Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Mr. Reactionary]

There's also the separate matter that I don't consider every form of commerce to fall under the umbrella of "public accommodation". Selling custom-made baked goods is not providing a public accommodation.

This is an interesting point. I mean, if the baker had made the cake but burned it and then iced "sinners" on top, that's not refusal to serve them. At what point does a custom-baked good have to meet with the customers expectations vs bare minimal compliance? Too few roses? Too few layers? Too little sugar? Wrong color frosting? Hell, if he had put the traditional bride and groom figure on top? Requiring specific performance of a personal service is already iffy ... how would you measure minimal adequacy required to comply?

[tschandler]

De Jure segregation is an entirely different issue than personal/business discretion.  A law barring companies from serving LGBT people would be discrimination.   A baker refusing to serve people who are LGBT entirely would be discrimination.  Not wanting to perform a specific contracted service for an LGBT couple though?  Because if that is the case it would mean clergy can't decide against performing SSM.  You don't have the right to the services of others. 

[tschandler]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Not being served in a public business because of who you are and the owners and communities antipathy towards your type, be at a cake shop, restaurant counter, bus station, or other Private Business, yes is the exact definition of Jim Crow.

If some 1962 Bakery in Mississippi told a young black couple waiting to get married to get out of there store cuz they don't serve ns oh, you wouldn't consider that Jim Crow?

Jim Crow was de jure segregation.

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Not being served in a public business because of who you are and the owners and communities antipathy towards your type, be at a cake shop, restaurant counter, bus station, or other Private Business, yes is the exact definition of Jim Crow.

If some 1962 Bakery in Mississippi told a young black couple waiting to get married to get out of there store cuz they don't serve ns oh, you wouldn't consider that Jim Crow?

What is a "public business"?  something is not public unless it is owned and ran by the government.  People just say "public business"  because they don't want to say they are in favor of forcing a private business to provide services against their will.  
Also, being refused at a private business is not Jim Crow.  Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by Southern States that enforced racial segregation in both public spaces and private businesses. They forced businesses to segregate customers by race.  If the business refuses service on their own volition, that aint Jim Crow, it is just refusal of service.  In my ideal system, we would have maximum liberty.   The government would treat everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, ect.  However, privately owned businesses would have the right to refuse service to anyone, except for large, incorporated, crucial services like a utility or mega corporation like Wal-Mart.
I find it interesting that I agree on this issue more with some of the Democrats on this thread than Badger, the Ohio Republican.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I think there should be an exemption for any ceremony that might be religious in nature.  You would allow a business to only provide services for ceremonies that they believed in.  So a Jewish business that specialized in only Jewish weddings would be able to bypass an anti-discrimination law...

What I think Anthony Kennedy (and he's the one that will probably write the opinion) will do is carve out a special area of only weddings, because that's what all of these cases have in common, and allow a business to cater to only some ceremonies.

This way, you can allow for anti-discrimination statutes, but at the same time provide a delicate balance because the issue of gay marriage may conflict with religious views about marriage.

This is what I hope Justice Kennedy will do.  A narrow ruling concerning religious ceremonies, instead of one sweeping ruling one way or the other.  It fits with his kind of jurisprudence.