Did the Court get it correct with this decision? Edit: I should have clarified that he refused to CUSTOMIZE a cake for them. He said they were welcome to buy any of his premade cakes. Phillips argued that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that forcing him to create an artistic expression against his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. I apologize for not adding this important information. I oversimplified it too much.
It promotes anti social behavior in fact that's one of the reasons why Germany bans homeschooling. Overall civics triumph over all. P.S. most of these mfkrs are the ones who whined and screamed about wearing masks
No. As you said in the video, there are too many unanswered questions, and I compare it to the “states’ rights” excuse that segregationists used back in the day. Sure, some might genuinely believe in it, but all too often, “religious freedom” is just an excuse to be a bigot.
history will ultimately see this in the same light as businesses refusing inter-racial couples, which some mainstream religious organizations still object to.
Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with
it's very clear that gay couple wanted to start stuff, people can refuse to make things that they don't want to make and it's clear they knew that you can't deny making things for people you don't want to (unless there's a "valid" reason), you can deny making things you don't want to
@@skoop651 this is not a concern that straight people must deal with. If a queer person has to fear being denied service because of who they are then that is a fundamental injustice. The court is wrong (as they often are).
@@skoop651 One such "valid reason" is that you object to the message that you are being told to produce. In this case, Philips objected to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, because a wedding cake is traditionally considered an expression of a happy marriage. Phillips did not want to create something that was praising a gay wedding. Philips told the gay couple that he would gladly bake them shower cakes, birthday cakes, etc., but just not wedding cakes. People should be expected to serve other people equally, but they should not be expected to speak in favor of an event they do not support.
@@farmerfrugal Honestly, I don't think it makes that much difference, because a service was still dissallowed that this cake maker would typically make for anyone else.
@@IncredibleStan Actually no, he claimed that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that compelling him to create an artistic expression agaisnt his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. And the court agreed.
The one thing I always thought was why would you want someone that doesn’t WANT to bake the cake for your event or wedding. If the baker isn’t into it, shouldn’t you just go elsewhere? Is he the only baker? If the baker’s heart isn’t into it, how high can your expectations actually be? Are you going to get the baker’s best work? Wouldn’t you want someone that was 100% behind you and enthusiastic about baking the cake?
Yeah, which is why the couple got a cake elsewhere. The complaint was because the couple felt like they were being discriminated against, which, in a way, they were. However, to not make a custom cake for them, but have still offered pre-made cakes, makes sense.
@@willb.nimble6749 they definitely were not. If someone doesn't believe in your view. They shouldn't be force to make ANYTHING that's promotes that view. Stop forcing that nasty life style on other people
If I was a baker and told the Dems & Libs I do not make Dem/Lib designs, but the Dems & Libs demanded I make it, then I would make it very sloppy looking and add NO sugar with lots of salt, and I would p1$$ in the cake.... I'll bet the Dems & Libs will never come back again.
The court actually found that the CRC had been unjustly hostile toward Jack Phillips which was why the decision sidestepped the bigger question. In 303 Creative, the court did find that the 1st Amendment protects creative businesses (e.g. artists and bakers) against being compelled to create wares expressing opinions they disagree with.
Yay second comment that got it right. Wow. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.
To me it's simple. Regarding personal matters, the right to refuse a command to perform an action should always trump any right to command someone to perform an action.
You should do Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City next, as it literally saved New York City's Grand Central Station from being demolished.
honestly i dont really like that case. its pretty ridiculous to me that the government can arbitrarily label a companies property as a "landmark" and then force them to maintain a certain standard. how is that NOT unconstitutional under the takings clause?
People may not get this connection, but it's a strong connection because both are tied to identity. What if someone's religion told them that interracial marriages were bad?
@@jeffslote9671 that would be clear racial discrimination, against the law. If you cant run a business following the laws of the land, dont run a business
@@iammrbeat If there was one, then sure, respect that belief as long as they aren't discriminating against *people* of other races, just the marriage right. It's not about identity; it's about an action.
The thing that’s troubling about this ruling is that it leads to a bit of a slippery slope If discrimination is allowed on a religious beliefs basis, where does the line get drawn? Anyone could then be discriminated against, based on any criteria, if the discriminator only says it’s because of their religious beliefs
@suzerain840 The cake the couple wanted would have been made for a wedding, yes, but it would have been no different from any other wedding cake. It wasn’t that Phillips refused to make a “gay cake,” it’s that he refused to make a normal wedding cake solely because the people who wanted to purchase that cake were gay. There’s really no way to justify that as Phillips asserting his freedom of artistic expression, it’s just clear-cut discrimination because of his “religious beliefs.” It’s no different than if a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple.
@suzerain840 Well, the Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a person, obviously. But yes, he shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against _members_ of the Westboro Baptist Church who want a wedding cake.
@suzerain840That reasoning can just as easily be used to discriminate against black people, interracial couples, and trans people, except the Supreme Court has already decided that that discrimination is prohibited under the civil rights act. The Supreme Court violated their own precedent in this case. Religion was also used to justify banning interracial marriage for decades (many people still do)
@suzerain840 That's a ridiculous argument because each of those examples only affects the person themselves while the cake shop sells items to the public. Refusing to sell to specific groups of people based on race religion sexual orientation etc directly means those people have a more difficult time purchasing the things they want or need, and when many businesses discriminate, it makes those groups more vulnerable to price gouging and exploitation, purely based on race, religion, etc. The whole point of the civil rights acts was to keep this from happening because, as just one example, allowing such discrimination led to black people paying far more for housing than whites despite them being significantly poorer than whites (also a result of the same discrimination) Yet again, religion was also used to discriminate against black people and interracial couples, but the supreme court already ruled that's illegal discrimination under the 14th amendment and civil rights act of 1964, so they violated their own precedent
Here’s my take on this case as well as the case that most recently happened with the web designer. When you draw artwork paid commission for somebody that’s commission work that’s freelance and when you have commissions you set rules on what you will and you won’t draw. And when you do that it should be allowed for you to regulate whatever you want and don’t want to draw. Also something that is completely forgotten about this case with the bakery cake owner here which was also not mentioned in this video is that he refused to draw Halloween cakes as well. Now tell me how many people here are going to complain about a Halloween cake being refused to be made by an cake maker? The way I look at it if you’re a freelancer doing commission work artwork the creator is allowed to set whatever rules they want on what they will or they won’t draw. Now we’re talking about a normal grocery store or restaurant something like that and the stuffs already out and they discriminate that’s different. But we were talking about making customizable artwork from an artist doing commission works there well within the rights to create any specific rules they want on what they will and they won’t draw. I kind of wish this aspect would have been focused more on the case than the whole anti-religion/anti-LGBTQ argument.
I agree on this point entirely, but the crux of the issue and the point of the Anti-discrimination side is that the refusal of service is not based on the nature of the product commissioned, but on the sexual orientation of the customer.
@@quinardosoto977but that is simply not true. The cake baker refused to make a cake that endorses the practice of homosexuality. He didn’t refuse service to the couple on the simple basis that they were homosexual. If they were a straight couple, and for whatever reason they had asked him to bake a wedding cake designed in a way that endorses homosexuality, then he would have refused it to them as well. To demonstrate the converse, he also offered to sell them anything that did not endorse homosexuality, such as premade goods, or a design that just didn’t endorse something that directly contradicts his personal beliefs. That is fundamentally why the supreme courts decision is correct.
@@quinardosoto977 Because that is a total lie, and who the fuck cares? Why do you have the authority to tell a business what it should do? Punishing people for what they think is the single most evil thing any government can do.
It's always about the balance of the Free Exercise Clause. I remember learning about this case a long time ago but also loved to learn about the role religion plays in the everyday lives of Americans. Would love for you to do Stone v. Graham, Greece v. Town of Galloway or Lee v. Weisman. (After reading the case file again had to edit the comment)
How does the Establishment Clause pertain to making laws that prevent businesses from such discrimination, I do so wonder? Have there been previous cases like this?
@@warlordofbritannia It doesn't. Stuff like the CRA of 1964, which is what I believe the original commenter was referring to, are actually done by Interstate Commerce Clause, because you'd think given historical context, the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle... But SCOTUS fucked up the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse and Civil Rights Cases, and they never bothered going back to fix it. And surprisingly enough, the Justice who wants to do that is Thomas.
The problem is, the Bible says all kinds of crazy sh!t. So, if the baker is gonna play the religion card, then they also should be against serving customers who wear clothing with a fabric Blend. See Leviticus 19:19
I can agree with the decision, that you can refuse to put a message you don't agree with on the cake. In my opinion, you should be able to refuse to bake the cake, but be able to refuse to put the figure or the names on it. You can't decline customers for what they are, but decide what product you want to sell.
I don't agree with you about the name, a name is a part of who you are as a person, it would be discriminatory, a civil rights issue. I do agree however, with the design, such as if they wanted a pride flag, Nazi symbols, etc.
@KCH55 the name/names can be a message, too. So I would still say that you can refuse to write names. But names are also a part of that person, so I see your reason not to include it.
It's such a complicated issue. I'm not christian and I'm also gay, but I also sympathize with people not being forced to go against their beliefs. I think they should be allowed to turn down a same sex wedding, but not someone ordering a birthday cake for their mom or something and they happen to be gay. Basically I think it's only acceptable if the thing you disagree with is directly relevant to the service being offered
I’m bisexual and Christian. I think that take is fair since I’d do the same thing. I also would be courteous and find someone who would. Just because I’m not able to because I don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean I can at least help you find someone who can.
@@2tallyGr8 however he refused service to a transgender person as well, which I do not believe with since them being trans presumably had little to nothing to do with the actual order
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Politely my ass, that's a rude thing to say. I don't want people to be allowed to discriminate against someone for who they are, but I understand that these people have very sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, and while I disagree and find it completely backwards, I respect their right to free speech. Plus if I were to find the man of my dreams and marry him, I would want a wedding cake from someone who supports us anyway. As I said, I only think it should apply to this very specific case, not like a store owner refusing to sell a gay man a hershey's bar. Also out of curiosity, are you a part of the LGBTQ+ community?
One of my favorite segments you do!!! Very informative, that Scottsboro case still strikes a chord with me [which Trumps lawyers tried to invoke recently]
Please do a follow up video on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which DID have a larger scope ruling on the same topic! And thanks as always for your entertaining, informative, and non-biased presentation. As the son of two moms, this topic matters to me, and I can always appreciate when someone can approach the topic from a non-biased, legal perspective while still supporting the LGBTQ community without necessarily having a specific opinion on the legal questions of the case.
I do have to say, as a gay man… I actually side with the cake shop owner here. His rights to religious freedom shouldn’t be abridged by mine to marriage.
Well, the court actually focused more on the way the CCRC handled the complaint to reverse the lower court's decision. And there were some evidence that the CCRC went overboard a bit too much - such as likening the baker's beliefs to Nazism. In a way, the Court punted and sidestepped the more important constitutional questions. Additionally, same-sex marriage wasn't legal in Colorado (but I guess that Colorado did recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state back then?) when this dispute started, so that was a factor as well.
yeah, i don't really see an alternate universe where Christianity and Nazism mix. one of them has to go, and in any case, one is explicitly acting in spite of the other.
Wow. First comment that actually gets it right. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.
Fun fact! The first ppl the nazis went after were the socialists and the queers; they targeted jewish socialists and jewish queers more than anyone else ofc. Magnus Hirschfeld was a queer Jewish researcher who had a ton of research into the transgender community specifically; and his works were some of the first to be seized and destroyed in their purges of heretical views So its not all that ingenuine to pt out that such bigotry can be likened to nazism. If folk dont like bein likened to nazis; they shudnt be like nazis. Back in the 40s and 50s, USA understood this and we saw a reversal of policy when it came to the question of eugenics; bcuz guess what... the Nazis were inspired by USA there, and that was a bit of a wakeup call for ppl over here to suddenly notice that these eugenics movements cud lead to some very disastrous things once they moved on past the poor ppl, undesirables, and disabled ppl (bcuz ofc, who cares about those ppl 9.9)
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 speaking in ideology and philosophy, not loose ties and pacts. I'm making the argument that religion is used "for bad things" in spite of the characteristics that actually make it definable. I never claimed that there had never been any ties between fascists and religious groups. However, again, I am saying that in terms of actual philosophy and not individual actors and contemporary decisions, they are literally the furthest thing from mixable. For example, a former Hitler youth left Nazism after the war ended. He became a Catholic priest and a fervent anti-fascist.
@@nathanstorm8093is it bigotry if the baker didn’t want to customize the cake with something he didn’t personally agree with? He said the couple was free to purchase any of the premade cakes, just that he wouldn’t customize it. Was it the only cake shop available? Surely there were other cake shops that would have gladly customized it for the couple. I don’t see bigotry here.
The gays in question purposely searched for a baker who they knew would refuse them a personalised cake in order to then take him to court. How tolerant of them! America needs to repent.
The first thing I thought when this actually happened was “You can’t force people to work for you.” And the first thing I thought after watching this video is: YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK FOR YOU.
So what if a bakery decides they won’t serve black people? Would you be okay with that on the basis that forcing the bakery to serve black people would be forcing the bakery to work for people?
@@ericsonofjohn9384 Yes, that's legal despite how awful it is. And anyone doing so would be out of business in seconds, actually imagine the kind of press that would get you
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable eating a cake baked by someone who thinks my sexual orientation is """wrong""". Still, I don't think that makes discrimination okay. It seems like a very weird hill to die on when it comes to "free speech" or whatever the excuse is.
Getting away with discrimination on the basis of religious freedom is such a slippery thing. It's how people got away with refusing service to interracial couples back then.
How is it discrimination though? The couple was literally discriminating against him and they went out of their way when there were multiple other bakeries they could’ve went to to go to his. He wasn’t even against baking them a cake it was specifically a cake that would be celebrating homosexuality which goes against his values, someone should not be forced to make something that goes against their values should a painter be forced to paint some thing that goes against his values?
@skoop651 I'm not saying he isn't. He has been rather open about his positions politically in the past. This is most certainly not the hill that you wanna die on. I disagree with him on many aspects of his political leanings. I'm definitely heavily right leaning personally. But I know good character and lack of Mal intent when I see it. There definitely much worse left leaning political channels than his. I think it simply is a case of understanding that implicit bias is inevitable and to be smart enough to identify it and ignore it. Not attacking you. Not picking a fight. Just making an observation as someone who disagrees with him.
@@comedycompilations7748 curious what you mean by right leaning? Thinking trump is actually a good president? Or thinking that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't impede other's freedom?
I'm definitely not a liberaterian if that's what your implying. As for whether or not I think that Trump is a good president, let's just say I've never seen the left more rabid and deliberate in their attacks on a conservative president. Not since the days of honest Abe. That alone tells me he's doing better work than Ronald Reagan or the Bush presidents ever could. His america first policy is also very good imo. My only criticism is that sometimes he needs to stop saying stupid childish stuff on social media. Other than that I have no problem. You are of course free to disagree, as is your right.
@@comedycompilations7748 You've gotta be kidding with this take. You honestly compare Abe to Trump? Hilarious. Your argument is so invalid and filled with fallacies it makes one's head spin.
The problem I see with this isn’t really about freedom of religion. You should be able to follow your religion. The problem is that this can allow people to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against people. It’s a really interesting case
It certainly is. The issue in this case wasn't simply using religion as an excuse to discriminate. It's whether you can be compelled to actively endorse a message contrary to your beliefs. There is a very fine line between simply serving a gay couple and making them a cake that recognizes what your religious beliefs say is not a legitimate marriage. Likewise, I don't think an event venue would be discriminating against religion if they refused to host Westboro Baptist Church. It's simply wrong to require people to be a platform for views they disagree with.
I don't think that has to be tied to religon necessarily, ppl will discriminate either because they were raised to or because their envious. Not to say it doesn't happen, I mean look at the middle east and how they treat Gays and women. I'm just saying that you can't blame discrimination on one thing
You wouldn't force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake, would you? Would you force a Muslim baker to bake a cake defaming Muhammad? What about a Buddhist baker being forced to bake a cake mocking those trying to achieve Nirvana? Of course all of them have the right to refuse service that they don't agree with. I say that as an Atheist. I wouldn't force a Christian baker to bake me a cake that they disagreed with because, even though I disagree with their religion, I respect them enough to not do so.
The more compelling argument to me is that of an artist being free to decline commissioning of works that they don't support. If a baker has pre-made cakes anyone should be able to buy those cakes for whatever purpose, but the baker should be able to refuse any custom order for whatever reason they want. I feel that freedom of speech must include being free not to say something.
It's very related to freedom of religion if you consider that it's using the law to force someone to do something that supports activities they find morally wrong. Taken from an artistic perspective, it not only supports the activity, but it compells "speech" (creative effort in baking, decorating and writing on a cake) that actively endorses it.
If it's a public business they should not turn them down. If it's a private businese, they should have the freedom to do so. This is the same standard we share for social media. If you don't like it, go to another platform/build your own.
I always come back to the "shoe on the other foot" principle. Should the gay atheist who owns a print shop have the right to refuse an order from a church for a huge banner saying "Homosexuality is sin"?
Wow awesome video! Remember hearing about this cake in 8th grade and always being interested about it in my head. This is my first time hearing about the recent update to the story with the transgender cake, really interesting.
it wasnt even a trans cake or anythin... The cake made no mention of trans stuff at all and was a cake the business owner was entirely willin to make... Until he found out the person he was makin the cake for was trans. "Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition" All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin for her birthday; a cake he wudve made for anyone else, but that he feels he shudnt have to make bcuz of Who he is makin the cake for... Bcuz he got an overinflated ego from partial winnin this case and believed he won the right to discriminate 9.9
Also it's called freedom of speech. A man is not a woman, the buyers could of just gone to any other bakery, but they decide to only go for this one, because it isn't about the cake, it's about political hatred, it's about revenge.
@@aroach7461 Its actually not that simple bcuz we can indeed put limitations on ones speech and we can indeed require them not to use their speech in a discriminatory way if they wish to engage in a business that serves the general public. The example of him denyin a trans person a bday cake is one where he has NO freedom of speech argument bcuz the cake in question was a cake he was entirely willing to make; until he found out the cake buyer was a trans person. He doesnt get to claim it stifles his freedom of creative expression (the actual freedom of speech claim in the gay weddin cake case that narrowly was allowed), bcuz he clearly stated he was willin to make the cake and only tried to back out of it when the person in question outed themself as a trans person
@@aroach7461 Per your logic btw, this cake seller wud be legally allowed to refuse to make a cake with a weddin topper that had a Black groom and a white bride; bcuz its his right to creative expression... Except, we have a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against Black ppl in that way by refusin to serve them on the basis of their race. Just like we have a law makin it illegal to refuse to serve a Trans or a Gay person on the basis of their status as such
@@SylviaRustyFae let him discriminate, people are not forced to buy his cakes are they? Therfore the people will decide if he remains open. Do you not have faith in the people? Besides religious people were already discriminated too, but you didn't care about that did you? No, you didn't. You only care about a specific group of people. Men aren't women, no more then a dog is a cat.
No one should be forced to say (or write) something that they don't agree with, or promote something that they think is wrong, or get involved in something they think is sinful. Chasing this kind of thing as if it were serious and actionable discrimination will immensely cheapen the concept of discrimination, and make it harder to pursue serious discrimination cases that actually ought to be pursued.
Videos like these make me want to take time out of my day to read the constitution more thoroughly to understand how our justice system works and how the SC interprets cases. For this particular case I am biased to wards the baker because of those same religious beliefs we share, but reading the comments makes me realize I need to set my biases aside and look into federal laws before even thinking about forming an opinion. I really enjoy these types of videos Mr. Beat, keep up the good work!
The Constitution is (famously) quite short; you should be able to get through it in no time. Now, reading all the judicial precedent that goes into these decisions... that might take you a scosh longer.
@@andrewphilos True but as a US citizen I’m a bit ashamed at the fact that I haven’t at least read it from top to bottom. And the same goes for many Americans. We should take the time to study it more
Their is a huge difference between the Constitution and the legal garbage. Unfortunately the Constitution is almost totally ignored by most outside of the Supreme Court, and even they have been known to trample it on occasion. It is sickening to think anyone would force someone else to do something for them just because they think they are better.
It is important to consider that he didn’t refuse them service outright. He just wouldn’t make that specific thing. They could have bought other things. That’s what makes it not illegal discrimination for me. There’s a difference between saying “I won’t make this thing” and “I won’t serve you because of _____”
@@iammrbeat In fact, he even said I'd sell you a premade pure white sheet cake and let the couple design it themselves, but that wasn't what they wanted.
"Look Mr. Jenkins, I won't sell this brand new BMW to you because I have a philosophical belief that people of your ethnicity have an inclination to not pay their car notes on time. But I will sell you this Toyota and you can buy a BMW sticker to put on it later if you like."
Regardless of what you think about the supreme court case, we all know damn well if a baker refused to bake a cake with a cross on it the religious rite would turn into a bunch of crybabies about it. I don’t like the same standards they set applied to them.
Hi Mr Beat! You could compare this case to a UK Supreme Court case we had here in Northern Ireland, called Lee v Ashers Baking Co (2018), which was decided just after Masterpiece Cakeshop. Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, ordered a cake from a Christian bakery for a political event supporting same-sex marriage (which was still illegal in Northern Ireland at the time). The cake was to contain the words "Support Gay Marriage" (and also had a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street). The bakers refused, citing their religious beliefs. Lee won at the County Court and the NI Court of Appeal, but Ashers (the bakers) won at the UK Supreme Court. It was unanimous, 5-0. The Court ruled that it was a matter of compelled speech, and that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with. In a postscript to the judgment, Lady Hale (President of the Supreme Court) made some remarks noting the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Here, she distinguished the two cases, noting that the bakers in Lee v Ashers did not discriminate on the grounds of Mr Lee's sexual orientation, as they would have refused to bake the cake he ordered for any customer, no matter their characteristics. All the case details (including the written judgment, the press summary, video recordings of the arguments and the oral judgment) are here: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html
P.S. I would also note something that Lady Hale says at the end of her oral judgment: "This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination. It is deeply humiliating and an affront to human dignity to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case." Essentially, she heavily hinted that if a case with the same facts as Masterpiece Cakeshop came before the UK Supreme Court, they would have ruled very differently from their US counterparts.
I believe in this case the baker said the same as well, that he would have refused the bake the pro same sex marriage cake for any customer. Also Mr. Beat completely got the holding wrong. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. They basically observed the commission acted with animus towards religion, thereby violating the 1st Amendment.
Lmao, this country overall is so behind our brother nations. Unacceptable that we put opinions above facts. We have so many blatantly obvious issues that are unsolved, while other countries have solved those exact issues already (some even going back half a century)
@@ilikedota5 Yeah tho as we found out when he refused to provide any cake at all to a trans person solely bcuz she was trans; turns out he rly did just want to discriminate on the basis of who they were, he just happened to find a legal loophole that let him do it the first time "Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition" All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin on it that said happy birthday. He agreed to make the cake, bcuz he didnt disagree with the artistic expression requested of him, and then he found out she was trans; so he refused to make the cake citin his religious objections to her existence... He has no doubt refused other ppl similar cakes for similar reasons too
@@SylviaRustyFae Interesting. Taking everything as true, because I haven't looked at the court case, your comment would seem correct. That being said I have questions, because I wonder if there are factual differences between the situation. In the original case, he said he would have sold a premade cake, but not a custom cake. Did he take the same stance here? The underlying idea is that a custom cake carries implicit endorsement that an off the shelf cake does not.
Go to the 1960's tell a black person to just "use a different restroom" "go to a different cafe" "use a different water fountain" "get a different cake". Imagine how different life would be if that happened.
Can the LGBTQ+ community just find a different baker and leave this guy alone? This Christian Conservative isn't hateful, he just knows what he believes in.
People keep comparing bakers making cakes with LGBTQA+ themes and cakes with hateful images like Nazi propaganda and the likes. These are two things no one should be comparing. I think SCOTUS was wrong personally, because I agree it promotes anti-social behaviour and like it or not being gay isn't a choice. You can't discriminate someone for something they have no control over. Using "religious freedom" as an excuse to discriminate is by definition a hateful act, because it doesn't matter why he's discriminating... he's still discriminating someone for something they can't control. Stop using religion as your excuse to be bigoted
And they sided for completely different reasons than what Mr. Beat presented. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. Basically, the commission acted with animus towards religion, and that was the grounds why there was a majority opinion with 6 Justices onboard.
@@iammrbeatHave you ever looked into another issue i france. In Paris some stores owned by muslims were forced to sell pork and alcohol and some other products that are considered haram.
Here's what you left out. He was refusing to make a certain PRODUCT, not refusing certain customers. Everything he made and sold to straight people, he ALSO happily made and sold to gay people. The comparison to not serving blacks at the Woolworth's lunch counter is nonsense. It's more like serving all of your beverages to black customers but not carrying grape soda.
"Everything he made and sold to straight customers he also happily made and sold to gay people" except of course wedding cakes, so Destinctly Not everything.
@@willowwright4638 they were willing to sell them any wedding cake they would have sold to a straight couple. They were not willing to put two grounds on it. They don't do that for straight couples either. It is a product they don't make. I'm just presenting the pertinent facts of the case that the leftist media lied through their teeth about
@@willowwright4638 Don't be dense. They were perfectly happy to sell their wedding cakes to gay people. They just didn't make cakes that had two grooms or two brides on them. The maker of this vid is lying about those details. He didn't refuse gay people's business, he refused to make certain products.
@@cyrenia47 The fact remains that what they sell, they sell to everyone. A restaurant can't refuse to serve black people, but they CAN leave grape soda off the menu.
This case always reminds me of the very public local Nazi that lives in my area. All of his children, all by different women who all have restraining orders against him, are named after prominent Nazis. He named his daughter Ava Braun, for example. Some years ago, he went into the local grocery store and asked that a birthday cake be made out to his son, Adolf Hitler. When the store refused to make a cake that said "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler," he made some kind of ruckus and got arrested. I think that's as far as it went, though, and I may be missremembering the details.
Wow this sounds like a huge double standard legally. Why is a gay couple allowed to force a bakers hand to enforce their sexuality and way of life. Yet a nazi cant do the same? The law should be apolitical and non-biased. But it clearly isn't.
@user-ok4il2ty6i Well, as far as I know, the Nazi didn't try and take his case to the Supreme Court, so it's hard to say it's a double standard since we don't know how the Court would have ruled.
While i completely disagree with his decision NOT to make their wedding cake, i also think that if you run a business offering a service you reserve the right to deny that service to ANYONE for ANY REASON before the payment is received. Whether that reason is racist or homophobic or pedophilic or just because while you were talking to the customer and suddenly got Taco Bell diarrhea. Why? Because you cannot COMPEL someone to work without pay. You cannot force a person to do work for you that they do not want to do on threat of legal punishment. Simple as that. That's called slavery. If he wants to publicly ruin his business by being on the wrong side of history in your eyes then let him do that, but you cannot enslave him to bake you a cake by threatening legal action if he doesnt.
@@LanaDelReysBabe Expect no, this is a private business that withholds the right to deny anyone service. This only applies to public/government institutions.
@@NicoTheGreat5 That’s literally not true based upon the 1964 civil rights act. They cannot deny service based on: Race or color, National origin or citizenship status, Religion or creed, Sex, Age, Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information, Veteran status FEDERALLY
@@LanaDelReysBabe If you read the act, it explicitly mentions discrimination in schools and PUBLIC accommodations. Aswell as on the basis of employment. It does not prevent private businesses from denying service to a buying customer.
@@NicoTheGreat5 Buddy boy public accommodations is literally any business/organization that someone can walk into that is involved in interstate commerce. It’s not debatable like at all. They can discriminate if you’re un-merited, threat of security, unfit dress code, public disturbance, etc, but not on something that you cannot control. Just incase you don’t believe me, here’s the civil rights act of 1964, article 2 42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
Then you would consider Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Jews, Moses, Mahatma Gandhi, Catholics or anyone religious person a bigot? You have your right to post your opinion. Does that make you a bigot?
The key questions for me are what are and aren't rights. Does a couple getting married have a right to a cake? Is a business owner running a personal enterprise, or a for-profit public service? If he'd refused them service for any other reason (he suspected they wouldn't pay, he didn't have cake toppers with the right hair color, he was too busy with other cakes to take on new clients at the moment) would it have gone the same way? Where does their right to a cake run into his right to run his business the way he wants? I'm afraid this ruling still didn't answer those key questions.
The lack of specificity is something that seems to be a common theme for the court under Roberts. They give a lot of opinions that focus so narrowly on the case at hand it leaves everyone else back to square one for anything related to the case. I enjoy a lot of the videos on the topic by another creator Hoag Law, who is a lawyer aside from UA-cam. He definitely has some bias and political leanings, but I find that like Mr Beat he tends to try and keep his presentation as unbiased as can be. I think he did this case, but it is some of the more historical cases that I found the most interesting.
I don’t think the government should be telling him what he believes is right or wrong. It’s his decision what he believes is right or wrong not the government.
Feel like this case and this controversy is very complicated. Imagine if a Jewish/Israeli American has a poster store, and someone comes in and say “I want a poster that say free Palestine”. Is that business obliged to serve that request? Or are they allowed to refuse requests that are against their personal beliefs?
@@paxundpeace9970 that’s really not the point. Imagine for this scenario that you have a Zionist that support israel. Are they obliged to make a product that say free Palestine?
@@andrewphilos whether you support gay marriage is a political statement too. If someone came in and said “hi I’m gay and I want a birthday cake”, I’m sure the baker would say “absolutely, happy birthday!”
@@andrewphilosGay marriage was not even legal in Colorado at the time of this incident so baking a cake for a gay wedding could definelty be classed as a political action.
Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with
But what if I am a disabled black man and the only wheelchair company in my city doesn’t want to sell me a wheelchair and I’m unable to travel somewhere else or pay for one to be delivered?
Eh, yeah. But can food be considered a lifesaving service? Every person needs to eat and drink, after all. Cake and desserts, probably not, but what about grocery stores and normal restaurants?
@@ruthkatz1998except in reality this will never be applied equally. No business is going to refuse straight people. It’s unacceptable for certain members of society to have to fear being denied service because of who they are.
We had a very similar case in the U.K. called Lee v Ashers Bakery 2018. Gareth Lee asked Ashers Bakery in 2014 to bake a cake with ‘Support Gay Marriage’ message decorated on the top. Ashers Bakery refused. - U.K. High court= Ashers - U.K. Supreme Court= Ashers - European Court of Human Rights= Ashers
My opinion: Making a custom cake is art, and thus protected by the first amendment, but premade, and undecorated cakes are a commodity, and protected by anti-discrimination laws
A few interesting questions that come up for me: - Does it matter whether or not the baker already offers customized cakes as a menu item? - Is the decision to not bake the cake the same as not decorating the cake? For example: he offered them the opportunity to buy any other pre-made cake, but had they asked him to bake a plain, fresh wedding tower cake so that they could simply stick two male figurines on it afterwards and he said no, would that constitute discrimination? - Was his later case in 2023 the exact same issue? The description makes it sound like he flat out refused service to the transgender person as opposed to refusing to make their style of cake.
@suzerain840 there is no comparison to Hindu being asked to slaughter a cow. Nor is the baker or caterer being asked to anything sacrilegious They are being asked to practice their craft…..which they sell. The problem is they don’t like the person buying. If you sell a service, you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against other people…..because of their colour of their skin or who they sleep with.
Nice video as usual Mr. Beat. Would you be interested in doing the case 303 creative v. Elenis, which was a broader case about a Christian website designer refusing to make a wedding website that advertised a gay wedding. This case was exclusively about the free speech clause of the First Amendment and had no effect on the Free Exercise clause.
He had at least some barely reasonable grounds to justify how makin a weddin cake for a gay weddin goes against his beliefs bcuz its participatin in a gay weddin which he disagrees with..... But there is absolutely zero reasonable grounds to justify just not makin a cake for a trans person, any cake at all "Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition" That makes it not just him havin freedom of expression, he is allowed such after all and was freely willin to express such until he found out Who he was makin a cake for. Thats 100% discrimination based on a protected class and theres no weasel room around it here. If this case ends up at SCOTUS and they pull the same shite again; just know that it will cement the two cases as bringin about a return to the way things were in the "separate but equal" era, but with a diff class of ppl bein deemed allowed to be kept separate and refused service solely bcuz of who they are
The cake was not any different to one that a straight couple would request. Phillips refused to make ANY kind of wedding cake for them. This is a clear-cut example of discrimination, service was refused (with a thinly veiled excuse) based on the couple's identity. Justice Ginsburg points this out pretty clearly in her dissent.
He wouldn't have made a pro gay marriage cake regardless of who asked. Even though a straight couple wouldn't ask for a cake with a gay couple on them, a straight person could ask for a cake with a pro gay marriage message, and he would have refused that. So its not directly about the identity. Now maybe you say that doesn't matter, but that's an argument to be had.
@drmajalis1583 to excerise your opinions and thoughts without fear of government restriction or punishment. Like burning a flag for example because you protest a war
I respect gay rights and have championed them for years, but a business should be able to refuse business as I view a business, especially a sole proprietorship, as having the same rights as a person. That being said, why refuse customers isn’t that hurting your business?
@@fiskersproductions if someone owns a house and they don’t want someone there, they shouldn’t be forced to let them in. And I think our capitalism will weed out the a holes out there by if they turn you away don’t go there no more go somewhere else and hopefully that business will suffer and close. Hopefully society evolves and this type of stuff becomes a none issue.
@@fiskersproductions "Should be allowed to deny services to people of different skin colors or of other religious beliefs as well?" Yes, why not? Are you afraid of other people's identities and lifestyles? Also if a need is not satisfied, capitalists will run to satisfy it, as long as the state doesn't force people to do things against their will which ruins free markets.
I'm personally with the masterpiece cakeshop on being allowed to deny service that goes against his religious/philosophical beliefs. It bothers me that a court is able to tell a business when they're allowed to accept or refuse business at a time where the topic is polarizing and political. Plus I can't see how it would be good business for the masterpiece cakeshop owner to deny anyone associated with the LGBT+ community in Lakewood/Denver 😅
@@zoeybarter3246 Thanks for a meaningless statement. Mind expanding on that so we can conversate? It's obvious I disagree but I would like to hear your POV in little more detail. Here's my first question, what are rights that queer people don't have that everyone else does have? I'm not trying to formulate a gotcha, unlike a lot of conversatives. I'm just curious since I haven't heard a good answer to this question yet. I also believe you're in the wrong for suggesting it's "more important". The government shouldn't force it onto me to accept queer people and what they push for, just like how I think the government shouldn't tell you how you should live your life, especially according to any religious document, and how you choose to express/identify. For example, all the local courts telling the cakeshop owner that he has to conform to the request of the gay couple. Hope to hear back
This case is another example of how the 14th amendment and 1st amendment can clash. But I do think this case was the wrong decision, yes you have free speech, but you shouldn’t use your freedom to infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. And this decision opens the door not only for religious discrimination against sexual minorities but potentially even discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities.
Excellent and we'll nuanced video as always, M. Beat. Unfortunately, the job of a judge is to interpret the laws regardless of their personal opinions. I find it hard.to believe that justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Kahan, who have a history of advocating for LGBT rights, wanted this outcome. I hope this issue is dealt with by the people, and it looks like it is. As for the Hobby Lobby decision which is also about religion freedom vs. civil liberties, I have no words.
Thank you Alon. Yeah it's definitely a case where you have to separate reason from emotion. I know they struggled with their decision. Regarding the Hobby Lobby decision....I hear you. :/ I hope to release that episode soon as well!
Except that’s not actually how judges operate. Everyone makes decisions based on their personal opinions, doesn’t matter how much legalese you dress it up in.
@@zoeybarter3246 Of course.ideolofy is almost always involved, but I believe the Justices, at least at the time, at least tried to be fair in their decisions.
The reason why the majority opinion had 6 of them, was because they punted, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws.
Ask yourself this: Would you be okay with a business refusing service to black person based on religious beliefs? If not, then you shouldn't be okay with this either
There aren't religious beliefs that constitute "don't bring service to black people." So it's a false equivalent. He refused service for the type of cake they asked him to do, and he has a right to refuse as he has both his religious beliefs and artistic freedom. Besides, why would you force someone who doesn't agree with your way of being to bake a cake, when there are plenty of other buisness that are more than happy to do it?
@@GottlikeDamonthere isn't also religious beliefs that say you can't make a cake for a gay wedding. Plus, it doesn't fucking matter whether it exists or not currently. A person could literally state their personal religion says so at any time and this would count. I could do that exact thing right now. The reason they went for the court is because you can force someone to not receive service for their way of being (which actually is a fact to be apart of their being vs a religious belief which is not apart of their being because they can literally change it)
@@GottlikeDamon You are objectively wrong. Why? Because you can easily create a religion that does. Also a person can use "philosophical" reasons to not sell to a black person. So you are wrong
@@GottlikeDamon But there is no religion that says "don't bring service to a gay couple" either. That man's bible says nothing about selling a wedding cake to a gay couple.
Jack should have just kept his word and closed down the shop. Otherwise, his words were simply meaningless (and just made for the validation from his peers).
or the couple should've just went to another shop and moved on with their lives. I think the word for filing a lawsuit over cake and someone's religious beliefs is being a Karen? All a matter of perspective.
@@samuelhong4272the store owner filled a lawsuit about. He ran to the supreme court. I think they shouldn't have taken it on. Because the supreme court is and was baised.
If this baker wanted to celebrate his supreme court victory by going to a bakery and ordering a cake that said "Congratulations on Winning Your Supreme Court Case" but the bakery he went to was owned by a lesbian couple who refused to make this cake as they said it would offend them, should the lesbian couple be forced make the celebratory cake anyway?
They should be forced to as this man should have been forced to. But given that the Supreme Court said otherwise no they shouldn’t have had to (in this hypothetical scenario). If the court isn’t going to protect your rights, comply with their rulings maliciously.
Iirc he didn't outright refuse to do business with them he just said no to baking a custom cake specifically for the couples wedding. So I'm guessing in his eyes it probably didn't seem like a huge deal at the time.
I don't know if this guy was the sole owner and employee of his own business (LLC) like the web site designer was but any business model where "the business" and "the owner" are seen as separate entities by law should not be able to use personal religious beliefs to be able to bypass laws. The Constitution gives people the freedom to practice (or not) whatever religion they want but it does not give businesses that freedom.
I find this entire case so bizarre. It's your business, you should be able to deny your service to anyone, for any reason. If somebody compels you to serve someone against your own will, isn't that forced labor, after all?
Here's the best way to understand the ruling through two examples: If a straight person asks you to bake a Gay wedding cake, you can deny because *the cake* goes against your beliefs. If a gay person asks you to bake a non-specific wedding cake, you cannot deny because *the person* goes against your beliefs.
Funny how “religious freedom” seems to often be used as a defense for discrimination. Wasn’t that argument also used in a lot of racial discrimination cases? One wonders how people can keep pulling that off when religious beliefs have no basis in objective, independently verifiable facts.
Technically speaking, the basis for abrahamic beliefs came from god(that is if your of those 3 religons) so if you are religious, your views are as objective as they can get. Even if you aren't, the United States was build upon Judeo Christian beliefs, so they also hold some sort of ground here as well.
People are saying that in the lens of history this will be like racism but that’s just not true. The Bible never defends racism and you could potentially even find some verses that are against it. The same just isn’t true for LGBT “Leviticus 20:13” The Supreme Court made the right call.
Yeah using religious freedoms for racial cases were and still are quite frankly really stupid especially since it's not a sin to be black or to interracial marriages. Keep in mind however it is a sin to be a homosexual although surprisingly it seems that Jesus Christ does not have an issue with lesbians and only homosexuals only. But I'm not sure if that means being gay is a sin but being lesbian is not. If anyone is seeing this comment is it true that in Christianity it's a sin to be gay but it's not a sin to be Lesbian?
I don’t think you all understand what “objective” means. Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster: • Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations • Of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind • Involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena • Perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
@trevinbeattie4888 I'll admit to being a bit unclear with my wording, but I am still technically right. Objectivism is to speak cold hard logic without influence by feelings or opinions. I was saying that if you are a follower of one of the abrahamic religions, then what God says is objective, because as it is said numerous times, as god is perfect. There no feelings or opinions in what he says, as he is perfect.(this is once again worded poorly I know but I hope you see what I mean)
Didn’t the court rule that freedom of religion does not protect from breaking law when out of religious reasons two Native Americans smoked marijuana? Considering the unanimous lower court rulings this trial seems more like a political agenda, a precursor to what has followed since.
I don't like it. If the ADF were defending Philips because making a wedding cake for a interracial couple violated his religious liberty, freedom of speech, and artistic expression, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is tacit consent by SCOTUS to discriminate against same sex couples, and it's not cool.
This is one of the few things I have a hard stance on. If it's something you can't choose, like race or sexuality, it should be protected under anti discrimination laws.
@@johnjones3813 well, it is a private business, if it was like the postal service i’d understand but it’s a fucking bakery it really wasn’t that serious.
Businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone just like customers should be able to protest against them. The real question is if these businesses receive government money should they loose that right to refuse service? If so much of our economy relies on government stimulus then at what point are these businesses no longer private actors. Another point is should insurance and banks have control over what businesses due and say? 🤷♂️
The problem with that is that there are places where literally every business would refuse service to certain demographics if they were legally allowed to do so
@@EnigmaticLucas I agree completely and you already see that with certain communities and zoning practices with who people hire and other factors. Either way you go with the ruling the better option is to build a society that has freedom to be ignorant but chooses to pursue virtue and fosters that not by a regime but a community.
I am a married gay man, and I will say, the Supreme Court got it absolutely right with this one. Why would someone want to patronize someone that is against your marriage anyway? I personally would have simply said "Have a nice day" and would have gone elsewhere.
It's amazing how much time and effort Jack put into appeals, when he could have just made the dang cake, received their money, and moved on. My best assumption on WHY he did it: his business makes the headlines, and he receives lots of support (and therefore business) from other Christians who think he is "taking a stand" against homosexuals. It's a similar concept I see all the time online: a music artist decides to take a stand against something , for example wokeness, and floods of comments come in saying, "I've never heard of this guy before but now I'm going to buy all his albums!! 🥴"
As a gay i just want to be able to be treated the same as straight people. Straights dont have to ask beforeahand if they are comfortable with their marriage, why should I? I also find it weird that if i was a cake maker i would be forced to make christian cakes even if im not religious. Its just wild
Seriously it's like saying you can discriminate against black people and interracial couples because of religious beliefs (which people very much did use to justify states banning interracial marriage)
I think he would allow the gay couple to buy one of his generic wedding cakes but he didn’t want to make a gay design on the gay cake- he didn’t want to artistically express that on the cake
Sounds like it's discrimination on both sides to me. The colorado court and the appeals court as well as charlie and David are discriminating against phillips by forcing him to bake a cake despite it going against his religious beliefs where as Phillips was discriminating against david and Charlie by refusing to bake them a cake due to their sexual orientation. However at the end of the day Charlie and David had a choice they could have taken their businesse elsewhere however phillips is not being given a choice.
@@blahajlucie uh you do realize that the homosexual couple is basically forcing him to go against his religion you're really not going to say that's hatred
@@suspicioususer not at all. I'm sure if you were a baker and someone came in and asked you to make a swastika cake you would deny it. Which you have every right to. He wasn't refusing them service because they were gay. He refused to make and design a cake that went against his religious views. He even offered them to buy a generic cake which they denied. You can't force someone to make something they disagree with.
@@clipvault9405 he was literally refusing cuz they were gay tho? he would have made it if they were straight even if its 'religious reasons' the reason is still that they were gay
I'm glad those cry bullies lost. He was actually willing to sell them a premade cake just not the one they wanted and they did what everyone said they should have done in the end, go to another bakery. What gets to me is the retaliatory nature of the complaint after they were still able to get what they were after in the end.
Yeah totally the real issue are the people being denied services that he would 10000% provide for a straight wedding cake and no they didn't get services they wanted they had to leave You people will never understand how it feels to have a wedding then having to Google what places to avoid because they can legally deny u wedding cakes
@@sandersGG They got a cake and were provided with the resources, in house mind you, to decorate it themselves, sorted. Also, to your second part, dump the victim mindset, it's no way to live.
This case is tough, but I lean toward the couple who wanted a cake. Now the baker wants to refuse service to a transgender person, and another case (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, decided June 2023) upheld the right of a wedding website designer to refuse to serve same-sex couples. I can see someone refusing to serve a mixed race couple, interfaith couple, or a bat or bar mitzvah claiming religious freedom. It is pretty easy to say your religious beliefs are the reason, even if the real reason is prejudice. Public accommodations should serve everyone.
“Yes, gay people should be protected from discrimination, but they also shouldn’t be…sometimes. If god tells you to, it’s ok.” It’s really telling that they’re just paying lip service to the first question they had to consider. What does anti-discrimination ordinance meaningfully do if it can’t prevent unequal access to public accommodations based on even simple “philosophical” objections to someone’s sexual orientation?
Recently (303 Creative v Elenis) a Christian organization funded a random web designer, who took the identities of two straight men that didn’t even know each other and claimed they were trying to force her to make a gay website that violated her religious freedoms. The Supreme Court bogglingly sided with her. Safe to say the people worried this case would set a bad precedent were right. (Also the fact that the couple just quietly stopped caring and lived happy lives while the cake maker spiraled into a fixated campaign to change even more laws says a lot about this case and who potentially had alternative motives.)
Did the Court get it correct with this decision?
Edit: I should have clarified that he refused to CUSTOMIZE a cake for them. He said they were welcome to buy any of his premade cakes. Phillips argued that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that forcing him to create an artistic expression against his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. I apologize for not adding this important information. I oversimplified it too much.
It promotes anti social behavior in fact that's one of the reasons why Germany bans homeschooling. Overall civics triumph over all.
P.S. most of these mfkrs are the ones who whined and screamed about wearing masks
I think so
No. As you said in the video, there are too many unanswered questions, and I compare it to the “states’ rights” excuse that segregationists used back in the day. Sure, some might genuinely believe in it, but all too often, “religious freedom” is just an excuse to be a bigot.
history will ultimately see this in the same light as businesses refusing inter-racial couples, which some mainstream religious organizations still object to.
Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with
Anti-Discrimination laws and the First Amendment have definitely had a rough relationship
It's an example of the classic battle between civil rights and civil liberties.
it's very clear that gay couple wanted to start stuff, people can refuse to make things that they don't want to make and it's clear they knew that
you can't deny making things for people you don't want to (unless there's a "valid" reason), you can deny making things you don't want to
@@skoop651 this is not a concern that straight people must deal with. If a queer person has to fear being denied service because of who they are then that is a fundamental injustice. The court is wrong (as they often are).
@@skoop651 One such "valid reason" is that you object to the message that you are being told to produce. In this case, Philips objected to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding, because a wedding cake is traditionally considered an expression of a happy marriage. Phillips did not want to create something that was praising a gay wedding. Philips told the gay couple that he would gladly bake them shower cakes, birthday cakes, etc., but just not wedding cakes. People should be expected to serve other people equally, but they should not be expected to speak in favor of an event they do not support.
@@zoeybarter3246 lmao "queer"
You did not mention that he refused to customize a cake for them. He said they were welcome to buy any of his premade cakes.
I should have mentioned this, yes.
Edit: pinned comment updated
@@iammrbeatthat's an extremely important point left out, I'd pin a comment or something about this information
Such a fascist. Didn't comply with the BDSM of a gay couple!!!
@@farmerfrugal Honestly, I don't think it makes that much difference, because a service was still dissallowed that this cake maker would typically make for anyone else.
@@IncredibleStan Actually no, he claimed that the custom cakes were a form of artistic expression and that compelling him to create an artistic expression agaisnt his religious beliefs was unconstitutional. And the court agreed.
It's funny to me how a cakeshop a 20 minute drive from my house made his case all the way to the supreme court of the United States
I really do enjoy these supreme court briefs. My favorite series.
@Fifi_03 ?
The one thing I always thought was why would you want someone that doesn’t WANT to bake the cake for your event or wedding. If the baker isn’t into it, shouldn’t you just go elsewhere? Is he the only baker? If the baker’s heart isn’t into it, how high can your expectations actually be? Are you going to get the baker’s best work? Wouldn’t you want someone that was 100% behind you and enthusiastic about baking the cake?
Yeah, which is why the couple got a cake elsewhere. The complaint was because the couple felt like they were being discriminated against, which, in a way, they were. However, to not make a custom cake for them, but have still offered pre-made cakes, makes sense.
Most people don't mind being extremely petty
@@willb.nimble6749 they definitely were not. If someone doesn't believe in your view. They shouldn't be force to make ANYTHING that's promotes that view. Stop forcing that nasty life style on other people
If I was a baker and told the Dems & Libs I do not make Dem/Lib designs, but the Dems & Libs demanded I make it, then I would make it very sloppy looking and add NO sugar with lots of salt, and I would p1$$ in the cake.... I'll bet the Dems & Libs will never come back again.
bro being gay is not a choice, or a lifestyle it’s a identity that people are born and freedom of religion does not give you a pass to discriminate
The court actually found that the CRC had been unjustly hostile toward Jack Phillips which was why the decision sidestepped the bigger question. In 303 Creative, the court did find that the 1st Amendment protects creative businesses (e.g. artists and bakers) against being compelled to create wares expressing opinions they disagree with.
Yay second comment that got it right. Wow. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.
To me it's simple. Regarding personal matters, the right to refuse a command to perform an action should always trump any right to command someone to perform an action.
What the fuck does that mean lol
@@TTCanadaJapan so does that not apply to segregation? If it were a black couple and they went through the same situation would it still be justified?
You should do Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City next, as it literally saved New York City's Grand Central Station from being demolished.
*Grand Central Terminal, although, they've renamed it because of people who don't know its real name.
As a Railfan, I agree with this
Correction: Grand Central Terminal
honestly i dont really like that case. its pretty ridiculous to me that the government can arbitrarily label a companies property as a "landmark" and then force them to maintain a certain standard. how is that NOT unconstitutional under the takings clause?
I wonder what would have happened if the baker had refused a cake based on the fact that the couple were straight, but interracial.
People may not get this connection, but it's a strong connection because both are tied to identity. What if someone's religion told them that interracial marriages were bad?
He should be able to deny anyone service
@@jeffslote9671 that would be clear racial discrimination, against the law. If you cant run a business following the laws of the land, dont run a business
@@lollypop00p Anti discrimination laws shouldn’t exist
@@iammrbeat If there was one, then sure, respect that belief as long as they aren't discriminating against *people* of other races, just the marriage right.
It's not about identity; it's about an action.
I found you channel bc I misspelled mrbeast but I'm glad I misspelled c:
LOL!!
It truly is a sticky wicket. I really just wanted to say sticky wicket, couldn't pass on the opportunity.
Thanks I’m definitely going to use that from now on
The thing that’s troubling about this ruling is that it leads to a bit of a slippery slope
If discrimination is allowed on a religious beliefs basis, where does the line get drawn?
Anyone could then be discriminated against, based on any criteria, if the discriminator only says it’s because of their religious beliefs
@suzerain840 The cake the couple wanted would have been made for a wedding, yes, but it would have been no different from any other wedding cake. It wasn’t that Phillips refused to make a “gay cake,” it’s that he refused to make a normal wedding cake solely because the people who wanted to purchase that cake were gay. There’s really no way to justify that as Phillips asserting his freedom of artistic expression, it’s just clear-cut discrimination because of his “religious beliefs.” It’s no different than if a cake shop refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple.
@suzerain840 Well, the Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a person, obviously. But yes, he shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against _members_ of the Westboro Baptist Church who want a wedding cake.
@suzerain840That reasoning can just as easily be used to discriminate against black people, interracial couples, and trans people, except the Supreme Court has already decided that that discrimination is prohibited under the civil rights act. The Supreme Court violated their own precedent in this case. Religion was also used to justify banning interracial marriage for decades (many people still do)
@suzerain840 That's a ridiculous argument because each of those examples only affects the person themselves while the cake shop sells items to the public. Refusing to sell to specific groups of people based on race religion sexual orientation etc directly means those people have a more difficult time purchasing the things they want or need, and when many businesses discriminate, it makes those groups more vulnerable to price gouging and exploitation, purely based on race, religion, etc. The whole point of the civil rights acts was to keep this from happening because, as just one example, allowing such discrimination led to black people paying far more for housing than whites despite them being significantly poorer than whites (also a result of the same discrimination)
Yet again, religion was also used to discriminate against black people and interracial couples, but the supreme court already ruled that's illegal discrimination under the 14th amendment and civil rights act of 1964, so they violated their own precedent
@suzerain840 Who is the Muslim discriminating against based on one of the protected classes by not drawing Muhammad?
Here’s my take on this case as well as the case that most recently happened with the web designer. When you draw artwork paid commission for somebody that’s commission work that’s freelance and when you have commissions you set rules on what you will and you won’t draw. And when you do that it should be allowed for you to regulate whatever you want and don’t want to draw. Also something that is completely forgotten about this case with the bakery cake owner here which was also not mentioned in this video is that he refused to draw Halloween cakes as well. Now tell me how many people here are going to complain about a Halloween cake being refused to be made by an cake maker? The way I look at it if you’re a freelancer doing commission work artwork the creator is allowed to set whatever rules they want on what they will or they won’t draw. Now we’re talking about a normal grocery store or restaurant something like that and the stuffs already out and they discriminate that’s different. But we were talking about making customizable artwork from an artist doing commission works there well within the rights to create any specific rules they want on what they will and they won’t draw. I kind of wish this aspect would have been focused more on the case than the whole anti-religion/anti-LGBTQ argument.
That's a good position. Thanks for the food for thought.
Well put.
I agree on this point entirely, but the crux of the issue and the point of the Anti-discrimination side is that the refusal of service is not based on the nature of the product commissioned, but on the sexual orientation of the customer.
@@quinardosoto977but that is simply not true. The cake baker refused to make a cake that endorses the practice of homosexuality. He didn’t refuse service to the couple on the simple basis that they were homosexual. If they were a straight couple, and for whatever reason they had asked him to bake a wedding cake designed in a way that endorses homosexuality, then he would have refused it to them as well. To demonstrate the converse, he also offered to sell them anything that did not endorse homosexuality, such as premade goods, or a design that just didn’t endorse something that directly contradicts his personal beliefs.
That is fundamentally why the supreme courts decision is correct.
@@quinardosoto977 Because that is a total lie, and who the fuck cares? Why do you have the authority to tell a business what it should do? Punishing people for what they think is the single most evil thing any government can do.
It's always about the balance of the Free Exercise Clause. I remember learning about this case a long time ago but also loved to learn about the role religion plays in the everyday lives of Americans. Would love for you to do Stone v. Graham, Greece v. Town of Galloway or Lee v. Weisman. (After reading the case file again had to edit the comment)
Establishment Clause? That wasn't involved at all. This was all private actors.
What does the establishment clause have to do with this case?
How does the Establishment Clause pertain to making laws that prevent businesses from such discrimination, I do so wonder? Have there been previous cases like this?
@@warlordofbritannia It doesn't. Stuff like the CRA of 1964, which is what I believe the original commenter was referring to, are actually done by Interstate Commerce Clause, because you'd think given historical context, the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle... But SCOTUS fucked up the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse and Civil Rights Cases, and they never bothered going back to fix it. And surprisingly enough, the Justice who wants to do that is Thomas.
The problem is, the Bible says all kinds of crazy sh!t. So, if the baker is gonna play the religion card, then they also should be against serving customers who wear clothing with a fabric Blend. See Leviticus 19:19
I can agree with the decision, that you can refuse to put a message you don't agree with on the cake.
In my opinion, you should be able to refuse to bake the cake, but be able to refuse to put the figure or the names on it.
You can't decline customers for what they are, but decide what product you want to sell.
That's a reasonable take. Thanks for sharing!
That is what he did. He declined to custom make the cake but he did offer them to get one the pre-made cakes in the store.
@@Avghistorian77this
I don't agree with you about the name, a name is a part of who you are as a person, it would be discriminatory, a civil rights issue.
I do agree however, with the design, such as if they wanted a pride flag, Nazi symbols, etc.
@KCH55 the name/names can be a message, too. So I would still say that you can refuse to write names.
But names are also a part of that person, so I see your reason not to include it.
It's such a complicated issue. I'm not christian and I'm also gay, but I also sympathize with people not being forced to go against their beliefs. I think they should be allowed to turn down a same sex wedding, but not someone ordering a birthday cake for their mom or something and they happen to be gay. Basically I think it's only acceptable if the thing you disagree with is directly relevant to the service being offered
I'm a Christian and I think this is a very reasonable take
I’m bisexual and Christian. I think that take is fair since I’d do the same thing. I also would be courteous and find someone who would.
Just because I’m not able to because I don’t believe in it, doesn’t mean I can at least help you find someone who can.
@@2tallyGr8 however he refused service to a transgender person as well, which I do not believe with since them being trans presumably had little to nothing to do with the actual order
Politely, you are a traitor to your own community. No business merits more protection than the costumers
@@AnnoyingAllie3 Politely my ass, that's a rude thing to say. I don't want people to be allowed to discriminate against someone for who they are, but I understand that these people have very sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, and while I disagree and find it completely backwards, I respect their right to free speech. Plus if I were to find the man of my dreams and marry him, I would want a wedding cake from someone who supports us anyway. As I said, I only think it should apply to this very specific case, not like a store owner refusing to sell a gay man a hershey's bar. Also out of curiosity, are you a part of the LGBTQ+ community?
Supreme Court briefs is one of my personal favorite types of videos to watch on UA-cam.
Another great video Mr. Beat! I learn a lot from your videos, they're super informative. Interesting to hear both of the arguments.
Well thank you!
One of my favorite segments you do!!! Very informative, that Scottsboro case still strikes a chord with me [which Trumps lawyers tried to invoke recently]
I appreciate the encouraging words!
@@iammrbeatthank you for promoting logic reason and civics
@RachaelMarieNewportOh dang. You mind sending me that link for the mental health case?
Please do a follow up video on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis which DID have a larger scope ruling on the same topic! And thanks as always for your entertaining, informative, and non-biased presentation. As the son of two moms, this topic matters to me, and I can always appreciate when someone can approach the topic from a non-biased, legal perspective while still supporting the LGBTQ community without necessarily having a specific opinion on the legal questions of the case.
I do have to say, as a gay man… I actually side with the cake shop owner here. His rights to religious freedom shouldn’t be abridged by mine to marriage.
Well, the court actually focused more on the way the CCRC handled the complaint to reverse the lower court's decision. And there were some evidence that the CCRC went overboard a bit too much - such as likening the baker's beliefs to Nazism. In a way, the Court punted and sidestepped the more important constitutional questions. Additionally, same-sex marriage wasn't legal in Colorado (but I guess that Colorado did recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state back then?) when this dispute started, so that was a factor as well.
yeah, i don't really see an alternate universe where Christianity and Nazism mix. one of them has to go, and in any case, one is explicitly acting in spite of the other.
Wow. First comment that actually gets it right. I posted a comment earlier, "I think you should take down this video and redo it. I really question your research you did. You got the holding completely wrong. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. And now the comment section is filled with comments that misunderstand that. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws." But its also a Kennedy opinion, who is a horrible writer, so I get why he didn't read it.
Fun fact! The first ppl the nazis went after were the socialists and the queers; they targeted jewish socialists and jewish queers more than anyone else ofc. Magnus Hirschfeld was a queer Jewish researcher who had a ton of research into the transgender community specifically; and his works were some of the first to be seized and destroyed in their purges of heretical views
So its not all that ingenuine to pt out that such bigotry can be likened to nazism. If folk dont like bein likened to nazis; they shudnt be like nazis.
Back in the 40s and 50s, USA understood this and we saw a reversal of policy when it came to the question of eugenics; bcuz guess what... the Nazis were inspired by USA there, and that was a bit of a wakeup call for ppl over here to suddenly notice that these eugenics movements cud lead to some very disastrous things once they moved on past the poor ppl, undesirables, and disabled ppl (bcuz ofc, who cares about those ppl 9.9)
@@barnaclejones822Nazism and Hiter were endorsed and supported by the Catholic church, as were many other fascist regimes.
@@authenticallysuperficial9874 speaking in ideology and philosophy, not loose ties and pacts. I'm making the argument that religion is used "for bad things" in spite of the characteristics that actually make it definable. I never claimed that there had never been any ties between fascists and religious groups. However, again, I am saying that in terms of actual philosophy and not individual actors and contemporary decisions, they are literally the furthest thing from mixable.
For example, a former Hitler youth left Nazism after the war ended. He became a Catholic priest and a fervent anti-fascist.
You do have to realize how much hate goes behind putting all this effort in to not make a cake.
Do you realize how much pettiness it takes to continue challenging it court, instead of just going to another baker and moving on.
I prefer pettiness over bigotry.
@@nathanstorm8093is it bigotry if the baker didn’t want to customize the cake with something he didn’t personally agree with? He said the couple was free to purchase any of the premade cakes, just that he wouldn’t customize it.
Was it the only cake shop available? Surely there were other cake shops that would have gladly customized it for the couple.
I don’t see bigotry here.
The gays in question purposely searched for a baker who they knew would refuse them a personalised cake in order to then take him to court. How tolerant of them!
America needs to repent.
lol “the gays”? I haven’t heard anyone refer to a heterosexual marriage as “the heteros”
??
The first thing I thought when this actually happened was “You can’t force people to work for you.” And the first thing I thought after watching this video is: YOU CANT FORCE PEOPLE TO WORK FOR YOU.
Which is extremely reasonable, but since laws prohibiting that are labeled "civil rights" (for some reason) nobody has the guts to oppose them
@@jonasastrom7422 they should not be. But everything is now a 'civil right,' because people are morons and have no idea what that even means.
So what if a bakery decides they won’t serve black people? Would you be okay with that on the basis that forcing the bakery to serve black people would be forcing the bakery to work for people?
@@ericsonofjohn9384 Yes, that's legal despite how awful it is. And anyone doing so would be out of business in seconds, actually imagine the kind of press that would get you
The military and the prison system just enter the chat
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable eating a cake baked by someone who thinks my sexual orientation is """wrong""". Still, I don't think that makes discrimination okay. It seems like a very weird hill to die on when it comes to "free speech" or whatever the excuse is.
Getting away with discrimination on the basis of religious freedom is such a slippery thing. It's how people got away with refusing service to interracial couples back then.
Let's don't act like the cake creator only used the "free speech" excuse, because he's a bigot.
That's the beauty of free market capitalism, you can get a cake wherever you want. Whether it be the religious man or the queer man
How is it discrimination though? The couple was literally discriminating against him and they went out of their way when there were multiple other bakeries they could’ve went to to go to his. He wasn’t even against baking them a cake it was specifically a cake that would be celebrating homosexuality which goes against his values, someone should not be forced to make something that goes against their values should a painter be forced to paint some thing that goes against his values?
@@sirhenrymorgan1187 it’s not discrimination though.
Dude is always as neutral as possible when going about this sort of topic. Massive respect.
he is definitely left leaning
@skoop651 I'm not saying he isn't. He has been rather open about his positions politically in the past. This is most certainly not the hill that you wanna die on. I disagree with him on many aspects of his political leanings. I'm definitely heavily right leaning personally. But I know good character and lack of Mal intent when I see it. There definitely much worse left leaning political channels than his. I think it simply is a case of understanding that implicit bias is inevitable and to be smart enough to identify it and ignore it. Not attacking you. Not picking a fight. Just making an observation as someone who disagrees with him.
@@comedycompilations7748 curious what you mean by right leaning? Thinking trump is actually a good president? Or thinking that everyone should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't impede other's freedom?
I'm definitely not a liberaterian if that's what your implying. As for whether or not I think that Trump is a good president, let's just say I've never seen the left more rabid and deliberate in their attacks on a conservative president. Not since the days of honest Abe. That alone tells me he's doing better work than Ronald Reagan or the Bush presidents ever could. His america first policy is also very good imo. My only criticism is that sometimes he needs to stop saying stupid childish stuff on social media. Other than that I have no problem. You are of course free to disagree, as is your right.
@@comedycompilations7748 You've gotta be kidding with this take. You honestly compare Abe to Trump? Hilarious. Your argument is so invalid and filled with fallacies it makes one's head spin.
The problem I see with this isn’t really about freedom of religion. You should be able to follow your religion. The problem is that this can allow people to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against people. It’s a really interesting case
It certainly is. The issue in this case wasn't simply using religion as an excuse to discriminate. It's whether you can be compelled to actively endorse a message contrary to your beliefs. There is a very fine line between simply serving a gay couple and making them a cake that recognizes what your religious beliefs say is not a legitimate marriage. Likewise, I don't think an event venue would be discriminating against religion if they refused to host Westboro Baptist Church. It's simply wrong to require people to be a platform for views they disagree with.
I don't think that has to be tied to religon necessarily, ppl will discriminate either because they were raised to or because their envious.
Not to say it doesn't happen, I mean look at the middle east and how they treat Gays and women. I'm just saying that you can't blame discrimination on one thing
You wouldn't force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake, would you? Would you force a Muslim baker to bake a cake defaming Muhammad? What about a Buddhist baker being forced to bake a cake mocking those trying to achieve Nirvana? Of course all of them have the right to refuse service that they don't agree with. I say that as an Atheist. I wouldn't force a Christian baker to bake me a cake that they disagreed with because, even though I disagree with their religion, I respect them enough to not do so.
The more compelling argument to me is that of an artist being free to decline commissioning of works that they don't support. If a baker has pre-made cakes anyone should be able to buy those cakes for whatever purpose, but the baker should be able to refuse any custom order for whatever reason they want. I feel that freedom of speech must include being free not to say something.
It's very related to freedom of religion if you consider that it's using the law to force someone to do something that supports activities they find morally wrong.
Taken from an artistic perspective, it not only supports the activity, but it compells "speech" (creative effort in baking, decorating and writing on a cake) that actively endorses it.
If it's a public business they should not turn them down. If it's a private businese, they should have the freedom to do so. This is the same standard we share for social media. If you don't like it, go to another platform/build your own.
People in 50 years are gonna look back at this the same way we do at people who argued against desegregation. With shock and disbelief.
I always come back to the "shoe on the other foot" principle. Should the gay atheist who owns a print shop have the right to refuse an order from a church for a huge banner saying "Homosexuality is sin"?
Except religion is ALSO a protected class, my buttblasted friend. Remember the whole “muslim ban”?
Wow awesome video! Remember hearing about this cake in 8th grade and always being interested about it in my head. This is my first time hearing about the recent update to the story with the transgender cake, really interesting.
it wasnt even a trans cake or anythin... The cake made no mention of trans stuff at all and was a cake the business owner was entirely willin to make... Until he found out the person he was makin the cake for was trans.
"Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition"
All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin for her birthday; a cake he wudve made for anyone else, but that he feels he shudnt have to make bcuz of Who he is makin the cake for... Bcuz he got an overinflated ego from partial winnin this case and believed he won the right to discriminate 9.9
Also it's called freedom of speech. A man is not a woman, the buyers could of just gone to any other bakery, but they decide to only go for this one, because it isn't about the cake, it's about political hatred, it's about revenge.
@@aroach7461 Its actually not that simple bcuz we can indeed put limitations on ones speech and we can indeed require them not to use their speech in a discriminatory way if they wish to engage in a business that serves the general public.
The example of him denyin a trans person a bday cake is one where he has NO freedom of speech argument bcuz the cake in question was a cake he was entirely willing to make; until he found out the cake buyer was a trans person.
He doesnt get to claim it stifles his freedom of creative expression (the actual freedom of speech claim in the gay weddin cake case that narrowly was allowed), bcuz he clearly stated he was willin to make the cake and only tried to back out of it when the person in question outed themself as a trans person
@@aroach7461 Per your logic btw, this cake seller wud be legally allowed to refuse to make a cake with a weddin topper that had a Black groom and a white bride; bcuz its his right to creative expression...
Except, we have a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against Black ppl in that way by refusin to serve them on the basis of their race. Just like we have a law makin it illegal to refuse to serve a Trans or a Gay person on the basis of their status as such
@@SylviaRustyFae let him discriminate, people are not forced to buy his cakes are they? Therfore the people will decide if he remains open. Do you not have faith in the people?
Besides religious people were already discriminated too, but you didn't care about that did you? No, you didn't. You only care about a specific group of people.
Men aren't women, no more then a dog is a cat.
No one should be forced to say (or write) something that they don't agree with, or promote something that they think is wrong, or get involved in something they think is sinful. Chasing this kind of thing as if it were serious and actionable discrimination will immensely cheapen the concept of discrimination, and make it harder to pursue serious discrimination cases that actually ought to be pursued.
Mr Beat should make one about the Dobbs decision
Videos like these make me want to take time out of my day to read the constitution more thoroughly to understand how our justice system works and how the SC interprets cases. For this particular case I am biased to wards the baker because of those same religious beliefs we share, but reading the comments makes me realize I need to set my biases aside and look into federal laws before even thinking about forming an opinion. I really enjoy these types of videos Mr. Beat, keep up the good work!
The Constitution is (famously) quite short; you should be able to get through it in no time.
Now, reading all the judicial precedent that goes into these decisions... that might take you a scosh longer.
@@andrewphilos True but as a US citizen I’m a bit ashamed at the fact that I haven’t at least read it from top to bottom. And the same goes for many Americans. We should take the time to study it more
Their is a huge difference between the Constitution and the legal garbage. Unfortunately the Constitution is almost totally ignored by most outside of the Supreme Court, and even they have been known to trample it on occasion. It is sickening to think anyone would force someone else to do something for them just because they think they are better.
It is important to consider that he didn’t refuse them service outright. He just wouldn’t make that specific thing. They could have bought other things. That’s what makes it not illegal discrimination for me. There’s a difference between saying “I won’t make this thing” and “I won’t serve you because of _____”
Most definitely! Thanks for bringing this up.
@@iammrbeat In fact, he even said I'd sell you a premade pure white sheet cake and let the couple design it themselves, but that wasn't what they wanted.
Bro, denying a specific service is still a kind of denying a service
"Look Mr. Jenkins, I won't sell this brand new BMW to you because I have a philosophical belief that people of your ethnicity have an inclination to not pay their car notes on time. But I will sell you this Toyota and you can buy a BMW sticker to put on it later if you like."
@@IncredibleStan LMAO
Regardless of what you think about the supreme court case, we all know damn well if a baker refused to bake a cake with a cross on it the religious rite would turn into a bunch of crybabies about it. I don’t like the same standards they set applied to them.
Hi Mr Beat! You could compare this case to a UK Supreme Court case we had here in Northern Ireland, called Lee v Ashers Baking Co (2018), which was decided just after Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist, ordered a cake from a Christian bakery for a political event supporting same-sex marriage (which was still illegal in Northern Ireland at the time). The cake was to contain the words "Support Gay Marriage" (and also had a picture of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street). The bakers refused, citing their religious beliefs.
Lee won at the County Court and the NI Court of Appeal, but Ashers (the bakers) won at the UK Supreme Court. It was unanimous, 5-0. The Court ruled that it was a matter of compelled speech, and that no-one could be forced to promote a belief or opinion they did not believe in or profoundly disagreed with.
In a postscript to the judgment, Lady Hale (President of the Supreme Court) made some remarks noting the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Here, she distinguished the two cases, noting that the bakers in Lee v Ashers did not discriminate on the grounds of Mr Lee's sexual orientation, as they would have refused to bake the cake he ordered for any customer, no matter their characteristics.
All the case details (including the written judgment, the press summary, video recordings of the arguments and the oral judgment) are here: www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2017-0020.html
P.S. I would also note something that Lady Hale says at the end of her oral judgment:
"This conclusion is not in any way to diminish the need to protect gay people and people who support gay marriage from discrimination. It is deeply humiliating and an affront to human dignity to deny someone a service because of that person's race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief. But that is not what happened in this case."
Essentially, she heavily hinted that if a case with the same facts as Masterpiece Cakeshop came before the UK Supreme Court, they would have ruled very differently from their US counterparts.
I believe in this case the baker said the same as well, that he would have refused the bake the pro same sex marriage cake for any customer. Also Mr. Beat completely got the holding wrong. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. They basically observed the commission acted with animus towards religion, thereby violating the 1st Amendment.
Lmao, this country overall is so behind our brother nations. Unacceptable that we put opinions above facts. We have so many blatantly obvious issues that are unsolved, while other countries have solved those exact issues already (some even going back half a century)
@@ilikedota5 Yeah tho as we found out when he refused to provide any cake at all to a trans person solely bcuz she was trans; turns out he rly did just want to discriminate on the basis of who they were, he just happened to find a legal loophole that let him do it the first time
"Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition"
All she wanted was a pink cake with blue frostin on it that said happy birthday. He agreed to make the cake, bcuz he didnt disagree with the artistic expression requested of him, and then he found out she was trans; so he refused to make the cake citin his religious objections to her existence...
He has no doubt refused other ppl similar cakes for similar reasons too
@@SylviaRustyFae Interesting. Taking everything as true, because I haven't looked at the court case, your comment would seem correct. That being said I have questions, because I wonder if there are factual differences between the situation. In the original case, he said he would have sold a premade cake, but not a custom cake. Did he take the same stance here? The underlying idea is that a custom cake carries implicit endorsement that an off the shelf cake does not.
Go to the 1960's tell a black person to just "use a different restroom" "go to a different cafe" "use a different water fountain" "get a different cake". Imagine how different life would be if that happened.
and people should be able to reply on this platform without having their opinion removed.
Hope you're having a great day mr beat. Love your SCB videos
Can the LGBTQ+ community just find a different baker and leave this guy alone? This Christian Conservative isn't hateful, he just knows what he believes in.
@@RetiredFreeBird I can testify to this. I live across the street from them and my experience with the guy is nothing but pleasant.
@@CheesyChez421 i lived in Lakewood and have been to the bakery there on Wads.
@@CheesyChez421 is he still open? What happened to the transgender case?
Say that to a black person in 1960s america
@@Pandtarahow does that apply to a conversation on LGBTQ stuff 🤦♂️🤦♂️
People keep comparing bakers making cakes with LGBTQA+ themes and cakes with hateful images like Nazi propaganda and the likes. These are two things no one should be comparing. I think SCOTUS was wrong personally, because I agree it promotes anti-social behaviour and like it or not being gay isn't a choice. You can't discriminate someone for something they have no control over. Using "religious freedom" as an excuse to discriminate is by definition a hateful act, because it doesn't matter why he's discriminating... he's still discriminating someone for something they can't control. Stop using religion as your excuse to be bigoted
"he's still discriminating someone for something they can't control." This is the crux of it. That was really convincing.
This was something else. The court sided with Phillips. Even though, he was protected under the 1st amendment. This was a landmark decision.
And they sided for completely different reasons than what Mr. Beat presented. Yes, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws. Basically, the commission acted with animus towards religion, and that was the grounds why there was a majority opinion with 6 Justices onboard.
He was protected under conservatives judies
@@ilikedota5 The lower courts were correct, this had nothing to do with religion or art
Wow! Why not go and get a cake from another baker?
Because the aclu offered to help them sue
Have you considered the muslim backery edition?
It seems to me it's easier for them to get away with it.
Was there a specific case?
I ask myself a similar question but the bakery could have been owned by muslim how would be the dynamics if a muslim baker would have declined this.
@@iammrbeatHave you ever looked into another issue i france. In Paris some stores owned by muslims were forced to sell pork and alcohol and some other products that are considered haram.
Here's what you left out. He was refusing to make a certain PRODUCT, not refusing certain customers. Everything he made and sold to straight people, he ALSO happily made and sold to gay people. The comparison to not serving blacks at the Woolworth's lunch counter is nonsense. It's more like serving all of your beverages to black customers but not carrying grape soda.
"Everything he made and sold to straight customers he also happily made and sold to gay people" except of course wedding cakes, so Destinctly Not everything.
@@willowwright4638 they were willing to sell them any wedding cake they would have sold to a straight couple. They were not willing to put two grounds on it. They don't do that for straight couples either. It is a product they don't make.
I'm just presenting the pertinent facts of the case that the leftist media lied through their teeth about
@@willowwright4638 Don't be dense. They were perfectly happy to sell their wedding cakes to gay people. They just didn't make cakes that had two grooms or two brides on them. The maker of this vid is lying about those details. He didn't refuse gay people's business, he refused to make certain products.
@@jbtechcon7434because of the products being about gay people though
@@cyrenia47 The fact remains that what they sell, they sell to everyone. A restaurant can't refuse to serve black people, but they CAN leave grape soda off the menu.
This case always reminds me of the very public local Nazi that lives in my area. All of his children, all by different women who all have restraining orders against him, are named after prominent Nazis. He named his daughter Ava Braun, for example. Some years ago, he went into the local grocery store and asked that a birthday cake be made out to his son, Adolf Hitler. When the store refused to make a cake that said "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler," he made some kind of ruckus and got arrested. I think that's as far as it went, though, and I may be missremembering the details.
Parents have had their children taken away from them for refusing to change their name to something not controversial. This man needs to be reported.
Wow this sounds like a huge double standard legally.
Why is a gay couple allowed to force a bakers hand to enforce their sexuality and way of life.
Yet a nazi cant do the same?
The law should be apolitical and non-biased. But it clearly isn't.
@user-ok4il2ty6i Well, as far as I know, the Nazi didn't try and take his case to the Supreme Court, so it's hard to say it's a double standard since we don't know how the Court would have ruled.
This is how this absurd case is seen from the other side.
The guy in this case made my parent’s wedding cake
I’ve met him before
Woahness
Cool. What’s he like?
@@ash_11117 he’s a nice guy
How was the cake?
Yeah sure buddy I believe you
While i completely disagree with his decision NOT to make their wedding cake, i also think that if you run a business offering a service you reserve the right to deny that service to ANYONE for ANY REASON before the payment is received.
Whether that reason is racist or homophobic or pedophilic or just because while you were talking to the customer and suddenly got Taco Bell diarrhea.
Why? Because you cannot COMPEL someone to work without pay. You cannot force a person to do work for you that they do not want to do on threat of legal punishment. Simple as that. That's called slavery.
If he wants to publicly ruin his business by being on the wrong side of history in your eyes then let him do that, but you cannot enslave him to bake you a cake by threatening legal action if he doesnt.
Here is my question…
Should a business be forced to do business with a customer?
not forced, but cant reject service on things that violate equal protections
@@LanaDelReysBabe Expect no, this is a private business that withholds the right to deny anyone service. This only applies to public/government institutions.
@@NicoTheGreat5 That’s literally not true based upon the 1964 civil rights act.
They cannot deny service based on:
Race or color, National origin or citizenship status,
Religion or creed, Sex, Age, Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information, Veteran status
FEDERALLY
@@LanaDelReysBabe If you read the act, it explicitly mentions discrimination in schools and PUBLIC accommodations. Aswell as on the basis of employment. It does not prevent private businesses from denying service to a buying customer.
@@NicoTheGreat5 Buddy boy public accommodations is literally any business/organization that someone can walk into that is involved in interstate commerce. It’s not debatable like at all. They can discriminate if you’re un-merited, threat of security, unfit dress code, public disturbance, etc, but not on something that you cannot control.
Just incase you don’t believe me, here’s the civil rights act of 1964, article 2
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence; (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station; (3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.
42 U.S.C. § 2000a(c) (c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce, and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any state or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
you might say this case really takes the cake
The 7-2 ruling is rather telling considering that the Court was (barely)split 5-4 during this time.
The most telling part was the last case covered in this video (which the baker lost)
I hate it when people use their religion to try and hide their bigotry
Same
Then you would consider Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha, Jews, Moses, Mahatma Gandhi, Catholics or anyone religious person a bigot? You have your right to post your opinion. Does that make you a bigot?
@@jeffjenkins7979 I never said that
He offered them other cakes, they refused. They wanted a special custom cake made by someone who’s religion prohibits it. They are clowns.
The key questions for me are what are and aren't rights. Does a couple getting married have a right to a cake? Is a business owner running a personal enterprise, or a for-profit public service? If he'd refused them service for any other reason (he suspected they wouldn't pay, he didn't have cake toppers with the right hair color, he was too busy with other cakes to take on new clients at the moment) would it have gone the same way? Where does their right to a cake run into his right to run his business the way he wants? I'm afraid this ruling still didn't answer those key questions.
The lack of specificity is something that seems to be a common theme for the court under Roberts. They give a lot of opinions that focus so narrowly on the case at hand it leaves everyone else back to square one for anything related to the case.
I enjoy a lot of the videos on the topic by another creator Hoag Law, who is a lawyer aside from UA-cam. He definitely has some bias and political leanings, but I find that like Mr Beat he tends to try and keep his presentation as unbiased as can be. I think he did this case, but it is some of the more historical cases that I found the most interesting.
I don’t think the government should be telling him what he believes is right or wrong. It’s his decision what he believes is right or wrong not the government.
Feel like this case and this controversy is very complicated. Imagine if a Jewish/Israeli American has a poster store, and someone comes in and say “I want a poster that say free Palestine”. Is that business obliged to serve that request? Or are they allowed to refuse requests that are against their personal beliefs?
While i know many jewish families that would support this request even in israel. Most of them are sekulär jews.
@@paxundpeace9970 that’s really not the point. Imagine for this scenario that you have a Zionist that support israel. Are they obliged to make a product that say free Palestine?
In that case, it's a political statement, not a protected category.
@@andrewphilos whether you support gay marriage is a political statement too. If someone came in and said “hi I’m gay and I want a birthday cake”, I’m sure the baker would say “absolutely, happy birthday!”
@@andrewphilosGay marriage was not even legal in Colorado at the time of this incident so baking a cake for a gay wedding could definelty be classed as a political action.
Personally I think a company that doesn't provide a lifesaving service like pharmaceuticals should be able to choose who they can and can't do business with
But what if I am a disabled black man and the only wheelchair company in my city doesn’t want to sell me a wheelchair and I’m unable to travel somewhere else or pay for one to be delivered?
@hydromic2518 I'd consider wheelchairs under that label
You Americans have no respect for minorities.
Eh, yeah. But can food be considered a lifesaving service? Every person needs to eat and drink, after all. Cake and desserts, probably not, but what about grocery stores and normal restaurants?
@@ruthkatz1998except in reality this will never be applied equally. No business is going to refuse straight people. It’s unacceptable for certain members of society to have to fear being denied service because of who they are.
We had a very similar case in the U.K. called Lee v Ashers Bakery 2018.
Gareth Lee asked Ashers Bakery in 2014 to bake a cake with ‘Support Gay Marriage’ message decorated on the top. Ashers Bakery refused.
- U.K. High court= Ashers
- U.K. Supreme Court= Ashers
- European Court of Human Rights= Ashers
This video was not about what the cake says. This baker also refused to sell a cake to someone that said Happy Birthday
W COURT
@@mrsatire9475nope.
My opinion: Making a custom cake is art, and thus protected by the first amendment, but premade, and undecorated cakes are a commodity, and protected by anti-discrimination laws
Respectable, but you cant really force people to do things they dont want.
A few interesting questions that come up for me:
- Does it matter whether or not the baker already offers customized cakes as a menu item?
- Is the decision to not bake the cake the same as not decorating the cake? For example: he offered them the opportunity to buy any other pre-made cake, but had they asked him to bake a plain, fresh wedding tower cake so that they could simply stick two male figurines on it afterwards and he said no, would that constitute discrimination?
- Was his later case in 2023 the exact same issue? The description makes it sound like he flat out refused service to the transgender person as opposed to refusing to make their style of cake.
Suppose there is only one Grocer’s shop in town…..can the Christian owner refuse to sell Groceries to the Gay couple ?
@suzerain840 since when have Bakers considered “artists”?
So can a Christian Catering company refuse to cater for a Gay Wedding?
@suzerain840 there is no comparison to Hindu being asked to slaughter a cow. Nor is the baker or caterer being asked to anything sacrilegious
They are being asked to practice their craft…..which they sell.
The problem is they don’t like the person buying.
If you sell a service, you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against other people…..because of their colour of their skin or who they sleep with.
@@TheJalipa "since when have Bakers considered “artists”?" Bruh, you should probably calm down before posting stuff like this.
Nice video as usual Mr. Beat. Would you be interested in doing the case 303 creative v. Elenis, which was a broader case about a Christian website designer refusing to make a wedding website that advertised a gay wedding. This case was exclusively about the free speech clause of the First Amendment and had no effect on the Free Exercise clause.
He had at least some barely reasonable grounds to justify how makin a weddin cake for a gay weddin goes against his beliefs bcuz its participatin in a gay weddin which he disagrees with.....
But there is absolutely zero reasonable grounds to justify just not makin a cake for a trans person, any cake at all
"Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition"
That makes it not just him havin freedom of expression, he is allowed such after all and was freely willin to express such until he found out Who he was makin a cake for. Thats 100% discrimination based on a protected class and theres no weasel room around it here.
If this case ends up at SCOTUS and they pull the same shite again; just know that it will cement the two cases as bringin about a return to the way things were in the "separate but equal" era, but with a diff class of ppl bein deemed allowed to be kept separate and refused service solely bcuz of who they are
The refusal to make the cake was not against the couples believes, it for FOR the bakers religious standing.
The cake was not any different to one that a straight couple would request. Phillips refused to make ANY kind of wedding cake for them.
This is a clear-cut example of discrimination, service was refused (with a thinly veiled excuse) based on the couple's identity. Justice Ginsburg points this out pretty clearly in her dissent.
Except he offered them a pre-made cake. So it isn't discrimination. It's him exercising his free speech
He wouldn't have made a pro gay marriage cake regardless of who asked. Even though a straight couple wouldn't ask for a cake with a gay couple on them, a straight person could ask for a cake with a pro gay marriage message, and he would have refused that. So its not directly about the identity. Now maybe you say that doesn't matter, but that's an argument to be had.
Not exactly, he offered them off the shelf options, just not to make something gay themed.
@@aa_battery7 free speech to do what, exactly?
@drmajalis1583 to excerise your opinions and thoughts without fear of government restriction or punishment. Like burning a flag for example because you protest a war
I respect gay rights and have championed them for years, but a business should be able to refuse business as I view a business, especially a sole proprietorship, as having the same rights as a person. That being said, why refuse customers isn’t that hurting your business?
Should be allowed to deny services to people of different skin colors or of other religious beliefs as well?
@@fiskersproductions if someone owns a house and they don’t want someone there, they shouldn’t be forced to let them in. And I think our capitalism will weed out the a holes out there by if they turn you away don’t go there no more go somewhere else and hopefully that business will suffer and close. Hopefully society evolves and this type of stuff becomes a none issue.
@@fiskersproductions "Should be allowed to deny services to people of different skin colors or of other religious beliefs as well?" Yes, why not? Are you afraid of other people's identities and lifestyles? Also if a need is not satisfied, capitalists will run to satisfy it, as long as the state doesn't force people to do things against their will which ruins free markets.
I'm personally with the masterpiece cakeshop on being allowed to deny service that goes against his religious/philosophical beliefs. It bothers me that a court is able to tell a business when they're allowed to accept or refuse business at a time where the topic is polarizing and political. Plus I can't see how it would be good business for the masterpiece cakeshop owner to deny anyone associated with the LGBT+ community in Lakewood/Denver 😅
It was the custom part as well, he offered them a generic one off the shelf instead. That was the whole expression arguement.
Queer people’s rights are more important than people’s religious beliefs.
@@zoeybarter3246 Thanks for a meaningless statement. Mind expanding on that so we can conversate? It's obvious I disagree but I would like to hear your POV in little more detail.
Here's my first question, what are rights that queer people don't have that everyone else does have? I'm not trying to formulate a gotcha, unlike a lot of conversatives. I'm just curious since I haven't heard a good answer to this question yet.
I also believe you're in the wrong for suggesting it's "more important". The government shouldn't force it onto me to accept queer people and what they push for, just like how I think the government shouldn't tell you how you should live your life, especially according to any religious document, and how you choose to express/identify. For example, all the local courts telling the cakeshop owner that he has to conform to the request of the gay couple.
Hope to hear back
This case is another example of how the 14th amendment and 1st amendment can clash.
But I do think this case was the wrong decision, yes you have free speech, but you shouldn’t use your freedom to infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. And this decision opens the door not only for religious discrimination against sexual minorities but potentially even discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities.
I wonder how this case would’ve gone down if he refused service to an interracial couple instead if a gay couple.
Excellent and we'll nuanced video as always, M. Beat.
Unfortunately, the job of a judge is to interpret the laws regardless of their personal opinions. I find it hard.to believe that justices Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer and Kahan, who have a history of advocating for LGBT rights, wanted this outcome.
I hope this issue is dealt with by the people, and it looks like it is.
As for the Hobby Lobby decision which is also about religion freedom vs. civil liberties, I have no words.
Thank you Alon. Yeah it's definitely a case where you have to separate reason from emotion. I know they struggled with their decision. Regarding the Hobby Lobby decision....I hear you. :/ I hope to release that episode soon as well!
Except that’s not actually how judges operate. Everyone makes decisions based on their personal opinions, doesn’t matter how much legalese you dress it up in.
@@zoeybarter3246 Of course.ideolofy is almost always involved, but I believe the Justices, at least at the time, at least tried to be fair in their decisions.
Ah yes, justice roberts, the gay rights activist who famously also voted against Obergefell?
The reason why the majority opinion had 6 of them, was because they punted, they ruled in favor of the baker, but for entirely different reasons. "By failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution" - taken from the Wikipedia page. The commission acted with animus towards religion. This case had like 3 concurring opinions, because the court punted on the greater questions of 1st Amendment vs anti-discrimination laws.
Ask yourself this: Would you be okay with a business refusing service to black person based on religious beliefs? If not, then you shouldn't be okay with this either
There aren't religious beliefs that constitute "don't bring service to black people." So it's a false equivalent.
He refused service for the type of cake they asked him to do, and he has a right to refuse as he has both his religious beliefs and artistic freedom.
Besides, why would you force someone who doesn't agree with your way of being to bake a cake, when there are plenty of other buisness that are more than happy to do it?
Yes I would be ok with that. People shouldn’t have to associate with anyone they don’t want to.
@@GottlikeDamonthere isn't also religious beliefs that say you can't make a cake for a gay wedding. Plus, it doesn't fucking matter whether it exists or not currently. A person could literally state their personal religion says so at any time and this would count. I could do that exact thing right now.
The reason they went for the court is because you can force someone to not receive service for their way of being (which actually is a fact to be apart of their being vs a religious belief which is not apart of their being because they can literally change it)
@@GottlikeDamon You are objectively wrong. Why? Because you can easily create a religion that does. Also a person can use "philosophical" reasons to not sell to a black person. So you are wrong
@@GottlikeDamon But there is no religion that says "don't bring service to a gay couple" either. That man's bible says nothing about selling a wedding cake to a gay couple.
Jack should have just kept his word and closed down the shop. Otherwise, his words were simply meaningless (and just made for the validation from his peers).
Heh heh yeah you have a good point
or the couple should've just went to another shop and moved on with their lives. I think the word for filing a lawsuit over cake and someone's religious beliefs is being a Karen? All a matter of perspective.
@@samuelhong4272the store owner filled a lawsuit about.
He ran to the supreme court.
I think they shouldn't have taken it on.
Because the supreme court is and was baised.
@@paxundpeace9970 rewatch the video?
my religious belief is that i don't have to give services to "non white people"
what's the difference between that and this?
😐
If this baker wanted to celebrate his supreme court victory by going to a bakery and ordering a cake that said "Congratulations on Winning Your Supreme Court Case" but the bakery he went to was owned by a lesbian couple who refused to make this cake as they said it would offend them, should the lesbian couple be forced make the celebratory cake anyway?
Any company has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
They should be forced to as this man should have been forced to. But given that the Supreme Court said otherwise no they shouldn’t have had to (in this hypothetical scenario). If the court isn’t going to protect your rights, comply with their rulings maliciously.
@@patrickian8843that’s absolutely not true.
This happened also in Northern Ireland which involved the UK Supreme Court
A baker or any other business could just say 'no' to any customer, without giving a reason, right?
So why he didn't just do that?
Right. Just say we are slammed and can't get to you. Don't make it a hill to die on.
Iirc he didn't outright refuse to do business with them he just said no to baking a custom cake specifically for the couples wedding. So I'm guessing in his eyes it probably didn't seem like a huge deal at the time.
@@applejhon8308 He's not that religious, he just doesn't like LGBT
I continue to support you covering _Coleman v. Miller_ in the future.
nice seeing you here sam
Right on
I don't know if this guy was the sole owner and employee of his own business (LLC) like the web site designer was but any business model where "the business" and "the owner" are seen as separate entities by law should not be able to use personal religious beliefs to be able to bypass laws. The Constitution gives people the freedom to practice (or not) whatever religion they want but it does not give businesses that freedom.
I find this entire case so bizarre. It's your business, you should be able to deny your service to anyone, for any reason. If somebody compels you to serve someone against your own will, isn't that forced labor, after all?
That’s not what forced labour means & that’s not how businesses work.
Here's the best way to understand the ruling through two examples:
If a straight person asks you to bake a Gay wedding cake, you can deny because *the cake* goes against your beliefs.
If a gay person asks you to bake a non-specific wedding cake, you cannot deny because *the person* goes against your beliefs.
Funny how “religious freedom” seems to often be used as a defense for discrimination. Wasn’t that argument also used in a lot of racial discrimination cases? One wonders how people can keep pulling that off when religious beliefs have no basis in objective, independently verifiable facts.
Technically speaking, the basis for abrahamic beliefs came from god(that is if your of those 3 religons) so if you are religious, your views are as objective as they can get. Even if you aren't, the United States was build upon Judeo Christian beliefs, so they also hold some sort of ground here as well.
People are saying that in the lens of history this will be like racism but that’s just not true. The Bible never defends racism and you could potentially even find some verses that are against it. The same just isn’t true for LGBT “Leviticus 20:13” The Supreme Court made the right call.
Yeah using religious freedoms for racial cases were and still are quite frankly really stupid especially since it's not a sin to be black or to interracial marriages. Keep in mind however it is a sin to be a homosexual although surprisingly it seems that Jesus Christ does not have an issue with lesbians and only homosexuals only. But I'm not sure if that means being gay is a sin but being lesbian is not. If anyone is seeing this comment is it true that in Christianity it's a sin to be gay but it's not a sin to be Lesbian?
I don’t think you all understand what “objective” means. Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster:
• Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
• Of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
• Involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
• Perceptible to persons other than the affected individual
@trevinbeattie4888 I'll admit to being a bit unclear with my wording, but I am still technically right. Objectivism is to speak cold hard logic without influence by feelings or opinions. I was saying that if you are a follower of one of the abrahamic religions, then what God says is objective, because as it is said numerous times, as god is perfect. There no feelings or opinions in what he says, as he is perfect.(this is once again worded poorly I know but I hope you see what I mean)
The real question is whether we will find out that Philips has been gifting free cakes to Clarence Thomas
Oh snap
Didn’t the court rule that freedom of religion does not protect from breaking law when out of religious reasons two Native Americans smoked marijuana? Considering the unanimous lower court rulings this trial seems more like a political agenda, a precursor to what has followed since.
I don't like it. If the ADF were defending Philips because making a wedding cake for a interracial couple violated his religious liberty, freedom of speech, and artistic expression, we wouldn't be having this conversation. This is tacit consent by SCOTUS to discriminate against same sex couples, and it's not cool.
This is one of the few things I have a hard stance on. If it's something you can't choose, like race or sexuality, it should be protected under anti discrimination laws.
Well said. Of course, religious nuts will start to argue it's a choice, not something you are born with.
@@johnjones3813 well, it is a private business, if it was like the postal service i’d understand but it’s a fucking bakery it really wasn’t that serious.
I wish you were my geography teacher MrBeat!
Well at least I can be your UA-cam geography teacher. :)
@@iammrbeat Aw Shucks! That just makes me even happier!
Businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone just like customers should be able to protest against them. The real question is if these businesses receive government money should they loose that right to refuse service? If so much of our economy relies on government stimulus then at what point are these businesses no longer private actors. Another point is should insurance and banks have control over what businesses due and say? 🤷♂️
based comment and based STALKER profile picture
The problem with that is that there are places where literally every business would refuse service to certain demographics if they were legally allowed to do so
@@EnigmaticLucas I agree completely and you already see that with certain communities and zoning practices with who people hire and other factors. Either way you go with the ruling the better option is to build a society that has freedom to be ignorant but chooses to pursue virtue and fosters that not by a regime but a community.
I just realised these videos are exactly the same as the corresponding chapters in your book 🤯
I am a married gay man, and I will say, the Supreme Court got it absolutely right with this one. Why would someone want to patronize someone that is against your marriage anyway? I personally would have simply said "Have a nice day" and would have gone elsewhere.
It's amazing how much time and effort Jack put into appeals, when he could have just made the dang cake, received their money, and moved on. My best assumption on WHY he did it: his business makes the headlines, and he receives lots of support (and therefore business) from other Christians who think he is "taking a stand" against homosexuals.
It's a similar concept I see all the time online: a music artist decides to take a stand against something , for example wokeness, and floods of comments come in saying, "I've never heard of this guy before but now I'm going to buy all his albums!! 🥴"
Despite the artist often being mediocre. 😇Just sayin'...
And then you have Taylor Swift who makes a splash by dint of her work and then cashes in by exposing/counterexploiting the music industry.
That's a pretty good balance. Thank goodness for her calls on the industry to reform.@@SamAronow
why he didn't, not why he did
Yes, left and right this occurs.
As a gay i just want to be able to be treated the same as straight people. Straights dont have to ask beforeahand if they are comfortable with their marriage, why should I? I also find it weird that if i was a cake maker i would be forced to make christian cakes even if im not religious. Its just wild
This whole thing just further devalues gay marriage
Discrimination is NOT religious freedom!
Seriously it's like saying you can discriminate against black people and interracial couples because of religious beliefs (which people very much did use to justify states banning interracial marriage)
I think he would allow the gay couple to buy one of his generic wedding cakes but he didn’t want to make a gay design on the gay cake- he didn’t want to artistically express that on the cake
Sounds like it's discrimination on both sides to me. The colorado court and the appeals court as well as charlie and David are discriminating against phillips by forcing him to bake a cake despite it going against his religious beliefs where as Phillips was discriminating against david and Charlie by refusing to bake them a cake due to their sexual orientation. However at the end of the day Charlie and David had a choice they could have taken their businesse elsewhere however phillips is not being given a choice.
I hate the idea of someone being forced to do something or else. That is oppressive.
It is not when the fact that someone doesn't want to do something is just based on bigotry and hatred.
@@blahajlucie uh you do realize that the homosexual couple is basically forcing him to go against his religion you're really not going to say that's hatred
So if he denied every black person service it would be ok?
@@suspicioususer not at all. I'm sure if you were a baker and someone came in and asked you to make a swastika cake you would deny it. Which you have every right to. He wasn't refusing them service because they were gay. He refused to make and design a cake that went against his religious views. He even offered them to buy a generic cake which they denied. You can't force someone to make something they disagree with.
@@clipvault9405 he was literally refusing cuz they were gay tho? he would have made it if they were straight
even if its 'religious reasons' the reason is still that they were gay
I'm glad those cry bullies lost. He was actually willing to sell them a premade cake just not the one they wanted and they did what everyone said they should have done in the end, go to another bakery. What gets to me is the retaliatory nature of the complaint after they were still able to get what they were after in the end.
So they should also be able to turn away mentally impaired people, or mixed race couples. Right?
@@TheHomerowKeys No one was arguing those things in this case.
Yeah totally the real issue are the people being denied services that he would 10000% provide for a straight wedding cake and no they didn't get services they wanted they had to leave
You people will never understand how it feels to have a wedding then having to Google what places to avoid because they can legally deny u wedding cakes
@@sandersGG They got a cake and were provided with the resources, in house mind you, to decorate it themselves, sorted.
Also, to your second part, dump the victim mindset, it's no way to live.
This case is tough, but I lean toward the couple who wanted a cake. Now the baker wants to refuse service to a transgender person, and another case (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, decided June 2023) upheld the right of a wedding website designer to refuse to serve same-sex couples. I can see someone refusing to serve a mixed race couple, interfaith couple, or a bat or bar mitzvah claiming religious freedom. It is pretty easy to say your religious beliefs are the reason, even if the real reason is prejudice. Public accommodations should serve everyone.
Queer people’s rights are more important than someone’s religious beliefs quite frankly.
Didn’t this decision also say something about the Commission “showing hostility to Phillips’ religion” or something like that?
“Yes, gay people should be protected from discrimination, but they also shouldn’t be…sometimes. If god tells you to, it’s ok.”
It’s really telling that they’re just paying lip service to the first question they had to consider. What does anti-discrimination ordinance meaningfully do if it can’t prevent unequal access to public accommodations based on even simple “philosophical” objections to someone’s sexual orientation?
Recently (303 Creative v Elenis) a Christian organization funded a random web designer, who took the identities of two straight men that didn’t even know each other and claimed they were trying to force her to make a gay website that violated her religious freedoms. The Supreme Court bogglingly sided with her. Safe to say the people worried this case would set a bad precedent were right.
(Also the fact that the couple just quietly stopped caring and lived happy lives while the cake maker spiraled into a fixated campaign to change even more laws says a lot about this case and who potentially had alternative motives.)