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

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You will note that the picture in the OP is not of the cake being requested. Here is that same picture from 2017

The only description of the cake being ordered was pink on the inside and blue on the outside. Nothing in the article indicated it would have anything printed or drawn on it. No rational baker would have a problem with that. What upset him was when he found out the colors represented the specific customer's reason for those colors. It's none of the baker's concern what the cake represents.

 

[Faun]

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.

But your bigotry against Christians is good and righteous.

Oh? What does the Bible say about trans-gendered?

Oh, NOW you care what the Bible says?

Moron, it's what the baker's claiming. I'm looking for truth in his claim. It's not there.

 

[Faun]

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?

They guy also doesn't do Halloween cakes because it goes against his religion.

try again, you fascist fuck.

Big deal. Lots of people opposed integration, claiming their religion opposed it. My grandmother even told me people opposed cars, the telephone, and indoor plumbing based on their religion. It seems to be a catch all for anyone who opposes progress but can't find a logical reason why.

Did anyone force them to build cars, telephones, or plumbing? How can you be this dumb?

Still waiting for the verse in the Bible where it condemns transgenderism...

Coveting.

Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor.

The cases of UNNATURAL desires to have the body or features of the other gender is coveting physical gendee of other people. If people are naturally the identity they claim, they do not suffer conflicts but are at peace and do not covet anything outside their control.

The right to override the consent of others is coveting control of public policy and forcing one's beliefs on others by central authority.

Coveting the right to compete in women's sports.

Coveting public resources and taxpayer money to pay for transition as a medical procedure or pay for court and legislative costs of establishing these personal policies through federal govt.

Faun all this Coveting business, including LGBT political and Political Bullying "in general" for dominating and Coveting govt representation by one party over another,
comes from not forgiving past conflicts or abuses, including generational conditions passed down and inherited spiritually, socially or sometimes physically.

The Bible warns
* if we forgive others then we are forgiven
* if we do not forgive others then we are not forgiven
* sins of the father will be revisited on the sons (ie future generations) until the fourth or fifth generations

Many of the ills, abuses, and addictive disorders we see today are consequences of conflicts or issues from the past, not yet fully forgiven corrected or resolved.
Once we forgive them, these can be healed.

James 5:16
Confess your faults one to another and pray for one another that you may be healed

So it's a sin to want a Ferrari??

Faun
If you are trying to force others to give you one where you are coveting the labor or wealth of others, or trying to control legislation in ways that benefits you at the expense of others without their consent.

If people agree to give you or sell you a car, if people agree to fund, follow and support your LGBT beliefs, practices or expressions, that isn't coveting, that is consensual.

In general trying to mandate or force people to validate your beliefs as a protected class by imposing it by law on others is coveting control and validation that other people aren't required to give.

If someone does not believe in same sex marriage, or in transgender identity or homosexual orientation as normal, that is their free choice of belief; and govt cannot be abused to force anyone to comply with or change faith based beliefs that are a personal internal choice outside govt jurisdiction.

Now spiritually Faun, if your obsession or attachment to getting a Ferrari is unhealthy and causes ill consequences to your emotional balance or financial stability, then if this causes problems for you, that is your personal responsibility to decide if that is good or bad.

If the burden causes you to abuse other people, like stealing from or cheating others in order to get or keep the car, then there's probably something wrong and out of balance.

The Buddhists would warn against "excessive" desire, because it is conditioning you to depend on material things for peace and happiness, which causes problems when you are attached and can be manipulated by these conditions.

So if the desire for the car is Natural and does not cause problems for you or other, there is nothing wrong.

If wanting the car is masking some other problems this is being used to cover up, then it isn't the car that's the problem, but whatever is going on underneath.

And same with the conflicts over LGBT.

If it is truly natural for the person, then they can find peace and healing without trying to control or force others to change.

But if the conflicts rely on "trying to change or control other people" (such as by personally bullying or coercing them, or by abusing govt to force beliefs on other people) then something else is wrong. The LGBT issue is used as a target, but the real problems and conflicts are much greater.

The politics between the liberal left/LGBT and the Christian right/Conservative are both fighting to defend their beliefs against threats or attacks by the other. Because the Christians and Conservatives have traditionally dominated the authority of church and state law, the advocates of Liberal beliefs in secular humanist and now LGBT policies have been pushing to take over the narrative in the media and dominate govt to push this agenda on others by force of law.

If it was agreed on freely by choice, then it isn't coveting control of govt to force it on the public.

LOL

It's adorable how you try to draw a parallel between wanting a Ferrari with believing you born the wrong gender.

 

[dblack]

The baker isn't refusing to serve the PERSON.
The baker is refusing to perform a certain service or design.

This is an empty distinction, and it concedes the central conflict in these kinds of civil rights laws. In concedes, to the state, the power to compel a business to serve people against their will. It concedes the corrupt concepts of "public accommodation" (the state is part owner of your business) and "protected classes" (special rights for special people). It concedes everything important and simply quibbles over details.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

You will note that the picture in the OP is not of the cake being requested. Here is that same picture from 2017
View attachment 472029

The only description of the cake being ordered was pink on the inside and blue on the outside. Nothing in the article indicated it would have anything printed or drawn on it. No rational baker would have a problem with that. What upset him was when he found out the colors represented the specific customer's reason for those colors. It's none of the baker's concern what the cake represents.

????
Sure, if you don't tell the baker what it means, then you don't make the baker responsible for that.

Just like if you don't post obscene or inflammatory remarks on your publicly visible social media sites, then potential employers who use background and website research to screen candidates for hire will not use that in their decisions.

BULLDOG
You would be correct if the issue was not serving that customer "at all" just because of their affiliation or identity as LGBT etc.

But if an artist or performer has a conflict with a writer or director on artistic or creative decisions, yes, they both have rights to refuse to work together on THAT project, scene, or message if they cannot resolve their creative or value differences.

What I have suggested is, similar to this and other websites, where users sign agreements before creating an account to use the services through a company, that the bakeries and other wedding or event companies have all customers or potential clients sign agreements that in case of disputes over services, the parties agree to resolve conflicts by free mediation and consensus in order to avoid legal action or expenses, and or agree to refund money paid and refrain from conducting business together, or to delegate any disputed services to another vendor or contractor in order to resolve the dispute.

If both parties sign a waiver to mediate and not to sue, they can agree in advance to an amicable solution or not to conduct business at all. That is my best advice to avoid these situations. Either agree to resolve them by mediation or delegating the work to another vendor or subcontractor, or don't do business together.

Both parties have equal rights to express and defend their personal beliefs and not violate them.

If I find your message violates my beliefs, I can delegate the work to a subcontractor who agrees to those services. If I can't find one, I can explain that to the customer.

Actors, directors, producers and consumers decide if they like the message in a script or not.

No workers or businesses can be forced to work on a project if they chose to quit or reject it because of content or creative decisions *UNLESS they signed a contract agreeing to waive their rights to end it.*

These conflicts over creative decisions, financial terms, and ownership have led to lawsuits over movie deals or albums.

I think the most SIMILAR issue to this is actors arguing that not getting a role because of homosexual orientation is discriminating, while movie producers claim it affects the marketing, so this becomes controversial if the company has the right to hire whoever they want or not for whatever reason they believe is marketable.

Again, the solution would be to have potential candidates sign waivers holding the company harmless and agreeing not to sue over disputes but to seek mediation or arbitration etc. to resolve the conflict. Anyone refused business due to certain conflicts could still be offered different options that don't cause conflict between them.

But if the point of the interaction IS to incite conflict and initiate litigation, then the business should protect itself by stating the terms of services the right to avoid or refuse participating in any such services or actions whose purpose is legal action or political advocacy or other public lobbying or message the business or its workers or affilates retain full rights to exclude or refuse without penalty.

 

[theHawk]

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.

But your bigotry against Christians is good and righteous.

Oh? What does the Bible say about trans-gendered?

Oh, NOW you care what the Bible says?

Moron, it's what the baker's claiming. I'm looking for truth in his claim. It's not there.

Since when does something have to be written in the Bible to make it a religious belief? Churches also put out their own literature and sermons of course, not to mention a belief can be self-evident.

 

[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.

But your bigotry against Christians is good and righteous.

Oh? What does the Bible say about trans-gendered?

Oh, NOW you care what the Bible says?

Moron, it's what the baker's claiming. I'm looking for truth in his claim. It's not there.

Since when does something have to be written in the Bible to make it a religious belief? Churches also put out their own literature and sermons of course, not to mention a belief can be self-evident.

And, of course, there are all the OTHER religions out there besides Christianity.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You will note that the picture in the OP is not of the cake being requested. Here is that same picture from 2017
View attachment 472029

The only description of the cake being ordered was pink on the inside and blue on the outside. Nothing in the article indicated it would have anything printed or drawn on it. No rational baker would have a problem with that. What upset him was when he found out the colors represented the specific customer's reason for those colors. It's none of the baker's concern what the cake represents.

????
Sure, if you don't tell the baker what it means, then you don't make the baker responsible for that.

Just like if you don't post obscene or inflammatory remarks on your publicly visible social media sites, then potential employers who use background and website research to screen candidates for hire will not use that in their decisions.

BULLDOG
You would be correct if the issue was not serving that customer "at all" just because of their affiliation or identity as LGBT etc.

But if an artist or performer has a conflict with a writer or director on artistic or creative decisions, yes, they both have rights to refuse to work together on THAT project, scene, or message if they cannot resolve their creative or value differences.

What I have suggested is, similar to this and other websites, where users sign agreements before creating an account to use the services through a company, that the bakeries and other wedding or event companies have all customers or potential clients sign agreements that in case of disputes over services, the parties agree to resolve conflicts by free mediation and consensus in order to avoid legal action or expenses, and or agree to refund money paid and refrain from conducting business together, or to delegate any disputed services to another vendor or contractor in order to resolve the dispute.

If both parties sign a waiver to mediate and not to sue, they can agree in advance to an amicable solution or not to conduct business at all. That is my best advice to avoid these situations. Either agree to resolve them by mediation or delegating the work to another vendor or subcontractor, or don't do business together.

Both parties have equal rights to express and defend their personal beliefs and not violate them.

If I find your message violates my beliefs, I can delegate the work to a subcontractor who agrees to those services. If I can't find one, I can explain that to the customer.

Actors, directors, producers and consumers decide if they like the message in a script or not.

No workers or businesses can be forced to work on a project if they chose to quit or reject it because of content or creative decisions *UNLESS they signed a contract agreeing to waive their rights to end it.*

These conflicts over creative decisions, financial terms, and ownership have led to lawsuits over movie deals or albums.

I think the most SIMILAR issue to this is actors arguing that not getting a role because of homosexual orientation is discriminating, while movie producers claim it affects the marketing, so this becomes controversial if the company has the right to hire whoever they want or not for whatever reason they believe is marketable.

Again, the solution would be to have potential candidates sign waivers holding the company harmless and agreeing not to sue over disputes but to seek mediation or arbitration etc. to resolve the conflict. Anyone refused business due to certain conflicts could still be offered different options that don't cause conflict between them.

But if the point of the interaction IS to incite conflict and initiate litigation, then the business should protect itself by stating the terms of services the right to avoid or refuse participating in any such services or actions whose purpose is legal action or political advocacy or other public lobbying or message the business or its workers or affilates retain full rights to exclude or refuse without penalty.

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane. Artistic ability is not high on the requirements to complete such a task. You are also suggesting our legal rights to go before the courts be replaced with a superseding arbitration of some type. You need to either refamiliarize yourself with what is actually involved in the case, or reexamine your logic. There is nothing in the article, or anywhere else that I have found to indicate this cake would be any different than any other cake made by the baker. The picture in the OP is not what was requested. The picture in the OP is just a stock picture that has been used as far back as 2017. Sometimes you are wrong because you have made assumptions that are just not born out. You should consider that in this case.

 

[theHawk]

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane.

Then they could just bake their own cake, or go to a different baker.

The cake artist did not want to do it because he didn’t agree with its statement. The difficulty has nothing to do with it.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane.

Then they could just bake their own cake, or go to a different baker.

The cake artist did not want to do it because he didn’t agree with its statement. The difficulty has nothing to do with it.

So every business is allowed to make moral judgements to determine if they want to do business with each customer? Wouldn't that invalidate all your whining about Twitter and Google banning so many crazy right wingers?

 

[dblack]

So every business is allowed to make moral judgements to determine if they want to do business with each customer?

Yes.

Wouldn't that invalidate all your whining about Twitter and Google banning so many crazy right wingers?

Yes.

Hypocrisy abounds.

 

[theHawk]

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane.

Then they could just bake their own cake, or go to a different baker.

The cake artist did not want to do it because he didn’t agree with its statement. The difficulty has nothing to do with it.

So every business is allowed to make moral judgements to determine if they want to do business with each customer? Wouldn't that invalidate all your whining about Twitter and Google banning so many crazy right wingers?

Seeing that Twatter and Google are banning anyone they don’t like, then that invalidates the argument against this baker.

 

[dblack]

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane.

Then they could just bake their own cake, or go to a different baker.

The cake artist did not want to do it because he didn’t agree with its statement. The difficulty has nothing to do with it.

So every business is allowed to make moral judgements to determine if they want to do business with each customer? Wouldn't that invalidate all your whining about Twitter and Google banning so many crazy right wingers?

Seeing that Twatter and Google are banning anyone they don’t like, then that invalidates the argument against this baker.

Do you think Twitter and Google should be allowed to do that? Lots of Republicans have been calling for a "crackdown" on social media sites for censoring their users. What's your take?

 

[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?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

No one should have to provide "excuses". Being forced to accommodate others against your will is a fundamental violation of human rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

That's absurd. We're talking about a pink cake with blue icing, not the Mona Lisa, or the filming of Citizen Kane.

Then they could just bake their own cake, or go to a different baker.

The cake artist did not want to do it because he didn’t agree with its statement. The difficulty has nothing to do with it.

So every business is allowed to make moral judgements to determine if they want to do business with each customer? Wouldn't that invalidate all your whining about Twitter and Google banning so many crazy right wingers?

YES BULLDOG BINGO!
Many people including Mark Levin and me
have been arguing that private companies and media have the right to determine their own rules on content. Govt cannot regulate or punish individual right to free speech, but these private media companies are NOT govt! Nobody is required to use social media. So if we don't like the rules of a company, we don't have to use their services!

(What can be argued is if companies misrepresent their policies to paying customers or advertisers.)

 

[Thinker101]

Cakeshop owner in Colorado, best known for winning a 2018 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court over his treatment by the state’s Civil Rights Commission and its blatant discrimination against his Christian beliefs.

Now, he’s in a courtroom again, with those same beliefs under a new attack for not making a transgender cake.

Prominent Christian Baker Sued for Refusing to Make Gender 'Transition' Cake

 

[SassyIrishLass]

He won once, he'll likely win again.