22 Comments on “Gay Couples’ Rights Vs. Artistry In Supreme Court Case | Let's Talk | NPR”

  1. They have no right to his labour, nor would anybody bat an eyelid if a straight couple where told "sorry I cannot make you a cake", this is all about forced acceptance, just as the brainwashing in schools, I don't have to like everybody.

  2. NPR is known for its biased reporting and Nina Totenberg is hardly someone to have to analyze issues standing before or decided by the Supreme Court. She just regurgitates what she's read somewhere and misses many key things along the way.

    For example, she never mentioned that a big shadow on the case was thrown by the 2014 decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Division that bakeries can refuse to make a cake, i.e. discriminate, when asked to put an image and message on it that rebukes same sex message. She and NPR constantly leave inconvenient, important pieces and facts out of the picture when it complicates their propagandistic agenda. It's just beyond belief that taxpayers are forced to pay for a network that pounds one-sided propaganda into its listeners and devotes even less time to presenting opposing views than Fox. And squeaky voiced Totenberg who got in through her tribal connections is the least authoritative person to handle elucidating such important things for a national audience.

  3. They did it specifically so they could sue for discrimination & blackmail him. Otherwise they would have gone to a baker who would accommodate them. Notice they didn't go (through 3 states) to a Muslim Baker (and they would never do it).
    It's not a vital service that you are obligated by law to provide.
    He offered the cake but not the customization (artistic freedom)
    Imagine if you sue a Muslim to paint an Muhammad portrait, same here: you violate his freedom to act, artistic freedom & religious freedom.

  4. So they should have to sell them the cake and the icing but not be forced to write something on the cake…..simple. You can’t make someone say/write something; you don’t have the right to force someone to say anything. If they want to participate in the free market then they must provide the cake and two groom statuettes, etc if it’s in their inventory. One’s right to free speech does not trump another’s right to free speech. Two separate issues here; free speech; and access to the free market. Did I get it right? What do you think?

  5. I like a point that was made by Cake Masters lawyer. The actions taken by the court serve both sides of the coin. Let's say an atheist singer for hire was approached to sing at a religious ceremony. Does the singer have a right to refuse the job based on their beliefs? They, too, should have a right to refuse the job without retribution. Think about it. Simple, but brilliant example of this working the other way.

  6. Fascinating that they were denied at Muslim bakeries but are not taking them to court. I guess they realize that Muslims don't fool around when it comes to homosexuality and what they think of it based on the Quran.

  7. Excuse me but if they are going to argue biblical things as their basis for not making a cake then they have to deny…fat people for the sin of gluttony, good looking people for the sin of vanity, rich people for the sin of greed, slobs for the sin of sloth, need I go on? If they do not their religion arguments are bullshit.

  8. The line should be drawn between discrimination against PERSONS versus discrimination against PRACTICES. Another poster suggested we cannot discriminate against WHO we sell to, but we can choose WHAT we sell. That's close. But it needs more specificity. People are protected. Practices are not protected. But practices is what some governments are trying to encourage, that is causing the problem.

    Take fat for instance. If a fat kid wants a cake with the picture of a fat kid on top of it, that should be provided. But if the fat kid wants a picture of a fat kid with a big gulp in one hand and a massive glob of fries in the other hand, that can be refused, because it suggests an activity the maker might object to, that is encouraging obesity. Take homosexuality for instance. In most cases, nobody knows and nobody wants to know. So if the homosexual wants a birthday cake with his likeness on it, it should be provided. But if the homosexual wants a wedding cake with two men on top or some suggestive writing on it, that suggests homosexual activity and therefore the decision to make it or not should be left to the cake maker.

    The problem is some governments are trying to encourage certain PRACTICES, not just trying to stop discrimination against PEOPLE. In this particular baker's case, the cake shop could have been told to include "For traditional marriage only" in its custom cake literature. That would have easily and neatly solved the problem. Instead, the court made things much worse by even prohibiting the baker from notifying its customers that it made traditional wedding cakes only.

  9. And yet this man who preaches the Bible will most likely make a cake for an interracial or interfaith couple even though the Bible is against both
    He’s literally just using the Bible to hide his bigotry

  10. It's not just about free speech. NOBODY has the right to someone else's labor. It's not like they were trying to buy a cake that was already made, in which the labor was already done. They wanted a specialty item that wasn't made yet. Meaning they thought they owned someone else's labor that hadn't taken place yet. The baker, just like hundreds of other businesses, have the right to decline their labor. For example, just because someone owns a roofing company doesn't mean you can force them to put a new roof on your house if they don't want to.

Comments are closed.