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

[Jazzhead]

Libtards changed the definition of wedding cakes.  The baker was selling the EXACT same thing they were 10 years ago.  The only thing that changed is you tried to force him to change his definition of wedding and destroy him if he does not accept your new definition. 

You don't get it.  A cake is a cake.   The purpose for which the cake will be used is not the concern of the baker.  Why does the baker care whether his three-level fancy cake is used for a wedding or a fraternity party?   

The baker can certainly care about the design of the cake.  He certainly can refuse to decorate the cake with an objectionable message.  But that's not what this baker did.  He had no dialogue concerning the artistry of the cake.  He simply refused service because the customers were gay.  His situation is different from the T-shirt maker who is the subject of the initial post on this thread.   I support the T-shirt maker.   I condemn the baker.  The difference is the T-shirt maker exercised his liberty to object to a message his conscience couldn't abide.  The baker was just being a bigot (IMO). 

[RoosGirl]

You don't get it.  A cake is a cake.   The purpose for which the cake will be used is not the concern of the baker.  Why does the baker care whether his three-level fancy cake is used for a wedding or a fraternity party?   

The baker can certainly care about the design of the cake.  He certainly can refuse to decorate the cake with an objectionable message.  But that's not what this baker did.  He had no dialogue concerning the artistry of the cake.  He simply refused service because the customers were gay.  His situation is different from the T-shirt maker who is the subject of the initial post on this thread.   I support the T-shirt maker.   I condemn the baker.  The difference is the T-shirt maker exercised his liberty to object to a message his conscience couldn't abide.  The baker was just being a bigot (IMO).

He didn't refuse service.  He offered them any other product except a wedding cake.

[Jazzhead]

Christianity teaches that homosexual is an aberration.  Judaism and Islam teaches this as well.    For most of this Nation's history,  Variations of Christianity and Judaism represented the vast bulk of the nation's populace.  For most of our history  virtually everyone was a bigot,  as you describe it. 

Please understand.  A Christian who practices his faith is not a bigot.  If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin,  then he shouldn't practice homosexuality.   The issue at stake is the ability of a business owner to impose his religion on his customers, by refusing to serve those who are black, or gay, or on some other ARBITRARY basis that he "believes" his religion does not approve.   The SCOTUS held back in the sixties that a restaurant owner could not claim religion as an excuse for ignoring the law prohibiting discrimination against blacks.   And so, I believe, it will hold again with respect to a business owner's claim of religion as the excuse for refusing to provide a service to gays that he is willing to provide to others.   

[Jazzhead]

He didn't refuse service.  He offered them any other product except a wedding cake.

And that's an arbitrary refusal of service.

[Hoodat]

The baker had no dialogue with the customer about the cake. 

@Jazzhead

Absolutely positively false.

He simply refused the customer's business.

Again, absolutely positively false.

He would have refused to provide even an off-the-shelf wedding cake (he had earlier refused to provide even cupcakes to a gay couple.)   

Yet again, absolutely positively false.

It is clear that you know nothing about the facts of this case, Jazzhead. 

According to the court record, the customers did have dialog with the baker.  They specifically requested a same-sex wedding cake.  The baker informed the customers that he did not make same-sex wedding cakes, but would asked if they would like to order something else.

Also according to the court record, the mother of one of the customers (who is not gay) also requested a same-sex wedding cake.  Again, the baker informed the mother that he did not make same-sex wedding cakes.

And finally, the baker doesn't have off-the-shelf wedding cakes.  Each cake is the result of the creative talent of the baker.

It is flat out dishonest of you to keep creating your own narrative here.  You have been cited for this before, yet you continue doing it.  It only further destroys what little credibility you have remaining.  You are willfully discarding the facts of the case and replacing them with a scenario that supports your argument.  Some people would call this 'lying'.  How about reading the appellate court records for yourself.

[txradioguy]

Please understand.  A Christian who practices his faith is not a bigot.

Not according to you.  You verbally assault Christians with regularity when they don't agree with your defense of the gay agenda and cite Biblical references as to why it's an abomination.

 

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin,  then he shouldn't practice homosexuality.

 

Do you have any idea how totally idiotic that sounds?  Wait don't answer that...

The issue at stake is the ability of a business owner to impose his religion on his customers, by refusing to serve those who are black, or gay, or on some other ARBITRARY basis that he "believes" his religion does not approve.

So by your thinking...if a Satanist...or a Buddhist goes into a Christian book store and asks that they order or make something for their religion and the store refuses they should be sued or forced by government to comply with the Satanist or Buddhists demands?

The SCOTUS held back in the sixties that a restaurant owner could not claim religion as an excuse for ignoring the law prohibiting discrimination against blacks.   And so, I believe, it will hold again with respect to a business owner's claim of religion as the excuse for refusing to provide a service to gays that he is willing to provide to others.

And what Supreme Court Case would that be?  It's not on a list of any land mark cases decided by the SCOTUS in the 20th century.

You do realize that one of the biggest racists and anti religious zealots of modern legal history was an associate justice during the time you're talking about?

Former Klan lawyer Hugo Black...rabid ant-Catholic as well as a hater of anyone who wasn't white.  Black was one of the deciding votes in the

Congratulations...you're siding with a Klansman to back your anti Christian jones you have.

Well done.


Oh and by the way...gay isn't a race.  It's a sexual preference not an ethnic affiliation.

[Jazzhead]

Everything you wrote in your post above is dishonest, hoodat.   There was nothing on the baker's menu of service about same-sex vs. opposite-sex wedding cakes.   Just wedding cakes, period.  He hung himself by not making his refusal a matter of the exercise of his artistry.  He wouldn't even make flippin' cupcakes for a gay customer, after he heard they'd be served at a (horrors!) commitment ceremony.   

Bottom line is my opinion and your opinion doesn't matter.  Only the SCOTUS's does.  And I think they took this case because they see a line of demarcation between religious expression and using religion as an excuse for unlawful bigotry in the conduct of commerce.   

[Hoodat]

You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims?

The only victim of discrimination here is the cake that never was made.

It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus

Nice try, but no one here is being told to sit at the back of the bus.  All customers are created equal, whether heterosexual or homosexual.  This is self-evident since sexual preference of the customer has absolutely zero bearing on whether something gets made or not, but rather on the baked good itself.

It's humiliating .  .  . to take your business elsewhere.

Are you serious?  Please.  If I go into a store to purchase something, and they tell me they don't sell to Conservatives, Christians, or Country boys, then I thank them wholeheartedly for saving me from giving my money to those bigoted schmucks.  Humilitated?   Hell no, I am grateful!

There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.

Ah, still more pre-judging from you.  How typical.

[txradioguy]

There was nothing on the baker's menu of service about same-sex vs. opposite-sex wedding cakes.   Just wedding cakes, period.  He hung himself by not making his refusal a matter of the exercise of his artistry.  He wouldn't even make flippin' cupcakes for a gay customer, after he heard they'd be served at a (horrors!) commitment ceremony.   

Bottom line is my opinion and your opinion doesn't matter.  Only the SCOTUS's does.  And I think they took this case because they see a line of demarcation between religious expression and using religion as an excuse for unlawful bigotry in the conduct of commerce.

You really can't stand it when you're completely wrong about something can you?

[txradioguy]

Ah, still more pre-judging from you.  How typical.

@Hoodat and he's got the nerve to call others bigots and racists.   

[Jazzhead]

Not according to you.  You verbally assault Christians with regularity when they don't agree with your defense of the gay agenda and cite Biblical references as to why it's an abomination.

   

I express my opinion, the same as you do.   No Christian who believes homosexuality is a sin should engage in the practice.  But if they're in the business of providing goods and services to the general public, they have a legal obligation to leave their religion out of it and not discriminate. 

[Jazzhead]

@Hoodat and he's got the nerve to call others bigots and racists.   

I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists.  But you have.   

[Jazzhead]

You really can't stand it when you're completely wrong about something can you?

We'll see if I'm wrong.  The SCOTUS will decide soon enough.   

[txradioguy]

We'll see if I'm wrong.  The SCOTUS will decide soon enough.

You're wrong...and if recent lower court decisions are any indication of the legal precedent the Supreme Court will use in deciding this case...it's gonna be an epic tantrum you throw on the thread announcing they ruled in favor of the baker.


I can't wait to watch the meltdown.

[txradioguy]

I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists.  But you have.

Really?  You never have?  Any thread dealing with Obamacare or gay "marriage" is rife with you calling people bigots.

Don't insult the collective intelligence of TBR by lying like that.

As for me...the only one I've called that is you.  And you've earned it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists.  But you have.
[/quote

No, you say people here who have Christian beliefs are wrong about how they practice then, and are therefore racists and bigots.  As a group.  As if that's somehow better than as individuals. 

[RoosGirl]

And that's an arbitrary refusal of service.

First you tried to get us to believe he flat out refused to serve them.  Now his offering them anything except a wedding cake is arbitrary refusal.  I guess when the lie doesn't work, just change your story.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

You're wrong...and if recent lower court decisions are any indication of the legal precedent the Supreme Court will use in deciding this case...it's gonna be an epic tantrum you throw on the thread announcing they ruled in favor of the baker.


I can't wait to watch the meltdown.

I see you've called dibs on the popcorn concession.  Oh well...I can't win them all. 

 

[txradioguy]

First you tried to get us to believe he flat out refused to serve them.  Now his offering them anything except a wedding cake is arbitrary refusal.  I guess when the lie doesn't work, just change your story.

 

And he changes it often.

You've heard of situational ethics?

Jazzy suffers from situational point of view.

He's all for the courts and their right to decide in situations like this.

But there are other subjects he rails about judicial overreach and how the courts have no authority to decide an issue.

[txradioguy]

I see you've called dibs on the popcorn concession.  Oh well...I can't win them all. 

 

I'll split it with you 50-50

[Cyber Liberty]

First you tried to get us to believe he flat out refused to serve them.  Now his offering them anything except a wedding cake is arbitrary refusal.  I guess when the lie doesn't work, just change your story.

 

I can't decide whether to name it a Straw Man or Moving the Goalposts.

[txradioguy]

No, you say people here who have Christian beliefs are wrong about how they practice then, and are therefore racists and bigots.  As a group.  As if that's somehow better than as individuals.

He seems to think that the blanket use of the terms gives him a pass for some reason.

[Hoodat]

Everything you wrote in your post above is dishonest, hoodat.

The wording of the appellate court ruling speaks for itself.

There was nothing on the baker's menu of service about same-sex vs. opposite-sex wedding cakes.

Please provide the link listing the baker's menu of service.  Thanks.  Because without it, I can only conclude that you are making up your own facts.  Again.

He hung himself by not making his refusal a matter of the exercise of his artistry.

His reason for refusing is irrelevant.  Thoughts are not crimes.  At least not yet, no matter how much you wish to criminalize them.  And the fact that you continue to make it the issue only confirms your own bigotry.  It's OK for artists to discriminate, unless they happen to believe in Colorado's legal definition of marriage and the Bible.

He wouldn't even make flippin' cupcakes for a gay customer, after he heard they'd be served at a (horrors!) commitment ceremony.

Absolutely positively false.  You have been corrected on this point multiple times.  The fact that you continue to offer up this false account makes you a liar.

This is the very first paragraph of the background from the Colorado Court of Appeals.  You could have looked this up yourself, but insisted on lying instead:

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery
in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and
create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips
declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left
Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their
wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn,
called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make
wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious
beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.

Do you see the part there where the baker offered to make them other baked goods?  Do you also see the part there where a woman who was not homosexual also requested a cake for a same-sex wedding and she was also refused?

THE COURT RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT both a homosexual and a heterosexual were refused when requesting a cake for a same-sex wedding.  This has been pointed out to you again and again and again and again, yet here you are still lying about it.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf

Bottom line is my opinion and your opinion doesn't matter.

The bottom line here is that my opinion is based upon actual facts while yours is based on fantasy.

Only the SCOTUS's does.  And I think they took this case because they see a line of demarcation between religious expression and using religion as an excuse for unlawful bigotry in the conduct of commerce.

There is no unlawful bigotry in the conduct of commerce.  All customers are treated the same.  Requests for same-sex wedding cakes will be refused regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.  The court records prove that.  Conversely, requests for opposite-sex wedding cakes will be accepted regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.  This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'll split it with you 50-50

Naw, you go ahead and take this one.  I have dibs for the action when the SCOTUS forces Philadelphia to allow Constitutional Carry (as long as we're taking bets on future SCOTUS action).

[txradioguy]

Naw, you go ahead and take this one.  I have dibs for the action when the SCOTUS forces Philadelphia to allow Constitutional Carry (as long as we're taking bets on future SCOTUS action).

Deal.