Trump Justice Department sides with anti-gay cake baker in the Supreme Court

[Julian Englis]

Source: ThinkProgress

The Trump administration filed a brief Thursday night aligning the United States of America with a Colorado baker who refused to serve a same-sex couple. It is a stunning reversal from the previous administration, which once lit up the White House in rainbow lights to show its solidarity with LGBTQ Americans.

Yet, while the Justice Department’s brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission aligns Trump politically with anti-LGBTQ groups seeking to expand their own rights at the expense of sexual and gender minorities, it also makes surprisingly modest arguments. Masterpiece Cakeshop is potentially a case of profound importance. It could establish that religious belief provides a license to violate civil rights laws. Or it could invent a sweeping, difficult-to-contain exemption to those laws for people who claim that their work is in some way creative.

The Trump administration’s brief, however, seems designed to make this case a lot smaller. It spends a surprising amount of time listing scenarios where civil rights laws would apply in full force. And it ignores altogether the baker’s argument that his religion permits him to discriminate. While ultimately unpersuasive, the brief offers what may be the narrowest possible grounds that the Court could rely on to rule in favor of the cake baker.

That argument may be enough to convince wavering conservative justices that they can safely hand the baker a win here, but it would leave the religious right with a much smaller victory than they probably hope to gain from this case.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/trump-justice-department-sides-with-anti-gay-cake-baker-in-the-supreme-court-1eb7b71603f9/

[Petrushka]

1. If the Court rules against the baker and, thus, requires him to work against his will . . .

. . . would it be a case of involuntary servitude and a violation of the 13th Amendment?

[Julian Englis]

2. No more than making a lunch counter serve all comers. n/t

[Petrushka]

5. That makes sense. Thank you! (eom)

[Yupster]

7. Which brings up a question

I go into restaurants and there will be a sign to the effect of "we reserve the right to not serve anyone we don't want to serve."

Is that BS? Why are they posting that? I see them often.

[jberryhill]

11. Any business has the right to refuse service for any lawful reasons

Some reasons are not lawful.

But if they simply don't like you, they don't have to serve you.

To put this another way, there are circumstances where refusal of service is illegal. Those are well-defined. Any other reason is fine.

[onenote]

3. no

[DURHAM D]

4. Wow. Where am I?

[BlueStater]

6. Well, he managed to make it about three days without being a colossal asshole.

That's a new record, I guess.

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Surprise, surprise.

[ProgressiveValue]

10. My response to this as well.

[rtracey]

9. ok so

Ok so lets look at it in a different view. Let the baker refuse service, have the people looking for the cake move down the road to the baker that will not refuse them, and its a win win...Win win? how is it a win win......ok here's how.... The LGBTQ, Latino, black, senior, female, whomever being discriminated against will get their cake and eat it too (win), and the discriminating shit for a life right winger baker will lose money because of their arrogance. (win).


everyone wins....or they think they've won..... the right winger really loses...money for turning down paying customers....assholes.

[Petrushka]

12. Because the baker's refusal is based on his religious beliefs . . .

. . . he'd more than likely point out that he can't serve God and mammon!

[icymist]

13. In other words: segregation now segregation tomorrow segregation forever