Baker must make gay cakes

[Quantum Windbag]

How is refusing to serve gay people "exercising religion"?

It isn't, he will not be forced to solicit business in the gay community, nor do anything but abide by the law. His religious beliefs will not be infringed.

He has to bake a gay wedding cake even though he doesn't bake cakes, how is that a normal application of the law.

 

[Katzndogz]

The courts see the writing on the wall as bakeries stop offering wedding cake services. (unless for friends or relatives)

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings You have to, or else!

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

Umm...

This is his website: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

 

[Noomi]

He isn't even taking part in the wedding, or supporting it. He is mixing together flour and eggs.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

How is refusing to serve gay people "exercising religion"?

It isn't, he will not be forced to solicit business in the gay community, nor do anything but abide by the law. His religious beliefs will not be infringed.

He has to bake a gay wedding cake even though he doesn't bake cakes., how is that a normal application of the law.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop" doesn't make cakes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How is refusing to serve gay people "exercising religion"?

He didn't refuse to serve gay people. No doubt the bakery served a lot of gay people.

He really cannot be ordered to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when he doesn't make them for anyone else.

That's not what I asked.

Then explain how forcing a baker to provide a service he doesn't supply just because the customer is gay is legal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He didn't refuse to serve gay people. No doubt the bakery served a lot of gay people.

He really cannot be ordered to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when he doesn't make them for anyone else.

That's not what I asked.

Then explain how forcing a baker to provide a service he doesn't supply just because the customer is gay is legal.

You keep repeating that, yet his website (and even the name of his business) seem to disagree with you.

Whether or not he makes wedding cakes now, there's no question that he did back in 2012, when this lawsuit actually happened.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

From his own website:

Jack Phillips creates a masterpiece! Custom designs are his specialty: If you can think it up, he can make it into a cake!

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Some people think they are cute with their sophistry that the baker didn't refuse service to gays, they could buy other products - just not a wedding cake.

But this is a legal decision and so one should understand what the law says:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

At the time of the infraction, the owner refused to sell the same-sex couple a wedding cake. A product that the baker routinely offered and sold in his business open to the public. Read the law, it is illegal to withhold "directly or indirectly" the "full and equal" goods and services" offered. It doesn't say you can offer goods A, B, and C to everyone and item D to only a subset of customers. That is not full and equal service.

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what I asked.

What you asked was a falsity. It never happened. Since the baker didn't refuse to serve gay people all you really have is a hypothetical. IF the baker had refused to serve gay people would that be an exercise of religion? Then of course you are bollixed up by the fact that he didn't refuse to serve anyone.

I'm directly responding to what the baker said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. "I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down," he told reporters after the ruling.

Apparently you didn't get the whole story, what a surprise.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What you asked was a falsity. It never happened. Since the baker didn't refuse to serve gay people all you really have is a hypothetical. IF the baker had refused to serve gay people would that be an exercise of religion? Then of course you are bollixed up by the fact that he didn't refuse to serve anyone.

I'm directly responding to what the baker said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. "I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down," he told reporters after the ruling.

Apparently you didn't get the whole story, what a surprise.

What part did I miss?

 

[Katzndogz]

There can be a penalty for refusing to bake the cake originally but no real way a baker can be forced to bake a cake just cause.

The courts know what's coming. Bakeries will just stop making a public offering of wedding cake services. There might be entire towns without a single bakery that offers wedding cakes to the public.

 

[Noomi]

There can be a penalty for refusing to bake the cake originally but no real way a baker can be forced to bake a cake just cause.

The courts know what's coming. Bakeries will just stop making a public offering of wedding cake services. There might be entire towns without a single bakery that offers wedding cakes to the public.

But that will suss out all the homophobic bigots in the town.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

He isn't being "forced" to bake a cake for any wedding. The wedding in question happened a long time ago.

He's being "forced" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, nothing more.

Which explains why they want a list of everyone who walks out of the store without buying anything exactly how?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

He isn't being "forced" to bake a cake for any wedding. The wedding in question happened a long time ago.

He's being "forced" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, nothing more.

Which explains why they want a list of everyone who walks out of the store without buying anything exactly how?

What are you talking about?

 

[Katzndogz]

>


Some people think they are cute with their sophistry that the baker didn't refuse service to gays, they could buy other products - just not a wedding cake.

But this is a legal decision and so one should understand what the law says:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

At the time of the infraction, the owner refused to sell the same-sex couple a wedding cake. A product that the baker routinely offered and sold in his business open to the public. Read the law, it is illegal to withhold "directly or indirectly" the "full and equal" goods and services" offered. It doesn't say you can offer goods A, B, and C to everyone and item D to only a subset of customers. That is not full and equal service.

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

Oh the baker can do wedding cakes. He just can't offer wedding cake services to the public. Read the statute again. It's about advertising not actual service.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

Umm...

This is his website: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

And we all know websites are always up to date and accurate, don't we?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

Umm...

This is his website: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

And we all know websites are always up to date and accurate, don't we?

Are you still trying to claim that at the time of the wedding, Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't make wedding cakes?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not what I asked.

Then explain how forcing a baker to provide a service he doesn't supply just because the customer is gay is legal.

You keep repeating that, yet his website (and even the name of his business) seem to disagree with you.

Whether or not he makes wedding cakes now, there's no question that he did back in 2012, when this lawsuit actually happened.

Unless you have some sort of evidence that he is currently discriminating you really can't argue that the ruling is appropriate, especially the part about keeping lack of innocent third parties simply to satisfy a commission that has no legal authority to impose any types of sanctions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>


Some people think they are cute with their sophistry that the baker didn't refuse service to gays, they could buy other products - just not a wedding cake.

But this is a legal decision and so one should understand what the law says:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, al status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

At the time of the infraction, the owner refused to sell the same-sex couple a wedding cake. A product that the baker routinely offered and sold in his business open to the public. Read the law, it is illegal to withhold "directly or indirectly" the "full and equal" goods and services" offered. It doesn't say you can offer goods A, B, and C to everyone and item D to only a subset of customers. That is not full and equal service.

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

It has nothing to do with being cute, he no longer sells wedding cakes to the public., thus refusing to make a gay couple a wedding cake is not discrimination.