Kern County judge rules against State of California in case against Tastries Bakery

[goatprairie]

In before the resident leftist labels the bakery "bigots."

If homosexuals can force a bakery to bake a certain type of cake i.e. customized, then any business, bakery or otherwise, could be forced to make, manufacture, print, etc. stuff contrary to what they believe.
A magazine that touts Christian marriage could be forced to print pro-homosexual marriage articles.
 In short, a can of worms would be opened if bakeries could be forced to bake cakes they don't want to bake. And homosexuality has little to do with it....any business would be forced to make, print, publish things they don't want to.

[txradioguy]

If homosexuals can force a bakery to bake a certain type of cake i.e. customized, then any business, bakery or otherwise, could be forced to make, manufacture, print, etc. stuff contrary to what they believe.
A magazine that touts Christian marriage could be forced to print pro-homosexual marriage articles.
 In short, a can of worms would be opened if bakeries could be forced to bake cakes they don't want to bake. And homosexuality has little to do with it....any business would be forced to make, print, publish things they don't want to.

QFT

[INVAR]

If homosexuals can force a bakery to bake a certain type of cake i.e. customized, then any business, bakery or otherwise, could be forced to make, manufacture, print, etc. stuff contrary to what they believe.
A magazine that touts Christian marriage could be forced to print pro-homosexual marriage articles.
 In short, a can of worms would be opened if bakeries could be forced to bake cakes they don't want to bake. And homosexuality has little to do with it....any business would be forced to make, print, publish things they don't want to.

Groupthink.  It's the kind of world Jazzhead wants and is advocating.  Refusing to think like he does makes you a 'bigot' and subject to government punishment, which he has openly advocated be imposed on 'bigots'.

[goatprairie]

In before the resident leftist labels the bakery "bigots."

It wouldn't matter if the bakers were the worst bigots in the world. Their free speech rights cannot be violated. Except by fascist liberal judges.
If the bakers can be punished for being "bigots," anybody can be thrown in the clink or fined for being a bigot. Being a bigot is not unconstitutional. You are free to dislike anybody you want for whatever reason.

[goatprairie]

While I haven't read the actual opinion,  it appears that the ruling merely denies the injunction sought by the State that would have compelled the baker to stop selling wedding cakes altogether if she weren't willing to comply with the law.    That's what I understand Jack Phillips did, on his own and not under the compulsion of a court order.   

An injunction would have raised the specter of the State forcing a businessman to stop selling a product while the legal merits of the matter have yet to be decided.   What if the court ultimately ruled in the  baker's favor - would the state have compensated the baker for all her lost business?   

This must be a great country without many real problems if this is the silly hill we all decide to die on.   Let's face it - the baker's an arsehole for not baking the cake she said she would,  and the customer's an arsehole for not just going to the competitor the baker recommended to her.   For each, it's the "principle of the thing".   Fine, let 'em fight and make lots of lawyers rich.   As I've said before, true justice would be a ruling in favor of the customer coupled with an award of damages in the amount of one dollar. 

But here, the State seeks an injunction that would compel the baker to give up valuable business.   I can't disagree with a court ruling that fends off that government bludgeon pending the resolution of the merits.

You're wrong about the principle of the matter i.e. free speech. But we'll keep on explaining to you the error of your thinking until you admit it. Which, if you've got any sense of justice, you finally will.

[Jazzhead]

The baker is NOT "an arsehole" because she never agreed to bake a WEDDING cake in the first place. 

But she's in business to sell wedding cakes.   It's what she advertises to the public.  And she's supposed to abide by the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination.   Her religious freedom doesn't enter into it.  She wants special rights to discriminate.  So yeah, she's an arsehole.  But so is her customer, because the baker recommended a competitor she could have easily gone to.

Each is willing to "die" on the hill of the principle she's obsessed with.  Freedom of religion?  Yes, it's an important right, but no more important than the principle the lesbian customer (and the State of California) has lawyered up for.   Two irreconcilable "principles",  two unrepentant arseholes,  and it's now going to be up to be a judge, like Solomon, to decide. 

I support the judge's interim ruling because I view the State of California as the bully.   I think the lesbian couple has the better argument on the merits, even though the harm they experienced is rather trivial.   Meanwhile the State of California wants to damage the baker's business before the merits have been addressed.  That's the action of a bully, so I agree with the judge's ruling.   If the courts ultimately rule that the baker must serve her customers without discrimination, then let the impact on her business be prospective.   That seems fair.   

[goatprairie]

 

It's called religious liberty, freedom of speech and the freedom of association - so YES, it it IS a hill to die on.

We do not expect you to comprehend that.

I've got a very sharp hammer to penetrate hard skulls like some people have.  I believe there's hope for everybody...including Jazzhead and Oceander.

[Restored]

They cannot refuse to serve gays. But a Muslim bakery can refuse to bake a cake it finds offensive, for instance a cake with a depiction of Mohammed. Therefore, a Muslim bakery can refuse to make a cake depicting a same-sex marriage.

[Jazzhead]

Their free speech rights cannot be violated.

It's not a matter of free speech.  The baker alone decides what she will sell, and advertises those wares to the public.   The community requires that she not discriminate with respect to his customers because they're black, or Jewish, or gay, and by being in business for profit the baker has agreed to these rules   The "principle" at stake here is very simple -  live up to your word.   Bake the cake you advertised to provide.   That's the honorable thing, regardless of what the law may say on the matter. 

[goatprairie]

But she's in business to sell wedding cakes.   It's what she advertises to the public.  And she's supposed to abide by the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination.   Her religious freedom doesn't enter into it.  She wants special rights to discriminate.  So yeah, she's an arsehole.  But so is her customer, because the baker recommended a competitor she could have easily gone to.

Each is willing to "die" on the hill of the principle she's obsessed with.  Freedom of religion?  Yes, it's an important right, but no more important than the principle the lesbian customer (and the State of California) has lawyered up for.   Two irreconcilable "principles",  two unrepentant arseholes,  and it's now going to be up to be a judge, like Solomon, to decide. 

I support the judge's interim ruling because I view the State of California as the bully.   I think the lesbian couple has the better argument on the merits, even though the harm they experienced is rather trivial.   Meanwhile the State of California wants to damage the baker's business before the merits have been addressed.  That's the action of a bully, so I agree with the judge's ruling.   If the courts ultimately rule that the baker must serve her customers without discrimination, then let the impact on her business be prospective.   That seems fair.

You completely misunderstand the principles of selling something and making something to sell. Refusing to sell an already existing article to any person or persons because of race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. is discrimination and can be punished by law.
Refusing to make, create an article contrary to a business owner's morals is not discrimination. Nobody can be forced to MAKE!!! something they don't want to make. It has nothing to do with selling something.
I'll keep hammering this point home to you until, hopefully, you'll understand it.

[Jazzhead]

They cannot refuse to serve gays. But a Muslim bakery can refuse to bake a cake it finds offensive, for instance a cake with a depiction of Mohammed. Therefore, a Muslim bakery can refuse to make a cake depicting a same-sex marriage.

Why would a gay couple want a cake with Mohammed on it?     

But you're right - the baker cannot refuse to serve gays.   

[INVAR]

But she's in business to sell wedding cakes.   It's what she advertises to the public. 

Yes, weddings.  Not homosexual perversions of a religious institution slapped with a label that does not apply to it - regardless of what some crank activist judges have to say.

Yes, it's an important right, but no more important than the principle the lesbian customer (and the State of California) has lawyered up for.   Two irreconcilable "principles",  two unrepentant arseholes,  and it's now going to be up to be a judge, like Solomon, to decide.

I doesn't matter what a judge says.  If you are any kind of Christian, you obey God rather than men.  And when the state is used to force compliance too serve wickedness we have an inalienable right to resist - by force if necessary.

I think the lesbian couple has the better argument on the merits

Of course you do.  Using the power of the state to force the celebration, acknowledgment and reverence of homosexual behavior is what you and the Gay Mafia are all about.  As I told you before, wars were begun over far less than the kind of tyranny you advocate be forced on us.

[Jazzhead]

You completely misunderstand the principles of selling something and making something to sell. Refusing to sell an already existing article to any person or persons because of race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. is discrimination and can be punished by law.
Refusing to make, create an article contrary to a business owner's morals is not discrimination. Nobody can be forced to MAKE!!! something they don't want to make. It has nothing to do with selling something.
I'll keep hammering this point home to you until, hopefully, you'll understand it.

Of course nobody can be forced to make something they don't want to make.  But the baker wants to make wedding cakes.  It's what she's in business for.  It's what she advertises to provide to the general public.  That's her choice.   

She should do the honorable thing and live up to her word.   It's as simple as that.   

[Jazzhead]

Wars and violence over cakes?   Only INVAR could say shit that ridiculous.   

[roamer_1]

 Let's face it - the [...] customer's an arsehole for not just going to the competitor the baker recommended to her.   

You got that much right.

[roamer_1]

She should do the honorable thing and live up to her word.   It's as simple as that.

Bullshit.
There was no word given.

[sneakypete]

This must be a great country without many real problems if this is the silly hill we all decide to die on.

 

@Jazzhead

What's silly about individual freedoms?

[INVAR]

I've got a very sharp hammer to penetrate hard skulls like some people have.  I believe there's hope for everybody...including Jazzhead

He's pushing an agenda - so you are dealing with an ideologue.

You can no more penetrate his skull to get him to see the truth than he can penetrate your skull to get you to support homosexual marriage.

[INVAR]

Wars and violence over cakes?   Only INVAR could say shit that ridiculous.   

Yeah and you would say it was ridiculous to go on the path to war over a tax on tea too.

[Sanguine]

Y'all are just giving Jazzhead a thrill up his leg by even engaging with him on this topic.  He's is completely impervious to anything that disagrees with his opinion on this matter, and all the TBR'ers in the world aren't going to change that. 

Now pointing out where he is wrong so that other readers aren't misinformed by his opinions is a good thing.  Engaging with him - well, if you want to make his day, go ahead.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

While I haven't read the actual opinion,  it appears that the ruling merely denies the injunction sought by the State that would have compelled the baker to stop selling wedding cakes altogether if she weren't willing to comply with the law.    That's what I understand Jack Phillips did, on his own and not under the compulsion of a court order.   

An injunction would have raised the specter of the State forcing a businessman to stop selling a product while the legal merits of the matter have yet to be decided.   What if the court ultimately ruled in the  baker's favor - would the state have compensated the baker for all her lost business?   

This must be a great country without many real problems if this is the silly hill we all decide to die on.   Let's face it - the baker's an arsehole for not baking the cake she said she would,  and the customer's an arsehole for not just going to the competitor the baker recommended to her.   For each, it's the "principle of the thing".   Fine, let 'em fight and make lots of lawyers rich.   As I've said before, true justice would be a ruling in favor of the customer coupled with an award of damages in the amount of one dollar. 

But here, the State seeks an injunction that would compel the baker to give up valuable business.   I can't disagree with a court ruling that fends off that government bludgeon pending the resolution of the merits.

True justice is fining the complainer that is filling up the clogged courts with frivolous lawsuits in this free country we live in.

[INVAR]

Y'all are just giving Jazzhead a thrill up his leg by even engaging with him on this topic.  He's is completely impervious to anything that disagrees with his opinion on this matter, and all the TBR'ers in the world aren't going to change that. 

Now pointing out where he is wrong so that other readers aren't misinformed by his opinions is a good thing. 

That would be my M.O.

Reasoning with Jazzhead will incur the absolutely same exact results you would get with attempting to do so with an avowed rabid Liberal, Godless Marxist.

In fact, I see absolutely no difference in their agenda or what Jazzy spews on this board. 

None.

[Jazzhead]

Y'all are just giving Jazzhead a thrill up his leg by even engaging with him on this topic. 

No, but it's amusing to see the attacks always devolving into the personal.  At least 14 of the posts on this thread have been personal attacks - even anticipatory personal attacks!   I was pinged to the thread, and (with one exception), my posts have stuck to the substance of the topic and avoided the personal.

Have your fun, folks.   

[Restored]

Why would a gay couple want a cake with Mohammed on it?     

Why would a gay couple want to use a Christian bakery for their cake, knowing it might get turned down?

Merely so they can sue.

[Sanguine]

Why would a gay couple want to use a Christian bakery for their cake, knowing it might get turned down?

Merely so they can sue.

There are a number of different definitions of "Christian" today. Heck, the happy couple may be getting married in a "Christian" church.