Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[strollingbones]

it is beyond me but i will admit i would refuse service to someone like m vick....i just couldnt do it...

but that is just me and i dont see that covered in the rules.....

i do not understand refusing to serve someone due to much....green is green....

 

[strollingbones]

but i do have to wonder how much profit the bakers will make over this.....will christian groups etc step up and patronize them now? free publicity is never a bad thing

 

[WorldWatcher]

it is beyond me but i will admit i would refuse service to someone like m vick....i just couldnt do it...

but that is just me and i dont see that covered in the rules.....

i do not understand refusing to serve someone due to much....green is green....

vick who?


>>>>

 

[strollingbones]

michael vick...dont get me started....if the man were on fire...i would hit him with gas

 

[WorldWatcher]

but i do have to wonder how much profit the bakers will make over this.....will christian groups etc step up and patronize them now? free publicity is never a bad thing

Unknown.

However the publicity didn't workout for "Sweetcakes by Mellisa" (same type of case but in Washington State IIRC). Business plummeted and they closed shop because the public didn't shop there.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

michael vick...dont get me started....if the man were on fire...i would hit him with gas

Oh, got it.

If you refused service because he was black (not saying you would) - then it would be in violation of the law.

If you refused service because of his past dog-fighting association - Yep perfectly leagel as that is not listed as a reason you can't refuse service.


Hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[strollingbones]

i got no problem with isms....i try not to engage in any of them....sadistic people i have little concern or patience for....

 

[Jughead]

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

Well, it is in conflict with my faith, and my faith supersedes all else, that is why I would go to jail instead of baking the cake. I have a right to not acknowledge gay marriage or homosexuality since I will not under any circumstance renounce my faith.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it would be right for a Jewish owned butcher shop to be forced by law to sell baby back pork ribs? I don't. The same applies to the bakery in question here. He sells standard cakes to anyone, with no discrimination due to sexual orientation, however he will not make a custom "gay" cake as doing so would be in conflict with his faith.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

Well, it is in conflict with my faith, and my faith supersedes all else, that is why I would go to jail instead of baking the cake. I have a right to not acknowledge gay marriage or homosexuality since I will not under any circumstance renounce my faith.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it would be right for a Jewish owned butcher shop to be forced by law to sell baby back pork ribs? I don't. The same applies to the bakery in question here. He sells standard cakes to anyone, with no discrimination due to sexual orientation, however he will not make a custom "gay" cake as doing so would be in conflict with his faith.

Sorry JH, that is not the same situation and a poor analogy.

Businesses are not required to provides goods and services they don't routinely supply. If a Jewish deli does not stock and sell baby back pork ribs, they are not required to begin stocking and selling them. However if the Jewish deli DOES stock and sell baby back pork ribs, then selling them to some customers but not others based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (under Colorado law) would be illegal. No one is "forcing" the deli owner to stock anything, what is the required is non-discrimination (based on certain criteria) concerning the sale of an already stocked item or service provided.

In this case the bakery advertised and routinely supplied "wedding cakes", as such - under Colorado law - they could not refuse sale based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.



>>>>

 

[Jughead]

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been targeted.

It seems you don't understand what "targeting a specific religion" means.

A law that says Christians can't discriminate based on religious dogma, but Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, etc. can - that is targeting a specific religion. But laws that say business, in general, can't discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, gender, etc. (and in this case sexual orientation) do not target a religion, they have general applicability.

You know Justice Scallia right? Not exactly one of the most liberal justices. He wrote in the Employment Division v. Smith decision:

" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."

He quoted Minersville v. Gobits "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

and then wrote...

"Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."​

>>>>

Sigh. Justice Scalia, wrote that? With all due respect to Justice Scalia, as I still respect the man, I will still not engage in any activity that is in conflict with the teachings of my faith. I will not renounce my faith because of some law, if my appeal were to fail, I'd simply shut down my bakery, or refuse to bake the cake and simply go to jail.

I always respect the decisions of any Supreme Court Justices, as they represent the highest court in the land. I especially admired both Justices Scalia and Thomas as their views often reflected mine. I guess now I will look up to Justice Thomas for issues of this nature.

 

[Jughead]

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

Well, it is in conflict with my faith, and my faith supersedes all else, that is why I would go to jail instead of baking the cake. I have a right to not acknowledge gay marriage or homosexuality since I will not under any circumstance renounce my faith.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think it would be right for a Jewish owned butcher shop to be forced by law to sell baby back pork ribs? I don't. The same applies to the bakery in question here. He sells standard cakes to anyone, with no discrimination due to sexual orientation, however he will not make a custom "gay" cake as doing so would be in conflict with his faith.

Sorry JH, that is not the same situation and a poor analogy.

Businesses are not required to provides goods and services they don't routinely supply. If a Jewish deli does not stock and sell baby back pork ribs, they are not required to begin stocking and selling them. However if the Jewish deli DOES stock and sell baby back pork ribs, then selling them to some customers but not others based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation (under Colorado law) would be illegal. No one is "forcing" the deli owner to stock anything, what is the requirement non-discrimination (based on certain criteria) concerning the sale of an already stocked item or service provided.

In this case the bakery advertised and routinely supplied "wedding cakes", as such - under Colorado law - they could not refuse sale based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.



>>>>

Well, I would then advertise "standard wedding cakes", no customization possible. As customized cakes are not available to the general public, then they would also not be available to the gay couple.

 

[manifold]

The plaintiffs are freedom hating cuntrags.

I support gay marriage and equality, but shit like this makes me support them less... purely out of spite.

 

[manifold]

The moral of the story here is next time any business wants to deny serving gays, don't state that their gayness is the reason. Just say they were assholes and you're exercising your right not to do business with them.

People who think a case like this advances the cause of gay tolerance/acceptance couldn't possibly be more wrong.

 

[novasteve]

Would they even want the cake now? Imagine what they will die to the cake if restaurants spit in your food for wanting it cooked more

 

[Defiant1]

A wedding cake is a piece of art.

No artist (the baker) should be made to design or create anything against his/her will.

This opinion is not based on religious beliefs.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A wedding cake is a piece of art.

No artist (the baker) should be made to design or create anything against his/her will.

This opinion is not based on religious beliefs.

Actually, design only would be considered artistic creation. Baking and reproducing a cake already in the portfolio would be more a technical process then an "articistic" process.

You can see their portfolio of reproducible cakes here -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


>>>>

 

[Dragonlady]

Well, I would then advertise "standard wedding cakes", no customization possible. As customized cakes are not available to the general public, then they would also not be available to the gay couple.

Anyone making wedding cakes who refuses to provide customized cakes, will not be in business for long. Custom cakes is the only way you can make money in the wedding business.

Being gay isn't a choice. I didn't wake up one day and make a decision to date men and be a heterosexual person. It's who I am. Being gay is the same. God made some people gay and God doesn't make mistakes.

Jesus was very clear that you have no right to judge others and treat them badly because they are sinners. If you believe being gay is a sin, you should not refuse any kindness to a gay person.

Imagine how God will feel towards you for your treatment of His children.

 

[strollingbones]

custom cakes start at about 500 bucks.....those are nice cakes but like it was said..reproductions

 

[Defiant1]

A wedding cake is a piece of art.

No artist (the baker) should be made to design or create anything against his/her will.

This opinion is not based on religious beliefs.

Actually, design only would be considered artistic creation. Baking and reproducing a cake already in the portfolio would be more a technical process then an "articistic" process.

You can see their portfolio of reproducible cakes here -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


>>>>

I didn't see any with rainbows or with "gay" toppers.

 

[Sunni Man]

Being gay isn't a choice. I didn't wake up one day and make a decision to date men and be a heterosexual person. It's who I am. Being gay is the same. God made some people gay and God doesn't make mistakes.

Jesus was very clear that you have no right to judge others and treat them badly because they are sinners. If you believe being gay is a sin, you should not refuse any kindness to a gay person.

Imagine how God will feel towards you for your treatment of His children.

God calls homosexuality an abomination in the Bible and says they are destined for hell.

So I doubt he thinks of them as one of his "children".

And yes, being a ****** is a choice, a pathetic choice, but still a choice. ...