We're equating discrimination based on race/religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation/gender with refusing to serve somebody because this administration finally made good on its fascist overtones and started separating families and interning them. People in this administration ate out just fine before they crossed that bridge.
Vilac wrote:The difference with the baker is that they didn’t refuse service to them except for one type of item that would go against their religious beliefs of marriage. They offered service to bake any other cake for other events and offered to help find them bakers that could make them the wedding cake they desired. The decision made to side with the baker on this one has to do with religious freedoms.
Yeah, not really, at least not in the way you seem to think. The ruling doesn't revolve around the baker's religious freedom to refuse service, the central premise is that the adjudication process violated his religious freedom. The baker has a right to be given a ruling that wasn't potentially tainted by hostility towards religion. Since lower court documentation satisfied the idea that the commission showed hostility towards religion, that requirement wasn't satisfied. Basically, the ruling is on the process itself, not so much the substance of the case.
Key excerpt from the majority opinion written by Kennedy: "The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws
. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.
Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission's actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."
TL;DR: Colorado can still tell this guy to fuck off, but the cause of that has to be rooted in valid limitations of exercising religious freedom per applicable laws and the Constitution, not because "religion is dumb lol".
Vilac wrote:But apparently everyone is upset because the restaurant is taking significant heat over their decision. The owner had to have known it would have a split reaction with pros and cons which judging by her saying she would do it again, looks to be fine with it. The name and shame game works both ways I guess.
When it involves a public servant's Twitter account/platform, absolutely fuck no it doesn't work both ways. Be honest, how many people remember the baker who refused to host something for Biden based on politics back in 2012? I certainly didn't and don't really remember caring at the time. Slightly different scenario, but nowhere did Biden use his platform to bash the man or his business.
Also, perspective is funny. All I hear is whining about how it's discrimination to refuse to serve somebody because of things they have control over, i.e. don't get too wasted, don't take children away from their families and put them in detention facilities, etc.