is right do not always necessarily go hand and hand. At some point people will stop using religion as an excuse for being a bigot, right? One can only hope…
Naterade
2023-08-31 00:57:47 +0000 UTCI really feel like this ruling kickstarted the massive backlash against the lgbtq. It gave the religious right a little leeway when it came to discriminating and they just opened the floodgates with it ever since.
Alex Gorell
2023-08-30 23:25:33 +0000 UTCAwesome topic, can't wait to watch/listen. I'm sure I don't know all of the details. Hopefully I'll learn how this case differed (or didn't) from something like, a business refusing to let people of a certain ethnicity in to their establishment.
D.F.
2023-08-30 21:13:27 +0000 UTC*and freedom of religion....but yeah, I agree with you. There is no interpretation that doesn't feel meh
Mr. Beat
2023-08-30 20:47:16 +0000 UTCExactly lol
Mr. Beat
2023-08-30 20:46:19 +0000 UTCAlthough only Thomas brought up free speech, so it's mostly about the Establishment Clause.
Mr. Beat
2023-08-30 20:45:55 +0000 UTCI actually didn't come across this perspective. I'm curious which justice brought it up.
Mr. Beat
2023-08-30 20:45:22 +0000 UTCI must admit: this is a court decision I can't think very rationally on. I personally feel that the decision is based on a receding but ever present disgust for minorities. Free speech, as important, fruitful, and beautiful as it is, is a known tool for those who want to legalize their hatred any chance they get.
RemnantCult
2023-08-30 19:08:08 +0000 UTCWhy would a gay cake have a problem with a gay wedding?
Robert Kandell
2023-08-30 18:51:11 +0000 UTCA win for the First Amendment
Daniel Kolbin
2023-08-30 18:51:07 +0000 UTCFrom my perspective Jack semi lost because he didn't profit from making the cake. At least thats how I felt when i first about the case.
Adam Christians
2023-08-30 18:43:52 +0000 UTC
