‘The Ruling Is Wrong’ Says Baker After Losing Appeal Of Wedding Cake Case To Gay Couple

[Paladin]

Fascinating. A Federal Appeals Court rules an individual may not cite his 1st Amendment rights in his defense.

DENVER (CBS4) – The Colorado Court of Appeals has sided with a gay couple in the fight over a wedding cake saying a baker cannot cite religious beliefs in refusing service.

Lakewood baker Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012 saying it was against his religious beliefs. The couple married in Massachusetts but planned to celebrate in Colorado.

Craig and Mullins then sued Phillips and the court found that he violated the law preventing businesses from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Phillips tried to appeal that order arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights. Both sides made their case to the Court of Appeals in July and the court took until now to rule in favor of the couple.

[snip]

Phillips now faces fines if he declines to make wedding cakes for gay couples. After the state ordered him to make wedding cakes for everyone he stopped making them for anyone. He says it has cost him 40 percent of his business.

“Ton of support, most people are in agreement with us that a business and an American citizen should have the right to what they want to make and what they don’t want to make,” Phillips said.

Phillips’ lawyer said she will file the case with the state Supreme Court next month said they are willing to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/08/13/gay-couple-wins-wedding-cake-court-of-appeals-ruling/

[jmyrlefuller]

Use the 13th Amendment! Please!

[Free Vulcan]

More selective enforcement by the courts over 'sexual orientation' that allows the govt to include and exclude who they wish to have 'rights' under that designation, but not private citizens. If the govt can force anyone to interact with anyone else in any way it deems, then we've essentially negated religious belief and freedom and transferred it to the govt to let their holy tribunals decide what is religiously correct and what is not.

[truth_seeker]

Truman integrated the US military, when many churches still taught against black equality.

The churches that previously invoked Bible versus to support their discrimination against blacks,  changed their church's teachings. (The Mormon church, changed first with regard to plural marriage, then to blacks. )

Try holding yourself out to be a licensed real estate agent, but when a black person asks for your services, you refuse him.

Years ago in the US, legislatures signed "fair housing" which made discrimination based on race, illegal.

Being able to rent or buy real estate, try on and buy clothes, eat in a restaurant, get a job or buy a cake are all the same in the eyes of our laws.

Inability to believe in the confines of our laws, is not a defense for not following them.

You simply cannot hold yourself out as an employer, and when a black applies, deny the job over race.

Likewise you cannot hold yourself out as a baker, and when a gay orders a cake, deny your services based on his sexual orientation.

[Free Vulcan]

Truman integrated the US military, when many churches still taught against black equality.

The churches that previously invoked Bible versus to support their discrimination against blacks,  changed their church's teachings. (The Mormon church, changed first with regard to plural marriage, then to blacks. )

Try holding yourself out to be a licensed real estate agent, but when a black person asks for your services, you refuse him.

Years ago in the US, legislatures signed "fair housing" which made discrimination based on race, illegal.

Being able to rent or buy real estate, try on and buy clothes, eat in a restaurant, get a job or buy a cake are all the same in the eyes of our laws.

Inability to believe in the confines of our laws, is not a defense for not following them.

You simply cannot hold yourself out as an employer, and when a black applies, deny the job over race.

Likewise you cannot hold yourself out as a baker, and when a gay orders a cake, deny your services based on his sexual orientation.

The problem with that is it's a false analogy. Race says nothing about you. It's a state of being, not action. No one is discriminating against gays for being, but for action, no differently than if I refused to bake a cake for a black panther reunion or other objectionable race based theme. By forcing businesses to provide services for gay weddings is enforcing a code of morality.

And a very selective morality as well. Sexual orientation is a broad, undefined term, yet the govt is specific on which sexual orientations have rights and those that don't, a violation of the 14th amendment. It's also a double standard for the govt to say which sexual orientations it accepts, but not allowing the same of those with religious beliefs.

If we want to enforce equal rights for the vague term of  'sexual orientation', then all orientations should be required to be served, or none, and we should also force businesses to do religious weddings including radical Muslimes, Satanists, Westboro Baptist, etc, or non. They should also have the same rights as everyone else.

[musiclady]

The problem with that is it's a false analogy. Race says nothing about you. It's a state of being, not action. No one is discriminating against gays for being, but for action, no differently than if I refused to bake a cake for a black panther reunion or other objectionable race based theme. By forcing businesses to provide services for gay weddings is enforcing a code of morality.

And a very selective morality as well. Sexual orientation is a broad, undefined term, yet the govt is specific on which sexual orientations have rights and those that don't, a violation of the 14th amendment. It's also a double standard for the govt to say which sexual orientations it accepts, but not allowing the same of those with religious beliefs.

If we want to enforce equal rights for the vague term of  'sexual orientation', then all orientations should be required to be served, or none, and we should also force businesses to do religious weddings including radical Muslimes, Satanists, Westboro Baptist, etc, or non. They should also have the same rights as everyone else.

It's a very false analogy.

The problem is that the baker is being forced to make a wedding cake, not just any old cake.  He is not refusing to sell baked goods to anyone based on 'sexual orientation,' but rather refusing to participate in a ceremony which goes against his religious beliefs.

If this case eventually is lost in the Supreme Court, our religious liberty is no more.

[Free Vulcan]

It's a very false analogy.

The problem is that the baker is being forced to make a wedding cake, not just any old cake.  He is not refusing to sell baked goods to anyone based on 'sexual orientation,' but rather refusing to participate in a ceremony which goes against his religious beliefs.

If this case eventually is lost in the Supreme Court, our religious liberty is no more.

Pretty much. These protected status minority classifications are so broad that you could essentially force businesses to cater to anyone no matter how objectionable to common decency, and defending any wild a** lawsuit at any time, or egregious fines from some unelected 'diversity' board..

[truth_seeker]

It's a very false analogy.

The problem is that the baker is being forced to make a wedding cake, not just any old cake.  He is not refusing to sell baked goods to anyone based on 'sexual orientation,' but rather refusing to participate in a ceremony which goes against his religious beliefs.

If this case eventually is lost in the Supreme Court, our religious liberty is no more.

Baking the cake is not "participating" in the ceremony.

What did you have to say when the Mormon's were forced to change their religious beliefs, and give up practicing polygamy?

Shouldn't they have had their "religious liberty" protected?

At the time in the US there were two conflicting sets of religious views; one holding the Mormons' practice of polygamy to be abhorrent, and the Mormons' own belief in the practice thereof.

The civil laws of the United States took precedence and became the definitive rule. Consequently the state of Utah (and Arizona, Nevada etc.) do not issue multiple marriage licenses for wives of an individual man. If the "family" is to practice polygamy it will be with only a "religious" wedding but with no certificate.

Do you support the "religious liberty" of such families to practice their beliefs? Same for muslims.

Do you support certain Native tribes' "religious liberty" to use Peyote in their ceremonies?

Do you support all religious liberty, or only the one you personally believe in?

[DCPatriot]

Geezuz........make the damned cake already.

Use salt instead of sugar.

They won't be back anytime soon.

[truth_seeker]

A friend of mine owns a mattress store. I wonder how he deals with it?

[EC]

Baking the cake is not "participating" in the ceremony.

Yes. It is.

Selling a pre-made cake is not participating. Creating something specific to that one event is.

[Fishrrman]

truth_seeker asks the question:
[[ Do you support all religious liberty, or only the one you personally believe in? ]]

OK, I'll give my answer.

I support those "religious liberties" that are congruent and nourishing to Western Civilization.

Those that are not congruent and nourishing to Western Civilization, I -DO NOT- support, and I will go further, in that I proffer to you that those who try to practice and exercise such beliefs should be prevented from so doing.

I will NOT apologize for making such a statement, and I WILL NOT take it back.
Call me whatever you wish, and I will repeat it to you, for clarity.

How's that?

[truth_seeker]

truth_seeker asks the question:
[[ Do you support all religious liberty, or only the one you personally believe in? ]]

OK, I'll give my answer.

I support those "religious liberties" that are congruent and nourishing to Western Civilization.

Those that are not congruent and nourishing to Western Civilization, I -DO NOT- support, and I will go further, in that I proffer to you that those who try to practice and exercise such beliefs should be prevented from so doing.

I will NOT apologize for making such a statement, and I WILL NOT take it back.
Call me whatever you wish, and I will repeat it to you, for clarity.

How's that?

Mormonism is an American western religion. So how about their polygamy practices, shut down by the US govt. in effect, establishing that civil law overrides religious beliefs