The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on June 26, 2017, 02:43:08 pm
-
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.
State courts had ruled against the businessman.
The high court will now decide whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the baker to create "expression"-- a wedding cake -- violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.
Phillips told the Supreme Court he has free speech and religious rights under the First Amendment that should protect him. He said he should not be compelled to bake a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html
-
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.
If I'd been the baker, I'd say sure, and deliver this.....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/13/article-2292677-18A0E2BF000005DC-202_634x449.jpg)
-
Hope he prevails in his endeavor to slap some sense into the Gay and blt bowel movement sweeping the country.
-
Hope he prevails in his endeavor to slap some sense into the Gay and blt bowel movement sweeping the country.
Yeah I'm hoping this goes his way too.
God help us if it doesn't.
-
If I'd been the baker, I'd say sure, and deliver this.....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/13/article-2292677-18A0E2BF000005DC-202_634x449.jpg)
Looks like a Jaba the hut cake in white. Very fitting!
-
Whoever the judges are that ruled the state can compel a person to create something they object to religiously should be impeached. It should have never gotten this far.
-
I give credit to the SCOTUS for agreeing to take up the case. It's bizarre how this stupid little disagreement has galvanized activists on both sides. May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go. Be careful what you wish for, folks. Arbitrary notions of "religious freedom" don't trump one's obligation to be fair and not discriminate with respect to commercial dealings in the public square.
-
If I'd been the baker, I'd say sure, and deliver this.....
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/13/article-2292677-18A0E2BF000005DC-202_634x449.jpg)
They then would sue for the cost of the wedding and destroying their lifetime of happiness.
Sure would have been easier to come up with a different reason but I'm sure this gay 'couple' were targeting Christian businesses.
-
I give credit to the SCOTUS for agreeing to take up the case. It's bizarre how this stupid little disagreement has galvanized activists on both sides. May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go. Be careful what you wish for, folks. Arbitrary notions of "religious freedom" don't trump one's obligation to be fair and not discriminate with respect to commercial dealings in the public square.
You still seem to be unable to grasp the notion that the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
-
May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
Like Roe vs Wade "settled" the abortion issue?
-
I give credit to the SCOTUS for agreeing to take up the case. It's bizarre how this stupid little disagreement has galvanized activists on both sides. May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go. Be careful what you wish for, folks. Arbitrary notions of "religious freedom" don't trump one's obligation to be fair and not discriminate with respect to commercial dealings in the public square.
"Be careful when you wish for that silly religious freedom."
Lol
-
Whoever the judges are that ruled the state can compel a person to create something they object to religiously should be impeached. It should have never gotten this far.
Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we now live in a nation that forces its citizens, at gunpoint, under the penalty of fines and imprisonment, to enter into a contract to purchase a product that they do not want and do not need.
That being said, I fully expect any SCOTUS court case where someone is defending their right to be free of the involuntary servitude of being forced to enter into a contract to bake a cake will go badly for the baker.
(http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Bake-The-Cake.jpg)
-
I give credit to the SCOTUS for agreeing to take up the case. It's bizarre how this stupid little disagreement has galvanized activists on both sides. May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go. Be careful what you wish for, folks. Arbitrary notions of "religious freedom" don't trump one's obligation to be fair and not discriminate with respect to commercial dealings in the public square.
Bullcrap.
A business should very well have a right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever. Being made to serve is not service it is slavery.
Had a homo baker refused to sell me a wedding cake, I might think he's an a$$h0le, and tell him so, but i'd just go find someone else who would gladly give me what I want. That's what a free market is.
-
You still seem to be unable to grasp the notion that the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
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.
-
Like Roe vs Wade "settled" the abortion issue?
All a court case can do is erect a signpost indicating the community's legal position when one person's action harms another. It cannot erase the bigotry in a person's heart.
-
It cannot erase the bigotry in a person's heart.
There you go again, insulting peoples scripture based beliefs.
-
Yeah I'm hoping this goes his way too.
God help us if it doesn't.
I don't care how the court "rules". No one can force me to sin and violate my conscience and faith in order to comply with an evil law.
Better to obey God than men.
-
You still seem to be unable to grasp the notion that the owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
Don't feed the troll He will take over this thread
-
If you run a "public accommodation", you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons.
Watch us. Yes we can. I do it all the time with respect to my own business.
Most of us agree with that principle in the context of, say, a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.
"Public lunch counter"? Where does the government run those exactly outside of public schools we taxpayers subsidize? Care to share which restaurants and lunch counters we taxpayers fund that are public accommodations?
If I go to a Chocolate City, and I go to a restaurant that says they do not serve whites, I leave and spend my money on a place that will. I do not come back to target those owners with lawsuits and government agents in order to put them out of business and create a climate of fear.
But of course I would not expect meddlesome tyrants who preach tolerance to comprehend that personal skill.
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.
Screw their "protections". They are not "protections", they are Preferred Castes of the Government, based on perverted behavior.
But you make me laugh - if I went to a Muslim bakery and demanded they bake me an Easter Lamb cake, and put them through the same bullshit hell the homos and people like you put Masterpiece Bakeshop through - I'm certain you would take up for the Muslims.
Because you are in no wise for 'equal protection' at all. We got your number and know what you are.
Don't feed the troll He will take over this thread
It is not for his benefit we take apart his inane statements, but for yours and the board's - so Conservatives can recognize these wolves in our midst and how to tear asunder their clever subterfuge in support of the Leftist agenda.
-
I don't care how the court "rules". No one can force me to sin and violate my conscience and faith in order to comply with an evil law.
Better to obey God than men.
Absolutely I agree with you. No one can force me to violate Gods Law. However it would still be better if the courts agree. I would rather have Christians participating in commerce and the public square than in jail or unable to make a living. But however it goes God is in control and He will reward those who make a stand on His name
-
Whoever the judges are that ruled the state can compel a person to create something they object to religiously should be impeached. It should have never gotten this far.
I'm with you on that. Hopefully SCOTUS will rule sensibly on this, especially since it seems these 'couples' have been seeking Christian owned businesses for the purpose of being refused and suing them. It isn't as if there are no other bakers or wedding venues or photographers out there.
-
It is not for his benefit we take apart his inane statements, but for yours and the board's - so Conservatives can recognize these wolves in our midst and how to tear asunder their clever subterfuge in support of the Leftist agenda.
[/quote]
I prefer reasoned and reasonable discussion to the tiresome circular arguments that this poster deflects a thread to. By all means state the case but I prefer not to get drawn in to playing on the liberals terms
-
I give credit to the SCOTUS for agreeing to take up the case. It's bizarre how this stupid little disagreement has galvanized activists on both sides. May as well resolve it, to shut people up if for nothing else.
I'm pretty sure I know how it's going to go. Be careful what you wish for, folks. Arbitrary notions of "religious freedom" don't trump one's obligation to be fair and not discriminate with respect to commercial dealings in the public square.
So sue a Muslim restaurant for refusing to put on a pig roast some time, and we'll see how that works out.
-
So sue a Muslim restaurant for refusing to put on a pig roast some time, and we'll see how that works out.
If SCOTUS rules the wrong way, I think that is exactly what should be done. The case would be back to the supremes in record time
-
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.
@Jazzhead
First of all the Bible (aka Gods Word) is not arbitrary. Parts of it have been written down for 3600 years at least. They haven't changed.
Christians are part of the community too, a big part. We have rights as well, including free speech. Why do you hate Christians so much? Its not like we invented Gods rules.
-
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.
Religious reasons are not "arbitrary" reasons. They are supported by a scriptural basis, and would lead people who believe similarly to similar conclusions. There have been several different people who have been sued over this sort of refusal for the same underlying religious reasons, across the country. They have (all) the same underlying basis for their reasoning, not just something arbitrary.
That you put "religious" in quotes tells me you do not share their beliefs, so to you those might be considered arbitrary. I refer you to my previous post. Tell me if the Muslims would have a "arbitrary" reason for refusing to provide the service, and if not, why?
-
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.
A bakery isn't a "public accommodation"...it's a private business started by someone with a talent in order to make money.
And your obtuse attempt to equate sexual preference with someone's race is as disgusting as it is false.
It's a smear to everyone who suffered and sacrificed for the black community.
-
They then would sue for the cost of the wedding and destroying their lifetime of happiness.
With a good lawyer, I'd think you would only be liable for the cost of the cake.
Plus, I would have a strongly stated disclaimer on initial bill of sale. There are ways around this.
-
I would rather have Christians participating in commerce and the public square than in jail or unable to make a living.
You and I both know and understand that time is coming. It is what the Mark of the Beast is actually all about.
A time whereby if you do not think and act as the State and their tyrants demand - you cannot buy or sell or make a living.
I've seen how a form of that operates in the third world. It is unbelievably insidious.
I prefer reasoned and reasonable discussion to the tiresome circular arguments that this poster deflects a thread to. By all means state the case but I prefer not to get drawn in to playing on the liberals terms
The left has successfully gotten where they are, to the point of dictating to the rest of us how we must think and act, because reasonable people who prefer reasonable discourse refused to engage them and stop their agenda, tantrums and efforts when it cost little to do so.
We are not dealing with reasonable people. We are dealing with ideologues who seek to reshape, redefine and fundamentally transform society, the culture and bury the foundational principles and religion that forged us. Today we have to deal with those who disguise themselves as Conservatives in Conservative fora to spread their poison among us and attempt to pervert our own thinking, because it is the last stalwart hold-out to submitting to and accepting their agenda. I mean, look what he argues in favor of: forcing Christians to violate their conscience and faith to celebrate and promote an abomination or lose their livelihoods.
So either we argue and fight with them now, or get subjugated via "law" by what they lecture us about - or ultimately we go full tilt civil war when people have finally had enough and it's too late for any kind of recourse except to take matters into our own hands.
-
Good, settle this once and for all.
What I hope comes out of this, that even if they have to bake a cake they do no have to do anything other than a plain cake with nothing on it, i.e. no forced speech.
-
All a court case can do is erect a signpost indicating the community's legal position when one person's action harms another. It cannot erase the bigotry in a person's heart.
NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.
-
With a good lawyer, I'd think you would only be liable for the cost of the cake.
Plus, I would have a strongly stated disclaimer on initial bill of sale. There are ways around this.
May be but it's not a very Christian act to enter into a contract with the goal of producing a deliberately defective product. Better to say no in the first place
-
May be but it's not a very Christian act to enter into a contract with the goal of producing a deliberately defective product. Better to say no in the first place
And then get sued for obvious reasons?
-
I don't care how the court "rules". No one can force me to sin and violate my conscience and faith in order to comply with an evil law.
Better to obey God than men.
Methinks we'll be figuring Gorsuch out on this one.
-
NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.
@roamer_1 Jazzy only believes in interpretation of the law when the court has decided in a way he believes in...he changes sides of the fence when they haven't or don't rule the way his Liberal mind thinks they should.
-
Methinks we'll be figuring Gorsuch out on this one.
Hopefully he wont pull a Roberts.
Because the govt can force us to do things. Force us at the point of a gun.
-
NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.
Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as public accommodation, the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide. The baker chose to open a business that serves the public. If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.
-
Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as public accommodation, the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide. The baker chose to open a business that serves the public. If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.
@Jazzhead
So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh? Anything else you'd like to take away?
-
Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as public accommodation, the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide. The baker chose to open a business that serves the public. If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.
Hate to break it to you...but who you do in the bedroom and how you do it doesn't fall under the part of the law you're trying to use.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1980 prohibit discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicitiy, religion, and disabilities in places of public accommodations.
Being gay isn't any of the above.
Face it...you're wrong.
-
@Jazzhead
So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh? Anything else you'd like to take away?
Oh there's a lot... :whistle:
-
There you go again, insulting peoples scripture based beliefs.
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he/she shouldn't practice it. I have nothing whatsoever against scriptural belief - up to the point where such belief serves as an excuse for violating the law's protections.
The baker's obligations under the law are clear. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and treat your fellow citizens with the dignity and respect you'd expect from others.
-
And then get sued for obvious reasons?
Either way you get sued. The question is which act honors God more
-
Being gay isn't any of the above.
Face it...you're wrong.
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in many areas of the country. The baker didn't violate a federal anti-discrimination law when he refused service, but a local one.
-
If you run a "public accommodation", you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons.
@Jazzhead
I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm
OOSEC. 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment....
- - - - - -
They are not discriminated as those parties can walk in the store and buy any cake the store already makes.
The store owners should no more be forced to make a custom-cake celebrating homosexual behavior than they should be forced to make a cake celebrating the 2001 twin towers attack.
-
@Jazzhead
So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh? Anything else you'd like to take away?
Of course Christians belong in public. The issue is bigotry, not Christianity.
-
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he/she shouldn't practice it. I have nothing whatsoever against scriptural belief - up to the point where such belief serves as an excuse for violating the law's protections.
The baker's obligations under the law are clear. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and treat your fellow citizens with the dignity and respect you'd expect from others.
@Jazzhead
LOL yeah So much wrong with your post but at least you've come out of the closet as an intolerant hater.
-
Of course Christians belong in public. The issue is bigotry, not Christianity.
@Jazzhead
God has defined Christianity not people. If you don't like his rules that is your problem.
-
@Jazzhead
I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm
OOSEC. 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment....
- - - - - -
They are not discriminated as those parties can walk in the store and buy any cake the store already makes.
The store owners should no more be forced to make a custom-cake celebrating homosexual behavior than they should be forced to make a cake celebrating the 2001 twin towers attack.
There are hotels in Key West that don't allow Hetro couples. Only gays.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court.
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.
State courts had ruled against the businessman.
The high court will now decide whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the baker to create "expression"-- a wedding cake -- violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.
Phillips told the Supreme Court he has free speech and religious rights under the First Amendment that should protect him. He said he should not be compelled to bake a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the USSC upholds Phillips' 1st Amendment rights. Why? Because after today's USSC ruling on Trump's travel ban... I am once again a bit hopeful for the future of this nation. (I know, I know....don't pinch me!)
-
I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".
Well, that's exactly why I worded my previous post the way I did. I think the legal issue is precisely whether the baker is subject to the law proscribing arbitrary discrimination in a public accommodation. If he's running a public accommodation, he's violated the law. If he isn't, then he didn't.
I doubt "religious freedom" will be the linchpin of the SCOTUS's decision. Rather, it will be a narrow decision regarding the status of Masterpiece Cake Shop as a public accommodation.
-
There are hotels in Key West that don't allow Hetro couples. Only gays.
IMHO that's their right. If that's the clientele they want to cater to and they make a pile of money from it...yay for free enterprise.
It's just a shame that they people that stay at that hotel wouldn't allow a baker in Colorado the same freedom to choose that they have in Key West.
-
@Jazzhead
LOL yeah So much wrong with your post but at least you've come out of the closet as an intolerant hater.
Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?
-
Either way you get sued. The question is which act honors God more
Nope. IF bakery adds this to contract bill of sale, they would win in court.
* Seller is only liable for the cost of goods and services, in case of customer dissatisfaction.
___________________. ________________________
(Signature of Customer). (Date of Agreement)
-
They then would sue for the cost of the wedding and destroying their lifetime of happiness.
Considering the divorce rate I'd say "lifetime of happiness" was presumptive, and predicts something not in evidence.
Anyone who would hinge the long term outcome of any long term relationship on the perception of perfection of the celebration itself is not likely to last long, much less "a lifetime" without crippling issues in the relationship.
Case dismissed.
-
Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as public accommodation, the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide. The baker chose to open a business that serves the public. If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.
No, a court, rightly ordered, cannot violate religious liberty - An enumerated liberty which is the aegis of the entire government to protect.
To do otherwise is force under the color of law.
-
IMHO that's their right. If that's the clientele they want to cater to and they make a pile of money from it...yay for free enterprise.
It's just a shame that they people that stay at that hotel wouldn't allow a baker in Colorado the same freedom to choose that they have in Key West.
But.... isn't that how the left always rolls..... (ie....freedoms for me but not for thee)
As has been said zillions of times..... without double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
-
Well, that's exactly why I worded my previous post the way I did. I think the legal issue is precisely whether the baker is subject to the law proscribing arbitrary discrimination in a public accommodation. If he's running a public accommodation, he's violated the law. If he isn't, then he didn't.
I doubt "religious freedom" will be the linchpin of the SCOTUS's decision. Rather, it will be a narrow decision regarding the status of Masterpiece Cake Shop as a public accommodation.
I think the specialized customization of the cake is also part of the issue. If they had purchased this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/d6/a2/eed6a20fae4f1544d10e70c034f2086c.jpg)
And added their own figures or like, there would not have been an issue.
This couple tried to force a participation in an act celebrating homosexuality.
-
But.... isn't that how the left always rolls..... (ie....freedoms for me but not for thee)
As has been said zillions of times..... without double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
You're exactly right!
-
May be but it's not a very Christian act to enter into a contract with the goal of producing a deliberately defective product. Better to say no in the first place
I agree. There are certain issues of palatability and appearance inherent in accepting such a contract, and to do so and underperform on purpose would be deceptive, frankly, an insidious lie. Better to refuse.
-
No, a court, rightly ordered, cannot violate religious liberty - An enumerated liberty which is the aegis of the entire government to protect.
To do otherwise is force under the color of law.
...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. (...even if that exercise is NOT doing something.)
-
1. There is a liberal desire for "favored groups" to be allowed to discriminate because it is part of their nature. So how hard do you push?
2. This is not a religious issue. It's a preference against same-sex marriage, not a specific rule per se. Religious rules are not laws. For instance, prayer is school is a speech issue, not a religion issue. The media frames it as a religious issue was a way to demonize the "bad" religion.
-
...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. (...even if that exercise is NOT doing something.)
The same person that doesn't comprehend "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" doesn't understand "shall not infringe" either.
So the common theme seems to be that said person doesn't trust the individual to act responsibly or of their own accord and must have the Federal dictate and direct all parts of a person's private life.
-
Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as public accommodation, the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide. The baker chose to open a business that serves the public. If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.
All witness The Mark of the Beast. Jazzy here promotes it in full.
-
But.... isn't that how the left always rolls..... (ie....freedoms for me but not for thee)
As has been said zillions of times..... without double standards, the left would have no standards at all.
Double standards exist on the right as well. No one has clean hands.
-
So the common theme seems to be that said person doesn't trust the individual to act responsibly or of their own accord and must have the Federal dictate and direct all parts of a person's private life.
He stated numerous times that he does not want Texas-style gun culture imposed in his area, but as we see here, he insists that San Francisco-style Homosexual Culture must be imposed on us via force of law, or we get to have our livelihoods destroyed.
Double standards exist on the right as well. No one has clean hands.
You have taken the double-standard to an entirely new level of absurdity with your posts.
-
2. This is not a religious issue. It's a preference against same-sex marriage, not a specific rule per se.
I agree. The baker is using religion as an excuse to not serve his customer, because he was upset at the law change that permits same sex marriage. He was a making a political statement, not a religious one.
-
I agree. The baker is using religion as an excuse to not serve his customer, because he was upset at the law change that permits same sex marriage. He was a making a political statement, not a religious one.
Oh? And how do you tell the difference between a political position and the philosophy behind that position?
-
The same person that doesn't comprehend "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof" doesn't understand "shall not infringe" either.
So the common theme seems to be that said person doesn't trust the individual to act responsibly or of their own accord and must have the Federal dictate and direct all parts of a person's private life.
Oh. Not upper level management, nor middle management...One of those micromanagement people...>spit!<
-
Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?
@Jazzhead
You've been the only person on this thread who has displayed intolerance or bigotry.
Gods law requires marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman. Sexual relations are confined to marriage. Anything outside of that model is against the rules laid out by God in Genesis and repeated up through the New Testament.
Its hardly bigoted to say I believe in God and adhere to his law.
-
I think the specialized customization of the cake is also part of the issue. If they had purchased this:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/d6/a2/eed6a20fae4f1544d10e70c034f2086c.jpg)
And added their own figures or like, there would not have been an issue.
This couple tried to force a participation in an act celebrating homosexuality.
Not only would they be forced to make the cake, but they'd be forced to deliver it to the wedding, and most likely have their companies name associated with the event. All kinds of implications of those actions.
-
I agree. The baker is using religion as an excuse to not serve his customer, because he was upset at the law change that permits same sex marriage. He was a making a political statement, not a religious one.
OBJECTION!
Statement implies a motive to the person's actions not in evidence. There is nothing to indicate the baker had emotional reactions to any law. The issue is, and has been, one of religious objection to performing a specific service adjunct to a celebration of an act the baker scripturally views as an 'abombination in the eyes of God'.
-
Not only would they be forced to make the cake, but they'd be forced to deliver it to the wedding, and most likely have their companies name associated with the event. All kinds of implications of those actions.
And THAT is exactly the kind of tyranny our resident Leftist advocates for and desires.
His hatred for Conservative principles and biblical adherents has been made manifest over numerous issues - this one in particular.
-
@Jazzhead
You've been the only person on this thread who has displayed intolerance or bigotry.
Gods law requires marriage to be between 1 man and 1 woman. Sexual relations are confined to marriage. Anything outside of that model is against the rules laid out by God in Genesis and repeated up through the New Testament.
Its hardly bigoted to say I believe in God and adhere to his law.
Straw man. Of course you're not bigoted to say you believe in God and adhere to his law. Live your own life in accordance with your conscience. Just don't harm others in the process. (BTW, I'm glad you've stuck with your marriage - more than a few of the Bible-believing Christians on this board have been through one or more divorces.)
What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation. The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers. No government hand forced him to make that promise. Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?
-
Not only would they be forced to make the cake, but they'd be forced to deliver it to the wedding, and most likely have their companies name associated with the event. All kinds of implications of those actions.
It's what he advertised he'd provide. What's the big deal?
-
What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation. The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers. No government hand forced him to make that promise. Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?
If, by religious belief, you do not acknowledge the union of any but one man and one woman as a "marriage", then you aren't supplying a wedding cake. Besides, we never heard what sort of 'decorations' were specified on the cake, and a Christian baker might find those offensive in and of themselves.
-
Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?
This right here is how free speech dies, so I made it nice and big so King George can read it without his spectacles.. How much speech has been trampled in the world by simply stamping "bigotry" or somesuch on it? Where does it end?
-
It's what he advertised he'd provide. What's the big deal?
@Jazzhead
And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?
Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?
-
Well, that's exactly why I worded my previous post the way I did. I think the legal issue is precisely whether the baker is subject to the law proscribing arbitrary discrimination in a public accommodation. If he's running a public accommodation, he's violated the law. If he isn't, then he didn't.
I doubt "religious freedom" will be the linchpin of the SCOTUS's decision. Rather, it will be a narrow decision regarding the status of Masterpiece Cake Shop as a public accommodation.
After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue. The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation. This is a freedom of religion issue.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf
-
Straw man. Of course you're not bigoted to say you believe in God and adhere to his law. Live your own life in accordance with your conscience. Just don't harm others in the process. (BTW, I'm glad you've stuck with your marriage - more than a few of the Bible-believing Christians on this board have been through one or more divorces.)
What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation. The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers. No government hand forced him to make that promise. Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?
@Jazzhead
Hardly a strawman when you have said its wrong for people to hold religious beliefs that you disagree with.
Laws changes, well those that arent Gods. His have remained the same.
Yes the divorce rate is too high. Because of peoples imperfection and failure to follow Gods laws. For example his law regarding sex only within the bounds of marriage of one man and one woman.
-
What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation. The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers. No government hand forced him to make that promise. Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?
I refuse business all the time, and often for religious reasons.
Saving your porn stash or porn vids is something I simply will not do. Go find someone else. I will not contribute my talents to such an endeavor, regardless of the amount the 'client' would be willing to pay...
Just because I advertise that I CAN recover files from damaged drives does not mean that I necessarily WILL.
There was no transaction here. No money changed hands. Thus no contract made, and no contract broken.
-
And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?
Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?
Last I heard, Muslim bakeries in Dearborn Michigan are permitted to refuse to cater to Christian and gay events. Apparenly some are more equal than others. I see pigs as men, walking.
-
And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?
Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?
If he gets his way it will soon be illegal to disagree with the gay mafia.
-
After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue. The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation. This is a freedom of religion issue.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf
20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much. Its no accident.
There is a reason they are pushing this. I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes. No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.
-
20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much. Its no accident.
There is a reason they are pushing this. I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes. No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.
Not quite 20 years ago but someone did try to warn us:
State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.
<snip>
If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?'
Justice Antonin Scalia - Lawrence v Texas
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
-
20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much. Its no accident.
There is a reason they are pushing this. I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes. No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.
That's right. What they cannot do, what they could never do by way of law, they do by way of judicial fiat. Penumbras and such.
-
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.
Hogwash.
A baker of this caliber is an artist who is being asked to provide a creation to celebrate an event.
The homosexual couple are forcing the baker to celebrate something that he cannot celebrate. This is hardly an arbitrary reason.
If it were just a "damn cake" then the homosexual couple should open up a box of Pillsbury and make it their damn selves.
A "damn cake" would taste just as good and would be inexpensive. But people don't buy professionally made cakes for the taste; they are bought for the artistry.
And a public lunch counter provides food. There is no artistry. There is no comparison.
I know what you are trying to avoid - and I think the SCOTUS can rule on this very tightly and allow only professional artists to engage in limited exclusionary practices.
-
I'll offer up for discussion a similar type case where the courts upheld a T-Shirt printer could refuse to print Gay Pride T-Shirts.
https://perma.cc/75FY-Z77D
...On or about March 28, 2012, Aaron Baker filed a Verified Complaint with the
Commission on behalf of the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (hereinafter
"GLSO"). The Complaint alleged that on or about March 8, 2012, HOO denied that
organization the full and equal enjoyment of a service when HOO refused to print the
official t-shirts for the organizations' 2012 Pride Festival. Following an investigation by
the Commission, a determination of Probable Cause and Charge of Discrimination was
filed by the Commission against HOO on November 13, 2012. The Charge of
Discrimination alleged that HOO violated local Ordinance 201-99; Section 2:33 from the
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (Sometimes referred to as the "Fairness
Ordinance"). This Ordinance generally prohibits a public accommodation from
discriminating against individuals, inter alia, based upon their sexual orientation or
gender identity. ...
HOO has a stated policy on its website which provides:
Hands On Originals both employs and conducts business with
people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences, and
national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our
products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any
order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions
of the ownership.
HOO acknowledges that it is a "public accommodation"...
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
(I) THE ORDER FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
VIOLATES THE RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF HOO
AND ITS OWNERS TO BE FREE FROM COMPELLED EXPRESSION
HOO and its owners have a Constitutional right of freedom of expression from
government coercion. The Commission conceded at oral argument that the Commission
was created by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and its members are
appointed by the Mayor. Thus, the action and the order of the Commission in this case is
government action without dispute.
These Constitutional guarantees are found in both the Constitution of the United
States (First Amendment) and in the Commonwealth of Kentucky(§ I § 8). The
Commission agreed that HOO and its owners have those Constitutional protections when
it adopted the Order of the Hearing Commissioner.
-
Hogwash.
A baker of this caliber is an artist who is being asked to provide a creation to celebrate an event.
The homosexual couple are forcing the baker to celebrate something that he cannot celebrate. This is hardly an arbitrary reason.
If it were just a "damn cake" then the homosexual couple should open up a box of Pillsbury and make it their damn selves.
In fact, the Bakery offered to sell them other products, just not a same-sex wedding cake.
-
Straw man. Of course you're not bigoted to say you believe in God and adhere to his law. Live your own life in accordance with your conscience.
You and your homosexual agenda pals won't let us. You demand guns be put to our heads to force us to cater to your approved perversion, or you demand we close up our businesses.
Just don't harm others in the process.
Bullshit. You are just fine and dandy with "bigots" as you call Christians, being harmed under the color of law to be forced into participating in celebrating an abomination or suffer financial punishment or the loss of their livelihood, which you earlier said they should lose. That's more than harm. That's destruction... which you advocate.
What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation.
I advocate the willful and full violation and refusal to comply with ANY tyrannical law that orders a person to submit to acknowledging, celebrating and serving a behavioral perversion or any 'law' that infringes on natural law and our inalienable enumerated rights. I don't care what "laws" you and yours pass. I will openly defy them and encourage others to defy them as well.
The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers. No government hand forced him to make that promise. Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?
We retain the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason. If you want to empower the government to put a gun to our heads to force compliance with performing labor and service which violates our consciences and religion - that is precisely why we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms... to prevent coercion by individuals or government to comply with actions that promote or support evil.
-
The religious objection not only applies to cases like this, but also to transgenders using church bathrooms and similar. If there is no religious objection allowed, then churches could be forced to marry both gays and trannies in their houses of worship.
Sorry, but religious freedom trumps the arbitrary proclamations of the bureaucrats in the Executive branch.
-
Heck, I'm still waiting for him to tell us whether bigots have the right to free speech. Is "bigoted speech" protected speech under the First Amendment?
-
Not quite 20 years ago but someone did try to warn us:
Justice Antonin Scalia - Lawrence v Texas
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html
Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.
-
Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.
Law of unintended consequences.
-
Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.
Bigot.
/devil's advocate.
-
Bigot.
/devil's advocate.
:silly:
-
Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?
We tolerate you preaching your overtly liberal leftest social agenda to us 24/7/365. So we got that going for us.
-
After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue. The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation. This is a freedom of religion issue.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf
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:
[ . . . Masterpiece admits that its decision to refuse Craig's and Mullin's requested wedding cake as because of its opposition to same sex marriage which, based on Supreme Court precedent, we conclude is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
-
We tolerate you preaching your overtly liberal leftest social agenda to us 24/7/365. So we got that going for us.
Yeah, right. That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself. :seeya:
-
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:
@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.
-
Yeah, right. That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself. :seeya:
Neither happened the way you're describing it. If you're gonna play the victim...at least be honest about your feigned victimhood.
-
Yeah, right. That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself. :seeya:
Only.... I suspect that the Devil has more important/better things to do than trolling on an internet forum.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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."...
-
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)
-
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?
-
Yeah, right. That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself. :seeya:
Dude or dudette ((not sure which you are from your posts) you are exhibiting signs of acute Geronl syndrome.
-
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"?
-
Don't feed the troll He will take over this thread
Wisest words written so far.
-
Wisest words written so far.
Prophetic in fact. As it did come to pass. Jazz jizzed all over the thread.
-
Yeah, right. That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself. :seeya:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41fWjhole9L.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41fWjhole9L.jpg)
Note that it says nothing at all about pants. Jussayin.
-
Time for SCOTUS to stop the lower activist courts from continually ruling that gay rights trump everyone else's rights.
-
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.
Refusing to serve blacks at a lunch counter is a false analogy. They did not refuse the couple baked goods, they offered other products besides a same-sex wedding cake.
The lunch counter analogy only works if the guy demanded a special sandwich for "blacks only".
-
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.
A wedding cake is a message all to itself. If the business owner objects on a religious basis to same-sex marriage, to produce a wedding cake would conflict with their beliefs.
How can the State hold the business owner liable for a political opposition to a union the State, itself, did not recognize as legitimate at the time the service was refused?
-
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.
Exactly my point. I doubt the business would be in business for long. And, I would rather give my money to someone who more closely held the same beliefs as me than someone who hated me but was forced to serve me.
-
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:
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41fWjhole9L.jpg)
That's not arbitrary discrimination. That's discrimination for a reason - the customer isn't wearing shoes.
-
Refusing to serve blacks at a lunch counter is a false analogy. They did not refuse the couple baked goods, they offered other products besides a same-sex wedding cake.
The lunch counter analogy only works if the guy demanded a special sandwich for "blacks only".
I understand, but I would rather it be looked at as a more general idea; that of businesses being forced to serve anyone. I believe a business should be able to deny service to any person for any reason, even if most of think the reasons are stupid.
-
That's not arbitrary discrimination. That's discrimination for a reason - the customer isn't wearing shoes.
The baker's decision wasn't arbitrary either. It was for a legitimate Constitutionally protected right.
-
If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he/she shouldn't practice it. I have nothing whatsoever against scriptural belief - up to the point where such belief serves as an excuse for violating the law's protections.
The baker's obligations under the law are clear. Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and treat your fellow citizens with the dignity and respect you'd expect from others.
@Jazzhead
However, God's law is above man's law. Christians won't break God's law in order to follow man's law.
Personal participation in the sin, whatever it might be, isn't the only issue.
Aiding, abetting, facilitating, furthering the cause of (etc.) any sin is to be avoided.
-
@Jazzhead
However, God's law is above man's law. Christians won't break God's law in order to follow man's law.
Personal participation in the sin, whatever it might be, isn't the only issue.
Aiding, abetting, facilitating, furthering the cause of (etc.) any sin is to be avoided.
Fine. But be prepared to pay the fine or other legal consequence of unlawful, arbitrary discrimination. Perhaps the baker will be rewarded for his actions in Heaven. But on earth, he's obliged to obey the law. If he say's he's in business to bake wedding cakes for the general public, then he should live up to his word, without unlawfully discriminating.
-
@Jazzhead
However, God's law is above man's law. Christians won't break God's law in order to follow man's law.
Personal participation in the sin, whatever it might be, isn't the only issue.
Aiding, abetting, facilitating, furthering the cause of (etc.) any sin is to be avoided.
Exactly.
-
The baker's decision wasn't arbitrary either. It was for a legitimate Constitutionally protected right.
Of course it was. He advertised that he bakes wedding cakes. But just not for this couple.
-
Fine. But be prepared to pay the fine or other legal consequence of unlawful, arbitrary discrimination. Perhaps the baker will be rewarded for his actions in Heaven. But on earth, he's obliged to obey the law. If he say's he's in business to bake wedding cakes for the general public, then he should live up to his word, without unlawfully discriminating.
Fine. Then we (Christians, who still make up a majority of the nation) will just change the damned law. And enjoy the screeching from the left when we do.
Discrimination laws should not apply or outweigh the constitutionally guaranteed rights granted by our founders re: freedom of religion. Period.
-
Fine. But be prepared to pay the fine or other legal consequence of unlawful, arbitrary discrimination. Perhaps the baker will be rewarded for his actions in Heaven. But on earth, he's obliged to obey the law. If he say's he's in business to bake wedding cakes for the general public, then he should live up to his word, without unlawfully discriminating.
So, let me get this straight. The Baker, according to you, should be fined and punished for refusing to bake a cake celebrating a union that is anathema to his (First Amendment protected) religious beliefs AND not recognized by the State (of Colorado, the law), which it was not at the time (which is why the "wedding" was in Mass. and the reception in Colo.).
So, either you would void his First Amendment freedom of religion
Or force him to comply with a law to not discriminate against something politically when the State did, in fact, do just that.
If Caesar didn't claim it, how can it be 'Caesar's"? And don't pull any ex post facto stuff out of your beanie, either.
-
Of course it was. He advertised that he bakes wedding cakes. But just not for this couple.
What foul? The state of Colorado didn't acknowledge the "wedding" either.
-
And don't pull any ex post facto stuff out of your beanie, either.
It is a beanie, you know. Not a yarmulke.
-
Fine. But be prepared to pay the fine or other legal consequence of unlawful, arbitrary discrimination.
And what if we refuse?
We fought a bloody revolution against people with your mindset. You want a rematch?
Perhaps the baker will be rewarded for his actions in Heaven. But on earth, he's obliged to obey the law.
We are not obligated to obey any law that contravenes the Law of God which our entire nation's legal construct was based in principle upon.
Tyrants could pass a 'law' that we must all bow down towards Washington when a bell rings or to turn in all white male babies under two years of age for disposal, and we are under no obligation to obey such a command.
If he say's he's in business to bake wedding cakes for the general public, then he should live up to his word, without unlawfully discriminating.
I'm all for discriminating against evil and those who push it. You can shove your advocacy to criminalize our freedom of religion, association, conscience and service as 'unlawful'. We retain our liberties with extreme prejudice against the likes of wannabe meddlesome tyrants like you.
-
It is a beanie, you know. Not a yarmulke.
I can spell beanie!
-
Fine. But be prepared to pay the fine or other legal consequence of unlawful, arbitrary discrimination. Perhaps the baker will be rewarded for his actions in Heaven. But on earth, he's obliged to obey the law. If he say's he's in business to bake wedding cakes for the general public, then he should live up to his word, without unlawfully discriminating.
Sorry, we have freedom to practice religion in this country.
-
If Caesar didn't claim it, how can it be 'Caesar's"? And don't pull any ex post facto stuff out of your beanie, either.
Marriage never belonged to Caesar to begin with.
He appropriated what was never his to exert authority over.
As such, he has no authority in regards to marriage.
He or his agents or his courts unless they are upholding the Divine Authority first and foremost - of which Homosexuality is an abomination and not applicable to be considered part of the sacrament/covenant made with husband and wife and God.
-
I can spell beanie!
Help Cecil Help!.... I'm coming Beanie Boy!
-
Help Cecil Help!.... I'm coming Beanie Boy!
888high58888 (I almost put " and Cecil, too!") ^-^
-
Of course it was. He advertised that he bakes wedding cakes. But just not for this couple.
No different than McDonalds saying we sell hamburgers...unkess you don't have a shirt on...or shoes.
-
It is a beanie, you know. Not a yarmulke.
Did you hear the one about the Priest, The Evangelist and the Rabbi who lived on the same block and all bought New Cadillacs?
Well, one Saturday the Priest came out to his driveway with a spector and holy water pail and proceeded to bless his new Caddy. The Evangelist was mowing his grass and witnessed the Priest's acts and not to be out done, walked over to his new car and began the laying on of hands ritual invoking the Holy Spirit to safeguard his ride. Now the Rabbi who was washing his Cadillac and watch both of the priest and Ministers actions put his hose down and went into the garage to fetch a hacksaw. He walked to the rear of the car, bent down and proceeded to cut a 1/4 inch off his tailpipe.
-
Did you hear the one about the Priest, The Evangelist and the Rabbi who lived on the same block and all bought New Cadillacs?
Well, one Saturday the Priest came out to his driveway with a spector and holy water pail and proceeded to bless his new Caddy. The Evangelist was mowing his grass and witnessed the Priest's acts and not to be out done, walked over to his new car and began the laying on of hands ritual invoking the Holy Spirit to safeguard his ride. Now the Rabbi who was washing his Cadillac and watch both of the priest and Ministers actions put his hose down and went into the garage to fetch a hacksaw. He walked to the rear of the car, bent down and proceeded to cut a 1/4 inch off his tailpipe.
LOL! Almost as good as 'Should we tell him where the rocks are?"
888high58888
-
Did you hear the one about the Priest, The Evangelist and the Rabbi who lived on the same block and all bought New Cadillacs?
Well, one Saturday the Priest came out to his driveway with a spector and holy water pail and proceeded to bless his new Caddy. The Evangelist was mowing his grass and witnessed the Priest's acts and not to be out done, walked over to his new car and began the laying on of hands ritual invoking the Holy Spirit to safeguard his ride. Now the Rabbi who was washing his Cadillac and watch both of the priest and Ministers actions put his hose down and went into the garage to fetch a hacksaw. He walked to the rear of the car, bent down and proceeded to cut a 1/4 inch off his tailpipe.
Why you joining in making a mountain out of a Mohel? :tongue2:
-
Why you joining in making a mountain out of a Mohel? :tongue2:
LOL! Almost as good as 'Should we tell him where the rocks are?"
888high58888
nyuk nyuk nyuk :laugh: :laugh:
-
A rabbi and a priest were having drinks one night, discussing the world and the way their faith fitted. After a few drinks, the priest leans forward and quietly says, "I know your dietary restrictions. Have you ever broken them? Eaten pork?" The rabbi thought for a moment, finished his drink and said, " Yes. I tried a bacon sandwich once. Another round?"
After another couple of drinks, the rabbi leans forward and says, very quietly, "I know your church requires you to be chaste. Have you ever had, well, you know?" The priest finished his drink, ordered two more and said, equally quietly "Yes. I have had sex since I was ordained." The rabbi gives a slow smile, drains his beer and says "Beats the hell out of bacon, doesn't it."
-
Bullcrap.
A business should very well have a right to refuse service for any reason whatsoever. Being made to serve is not service it is slavery.
And that is precisely the argument Goldwater made against the civil rights law that gave us non-discrimination in public accommodations as a legal notion in the first place. He was right. Unfortunately 43 years of statutory and case law has settled the country on the opposite position.
The question now is whether the plain meaning "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." as extended to the states by prevailing 14th Amendment jurisprudence and supported by the precedent of giving waivers to generally applicable laws to the Amish for their scruples, to conscientious objectors in time of war, to prisoners with religious dietary restrictions and the like will allow for conscientious objection to the secularist settlement of sexuality. The Little Sisters of the Poor prevailed, so there is some hope that artists and craftsmen will not be compelled to provide support for the celebration of things to which they have religious objections.
-
And that is precisely the argument Goldwater made against the civil rights law that gave us non-discrimination in public accommodations as a legal notion in the first place. He was right. Unfortunately 43 years of statutory and case law has settled the country on the opposite position.
The question now is whether the plain meaning "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." as extended to the states by prevailing 14th Amendment jurisprudence and supported by the precedent of giving waivers to generally applicable laws to the Amish for their scruples, to conscientious objectors in time of war, to prisoners with religious dietary restrictions and the like will allow for conscientious objection to the secularist settlement of sexuality. The Little Sisters of the Poor prevailed, so there is some hope that artists and craftsmen will not be compelled to provide support for the celebration of things to which they have religious objections.
Precisely why I am against anti-discrimination laws altogether. Goldwater was right.
What I do on my property, public or otherwise is my business.
If you don't like what I offer, go somewhere else that offers what you want, no fault no foul.
If I'm a jerk, the market will weed me out soon enough.
And 'conscientious objector' is not good enough. while it may allow exception, it leaves the authority in the hands of the government - Authority it most certainly should not have.
-
And what if we refuse?
We fought a bloody revolution against people with your mindset. You want a rematch?
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
-
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
Blah blah blah. Only a bloody wanker like yourself would think that was a threat. You really need to grow a pair or better yet... ask your wife to get them out of the mason jar on the top shelf in the closet where she keeps them..
-
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
You are not 'disagreeing'.
You advocate empowering the government to put a gun to our heads to force us to acknowledge and celebrate homosexuality or have our livelihoods ruined and taken away.
The very definition of tyranny.
Only tyrants and advocates of tyranny would read what I posted and insist it as a threat. So thanks for outing yourself... yet again.
-
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
Only they aren't directed against you.
Put your big girl panties on and quit whining.
-
Blah blah blah. Only a bloody wanker like yourself would think that was a threat. You really need to grow a pair or better yet... ask your wife to get them out of the mason jar on the top shelf in the closet where she keeps them..
:silly: :silly: :silly:
-
(https://bosguydotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/religion-joke.png)
-
That's not arbitrary discrimination. That's discrimination for a reason - the customer isn't wearing shoes.
And refusing to bake a cake decorated to celebrate a homosexual "wedding" is not arbitrary discrimination, it is discrimination for a reason: the thing being celebrated is destructive of the soul and harmful to the eternal salvation of those involved. At least that is the view of it held by anyone who holds the traditional Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) view of morality. The fact that you, or the people holding the "wedding" disagree does not mean that acting on that view, part of the free exercise of religion (that Congress may not prohibit according to the First Amendment's guard of the natural right to free exercise for religion, and which the several states and their subdivisions may not prohibit under the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against enrcoachment by the several states) constitutes "arbitrary discrimination".
-
Problem easily solveable via the Market. You should be able to refuse service to anyone, and especially not be compelled to speak on behalf of someone else.
-
I am still always surprised by "conservatives" who want and wait for the government to come up with the solution to the problem du jour, especially when it seems to me that it's the government that causes a lot of the problem in the first place; wedding cakes, health insurance, etc etc.
-
It cannot erase the bigotry in a person's heart.
You are confusing judgment with bigotry.
There is a God who you need to refer to in order to clarify. I follow Him.
-
Why you joining in making a mountain out of a Mohel? :tongue2:
@EC
The pay sucks, but they get to keep the tips.
-
I am still always surprised by "conservatives" who want and wait for the government to come up with the solution to the problem du jour, especially when it seems to me that it's the government that causes a lot of the problem in the first place; wedding cakes, health insurance, etc etc.
@RoosGirl
This, exactly.
-
Again with the threats of violence against those who merely disagree.
Aw! She baked you a cake!
https://s7.postimg.org/50wvi5fln/JJval.gif (https://s7.postimg.org/50wvi5fln/JJval.gif)
NSFW, edit to link only, no image. Language. MOD4
-
You are confusing judgment with bigotry.
There is a God who you need to refer to in order to clarify. I follow Him.
:amen:
-
@EC
The pay sucks, but they get to keep the tips.
:chairbang:
-
And refusing to bake a cake decorated to celebrate a homosexual "wedding" is not arbitrary discrimination, it is discrimination for a reason: the thing being celebrated is destructive of the soul and harmful to the eternal salvation of those involved. At least that is the view of it held by anyone who holds the traditional Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) view of morality. The fact that you, or the people holding the "wedding" disagree does not mean that acting on that view, part of the free exercise of religion (that Congress may not prohibit according to the First Amendment's guard of the natural right to free exercise for religion, and which the several states and their subdivisions may not prohibit under the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending the guarantees of the Bill of Rights against enrcoachment by the several states) constitutes "arbitrary discrimination".
goopo