I presume you're straight.

That's fine.

I will transfer this dynamic, that you're defending, to our exchange. If you're straight I will block you because it conflicts with my 'beliefs'. But you're free to find other people to chat with.

@Ellatynemouth You are awsome lady.

@Palacinky I believe there are a few? Not sure how many cases waiting to be heard before an overall decision is made. I think this is a good move by SCOTUS. I think it’s probably a good thing to compile many different cases and situations before making a decision that could have such a profound effect on our rights and how we do business.

And do your point about his using public sewage, possible fire dept services etc. he pays for those services. He pays taxes that support those entities so that is really irrelevant here.

@Faithless1 I think a private business owner has the right to refuse service if he or she so chooses. Government entities do not. If this were a government ran cake shop for example they could not refuse services.

@Faithless1 The court held: The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market.
so no, in this country businesses open to the public DO NOT have the right to discriminate against certain classes of people.

@filthyMONKEYmen I assume the marker couldn’t be specifically identified as the writing instrument. My feeling on this is that we really just don’t need a government who is allowed to force us to provide a good or service against our will. Period. Where will it stop? Look at history. The tides of power shift often.

@filthyMONKEYmen unfortunately they don’t always shift in the right direction.....

Thank you. That's a sensible comment.

It makes things transparent.. Like the 'No Blacks, No dogs, No Irish' signs that used to appear in guest house windows in Britain before the law stepped in.

The public is the public. More straight privilege?

Like I said I hate that it is allowed

@WhatsInAName grrr it's NOT a private business if it's open to the public and they DO NOT get to discriminate against certain classes of people, by race, gender identification etc. the court held : "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the
context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved
with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere
religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to
indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market."

@lerlo Do businesses that hang the "we reserve the right to refuse service" have to worry about going to court? I'm sure they do, but I'd hope we live in a world where if owners refuse service for bigoted reasons such as this are forced out of business (or forced to change their response) by others refusing to shop at their establishments rather than government trying to legislate them into being decent human beings. I know that's not the world we do live in but it's what I'd love seeing.

You think they have a right to not serve negroes? I believe this has been decided.

@WhatsInAName If they discriminate based on race, sexual preference, age etc then they have to worry. I believe most states have laws, like Colorado, saying if you're open to the public you can't discriminate. The courts have already ruled and the states have already legislated. Sadly it won't happen without legislation to protect people. We've seen the prejudice time and time again which is why we have the laws. We also have a president that thinks bigotry is ok--we need the laws to protect people from the lynch mobs and carving out territories that people are not welcome in.

@CallMeDave Let me be 100% clear I'm not in favor of allowing shops to descriminate for ANY reason; I wish we lived in a world where everyone was accepted for whomever they are and likewise treated equally within the letter of law. That is sadly not the world we DO live in. Unless things changed recently we're still under the 1964 laws essentially saying private business couldn't refuse to serve someone based on race, color, religion, or national origin.... but they didn't/don't cover sexual orientation or many of the other aspects of modern life. Several states have enacted local laws that help extend that law to include things like orientation, but it hasn't reached federal levels sadly.

As a nation what we SHOULD be doing is adjusting the laws to protect the rights of ALL in a federal level.

@WhatsInAName Well and plainly said. WhatsInACivilRightsBill

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I am dismayed to see so many (on this atheist site) defend religious bigots and homophobia.

The end result is still discrimination. Customers were declined a simple service (writing on a cake) because they shared the same bed.

Nice that you have supporters here but in this country a store owner open to the public cannot discriminate, the court didnt hold the he could refuse. I know reading the opinion will go against your belief but you should at least know that your beliefs are contrary to the law in this country.

@lerlo A lot of my beliefs are contrary to the laws in this country(U.S.).

The indignity of being turned away from a shop because of who you are?

@Ellatynemouth the court didnt decide that specific issue unfortunately but they did say such discrimination is wrong. When you post misinformation it gives people who believe it the green light--the court didnt give the green light. If the same guy tries it again tomorrow, he'll most likely lose the case. How about reading the opinion so you know what it really says?

@lerlo

It took this gay couple five years of fighting in courts - and they lost. Where is the victory?

When was the last time you were denied service?

@Ellatynemouth I know this is pointless given your crusade here but failing to respond would give you a "victory" in your eyes.

1. Find the word "victory" anywhere in my comments.
2. That gay couple's "fight" lasted probably less than a year after they made the complaint. Their lawyers did all the work and the fighting after that--that's called appellate law in our country. Is that a more acceptable timetable to lose? The decision was not black and white which is how I know you judge it because you refuse to read the opinion. Perhaps the ACLU's take on the case will show you the light. We have a president that likes to ignore facts too.
3. When was the last time YOU were denied service? I'll bet all I have that answer is never but I'm sure you're just trying to somehow empathize with their "loss." But since you're intent on believing that no one else has ever endured discrimination...
4. How many times in your life have you been beaten up because of your religion? Three times for me. When you said "never" in response, is that your previous Christian privilege speaking?
5. Yes I'm straight, as you are, so you can block me too. (yes, I "got" your comment, it's just a wrong analogy because you don't understand the case and what a protected class is).

@lerlo

What crusade? Against prejudice and bigotry.

Do you have any idea what it's like to be ostracised by society for something you can't help?

Do you know how often gay people and trans people are murdered?

If you've been beaten up yourself, you should know what it's like to be discriminated against. But here you are defending homophobia and religious freedom to discriminate.

I'm going to block you.

@Ellatynemouth Ostracised for looking a certain way or being beat up for a religion my parents gave me? Things like that I can't help? You m'am are as blind as the people you attack and you're worse for your holier than thou attitude. You answered none of my questions..why is that? Don't like the answers? Nice attempt at painting me as defending homophobia and freedom to discriminate. What I'm defending is people who rely on facts to make decisions, something foreign to you. Why won't you read the opinion? Might not mesh with your crusade, your straight crusade to end all discrimination by taking a court ruling that doesn't discriminate and making it out as one that does? At least I accomplished something since your eyes and head can't be opened, thanks for blocking me.

This couple were not asking for that. They were discriminated against because they were gay. That's it. Their gayness offended, not what they wanted on the cake.

I know you won't read the opinion but yes, a store owner can refuse the KKK because it's not a protected class, but they can't discriminate against protected classes if they are open to the public. There is no protection for bigots who want cakes--sorry. Nice try but bad analogy. Cake decorators have no privilege if they are open to the public. As the court said--a message on the cake might be protected but not the cake itself.

I was a cake decorator. I refused to do offensive cakes in the past and it was my right. I may not agree with someone's opinion of something, but a business owner has the right to do business how they see fit. It's the basis of our freedom. Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the WBC has the right to hold up signs at funeral and other protests that say "God Hates Fags". Therefore, their freedom of speech to say that has already been established. Are you going to force a TShirt maker to put God Hates Fags on Tshirts?

@lerlo to your point it was the message that he refused, not making them a cake. He offered to sell them any of his premade offerings but he wouldn’t decorate with whatever the wording they requested he felt was against his beliefs. So...again....he did not refuse these men service entirely.

How do you know which potato is the prostitute?........the one stamped I-da-ho

A cake shop is not working on commission.

I really can't understand the people defending this cake shop.

A couple have been refused a service because they've been deemed immoral.

@Ellatynemouth i don’t think that’s what he meant by commission. What if someone approached an artist to make say a painting that was against his beliefs

@Ellatynemouth I asked what if an artist turned down a similar commission.

Are you gay or straight?

If you are straight I will block you. Heterosexuality conflicts with my religious beliefs.

You may be a good person - but you are free to chat to someone else.

(Do you understand?)

The court didnt deal with the issue of what might be written on the cake or what an artist might be asked to paint or draw. That issue was left for another day. But the base line is that if the artist has a gallery open to the public, they can't discriminate against any protected classes.

@lerlo As an artist, myself, I reject sensorship no matter which direction it comes from. I'm in no way legally obligated to accept any commission PERIOD!!!!?.!?

@farmboy2017 Sorry to break this to you but the grocery store owner thinks he's a food artist and the accountant thinks he's a math artist, and the book store owner thinks he's a literary artist. The only censorship being committed is by you if, you have a public gallery and you refuse to create a painting wishing Tom and John "Happy Anniversary" because you only do Happy Anniversary to Betty and Nick paintings, because you're against gay marriage. You can choose to violate any law you wish too of course. As the Court said " If a baker refused to design a special cake with
words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a
cake showing words with religious meaning—that might
be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining
whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these
details might make a difference." You might have a case depending on what they wanted you to paint or draw as I said before but not if you give art to everyone but gay people. Don't ask me to represent you when you test it.

There's no doubt the baker is a hateful person but that doesn't strip him of all rights. It's a bit of a balancing act and I think the judgement was made in good faith.

Ooooo you !!! Stop sounding so reasonable....

It's a cake shop. These customers wanted a message on their wedding cake.

If the customers had been straight he would have decorated the cake. All well and good.

But this shop owner wanted to take their money and deny them a service offered to others because he didn't like the way they shared a bed. It was a slap in the face.

Imagine buying a cake from a cake shop and then having to take it to a different cake shop to get it decorated - just because you're gay.

@Gareth I won’t go so far as labeling him a hateful person since I don’t know him. I’d maybe feel differently if he were refusing to serve gay people all together or if he was actively lobbying against gay rights. In my opinion he isn’t. He is simply standing up for what he believes in.

@Christiep77 "I won’t go so far as labeling him a hateful person". That's because you're nicer than me.

@Gareth than I

@CallMeDave I'm a rebel Dave. I was born free and I live by my own rules.

@Gareth Theirs won on aviary crowds