Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[Jazzhead]

So in other words you believe in selective equality.

No, I think roamer's analogies are silly. 

[INVAR]

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.

I'm not threatening violence in His Name.

I'm warning tyrants like you - that as Americans - we have an inalienable right to defend our liberties with extreme prejudice against efforts to impose the kind of crap you applaud be imposed upon us.

Because Liberty is the gift of God - and I choose to discriminate against evil and those who push it.

[Free Vulcan]

No, I think roamer's analogies are silly.

His analogies are quite apt. Either you are for equality or you or not. To say only govt approved and protected grievance groups have equality, is not equality.

This is even more exacerbated with transsexuals, who base their status strictly on belief. Why is one's set of beliefs more valuable and legit than the other?

[Cyber Liberty]

His analogies are quite apt. Either you are for equality or you or not. To say only govt approved and protected grievance groups have equality, is not equality.

This is even more exacerbated with transsexuals, who base their status strictly on belief. Why is one's set of beliefs more valuable and legit than the other?

Because the courts say so?  That's usually his argument.

[Smokin Joe]

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.     

A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.

It isn't about them being 'gay' but this one thing the baker would not lend his creativity to celebrate, any more than a Jewish baker could be expected to make a cake celebrating the death camps, or a Muslim butcher could be expected to handle pork. What I want to know is why you seem to think Rights only count for everyone BUT Christians.

[Free Vulcan]

Because the courts say so?  That's usually his argument.

Anyone supporting that then concedes that they believe the govt should dictate national morality. Those that do often scream separation of Church and State, but then go along with the State being the Church.

[Free Vulcan]

A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.

It isn't about them being 'gay' but this one thing the baker would not lend his creativity to celebrate, any more than a Jewish baker could be expected to make a cake celebrating the death camps, or a Muslim butcher could be expected to handle pork. What I want to know is why you seem to think Rights only count for everyone BUT Christians.

Which I think is a very important point. The baker didn't refuse to bake them a cake, he refused to bake them a wedding cake that celebrated their gay union. Had it been a birthday cake he would have baked it. He simply refused to go to a degree of specificity that violated his religious conscience, just like the halal butcher that sells meat but nothing as specific as pork.

Which brings up the point of how far is a vendor supposed to go to please everyone and their little ideological demands? At what point is it infringing on the vendor to force them to do whatever the govt deems he must do no matter how much of a violation of his rights it is? How many hoops of specificity is he supposed to jump thru?

As I said above, it becomes even more ridiculous with the transsexuals get thrown into this debate, as they have nothing but their belief to justify their grievance group status.

[roamer_1]

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

Yeah. Satanists get married too - Legally.

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.   

So IOW, the seller must listen carefully and only deny the work after hearing the full spiel... 'Hi, I'm a satanist and I want a wedding cake' is not enough? It's enough for me. Take a hike. It saves us both the time.

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.   

Big deal. I reject business all the time for who people are.

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.     

Right. If you can't have any, no one can. What infantile bullshit.

Your other analogies are just silly.  Honda owners and Mac owners aren't protected against arbitrary discrimination.   

No, but they will be. this shit you like never ends.

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.

Good. Let em go where they're not discriminated against. That's what I would have to do.

[goatprairie]

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.

Again, the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake, he's refusing to bake a certain designed cake.  If you can force a baker to make a specially designed cake contrary to his personal morals, you can force any baker (or business for that matter) to make specially designed items for whomever requests them.  I don't believe I have to list again the nasty but legal groups that could not be turned down.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread.  The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.

[goatprairie]

It's a business, not a church.  If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.

"then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers."
Not a logical statement. If a sign company makes funny or weird signs for certain customers, according to you they have to satisfy everybody's demands for whatever kind of sign they want.
All businesses discriminate.  What stops people who practice (list your weird activity) that is still legal from demanding the sign company or bakery created an item specifically for their special weird sexual proclivity?
According to you, nothing.  Nudists (a legal group of people) demand a cake with the bride and groom or whomever stark naked and with genitalia portruding, according to you,  the bakery must do so.

[RoosGirl]

I've decided I no longer have anything to contribute to this thread.  The chief troll here has me on Ignore anyway.

 

[Jazzhead]

Again, the baker isn't refusing to bake a cake, he's refusing to bake a certain designed cake.  If you can force a baker to make a specially designed cake contrary to his personal morals, you can force any baker (or business for that matter) to make specially designed items for whomever requests them.  I don't believe I have to list again the nasty but legal groups that could not be turned down.

Sigh.  Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide

No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes.  But if he advertises that service,  why shouldn't he be true to his word?   Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.     

[RoosGirl]

Sigh.  Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide

No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes.  But if he advertises that service,  why shouldn't he be true to his word?   Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.   

"Victim"....  Jeeeeeeez.  That no one would have known about except for the two parties if they had just gone and *easily* found a baker who would take their money and give them what they wanted.  They made themselves a "victim".

[roamer_1]

No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes.  But if he advertises that service,  why shouldn't he be true to his word?   Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.   

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. They're the victim.
All they had to do is walk out the door and down the street to get another cake. Big deal.

In the mean time, the baker's freedom in creativity, business, fortune, and likely life, lay in wreckage
For *NOT* doing something. Your position is preposterous.

[Free Vulcan]

Sigh.  Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide

So what? Advertising something does not mean that a vendor is under any legal obligation to satisfy every extreme request.

By that logic nothing could be refused.

[Jazzhead]

So what? Advertising something does not mean that a vendor is under any legal obligation to satisfy every extreme request.

By that logic nothing could be refused.

So a wedding cake requested by a gay couple rather than a straight couple is an "extreme request"?   How so?   Remember, the issue isn't what was requested to be written on the cake - the baker rejected the couple ab initio.  What's "extreme" is the baker's justification that his religious sensibilities were offended, since a same sex wedding is a civil matter with no religious implications whatsoever. 

Better he bake no wedding cakes at all.   

[Jazzhead]

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah right. They're the victim.
All they had to do is walk out the door and down the street to get another cake. Big deal.

In the mean time, the baker's freedom in creativity, business, fortune, and likely life, lay in wreckage
For *NOT* doing something. Your position is preposterous.

Hey, the baker made the decision to discriminate.  I have no doubt his legal crusade to discriminate is being bankrolled by others, and his talent for publicity means he'll pick up lots of business from folks who'd otherwise have never heard of his shop.

He'll be just fine. 

[roamer_1]

Hey, the baker made the decision to discriminate.  I have no doubt his legal crusade to discriminate is being bankrolled by others, and his talent for publicity means he'll pick up lots of business from folks who'd otherwise have never heard of his shop.

He'll be just fine.

I'd hope you get drug through a legal knothole, just to let you understand how wrong you are... But that'd be petty.

[Jazzhead]

I'd hope you get drug through a legal knothole, just to let you understand how wrong you are... But that'd be petty.

You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others?   Don't be naïve.   

[Free Vulcan]

So a wedding cake requested by a gay couple rather than a straight couple is an "extreme request"?   How so?   Remember, the issue isn't what was requested to be written on the cake - the baker rejected the couple ab initio.  What's "extreme" is the baker's justification that his religious sensibilities were offended, since a same sex wedding is a civil matter with no religious implications whatsoever. 

Better he bake no wedding cakes at all.   

Just as he would reject any other kind of marriage that was outside the norm determined by his religion. Just like the halal butcher. The couple wasn't asking for a plain cake of their color - they were asking for a wedding cake decorated as such.

It is not up to you what does an does not qualify as having religious implications or not. The gay couple's sensibilities were also offended but somehow theirs is the only one recognized.

By that logic there can be no discrimination against anyone for any reason or request, unless you are talking about selectively enforced equality.

[roamer_1]

You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others?   Don't be naïve.

I know others have been crushed. And the money, while it matters, is only a part of the disaster. Like I siad, I hope it doesn't happen to you, even though that lesson would be informative.

[INVAR]

Sigh.  Again - the baker isn't being asked to provide anything other than what he has already advertised to provide

No baker is under any obligation to bake wedding cakes.  But if he advertises that service,  why shouldn't he be true to his word?   Let's not forget the victim here - the customer who is humiliated because the baker arbitrarily cites his "religion" to refuse to provide what he's advertised to provide.   

Selectively enforced "equality" indeed.

Once again you demonstrate the tyrannical thug that all Leftists espouse in terms of deciding whom is permitted liberty and whom is not.

The banner printer advertised they print any design on their product.  We can submit our own designs or we can contract a design from their art department.  We provided my design which contained a logo for their church that has a scripture for an event they are hosting.  The banner printer refused the order once the art was submitted because they have an unpublished policy to not print anything biblical or deemed religious.

Since the banner printer advertised the service, but has refused to provide that service, why shouldn't they be true to their advertised word?  The "victim" here is my client, a Christian church, because the banner printer arbitrarily cited his "atheism" to refuse to provide what he advertised to provide.

However, unlike the homo snowflakes you champion and promote - neither me nor my client is 'humiliated' because the printer has an unspoken policy to eschew anything Christian or biblical, we used our liberty to find another printer of feather banners who wanted our money instead.

We do not desire to act like thugs, bullies and tyrants to force an atheist to violate his policy to cater to our demands, which is what you and those like you advocate be done to Christians.

[The_Reader_David]

Perhaps the folks flogging the notion that "public accomodations" laws trump the First Amendment could address the case law cited in the DOJ's amicus curia brief https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief that supports the opposite view, rather than just repeating themselves.  Jazzhead, that, especially, means you.

[Jazzhead]

Selectively enforced "equality" indeed.

Once again you demonstrate the tyrannical thug that all Leftists espouse in terms of deciding whom is permitted liberty and whom is not.

The banner printer advertised they print any design on their product.  We can submit our own designs or we can contract a design from their art department.  We provided my design which contained a logo for their church that has a scripture for an event they are hosting.  The banner printer refused the order once the art was submitted because they have an unpublished policy to not print anything biblical or deemed religious.

Since the banner printer advertised the service, but has refused to provide that service, why shouldn't they be true to their advertised word?  The "victim" here is my client, a Christian church, because the banner printer arbitrarily cited his "atheism" to refuse to provide what he advertised to provide.

However, unlike the homo snowflakes you champion and promote - neither me nor my client is 'humiliated' because the printer has an unspoken policy to eschew anything Christian or biblical, we used our liberty to find another printer of feather banners who wanted our money instead.

We do not desire to act like thugs, bullies and tyrants to force an atheist to violate his policy to cater to our demands, which is what you and those like you advocate be done to Christians.

It seems you may have been discriminated against.  The law provides for a private right of action to address such discrimination.  Each citizen has the choice to exercise or not exercise that right.  Those who choose to do so are not "thugs, bullies and tyrants".   

You seem to get off on the notion you're better than anyone else. Newsflash - we all end up as worm food.