Yelp reviews for the bakery from the SCOTUS wedding cake ruling are coming in...

"nermal" (nermal) 06/04/2018 at 11:21 • Filed to: Wake n bake, SCOTUS, Discrimination

0

20

....and as of today, people from all over the country have suddenly had 1 or 5 star experiences! Links to bakery site & controversial court ruling inside.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

It raises the question, where is the line? What requests can a baker (or other “artist”) refuse, and what must they comply with on the grounds of anti-discrimination?

Is this particular bakery better off now after having stood their ground, or would they have been better if they had just made the dang cake and moved on?

Biggus Dickus (RevsBro) > nermal 06/04/2018 at 11:57

1

Its messy. Legal battle is far from over as SCOTUS just sent this back down to lower courts. However, people will knee jerk and be ass holes because “you can be different as long as it aligns with my personal beliefs.” Too much hypocrisy from both sides of this arguement.

jimz > nermal 06/04/2018 at 11:59

4

reading the details, and given this wasn’t the usual 5-4 split, I tend to think this was the legally correct decision. The plaintiffs weren’t refused service because of who they are, but that the bakery refused a specific order containing a specific message they objected to.

after all, I wouldn’t expect (for example) a printing shop with African-American owners to be legally required to print out flyers for e.g. a Richard Spencer speech.  

Mercedes Streeter > nermal 06/04/2018 at 12:03

6

Is this particular bakery better off now after having stood their ground, or would they have been better if they had just made the dang cake and moved on? 

Just make the stupid cake. If you just cannot take baking a cake for someone you don’t like, get a new line of work.

You don’t want your government office signing same sex marriage certs? Get a new line of work.

In my career I’ve worked with dozens (maybe hundreds) of people that think I’m mentally ill and should be put away somewhere. You know what I did? My job, because that’s what I signed up for. I knew going into this that some people will hate me and that’s okay, I can’t just ignore that these people exist.

This ruling sets further precedent that the majority can further oppress minorities just because they feel icky about us.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > Mercedes Streeter 06/04/2018 at 12:10

2

Nah, this ruling is too narrow for that. This was SCOTUS kicking the can down the road because they seemed to not want to touch it. They intentionally worded their opinions so that the vast majority of future cases wouldn’t fit this precedent.

Rainbow > nermal 06/04/2018 at 12:11

1

It sets precedence for all kinds of needless discrimination. I can’t wait to see the look on the Trumplings’ faces when the first business uses this to deny service to evangelicals.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > jimz 06/04/2018 at 12:24

0

When I saw the push about this ruling, I said, “TLDR, just give me the score.” I read, 7-2 and heaved a sigh of relief.

nermal > Mercedes Streeter 06/04/2018 at 12:26

2

I agree that this opens up future interpretations that it’s ok to discriminate, even if this particular case wasn’t legally wrong.

The core of the issue is that the baker refused the wedding cake because it was a gay wedding cake. It would have been acceptable to refuse if the baker just didn’t make wedding cakes. It would also be acceptable to refuse if the request was obscene - such as a bachelorette party cake covered in weiners, or otherwise obscene language.

A regular wedding cake with 2 grooms? For the $500+ that they regularly go for? They would have been better off just making the cake.

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > nermal 06/04/2018 at 12:27

1

The headlines are trying to make this ruling in to something more than it really is. And being a flaming liberal I don’t find myself too surprised by it (although perhaps saddening). The ruling is so narrow and essentially isn’t saying that the baker is right and the couple was wrong, but simply saying that how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission mishandled the case by essentially trying to mock the baker’s position as being unreasonable right off the bat. From a societal perspective * I * would argue that his position IS unreasonable – and I’d ask him to specifically point out where in the bible we’re told to oppose gay marriage (and how we can gloss over all the parts about being accepting of others, letting god do the judging, etc.) – but from a legal perspective I guess SCOTUS got this right? Maybe?

The real question though, to me, is – who’s the one to judge whether a “closely held religious belief” is legitimate or not? What if Jews start refusing to serve ____ people because their religion prohibits ____ (whether or not any actual scripture actually says so, just that a subset of society chooses to associate such belief with their religion)?

When it comes to this case, sure I get that this supposed belief isn’t something that was entirely fabricated out of thin air, but what level of proof can we call sufficient? Curious to see how the courts tackle coming up with guidelines on this one.

Chariotoflove > nermal 06/04/2018 at 12:29

0

Many one star reviews of this nature:

We would never get our wedding cake from here since they refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Love will win.

So this person is not rating their experience with the product or the business at all. They pretty much state that they have never patronized the place. In this case, the Yelp rating is useless for determining the quality of the goods. On the other hand, These political ratings and comments may serve the baker as a sort of informal pre-screening for future customers who might otherwise run afoul of the same problem.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Rainbow 06/04/2018 at 12:29

0

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

nermal > Chariotoflove 06/04/2018 at 12:35

2

The end result will be the baker changing to something of this nature:

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Mercedes Streeter 06/04/2018 at 12:37

3

A black professor related a story to the class once about his car breaking down in a small town and he went into a store to ask for some help and one Cracker says, “I ain’ gonna help no n$#$%r.” So our hero just turned to someone else and asked, “Will you help me?” And he got what he needed.

I guess in life, folks gotta choose their battles. I might just get someone else to bake my cake, but what would I know about living an LGBT life experience?

I am just happy that SCOTUS found a 7-2 punt and less politically divisive in the current environment.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > Rainbow 06/04/2018 at 12:41

0

You make a good point. I think SCOTUS kicking the can down the road was appropriate right now. We are operating in a political context that makes any sort of rational discussion or consideration impossible.

Now, a gay or trans person who did not know me might suppose that I am not sympathetic, which is not the case at all. I just worry that in this moment, a broader, but 5-4 decision, would generate a lot — more than already has occurred — of hatred and vitriol.

Chariotoflove > nermal 06/04/2018 at 12:52

0

And if his business thrives or tanks, that will be society’s ruling for or against him.

RutRut > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 06/04/2018 at 13:32

0

IMO it basically reads as they called it a mistrial due to the way CCRC handled it but I am no legal expert.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > RutRut 06/04/2018 at 14:30

0

Pretty much laid the blame on CCRC, yeah.

Teh Penguin of Doom > Mercedes Streeter 06/04/2018 at 18:51

0

Wait, wait, motorcycle girl?

Teh Penguin of Doom > jimz 06/04/2018 at 19:03

0

Being a white supremacist isn’t a protected class.

Wonder how this case would’ve gone (and how it would’ve been covered in the media) if, indeed, a black owned business refused to sell a cake for any event that involved white people.

Teh Penguin of Doom > Chariotoflove 06/04/2018 at 19:04

1

Those reviews will be removed by Yelp. They’re against Yelp policy and the purpose of Yelp. There’s a valid discussion to have about whether you’d ever go to this bakery, but that’s not what Yelp is for.

Chariotoflove > Teh Penguin of Doom 06/04/2018 at 19:39

0

Oh that’s good. Yelp is supposed to help you figure out if a business provides a good product or service. These political statements would skew everything and undermine yelp. So it’s in their best interests to police the reviews.