I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

[goatprairie]

For those claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, skin color, sex, ethnicity, or whatever is not the same thing as refusing to make a specific type of cake or whatever. 
Blacks were turned down from even entering and buying the same items in stores whites frequented. 
If  a Jewish-owned bakery says that they will only bake items in accordance with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, that is their right.  I doubt there are any Christians who would go to the Jewish bakery and demand a Christian-themed cake or whatever.
The sticking point would be if the Jewish bakery simply refused to sell anything to someone who was not Jewish. As if they could tell the difference, but the principal is the same.
The homosexual couple demanding a specially made cake were not refused service. They were free to buy any item the baker made for other people.
They wanted a special type of cake.  Any business should be able to refuse to make any item they don't want to make. Refusing to sell what they've made to certain people is an entirely another matter.

[Jazzhead]

Which is EXACTLY what they were offered.   But they sued anyway.

That's not what I understand.   The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake.   They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop -  for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage.   These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case.  There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.   

[Jazzhead]

And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it.  Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.

You can, but I'd suggest you lawyer up first.   I see on the Masterpiece Cake Shop website they no longer take orders for custom wedding cakes.   And that's just as it should be, if they insist on imposing their religion on innocent customers who merely want what they advertise to provide.   

[RoosGirl]

That's not what I understand.   The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake.   They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop -  for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage.   These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case.  There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.   

You, being a man I believe, may not understand this, and probably have not fully participated in planning a wedding like a woman has.  You do *not* go to a custom bakery, and pay (probably) thousands of dollars to have some generic wedding cake made.  If your aim is a generic wedding cake you go to your local grocer and get an "off the shelf" cake.  These guys went in with a folder full of design ideas and one of their mamas because they wanted a custom cake.  The baker offered them an "off the shelf" generic cake and they declined.

[INVAR]

That's not what I understand.   The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake.   They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop -  for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage.   These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case.  There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.   

You're wrong as usual.  Jack Phillips hand-paints and designs cakes for specific events and people. The plaintiffs KNEW this.   Phillips not only refuses to do homosexual unions, but he also refuses to do cakes for bachelor parties, halloween and other occult observances, divorce, and any event that contravenes his faith.  He even said sometimes he turns down more cake design requests than he takes orders.

The inquiry was for a custom-designed cake to celebrate a homosexual union.  The homos asked him to custom design a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony.  CUSTOM DESIGN.  That meant to paint and decorate the cake with homosexual imagery.   Phillips refused to 'design' a cake to celebrate their union, politely and offered them a standard cake without any custom design to celebrate homosexuality.  THEY refused and filed a suit.

You can, but I'd suggest you lawyer up first.   I see on the Masterpiece Cake Shop website they no longer take orders for custom wedding cakes.   And that's just as it should be, if they insist on imposing their religion on innocent customers who merely want what they advertise to provide.   

The ONLY imposing being advocated - is from tyrants thugs that push this homo crap like yourself.

Pushing a Mark of the Beast.

You seem to forget we fought a war to throw off a much less egregious affront to liberty than what you advocate.

We're armed up with a lot more than lawyers, because as history teaches - legal recourse does not stave off meddlesome tyrants hell bent on imposing their will.

[Jazzhead]

Likewise, the baker declining to make a gay-themed wedding cake thought it offensive. 

They didn't ask for a "gay themed" wedding cake.  They didn't ask, as INVAR alleges, for "homosexual imagery" to be on the cake.

They just wanted a wedding cake, like the shop advertises to provide.  They were denied service because of the owner's bigotry, masked as the exercise of "religion".   

Bottom line is that the SCOTUS will decide.  And the rest of us will need to decide whether to defend such bigotry, or its victims.   

[Jazzhead]

We're armed up with a lot more than lawyers, because as history teaches - legal recourse does not stave off meddlesome tyrants hell bent on imposing their will.

I know, I know, you've got guns and you're willing to use 'em.  A Drama Queen for Christ.   

[INVAR]

They didn't ask for a "gay themed" wedding cake.  They didn't ask, as INVAR alleges, for "homosexual imagery" to be on the cake.

Yes they did.  According to Jack Phillips himself.

You're wrong again - as always.

As someone told you above - they went to that bakery for the express purpose of having a custom-designed cake created for their homo union.

I know, I know, you've got guns and you're willing to use 'em.  A Drama Queen for Christ.   

Typical for a liberal like yourself to fail to comprehend what lengths we are willing to go to defend the gift of liberty we received from Christ in this country.

Not even King George III attempted to impose on the Colonists what evil you are advocating be imposed on us.

We're not slaves to wickedness.  Attempts to make us so under the color of law will earn consequences the lawless will rue the day were ever attempted.

[Cyber Liberty]

I guess this is what the Court will be deciding.   For me, the difference is clear.   The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for.  Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no.  But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake.   As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting.  But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding",  the baker turned them down.

I say that's unlawful discrimination.  You, I assume, don't.   So it'll be up to the Court to decide.

How odd.  I thought this thread was about a t-shirt company, not your anti-Christian cake baker hobby horse.

[Hoodat]

That's not what I understand.   The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake.

The Masterpiece Cake Shop did not refuse the customer's business.  They simply refused to make a same-sex wedding cake.

They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop -  for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage.

The customer's request was denied because they don't make same-sex wedding cakes.

These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case.  There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.   

Whoa, hold on just a minute here.  Who said anything about the customer being gay?  You are making bigoted assumptions without knowing anything at all about the sexual preference of the customers.  Weddings are asexual.

[Jazzhead]

INVAR,  I may be wicked but you're a liar.   According to the Brief in Opposition filed with the SCOTUS by the petitioners:

In July 2012, Respondents David Mullins and Charlie Craig were planning their wedding reception in Denver, Colorado.  Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, was helping the couple shop for a wedding cake.  The three of them visited Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop, a retail business in Colorado that sells wedding cakes and other baked goods to the public. Petitioner Jack Phillips owns and operates the Company.

Mullins and Craig expressed interest in buying a cake for "our wedding".  Phillips refused to serve them, explaining that the Company had a policy of refusing to sell baked goods for wedding of same-sex couples.  Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake.  Phillips was unwilling to make any cake for the wedding because they were a same sex couple, and therefore any further discussion would have been fruitless.   As the Administrative Law Judge in the Colorado administrative proceedings found, "[f]or all Phillips knew at the time, [Mullins and Craig] might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.

Phillips refused service because of his bigotry, not because of the "artistry" he would have had to perform with respect to the cake.  He didn't ask about design for the cake,  and his customer surely didn't demand that "homosexual imagery" to be placed on the cake.   

 It's time to decide whether to defend or oppose arbitrary bigotry.   I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.   

[berdie]

INVAR,  I may be wicked but you're a liar.   According to the Brief in Opposition filed with the SCOTUS by the petitioners:

Phillips refused service because of his bigotry, not because of the "artistry" he would have had to perform with respect to the cake.  He didn't ask about design for the cake,  and his customer surely didn't demand that "homosexual imagery" to be placed on the cake.   

 It's time to decide whether to defend or oppose arbitrary bigotry.   I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.

I must disagree. This is an issue because the gay community demands that everyone sign on to their beliefs.

If a company can't or won't accommodate my request, then I move to one that will. It is pretty simple and doesn't cause any undue attention. 

[RoosGirl]

How odd.  I thought this thread was about a t-shirt company, not your anti-Christian cake baker hobby horse.

Hush up and eat your cake.   

[Free Vulcan]

INVAR,  I may be wicked but you're a liar.   According to the Brief in Opposition filed with the SCOTUS by the petitioners:

Phillips refused service because of his bigotry, not because of the "artistry" he would have had to perform with respect to the cake.  He didn't ask about design for the cake,  and his customer surely didn't demand that "homosexual imagery" to be placed on the cake.   

 It's time to decide whether to defend or oppose arbitrary bigotry.   I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.

Even given those facts I'd say the gay couple has a fairly week case despite the adminstrative judge's ruling. Their statement is logically contradictory. If their cake was 'nondescript' then one off the shelf would have been fine. If they weren't going to have a gay themed cake, they should have stated so.

Nonetheless since it was custom, by definition it required artistry, and he was within his rights not to decorate that cake.

[Hoodat]

For those claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, skin color, sex, ethnicity, or whatever is not the same thing as refusing to make a specific type of cake or whatever. 
Blacks were turned down from even entering and buying the same items in stores whites frequented. 
If  a Jewish-owned bakery says that they will only bake items in accordance with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, that is their right.  I doubt there are any Christians who would go to the Jewish bakery and demand a Christian-themed cake or whatever.

What would happen if someone went into a muslim bakery and demanded they make a cake out of pork rinds?

The sticking point would be if the Jewish bakery simply refused to sell anything to someone who was not Jewish. As if they could tell the difference, but the principal is the same.
The homosexual couple demanding a specially made cake were not refused service. They were free to buy any item the baker made for other people.
They wanted a special type of cake.  Any business should be able to refuse to make any item they don't want to make.

Correctamundo.

[MOD3]

Hi Everybody, it's Me, the Friendly Mod!

 

Does anybody remember what the Original Topic of this thread was, back before @Jazzhead hijacked it in the fourth post?   

Please allow me to refresh your memory:  It was about a fellow who sells Christian T-Shirts being sued by homosexuals.  More to the point, it was NOT about a baker selling wedding cakes.

Please get off the wedding cakes, we have a whole thread or five dedicated to that.  Let's talk about the guy who sells T-Shirts, OK?  I'm too lazy to merge this thread with one of the other existing threads.

 

Mod4

[INVAR]

I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.

You are completely and absolutely biblically illiterate.

You believe in a christ of your own imagination, not the One revealed in scripture.

Only the demonically perverted in thought insist Christ would defend the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah under the color of 'eschewing bigotry'.

Sinful behavior is sinful behavior.  "Go and sin no more" was not just a suggestion.

Demanding others acknowledge, support, and serve that abomination of behavior is what caused those aforementioned cities to be obliterated from the face of the earth, by the very hand of Him whom you pretend to worship and assert would not condemn such behavior - but rather serve it.

[roamer_1]

The sticking point would be if the Jewish bakery simply refused to sell anything to someone who was not Jewish. As if they could tell the difference, but the principal is the same.

The Amish, and the Hutterites, and even some Mennonites will determine whether to do business simply by the cut of your jib - Very few of the English are granted leave... Simply by sight.

Mountain folk, the same. If you don't know how to approach a hillbilly, you will be very likely to be looking down the business end of a 12 gauge instead of doing business... and high-falutin' courts be damned.

Many folks are insular, and serve a specific community, and that's alright.

[roamer_1]

Only the demonically perverted in thought insist Christ would defend the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah under the color of 'eschewing bigotry'.

Indeed. Especially when it was very likely the pre-incarnate 'Christ' (Yeshua) who lead the angels to destroy the cities, and bartered with Abraham for their survival.

It is hilarity itself to listen to those who don't understand that the God of the 'Old Testament' is the very same God in the 'New'.

To anyone who doesn't understand... No man has seen the Father. But many have walked with and talked to God. Who was it in the Burning Bush, who named himself YHWH ? Behold the Hand. Behold the Nail.

[INVAR]

Indeed. Especially when it was very likely the pre-incarnate 'Christ' (Yeshua) who lead the angels to destroy the cities, and bartered with Abraham for their survival.

It is hilarity itself to listen to those who don't understand that the God of the 'Old Testament' is the very same God in the 'New'.

All anyone has to do is read to discover WHO Christ was from The Beginning.

It is laid out in perfect detail in John 1: 1-3 and verse 14.

There is no ambiguity - unless you are biblically illiterate or have a tradition that supersedes the plain words written on the page, directly from the Greek or translated into English.

[truth_seeker]

What I hope comes out in this is that there is absolute certainty that no vendor is compelled to put 1) speech, 2) symbols, or 3) creative artistry on or into their product.

In other words, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake, they get one. Plain, color of their choice, and nothing else. No decorations, no words, no artistic creativity.

How about a gay male couple? Should a Tux shop be required to rent them matching His and His tuxedos for their wedding?

What if they reserve and present themselves to stay in the Honeymoon Suite at your hotel?

Or a gay or lesbian couple asks an architect, to design their new home.  His/His or Her/her bathroom plans.

How about if the  walk up to your Uber car holding hands, and kissing? Gotta give them the rise anyway?

Etc.

[roamer_1]

All anyone has to do is read to discover WHO Christ was from The Beginning.

It is laid out in perfect detail in John 1: 1-3 and verse 14.

There is no ambiguity - unless you are biblically illiterate or have a tradition that supersedes the plain words written on the page, directly from the Greek or translated into English.

And thus this 'christ' of our own devising is necessarily laid low - and we become free to submit and participate in the Law of Liberty. I have never been so free.

[goatprairie]

You're wrong as usual.  Jack Phillips hand-paints and designs cakes for specific events and people. The plaintiffs KNEW this.   Phillips not only refuses to do homosexual unions, but he also refuses to do cakes for bachelor parties, halloween and other occult observances, divorce, and any event that contravenes his faith.  He even said sometimes he turns down more cake design requests than he takes orders.

The inquiry was for a custom-designed cake to celebrate a homosexual union.  The homos asked him to custom design a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony.  CUSTOM DESIGN.  That meant to paint and decorate the cake with homosexual imagery.   Phillips refused to 'design' a cake to celebrate their union, politely and offered them a standard cake without any custom design to celebrate homosexuality.  THEY refused and filed a suit.

The ONLY imposing being advocated - is from tyrants thugs that push this homo crap like yourself.

Pushing a Mark of the Beast.

You seem to forget we fought a war to throw off a much less egregious affront to liberty than what you advocate.

We're armed up with a lot more than lawyers, because as history teaches - legal recourse does not stave off meddlesome tyrants hell bent on imposing their will.

Yes, but the larger point is also some customer ordering a business to make a certain kind of product.  No customer can do that. 
The business isn't refusing to sell a customer a cake, only a certain kind of cake.
If the homosexuals can force a bakery to make a specially designed cake they don't want to make, then anybody can force any business to make any product they want. Which is not what businesses are in business for.
A shirt maker doesn't want to make my specially designed shirt with all sorts of sexual i.e. lewd imagery? I can sue them and make them manufacture that shirt.

[INVAR]

How about a gay male couple? Should a Tux shop be required to rent them matching His and His tuxedos for their wedding?

Is the Tux shop being asked to embroider mementos of their homosexual union on the suits?

Do homosexuals make it a practice to announce to everyone they purchase or rent an item from that they are perverts and are celebrating their perversion they want to commemorate?

If so, the Tux rental company, if they are owned by a Christian and they believe their service will be used to promote sin, has an inherent right to refuse to rent their product to them.  BTW, there is no way for a tux rental company to know what sexual persuasion their customers revel in unless that information is offered.

AND I am sure there are tux rental companies that cater to whomever for whatever and all it takes is a little walk through your phone to find one.

What if they reserve and present themselves to stay in the Honeymoon Suite at your hotel?

As we have seen, Bread and Breakfasts have had to close due to lawsuits from homos who sought to use their facilities to engage in sodomy.

Or a gay or lesbian couple asks an architect, to design their new home.  His/His or Her/her bathroom plans.

If it bothers the architect to design a home with two urinals in the master bathroom, then he has the right to refuse to design it.  Same as I refuse to do marketing for homosexual events or political events and ideologies I disagree with.  There are plenty of folks who are happy to take the money from whomever, for whatever.  It is a minority who are not governed by money and whose principles outweigh riches.  It is THESE PEOPLE that the Sodomites seek to punish with aid and help from government.

How about if the  walk up to your Uber car holding hands, and kissing? Gotta give them the ride anyway?

I wouldn't.

If Muslims can refuse to give rides to people who have alcohol or people with small dogs with the full blessing of government, I see no reason why I couldn't refuse to give a ride to two homos wanting to make out in my car.  They can find another car or cab or bus or train or plane to get where they want to go.

[INVAR]

A shirt maker doesn't want to make my specially designed shirt with all sorts of sexual i.e. lewd imagery? I can sue them and make them manufacture that shirt.

And sue them out of business and punish those who dared to refuse to engage in celebrating perversion.

Yes.  That is exactly what this entire issue is all about.

Tyranny over liberty under the bullshit excuse that public accommodation laws require every knee to bow and every tongue to confess that homosexuality is good and right and holy.

They will have to put a bullet in my head first before I complied with their demands or surrendered my business to agents of the state acting on orders from perverts.

And if they choose to go that route - it is the very reason the Second Amendment exists for exercise.