LGBT Side Worried After Oral Arguments In Masterpiece

The Associated Press reports:

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is suggesting skepticism of the arguments of a Colorado baker who defended his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple by citing the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

During the first half of oral argument in the case Tuesday, the justices questioned Kristen K. Waggoner, an attorney for Colorado baker Jack Phillips, and Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, who was arguing on behalf of the government in support of Phillips.

Kennedy, who has been a key vote in gay rights, cases began a question for Francisco by saying “the problem for you” and then followed with a question about the First Amendment. He asked whether, if Philips wins the case, he could put a sign in his shop window saying he doesn’t bake cakes for same-sex weddings.

  • Tawreos

    FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK

    • vorpal

      Pretty much my thoughts exactly, give or take a fuck.

      • Tawreos

        Give or take a fuck has been my daily plan for the last 30 some years.

  • crewman

    “Equal”: quotes required

    • David Walker

      Equal is just a sugar substitute, a sweetener in a packet in a restaurant that may or may not deem us worthy of their food.

  • CriticalDragon1177

    This is bad, this is really bad, and it won’t be just gay people who are effected if Jack Phillips manages to win.

    HOW A RULING FOR MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP COULD EMBOLDEN WHITE NATIONALISTS
    http://religiondispatches.org/how-a-ruling-for-masterpiece-cakeshop-could-embolden-white-nationalists/

    • gaycuckhubby

      The big difference I can see, is that racist protected under Federal statutes, sexual orientation and gender identity is not.

      • Ninja0980

        Problem is if someone pushes the religious liberty argument, how can they stand?

        • vorpal

          I am just so goddamn sick of the religious pointing their finger at minority groups, claiming that we are demanding special rights (instead of the equal rights we have fought tooth and nail to try to secure), all the while having enjoyed special rights throughout much of recorded history.

          Their delusions do not trump my ability to love and the collective shared experiences of LGBT people.

          • JCF

            vorpal, hon, I know you’re pissed off—we ALL are. But if you could possibly refrain from painting Queer Lil’ Pisky me as “deluded”, I’d appreciate it. The problem is BIGOTRY, not (“the religious”) cosmology.

            NB, Fun Fact: I met my first openly gay Episcopal clergyperson in 1979 (age 17—before I was even out to myself!)

          • vorpal

            Sorry, JCF. I don’t count you amongst those who are deluded into thinking that their religion entitles them to terrorize other people. That is NOT you by any means, and while those are the people I intended to target with that post, I can see why my words were not clear.

            =hugs= to you and much love.

      • CriticalDragon1177

        It won’t matter, since if he’s able to use religion to get out of selling to gay people on the grounds that they’re gay, than by the same logic racists should have the right to refuse to serve blacks on the grounds that they’re black. If its a federal or state level law, it would make no difference.

        Plus in order for us to get federal protections for LGBT people soon, Philips has to lose, otherwise even if we pass such anti discrimination laws for LGBT people, they’re be useless since anyone will be able to claim “religious liberty” to get around having to follow them.

        • gaycuckhubby

          The difference is that according to the Supreme Court race is considered a protected class. Which means laws against People based on race have a heightened scrutiny and almost never stand. Laws against LGBT people don’t have that same heightened scrutiny and often fail

          • CriticalDragon1177

            Discrimination is discrimination, and if people win the right to discriminate against one group of people based only one their religious beliefs, than why not other groups? That is why if Jack Phillips wins, it will open up the flood gates and let the bigoted sewage in.

          • gaycuckhubby

            I completely agree.

          • Steverino

            Funny how they usually frame that exclusion on the fiction that being LGBT is a “choice,” while ignoring completely the fact that religion (a protected class) is a choice.

      • JCF

        Nice Freudian typo there, cucky.

        • gaycuckhubby

          LOL. Voice to text error has actually improved my comment!

  • Frostbite

    But her emails!

  • bkmn

    If I am paying taxes like everyone else I should be treated like everyone else. Period.

    • AJayne

      I’ve long held that, because law and society insist we are less than full citizens, our portion of taxes due should be reduced as well. But can you imagine if gay people paid fewer taxes by law? EVERYBODY would claim to be gay!

      • AmeriCanadian

        Three-fifths a person, three-fifths tax bill.

  • AmeriCanadian

    Every non-protected class is about to become second class.

    • Daveed_WOW

      Correct. I think a private sector solution is in order. Involving hordes, perhaps?

      • AmeriCanadian

        If you look at other multi-class countries, like India for example, you don’t see the plebs revolting. Instead, you find them huddling in the gutters and in their tent cities, merely trying to survive.

    • Tawreos

      Even protected classes will be second class if someone can find a religious reason to do so.

      • bkmn

        Exactly. This ruling could be a real Pandora’s box

        • J Ascher

          Just like the Hobby Lobby case that opened the door for this one.

          • Frances

            Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
            On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
            !da144d:
            ➽➽
            ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsLoveOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da144luuuuu

      • narutomania

        And that right there is the big danger that this country faces. People all across the South and the Midwest have been itching for this kind of case so they can drive an even larger wedge into the issue in order to create a way to discriminate at will against whomever they deem “inferior”. Or whatever. And then they will cite their Sincerely Held Religious Fanaticism to support their bigotry du jour.

      • Steverino

        DIscrimination on account of religion is itself a form of religious discrimination, because the victims are being discriminated against simply because they do not adhere to the religious beliefs of the discriminator. It should not be allowed under laws banning discrimination based on religion. The discriminator may have that right in private (home, place of worship, private club), but not in the civil sphere. To have it otherwise privileges discrimination on account of religion as a “carve-out” or immunity grant trumping any and all anti discrimination law.

        • Strepsi

          THIS IS THE CASE I’M WAITING FOR.
          People married by a Christian Church suing a (different type of) Christian for religious discrimination.

          • Steverino

            Yep. The Roman Catholic Church may refuse to marry divorced persons in their church, but it is not legal in the civil (public) sphere for an observant Roman Catholic county clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple of which one or perhaps both partners were previously married, and divorced.

          • Nic Peterson

            The only question that should have been asked of baker douche is this: what other groups of people that might consume your confections put you at odds with your god? Divorcees are OK? Mixed religion? What about no religion? At what point does the baker assume the sin? Is it assumptive?

            I would love it if a group of sister wives showed up in his shop to arrange a cake for the next lucky gal to be sealed for eternity with them to their man. Plenty of publicity hound FLDS in CO — it could happen.

      • Chris Gardner

        If his right to deny service to LGBT people is based on his sincere religious beliefs, someone else could easily say the same thing for Jew, Muslims, women, black or hispanic folks, etc…

    • MBear

      Always have been. The hood is off

      • AmeriCanadian

        Up until this point it wasn’t legally sanctioned.

      • IamSmartypants

        I think you mean the hoods are back on.

        • The hoods are off in that there is no longer any hiding in the shadows, bigots now feel free to express themselves openly.

    • gaycuckhubby

      I was really hoping that with this case sexual orientation and gender identity would be classified as protected classes.

      • Lizard

        It’s appalling they aren’t already. Utterly appalling.

        • gaycuckhubby

          I completely agree. And I’m still shocked that the marriage cases and the Doma case were decided without heightened scrutiny or protected class classification

          • Lizard

            I had hoped for Obergefell, but no beans.

        • Not too long ago, we were so discriminated against that the court refused to see us a class worth protecting. And now somehow by magic, we are no longer discriminated against. Appalling indeed.

      • CriticalDragon1177

        It should be. Jack Phillips and the religious right cannot be allowed to have their way here.

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          Or anywhere

      • vorpal

        If cases like this aren’t evidence that they NEED to be protected classes, I don’t know what is. The irony is fucked up beyond comprehension.

    • narutomania

      Which of course begs the question: how does one attain that oh-so-coveted “protected status”?

      • OdieDenCO

        one must choose their parents well

      • gaycuckhubby

        it’s been awhile since I’ve studied this. But I think it’s a three-pronged determination. A history of discrimination. Immutable identity. and a history of not having Fair representation in the legislators. LGBT people absolutely fit in those three categories but the court has found that they could rule on the other issues without determining class or scrutiny. I think it is a huge mistake.

        • AmeriCanadian

          We all know we fit those categories but I have yet to read that the majority agree that homosexuality is an immutable identity.

          • JCF

            See re “race is different”.

          • Circ09

            Well, we know religion isn’t an immutable identity.

    • 2patricius2

      If Kennedy rules against us, I say it is time to use every argument possible to discriminate against every religious group that opposed us. No First Communion cakes for Catholics, cause it is against our religion to worship bread. No services for divorced Evangelicals, cause it is against our religion to divorce, etc.

      • tristram

        Given that we’re 5% of the population and they are about 50% (and a lot higher in most red states), I don’t think they’ll lose much sleep over that.

        • Strepsi

          The U.S. is 78% Christian, and a very active Christianity too — which is why it’s such an outlier among developed nations.

        • But there are a lot of straight people who are on your side!! Like a bunch of your parents and siblings and extended family members and friends. If we can’t get the laws we need on our side let’s make them pay any other way we can. Let’s start asking every single business if they support same sex marriage and if they don’t let’s boycott their business. Let’s make it painful for them to uphold their “sincerely held religious beliefs”

    • ElenorRigby

      we have always been second class. Where have you been?

      • AmeriCanadian

        Momentarily elevated, due to the recent string of judgements in our favor.

  • Ninja0980

    Both sides are the same right?

    • Sebastian

      “Yep, Dem and Rep are the same so just vote Green or a third party or not vote, whats the difference”.
      To anyone that continues to this this way FO. To anyone who thought this way during last election – burn in hell.

      • Lantor

        I know it’s upsetting but telling them to burn in hell won’t help in the future. Both siderism needs to be reminded any and every time of its consequences.

  • MrRobotoLA

    Another example of Michelangelo Signorile’s “victory blindness” on our side. I’ve been so worried about this one, and it’s looking pretty gloomy.

    • Gustav2

      There is always a backlash.

    • tristram

      With all good intentions, our folks got out over their skis on this and similar cases. We got impatient and stopped thinking strategically and ended up giving the right a weapon they used to help win the Presidency and, under the rightwing judges he’s installing at all levels of the Federal court system, will use to roll back virtually everything we won by court decision.

  • gaycuckhubby

    God-fucking-damnit

  • Ninja0980
  • GayOldLady

    I wonder why our side didn’t use the other arguments available to them concerning what Christians or their New Testament consider moral as dictated by their bible. How about baking a wedding cake for hetero couple on their 2nd marriage? Mark 10:9 “what god has joined together let no man put asunder”. Will this Baker turn away twice married couples or just gay couples? Is he getting to decide which biblical admonitions he wants to keep and which he wants to ignore?

    • OdieDenCO

      all of the book’s rules or none! you don’t get to decide which. that has always been my argument.

      • GayOldLady

        In that case he can’t serve adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, those who lust after their neighbors goods or their neighbors spouse, those who cheat, those who eat shell fish, those who wear clothes of mixed fabrics, women who teach, those who shave their beards. The list goes on and on.

        • Mikey

          so basically, he’d starve to death?
          I’m good with that.

        • OdieDenCO

          and therein lies the hypocrisy of “sincerely held religious beliefs” if the book is the word of god “sincerely held religious beliefs” must encompass the entire book.

    • clay

      Because most Christians don’t actually claim to follow the Bible, but to use it to follow Christ. Unlike conscientious objector cases in the 20th century, the courts would simply take their word regarding their “belief”.

      • GayOldLady

        In other words, Cafeteria Believers?

        • clay

          In other words, “humans”.

      • GayOldLady

        Since the majority of Christians are also catholics I agree, but where I live most are Baptists and they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Most Evangelical religions believe in the inerrancy of the bible.

      • GayOldLady

        That “conscientious objector” argument didn’t hold up to well for Muhammad Ali, probably because he followed the Koran.

        • clay

          It didn’t hold up well for the majority who took it. Harsh treatment in prison was normal in WWI. Punishment assignments were normal in WWII. Draft was normal in Vietnam.

    • That puts the Court in the position of deciding which beliefs are valid, which is something it has strenuously avoided and is a place we don’t want them to go.

      • gaycuckhubby

        And frankly a place they couldn’t have gone. Which makes me think they would have been more likely to rule for us because they don’t want to make those decisions.

    • Vista-Cruiser

      I think that the Supreme Court has already ruled that they will accept a person’s religious beliefs on the surface, and they won’t look into the actual details of the religion.

    • Steverino

      As Kennedy is a Roman Catholic, one would think such a scenario is one he would have in mind as comparable. He knows full well that divorce and remarriage, while not permitted in his church, is perfectly legal in civil law, and that such persons may not be discriminated against on account of his religion.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    2018: The United Gay Church of Holy Happy forms.

  • S1AMER

    Prepare yourselves, America: The day is coming when anybody bearing any form of prejudice can simply hide behind Jesus’s skirts and do whatever he wishes against other peoples.

  • Reasonoverhate

    This may be an unpopular opinion, but I’d almost be alright with the bigots being able to refuse service to any group they wish as long as they are required to post a sign on their door, website, and any piece of advertising they use. Then let the free market work it out. If they can discriminate the onus should be on them, not the customer!

    • Tom G

      I agree.

    • MikeBx2

      I agree. If discrimination is allowed, then the bigots shouldn’t be able to pick and choose as someone walks through the door. They must advertise that they only serve those who adhere to their religious beliefs.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      An actual slippery slope though.

    • gaycuckhubby

      That’s nice if you live in New York City. It sucks if you live in a small town in New Hampshire or a small town in Georgia and there is literally one Bakery in town that fits your budget. And you think this will be limited to just Bakers?

      • Reasonoverhate

        That’s why I said almost. It’s certainly an imperfect solution. But those businesses that posted signs would face a backlash and loss of business. It could create the opportunity for others to fill the void. I certainly wouldn’t spend a dime at any business that discriminated against anyone.

        • danolgb

          You are naive. Have you seen this country?

          • Reasonoverhate

            Way to elevate the level of discourse!

        • As pointed out, the degree of backlash is going to depend very much on location. Anti-gay baker in Alabama? Don’t count on boycotts.

      • Ninja0980

        Today’s Bakers will be tomorrow’s county clerks then government workers etc.

        • Lantor

          Funeral home director. Doctor. Nurse.

          • clay

            . . . pharmacist, lawyer, banker, realtor.

        • m_lp_ql_m

          Parents…

    • danolgb

      We’ve been there. It’s no solution at all. The free-market didn’t fix this.

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/168b6e5f5961682aede15437a1fdd3e19250331699462a7fb1c7862677782544.jpg

      • MikeBx2

        It was signs like those that exposed the ugliness of bigotry. That’s the point.

        • danolgb

          Um.. no.. they didn’t. Geeze! The revisionism of segregation around here is amazing. Afterwards, we supposedly came to recognize the bigotry of the signs, but at the time, it was actually seen as completely normal. That’s not a good thing. Accepting the “compromise” is not a solution at all.

          • MikeBx2

            Um, yes they did. I grew up in Memphis. I live in the area now. I invite you to visit and learn at the National Civil Rights Museum.

          • danolgb

            Again, we NOW recognize it. It wasn’t at the time. Going back there is not a solution.

    • David Walker

      A sign of declaration on the door is, indeed, the clearest signal of their “god-given right” to discriminate. But I think they should also use their “religious” idols to stand up for their “right.” A cross (with or without a pained messiah) or a portrait of white Jeebus (preferably the Breck girl portrait) or that stupid fish (fishers or men? yeah. got it) would let us honor their righteousness. Proclaim you prejudices and bigotries to the world, goddammit, or be an American and treat everyone the same in public.

  • JoeMyGod
    • AJayne

      Believe whatever they want. I don’t care. But do business according to the Constitution of the country in which that business not only exists, but is protected by law.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Worship your little dark heart out- we DON’T care !

      Until your cult speak affects others !!

    • David Walker

      “…no matter which other of god’s children we get to fuck over.”

    • Ninja0980

      You have that right already.
      What you want is a theocracy where you get to impose those beliefs on everyone else.

    • clay

      Then do so, out of the public marketplace, just like before you and Falwell created the “moral” “majority”.

    • kaydenpat

      I feel sick. They are so full of hate. Your whole life shouldn’t revolve around discriminating against your fellow human beings.

      • Lizard

        Sometimes I wonder how it feels to wake up in the morning feeling so hateful.

  • scream4ever

    This article seems contradictory, since it opens with Kennedy getting him to admit that it would legalize discrimination a la Jim Crow laws. Kennedy is known for being very impartial in the courtroom, keep in mind.

    • gaycuckhubby

      I’m holding on to this hope, hopefully he was just getting prepared to write a decision that is conciliatory in tone towards religious freedoms while upholding public accommodation laws

    • Pluto Animus

      It is also good to keep in mind that Kennedy is a complete nitwit.

  • Gigi

    Re: “Terrible argument for pro-equality…” How could they be so ill-prepared? They’ve had years to perfect their argument!

  • gaycuckhubby
  • Statistics Palin

    So now gays will be treated as Untouchables by law. This is no different from the way that Brahmins treat Dalits in India. The Brahmins justify their behavior by saying that the Dalits are sinful. The Church of the Creator and other racist churches can do the same thing about racial minorities. Why weren’t any of the liberal justices smart enough to bring this up?

    • AJayne

      Why weren’t they brought up by our side’s attorneys?

    • AmeriCanadian

      I’m now beginning to think that we only need to look at India to see the future of the United States.

      • Statistics Palin

        In India, the Dalits eventually responded violently to their oppression. Because of their superior numbers, the state decided it was better to protect the Dalits than for the Brahmins to face extinction. We don’t have superior numbers.

        • AJayne

          Maybe we do if we include all supporters, tho. Then again, how many would risk life and limb for us? We may soon have to answer that question…

          • David Walker

            Well…a lot of us quite literally risked life and limb to gain civil rights for people of color. So, as a certain goddess of love and light once said, “It could happen.”

          • AJayne

            Agreed, and agreed – and I would hope it would happen – watching attitudes change, tho, the longer this administration is allowed to continue… Well, some part of me wonders.

        • LookielouE1707

          Then again, it’s primarily the organizational prowess of the group in question, not its raw numbers, that determines its fate. If that weren’t true this movement would never have gotten as far as it has.

    • lymis

      Remember that the vast majority of any Supreme Court ruling comes in the form of the written submissions, not the oral testimony. Justices rarely bring up things that they don’t consider to be in contention. The fact that none of the liberal justices raised this point may well indicate that they already understood that point very well. It might actually have been more of a concern if they had appeared to raise it as a question.

  • danolgb

    I suspect that we’ll get a Hobby Lobbyesque result. They’ll rule for the baker, say it doesn’t affect other cases, but it will.

    • Ninja0980

      Yup, and not just LGBT rights either.

      • danolgb

        Oh yeah.. and FU Berniebots for helping make this a reality.

        • CJAS

          And it bears repeating that white voters, and only white
          voters, affirmatively chose this.

        • unsavedheathen

          DING! DING! DING!

          First to come up with a knee-jerk, no-basis-in-fact “Berniebots/Berniebros” assignment of blame on this thread. I was getting worried when it didn’t appear in the first thirty seconds this post was up. But thanks, you saved the day and fulfilled all expectations!

          • danolgb

            Oh com’n. Take some credit where credit is due. You guys are getting what you asked for. Trump is dismantling everything we’ve worked so hard to get. But your “revolution” is going to start any minute now. Right?
            Do you honestly think that a Clinton solicitor general would have been arguing for the other side let alone bringing back the idea of segregation?

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/29/politics/susan-sarandon-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html

          • unsavedheathen

            You’re too kind, but please remember to drop all modesty when it comes time to assign responsibility when Democrats are still throwing insults back and forth come November ’18. There’s nothing like a never-ending internecine flame war to unite our party.

  • GayOldLady

    The Solution may not be in the Supreme Court, it may be in our own community. If this Baker wins this case, then his Bakery will have to exist in the world of competition with bakeries that serve Everyone. We just have to picket and boycott those businesses that turn us away and encourage our allies to do the same until it’s no longer economically feasible to refuse to serve us.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      I can live without his fucking cake, it’s other stuff I am worried about.

      • CriticalDragon1177

        And it will be far more than just cakes if Jack Phillips manages to win this. It could even lead to the return of this like racially segregated public schools in the worst case scenario.

        All that has to happen for that to occur is for some someone like Kim Davis to win the right to discriminate against LGBT people as a public employee and than for racist public employees to win the right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

        This whole thing is going to potentially open up a can of worms.

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          Plus with Trump packing lower courts, we could well be doomed.

          • CriticalDragon1177

            Right now I’m really angry at my fellow Bernie who couldn’t bring themselves to bite the bullet and vote for Hillary because she wasn’t the perfect progressive. At the very least, I don’t think this would be something that we would be concerned with if she was in the White House right now, instead of Trump. Even if this case still made it to the Supreme court, at least we would have the administration on our side.

    • CriticalDragon1177

      The problem with that is that sometimes really is only one viable option. What about those poor LGBT people who happen to live in a small town where there’s only one place they can go to buy a cake? Americans will once again be living in a country where they have to worry about not getting service based on some arbitrary thing that they can’t help. That is not acceptable and victory for Jack Phillips will send the message that the discrimination against gay people is okay. It will also been others such as racists as sign that its okay to discriminate against the group that they don’t like again. Racists used the same nonsensical “religious freedom” arguments that Phillips uses.

      • AmeriCanadian

        What about discrimination based solely on perception?. A straight man with effeminate features or a straight woman with a large frame and short hair can both be perceived as being gay. I don’t wish discrimination on anyone but if the court sides with Phillips, I can’t wait to read about accidental bias.

        • -M-

          Poor Marcus.

          • -M-

            The bigots never think about the unintended consequences of discriminatory laws.

            Take all those bathroom bills, statistically most of the people in women’s restrooms who look like a man in a dress are cis-gender women. Congratulations Rethuglicans on getting your Mom or Aunt harassed. And also on passing laws that would require trans men who look like Larry the cable guy to use their restrooms and lockers, now your hypothetical perverts pretending to be trans won’t have to cross dress.

    • JCF

      This is what I said above. If Masterpiece (snort) wins, I think it will be a pyrrhic victory.

  • CriticalDragon1177

    If the Supreme court actually sides with Jack Phillips, instead of telling him to go pound sound, I’m going to be so angry. This should be so easy for anyone with brain to understand why Phillips arguments are absurd and have been tried a thousand times, and if he wins we almost might as well get rid of all of our civil rights laws since they’ll be worthless. This case should pretty much already be over now, since the side opposing the law has no valid arguments, and no arguments that haven’t been used before for that matter.

    • AmeriCanadian

      I’m most disappointed in Kennedy. I realize a decision hasn’t been made yet and we may be overreacting but the comments that have leaked out already don’t give me much hope.

      • JCF

        See re caution over oral arguments. They often don’t point out the actual decision.

  • Boreal

    All of the progress we’ve made is being undone quickly. Hope those that wanted their revolution are happy.

    https://img1.etsystatic.com/125/1/12628976/il_340x270.1053432049_h7bd.jpg

  • -M-

    How? It’s a clear cut case of religious discrimination in public accommodations by the bigoted baker?

    • clay

      The questions suggest to me that Kennedy bought the lie that Baker-man offered them a standard, un-decorated cake.

  • Lindoro Almaviva

    The fact f the matter is that nothing comes easy for the LGBT community and nothing will. Every time we have made a gain, the haters will fight harder. Well, just as we did in the 80s and 90s, we will likely suffer a setback, but you know what? in the end we will win. Every time the SCOTUS has sided with hate, they eventually recognize that they fucked up.

    All I am saying is, make sure that cake baker is well known everywhere and make sure no one serves him and make sure everyone uses the same arguments he is using against him

  • Jerry Hinnant

    I say let them not serve cake to whomever they want , but they must have who they will not serve displayed on the front of their business for EVERYONE to see!

    • paganguy

      Here’s my problem with that: today they don’t want to serve cakes, tomorrow they don’t want to rent apartments, and the day after that the ER doesn’t want to treat any LGBTQ people. Don’t think it can happen? This country had Jim Crow laws for a very long time, and the anti-LGBTQ crowd would happily see that come to pass.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Exactly. Plus, my town now has a Private Ambulance service.

        ( they don’t pick up no homos )

        • clay

          “Healing is my ministry.”

      • Jerry Hinnant

        This is true but religion is on a decline in this country and it is exactly for reasons like this that they are becoming a minority. They need to realize that their being able to discriminate for their so called religious beliefs is a double edged sword that can be used to bite them in the ass. Their religious belief will not be any greater than anyone else’s and others will be able to refuse them service for the very same beliefs they are fighting for.

        • AmeriCanadian

          I’ve heard that religion is in decline many times from many sources but my own eyes see the number of “mega” churches growing, not declining. I only know of two churches in the northern suburbs of Detroit shutting down or being re-purposed.

          • Lizard

            Anecdote versus data, dude. The data shows the country becoming less religious. Churches are hemorrhaging young people in particular over social issues like LGBT rights.

          • Jerry Hinnant

            Churches down in the southern part of the country are growing as well, however those that are growing are more progressive and those who are embracing the Buddhist philosophy of spirituality over religious dogma. The numbers for southern Baptists and evangicals have been declining steadily over the last several years and as they become crazier and more zealous in their rigid social beliefs that will continue. Hopefully their embrace of sexual deviants and child molesters as acceptable politicians will be their demise.

  • Todd

    If this is the outcome, I then hope to see countless signs in business windows saying “Christians not welcome.”

    • Christopher

      Sadly, they’re a protected class.

      • Kelly Lape

        Protected? Yes. Class? Not an ounce.

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        Not in MY store they aint !

        • Christopher

          That’s how I feel as well, but my bookstore is in rural Misery, and if I tried that I wouldn’t last an hour.

    • Kelly Lape

      Republicans not welcome. Being an asshole is a choice.

  • Mark McGovern

    The tide is turning on what was a great wave of victories. I think people need to:

    A. Accept that things are going to get worse before they get better, given the balance of power in Congress, White House, SCOTUS, State Houses and Governors’ Mansions; and

    B. Start thinking about what they are going to do different, or how they are going to think/strategize differently, in order to change things.

    “B” in my mind means creating coalitions with people not normally seen as allies in order to bring their vote over to our side.

  • The Sentinel
  • lymis

    I’m hardly going to declare victory, but I’ve followed enough of these cases over a lifetime to know that you can’t always judge by the questions that the Justices ask. Very often, they ask questions that sound like clear bias in one direction, for the purpose of making the lawyers explain their logic or follow the train of thought to an extreme.

    We’ve been disheartened by what looked like justices we counted on asking questions that made them look sympathetic to the bigots in the past, only to have them write powerfully in our defense when the ruling comes out.

    The Justices will not be blind to the fact that flatly stating that a privately held religious belief overrides anti-discrimination laws will apply just as much to race, sex, or religion as to orientation.

    It’s as likely that the majority will rule in our favor while slamming Colorado for insensitivity in how they handled it as that they will rule against us. If they can figure out any way to waffle and rule narrowly without throwing out anti-discrimination law entirely – including discrimination concerns for right wing Christians, they probably will.

    • Gustav2

      They often ask the questions they know will be against how they will vote.

    • Jim E.

      I can’t recall whether Kennedy’s questions during Obergefell telegraphed his intentions then..?

      Edit: Google is my friend. In retrospect, it appears that they did.

    • There’s clear precedent (written, ironically enough, by Scalia) that “religious belief” is no excuse for disobeying anti-discrimination laws that are otherwise valid. I forget the case, but it’s been cited many times before.

      They key seems to be Kennedy’s comment about Colorado displaying “hostility toward religion,” which seems odd to me.

    • JCF

      True. There wasn’t a single analyst who didn’t think Obamacare was TOAST, after the 2012 oral arguments (then Roberts surprised).

  • Mr. M

    We LGBTs shouldn’t fret if they rule against us. We should just actively start denying Christians services to our businesses. Full stop.

    • Lizard

      Sadly, you’ll go out of business. Christians are 60-75% of the population (depending on your definition of Christian).

      • David Walker

        It’s not just a fundamentalist/evangelical/non-scheduled xnty. There are, unfortunately, a lot of “main line” xns who would support their hateful “fellow xns” and see it as an attack on their religion…as opposed to an assault on equality, justice, and Christianity. Jesus’ second commandment be damned. If they do love one another as they love themselves, they are indeed a most hateful lot.

        • Lizard

          100% that’s why they’re arguing it on religious grounds. It worked for Hobby Lobby, so why not here?

    • AJayne

      That would not be effective – for one thing, once their “religion” is elevated above our existence in law, we would be taken to court, and they would win. If the baker prevails in this case, all bets are off for any civil rights.

      • That’s their goal — they want to pick and choose which laws they obey on the basis of “religious belief.”

        • Lizard

          Religion is just an excuse. If he really cared about the Bible, he wouldn’t serve divorcees either.

    • kaydenpat

      Religion is a protected category like race and sex.

  • matrem

    America will not recover from this. We will be a Christian Iran long before 2020. Get a weapon and learn to use it, because the camps will not be far behind.

  • Lizard

    “JusticeforJack” pisses me the fuck off. “Justice.” Like his poor hateful feelings are SOOOO hurt by being told to obey the fucking law and not be a dick to customers. Like he’s been SOOOO legally damaged in a country where Christians already control pretty much everything.

    • kanehau

      JackassJack works for me.

  • Statistics Palin

    If the baker wins, I plan to protest in front of the nearest Catholic cathedral on Sunday.

  • Ninja0980

    For those saying just go someplace else and it’s just a cake, couple points I’d like to make.
    1)The bakery near where one of my aunt and uncles lives at is the only one for 20 miles.
    Others have ones of greater distance so the go someplace else argument won’t always work.
    2) What if the next place the same sex couple goes to says the same thing?
    3) What will stop a grocery store owner, doctor, county clerk or government worker from claiming they don’t have to serve or do their job when it comes to same sex couples?

    • vorpal

      Furthermore, as I continue to assert, it’s none of the baker’s goddamn business what I want to do with his cake: if I want to serve it at a heterosexual wedding, a same-sex wedding, eat it for breakfast, or just throw it in the bathtub and roll around naked in it for the hell of it is not his concern. His interests end once payment is made.

    • Strepsi

      this is exactly why these laws were enacted for black and mixed-race customers, the burden on citizens it unfair having to walk the length of a city looking for a company that will “serve your kind”…..

  • AtticusP

    Well, SCOTUS fucked up the Dred Scott and Citizens United decisions.

    It wouldn’t surprise me if they fucked this one up too.

    • David Walker

      And it’s not like it’ll have any bearing on their lives.

  • Tom Furgas

    A persuasive editorial in the NY Times mentions that the baker did not refuse to bake cakes for same-sex couples so long as they were generic, neutral in message. And they could buy pre-baked cakes which were also generic and neutral. Phillips argument is that he was being coerced into inscribing the cakes himself, providing a message he did not agree with. This is the tipping point in his argument, and I think it will stand, unfortunately. I say “unfortunately” because this will lead to a slippery slope of anti-gay discrimination. But in this particular case we have to concede that Mr. Phillips should not be compelled to inscribe the cakes in a way that he disagrees with strongly, even if it is discrimination. Imagine if you will that you are a baker and a White Nationalist group wants you to bake cakes with swastikas and white-supermacist messages. Should you be compelled to do it?

    • clay

      Except that persuasive editorial is light on the facts. The baker didn’t offer that until it was a way to get out of court.

    • kat

      So, are you saying that writing ‘Congratulations, Pat and Chris’ is acceptable if Pat and Chris are hetero, but not if Pat and Chris are gay?

    • NedFlaherty

      Tom Furgas argues — incorrectly — that vendors are allowed to discriminate against customers whenever their excuse is that the vendor dislikes the product.

      He is wrong.

      All vendors must sell all their products — regardless of their feelings about the products — to everyone. No vendor may sell one product to some customers and then withhold that same product from other customers.

      If a vendor sells a product to ANYBODY, then that vendor must also sell it to EVERYBODY else. Vendors who dislike White Nationalist products can choose not to sell them to anyone, but vendors who sell them to some people must sell them to all people.

  • LookielouE1707

    The path forward is clear: we have to retake the white house and senate before kennedy retires or, failing that, retake both including the senate by a sufficently wide margin as to be able to neutralize the conservatives’ illegitimate seating of gorsuch either by impeaching him or by adding to the size of the court. With that last stunt by the gop the gloves are off anyway.

    • Kelly Lape

      You’re dreaming. Unless we have a 60 majority in the Senate, the GOP will just block everything AGAIN – and then when they have a minority majority (under 60 votes) they’ll break every fucking rule to destroy America… AGAIN.

      • LookielouE1707

        Well, I think the filibuster has a limited lifespan no matter what, but I agree the challenge is significant.

  • Uncle Mark

    It’s NOT about cakes; it’s about the ability of any asshole to deny service/aid/comfort to anyone they feel morally offends them. It will give the EMT worker the right to deny trying to save a junkie, or a policeman the right to deny saving a gay man being beaten, or a pharmacist the right to deny selling a woman birth control…”because they chose their ‘evil’ lifestyle.” In 2015, we had a pediatrician in Michigan, who refused to provide care for a baby, because its parents were lesbians. These Christianistas HATE so much that they will joyfully hurt the innocent that they claim so much to care for. This insane division & loathing is what is being unleashed upon our society.

    • JCF

      “we had a pediatrician in Michigan, who refused to provide care for a baby, because its parents were lesbians”

      Oh come now, you know that that was just the first step in the process of trying to take the innocent child AWAY from those evil lesbians. /s

  • Gene Perry

    Honestly, I don’t give a shit about your “deeply held religious beliefs” … just do your job & bake the damn cake.

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      Lol, that really is just it.

  • kipper

    Been a good long while, but back down the SCOTUS rabbit hole for me this morning. It seems – at least to someone with zero legal training – that this is settled law. Google Piggy Park Case. A chain of bbq restaurants in South Carolina said it was Gods will that they did not have to serve black people – and they lost unanimously. But that was more of an interstate commerce case and not ” free speech”. BUT HOW is a cake free speech and not a bbq sandwich. Also Bob Jones University v the IRS.. could Bob Jones be denied federal fundings if they kept their god given right to ban interracial dating.. lost there too. It goes on and on, but none are on speech.
    Let’s say we do lose this one… how far can it go ? Is housing speech, is practicing medicine speech?

    • m_lp_ql_m

      Race is different from orientation, or so they claim.

      • kipper

        but the argument is the same , my God says I can not do this. Take race or sexual orientation out of it….

      • David Walker

        And human being, then, is different from human being.

      • GayOldLady

        Sadly, because they can’t see the difference, as they can in race, then they assume there is no difference, but almost every LGBT person I know says they’ve known they were not straight since childhood. I knew I wasn’t like the other girls at 6. How can that be if there’s not something inherently different. I reread an article the other day about exposure to hormones in the womb, but I don’t think that fully explains it either because I’ve known twins where one was gay, one was straight. Someday they’ll discover whatever it is that directs our orientation and how we identity, but until then they will continue to believe that our sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice vs. inherent.

        • AmeriCanadian

          It may have already been discovered and since suppressed. Other research has been suppressed because it was politically incorrect or socially unpopular.

  • SFBruce

    This certainly looks like a black day for our side. So far, I’ve only read the excepts here, but it sounds like Francisco, the attorney for the government, is arguing that Phillips was asked to create custom-made cake for the same-sex couple. But is that what happened? I thought Phillips showed the them door as soon as he found out it was a cake for a same sex wedding. If they asked for something different from what he sells to opposite sex couples every day, it’s news to me.

    Even if we don’t prevail here, if the anti-LGBT crowd thinks we’ll be giving up, they couldn’t be more wrong.

    • EDinMCO

      I’m fairly certain the baker’s claim is that all cakes are artistic expression and thus protected as speech. I suppose a gay couple could go in and buy a pre-made wedding cake “off the shelf ” and without anything more (is that even possible?) and no one would know they were gay, but that’s not the issue at hand. Phillips’ legal argument isn’t concerned with what he sells to opposite-sex couples. It’s that the state cannot compel him to “speak” (make a cake) in support of something (SSM) with which he fundamentally disagrees (b/c religion) regardless of what he provides to any other customer, fairness be damned.

      And yes, I also read that “Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.” This aligns with the “all cakes are speech” argument.

      • JCF

        It pisses me off, a comparison of a *wedding cake* for a same sex couple, to a Confederate flag decoration, by a black baker. The latter is clearly SPEECH, in the way the former isn’t.

        If I were a baker, and a young person (either sex) came in requesting a cake for a wedding where they were going to marry an in extremis old person (“…and by next month I’m gonna be One Rich Widow/er!”), I’d disapprove of the wedding…but I’d bake the damn cake. [Because the nature of the wedding is none-of-my-business. I have a business license to BAKE WEDDING CAKES—and all money is green! Period. End of discussion.]

        • EDinMCO

          Right. It comes down to this: the Black baker will refuse to bake a Confederate flag cake for anyone; the Christianist baker will make a wedding cake for some people but not others. It’s discrimination by definition.

    • JCF

      “I thought Phillips showed the them door as soon as he found out it was a cake for a same sex wedding.”

      May be a debate over “showed them the door”, but I believe you’re generally correct. They were flatly turned down, and only later, did the bigot try to placate the couple w/ a completely undecorated cake.

  • CJAS

    The reality of American law is that your rights, unless you’re a straight white man, are never secure. They are always under attack.

    • Lizard

      Straight white Christian man.

  • Griff Jim Griffith

    Apparently, a whole lot more of us have to die before SCOTUS figures out that we deserve protected class status. Welcome to the Idiocracy.

    • Chucktech

      A whole lot more gay deaths is hardly a guarantee of SCOTUS doing the right thing.

  • FAEN

    Wouldn’t this fall under ‘Seperate but Equal’?

    • Daveed_WOW

      That sounds pretty good. Oh wait.

      • FAEN

        Exactly. It didn’t work before and it sure as hell won’t work now.

        • matrem

          What do you not understand about fundies disgust for the rule of law?

          • FAEN

            I understand it well.

        • Daveed_WOW

          Didn’t we have a civil war about this sort of thing?

          • FAEN

            One side never stopped fighting it.

          • Daveed_WOW

            Those whiney old liberals.

    • kaydenpat

      It sounds as bad as “separate but equal” because in many small towns, same sex couples may not be able to find competing businesses to patronize when they run into bigoted businesses folks.

  • Daveed_WOW

    All we can hope for is a decision of extremely narrow scope. Without that, we’ll have people using religion as an excuse for all kinds of discrimination.

    • Lizard

      These are religious people. Time and time again, when given an inch they take a mile.

  • Dana Chilton

    One has to wonder how a justice garland would have voted? Oh well, actually voting for Hillary was just too much, right? It’s all the same anyway?

    • Lizard

      We should’ve had Garland anyway. The Senate pulls out every filthy cheating trick they had to block it when Obama was still in office.

    • John Kusters

      Perhaps I’m overly cynical, but I have a doubt that the Republican-led Senate would have approved *any* Clinton candidate. They’d just claim they should wait till the public had a say at the next election (or the next, or the next…).

  • lymis

    The real question boils down to whether baking the cake would violate his religious beliefs if he didn’t know who he was selling it to.

    An orthodox Jew who keeps kosher wouldn’t handle pork whether he was selling it to a Jew or Gentile. A strict Amish carpenter wouldn’t use power tools no matter who he was making the bench for. A baker who disapproved of penis cakes wouldn’t bake them for anyone.

    If the only reason baking and decorating the cake violates his religion is because he knows who’s buying it, then baking and selling the cake doesn’t violate his religion.

    • Chucktech

      Nevertheless, here we are.

    • JCF

      Yeah, if just ONE of the grooms had ordered the cake, not mentioning his fiancee’, this case never would have happened, would it? [Very similar to a case of a bridal gown seller. The would-be bride happened to *mention* that she was going to marry another bride, and shit hit the fan.]

  • JohnJay

    OK. Fine. If we lose, so be it. BUT… as was mentioned… any establishment MUST have a sign in the window stating “we do not serve …”; this must also apply to their Yellow Pages Ad, any newspaper ad, or TV or Radio commercial. If they deny service, and there was no such sign, then they can run the risk of being sued. Let’s see how many want to be publicly posted as bigots.

    • FAEN

      I agree but they will argue the signs will be unfair to their businesses. Just watch.

      The Martyr Snowflakes never stop.

      • OdieDenCO

        not a problem. we just ask all businesses that stand with equality and fairness to post a sign saying so. no sign, no custom

        • FAEN

          Brilliant.

    • CriticalDragon1177

      That’s not acceptable. It would like seeing a “whites only” sign outside of restaurant. If we lose, somehow we’re going to have to find a way to reverse the decision.

      • FAEN

        Why is it not acceptable to have a ‘Heterosexuals Only’ sign on their doors?

        • CriticalDragon1177

          Because that puts a stigma on people who are not heterosexual, and it will mean that gay people will have to worry about there not being a places in some areas that will sell to them. It was not acceptable when public accommodation business were able to discriminate based on race, it will be just as unacceptable for them to be able to legally discriminate based on being gay.

          • FAEN

            The signs are from a past era but clearly not with the GOP. I want those signs on the anti gay businesses as a way to shame them.

          • danolgb

            Yeah.. remember how that works out?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybOcTKLNrM

          • FAEN

            Let them have their Hate Chicken. If a business doesn’t want my money I’d rather know before I set foot in there.

            Jeebus I can’t fucking believe we’re still having to deal with this issue in 2017!

          • CriticalDragon1177

            It won’t work. These people are proud of the fact that they think that homosexuality is “sinful,” and openly discriminate against gay people. Besides, the more they are forced to tolerate gay people, the more they’ll get used to them, and the less upset they’ll be about being around them.

          • FAEN

            Maybe it will because there are more of allies in this country than not.

          • CriticalDragon1177

            And it may not effect those really homophobic areas of the country where people who support gay rights are outnumbered by homophobic religious fanatics.

          • LookielouE1707

            Yeah, if posting such signs became a commonplace it would make things worse, by reinforcing the homophobic cultural norm. If you’re a baker who doesn’t care much one way or another and you see most of your neighbors posting these signs, that pushes you to jump off the deep end, too. And if you’re already a homophobe, posting such a sign prompts you to be more consistently homophobic, to avoid looking/feeling inconsistent – cognitive dissonance alone is probably enough to produce homophobia in someone who posts such a sign. And the more explicitly such norms are promulgated, the more gay people stop coming in to town, and the less you have of the personal interactions which humanize gay people in the eyes of the community and undermine homophobia.

          • FAEN

            It also puts a stigma on the store and its owner IMHO.

          • Lizard

            Depends on where you live. There are places where a business like that would thrive thanks to that sign.

          • FAEN

            That is true. However I’d much prefer to know who the homophobes are so I don’t spend any money there and in purple-ish areas the homophobes would go out of business. IMHO of course.

          • CriticalDragon1177

            Not really. If the store owner is a homophobic bigot, they won’t see it as a stigma at all. They might even see it as something to be proud of.

          • FAEN

            The sign is not for the store owner but for customers to know.

          • CriticalDragon1177

            I would rather not have to know what the shop owners feelings were toward my group, my race, my gender, my sexual orientation, my religion, and just know that wherever I or one of my friends went, they would be able get service when they needed it.

      • JohnJay

        Exactly like the “Whites only” signs from the 1950s. Let them own it. If they lose a lot of business because straight allies avoid that business… too bad. If you’re going to sacrifice for you religion.. you got to sacrifice and let your little light shine.

        • danolgb

          So many people here certainly have a romanticized recollection of segregation to be willing to go back to it.

          • CriticalDragon1177

            Yeah Klansmen and Neo Nazis who are probably having wet dreams about Phillips winning so they can bring back Jim Crow.

          • FAEN

            Yep!

          • JohnJay

            No. It would be the SCOTUS loss for us that would go back to that era. We would just try to embarrass the particular businesses with a notice in the window if it wants to discriminate.

          • FAEN

            For many it’s not a romanticized recollection-it’s how they see the world. If you’re not white and Xtian you don’t deserve equality on any level of society.

          • danolgb

            You don’t get it. It’s people here thinking a sign is the answer who I’m directing my comments to.

          • FAEN

            I don’t think a sign is the answer. The answer would be to treat people equally under the law. However if these bastards do win I want to make it as uncomfortable for them as possible.

        • CriticalDragon1177

          One problem with that is, in some areas of the country, businesses with “no gays” signs, might actually do better than businesses without such signs, or at the very least they might not be hurt enough economically for it to compel them to change their discriminatory policies.

    • Chucktech

      The Supreme Court can’t mandate any such thing. The Supreme Court adjudicates law, it cannot make law, like a law requiring this sign.

    • stuckinthewoods

      To you, and any of the others here stating “an establishment MUST have a sign in the window”…..how do you expect to compel these establishments to post such a sign?

  • kaydenpat

    Not liking how the stories are revolving around the baker. What about the victims of his bigotry? I’d like to hear from them. The Baker is a bigot and his tears mean nothing to me.

    • Lizard

      Because that’s how they get public opinion on their side. Hateful Christians will respond to the poor weeping baker who just wants to hate gay people in peace.

      • RobynWatts

        Well, if it’s peace that they want, they can always state in their signage and ads that if you’re not a straight white Christian, then we don’t want your business, and see just how long it takes for them to go out of business!

        • Lizard

          I wish I thought that would work, but there are an awful lot of hateful people in this country who might be MORE inclined to patronize that business.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada
    • RobynWatts

      I hope that Mark is wrong with his observation, but won’t hold my breath.

    • FAEN

      But her emails 🙄! And protest voting, and Sarandon’s ‘revolution’.

      Thanks purity assholes.

    • Gorsuch replaces Scalia, so it’s a wash. They key here is Kennedy.

      • AmeriCanadian

        Isn’t that amazing? In a country with a population over 320 million and a decision that affects a significant percentage of that population hinges on ONE person. One. If that ain’t fucked up…

      • LookielouE1707

        Garland would have been a backstop to any wobbliness by kennedy, though.

        • JCF

          Oh, if Garland is on the bench, I think the only question is whether Colorado (the couple) wins 5-4 or 6-3.

    • Sean Williams

      But her emails!!!!

    • danolgb

      The other point is Trump’s Justice Department argued against us. That wouldn’t have happened under a Clinton presidency.

  • Paula

    How about we get stickers like this and quietly place them on the doors and windows of these fine x-tain establishments.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3e6ef076d495ba41675d153ad490a56317e8c4618898f5ccf0e770533df450b.gif

    • FAEN

      It would fly over their heads so yeah that’s a good idea.

  • TampaDink

    I wonder if gay bakers will be allowed to deny straight couples requests for wedding cakes.

    • Lizard

      Not if they want to stay in business.

      • TampaDink

        Of course. WE cannot be intolerant towards potential customers. Only hetero christers can pull that off.

        • Lizard

          Dude, I agree with you on this case. The fact that same-sex weddings are a minority in the wedding industry is hurting them right now.

          Straight bakers can refuse gay people and stay in business because there are so many straight couples. I don’t think any baker could again in business serving same-sex couples. It sucks.

          • TampaDink

            It does…..but for every one of our tribe, there are countless supportive friends & families who would opt against hiring the services of known bigots.

        • Chucktech

          WE wouldn’t want to do that. WE are running a business to make money. WE know that such discrimination is BAD for BUSINESS.

          • TampaDink

            That’s because, for the most part, our people are smart enough to know not to turn away paying customers.

          • Chucktech

            Oh, absolutely. Jesus, if I thought I could take christians’ money by selling shitty little pieces of driftwood with a bible quote air-brushed on or sell them shitty little snow globes o’ jesus, damn right I’d kiss their god-addled asses, take their money, and wish them a blessed day.

    • jmax

      Have them fill out a form, indicating which of the Ten Commandments or Levitical laws they have broken, and deny them on religious grounds.

      • TampaDink

        That would work.

      • whollyfool

        THIS

        Who’s in to start a bakery!?!

  • Freedom of religion means (or should mean) you can attend the church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or storefront congregation, oak tree or mountain top of your choice or not at all. Don’t start bringing your religion into the marketplace or the government.

    The problem for LGBs and perhaps Ts as well, is that we are, like it or not, all about sex and sexuality…not to imply that that’s all we are, but sexual orientation is what same-sex marriage is about.

    And religions have for centuries proscribed what sex acts and couplings are permitted in no mildly stated terms. Abomination, intrinsically disordered, sinful, unforgivable, diabolic, etc. Strict religionists will never accept any person or sexual activity outside those their religion condones. (Provided they don’t get caught). Legal or not we will never be equals in their world view.

    So even in the public forum it is nearly impossible to come to compromise, let alone reconcile our sexuality with their beliefs.

    If religionists insist that their religion must inform their business practices and service delivery, then they should be totally consistent and up-front about it: Advertise that they will not serve ANY sinner and that they alone can cast the first stone. And if they are up-front about their beliefs, open-minded people can avoid doing business with them all together.

    Unfortunately it is too late to come up with better arguments for the Supremes. It is a fait accompli. Let’s hope five justices can see through the religionist scam.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok

    Love wins!!

    Unless they want a cake.

  • Pluto Animus

    From the Stern tweets:
    Kennedy said Colorado has been “neither tolerant nor respectful” to the baker’s “religious beliefs.” [end quote]

    So once again, we’re hostage to a crybaby Catholic.

    The weakness of believers fills me with boiling, acidic contempt.

    • Lizard

      Crybabies, all of them. “Why are you so mean to me?! I just want to deny you the same service I provide everyone else! Persecution!!!”

  • Pizza009

    Jim Crow 2.0. here it comes

  • Charles Nelson

    My ‘religion’ prohibits me from living in the same state as LGBTQ people. They should be forced to move to another state to preserve my ‘religious freedom; there are plenty of other states that they can choose from that will allow them to live there!

  • gaycuckhubby

    I know lots of people are saying if our side loses then it would be great if businesses would be forced to put up large signs that said who they discriminate against. but imagine how unsafe you would feel if you were in the neighborhood, maybe on vacation maybe because you live there maybe because you work there, and the entire neighborhood was filled with those signs. Now imagine you were 11 years old and coming to terms with your sexuality. That would be terrifying, does it really get better?

    • FAEN

      Let’s hope we don’t lose.

    • 1980Gardener

      yes, that would be scary but also incredibly unlikely.

      • gaycuckhubby

        I grew up in a very rural part of Ohio. the stores would be fighting over each other to see who can get the most heterosexual only signs in the store. I’m not kidding

        • 1980Gardener

          And you think that is the case today?

          I grew up in a very rural part of wisconsin and could never imagine such a thing happening.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Yes. I do. I still visit regularly

          • 1980Gardener

            I find that belief very incredulous.

          • Ninja0980

            Because as you’ve said elsewhere, you are a straight man immune to such things.

          • 1980Gardener

            i never said that and i’m not straight.

    • GayOldLady

      Well that was the way it was in the world many of us grew up in. We’d go to school and hear from teachers it is was wrong to be “homosexual” and that “homosexuals” were going to hell. We’d go to church and hear that anything but man/woman meant you were going to hell. Our families thought “homosexuality” was perverted and that we should be locked up or institutionalized. There were laws against same sex sexual contact. Society as a whole condemned same sex contact. They put “homosexuals” who flaunted the law into jail or psych hospitals. Merchants certainly wouldn’t have served us if they knew we were gay/lesbian/transgender. Those days are still fresh in my memory and I don’t want to go back and I don’t believe we will go back because I’ve lived long enough to see and experience how far we’ve come.

      • vorpal

        I was born in 1977 – much later than many here – and I still remember my grandfather loudly, proudly, and frequently telling the story about how he beat a “faggot” within an inch of his life in the bathroom one day when he caught the “faggot” stealing a peek at his penis.

        I doubt the guy was even gay. Men – straight or gay – often take a peek.

        And he wondered why I was never excited to see him when I was a kid. I didn’t shed a tear or attend his funeral when he died.

        • GayOldLady

          He terrified you, how could you be sad when he died. I’m over 30 years older than you so I’m sure you can imagine how bad it was then. I was either told or overheard every adult in my family (with the exception of my grandmother) demonized L/G’s. I went to catholic schools and was taught that only man/woman was “natural” everything else was evil and if you ventured there you would “go to hell”. I had a 2nd cousin who visited my grandmothers house when she was in her 20’s and she brought what I recognized as her lesbian lover. I thought she was so cool and even though my family said nothing to her face, they talked about her mercilessly behind her back. Those days were like being in prison. You wanted to live your life, but were intimidated by everyone around you, Family, friends, school, church, teachers, law enforcement, land lord, employer, co-workers. It was not a good time to be LGBT.

          • vorpal

            I was pretty lucky overall growing up: while my dad and my grandfather were both homophobic (although my dad came around in a big way), I was pretty gender conforming, so I never had to experience the barrage of homophobic bullying and abuse that many kids (including straight ones) had do endure.

            Honestly, to those who had to deal with that regularly, I can’t even imagine how terrifying and nightmarish every day must be. I don’t think I could have endured it myself, so I have nothing but the deepest respect for those who are able to survive it.

            I am so sorry that you had to go through that. I will never understand why they hate us so much and how people can be so mercilessly cruel.

            We are incredibly lucky to have you here.

          • GayOldLady

            What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. And thank you for the kind words. I’m glad to be here among so many great people.

        • GayOldLady

          And 1977? Honey you’re still a whipper/snapper. 🙂 And believe me, you’re at what I thought were the best years of my life. Enjoy every minute of it!!!!!!

          • vorpal

            Thanks, GOL!
            I’m hoping 2018 turns out to be a good year :-).

        • whollyfool

          Hugs Vorpal

        • Ninja0980

          I was a late 20something when the battle for marriage equality was raging here in NY.
          Suffice to say many in family got a huge wake up call on how many people truly hated the LGBT community.

        • JCF

          {{{vorpal}}}

    • JCF

      I honestly believe, any business putting up such a sign, we—LGBT people AND our more numerous allies—could (nonviolently) force out of business, through public shaming, within a month.

  • Ragnar Lothbrok
    • Lizard

      FSM bless Andrew Seidel and the FFRF.

  • DrRobY

    The candidates are essentially the same.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    My religion compels me to go into bakeries and smash shit up.

    STOP OPPRESSING ME!

  • gaycuckhubby

    We made fun of the term Coastal Elites during the election. but some of the responses today are making me think that it’s not such a ludicrous idea. we need to get out of the gayborhood where we would run away businesses that discriminate, and put ourselves in the shoes of a gay person in a small town in the south. Those places would be proud to be publicly discriminating. There won’t be a mass movement to shut them down. There won’t be protests. It will enhance their businesses. It is discrimination plain and simple

    • Ninja0980

      Hell, you can go to parts of NY state and find that as well.
      They would relish the attention as a way to stick it to those NYC liberals.

  • 1980Gardener

    I guess I don’t see the reason for concern.

    If the Court rules for the baker, i can’t imagine anything in my daily life changing.

    • Lizard

      Are you nonheteronormative in any way? If you are, you should.

      • 1980Gardener

        No, I’m not. i’m a married guy with kids in a small town/rural area.

        • Lizard

          Ah well then, your life won’t change. Good for you. Other people won’t be so lucky, but who cares about them as long as your own comfort is intact?

          I’m heterosexual. I’m concerned because this is going to hurt people. Civil rights matter.

          • 1980Gardener

            ” Civil rights matter.”

            – Are you talking about the rights of the people buying the cake or making the cake? 😉

            get off your high horse – you are only interested in this because it affects something you care about – no different than anyone else.

          • Lizard

            Civil rights of the baker aren’t being abridged. He made a promise to serve the public when he opened a for-profit business, including gay people. If he doesn’t like it, he can not open a business. It’s that simple.

            “You are only interested in this case because it affects something you care about”
            Well yeah. Duh. Doesn’t make caring a bad thing.

          • 1980Gardener

            “Civil rights of the baker aren’t being abridged. He made a promise to serve the public when he opened a for-profit business, including gay people. If he doesn’t like it, he can not open a business. It’s that simple.”

            – That makes no sense. You are saying that the civil rights of the baker aren’t being abridged because the law denies him rights. is that it?

            “Well yeah. Duh. Doesn’t make caring a bad thing.”

            – It’s not a bad thing at all – it’s great in fact. But i worry the fear around this case is greater than the potential harm.

          • Renfield

            The law doesn’t allow him to not pay taxes even if it is against his religion. Religious views are not paramount. If my religion says I must kill all Christians immediately, am I exempt from punishment because I’m following my religious beliefs? If I open a store but put up a sign in front saying “Blacks Not Allowed” is that legal? No. It’s the same with the baker. This is not a difficult case. It’s pretty easy and long settled.

          • jk105

            ” You are saying that the civil rights of the baker aren’t being abridged because the law denies him rights. is that it?”

            In order to get a business license to operate a public accommodation this baker signed a contract promising to abide by state and federal anti-discrimination laws. He knew the law before he signed on the dotted line. Are you saying Christian bakers are allowed by break their legal contracts?

          • 1980Gardener

            I think you are missing a key point. Simply because the government passes a law denying someone their rights, doesn’t mean that their rights never existed or are not abridged.

          • jk105

            I think you are missing a key point. Simply because this baker says something is his right doesn’t mean it is his right.

            To be clear. Are you saying it was okay for this baker to break a legal contract that he signed?
            You dodged that point.

          • 1980Gardener

            “Simply because this baker says something is his right doesn’t mean it is his right.”

            – That is true for all involved parties.

            “To be clear. Are you saying it was okay for this baker to break a legal contract that he
            signed?”

            – no. I didn’t dodge it – just thought it was silly question.

          • jk105

            Actually you dodged the question. I guess you couldn’t answer it because an honest reply would be that you have no respect for legal contracts.

          • 1980Gardener

            I’m curious – why do you (apparently) think that this case may lead to widespread harm to the LGBT community?

          • jk105

            I’m curious. Why do you dodge? Are all people allowed to break their legal contracts, or is it only OK when LGBT people are on the receiving end of discrimination.

          • jk105

            Yes…. I thought you would dodge again, no surprise.

          • Lizard

            Discrimination against customers in a public space is not a civil right.

            Receiving the same service everyone else does is.

            Really, this isn’t hard.

          • 1980Gardener

            yes, I know that is your opinion, but there are always more than one way to view an issue. that is why we have the courts – to determine which right is paramount.

        • stevenj

          Are you gay or do you just like to troll the gay sites?

          • 1980Gardener

            Gay. No trolling. Just really don’t see what the big deal is or why folks are so afraid.

      • -M-

        Everyone’s non-heteronormative in some way, especially to anyone looking for an excuse to throw them off a building.

    • AmeriCanadian

      And right there, ladies and gentlemen, is the mindset of the average Drumpf voter.

      • Chucktech

        Hmm… He spelled everything correctly and used proper grammar. Nope. He’s not as dumb as most of his fellow Trump supporters.

    • Dana Stinson

      First it’s a cake. Then it’s a job. Then it’s healthcare. Then it’s benefits. Etc etc etc.

      • 1980Gardener

        Possibly, but I think we are generally beyond that point except in a few cases. Hence my belief that the impact of this case would be minor and isolated. Not saying its right, just not widespread.

        • John Kusters

          So, it’s okay for cake bakers, but not for doctors. Where is the dividing line between when it’s okay to discriminate against gay folk, and when it’s not?

  • BearEyes

    as I’ve said before
    Pink Crow

  • Pohaku

    The liberal Justices should be asking these questions 1 ” Are you a Christian” ” Which scripture specifically do you refer to for your religious right to not bake a cake?” When they quote the Old Testament, 2 questions ” the old Testament also states homosexuals should be stoned, etc- do you believe this also? Why not? You are aware the Old Testament is not the word of Christ, which is where the word “Christian” came , but a Jewish text ?c an you show me in the Christian New Testment text where your belief is backed up?”

    • Lizard

      Ask him if he bakes cakes for adulterers. See if he really cares what his stupid book says.

    • Chucktech

      They should ask those questions. The baker should have to defend his position with scripture. But they won’t ask him that because, apparently, he doesn’t have to justify squat.

  • rnrstar

    If they rule in favor of the baker then all laws are meaningless for now all one has to say is, “this law violates my sincere religious beliefs.” Get pulled over for speeding, “I’m sorry officer but that law violates my sincere religious belief to go as fast as I choose.”

    • Steverino

      Some have tried to use this argument to avoid paying taxes, to no avail. Even Scalia considered this argument (using religion as an excuse to avoid adhering to the law and thus the interests of the state) to be a recipe for moral chaos and lawlessness.

  • JCF

    “Mr Francisco says race is different.”

    And there you have it. Finding for Masterpiece would *officially* enshrine that sexual orientation (and presumably, gender identity) is a CHOICE. Everywhere, everywhere, wedging a civil rights split: “race is different” (though what is really meant, of course, is that *sexual orientation* is different. Just a bad choice—and not worth protecting).

    Will we accept that? HELL NO!!!!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e743cd932117ca4aa11c190107e9c6f571af739a275e2d06d4fecb7d3fe27cac.jpg

  • Etranger

    Unfortunately, I cannot imagine this particular court ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop.

  • Nathaniel

    Every Bernie/Green Party fan: THANK YOU!

  • netxtown

    if the stupid fucker had put a sign in his window – SCOTUS would most probably NOT be deciding legalized discrimination.

  • Chris Gardner

    Sometimes, I really do feel that this country is divided into two irreconcilable groups and that perhaps the best thing would be for the country to split into two different nations.

  • What is the “test” for an American’s religion or sexual-orientation, other than self-identifying?

    Some flavors of godstyles are bitter indeed! – The Reverend Timmy, Ordained Realist

    OBLIVION ANXIETY?
    “Ask your doctor which godstyle-choice is right for you.”*
    *(Dangerous and inhumane side effects could occur: Superiority-Delusion, Addiction, Irrationality, et cetera ad inifitium.”

    Facebook Page: https://m.facebook.com/Ordained-Realist-1696904183666077/?ref=bookmarks

  • Jack

    Even the experts can’t read the Court from oral arguments.

    I just don’t want to believe that they are stupid enough to fall for “oh, races is different.” The question presented doesn’t mention race — it mentions expression contrary to religious belief.

    Not only that, whoever writes an opinion in favor of Phillips has to carefully craft a definition of “artist.” And someone needs to take Alito to a nice restaurant, STAT.

    However, just as the Court sidestepped “under G-d” in Newdow by finding that a non-custodial parent had no standing to bring a case on behalf of his daughter, the Court COULD focus on the fact that Phillips (like Stutzman) was not asked for anything other than a cake for the men’s wedding. The testimony was along the lines of “we told him we wanted a cake for our wedding. He said he doesn’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

  • Natty Enquirer

    Sometimes the justices play devil’s advocate to test their predilections. You can’t always tell which way they lean from their questions.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    The argument that race isn’t equivalent to sexual orientation is so fucking bullshit. It’s time to start a database of discriminatory businesses.

  • Charles Nelson

    Shades of Germany in 1932 and Russia in 1999! The election of a bigot followed by packing of the courts. So you don’t think it can happen here.

  • William Tigano

    A win by the bad guys in this case could endanger the rights of every class of people both protected and non-protected. The precedent would be that your religious point of view supersedes equal protection. I can’t imagine Kennedy, after all that he has written in support of equal dignity for gay people would open that box. We would see tons of litigation as to who is considered an artist etc…The Court just won’t go there IMO. They tend to favor outcomes that avoid further litigation rather than cause it.

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      Thank you; I have to assume that those who chose to make this a legal case were thinking about what was at stake. The other side has a vote.

  • LesbianTippingHabits

    Remember, the ACLU chose to take this case into the legal system.

    After the Colorado Civil Rights Commission loses, please remember this.

    The legislative route – OK, maybe exempt small wedding service businesses – could have made this go away, but No!

    You read it here first. Thank you.