The Left's Latest Obsession: Buying a Cake

[mystery-ak]

June 11, 2019
The Left's Latest Obsession: Buying a Cake
By Brian C. Joondeph

Leftists in America have managed to turn buying a cake into the modern version of the Selma march. For one Colorado baker, this has become a march to the courthouse, over and over again.

Militant LGBT activists are once again picking on Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, a Denver suburb.

Jack is no stranger to controversy, but not by his choice. He is now facing his third legal challenge from LGBT militants in their unending quest to force Jack, in Orwellian fashion, to deny his religious beliefs.

This sorry saga began in 2012 when a Colorado judge ordered Jack Phillips to bake a cake commemorating a gay wedding. Jack refused as this went against his religious beliefs. As he said at the time, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Jack was practicing his “free exercise of religion” as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Being forced to deny his religious beliefs to him was, "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible."

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/06/the_lefts_latest_obsession_buying_a_cake.html

[Hoodat]

Leftists will never give up at imposing their will on others.

[skeeter]

More specifically, the LGBT crowd is obsessed with buying cakes.

Well, buying cakes and parades.

[Wingnut]

If the SCOTUS would of had the cajones to make a damn ruling last year this would be a moot point.  But Nooooo...

[goatprairie]

I'll say this for the umpteenth time: no customer has the right to order a place of business to make him something the business doesn't want to make.
Stated another way,  all businesses have the ultimate right to make a product any way they want without gov. interference.
The customer can go to another business place and request the type of product he or she wants, but that is it. A customer cannot force a business to make something the business does not want to make.

[Jazzhead]

If the SCOTUS would of had the cajones to make a damn ruling last year this would be a moot point.  But Nooooo...

Correct.   The SCOTUS kicked the can,  thereby ensuring that these sorts of disputes will continue until it finally mans up and decides whether a shop owner can lawfully refuse advertised services to certain members of the public based on religious belief.   

[jmyrlefuller]

If the SCOTUS would of had the cajones to make a damn ruling last year this would be a moot point.  But Nooooo...

I would have much rather not, given Kennedy was still on the court at the time.

[Wingnut]

Correct.   The SCOTUS kicked the can,  thereby ensuring that these sorts of disputes will continue until it finally mans up and decides whether a shop owner can lawfully refuse advertised services to certain members of the public based on religious belief.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say there, bubba.  Don't be coy.

[Jazzhead]

I'll say this for the umpteenth time: no customer has the right to order a place of business to make him something the business doesn't want to make.
Stated another way,  all businesses have the ultimate right to make a product any way they want without gov. interference.
The customer can go to another business place and request the type of product he or she wants, but that is it. A customer cannot force a business to make something the business does not want to make.

But the baker advertises that it makes custom wedding cakes.  This is not something the baker doesn't want to make.  He likely derives significant revenue from making custom wedding cakes.   Could he refuse, for example,  to make a cake for a black customer by citing his religious beliefs?  How does one determine whether a religious belief is sincerely held,  rather than just an excuse for unlawful discrimination? 

This is a real thicket, which probably explains why the SCOTUS kicked the can.   And why plaintiffs keep coming out of the woodwork to sue Mr. Phillips.    At some point the SCOTUS is going to have to decide. 

[roamer_1]

If the SCOTUS would of had the cajones to make a damn ruling last year this would be a moot point.  But Nooooo...

Tough to do without tearing down the entire affirmative rights thing all the way back - Which ought to happen.
Forcing a business to do anything other than a free and voluntary exchange, regardless of anything, is where the problem lies.

[roamer_1]

I'll say this for the umpteenth time: no customer has the right to order a place of business to make him something the business doesn't want to make.
Stated another way,  all businesses have the ultimate right to make a product any way they want without gov. interference.
The customer can go to another business place and request the type of product he or she wants, but that is it. A customer cannot force a business to make something the business does not want to make.

That's right. In the end, it is a matter of property rights. The extension of one's person into one's business.

[roamer_1]

Correct.   The SCOTUS kicked the can,  thereby ensuring that these sorts of disputes will continue until it finally mans up and decides whether a shop owner can lawfully refuse advertised services to certain members of the public based on religious belief.

Exactly wrong.
A business man can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
The entire backbone of property rights is founded in the free and voluntary exchange between two people.
The moment it is forced, it is no longer free or voluntary.

[EdJames]

Tough to do without tearing down the entire affirmative rights thing all the way back - Which ought to happen.
Forcing a business to do anything other than a free and voluntary exchange, regardless of anything, is where the problem lies.

Exactly right!

Forcing a business to transact with virtually any party that walks in the door was a huge mistake.

The marketplace will always sort things out, if left unfettered.

[roamer_1]

But the baker advertises that it makes custom wedding cakes. 

So what? That doesn't mean he has to. Every job is a new contract to enter into, or not.

[EdJames]

Exactly wrong.
A business man can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
The entire backbone of property rights is founded in the free and voluntary exchange between two people.
The moment it is forced, it is no longer free or voluntary.

 

[roamer_1]

Exactly right!

Forcing a business to transact with virtually any party that walks in the door was a huge mistake.

The marketplace will always sort things out, if left unfettered.

That's right. If a feller wants to do business with nazis and have a sign in the window that says 'no n******, no j***', I say let him. The market will find him out. Chances are he won't last 90 days (and never would have).

The same thing goes here.
Let the man be. If his outlook is truly against what the community thinks, his business will suffer.
And btw, that ain't happening.
Which is why the gay agenda is using government and suits to coerce.

[EdJames]

That's right. If a feller wants to do business with nazis and have a sign in the window that says 'no n******, no j***', I say let him. The market will find him out. Chances are he won't last 90 days (and never would have).

The same thing goes here.
Let the man be. If his outlook is truly against what the community thinks, his business will suffer.
And btw, that ain't happening.
Which is why the gay agenda is using government and suits to coerce.

That is totally right.

And the bolded part works both ways!

[Bigun]

Exactly right!

Forcing a business to transact with virtually any party that walks in the door was a huge mistake.

The marketplace will always sort things out, if left unfettered.

   and     

[roamer_1]

That is totally right.

And the bolded part works both ways!

Yes it does, and it is.

[Wingnut]

It is a proven fact gays make great cake makers.  Let them make their own cakes.  Support your gayness.  Spend your money with your tribe.

[goatprairie]

But the baker advertises that it makes custom wedding cakes.  This is not something the baker doesn't want to make.  He likely derives significant revenue from making custom wedding cakes.   Could he refuse, for example,  to make a cake for a black customer by citing his religious beliefs?  How does one determine whether a religious belief is sincerely held,  rather than just an excuse for unlawful discrimination? 

This is a real thicket, which probably explains why the SCOTUS kicked the can.   And why plaintiffs keep coming out of the woodwork to sue Mr. Phillips.    At some point the SCOTUS is going to have to decide.

You're still confusing making something with selling something. If a black customer comes in and requests a special type of cake representing blackness or something, the baker has the perfect right to refuse to make it.
Just as a black baker has the perfect right to refuse to bake a cake representing whiteness i.e. as in the case of a baker refusing to bake a Nazi or Aryan themed cake.
In both cases the baker has the right to bake a cake or whatever any way they want. The customer can simply request a certain type of cake. They cannot demand the baker make a special cake for them.
I can't walk into a Muslim-owned bakery that only bakes religious cakes with Islamic themes (if there is such a bakery) and request a Christian-themed cake. If the Muslim baker doesn't want to bake a Christian-themed cake, too bad for me. I have to go elsewhere. The Muslim baker is perfectly willing to bake and sell me an Islamic-themed cake or anything else they usually bake.  I am not being discriminated against.
The baker is not refusing to bake all types of cakes or refusing to sell what they bake to a certain group.  He or she is only refusing to bake a specially-designed cake.

[goatprairie]

It is a proven fact gays make great cake makers.  Let them make their own cakes.  Support your gayness.  Spend your money with your tribe.

I have absolutely no problem with a homosexual-owned bakery refusing to bake wedding cakes for heterosexual couples. Like all businesses, they have the perfect right to bake whatever they choose to bake. The market will accommodate people of different tastes.

[Hoodat]

That's right. If a feller wants to do business with nazis and have a sign in the window that says 'no n******, no j***', I say let him. The market will find him out.

While I agree with you 100% on principle, any business adhering to this policy of discriminating based on race would be a violation of federal law.  Of course none of that has a thing to do with the Colorado baker since he never discriminated against anyone.

[roamer_1]

While I agree with you 100% on principle, any business adhering to this policy of discriminating based on race would be a violation of federal law.  Of course none of that has a thing to do with the Colorado baker since he never discriminated against anyone.

RIGHT. But you miss the point: The federal law should not exist. It is a violation of basic property rights (pursuit of happiness)

[Hoodat]

RIGHT. But you miss the point: The federal law should not exist. It is a violation of basic property rights (pursuit of happiness)

Yes, I understand the point.  Ben Shapiro says the same thing.  If a business had a sign saying 'No Jews", then it would save him from making the mistake of ever supporting that business.

But we're still off on a tangent.  The Baker here never discriminated against anyone.