2SLGBTQQIA+

[spaminator]

Judge rules for California baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake
The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expect an appeal.

Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Publishing date:Oct 24, 2022 • 1 day ago • 1 minute read • 24 Comments

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A California judge has ruled in favour of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple because it violated her Christian beliefs.


The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment had sued Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, arguing owner Cathy Miller intentionally discriminated against the couple in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.


Miller’s attorneys argued her right to free speech and free expression of religion trumped the argument that she violated the anti-discrimination law. Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled Friday that Miller acted lawfully while upholding her beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage.

The decision was welcomed as a First Amendment victory by Miller and her pro-bono attorneys with the conservative Thomas More Society.

“I’m hoping that in our community we can grow together,” Miller told the Bakersfield Californian after the ruling. “And we should understand that we shouldn’t push any agenda against anyone else.”


A spokesperson said the fair housing department was aware of the ruling but had not determined what to do next. The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expect an appeal.

“Of course we’re disappointed, but not surprised,” Eileen told the newspaper. “We anticipate that our appeal will have a different result.”

An earlier decision in Kern County Superior Court also went Miller’s way, but it was later vacated by the 5th District Court of Appeal, which sent the lawsuit back to the county.

The decision comes as a Colorado baker is challenging a ruling he violated that state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. That baker, Jack Phillips, separately won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing on religious grounds to make a gay couple’s wedding cake a decade ago.

Judge rules for California baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake

A California judge has ruled in favour of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple over her Christian beliefs.

torontosun.com

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

First off, to the happy couple, is this the only baker in town? Why not just go elsewhere?

And would it kill the baker to make a cake? Maybe use cheap ingredients and salt instead of sugar (by accident of course) and just move on?

Lawyers.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

First off, to the happy couple, is this the only baker in town? Why not just go elsewhere?

And would it kill the baker to make a cake? Maybe use cheap ingredients and salt instead of sugar (by accident of course) and just move on?

Lawyers.

Would you say the same to a Black customer refused service by a White baker?

Or to a White customer refused entry by a Black restaurant owner?

Or, since this is allegedly about religious belief, a Christian baker who refused service to Jews because "they killed Christ?"

We used to have a standard in this country. You could hate any group you wanted because your Gawd told you to. . . in your church.

When you enter into the stream of commerce, you live by the rules of commerce. One of which is non-discrimination.

 

[Taxslave2]

Would you say the same to a Black customer refused service by a White baker?

Or to a White customer refused entry by a Black restaurant owner?

Or, since this is allegedly about religious belief, a Christian baker who refused service to Jews because "they killed Christ?"

We used to have a standard in this country. You could hate any group you wanted because your Gawd told you to. . . in your church.

When you enter into the stream of commerce, you live by the rules of commerce. One of which is non-discrimination.

So does that mean the no shirt-no shoes-no service is illegal? What about restaurants with dress codes? Or is it OK to discriminate against people that dress different?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So does that mean the no shirt-no shoes-no service is illegal? What about restaurants with dress codes? Or is it OK to discriminate against people that dress different?

Nope. And nope.

The whole "non-discrimination" deal in the U.S. is based on two things. . . the Fourteenth Amendment and non-discrimination laws. The 14th says that states must provide "equal protection of the laws" to all. So, yes, discrimination based on dress would be forbidden. . . if it was a state law. The 14th applies only to governments.

The other thread is the Civil Rights Acts, at the Federal, state, and even local level. These laws limit the actions of businesses, employers, schools and universities, and providers of housing, but only discrimination on bases listed in the law is forbidden. In the Federal civil rights act, that was originally race, color, religion, national origin, and sex. A couple of other categories were added later. Since "dress" is not listed as a forbidden category, a business, employer, school, or housing provider can discriminate on that basis. The laws protecting sexual orientation are mostly state, a few local.

You could refuse service to people with big feet, legal as church on Sunday.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

Would you say the same to a Black customer refused service by a White baker?

Or to a White customer refused entry by a Black restaurant owner?

Or, since this is allegedly about religious belief, a Christian baker who refused service to Jews because "they killed Christ?"

We used to have a standard in this country. You could hate any group you wanted because your Gawd told you to. . . in your church.

When you enter into the stream of commerce, you live by the rules of commerce. One of which is non-discrimination.

I am not saying the baker was right but is this really worth the fight? The baker would stand to lose $$$ on any non-straight God fearing weddings. The consequences of his actions in a free market place is economic.

And while litigation is always an option, think of all the time wasted here and to what result?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I am not saying the baker was right but is this really worth the fight? The baker would stand to lose $$$ on any non-straight God fearing weddings. The consequences of his actions in a free market place is economic.

And while litigation is always an option, think of all the time wasted here and to what result?

I think the idea is to prevent discrimination in commerce.

Is it important here and now? Not sure.

But it sure was with Black people in the South in the 60s. Important enough to kill and die for.

 

[Taxslave2]

I would say it is worth the fight if it sets a precedent. Particularly where there is overlap of rules from different jurisdictions.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I think the idea is to prevent discrimination in commerce.

Is it important here and now? Not sure.

But it sure was with Black people in the South in the 60s. Important enough to kill and die for.

I view that as a matter of scale. In the 60s, black people had no options. So challenge was required. If it was me, today, I would have just found a different baker.

But since they took the litigation route, I can't see this one being dropped or verdict accepted until it reaches the SC. I think we know how it will turn out there.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I view that as a matter of scale. In the 60s, black people had no options. So challenge was required. If it was me, today, I would have just found a different baker.

But since they took the litigation route, I can't see this one being dropped or verdict accepted until it reaches the SC. I think we know how it will turn out there.

Of course they did. "Deal with your own kind." In Jim Crow states and even non-Jim Crow states, every Black community had churches, stores, schools, doctors, lawyers, and everything the White community had.

Just less, worse, and more poorly funded.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Would you say the same to a Black customer refused service by a White baker?

Or to a White customer refused entry by a Black restaurant owner?

Or, since this is allegedly about religious belief, a Christian baker who refused service to Jews because "they killed Christ?"

We used to have a standard in this country. You could hate any group you wanted because your Gawd told you to. . . in your church.

When you enter into the stream of commerce, you live by the rules of commerce. One of which is non-discrimination.

No one should be "forced" to sell anything to anyone. It's their business & they can decide who to serve. If no one wants to do business with the business then they'll eventually close so they do it at their peril.

 

[petros]

No shirt, no shoes, no service.

 

[spaminator]

Judge rules for California baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake
The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expect an appeal.

Author of the article:Associated Press
Associated Press
Publishing date:Oct 24, 2022 • 1 day ago • 1 minute read • 24 Comments

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — A California judge has ruled in favour of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple because it violated her Christian beliefs.


The state Department of Fair Housing and Employment had sued Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, arguing owner Cathy Miller intentionally discriminated against the couple in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.


Miller’s attorneys argued her right to free speech and free expression of religion trumped the argument that she violated the anti-discrimination law. Kern County Superior Court Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled Friday that Miller acted lawfully while upholding her beliefs about what the Bible teaches regarding marriage.

The decision was welcomed as a First Amendment victory by Miller and her pro-bono attorneys with the conservative Thomas More Society.

“I’m hoping that in our community we can grow together,” Miller told the Bakersfield Californian after the ruling. “And we should understand that we shouldn’t push any agenda against anyone else.”


A spokesperson said the fair housing department was aware of the ruling but had not determined what to do next. The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, said they expect an appeal.

“Of course we’re disappointed, but not surprised,” Eileen told the newspaper. “We anticipate that our appeal will have a different result.”

An earlier decision in Kern County Superior Court also went Miller’s way, but it was later vacated by the 5th District Court of Appeal, which sent the lawsuit back to the county.

The decision comes as a Colorado baker is challenging a ruling he violated that state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. That baker, Jack Phillips, separately won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing on religious grounds to make a gay couple’s wedding cake a decade ago.

Judge rules for California baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake

A California judge has ruled in favour of a bakery owner who refused to make wedding cakes for a same-sex couple over her Christian beliefs.

torontosun.com

they want to have their cake and eat it too. this really takes the cake.

 

[The_Foxer]

they want to have their cake and eat it too. this really takes the cake.

I'm pretty sure you're going to pun hell for that

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No one should be "forced" to sell anything to anyone. It's their business & they can decide who to serve. If no one wants to do business with the business then they'll eventually close so they do it at their peril.

I see. Do you think it's OK to refuse service to Black people, as was done regularly in the American South from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

 

[petros]

If pre 1964 ever comes back you'll have a point.

 

[The_Foxer]

I see. Do you think it's OK to refuse service to Black people, as was done regularly in the American South from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Does anyone's religion say it's wrong to be black?

 

[Dixie Cup]

I see. Do you think it's OK to refuse service to Black people, as was done regularly in the American South from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I don't believe that is what is happening & that's not what we're talking about. Don't put words in my mouth & don't pretend you don't know what the subject is.

 

[The_Foxer]

I don't believe that is what is happening & that's not what we're talking about. Don't put words in my mouth & don't pretend you don't know what the subject is.

This is a favored tactic of the Left, essentially a spin on the 'false equivalency' logical fallacy.

Obviously what's being discussed is people's choices. Some would argue that being gay isn't a choice, but getting married absolutely is. And some people believe that choice is morally wrong for whatever reason and won't support it. Because they don't believe it's a moral choice.

Race, however, is a zero choice thing. If you are black or brown or plaid there's nothing you could do about it and nothing you could have done personally to start off differently. And being prejudiced against someone for that reason alone is NOT about morals or choices or the like. That's why it's PRE-judice, rather than just being judgemental. You're judging them BEFORE you have a reason.

Further - one is a condemnation of an action, the other is the condemnation of a person.

But of course - the left LOVES to pretend it's the exact same thing because they can't say judging a person by their choices is bad so they MUST pretend it's the same as a bigoted form of prejudice. Which it isn't. That little 'switcheroo' is necessary to make you look like the bad guy instead of making a coherent argument.

Personally i'm 100 percent pro gay marriage and think it's a net benefit to our society over all - and if someone told me i WASN'T allowed to use my personally owned business to make them a cake i'd be furious. It would offend my morals. So i get where people would be equally pissed if they were forced TO do it. And i'm pretty much ok with that. IT's a free market, bakeries will pop up who are happy to do it and take their money.

 

[Serryah]

I don't believe that is what is happening & that's not what we're talking about. Don't put words in my mouth & don't pretend you don't know what the subject is.

You may not believe that is what is happening, but to those people who are subject to refusal of service from a *public* shop, it is just the same.

At one point I was all for pushing against idiots like these kinds of shop keepers. You want to deal with the public, you have to accept ALL public, regardless of your "beliefs".

But now despite the discrimination, I'm all for saying "Fuck them" and go find someone else to take your business, and just make sure everyone in the public realizes the kind of shitbags these people are.