Baker who won SCOTUS suit being sued for refusing to bake a “Trans” Cake

[progressive hunter]

You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.

Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections

www.foxbusiness.com

Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.

What religious ceremony would the baker be forced to participate in with the trans cake?

who said it was a religious ceremony???

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.

Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections

www.foxbusiness.com

Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.

What religious ceremony would the baker be forced to participate in with the trans cake?

It's not religious freedom that's being targeted - it's any resistance to their social engineering agenda. The freedoms at risk are much broader and more fundamental - freedom of conscience, freedom of association. Making this narrowly about religious freedom is a mistake.

Well who made the idiot baker's argument about religion to start with? Since it was all about religion before, I don't see how that ruling could have anything to do with this cake.

You might not appreciate the baker's religion, Christianity, and you might disagree with the Christian idea that Almighty God put Adam and Eve (not Steve) into the garden.

But you are beyond the pale in calling the belief "idiotic".

I disagree with the islamic hatred of bacon and the Hindu's worship of the Sacred Cow and the Shintoist thought that the emperor is Almighty God.

However, I wouldn't call them "idiotic."

I said he was an idiot. I suspect he only used his religion as an excuse to justify his bigotry like so many other right wingers do.

Why can't the people wanting the cake just go to another baker?

Are they trying to make a point, or get a payday?

Why didn't they just find another lunch counter? Nobody said they had to eat at Woolworth's.
View attachment 471415

Dear BULLDOG
The baker isn't refusing to serve the PERSON.
The baker is refusing to perform a certain service or design.
It doesn't matter WHICH customer requests a cake with an LGBT theme or message. The customer could be Black, White, LGBT or straight, pro or anti Christian, Muslim etc.

If they order a cake that doesn't offend or violate the beliefs of the baker, they will get that cake.

If they order a cake that the baker refuses to design or decorate, NOBODY will get it.

So the baker is consistent and not discriminating against customers, but treating them the same where all would be refused that service.

Note: As for comparing Race with LGBT, people have changed their orientation and come out as gay, transgender, straight, bi or exgay etc. Nobody I know has internally decided to change their race which is genetic and decided before birth.

Homosexual or transgender tendencies may be traced to conditions in the womb. I have read abouy studies on the correlation between stress levels during pregnancy and chances of someone born homosexual. And the brains of homosexual or transgender people supposedly show similarities to female brains, so there may be proof of physical manifestation.

But we haven't proven that LGBT conditions cannot be changed.
Unlike race that is genetically determined and isn't something that can be changed.

I believe that LGBT identity and orientation is more like someone's choice or ability to identify as Theist or Nontheist, or claim affiliation as Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. This is none of Govt business to decide which denominations of beliefs are protected as a class over others. We should learn and teach respect for people regardless of beliefs, and if we create a policy through govt we should agree how to classify or group those beliefs, where it is fair and includes everyone (such as recognizing political beliefs, spiritual beliefs, or sexual beliefs as covering the whole range universally) instead of only protecting SOME people's beliefs while excluding or penalizing others.

I think your point is exactly correct. This baker isn't objecting to the person at all; he's objecting to the cake they want, and the event they want it for. And, as far as I know, his policies about what cakes he will and won't make are being applied equally across the board. Had the gay couple ordered an elaborate, special birthday cake, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't have filled the order. By the same token, had I - a happily-married straight woman - ordered a cake for a gay friend's wedding, I have no doubt he'd have turned that down. It's not the PERSON he has a problem with; it's the event.

I hate to break it to the leftists on this board, but this isn't uncommon. My husband, when he was in college, used to make extra money as a photographer for sorority parties. He was a good photographer, but not a professional, and he got the work because most professional photographers in town refused the jobs. They didn't have anything against sorority girls; they just didn't want to deal with the hassle of college students at parties. I've mentioned before that, some years ago, I was hired by friends to be the producer/party planner for a fetish ball. I'm not a professional party planner, but they hired me because the professional party planners simply refused to handle that sort of event. They got into the profession to do weddings and quinceaneras and corporate events, not to deal with people in leather and spandex and dog collars. It's quite common for performing artists to refuse to work children's parties. It's not that they necessarily have a problem with children in general; they just don't want to deal with that sort of event.

 

[daveman]

Artistic ability is not high on the requirements to complete such a task.

Then the transperson could have made their own cake, couldn't they?

Oh, wait -- you can't punish Thoughtcriminals by doing it yourself, can you?

Probably could have, but I'm pretty sure this was calling the baker's bluff. Silly religious excuses won't work this time.

Oh, if ONLY the baker would believe the things we tell him to believe!

Man, you guys sure do hate it when people think for themselves.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.

Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections

www.foxbusiness.com

Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform. There are literally millions of Americans who simply choose not to work at all. Apparently, the government does not make them do work they don't wish to do.

Any business should be able to decide what products and services they wish to offer. In a sense, their name and reputation is associated with the products they produce.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Perhaps a similar example: Cuss words are completely legal, but if a bake shop declined to include cuss words on anything they produce, it should be their right to do so. Free speech and all that.

Try to order a personalized license plate from your local DMV that has a cuss word or "offensive" message on it. Government will not provide that service.

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

 

[daveman]

You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.

Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections

www.foxbusiness.com

Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform. There are literally millions of Americans who simply choose not to work at all. Apparently, the government does not make them do work they don't wish to do.

Any business should be able to decide what products and services they wish to offer. In a sense, their name and reputation is associated with the products they produce.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Perhaps a similar example: Cuss words are completely legal, but if a bake shop declined to include cuss words on anything they produce, it should be their right to do so. Free speech and all that.

Try to order a personalized license plate from your local DMV that has a cuss word or "offensive" message on it. Government will not provide that service.

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Leftists support slavery when the work being performed is something they think they're entitled to.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You can’t make this shit up. The left are targeting this man for his religious beliefs.
The newest unhinged lunatic is trying to force him to bake a cake that is blue on the outside and pink on the inside to represent the freak’s “transition”.

Colorado baker sued again over alleged LGBTQ bias

Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips case is latest in series of US cases against merchants' religious objections

www.foxbusiness.com

Why can’t the idiot go to another cake shop, or make their own? Oh yea, because the real goal is to destroy the lives of anyone that disagrees with their batshit crazy Agenda.

What religious ceremony would the baker be forced to participate in with the trans cake?

It's not religious freedom that's being targeted. It's any resistance to their social engineering agenda.

Yup, what’s next? They going to sue artists for refusing to paint a trans orgy?

Yeah. What about the artists?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Without the freedom to say no, there is no freedom at all. Without being able to say NO you are being abused. The worst kind of abuse.

 

[dblack]

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform.

Yep. The issues starts, and ends, with that. The rest is quibbling.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime. You can discriminate all day long, as long as you don't cite a forbidden reason. A baker can say, "I won't make your cake because I don't like the way you look". They could say, "I only make wedding cakes for people who were born in July". But they can't say "I won't make your cake because I think gay marriage is bad for society".

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Not in a free society. But we don't have one of those. Most people, most of the people arguing in this thread, accept the idea that government can compel service. They're just bickering over the details.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform.

Yep. The issues starts, and ends, with that. The rest is quibbling.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime. You can discriminate all day long, as long as you don't cite a forbidden reason. A baker can say, "I won't make your cake because I don't like the way you look". They could say, "I only make wedding cakes for people who were born in July". But they can't say "I won't make your cake because I think gay marriage is bad for society".

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Not in a free society. But we don't have one of those. Most people, most of the people arguing in this thread, accept the idea that government can compel service. They're just bickering over the details.

> Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime.

Nah, It's simply free will. Not complicated at all.

Regards,
Jim

 

[daveman]

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform.

Yep. The issues starts, and ends, with that. The rest is quibbling.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime. You can discriminate all day long, as long as you don't cite a forbidden reason. A baker can say, "I won't make your cake because I don't like the way you look". They could say, "I only make wedding cakes for people who were born in July". But they can't say "I won't make your cake because I think gay marriage is bad for society".

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Not in a free society. But we don't have one of those. Most people, most of the people arguing in this thread, accept the idea that government can compel service. They're just bickering over the details.

Can you point out the conservatives who believe government can compel service? Because I haven't seen any.

 

[dblack]

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform.

Yep. The issues starts, and ends, with that. The rest is quibbling.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime. You can discriminate all day long, as long as you don't cite a forbidden reason. A baker can say, "I won't make your cake because I don't like the way you look". They could say, "I only make wedding cakes for people who were born in July". But they can't say "I won't make your cake because I think gay marriage is bad for society".

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Not in a free society. But we don't have one of those. Most people, most of the people arguing in this thread, accept the idea that government can compel service. They're just bickering over the details.

Can you point out the conservatives who believe government can compel service? Because I haven't seen any.

martybegan - there are others. They're fine with civil rights in general, they're fine with forcing diners to serve blacks, or forcing social media companies to post shit they disagree with. They're fine with "public accommodations" and "protected classes", they just want their little carve-out.

 

[daveman]

I have never understood how one can be compelled to perform a service they do not wish to perform.

Yep. The issues starts, and ends, with that. The rest is quibbling.

"Trans cake? Sorry, we don't make those."
"Why not?"
"We don't want to."

Ahh ... but "we don't want to" would actually be a legal justification. It's the expression of a forbidden bias that constitutes the crime. You can discriminate all day long, as long as you don't cite a forbidden reason. A baker can say, "I won't make your cake because I don't like the way you look". They could say, "I only make wedding cakes for people who were born in July". But they can't say "I won't make your cake because I think gay marriage is bad for society".

People are all entitled to their own opinions, and should be completely free to decide what tasks they wish to put their efforts into. Can the government compel one to work against their will?

Not in a free society. But we don't have one of those. Most people, most of the people arguing in this thread, accept the idea that government can compel service. They're just bickering over the details.

Can you point out the conservatives who believe government can compel service? Because I haven't seen any.

martybegan - there are others. They're fine with civil rights in general, they're fine with forcing diners to serve blacks, or forcing social media companies to post shit they disagree with. They're fine with "public accommodations" and "protected classes", they just want their little carve-out.

Uh huh. Kinda doubt that.

Me, I'm a "let businesses decide who they'll serve" kinda guy. If a demographic is underserved, the market will sort it out.

See? No threat of government violence required. Leftists hate that idea, though.