Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[Jazzhead]

how in the hell did you contort selling a cake to being interstate commerce?

Talk about absolute bullcrap

Tell it to the courts - decision after decision after decision, stretching back over most of this past century.   This is commerce, subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause,  notwithstanding you stopping up your ears and stamping your feet that it's not. 
 

[roamer_1]

I don't hate Christians.  I don't care much for bigots, though.

Physician, heal thyself. 

[Jazzhead]

However, the idea that two people in a same sex union is the equivalent of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, doesn't make the grade with Bible believing Christians, and to create a wedding cake for such an event to celebrate it doesn't either.
No bigotry, just a desire to NOT create something, based on a deeply held religious belief.

Keep in mind that same sex marriage is strictly a creature of the civil law.  It has no religious connotations whatsoever.   Just how is a "deeply held religious belief" offended by a civil ceremony,  granting the participants certain rights and obligations under the civil law, but none whatsoever with the Deity?   

[roamer_1]

So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling? 

There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.   

A kosher deli likewise sells meats and advertises selling meats - but no one will expect to find pork there either... And neither should they.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And what halal butcher advertises that he sells pork chops?   

Again - if you say you sell it, than serve the customers who come into your store to buy it.

I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.

[Smokin Joe]

I hope he loses, and the plaintiffs are awarded the sum of one dollar.

Well, that spells it out.

You wish to establish precedent that essentially refutes the enumerated protected rights under the Constitution of freedom of religion (nor prohibit the free exercise thereof) AND freedom of expression (speech: as in being forced to create something that represents something abhorrent to the artist). That's two of the five in the first amendment.

Gotcha.

[roamer_1]

You are deliberately misinterpreting what is being advertised, talk about pretzel logic.

Right... the actual thing in question here is that the fed nanny has declared recently that all marriages are marriages, to include homo marriage.

So now, since all 'marriages' are marriages Christian bakers must set aside their beliefs and bake cakes for homo marriages... and satanic marriages... and pagan marriages... and, I dunno, cross-species marriages, I guess.

A decade ago, the only wedding cakes that were made were for Jews and Christians, so advertising wedding cakes meant just that. Levering this bullshit will work only as long as it takes for Christian bakers to come up with a distinction in advertising - and then watch how the legal assault will change.

[roamer_1]

Sexual orientation as a protected classification, by and large, remains a function of state or local law.   That's certainly the case with respect to discrimination in the conduct of a public accommodation.   The Colorado baker ran afoul of local nondiscrimination rules, not those of the "socialist federal behemoth".

Then why in hell are you leaning on the Commerce Clause as your defense?

[Smokin Joe]

Keep in mind that same sex marriage is strictly a creature of the civil law.  It has no religious connotations whatsoever.   Just how is a "deeply held religious belief" offended by a civil ceremony,  granting the participants certain rights and obligations under the civil law, but none whatsoever with the Deity?

A war is a civil ceremony. Yet we acknowledge the deeply held religious beliefs of those who refuse to be combatants and call them Conscientious Objectors.

If, in a civil action, you were to go smear your civil pig's blood all over the sidewalk in front of a Mosque, would the religious objections of those who worship there not be a consideration? Sure, that would be a "hate crime".

Actions taken without any religious overtones are not immune to being 'sin' or to final judgement. They affect the Christian Believer whether or not the action is sanctioned by some other church. Apparently you seem to think religion is something practiced in a church. It isn't, it's a lifestyle all its own, and that Judge is a few pay grades above any other.

[roamer_1]

The customer has no knowledge of the baker's peculiar religious beliefs. All he/she knows is that he advertises to sell wedding cakes.  Not all weddings are religious in nature (I suspect that most aren't).   He/she enters the shop, and is arbitrarily turned away.  Why should the baker's "religious freedom" be a license to discriminate?

What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?

A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.

I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.

It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.

[Cyber Liberty]

I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.

By Jazzy's logic that I've seen applied multiple times on this subject:  Because the Halal butcher does not specifically state he doesn't sell pork chops, then he is de facto declaring he does sell pork chops and you're golden if you decide to sue him for it. 

That is exactly what the boy is saying about the Christian bakers not wanting to cater gay "marriages":  If they don't specifically advertise "No Gay 'Marriages,'" then they are in violation of the anti-discrimination laws.  In one post upthread, he specifically states if the bakers made such a declaration, he'd be A-OK with it.  I'd scrounge back and link his post, but it's a bit of a waste of time because I'm pretty sure he has me on his Ignore List.

And he accuses the rest of us of employing "pretzel logic" (actually a pretty good song by Steely Dan, title cut of the album, 1974).

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, that spells it out.

You wish to establish precedent that essentially refutes the enumerated protected rights under the Constitution of freedom of religion (nor prohibit the free exercise thereof) AND freedom of expression (speech: as in being forced to create something that represents something abhorrent to the artist). That's two of the five in the first amendment.

Gotcha.

Yeah, he gave the game away there.  It's all about the precedent.

[Smokin Joe]

By Jazzy's logic that I've seen applied multiple times on this subject:  Because the Halal butcher does not specifically state he doesn't sell pork chops, then he is de facto declaring he does sell pork chops and you're golden if you decide to sue him for it. 

That is exactly what the boy is saying about the Christian bakers not wanting to cater gay "marriages":  If they don't specifically advertise "No Gay 'Marriages,'" then they are in violation of the anti-discrimination laws.  In one post upthread, he specifically states if the bakers made such a declaration, he'd be A-OK with it.  I'd scrounge back and link his post, but it's a bit of a waste of time because I'm pretty sure he has me on his Ignore List.

And he accuses the rest of us of employing "pretzel logic" (actually a pretty good song by Steely Dan, title cut of the album, 1974).

But then the howl would be that Gays were specifically excluded...

[Cyber Liberty]

Then why in hell are you leaning on the Commerce Clause as your defense?

It's the only place in the US Constitution to which he can point that justifies his crusade.

[Cyber Liberty]

But then the howl would be that Gays were specifically excluded...

Yeah, I know.  It's a thing of beauty, isn't it?    

Heads I win, tails you lose.  Typical Alinsky.

[DCPatriot]

So expressing the view that one should honor what he advertises to provide is trolling? 

There is pretzel logic galore in this thread, but it's not coming from me.   

Among the many members going after you on this thread, more than a couple I consider friends/allies.

I agree with you totally, @Jazzhead

The butcher analogy might not be the best one to use, but if you're a bakery and you advertise that you make wedding cakes....you're making that cake.

[DCPatriot]

I want my halal butcher to write on my next goat order "To the Glory of Jesus Christ". When he delivers the order to my church's cafeteria.

        

[INVAR]

What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?

A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.

I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.

It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.

We're arguing with a pawn of the god of this age.

What it all boils down to is that the homosexual Statists are advocating the exact same thing Muslims do: Christians must renounce their faith and be subject to the state in whatever area they deem we must comply - or we must lose our heads/our business/our property/our livelihood/ our homes/our liberty.

This is the Mark of the Beast.  We must think and act according to the dictates of the Beast - or we cannot make a living.

Tyrannical morons that spout the kind of crap our resident Leftist does either refuse to comprehend that this is how we view their perverted push to cater to homosexual marriage - or they fully understand and WANT to impose tyranny or engender a bloodbath of resistance to their demand we renounce or suffer punishment.

This entire issue is about punishing and silencing Christians belief and adherence, it has nothing to do with 'public accommodation'.

I will not publicly accommodate wickedness.   I have the liberty by God to discriminate, and we are ordered to do so by God Himself - who tells us in no uncertain terms in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 to 'Reject evil' of which homosexuality is specifically named and identified as such.

That means I refuse to bake the cake, or use my business to promote homosexuals or Leftist politicians.

Should they want to force me to comply or attempt to punish for refusal to disobey God - then the gift of liberty as handed to us by Christ must be defended with every means at our disposal.

It is better to obey God than men.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah, I know.  It's a thing of beauty, isn't it?    

Heads I win, tails you lose.  Typical Alinsky.

Yabbut, we know who he dedicated his book to....(no wonder they're attacking Christians).

[roamer_1]

It is better to obey God than men.

Excellent post - Absolutely spot-on with every word, and succinctly described in the summary above.

[driftdiver]

Yes, that would be fine with me.

@Jazzhead

Apparently not, common meaning of marriage has included the biblical meaning.    This is but one example of the hateful attempts to overturn hundreds of years of tradition and law.

[INVAR]

The customer has no knowledge of the baker's peculiar religious beliefs. All he/she knows is that he advertises to sell wedding cakes.  Not all weddings are religious in nature (I suspect that most aren't).   He/she enters the shop, and is arbitrarily turned away.  Why should the baker's "religious freedom" be a license to discriminate?

So when I go to order several of those giant free-standing feather sign banners with art designed and provided by myself for a client for a religious event at a convention center - and the sign printer I got a quote from tells me when he sees the art for them, that they cannot print my banners because they have Christian and biblical references on them and the owner does not serve religious organizations or their agents - instead of just finding another printer that is happy to take a job worth several thousand dollars to print the church event banners, I should sue for millions and run this printer out of business for discrimination in your sick and twisted world right?

I should demand he just "Print the damn sign" ala "Bake the damn cake!" because it's "discrimination" and all. They advertise digital printing of feather banners, using their art department or we can provide our own custom artwork (which we did).  But because they have an unpublished "policy" of not printing anything "religious" - I should sue him into oblivion and punish him for discrimination and violating the Commerce Clause.

Unless of course - this printer is in his right to discriminate against Christians and those who quote the bible in their logos, and only Christians who discriminate against homosexuals should be forced to by a government gun to his head.

Unlike the tyranny you advocate be imposed by force - I use my liberty to go elsewhere and get my client's materials printed.  Only tyrants the thugs advocate what you advocate.

[Jazzhead]

What if it was a satanic wedding cake? Directly against his god, and honoring another (nevermind that homo marriage does the same thing)?

A motorcycle shop advertises fixing motorcycles, but the proprietor turns you down saying, 'Sorry, I only fix Harleys, I don't do Honda scooters'.

I advertise generic computer services, but bring me a Mac, and I will say sorry, I don't do Mac.

It isn't any different for the baker. He should not be expected to make a satanic cake. Neither any other he doesn't feel comfortable with.

Huh?  A "satanic cake"?   Is that like an evil petting zoo? 

It's well established that a baker (or printer) can decline to write words he finds offensive.   That's not unlawful discrimination, because it's based on the message the customer insists on, not who he is.   The Colorado baker is in hot water because he declined to provide his advertised service for no reason other than his customers were a gay couple.   This wasn't about the message the customers wanted written on the cake - their business was rejected because of who they were.   According to his website, he's no longer taking orders for custom wedding cakes - and that's how it should be, if his religious scruples won't let him provide a wedding cake to a gay couple.     

Your other analogies are just silly.  Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination.   In many places, gays are - largely because they have to endure a lot of crap from folks who reject them because they think their God demands it.   

[Jazzhead]

It is better to obey God than men.

Of course.  That's why I speak out against your threats of violence in His name.   Don't mistake me for some atheist.  If I were, I wouldn't give a damn about your poison.   

[Free Vulcan]

Your other analogies are just silly.  Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination.   In many places, gays are - largely because they have to endure a lot of crap from folks who reject them because they think their God demands it.

So in other words you believe in selective equality.