The Gay Wedding Cake Case | Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 авг 2023
- In episode 75 of Supreme Court Briefs, a baker refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, which leads to a big national debate between religious freedom and civil rights.
Produced by Matt Beat and Beat Productions, LLC. All images/video by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by @Dyalla.
Mr. Beat's Supreme Court Briefs playlist: • Supreme Court Briefs
Here's an annotated script with footnotes: docs.google.com/document/d/1B...
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
Other sources used:
www.scotusblog.com/case-files...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterp...
www.aclu.org/cases/masterpiec...
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
www.nationalreview.com/bench-...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @iammrbeat
For business inquiries or to send snail mail to Mr. Beat:
www.iammrbeat.com/contact.html
/ iammrbeat
How to support and donate to my channel:
Subscribe to @iammrbeat & hit the notification bell 🔔
Join for great perks on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate to Mr. Beat on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat a coffee: ko-fi.com/iammrbeat
Cameo: www.cameo.com/iammrbeat
Subscribe to my second channel: The Beat Goes On
Patreon for The Beat Goes On: / thebeatgoeson
Connect with me:
Links: linktr.ee/iammrbeat
Website: www.iammrbeat.com/
Podcast: anchor.fm/thebeatpod
Reddit: / mrbeat
@beatmastermatt on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Facebook: / iammrbeat
Instagram: / iammrbeat
Beatcord: / discord
TikTok: / iammrbeat
Merch:
matt-beat-shop.fourthwall.com/
www.bonfire.com/store/mr-beat/
sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
amzn.to/3fdakiZ
Affiliate Links:
Useful Charts: usefulcharts.com/?aff=12
Fourthwall: link.fourthwall.com/MrBeat
StreamYard: streamyard.com/pal/d/52723408...
#supremecourtcases #supremecourtbriefs #supremecourt
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission highlighted the tensions between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. More accurately, it highlighted the tensions between Christians and the LGBTQ+ community. Despite all the progress the LGBTQ+ community has made in recent decades, it’s a community that millions of Americans still refuse to accept.
While Charlie Craig and David Mullins never liked the spotlight and have kept a low profile ever since this decision, Jack Phillips has become somewhat of an activist. He later got in trouble for breaking the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act again for refusing to bake a cake for a transgender person. On January 26, 2023, Phillips lost that case in the Colorado Court of Appeals.
While the Court said that gay couples still should have civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and even philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected forms of “expression.” That said, this decision was narrow. The Court did not address the broader question of whether or not businesses had a constitutional right to discriminate against same-sex couples. Still, critics said this decision could lead to further discrimination against marginalized groups under the guise of religious freedom.
Did the Court get it correct with this decision?
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 probably should have mentioned this, yes.
@@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
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.
I really do enjoy these supreme court briefs. My favorite series.
@Fifi_03 ?
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
Yeah, I also have a tough time with this case. Being able to balance anti-discrimination with the First Amendment is extremely difficult. The outcomes of cases like this will probably depend on what party is in control of the Supreme Court at the time.
That's the most iconclusive answer.
before i retired i was self employed i had gay and lesbian clients. these people were very wealthy and had enough dignity and self respect not to pull a stunt like this. if anyone ever demanded that i do something for them then they were no longer a customer. i didn't make a scene i just blocked their number and ignored them. these two characters are nothing more. then the alphabet people equivalent of race hustlers.
Not sure on that. I honestly have to say I was shocked when I saw it was 7-2. Kegen and Kennedy joined the conservatives on this one. I have to be honest that reading about the decision previously I did not catch on to the the "artistic expression" part, so kudos to Mr. Beats for pointing that nuance out. I'm guessing if he had refused to sell them even a blank cake they would have sided with the couple saying that was just discrimination.
??
@@sirclarkmarz
Yknow, I could understand your sentiment until that last sentence. Then I realized you’re just an asshole.
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.
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!
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
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
Supreme Court briefs is one of my personal favorite types of videos to watch on RUclips.
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.
Hope you're having a great day mr beat. Love your SCB videos
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.
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.
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
The line is you can't force someone to make an artistic expression that goes against their fundamental beliefs. However, you cannot deny giving public, already made goods to someone. The cake the couple asked for would have been custom made for something the baker did not support. Forcing the baker to do so would be compelled speech.
@@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.
@@ImaginaryIndividual so you're saying he refused to make an artistic expression for something he fundamentally disagreed with. You can't force someone to make artwork for something they don't agree with. He offered them the Pre-made cakes. Are you saying a gay baker must make a cake for the Westboro baptist church as long as it's a "normal" cake even though it's a form of artistic expression?
@@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.
@@ImaginaryIndividual a wedding... At the Westboro baptist church. I think they should be able to deny that tbh. Personally I don't think you need to devote time and effort towards something that you fundamentally disagree with.
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.
@@Godslayer5656this
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.
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
@@iammrbeat You are the 🐐.
@@iammrbeatgreat job of explaining the case as always. There is already related cases. One has been decided based on this precedent based on website development even though the facts were misrepresented. That would make a good follow up
video. There are health related cases that have not yet made their way up to SCOTUS. For example, several states allow pharmacists to use religious beliefs to not fill prescriptions and TN passed a law allowing for mental health care to be denied based on religious beliefs. This is far more than just baking a cake.
@@RachaelMarieNewportOh dang. You mind sending me that link for the mental health case?
I enjoy all of Mr. Beat's content (especially the livestreams!) but the Brief series might be my favorite. Mr. Beat gives you the facts as they are and lets you decide. I owe my love of history and social studies to a fantastic teacher I had in 8th grade - shout out to Mr. Rutledge! - and Mr. Beat reminds me very much of him.
this are not the facts, he left out the very important point that the baker refused to do their custom cake NOT cause they were gay but the item they wanted done was against his religion, baker said he could do something else or sell them an already made cake and they could write the words they wanted
you mean he omits everything that makes him look like a moron.
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.
I found you channel bc I misspelled mrbeast but I'm glad I misspelled c:
LOL!!
You know this whole case would’ve been over if they just went into another Bakery
They did lol
@@iammrbeatthose same mfkrs are the ones who whined and scream about wearing a mask 😷
And they still decided to sue masterpiece cakeshop
And all the Civil Rights sit ins could have been avoided if all the black people simply went to a different restaurant.
@@franciscoacevedo3036 So you’re saying that wearing masks in the face of a global pandemic was unnecessary? Are you going to next say the masks were suffocating? 🙄
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.
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?
You are my All-Out-Favorite RUclips Channel! 😊
Question: Because of You, I plan to subscribe to "Ground News" . I forget if there is a Code, or other way to Give You Credit for it? You were my only source to learn about it.
(I shall praise you more later)
I
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.
Mr Beat should make one about the Dobbs decision
Bro I literally just read this in your book thank you
A very simple explanation to a very complex case. Great job Mr. Beat!
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
It's a private business. The owner shouldn't be compelled to do anything. Having a government decide who a business is required to serve is a bad idea for many reasons. Of course, the owner should also bear the consequences of his decision. Perhaps people would not go to his shop if they disagreed with him. Perhaps people would protest against him and raise awareness of what he did. These are also perfectly reasonable consequences and what likely would have happened here. Not everything needs to be decided by legislation and lawsuits.
Problem is many people have a very short term focus on the issue they care about and ignore unintended consequences. They forget that the system as a whole can one day turn against them using the same laws and ideas they championed. A system that can 'fix' everything will do it eventually. Today the system is on your side but tomorrow not so much. People don't process that minor detail. They think that if the system stood up for them once its gonna do it again and again. They tend to overestimate how important they are.
@@florinivan6907 A free market always will try to satisfy other people's needs, the only things it does "as a whole" is trying to diversify. An unfree market will always find excuses to enslave people. Today it's a cake for gays, tomorrow it's working at a gulag for the nation.
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.
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.
I think it should be important to note (although you are still welcome to disagree with Jack Phillips) that he told the couple he would sell them anything else, including a pre-made wedding cake. So it seems as though it's not about the person(s) but using his art to create something to celebrate a particular event that goes against his beliefs. He also didn't make halloween cakes, erotic cakes or anything conveying a demeaning message to people (including gays). Likewise in the trans gender case, it wasn't just a birthday cake but a cake to celebrate their gender transition. Again fill free to disagree with him, but these are important details.
No, it has nothing to do with art or religion ... just discrimination
It’s baffling to me that you people are willing to buy these flimsy excuses. It was absolutely about the people.
I hate it when people use their religion to try and hide their bigotry
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 actually was able to watch all of the Supreme Court briefs while assembling my new furniture from scratch
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.
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.
I just realised these videos are exactly the same as the corresponding chapters in your book 🤯
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.
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.
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.
This court case resembles an episode of The Good Wife so much, I'm convinced it served as inspiration for this case, especially considering the case's fake origins.
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 RUclips. 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.
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
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.
my religious belief is that i don't have to give services to "non white people"
what's the difference between that and this?
😐
This happened also in Northern Ireland which involved the UK Supreme Court
I continue to support you covering _Coleman v. Miller_ in the future.
nice seeing you here sam
Right on
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
Great video mr beat keep it up
If a straight couple asked him to make a cake depicting a gay wedding and he refused, then theres not discrimination. It's not about who he is selling to, but what the cake itself is.
Conversely, if he had refused to sell the same cake to a gay couple that he would have sold to a straight couple, then he would have been guilty.
Neither was true here. No one should be compelled to make a product available. People saying he refused to make custom cakes is not correct. He refused to make a specific custom cake.
It’s extremely ironic that Colorado wanted to force someone to cater to a same-sex wedding when same-sex marriage was still illegal in the state.
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.
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.
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 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
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 glad you covered this one. This may be a bad opinion, and I would love for you to weigh in on it if you can.
I'm sort of on the fence about this one. On one hand it protects a group that I deeply support. On the other hand I don't like the government forcing buissness to abide by non health rules. I personally believe that as the culture shifts protections like this may be unnecessary as the market will sort itself. If enough people take issue with them not serving a minority then they will lose the appropriate amount of buissness based on cultural expectations.
With this rule it also forcibly conceals a person's bigotry. If I want to buy a cake, I don't want to buy it from someone who will use it for malicious purposes. And if enough people feel the same way then they will lose buissness and would either have to change themselves or fail from market forces.
The "free market" rarely protects minorities. We'd probably still have slavery in the south
The market never solves anything, that’s a lie that conservative economists came up with.
Shoutout to Jack Philips🫡
I wish you were my geography teacher MrBeat!
Well at least I can be your RUclips geography teacher. :)
@@iammrbeat Aw Shucks! That just makes me even happier!
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.
Love these briefs.
Businesses can refuse service purely because they choose to. The mistake the cake shop owner made was in explaining his reasoning for it. I don’t think anyone should be forced to do anything, and buying a wedding cake from a cake shop is not a civil liberty it’s a service offered by cake shop owners. If they don’t like that he refuses them service they can go somewhere else. But the fact that he disclosed his ideological reasoning is what makes it discriminatory, thus he deserved to be sued for discrimination.
I don’t believe religious freedom allows anyone to discriminate, but I also don’t believe that a business service should ever be compulsory.
Suppose there is only one Grocer’s shop in town…..can the Christian owner refuse to sell Groceries to the Gay couple ?
No. The cake was custom made. Something the video neglected to mention, egregiously so, is that the baker offered them any one of the Pre-made cakes. So no, a grocer cannot deny Pre-made goods to someone but an artist can deny a commission that goes against their beliefs.
@@suzerain840 since when have Bakers considered “artists”?
So can a Christian Catering company refuse to cater for a Gay Wedding?
@@TheJalipa since they made the cake from scratch and put a design on it. Whether you like it or not, that's artistic expression.
With the catering company, it'd likely depend. If it was a chef that made every meal, probably. Or a catering company for catholic weddings. But they would also deny civil unions, marriages where they want no kids, and those that had been previously divorced. There's much less of an artistic expression with catering though so I could see it either way.
But what you're asking for is requiring people to commit sacrilege. You wouldn't ask a hindu to slaughter a cow for your wedding. You wouldn't force a Muslim to depict Muhammad on a 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.
@@TheJalipa marriage is a sacrament. Supporting gay marriage is sacrilegous. Making a cake for a gay marriage is supporting it, even if it's a small amount. At the very least it's scandal communicating to people "Oh this is okay to Christians." Would a Muslim artist with open commissions have to fulfill the request of a gay person to draw Muhammad having relations with another man? By your logic, it'd be yes.
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.
I’m surprised this didn’t go further to mention a recent case related this one (303 Creative LLC v. Elenis).
Tbh I am not that familiar with this case. I shall learn more, though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
@@iammrbeat As my previous comment, "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."
And the reason why they punted? Well let me explain, it comes down to whether the product offered is speech or not. For example, if I had a laptop I wanted to sell you, there is no speech involved. Any speech is incidental. The thing I'm selling you is fundamentally a useful object. Its not an artistic or expressive thing. And the cake has both utilitarian (be a delicious cake) and expressive/speech elements (send a message about gay marriage). And those can't be separated out. So its a line drawing exercise. For purely utilitarian things, or at least products that is mostly utilitarian such that the speech is incidental, we have plenty of precedent compelling business. Because there isn't a 1st Amendment interest. Thus this wasn't a clean case.
303 Creative LLC v Elenis was a better case because the website designer there was selling websites, a pure speech product. Its literally words on a page. There is no utilitarian aspect. In that case, they even discussed why plug and play templates wouldn't be acceptable constitutionally because of implied endorsement, and it still being compelled speech nonetheless.
@@iammrbeat You're welcome! I'm a huge fan of your videos, especially the "Compared" series.
I still don't understand why so many people fight so hard to give their money to bigots, but still, great video.
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'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
Are you able to do a Manhattan and Brooklyn compared video?
I don't know if youve already made it but I want to see one on NCAA v. Alston in regards to the name image likeliness regulations of the NCAA.
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.
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.
I genuinely thought that you used a picture of Joel Haver and his friend as a stand in for the couple in the beginning.
Have you done a video on Chevron yet?? You should!!!!!
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 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.
You should do the next Supreme Court Brief on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents!
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.
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.
I believe the court was incorrect with this decision. Disclaimer I am bad at explaining stuff.
All the civil rights act within the state and federal level indicates that people's sexual orientation should not be a cause of discriminatory treatment.
Despite the fact that gay marriage was illegal in Colorado, the baker's response to the couple as to why he won't serve was because of his religious beliefs and not because wasn't of the law. In the first court, he clearly stated a disdain of gay people when he rather lose his economic source than to serve gay people. Additionally the other court case he was involved in and lost most likely indicates his unwillingness to serve was based on bigotry rather than religion.
Plus it is extremely dangerous to set the rules so that an act of discrimination can be justified because of the amendment protecting religious freedom. However many religious people may also be misguided to believe that their other beliefs may be infringed upon. So a compromise should be where the basic the sentiment is "You can practice your religion all you want as long as it does lead to discrimination, it does not violate equal rights laws, and it does not lead to involuntary injury.
I also go back and forth on this one
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.
you might say this case really takes the cake
Would the baker make a cake for an atheist heterosexual couple? Is the baker Catholic? What if one of the couple is remarrying? What if the couple are ex-convicts? What if one is an adult model or actor? What if the couple is Jewish? Muslim? How far does the "against my religion" argument work? I guess as far as the government lets it.
religions only exist as an excuse for people to be terrible.
The baker was right in the first case - a wedding is a celebration of the joining of two people, and you cant force someone to celebrate something they deeply disagree with. It would have been a bit different though if he had an agreement with one of them beforehand and later found out they were gay (then you would have a breach of contract issue). However, refusing to bake a cake for a PERSON is different. He was wrong to deny the transgender person in the second case because it wasnt celebrating anything as far as i can tell. If he wants to go that far then he should, logically, be asking every customer about their lives and then denying whoever was voluntarily acting in a way contrary to his beliefs. He cant just pick and choose. Even if the cake was for a transgender person's birthday celebration, thats merely a celebration of thats person's birth, not their transgender state.
This case always makes my brain explode. At the end of the day I just ask why not make extremely non descript cake writing or something, it’s a cake lol
Because he didn't want to. End of story
Yeah lol, just give up your beliefs and values that you've held onto for decades and make cake lol. I wish it were that simple. I see both sides of the issue but ultimately I do believe business owners should have the right to refuse customers. While yes he could have just made the cake no biggie, the couple could have just supported another business that would have baked it for them just as easily... which they did.
If he refused to make a non descriptive cake, it absolutely would've been illegal. However, being a wedding cake, it's unlikely anyone who want to purchase a non descriptive cake, so it's not really a realistic option for either parties (the couple did just go somewhere else after all).
It's a case where the intentions of the owner matters, yet the SC can't factor it in as It's on the basis of religious freedoms and not the protection of "personal prejudices" for businesses.
@@bigiron1990 this. People are to white and black. Both sides have there point but I'm incline to protect the business owner has well. If "baking" the cake against your views is no biggie, then changing store shouldn't be that difficult as well. The couple only wanted to impose there will
@@bigiron1990By your logic should someone be able to refuse service because someone is black?
If the answer is no, how is this different?
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.
Mr beat it’s not related to this video but I have a request. Can you make every presidents favorites hobbies? If not I understand
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”?
IMO, I see both sides of this: there's a labor rights side by the baker, and then there's the anti-discrimination side from the business. I think it's helpful to separate the cakeshop as a legal entity from the baker, even if he is the sole employee (US law considers businesses as separate entities from their employees is so many other ways, why not one more). Given that separation: I don't think that Masterpiece Cakeshop should have been able to refuse to bake the cake, and I also think there's a case to be made that Masterpiece Cakeshop could not require their employee to bake that cake. The shop should have been legally forced to either contract out to another shop or find some other way to accommodate the religious belief of its employee without discriminating against the couple.
Yeah but this undermines the American character of half assing everything
This is a really good point! The anti-discrimination law, after all, is pointed at the business itself, not the employees.
Seems like a similar issue to that one clerk who refused to sign gay marriage licenses (when the law compelled her to do so). Again, if she has religious beliefs against it, that's her prerogative, but that doesn't mean she can deny a legal right; she should have passed the task to a co-worker who could do it, not deny the license outright. (Forgive me if I've got some of the details wrong.)
I mean sure if this man would rather engage in a byzantine system that is 100x more inefficient than do his job properly then I guess that’s fine.
Religion shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against groups of people, simple as that. It should also never be an excuse to do so.
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?
I love the way Mr. Beat explains things. It’s very clear and straight to the point. He remains unbiased about the situation and reports on the case.
I don’t understand.
From my understanding he wasn’t sued cuz of his beliefs but his actions. So he would have been sued even if he was ok with gay people but still said „ I’m not serving you cuz you’re gay.“
Why would his belief be an excuse to be discriminatory?
There was a death row inmate who said god told him if he wanted to go to heaven he needed to kill his family. He failed. Only his grandma survived.
By that logic it was „hindering his freedom of religion“ to convict him.
Why is it legal to discriminate based on religious beliefs, but not to kill?
What am I not getting?