One must act and think according to the beast, or one cannot make a living.
Christians with an understanding of scripture recognize that mechanism as The Mark.
He's got court precedent on his side for this one.
I agree. Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights. The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is. That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker, who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.
I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead. In fact, I think the customer had been served there before. It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".
I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead. In fact, I think the customer had been served there before. It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".
I agree. Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights. The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is. That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker, who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.
I hope at the very least SCOTUS will side with this businessman. Ruling in favor of forcing speech would have very bad ramifications far beyond business transactions.
The SCOTUS, of course, is addressing the Colorado baker's situation, not the T-shirt maker. The T-shirt maker should be on firm ground although that, of course, doesn't prevent an angry customer from suing and forcing the T-shirt maker to incur legal bills.
I suspect the SCOTUS thinks very carefully before accepting a case, and its agreement to accept Masterpiece Cakeshop strikes me as ominous. Bad facts often lead to bad law, and the SCOTUS likely sees an opportunity to bolster the law against discrimination in public accommodations. The case was shot down on freedom of speech grounds by the lower court (the grounds that would have supported the T-shirt maker), and is now before SCOTUS on the retooled and very shaky ground of freedom of religion. There is plenty of precedent - including Supreme Court precedent from the sixties, I believe - for the proposition that a claim of religious liberty doesn't allow a business to discriminate. (The sixties case, if I recall, involved a Bar-B-Q restaurant that claimed it didn't have to serve black customers because of the owner's religious beliefs. That claim was shot down so fast it would make one's head spin!)
Bottom line - the Colorado baker screwed up by rejecting service before even inquiring what the customers wanted on the cake. He's going to lose, I predict. The proper ground is freedom of speech, not freedom of religion. The T-shirt maker has the law on his side, the baker, not so much.
Looks like at this point it goes to the Kentucky Supremes. If they lose I expect them to go Federal and eventually try to take it to SCOTUS. We shall see. If it does I hope SCOTUS knocks down forced speech.
I guess this is what the Court will be deciding. For me, the difference is clear. The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for. Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no. But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake. As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting. But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding", the baker turned them down.
I say that's unlawful discrimination. You, I assume, don't. So it'll be up to the Court to decide.
I agree. Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights.
I went and looked at the T-shirt makers website. It advertises custom made t-shirts. Nowhere does it say they maintain some discrimination in the products they will produce. By your logic they should make any t-shirt they are requested to make.
Laws against nondiscrimination by owners of public accommodations protect against arbitrary discrimination, based on an individual's protected characteristic(s) (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) They do not go so far as to require a business owner to agree to a customer's message or conduct. A store can ban customers without shirts or shoes, but cannot ban (for example) only black customers without shirts or shoes. A store is not required to carry the product the customer demands - so, for example, a customer has no legal right to force a halal butcher to sell pork. And a baker is not obliged to place a message on a birthday cake or wedding cake that he deems offensive.
The rule is very simple - if you advertise a service, provide it without regard to who the customer is. The Colorado baker broke the law because he declined to provide an advertised service - a wedding cake - to a same-sex couple. He can control the design and message on the cake, but he cannot just arbitrarily deny wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.
You destroyed your entire argument by your own words. "Sexual orientation" is a choice in behavior that is abhorrent conduct. Demanding a business provide a custom-designed product that acknowledges, celebrates and advertises said abhorrent conduct - is a violation of the very "laws" you cite.'
But we understand that as with all Liberals, some skin colors, gender and sexual behaviors are more equal than others.
Most businesses have no idea what kind of sex any of their customers practice. Not until the customer requests a product and service that announces it and explains what it is for. Such denies the business owner the right to control the design and message.
And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it. Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.
Laws against nondiscrimination by owners of public accommodations protect against arbitrary discrimination, based on an individual's protected characteristic(s) (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) They do not go so far as to require a business owner to agree to a customer's message or conduct. A store can ban customers without shirts or shoes, but cannot ban (for example) only black customers without shirts or shoes. A store is not required to carry the product the customer demands - so, for example, a customer has no legal right to force a halal butcher to sell pork. And a baker is not obliged to place a message on a birthday cake or wedding cake that he deems offensive.
The rule is very simple - if you advertise a service, provide it without regard to who the customer is. The Colorado baker broke the law because he declined to provide an advertised service - a wedding cake - to a same-sex couple. He can control the design and message on the cake, but he cannot just arbitrarily deny wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.
No, there is a difference between sexual orientation and acting on it. Orientation is not behaviour.
I guess this is what the Court will be deciding. For me, the difference is clear. The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for. Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no. But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake. As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting. But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding", the baker turned them down.
I say that's unlawful discrimination. You, I assume, don't. So it'll be up to the Court to decide.
You destroyed your entire argument by your own words. "Sexual orientation" is a choice in behavior that is abhorrent conduct. Demanding a business provide a custom-designed product that acknowledges, celebrates and advertises said abhorrent conduct - is a violation of the very "laws" you cite.'
But we understand that as with all Liberals, some skin colors, gender and sexual behaviors are more equal than others.
Most businesses have no idea what kind of sex any of their customers practice. Not until the customer requests a product and service that announces it and explains what it is for. Such denies the business owner the right to control the design and message.
And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it. Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.
In other words, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake, they get one. Plain, color of their choice, and nothing else. No decorations, no words, no artistic creativity.
Which is EXACTLY what they were offered. But they sued anyway.
I agree. Declining to print text deemed offensive on a t-shirt is within this businessman's rights. The customer's request was rejected because of the message, not because of who the customer is. That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker, who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.What is inoffensive to one person might be very offensive to another. In reality, there is no difference. Both customers demanded a business make a particular type of item.
Which is EXACTLY what they were offered. But they sued anyway.
And, contrary to your insistence - we CAN arbitrarily deny whatever product or service is our trade to whomever we choose to deny it. Especially in matters of forcing us to violate our consciences to serve to accommodate, celebrate and acknowledge an evil behavior as good.
That's not what I understand. The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake. They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop - for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage. These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case. There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.
That's not what I understand. The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake. They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop - for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage. These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case. There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.
You can, but I'd suggest you lawyer up first. I see on the Masterpiece Cake Shop website they no longer take orders for custom wedding cakes. And that's just as it should be, if they insist on imposing their religion on innocent customers who merely want what they advertise to provide.
Likewise, the baker declining to make a gay-themed wedding cake thought it offensive.
We're armed up with a lot more than lawyers, because as history teaches - legal recourse does not stave off meddlesome tyrants hell bent on imposing their will.
They didn't ask for a "gay themed" wedding cake. They didn't ask, as INVAR alleges, for "homosexual imagery" to be on the cake.
I know, I know, you've got guns and you're willing to use 'em. A Drama Queen for Christ. *****rollingeyes*****
I guess this is what the Court will be deciding. For me, the difference is clear. The baker advertised he made wedding cakes, which is exactly what his customer asked for. Now if the customer had asked to place an offensive message on the cake, then the baker would have been within his rights to say no. But it never got that far - these customers were shown the door without ever having indicated they wanted anything special placed on the cake. As far as the baker was aware, all they wanted was eggs, flour and frosting. But because they said the cake was to be served at a "gay wedding", the baker turned them down.
I say that's unlawful discrimination. You, I assume, don't. So it'll be up to the Court to decide.
That's not what I understand. The Masterpiece Cake Shop refused their customer's business before inquiring about words, symbols, etc. to be placed on the cake.
They were flatly refused service because the customer wanted a wedding cake - as advertised by the shop - for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex civil marriage.
These facts are why I believe the Cake Shop can and will lose the case. There was no "artistry" involved - just antipathy toward a customer because he was gay.
In July 2012, Respondents David Mullins and Charlie Craig were planning their wedding reception in Denver, Colorado. Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, was helping the couple shop for a wedding cake. The three of them visited Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop, a retail business in Colorado that sells wedding cakes and other baked goods to the public. Petitioner Jack Phillips owns and operates the Company.
Mullins and Craig expressed interest in buying a cake for "our wedding". Phillips refused to serve them, explaining that the Company had a policy of refusing to sell baked goods for wedding of same-sex couples. Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake. Phillips was unwilling to make any cake for the wedding because they were a same sex couple, and therefore any further discussion would have been fruitless. As the Administrative Law Judge in the Colorado administrative proceedings found, "[f]or all Phillips knew at the time, [Mullins and Craig] might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.
INVAR, I may be wicked but you're a liar. According to the Brief in Opposition filed with the SCOTUS by the petitioners:
Phillips refused service because of his bigotry, not because of the "artistry" he would have had to perform with respect to the cake. He didn't ask about design for the cake, and his customer surely didn't demand that "homosexual imagery" to be placed on the cake.
It's time to decide whether to defend or oppose arbitrary bigotry. I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.
How odd. I thought this thread was about a t-shirt company, not your anti-Christian cake baker hobby horse.
INVAR, I may be wicked but you're a liar. According to the Brief in Opposition filed with the SCOTUS by the petitioners:
Phillips refused service because of his bigotry, not because of the "artistry" he would have had to perform with respect to the cake. He didn't ask about design for the cake, and his customer surely didn't demand that "homosexual imagery" to be placed on the cake.
It's time to decide whether to defend or oppose arbitrary bigotry. I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.
For those claiming discrimination based on sexual orientation, skin color, sex, ethnicity, or whatever is not the same thing as refusing to make a specific type of cake or whatever.
Blacks were turned down from even entering and buying the same items in stores whites frequented.
If a Jewish-owned bakery says that they will only bake items in accordance with Orthodox Jewish beliefs, that is their right. I doubt there are any Christians who would go to the Jewish bakery and demand a Christian-themed cake or whatever.
The sticking point would be if the Jewish bakery simply refused to sell anything to someone who was not Jewish. As if they could tell the difference, but the principal is the same.
The homosexual couple demanding a specially made cake were not refused service. They were free to buy any item the baker made for other people.
They wanted a special type of cake. Any business should be able to refuse to make any item they don't want to make.
I choose the latter - and believe Christ Himself would have too.
The sticking point would be if the Jewish bakery simply refused to sell anything to someone who was not Jewish. As if they could tell the difference, but the principal is the same.
Only the demonically perverted in thought insist Christ would defend the sexual immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah under the color of 'eschewing bigotry'.
Indeed. Especially when it was very likely the pre-incarnate 'Christ' (Yeshua) who lead the angels to destroy the cities, and bartered with Abraham for their survival.
It is hilarity itself to listen to those who don't understand that the God of the 'Old Testament' is the very same God in the 'New'.
What I hope comes out in this is that there is absolute certainty that no vendor is compelled to put 1) speech, 2) symbols, or 3) creative artistry on or into their product.How about a gay male couple? Should a Tux shop be required to rent them matching His and His tuxedos for their wedding?
In other words, if a gay couple wants a wedding cake, they get one. Plain, color of their choice, and nothing else. No decorations, no words, no artistic creativity.
All anyone has to do is read to discover WHO Christ was from The Beginning.
It is laid out in perfect detail in John 1: 1-3 and verse 14.
There is no ambiguity - unless you are biblically illiterate or have a tradition that supersedes the plain words written on the page, directly from the Greek or translated into English.
You're wrong as usual. Jack Phillips hand-paints and designs cakes for specific events and people. The plaintiffs KNEW this. Phillips not only refuses to do homosexual unions, but he also refuses to do cakes for bachelor parties, halloween and other occult observances, divorce, and any event that contravenes his faith. He even said sometimes he turns down more cake design requests than he takes orders.Yes, but the larger point is also some customer ordering a business to make a certain kind of product. No customer can do that.
The inquiry was for a custom-designed cake to celebrate a homosexual union. The homos asked him to custom design a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. CUSTOM DESIGN. That meant to paint and decorate the cake with homosexual imagery. Phillips refused to 'design' a cake to celebrate their union, politely and offered them a standard cake without any custom design to celebrate homosexuality. THEY refused and filed a suit.
The ONLY imposing being advocated - is from tyrants thugs that push this homo crap like yourself.
Pushing a Mark of the Beast.
You seem to forget we fought a war to throw off a much less egregious affront to liberty than what you advocate.
We're armed up with a lot more than lawyers, because as history teaches - legal recourse does not stave off meddlesome tyrants hell bent on imposing their will.
How about a gay male couple? Should a Tux shop be required to rent them matching His and His tuxedos for their wedding?
What if they reserve and present themselves to stay in the Honeymoon Suite at your hotel?
Or a gay or lesbian couple asks an architect, to design their new home. His/His or Her/her bathroom plans.
How about if the walk up to your Uber car holding hands, and kissing? Gotta give them the ride anyway?
A shirt maker doesn't want to make my specially designed shirt with all sorts of sexual i.e. lewd imagery? I can sue them and make them manufacture that shirt.And sue them out of business and punish those who dared to refuse to engage in celebrating perversion.
The Amish, and the Hutterites, and even some Mennonites will determine whether to do business simply by the cut of your jib - Very few of the English are granted leave... Simply by sight.I was pointing out that making a certain product and selling a certain product are two different things. The right to refuse service to anyone a business doesn't want to sell their product to would mean a different discussion.
Mountain folk, the same. If you don't know how to approach a hillbilly, you will be very likely to be looking down the business end of a 12 gauge instead of doing business... and high-falutin' courts be damned.
Many folks are insular, and serve a specific community, and that's alright.
QuoteHow about if the walk up to your Uber car holding hands, and kissing? Gotta give them the ride anyway?
If Muslims can refuse to give rides to people who have alcohol or people with small dogs with the full blessing of government, I see no reason why I couldn't refuse to give a ride to two homos wanting to make out in my car. They can find another car or cab or bus or train or plane to get where they want to go.
How about a gay male couple? Should a Tux shop be required to rent them matching His and His tuxedos for their wedding?Different principle at stake there. It's not about selling, it's about making/manufacturing.
What if they reserve and present themselves to stay in the Honeymoon Suite at your hotel?
Or a gay or lesbian couple asks an architect, to design their new home. His/His or Her/her bathroom plans.
How about if the walk up to your Uber car holding hands, and kissing? Gotta give them the rise anyway?
Etc.
I was pointing out that making a certain product and selling a certain product are two different things. The right to refuse service to anyone a business doesn't want to sell their product to would mean a different discussion.
This particular discussion is about a business being forced to manufacture a product they don't want to. If homosexuals can make a baker bake a special kind of cake, then anybody can make any business make a specially designed product even if the business doesn't want to make it. I don't think that's one of the reasons our country was founded...to be forced to make something you don't want to for somebody else.
If Muslims can refuse to give rides to people who have alcohol or people with small dogs with the full blessing of government, I see no reason why I couldn't refuse to give a ride to two homos wanting to make out in my car. They can find another car or cab or bus or train or plane to get where they want to go.
OK, I have to hit "pause" for a second here. Uber is a private referral company with their own set of guidelines, and if you choose to exclude your car from business you contracted to serve, they have every right to sever that contract for referral. You can refuse, but if you refuse that ride your Uber driving is over.
Not the issue of discussion. We're talking hypotheticals - but if you contact to drive for a company that says you must serve anyone and everyone - then okay then.
I will note that it is interesting that Muslims are permitted wavers to city/county ordinances and company policies under the right of 'religious liberty'.
I don't think that is true, @Jazzhead. In fact, I think the customer had been served there before. It was only the issue of a "wedding" cake for a gay "marriage".
[/quote
I think you're right and hasn't the Court now ruled in favor of the baker?
Well.... thank God (literally)..... that the Trump Justice Department disagrees with you and others like you. They support the Baker's right to adhere to his religious beliefs while doing business in the USA.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/7/jack-phillips-christian-baker-backed-justice-depar/
RoosGirl wrote:
"You, being a man I believe, may not understand this, and probably have not fully participated in planning a wedding like a woman has. You do *not* go to a custom bakery, and pay (probably) thousands of dollars to have some generic wedding cake made."
I know this is off-topic, but any woman who would spend upwards of a thousand dollars on -a wedding cake- ain't worth marryin' !! ;)
Hi Everybody, it's Me, the Friendly Mod!
Please get off the wedding cakes, we have a whole thread or five dedicated to that. Let's talk about the guy who sells T-Shirts, OK? I'm too lazy to merge this thread with one of the other existing threads.
I do not like pecan pie.
I do not like pecan pie.
I luuuv it... but only a few bites. Too rich.
That's why I don't like it.
I do not like pecan pie.
Gotta have lots of vanilla ice cream with warmed pecan pie.
Even given those facts I'd say the gay couple has a fairly week case despite the adminstrative judge's ruling. Their statement is logically contradictory. If their cake was 'nondescript' then one off the shelf would have been fine. If they weren't going to have a gay themed cake, they should have stated so.
Nonetheless since it was custom, by definition it required artistry, and he was within his rights not to decorate that cake.
And since we still seem to be on cakes . . .
@Jazzhead
Don't you find it silly to be arguing that the state of Colorado should compel a Colorado baker to bake a same-sex wedding cake when that same state of Colorado did not allow same-sex marriage?
Obviously, the person wanting the shirt made didn't think it was offensive.
Are you sure? Pour épater la bourgoisie has been a sentiment in effete cultural circles since the turn of the 20th century. The person wanting the shirt made have have precisely wanted to offend people with the sentiment printed on it.
Except the facts are even worse for the baker. The Brief in Opposition, as noted above, describes the refusal of service as rooted in the baker's animosity toward same-sex weddings; he never questioned the customer regarding the "artistry" to be deployed on the cake. Even an off the shelf cake, it appears, would have been verboten.
According to an affidavit filed with the Brief in Opposition, another customer sought cupcakes for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Not an artistic wedding cake, but cupcakes. Not a wedding, but merely a commitment ceremony. And the baker refused service. The more I read into this case, the more I can see why the SCOTUS took it. This is going to be no great victory for the baker. His conduct was bigoted and deplorable, and I expect the Court to uphold the efficacy of the community's laws against arbitrary discrimination.
Which highlights the real issue here - this is really a case of a gay couple trying to make their morality dominant over another's morality via the courts, which is a violation of separation of church and state and the 14th amendment. They simply disguise that by calling it bigotry.
But all your supporting arguments here are based on morality, by assigning moral epithets to the bakers actions based on vague and nebulous suspicions of his state of mind, and you are using it to dance around the issue with it.
But all your supporting arguments here are based on morality, by assigning moral epithets to the bakers actions based on vague and nebulous suspicions of his state of mind, and you are using it to dance around the issue with it.
If we have separation of church and state then it applies both directions. We don't base legal decisions of moral epithets. Even the administrative law judge ruled with a coulda-shoulda-woulda ruling that the baker was supposed to know the state of mind of the gay couple, who may have wanted a nondescript cake. Yet the judge ignored the fact that if their cake was so nondescript then they could have gotten it off the shelf.
Cupcakes are no different. If they wanted anything but off the shelf cupcakes then they were asking the baker to use his talents and creativity to make something specifically for them. That's commandeering someone's effort and creativity to cater to your morality.
Which highlights the real issue here - this is really a case of a gay couple trying to make their morality dominant over another's morality via the courts, which is a violation of separation of church and state and the 14th amendment. They simply disguise that by calling it bigotry.
Why is that relevant? The State of Colorado is compelling a Colorado baker to not discriminate in violation of the law.
You imply, I suppose, that the baker's opposition wasn't religious at all, but political.
So enough already. Stop trying to guess what the baker was thinking, and stop making assumptions about the sexual preference of customers. None of that matters. Thoughts are not crimes (yet). Maybe you pine for the day when Big Brother puts the rat cage on the face of the baker. But until then, try exercising a modicum of objectivity, and stop judging the criminality of acts based on what you assume the person was thinking.
I have never implied anything at all about the baker's reason for refusing to make a cake. It doesn't matter whether it is religious or political. It simply has no bearing on whether his actions are legal. The legality of any action is not dependent on what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. This has been explained to you again and again and again, yet you still fail to see it.
I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking; I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition. The baker didn't give a damn about "artistry"; he would have declined an off-the shelf cake, and did in fact refuse to provide another gay couple with cupcakes - cupcakes! - when he was informed it was for a "commitment ceremony". Not a marriage, a "commitment ceremony" between two human beings. No, Jesus, no we can't allow cupcakes for that! *****rollingeyes*****
Sorry, hoodat, the man's a bigot. He's backpeddling to construct legal arguments to support his bigotry, and maybe it's your position that his bigotry simply doesn't matter - he has the legal right to treat his customers like dirt.
We'll see what the SCOTUS says.
Well, the baker thinks his reason for not making the cake should carry the day. But you're right, his religious opinions don't mean squat. What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes, and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers.
Well, the baker thinks his reason for not making the cake should carry the day. But you're right, his religious opinions don't mean squat.
What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes.
. . . and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers.
But your basis of your objection is moralistic, and your trying to apply those arguments and concepts toward a legal argument. It just doesn't hold water.
Sorry, hoodat, the man's a bigot.
The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.
His motivation is irrelevant.
I think he's a bigot.
The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service, provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.
But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.
His motivation is irrelevant. He thinks he's best buddies with Christ. I think he's a bigot. The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service, provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.
The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The baker advertised that he makes wedding cakes. No, that doesn't mean he can be forced to write an offensive message on a wedding cake. But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are.
His motivation is irrelevant. He thinks he's best buddies with Christ. I think he's a bigot. The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service, provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.
Are you sure? Pour épater la bourgoisie has been a sentiment in effete cultural circles since the turn of the 20th century. The person wanting the shirt made have have precisely wanted to offend people with the sentiment printed on it.True, you are correct. But nevertheless, it doesn't matter if the person wanted to offend or thought it inoffensive. He wanted a particular kind of shirt.
The legal argument is simple - a public accommodation cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The baker advertised that he makes wedding cakes. No, that doesn't mean he can be forced to write an offensive message on a wedding cake. But he cannot refuse service to a gay couple on the basis of who they are."He thinks he's best buddies with Christ. I think he's a bigot."
His motivation is irrelevant. He thinks he's best buddies with Christ. I think he's a bigot. The law doesn't care. All it says is that if you promise to provide a service, provide it without regard to the sexual orientation of the customer.
True, you are correct. But nevertheless, it doesn't matter if the person wanted to offend or thought it inoffensive. He wanted a particular kind of shirt.
If some person demands a particular kind of shirt, the shirt-maker must have the right to refuse.
And if homosexuals can force bakers to make a particular kind of cake, how can any business turn down a request for a product they deem offensive? According to what happened to the baker (and other bakers who turned down requests for homosexual-themed items), the business has to make what the customer wants.
I've never heard of such an outrageous thing. To claim homosexuals can't be turned down because it's "hate" or "discrimination" is not at issue here.
The issue is a business being forced to make a product they don't want to make. That is not the same thing as refusing to sell a product already made.
If you can be forced to make something you don't want to make, you have lost some of your freedom. It's unconstitutional, undemocrat, and immoral.
"You still fail to understand the issue of forcing a business to make a product they don't want to make.
I will not comply.
More drama-queen insinuations of violence.
Jazzhead, knock off the insults.
I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking; I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition. The baker didn't give a damn about "artistry"; he would have declined an off-the shelf cake, and did in fact refuse to provide another gay couple with cupcakes - cupcakes! - when he was informed it was for a "commitment ceremony". Not a marriage, a "commitment ceremony" between two human beings. No, Jesus, no we can't allow cupcakes for that! *****rollingeyes*****
Sorry, hoodat, the man's a bigot. He's backpeddling to construct legal arguments to support his bigotry, and maybe it's your position that his bigotry simply doesn't matter - he has the legal right to treat his customers like dirt.
We'll see what the SCOTUS says.
As I have pointed out innumerable times, the question always devolves down to "who's morality is going to get imposed by the power of the state?"
The baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes. He's in business to make wedding cakes. The law merely says - fine - stay true to your word. Don't deny service on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation.
Sigh.
This has nothing to do with forcing a business to make a product it doesn't want to make.
The baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes. He's in business to make wedding cakes.
The law merely says - fine - stay true to your word. Don't deny service on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation.
I say it doesn't have anything to do with morality and that the gov't has no place in forcing any business to serve any individual.
And it is that simple. We reserve the right to refuse service. Private business. The government needs to keep out."Believe me they are going to refuse service to anyone but gays"
Mississippi passed a law in 2016 protecting people who refuse service on the basis or religious conviction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/05/mississippi-governor-signs-law-allowing-business-to-refuse-service-to-gay-people/?utm_term=.e1d7d735e4c7
It is sad that we would even have to pass a law to protect private businesses. There are gay bakeries and people have tried to get them to bake cakes against homosexuality and they won't. If you asked a gay bakery to bake a cake stating marriage between one man and one woman they won't.
There are many gay targeted businesses. Believe me they are going to refuse service to anyone but gays.
"Believe me they are going to refuse service to anyone but gays"
Only fascists demand that businesses make a certain product specially for them.
We live at a time where homosexuality is a preferred and protected caste that the government and cultural society has decreed to have pre-eminence over "normal" or "traditional" sexual behavior.We are a long way from the old days when society was asked to simply tolerate homosexuals without physically harming them.
As such - it is illegal, and immoral by the new code of cultural morality Given by the courts to refuse, deny or "discriminate" against homosexual behavior, customs, practices and mindsets. It is a crime to consider such behavior abominable, aberrant and sinful. Such thinking or refusals to accommodate are actionable and punishable in this brave new world.
Fiscal ruination, destruction of liberty, and seizure of property will soon be followed by imprisonment, re-education via torture and then death for daring to defy their demands, no matter what requests are made.
No wonder the Left has embraced it so.
We are a long way from the old days when society was asked to simply tolerate homosexuals without physically harming them.
We did that.
Fifty years later we are asked....nay..... we are being compelled to love homosexuality at the risk of losing our jobs, money, or even going to prison.
That's not so difficult, just leave the damn religion at the door.
No, all that's being asked is for folks to tolerate homosexuals. Not befriend them, not advocate for them. Certainly not to "celebrate" them if that's not your thing (and just when did that lefty-squishy word enter the conservative vocabulary?)When you lose your business because you refuse to make a certain type of product, you are being discriminated against and persecuted. Remember, you're the person who thinks Christians are "bigots" because they won't make a certain kind of cake that goes against their morals.
Toleration means, in the context of business, not discriminating against them. That's not so difficult, just leave the damn religion at the door. If God views them as "abominations", what business is that of yours?
When you lose your business because you refuse to make a certain type of product, you are being discriminated against and persecuted. Remember, you're the person who thinks Christians are "bigots" because they won't make a certain kind of cake that goes against their morals.
That's not so difficult, just leave the damn religion at the door.
I will when liberals leave their morality and statist religion at the door. I am not a second class citizen.
I for one am sick and tired of business owners acting as self-appointed proxies for God. Just because one believes God is cruel and damns homosexuals to hell doesn't mean they should be denied service when they seek to buy a cake.
No one's asking you to be a second class citizen. Choose what you want to advertise and sell. Then stay true to your word. How does that make you a second class citizen?
No, God does NOT damn homosexuals or anyone else. He forbids certain actions and allows for forgiveness of those actions. That's a basic tenet of Christianity and Judaism.
It must be a joy to live in his world where you have to be perfect.
No, all that's being asked is for folks to tolerate homosexuals.
That's not so difficult, just leave the damn religion at the door.
If God views them as "abominations", what business is that of yours?
I for one am sick and tired of business owners acting as self-appointed proxies for God. Just because one believes God is cruel and damns homosexuals to hell doesn't mean they should be denied service when they seek to buy a cake.
No, all that's being asked is for folks to tolerate homosexuals.
Toleration means, in the context of business, not discriminating against them.
That's not so difficult, just leave the damn religion at the door.
No, God does NOT damn homosexuals or anyone else. He forbids certain actions and allows for forgiveness of those actions. That's a basic tenet of Christianity and Judaism.
Okay, fine. I have no beef with God. It's his self-appointed proxies, who think they're serving God by treating their neighbors like garbage, that I object to.
Okay, fine. I have no beef with God. It's his self-appointed proxies, who think they're serving God by treating their neighbors like garbage, that I object to.
Okay, fine. I have no beef with God. It's his self-appointed proxies, who think they're serving God by treating their neighbors like garbage, that I object to.
Well, @Jazzhead, we were fine and communicating well until you went back in and modified your original comment. **nononono*
Oh, you know what? Then you and everyone else who has a problem don't have to spend your money in their stores. Problem solved.
Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine. The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast. Apparently the latter's not an actionable insult but the former is.
Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine. The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast. Apparently the latter's not an actionable insult but the former is.
The problem would be solved if the @Jazzheads of the world would quit trying to prevent anybody else from spending money in their stores. They are anti-freedom, and think that's a wonderful thing, forcing people into their definition of "tolerance and acceptance."Jazzhead is confusing something that is popular from something that is good or moral.
What appalls me is there are people who insist on redefining "conservatism" and "Christianity" to justify it. The most insane arguments by liberals start with "If you were a TRUE Christian/conservative, you would agree that (insert absurd argument here)."
Sorry to disappoint you, Sanguine. The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast.
Jazzhead is confusing something that is popular from something that is good or moral.
"See, homosexuality/homosexual marriage is becoming more and more popular...especially with younger people" say Jazzhead and many other homosexuality-is-normal proponents.
Yes, and liking socialism and repealing the Ist amendment is also becoming very popular with many younger people.
Slavery was pretty popular at one point in the not too distant past.
But that is still not the issue...the issue is forcing a business to make something they don't want to make. That is a form of slavery. Jazzhead does not seem to get that through his head.
You're PROMOTING a Mark of the Beast. I didn't say a thing about you bearing it.
And - did the Mods actually BAN you or 'admonish' you?
I see you posting here today - so I think the word 'ban' does not apply as you intend it to be accepted.
Apparently this is the post that worked our friend up so much:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,281557.msg1455350.html#msg1455350
You did not accuse him of "bearing the Mark of the Beast." In fact, in the context of the post (there were several posts there, I reviewed them) you were explaining what that means, and how it applies to this case. Paraphrased, "One must bear the Mark of the Beast in order to do/be in business." That is what the Government is doing here, and the analogy is a sound one.
All liberal Leftists take any views and beliefs contrary to their own as a personal offense, and accuse them of whatever they can accuse them of to either shame them into silence or force them to be silenced.
Asserting he was banned was for the purpose of attempting to smear the mod staff of being unfair.
Again, the Liberals know that repeating a lie over and over and over again, eventually gets accepted as truth. Which is why Jazzhead sounds like a broken record all the time, pushing the same stupid talking points, despite the fact the members here have already flushed his position down the commode after showing it to be excrement. He simply poops more out of his mouth and smears it on the walls telling us we have to smell it and see it, eventually assuming we will just accept his excrement as wallpaper.
He advocates a harsh tyranny intended to force Americans to surrender their beliefs and consciences to serve an immorality it has championed as preferable and good. Under the guise of punishing bigotry, he will establish bigotry by power of the state to impose HIS immorality upon those who refuse to surrender their beliefs, their persons and their property to participate and celebrate that immorality.
An insidious tyranny these shores have never experienced until now.
I say it doesn't have anything to do with morality and that the gov't has no place in forcing any business to serve any individual.
All liberal Leftists take any views and beliefs contrary to their own as a personal offense, and accuse them of whatever they can accuse them of to either shame them into silence or force them to be silenced.
Asserting he was banned was for the purpose of attempting to smear the mod staff of being unfair.
Again, the Liberals know that repeating a lie over and over and over again, eventually gets accepted as truth. Which is why Jazzhead sounds like a broken record all the time, pushing the same stupid talking points, despite the fact the members here have already flushed his position down the commode after showing it to be excrement. He simply poops more out of his mouth and smears it on the walls telling us we have to smell it and see it, eventually assuming we will just accept his excrement as wallpaper.
He advocates a harsh tyranny intended to force Americans to surrender their beliefs and consciences to serve an immorality it has championed as preferable and good. Under the guise of punishing bigotry, he will establish bigotry by power of the state to impose HIS immorality upon those who refuse to surrender their beliefs, their persons and their property to participate and celebrate that immorality.
An insidious tyranny these shores have never experienced until now.
He thinks we live in a Democracy, and the majority rules. The Founders were revolted at the prospect, and said so many times.
What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?
What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?
No, I think we live in a nation that's governed by the rule of law. Laws against discrimination in public accommodations are intended to protect minorities, not majorities. And here, the tenet is even more simple and fundamental - if you advertise to provide a service, be true to your word. A law shouldn't be even necessary to compel that code of fair dealing.
No, I think we live in a nation that's governed by the rule of law. Laws against discrimination in public accommodations are intended to protect minorities, not majorities.
The law preventing that sounded like a good idea at the time, but the meaning of it has been stretched from protecting racial minorities (an immutable trait) to protecting aberrant behaviors (something not obvious to an impartial observer, most times). Therefore, I'd have to say it's not an apt analogy.
So ignore him. Or, calmly point out his errors.
Do you think businesses should be compelled to serve people who are insane?
What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?
Therein lies the crux, and the mistake.
No doubt the feel-good knee-jerk response will be to approve of such coercion, but I think it unconscionable - Every bit as unconscionable as curtailing free speech.
Do I agree with the KKK? Absolutely in no way.
Do I think it wrong to refuse to serve a person based solely on the color of their skin? Absolutely I do, and it is furthermore as insane a business proposition as there is.
But like with speech, we are experiencing the unintended consequence of limiting the rights of a business owner standing in the midst of his own property.
My business is very much an extension of my home and of my person. There should be no controlling factor other than me. If my mindset causes me to do things that harm my ability to conduct business, invariably I will pay for that in the open market, causing failure, and that should be punishment enough.
What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?
My business is very much an extension of my home and of my person. There should be no controlling factor other than me. If my mindset causes me to do things that harm my ability to conduct business, invariably I will pay for that in the open market, causing failure, and that should be punishment enough.
However, history taught me that, a very short time I was born, businesses run by racists did not suffer and fail. I am convinced they would today, and I know they wouldn't get any of my business. But something was different back then.
That is very much my view as well.
However, history taught me that, a very short time I was born, businesses run by racists did not suffer and fail. I am convinced they would today, and I know they wouldn't get any of my business. But something was different back then.
I don't think racists made up a large percentage of the population. if they did, since so many people alive before the civil rights era are still with us, I should see a lot more racists than I do. Government may have forced them to change their actions, but I don't believe it can change their minds. Therefore, I believe that there wasn't a lot of racism, but a lot of complacency. And I believe that the civil rights laws have crushed that complacency, and that's a good thing.
Could we get rid of them now (as if government would ever give up any authority to tell us how to act)? Should we keep them until everyone who lived before them has passed? Maybe a generation or two after that? Do I support giving up a bit of liberty to stomp out something that I abhor? Do I have the right to compel you to do so? Do we go back to an ugly world in the hopes that people will come around on their own, eventually? These are the questions which pose a serious potential thorn in the side of my philosophy.
All I can say for sure is that it disgusts me that such laws might be (or have been) "necessary", and I hope one day they live be laughed at as frivolity.
I would take exception to that remark. There are rib joints in the South where you will not be served if you are not black, or in the company of blacks. There are areas in Chicago that I am personally aware of where you will not be served if yo are not the right ethnicity.
There are even Jewish delis which will not serve you, or will serve you poorly if you are not outwardly Jewish - All of these have been within my personal experience.
I have also already exampled Amish, Hutterite, and Mennonite groups, and hillbillies, that serve only their insular community, and even the Dutch will express a preference to doing business with Dutch people.
There are loads and loads of examples where bias is still present in the open market, and there should be no other treated as a sacred cow.
People keep trying to remake man.
People keep trying to remake man. "Racism" or tribalism is an inherent trait of human nature, but people want to condition it out of humanity.
I believe it evolved as a survival mechanism, because one group not genetically attached to an individual will have no good genetic reason for refraining from killing the outlier, and good genetic reasons for doing so.
People keep trying to remake man. "Racism" or tribalism is an inherent trait of human nature, but people want to condition it out of humanity.
I believe it evolved as a survival mechanism, because one group not genetically attached to an individual will have no good genetic reason for refraining from killing the outlier, and good genetic reasons for doing so.
But Liberals want mankind to become a new kind of man. It's pie in the sky dreaming, and it is the dominant reason why communism cannot work. The nature of man keeps emerging despite their best efforts to teach it out of us.
What do you think of businesses being forced to serve blacks at lunch counters?
8888crybaby158 posts later and nothing has changed. Cept Jazzyhead had a time out. How wonderful life is when you are in the world!
8888crybaby158 posts later and nothing has changed. Cept Jazzyhead had a time out. How wonderful life is when you are in the world!
Hey, Wingy!
I'm not really here. It is the ghost of wing.
Christians are “free” to think whatever thoughts they want in their heads (a generous concession, to be sure), and they’re “free” to be as religious as they want while within the walls of designated religion buildings, but anything beyond that is oppressive. Meanwhile, Leftists can force you to make a cake, they can force you to share the bathroom with the opposite sex, they can force you to fund the abortion industry, they can force you to pay for their birth control, they can force all sorts of beliefs and doctrines on your kids in the school system, they can literally march down the street half naked in a celebration of sodomy and hedonism, and none of that can be construed as oppressive. In fact, you’re oppressing them by objecting to it.
It’s truly amazing that they’ve been able to frame the argument this way. Somehow, they succeeded in redefining “force” as “refusing to do what we tell you.” They were greedy in their lie, and it paid off. Rather than being satisfied with shoving their ideology down our throats and pretending they haven’t shoved it down our throats, they went for the home run and claimed that we’re shoving our beliefs down their throats by not swallowing whatever crap they feed us. And they got away with it. Many Christians have bowed down and apologized for not being quite submissive enough, and now they lay their like beaten dogs, awaiting instructions from their cultural overlords.
The Colorado bakery case is not a matter of 'who is getting served', but rather 'what is getting served'. The issue is the cake - not the purchaser of the cake.
But the answer to your question is this - YES, the business should be compelled to serve blacks at lunch counters. And they should be served from the exact same menu as whites. Capisce?
However, just because they are black, the restaurant owner shouldn't have to offer them something new that is not available to the white customers. Likewise in this case, the baker sells one wedding cake, and will sell that wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. The baker will not sell a same-sex wedding cake to anyone regardless of whether the customer requesting one is heterosexual or homosexual.
By the same logic, any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.
By definition under Colorado law, a wedding is a ceremony between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference). The baker makes wedding cakes for such ceremonies (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying the cake).
By definition under Colorado law, a wedding is a ceremony between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference). The baker makes wedding cakes for such ceremonies (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying the cake).
I usually stop talking to people who call me stupid and then roll their eyes at me. @Sanguine is correct, the horse is dead.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
You have already made your stand known: Screw your bigoted tribal religious beliefs and bake the damned cake. Everything else is just the icing of justification.
Actually, I agree with most of this, until you get all stupid at the end. This issue is indeed serving all customers from the exact same menu. The business owner determines the menu - hamburgers by the lunch counter, wedding cakes by the baker. A black customer has the right to be served a hamburger, but not to demand grits that aren't on the menu. By the same logic, any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide."any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide"
Calm down. All I've been saying is that if you advertise a service, be true to your word and provide it. Mr. Phillips is currently not taking orders for custom wedding cakes - that's exactly what he should be doing if he wants to remain true to his self-styled religious beliefs.So if they sell cakes topped with a bride and a groom and that is what they offer... not discrimination? That is a product they can advertise... or are you going to change the goal line again?
But what he can't do is use religion to justify discrimination. This distinction between "wedding cakes" and "same-sex wedding cakes" is bogus. Either sell wedding cakes or don't. Just stay true to your word and don't violate the law by arbitrarily humiliating your customers who seek the very service you advertise to provide.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.And a pronoun is a pronoun, so you tell transgendered snowflakes to calm down?
And a pronoun is a pronoun, so you tell transgendered snowflakes to calm down?
And I am alright with that... As long as no one is being violent.
Doesn't bother me at all when I run into bias, especially if it is out front. No skin off my nose if they're too good for my money... I will just go somewhere else that thinks all money is green... or those among my kind, where I would likely be shopping anyway.
I don't think it is necessarily even a bad thing - My BIL is black, and I did not give my blessing on the marriage, figuring it was a lousy thing to do to an eventual kid - One of my best friends growing up was half black, half Mexican, and I know first hand the abuses he went through...
As it turns out, my nephew has not experienced much overt racism, being among redneck folks, where people are invariably judged upon merit, at least eventually.
Actually, I agree with most of this, until you get all stupid at the end. This issue is indeed serving all customers from the exact same menu. The business owner determines the menu - hamburgers by the lunch counter, wedding cakes by the baker. A black customer has the right to be served a hamburger, but not to demand grits that aren't on the menu. By the same logic, any customer - gay or straight - has the right to be provided with a wedding cake if that is what the baker advertises he's in business to provide.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
But you cannot have a wedding without one bride and one groom, so therefore it wasn't a wedding cake. It was a provocative political statement masquerading as "wedding" cake.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
@DiogenesLamp Hadn't seen you around in a bit, glad to have you back.
How can it be a Colorado wedding cake without a Colorado wedding? And more importantly, why do you get to be the arbiter of what a wedding cake is and not the baker himself?Jazzhead does not realize he is telling bakers (or manufacturers of other products) what they must create. I don't believe that's quite in line with what we usually call freedom.
Yes, the customer has the right to purchase any product the baker (or other business owner) chooses to provide. But the baker (or business owner) does not have to provide a product the customer demands though.
If I sell widgets painted only certain colors, the customer can request a different color than what I advertise, but he has no right to demand it. If he doesn't like my business, he has the right to go to another business that will give him the color he wants. That's the way freedom works.
That's correct! And that's why the baker broke the law - he said he'd provide a product, and then arbitrarily reneged.
The facts of the case show that the customer made no specific demands regarding the wedding cake.
They merely asked for what he advertised to provide.
That's unlawful discrimination - and, IMO, bigotry masquerading in the guise of religion.
I'd think any Christian would be up in arms at having Jesus' name invoked to defend this man's arbitrary cruelty - but it appears that the principle of fair dealing eludes many.
LOL Not being able to buy a custom wedding cake from one particular bakery is 'cruelty' now. :odrama:
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
Jazzhead does not realize he is telling bakers (or manufacturers of other products) what they must create. I don't believe that's quite in line with what we usually call freedom.
He could just as easily demand that people who create religious objects for certain religions must make them for all religions so as not to discriminate.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
Oh the whining and crying and throwing of dirt!
Oh, what petulant bullcrap.
We have an SJW in our midst.
The "back of the bus" stuff was a government mandate, not a private business thing. There was no "taking your business elsewhere." I suspect you knew that and are conflating the two on purpose.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
So you agree that arbitrary discrimination as practiced by government is wrong. Good - now why isn't it wrong when practiced by a business that has the privilege of making money from the general public?
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
Because the government does not own us, and we are entitled to conduct our affairs as we wish.
Not....if leftists (and folks like Jazzhead) get their way. We are subjects of Government, to be ruled over as Government pleases. That's the leftist "Utopian" view of how things should be.
Hoodat, your argument is ridiculous. The baker offered to sell wedding cakes. His customer wanted no more, and no less, than what he advertised to provide. The occasion for which the wedding cake was to be consumed is no business of the baker. If he thinks it is, then he should do as he does today - offer no wedding cakes at all.
In the meantime, they're allowed to parade around naked, masturbate each other in public and generally flaunt their sexual deviancy out for anyone, and I do mean anyone, to see at one of their many 'pride' parades. So if they don't get a damn cake, forgive me if I don't give a crap.
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
@Jazzhead
What a load of crap. Pure BS. My wife is Asian and we have faced discrimination. Hardly a daily event and the worst treatment has never come from white people.
What some people see as discrimination is just life. Life is hard and life isn't fair. Nobody really gives a crap about you and they sure aren't do everything for you. You may see that as discrimination but its just people expecting you to do for yourself.
So you agree that arbitrary discrimination as practiced by government is wrong. Good - now why isn't it wrong when practiced by a business that has the privilege of making money from the general public?
No whining - just human nature. Straight white folks tend not to suffer from discrimination, so they tend to lack empathy for those who do.
No business honors every request to fulfill the service they advertise.
You're <*****>, did you know that? I should find that meme with the photo of the white Appalachian family asking where they can go find their "White Privilege."
So <*********>.
You're <*****>, did you know that? I should find that meme with the photo of the white Appalachian family asking where they can go find their "White Privilege."
So <*********>.
If I don't like what a private business is offering, I can go to a different private business.
Lol.....the resident trolls here don't exactly bring out the best in us, do they?
That's true. The baker doesn't need to honor a customer's request to place an offensive message on a cake. But those aren't the facts. The baker had no dialogue with the customer about the cake. He simply refused the customer's business. 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.)
That's unlawful in the context of a public accommodation. Such businesses are required to not discriminate.
That's true. The baker doesn't need to honor a customer's request to place an offensive message on a cake. But those aren't the facts. The baker had no dialogue with the customer about the cake. He simply refused the customer's business. 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.)
That's unlawful in the context of a public accommodation. Such businesses are required to not discriminate.
Why should anyone have to put up with unlawful discrimination? Let the bigots feel a bit of pain, I say.
Why should anyone have to put up with unlawful discrimination? Let the bigots feel a bit of pain, I say.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims? It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus, to take your business elsewhere. There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.Religous bakers suffer from it... and like most bigots, you don't even realize your offense.
Hoodat, your argument is ridiculous. The baker offered to sell wedding cakes. His customer wanted no more, and no less, than what he advertised to provide. The occasion for which the wedding cake was to be consumed is no business of the baker. If he thinks it is, then he should do as he does today - offer no wedding cakes at all.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. That isn't equality or freedom, that is totalitarianism. If they were a liberal, news outlets would be doing profiles of courage videos on them, but because they do not belong to a protected ideology, they must be destroyed.
Why should anyone have to put up with unlawful discrimination? Let the bigots feel a bit of pain, I say.Because liberals are bigots and by your own logic need to feel pain.
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. That isn't equality or freedom, that is totalitarianism. If they were a liberal, news outlets would be doing profiles of courage videos on them, but because they do not belong to a protected ideology, they must be destroyed.
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).
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.
He didn't refuse service. He offered them any other product except a wedding cake.
The baker had no dialogue with the customer about the cake.
He simply refused the customer's business.
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.)
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.
You don't believe arbitrary discrimination harms its victims?
It's humiliating to be told to sit at the back of the bus
It's humiliating . . . to take your business elsewhere.
There's a reason these laws exist - prejudice exists, even if straight white folks don't tend to suffer from it.
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.
Ah, still more pre-judging from you. How typical.
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.
@Hoodat and he's got the nerve to call others bigots and racists. **nononono*
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.
I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists. But you have.
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.
And that's an arbitrary refusal of service.
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.
:2popcorn:
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.
:banghead:
I see you've called dibs on the popcorn concession. Oh well...I can't win them all.
:beer: :2popcorn:
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.
:banghead:
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.
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.
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.
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).
The wording of the appellate court ruling speaks for itself.
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.
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.
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
The bottom line here is that my opinion is based upon actual facts while yours is based on fantasy.
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.
The wording of the appellate court ruling speaks for itself.
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.
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.
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
The bottom line here is that my opinion is based upon actual facts while yours is based on fantasy.
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.
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.
(http://thundercloud.net/infoave/new/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/pwned.png)
Let the bigots feel a bit of pain, I say.
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.
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.
What I learned from the Bible is that three cities were utterly destroyed for merely tolerating the practice.
They have a moral obligation to follow their religion. So long as they leave other people alone, they should be allowed to do so. There is expressly worded verbiage in the Constitution that says they have a right to do so.
There is no "authority" for forcing people to serve homosexuals other than a judge's say-so, and then only recently. Prior to that, Judges used to lock up homosexuals for being non compos mentis.
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?Since your version of the facts don't mesh with reailty as others have pointed out... are you going to now reverse your stance and support the baker? Or are you just a bigot and arbitrarily condemn bakers just because?
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).
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.
Imagine a world, if you will, ruled by people that think like Jazzhead. Or.... look back in history. There are plenty of examples of that thinking....
and how badly it ended. Hell...just look at Venezuela for the most recent example.
When government controls all the people suffer.... and die.
He is imposing nothing. He is not MAKING the customer buy. That would be imposition. The customer is free to walk out the door and find another shop.Next up, I'll be imposing my hetrosexuality if I don't makeout with any guy who hits on me... Sounds ridiculous, except it is scary close to transgender logic that guys who don't don't date "girls" with wieners are bigots.
Since your version of the facts don't mesh with reailty as others have pointed out... are you going to now reverse your stance and support the baker? Or are you just a bigot and arbitrarily condemn bakers just because?
Next up, I'll be imposing my hetrosexuality if I don't makeout with any guy who hits on me... Sounds ridiculous, except it is scary close to transgender logic that guys who don't don't date "girls" with wieners are bigots.
I don't think "imposing" means what they think it means.
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.Your belief that workers or business people cannot be Christians while on the job makes as much sense as a good ole boy claiming a female should be a worker, not a female who is offended by sexual harassment.
That's a fact. More liberal changing of definitions to suit their fancy.No, I changed my name so I could feel free to actually defend conservative stances rather than assume anything I post will be sent to HR.
Nice to see you btw, @Ancient ... If that was your handle at FR... I remember a feller by that handle from there.
@Jazzhead I'm getting the feeling here that you don't love us anymore.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/3ov9kbCSDb5uJF1sUo/200w.gif)
Let the bigots feel a bit of pain, I say.
I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists.
Since your version of the facts don't mesh with reailty as others have pointed out... are you going to now reverse your stance and support the baker? Or are you just a bigot and arbitrarily condemn bakers just because?
If they were trying to buy a package of premade cinnamon buns off the shelf, you might have a point. This was a request to create, from scratch, with a theme that the artist found offensive. Your lack of respect for his beliefs in this area is simply hateful.
Give him time. He just needs to have his new talking points fed to him. Like a baby chick, waiting for David Brock to vomit them into his waiting mouth.
Is that your take on how religion works too?
I've stated earlier in this thread the facts of the case, quoting from the briefs filed with the Court. Please point out how I have misstated the facts.
That's the difference between this and the Colorado baker, who turned away his customer before any request was made regarding the cake itself.
I'm not "guessing" what the baker was thinking; I'm reciting the descriptions of his actions in the Brief in Opposition.
What matters are his actions - in advertising that he makes wedding cakes, and then unfurling an unwritten "policy" to deny service to gay customers.
This has nothing to do with forcing a business to make a product it doesn't want to make.
The mods banned me the other day for calling a poster a drama queen who had labeled me as bearing the Mark of the Beast.
That's correct! And that's why the baker broke the law - he said he'd provide a product, and then arbitrarily reneged.
I'd think any Christian would be up in arms at having Jesus' name invoked to defend this man's arbitrary cruelty
they merely asked for what he advertised to provide.
The baker had no dialogue with the customer about the cake.
He simply refused service because the customers were gay.
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.
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.
I've not called individual members of this forum bigots and racists.
You have been repeatedly refuted in the facts
How so? He said he made wedding cakes. The customer asked for a wedding cake. He refused, without knowing anything other than his customers were gay.
You're just making stuff up. You have no way of knowing this.
Today's a good day to stop feeding a troll and let him starve. He isn't even entertaining us with new talking points.
Good list, @Hoodat .
Agreed, as with many trolls, this one really seems to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing.
This thread has devolved into one guy screaming into his hat about everybody's bigotry but his own.
You're just making stuff up. You have no way of knowing this.
....
So that's it for me in this thread. Call me the devil, a bigot, a troll, a liar, a racist, a leftist, a hater of Christians, get all the insults out of your system. Take a free shot, I won't respond, all you loving and dutiful Christians. Have fun and have a nice day.
Nope. I've read the Court briefs. I know the legal issues. I know what I'm talking about and I don't "lie" or "make stuff up".I don't think you're an awful person...you might be a very nice, good person. But you appear to have a very difficult time understanding forcing someone to make something especially for you is not freedom.
But you know, in the spirit of comity, this is my last post in this thread. I agree this is getting both tedious and circular. I don't care for being labeled a troll; when things said by one poster are responded to by a dozen other posters, I tend to try to be courteous and provide responses. So I'm attacked as a troll for responding, and then CL attacks me not responding while I wait to receive my "talking points" from above. Yeah, it all becomes repetitive and starts to sound the same after a while.
So that's it for me in this thread. Call me the devil, a bigot, a troll, a liar, a racist, a leftist, a hater of Christians, get all the insults out of your system. Take a free shot, I won't respond, all you loving and dutiful Christians. Have fun and have a nice day.