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

[goatprairie]

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.

I was pointing out that making a certain product and selling a certain product are two different things. The right to refuse service to anyone a business doesn't want to sell their product to would mean a different discussion.
This particular discussion is about a business being forced to manufacture a product they don't want to.  If homosexuals can make a baker bake a special kind of cake,  then anybody can make any business make a specially designed product even if the business doesn't want to make it.  I don't think that's one of the reasons our country was founded...to be forced to make something you don't want to for somebody else.

[Cyber Liberty]

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

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.

OK, I have to hit "pause" for a second here.  Uber is a private referral company with their own set of guidelines, and if you choose to exclude your car from business you contracted to serve, they have every right to sever that contract for referral. You can refuse, but if you refuse that ride your Uber driving is over.

[goatprairie]

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.

Different principle at stake there.  It's not about selling, it's about making/manufacturing.
If I own a business selling clothes for the general society, I don't care what the sexual orientation is of the people who buy my clothes.
Now if a homosexual couple (it could be any couple) asks me to make a special kind of clothing for them, that would be another issue. I don't have to make anything I don't want to.
Two homosexual men (or women) want to buy some of my regular tuxedos..... no problem. Even if they declare what they're wearing them for. 
The issue is a business being forced to MAKE, not SELL, a particular kind of product.

[roamer_1]

I was pointing out that making a certain product and selling a certain product are two different things. The right to refuse service to anyone a business doesn't want to sell their product to would mean a different discussion.
This particular discussion is about a business being forced to manufacture a product they don't want to.  If homosexuals can make a baker bake a special kind of cake,  then anybody can make any business make a specially designed product even if the business doesn't want to make it.  I don't think that's one of the reasons our country was founded...to be forced to make something you don't want to for somebody else.

And that's all right, alright. But my contribution runs inline with that. There are many insular communities who discriminate far more in business, preferring to exercise their freedom of association in their business conduct to exclude nearly all that are not exactly like unto themselves... The new climate would suggest that they no longer have that right, purposefully tearing down the insular nature they have rightly chosen.

What is happening to the larger Christian community is only different in scale.

[INVAR]

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.


OK, I have to hit "pause" for a second here.  Uber is a private referral company with their own set of guidelines, and if you choose to exclude your car from business you contracted to serve, they have every right to sever that contract for referral. You can refuse, but if you refuse that ride your Uber driving is over.

Not the issue of discussion.  We're talking hypotheticals - but if you contact to drive for a company that says you must serve anyone and everyone - then okay then.

I will note that it is interesting that Muslims are permitted wavers to city/county ordinances and company policies under the right of 'religious liberty'.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not the issue of discussion.  We're talking hypotheticals - but if you contact to drive for a company that says you must serve anyone and everyone - then okay then.

I will note that it is interesting that Muslims are permitted wavers to city/county ordinances and company policies under the right of 'religious liberty'.

Agreed.   

[Emjay]

I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead.  In fact, I think the customer had been served there before.  It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".
[/quote

I think you're right and hasn't the Court now ruled in favor of the baker?

[Emjay]

Well.... thank God (literally)..... that the Trump Justice Department disagrees with you and others like you.  They support the Baker's right to adhere to his religious beliefs while doing business in the USA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/jack-phillips-christian-baker-backed-justice-depar/

Amen!  Too much here is being based on what people think was in the Baker's mind more than what he did.  The Baker was being baited and the Gay couple could have had ten cakes made before they got to the lawyer's office.

[Emjay]

Sorry, Mod.

I made my posts prior to reading your suggestion that we stay away from cakes.

[Fishrrman]

RoosGirl wrote:
"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."

I know this is off-topic, but any woman who would spend upwards of a thousand dollars on -a wedding cake- ain't worth marryin' !!  ;)

[RoosGirl]

RoosGirl wrote:
"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."

I know this is off-topic, but any woman who would spend upwards of a thousand dollars on -a wedding cake- ain't worth marryin' !!  ;)

LOL.  You would be happy for my husband then that I was introduced to a nice woman who made lovely custom cakes out of her home and I paid her $100 (almost 14 years ago now) for a wonderful vanilla/almond two layer wedding cake decorated with fresh Gerbera Daisies.  :)

[Hoodat]

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

@MOD3

I am not finding any official cake thread.  The Oregon cake case has been discussed at length on the Ted Cruz thread.  And this thread seems to be the home of the Colorado cake case.

So if I want to respond to comments about the Colorado case, do I commit a second hijack of the Ted Cruz thread to post it there?  Or can we make this thread the official Colorado Cake thread, and the Ted Cruz thread the official Oregon Cake thread?

[Hoodat]

And since we still seem to be on cakes .  .  .

@Jazzhead

Don't you find it silly to be arguing that the state of Colorado should compel a Colorado baker to bake a same-sex wedding cake when that same state of Colorado did not allow same-sex marriage?

[MOD3]

 :huh?:

That's a bit of a poser.  Maybe we can start a thread about Pecan Pie? 

Meanwhile, go for it here.  Nobody will notice.  Probably.  Maybe...perhaps.....

M3

[RoosGirl]

I do not like pecan pie.

[roamer_1]

I do not like pecan pie.

I luuuv it... but only a few bites. Too rich.

[Cyber Liberty]

I do not like pecan pie.

My fave is Pumpkin Pie, but that's more of a custard in a pie shell....

[RoosGirl]

I luuuv it... but only a few bites. Too rich.

That's why I don't like it.

[Hoodat]

That's why I don't like it.

Gotta have lots of vanilla ice cream with warmed pecan pie.

[DB]

I do not like pecan pie.

Yah, I'm not alone.

[Cyber Liberty]

Gotta have lots of vanilla ice cream with warmed pecan pie.

Mmmm!  You don't even need a topping on ice cream if it's on warm Pecan Pie.  I don't even need a fork, I could suck that straight into my face (right before it melts off my head).

[roamer_1]

Now, I don't care what anybody says: Mississippi Mud Pie.
Nuff said.

Makes Chocolate Silk seem cheap and tawdry.

[roamer_1]

And btw:

It's still PEE-can.

[Jazzhead]

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.

Except the facts are even worse for the baker.   The Brief in Opposition, as noted above, describes the refusal of service as rooted in the baker's animosity toward same-sex weddings;  he never questioned the customer regarding the "artistry" to be deployed on the cake.  Even an off the shelf cake, it appears, would have been verboten.

According to an affidavit filed with the Brief in Opposition, another customer sought cupcakes for a same-sex commitment ceremony.  Not an artistic wedding cake, but cupcakes.  Not a wedding, but merely a commitment ceremony.  And the baker refused service.   The more I read into this case, the more I can see why the SCOTUS took it.  This is going to be no great victory for the baker.  His conduct was bigoted and deplorable, and I expect the Court to uphold the efficacy of the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination. 

[Jazzhead]

And since we still seem to be on cakes .  .  .

@Jazzhead

Don't you find it silly to be arguing that the state of Colorado should compel a Colorado baker to bake a same-sex wedding cake when that same state of Colorado did not allow same-sex marriage?

Why is that relevant?   The State of Colorado is compelling a Colorado baker to not discriminate in violation of the law.   You imply,  I suppose, that the baker's opposition wasn't religious at all, but political.  But that gives him even less of a leg to stand on, legally.