Baker must make gay cakes

[Jughead]

So you feel that you should have the right to deny a product to a customer on the basis of what the customer is going to do with it after they leave your shop.

What would you be willing to sell the same-sex couple for their wedding feast? Would you deny them loaves of bread? If so, then you are plainly in violation of Colorado's public accommodation laws because it does not matter if they take the bread home for personal consumption or serve the bread at a wedding feast; as a baker providing public accommodation, you can't deny them bread. You do understand it is important that you cannot deny bread to people, don't you?
Would you deny them pastries? See above.

So what is so special about cake? We have established they can get the cake from you anyway.

A cake is an important aspect of any wedding. Knowingly baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding, is endorsing support for that wedding. May as well attend the ceremony while at it. Just abandon your faith, no big deal, right?

Folks have forgotten that religious freedom is a constitutional right.

I am pleased to hear that Mr. Phillips will stand his ground, and not renounce his faith, just as I expected. He'll likely go to jail in order to keep practicing his faith, just as I would.

“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me he’s not going to create any new policies.

“My old ones are pretty adequate as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.”

Baker Will Not Renounce His Faith

Who has asked to renounce his faith? Will he bake cakes for atheists? Convicted felons? It appears only gay humans are subject to restrictions in his faith.

Baking a gay cake in support of a gay wedding would go against his religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin. He would clearly be abandoning his faith.

Unless God personally told him that he would be forgiven for baking the cake, he will not do it. He'll go to jail first.

 

[Peach]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

Because dogs can't really get married. It's a parody. Now if you want to make same sex marriages unlawful and a parody of traditional marriages you have a point. If we taught that dogs need marriage equality, then you have a point. You may even have a point on the day that people want to marry their dogs legally. Right now there is no point in equating same sex marriage with doggy marriage.

Colorado doesn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage so the couple couldn't get legally married there either.\


The violation of the law wasn't a function of Civil Marriage, it was a function of Public Accommodation law.



>>>>

Then there never was a point to make in bringing up the wedding cake baked for the dog marriage was there?

 

[Katzndogz]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

Just as God created murderers, child molesters, sadists, the entire gamut of human foolishness and cruelty. No. God created human beings. After that, they choose their own behavior.

Gays can choose to be gay, or not, as they wish. When their choices impact the choices and decisions of another person, then it becomes harmful.

 

[LockeJaw]

You'd think if fags had to reduce their arguments to using animals sexuality to prove their point...they'd realize how stupid their arguments are:.. obviously they're 100% stupid when they can't defend their points on a human level.

Maybe they sucked a dick that dislodged their brains

 

[Peach]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

Just as God created murderers, child molesters, sadists, the entire gamut of human foolishness and cruelty. No. God created human beings. After that, they choose their own behavior.

Gays can choose to be gay, or not, as they wish. When their choices impact the choices and decisions of another person, then it becomes harmful.

I dissent. Gay humans made no choice. History shows gay humans in every known society. Some remained celibate, but were gay from birth.

 

[Pop23]

If God created the world as we know it, God created gay humans also. How can anyone be so enraged by variances in humans that neither impact, nor harm them?

Just as God created murderers, child molesters, sadists, the entire gamut of human foolishness and cruelty. No. God created human beings. After that, they choose their own behavior.

Gays can choose to be gay, or not, as they wish. When their choices impact the choices and decisions of another person, then it becomes harmful.

I dissent. Gay humans made no choice. History shows gay humans in every known society. Some remained celibate, but were gay from birth.

You realize you made no argument. Child Molesters have been in every society. They could claim they were that way from birth.

 

[Peach]

Just as God created murderers, child molesters, sadists, the entire gamut of human foolishness and cruelty. No. God created human beings. After that, they choose their own behavior.

Gays can choose to be gay, or not, as they wish. When their choices impact the choices and decisions of another person, then it becomes harmful.

I dissent. Gay humans made no choice. History shows gay humans in every known society. Some remained celibate, but were gay from birth.

You realize you made no argument. Child Molesters have been in every society. They could claim they were that way from birth.

Actually, many "child molesters" I have had contact with also had relationships with "age appropriate" individuals. Pedophiles are a different group, I know of no study which states pedophiles are "born that way". Many have been molested as children, that has been shown in several studies.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Baking a gay cake in support of a gay wedding would go against his religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin. He would clearly be abandoning his faith.

Unless God personally told him that he would be forgiven for baking the cake, he will not do it. He'll go to jail first.

Would you have the law place your religious rights above the rights of some other religion, say Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well, a Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Should a Medical Doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness have the right to deny a patient a blood transfusion, killing the patient, because it would offend their religious belief?

To what extreme are you willing to take your belief that religious freedom is unbounded? Where do you draw the line between the all the rights of everyone else and your individual right to practice your religion?

 

[BobPlumb]

Are the dogs still married or did they get a divorce?

That is one ugly cake!

 

[Jughead]

Baking a gay cake in support of a gay wedding would go against his religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin. He would clearly be abandoning his faith.

Unless God personally told him that he would be forgiven for baking the cake, he will not do it. He'll go to jail first.

Would you have the law place your religious rights above the rights of some other religion, say Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well, a Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Should a Medical Doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness have the right to deny a patient a blood transfusion, killing the patient, because it would offend their religious belief?

To what extreme are you willing to take your belief that religious freedom is unbounded? Where do you draw the line between the all the rights of everyone else and your individual right to practice your religion?

If his faith, whatever that may be, does not allow blood transfusions, and he is a doctor of that faith who performs blood transfusions, then he has essentially abandoned his faith, he is no longer a Jehovah Witness. In these cases, if the doctor does not want to renounce his faith, he would ask one of his colleagues of another faith to perform the transfusion. I am sure there are many doctors who are Jehovah Witnesses, who do not perform blood transfusions. What's the point of having a faith, if you refuse to follow it's teachings.

 

[Silhouette]

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

Nuns aren't forced to provide OB/GYN services to women. They choose to. So while they perform normal pregnancy services for all women without discrimination, they won't provide pregnancy termination services for any woman. Same practice, only one part of the trade they won't do that has to do with the behavior or beliefs or request of only certain pregnant woman.

They can discriminate against women who want a certain type of pregnancy service due to strong religious beliefs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

Nuns aren't forced to provide OB/GYN services to women. They choose to. So while they perform normal pregnancy services for all women without discrimination, they won't provide pregnancy termination services for any woman. Same practice, only one part of the trade they won't do that has to do with the behavior or beliefs or request of only certain pregnant woman.

They can discriminate against women who want a certain type of pregnancy service due to strong religious beliefs.

Agreed, that's what I said.

Just as your hypothetical Nun's are able to define the services they provide, so also can the baker decide what services he will provide.

The Nun's can choose not to provide any abortion services and whether they are "Nuns" or not is irrelevant and just an attempt to pull emotional strings on your part. ANY OB/GYN can choose to not provide abortion services as part of his/her practice. As a result there is no violation of Public Accommodation laws because they aren't provided to anyone.

Same goes for the baker. He can choose not to provide wedding cakes as part of the goods and services (s)he offers. If none are offered to the public, there is no conflict with Public Accommodation laws. However it is against the law for the baker to say "I'll bake wedding cakes for whites but not for blacks", "I'll bake wedding cakes for Christians but not for Jews", "I'll bake wedding cakes for the Irish but not for Mexicans", "I'll bake wedding cakes for straights but not for gays", or "I'll bake wedding cakes for first marriages but not for someone divorced".

The law does not require what goods and services be offered, only that those goods and services cannot be provided to some groups of customers but not other customer groups.


>>>>

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Baking a gay cake in support of a gay wedding would go against his religious teachings that homosexuality is a sin. He would clearly be abandoning his faith.

Unless God personally told him that he would be forgiven for baking the cake, he will not do it. He'll go to jail first.

Would you have the law place your religious rights above the rights of some other religion, say Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well, a Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Should a Medical Doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness have the right to deny a patient a blood transfusion, killing the patient, because it would offend their religious belief?

To what extreme are you willing to take your belief that religious freedom is unbounded? Where do you draw the line between the all the rights of everyone else and your individual right to practice your religion?

If his faith, whatever that may be, does not allow blood transfusions, and he is a doctor of that faith who performs blood transfusions, then he has essentially abandoned his faith, he is no longer a Jehovah Witness. In these cases, if the doctor does not want to renounce his faith, he would ask one of his colleagues of another faith to perform the transfusion. I am sure there are many doctors who are Jehovah Witnesses, who do not perform blood transfusions. What's the point of having a faith, if you refuse to follow it's teachings.

If one believes with all their heart that blood transfusions are evil, why would one ask a colleague to do it? If it is wrong to steal, then why would you ask a colleague to do it? If you hold baking cakes for gays on that same level, then how could you ask a colleague to do it?

I understand that you want to follow your faith, but sometimes that means not opening a shop under the laws which accommodate multiple faiths. You're asking the rest of us to put our beliefs on hold because your beliefs conflict. What about my right to open a shop in a marketplace where anyone of any race or gender or sexual orientation can buy goods and services without being shunned? Why would I want another shop that shuns people in the same market? I own my shop too. They just hurt me. I have a vested interest in the shops around me not shunning people for rather silly reasons. This isn't about the right to be gay, this is about the right to open a shop in a marketplace with an a priori agreed upon set of rules. Have I no rights in your world view?

 

[Jughead]

Would you have the law place your religious rights above the rights of some other religion, say Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well, a Jehovah's Witness doesn't believe in blood transfusions. Should a Medical Doctor who happens to be a Jehovah's Witness have the right to deny a patient a blood transfusion, killing the patient, because it would offend their religious belief?

To what extreme are you willing to take your belief that religious freedom is unbounded? Where do you draw the line between the all the rights of everyone else and your individual right to practice your religion?

If his faith, whatever that may be, does not allow blood transfusions, and he is a doctor of that faith who performs blood transfusions, then he has essentially abandoned his faith, he is no longer a Jehovah Witness. In these cases, if the doctor does not want to renounce his faith, he would ask one of his colleagues of another faith to perform the transfusion. I am sure there are many doctors who are Jehovah Witnesses, who do not perform blood transfusions. What's the point of having a faith, if you refuse to follow it's teachings.

If one believes with all their heart that blood transfusions are evil, why would one ask a colleague to do it? If it is wrong to steal, then why would you ask a colleague to do it? If you hold baking cakes for gays on that same level, then how could you ask a colleague to do it?

I understand that you want to follow your faith, but sometimes that means not opening a shop under the laws which accommodate multiple faiths. You're asking the rest of us to put our beliefs on hold because your beliefs conflict. What about my right to open a shop in a marketplace where anyone of any race or gender or sexual orientation can buy goods and services without being shunned? Why would I want another shop that shuns people in the same market? I own my shop too. They just hurt me. I have a vested interest in the shops around me not shunning people for rather silly reasons. This isn't about the right to be gay, this is about the right to open a shop in a marketplace with an a priori agreed upon set of rules. Have I no rights in your world view?

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms? It was always the other way around. The First Amendment to the constitution is still valid.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms???

Jefferson and Madison just spun in their graves.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If his faith, whatever that may be, does not allow blood transfusions, and he is a doctor of that faith who performs blood transfusions, then he has essentially abandoned his faith, he is no longer a Jehovah Witness. In these cases, if the doctor does not want to renounce his faith, he would ask one of his colleagues of another faith to perform the transfusion. I am sure there are many doctors who are Jehovah Witnesses, who do not perform blood transfusions. What's the point of having a faith, if you refuse to follow it's teachings.

If one believes with all their heart that blood transfusions are evil, why would one ask a colleague to do it? If it is wrong to steal, then why would you ask a colleague to do it? If you hold baking cakes for gays on that same level, then how could you ask a colleague to do it?

I understand that you want to follow your faith, but sometimes that means not opening a shop under the laws which accommodate multiple faiths. You're asking the rest of us to put our beliefs on hold because your beliefs conflict. What about my right to open a shop in a marketplace where anyone of any race or gender or sexual orientation can buy goods and services without being shunned? Why would I want another shop that shuns people in the same market? I own my shop too. They just hurt me. I have a vested interest in the shops around me not shunning people for rather silly reasons. This isn't about the right to be gay, this is about the right to open a shop in a marketplace with an a priori agreed upon set of rules. Have I no rights in your world view?

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms? It was always the other way around. The First Amendment to the constitution is still valid.

So can business claim religious beliefs and discriminate against whomever they want?


Are there other laws of general applicability that one should just be able to claim a religious belief and then be exempt from the law?



>>>>

 

[Jughead]

If one believes with all their heart that blood transfusions are evil, why would one ask a colleague to do it? If it is wrong to steal, then why would you ask a colleague to do it? If you hold baking cakes for gays on that same level, then how could you ask a colleague to do it?

I understand that you want to follow your faith, but sometimes that means not opening a shop under the laws which accommodate multiple faiths. You're asking the rest of us to put our beliefs on hold because your beliefs conflict. What about my right to open a shop in a marketplace where anyone of any race or gender or sexual orientation can buy goods and services without being shunned? Why would I want another shop that shuns people in the same market? I own my shop too. They just hurt me. I have a vested interest in the shops around me not shunning people for rather silly reasons. This isn't about the right to be gay, this is about the right to open a shop in a marketplace with an a priori agreed upon set of rules. Have I no rights in your world view?

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms? It was always the other way around. The First Amendment to the constitution is still valid.

So can business claim religious beliefs and discriminate against whomever they want?


Are there other laws of general applicability that one should just be able to claim a religious belief and then be exempt from the law?



>>>>

Not serving someone because he is gay is one thing, however forcing me to participate in a event that goes against my faith is another. I would gladly serve a gay customer, however when they ask me to bake a gay wedding cake, or even attend a gay wedding ceremony to serve the cake, it goes against my beliefs and I should not be forced by law to renounce my faith. I would go to jail first.

 

[Jughead]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms???

Jefferson and Madison just spun in their graves.

See post above...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should accommodation laws take precedence over religious freedoms?

They shouldn’t, and they don’t; one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

You and most others on the right are apparently determined to remain willfully ignorant concerning this simple, fundamental fact of Constitutional law.

The Employment Division Court, whose decision was unanimous and authored by Justice Scalia, explains in a clear, logical, wise, and reasonable manner why religion cannot be used as justification to violate proper, appropriate, and Constitutional measures – such as public accommodations laws.