Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

[XenaLee]

Yeah, right.  That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself.   

Only.... I suspect that the Devil has more important/better things to do than trolling on an internet forum.   

[Smokin Joe]

Thanks for that link, Thackney.   As for my statement above that Masterpiece's refusal to bake the wedding cake was political and not religious,  see the following statement from the decision linked above:
 

That doesn't stop the rest of us from believing that the court ruled in error.

[INVAR]

Neither happened the way you're describing it.  If you're gonna play the victim...at least be honest about your feigned victimhood.

He can't.  Being honest is not in his nature.... or posting history.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead I'll ask you again...what if the situation was reversed?  What if someone wanted a cake made with anti gay Scripture on it.  Should that baker be forced to make the cake as well?

This isn't a trick question.

Denver's Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
Apr 3, 2015

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."...

[driftdiver]

That doesn't stop the rest of us from believing that the court ruled in error.

Whats wrong with Christians having an opinion on political matters?   Does the left want to control that as well?   (rhetorical)

[thackney]

That doesn't stop the rest of us from believing that the court ruled in error.

If the Supreme Court considered the ruling an obvious outcome, would they have taken up the case?

[Wingnut]

Yeah, right.  That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself.   

Dude or dudette ((not sure which you are from your posts) you are exhibiting signs of acute Geronl syndrome. 

[txradioguy]

Denver's Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
Apr 3, 2015

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."...

That's the reason I was wanting to see what Jazz had to say if the roles were reversed.

Same state...same basic situation.  Different outcome.

Why should the Azucar Bakery get a right that is denied to the bakery that won't make a cake for a gay "wedding"?

[EC]

Don't feed the troll   He will take over this thread

Wisest words written so far.

[Wingnut]

Wisest words written so far.

Prophetic in fact.  As it did come to pass.   Jazz jizzed all over the thread.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah, right.  That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself.   

Any mention of firearms was highly conditional and requires a certain behaviour to even be considered.

No one on this thread has labelled you as the devil himself, at most, just a solid promoter of policy.

[thackney]

That's the reason I was wanting to see what Jazz had to say if the roles were reversed.

Same state...same basic situation.  Different outcome.

Why should the Azucar Bakery get a right that is denied to the bakery that won't make a cake for a gay "wedding"?

What I find more ironic, at the time, it was still illegal to get a same sex marriage in Colorado as well.  The couple wanted to fly to Massachusetts for the legal event, then have a big celebration in Denver.  Yet somehow the state government that "discriminates" against gay marriage ruled a private business couldn't do the same thing.

[Smokin Joe]

What I find more ironic, at the time, it was still illegal to get a same sex marriage in Colorado as well.  The couple wanted to fly to Massachusetts for the legal event, then have a big celebration in Denver.  Yet somehow the state government that "discriminates" against gay marriage ruled a private business couldn't do the same thing.

I caught that, too. It is part of why I believe the court ruled in error.

It would be like saying that stopping someone from robbing a business (illegal) was conducted on the basis of race.

[Taxcontrol]

I personally believe that the strongest argument that can be presented in support of the baker's refusal is a 1st Amendment - Freedom of Assembly argument.  Just as Freedom of Speech includes both a positive (I can say what I want) and a negative (The state can't force me to say/support a particular ideology) the Freedom of Assembly also includes both positive and negative.

This means that while I am free to assemble with someone, I am also free to NOT assemble.  Since that freedom includes the freedom to assemble for the purpose of business, it also includes the freedom to NOT assemble for business.  As applied to this case, it would mean that it would require both parties desire to assemble for the purposes of business.  If one party did not desire to engage in business, they would be free to withhold their goods and services as long as they did not charge the customer.

[Jazzhead]

Denver's Azucar Bakery wins right to refuse to make anti-gay cakes
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/denvers-azucar-bakery-wins-right-to-refuse-to-make-anti-gay-cake
Apr 3, 2015

Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.

The dispute began March 13, 2014 when Jack went to the bakery at 1886 S. Broadway and requested two cakes shaped like bibles. He asked that one cake have the image of two groomsmen holding hands in front of a cross with a red "X" over them. He asked that the cake be decorated with the biblical verses, "God hates sin. Psalm 45:7" and "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22", according to the Civil Rights Divisions' decision.

On the second bible-shaped cake, Jack also requested the image of the two groomsmen with the red "X". He wanted it decorated with the words "God loves sinners" and "While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8."...

Thanks, again, Thackney, for the link.   A business owner can discriminate on the basis of the content of the message.  A t-shirt printer, for example, can reserve the right not to print an obscene message.  Where Masterpiece likely erred is in refusing the customer's business on an absolute basis.   It didn't reject a message the customer wanted placed on the cake - the business was refused solely on the basis of the owner's political opposition to same sex marriage, which the court concluded was unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Smokin Joe]

I personally believe that the strongest argument that can be presented in support of the baker's refusal is a 1st Amendment - Freedom of Assembly argument.  Just as Freedom of Speech includes both a positive (I can say what I want) and a negative (The state can't force me to say/support a particular ideology) the Freedom of Assembly also includes both positive and negative.

This means that while I am free to assemble with someone, I am also free to NOT assemble.  Since that freedom includes the freedom to assemble for the purpose of business, it also includes the freedom to NOT assemble for business.  As applied to this case, it would mean that it would require both parties desire to assemble for the purposes of business.  If one party did not desire to engage in business, they would be free to withhold their goods and services as long as they did not charge the customer.

That might be, but for one thing. The bakery would provide services (baked goods) to homosexuals, just not wedding cakes. There is no religious involvement in serving bread, donuts, or whatever to someone who is homosexual, as it makes no statement one way or the other. But decorating a cake celebrating a homosexual 'wedding' which was then not recognized in the State would make a statement of endorsement of that union, which goes against the Biblical principle of marriage being between one man and one woman.

For that reason, the law which now is cited to force someone to go against their religious principles in order to provide a service for a union the state itself did not recognize should be void, and the decision of the lower courts overturned.

I think the first amendment case is stronger on the religious aspect, but then, I am not an attorney.

[Jazzhead]

Dude or dudette ((not sure which you are from your posts) you are exhibiting signs of acute Geronl syndrome.

Did you notice the smiley I attached to the post? 

[INVAR]

This means that while I am free to assemble with someone, I am also free to NOT assemble.  Since that freedom includes the freedom to assemble for the purpose of business, it also includes the freedom to NOT assemble for business.  As applied to this case, it would mean that it would require both parties desire to assemble for the purposes of business.  If one party did not desire to engage in business, they would be free to withhold their goods and services as long as they did not charge the customer.

The court case that Hackney posted above about the Azucar Bakery affirms that point you just made and correctly ruled that it was not discriminatory for the bakery to refuse service.

However, our resident Leftist argues that when it comes to homosexual behavior, one can be compelled and be forced to 'assemble for business' and be forced to participate in serving a perverted behavior against their conscience and religion, but Homosexual business he thinks are exempt from providing service to those beliefs they find offensive, under the ridiculous assertion of 'discrimination'.

So it is okay to discriminate against Christian advocacy and celebration, but not okay to discriminate against homosexual advocacy and celebration.

He believes in government preference for castes and champions government use punishment to force compliance.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

[RoosGirl]

If you run a "public accommodation",  you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons.   Most of us agree with that principle in the context of, say, a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  But it's the same principle at work with this stubborn baker who won't bake the damn cake because of his "religious" animus toward gays and the notion that the community dares to provide legal protections against his brand of arbitrary "religious" bias.

Well, I *don't* agree with the principle in the context of a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  I think it's a stupid policy and if *I* owned a lunch counter it would not be one of my policies, but it is a privately owned business and as such should be able to run the business any damn way they please.  People who agree with that policy can eat there and people who disagree can go elsewhere.

[Restored]

You are allowed to discriminate based on factors that are considered a choice.
 For instance, you cannot discriminate against gay people IF they have no choice but to be gay. However, you have a choice whether to marry someone. The baker seemed to oppose the marriage, not the people. They can discriminate based on actions (i.e. previous non-payment).
The problem comes when a Muslim bakery refuses to bake the cake. Being a Christian is a choice in the eyes of the government but being a Muslim is not a choice. So now the two entities are in conflict. You run the risk of people being sympathetic to the discrimination.

[Restored]

Well, I *don't* agree with the principle in the context of a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  I think it's a stupid policy and if *I* owned a lunch counter it would not be one of my policies, but it is a privately owned business and as such should be able to run the business any damn way they please.  People who agree with that policy can eat there and people who disagree can go elsewhere.

Blacks don't have a choice but to be Black so you cannot use that prejudice to refuse service.
You can refuse to serve Black Republicans because you don't like Republicans

[txradioguy]

The court case that Hackney posted above about the Azucar Bakery affirms that point you just made and correctly ruled that it was not discriminatory for the bakery to refuse service.

However, our resident Leftist argues that when it comes to homosexual behavior, one can be compelled and be forced to 'assemble for business' and be forced to participate in serving a perverted behavior against their conscience and religion, but Homosexual business he thinks are exempt from providing service to those beliefs they find offensive, under the ridiculous assertion of 'discrimination'.

So it is okay to discriminate against Christian advocacy and celebration, but not okay to discriminate against homosexual advocacy and celebration.

He believes in government preference for castes and champions government use punishment to force compliance.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

If it were truly discriminatory for a restaurant bakery etc to refuse service...then every fast food joint in America would be sued out of existence for this sign:



 

[INVAR]

Blacks don't have a choice but to be Black so you cannot use that prejudice to refuse service.
You can refuse to serve Black Republicans because you don't like Republicans

Exactly correct.

Behaviors are a choice.

Skin color and gender are not.

[roamer_1]

Well, I *don't* agree with the principle in the context of a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  I think it's a stupid policy and if *I* owned a lunch counter it would not be one of my policies, but it is a privately owned business and as such should be able to run the business any damn way they please.  People who agree with that policy can eat there and people who disagree can go elsewhere.

Agreed. And let the market decide.
Likely as not, real bias will be greeted with little success and the business will fold up. Simple and effective, without any need for lawyers at all.

[thackney]

Thanks, again, Thackney, for the link.   A business owner can discriminate on the basis of the content of the message.  A t-shirt printer, for example, can reserve the right not to print an obscene message.  Where Masterpiece likely erred is in refusing the customer's business on an absolute basis.   It didn't reject a message the customer wanted placed on the cake - the business was refused solely on the basis of the owner's political opposition to same sex marriage, which the court concluded was unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I don't agree.  In the court case, it was revealed on the day their meeting, they offered to sell them other products, but not a same-sex wedding cake.