Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[ThisIsMe]

No, I didn't. Your side lost that argument. Now you are desperately clinging to 'Well, I won't bake that cake!" without realizing the implications of allowing refusal of service on religious grounds. Because it doesn't stop at gays.

This has never been about the cakes, it's been about the refusal of certain extremists to accept they lost the argument over gay marriage.

This has never been about the cakes, it's been about the refusal of certain extremists to accept they lost the argument over gay marriage.

I don’t think that’s the case, it’s not about cakes, nor is it about any refusal to accept anything, it’s about religious liberty vs the lefts hatred of religious liberty and their insistence that one’s personal freedoms outweigh another’s religious freedoms.

Now, about that meme you posted…there are a few problems with it:

1) SHE is not selling condoms because SHE is not the owner of wal mart. She is an employee of wal mart and she is doing her job of cashing out the items that wal mart sells.

2) I’m not catholic, but I don’t think the religion prohibits working for a store that sells condoms, they just frown on people using them.

3) if wal mart had a religious objection to selling condoms, they could simply refuse to stock them, and if someone wanted to buy them..they could go to another store…just because wal mart sells anything and everything, you couldn’t file a lawsuit against them because they don’t sell condoms.

4) I’m not a Muslim but I’m not aware they are prohibited from working for a store that sells pork products, they are just not supposed to consume them. The ham is covered in a plastic covering so she doesn’t have to touch the ham.

5) even if she could claim a religious reason for not handling condoms, knowing the customer has a ham, why would she send them down to register 8, knowing that person is a Muslim, she could just send them down to register 10, where the person there doesn’t care what they ring up on their register.

6) I notice that you, or whoever made that woke meme used a woman as the cashier, further still, they depicted the Muslim at register 8 as a woman also. Is this some misogynistic way of saying that only women can be cashiers, or that most women are cashiers? Why couldn’t it have been a man?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Its just anti gay/tranny prejudice wrapped up in a bogus religous wrapper.
Nobody has advanced one argument that supports this crap. Loving was mentioned earlier.That is a great analogy for this shitty behaviour.

No it’s not. It’s only that way in your mind because you refuse to consider anyone else’s freedoms other than the ones you agree with. You, like many on the left, hate the idea of religious freedom, so you’ll completely ignore their side of things, because you want what you want, be damned that someone else wants.

And again, it’s not like this baker is refusing service to gay and trans person, they just refused to bake a cake for the transition party.


By the way, your use of the term “tranny” is considered a slur and an offensive term for trans people. You people on the left, as evidence here frequently on usmb, despite your supposed support for the gay and trans community, tend to use offensive terms for those people, or used their lifestyle as an insult…..

 

[ThisIsMe]

Circular. In the first instance, yes, he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding. In the second, he refused to bake a cake for a woman who wanted it for her own transition party. There was no "they" as in plural. He denied the woman service to her face. In both cases, yes, the bigoted baker refused to bake the cake only after finding out the customer's intended use for it.. which was never any of his fucking business. He really only refused because he's bigoted against the intended end users, not for any sort of "reason."

You are wrong and you have no proof or any indication that is the case, you just want to think of it that way so you do. In the first case, the reason for the cake was stated up front and the baker refused, in this case, the baker was going to make the cake until he found out what it was for.

You’re right, it’s not his business what the cake is for…..unless the customer tells them what it’s for……

This person, being a Colorado LAWYER very much already knew that this guy had been to court for this just a few years ago, so the trans person, doing this, is obviously because they want to drag him through court again. This lawyer should know this is harassment. The scotus, regardless of how narrow the margin, already ruled in the bakery’s favor, so this lawyer, fresh off the respect for marriage act, is going to test the waters once again.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That is dodging the issue.If the baker can use his religion to refuse service then so can the doc.

What religious ground would the doc use? You’re not comparing apples to apples here. The doc performing an operation on a trans person would not be participating in a trans ceremony, therefore there would be no religious reason to refuse to help a trans person. Just like the baker didn’t refuse to make a cake for a trans person , he refused to make a cake for a trans ceremony.

All of this stems from the lefts, incorrect, assumption that these people hate gays. There is no evidence to suggest they hate gays, they just feel it’s a violation of their religious principles to use their craft in support of a gay/trans ceremony.

By the way, you can bet the left has done a deep dive on the Twitter, instagram, and Facebook accounts of both masterpiece cake shop, and Jack Phillips, so, that being the case, where are all the anti gay/trans quotes from Phillips? If he is so anti gay, there has to be quotes right? If there were, we should be seeing them every other post here….please share them if you have them.

 

[Chillicothe]

Well, I for one am starting to better understand the earnest poster Norm's concerns.
A 'Regular Cake', mixed, made, baked and offered by the baker to any and all customers.....is clearly a different type of cake than, say, a 'Transition Cake', which he does NOT offer.

And the difference between those two cakes in obvious, transparent, and undeniable to all.
For example, as one can observe above....the 'Regular Cake' (on the left).....is a far different type of cake than the 'Transition Cake' (on the right).

Selling the Transition Cake to a gay couple is, first, wrong....but second, impossible.

Impossible because the baker doesn't bake the type of cake on the right.
He only bakes cakes of the type on the left.

I am mildly convinced that all here can readily understand Norm's concerns.

 

[Chillicothe]

"That has nothing to do with Covenants......"

??????
And the "Covenants" in the good poster Lassy's mind......are related to her ability to bake an acceptable cake.....exactly how?


Lassy....are you in the right thread? the right chatroom?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

??????
And the "Covenants" in the good poster Lassy's mind......are related to her ability to bake an acceptable cake.....exactly how?


Lassy....are you in the right thread? the right chatroom?

Are you? You stuck your nose in something you evidently are clueless about and now you're floundering.

Gfy and lose the idiot fonting

 

[Chillicothe]

"Gfy"

Does Jesus talk like....or post like.....the good poster Lassy?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You are wrong and you have no proof or any indication that is the case, you just want to think of it that way so you do. In the first case, the reason for the cake was stated up front and the baker refused, in this case, the baker was going to make the cake until he found out what it was for.

You’re right, it’s not his business what the cake is for…..unless the customer tells them what it’s for……

This person, being a Colorado LAWYER very much already knew that this guy had been to court for this just a few years ago, so the trans person, doing this, is obviously because they want to drag him through court again. This lawyer should know this is harassment. The scotus, regardless of how narrow the margin, already ruled in the bakery’s favor, so this lawyer, fresh off the respect for marriage act, is going to test the waters once again.

To the contrary, you've largely agreed with me and refuted nothing I've said nor why. He illegally refused service once he found out the intended customers were gay or trans, just as he'd done multiple times before. Not serving gay weddings is equivalent to not serving gays. This is not rocket science unless one deliberately deludes themself. Got any happy gay couples or trans customers of the Masterpiece Cake Shop to shout about? No? Gee, big surprise! All these hypothetical objections amount to circular BS unless and until you can demonstrate otherwise.

The Supremes ruled narrowly in favor of this baker, but the result affirmed the larger point of Colorado bakers needing to now obey the State's valid and reasonable anti-discrimination statutes in general. Phillips was only rewarded somewhat because (mainly Kennedy) thought he'd been treated poorly by the Commission.

The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same sex marriages

Note, no free speech baloney asserted initially. He opposed gay marriage. Therefore, refused to sell any gay couples a wedding cake, period. Regardless of any religious or freedom of speech claims concomitantly posed. He wanted to illegally discriminate because he is/was a bigot so he did. Prove otherwise or kindly shut your yap.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

For gays, in other words.

The following day, Craig’s mother, who had accompanied the couple to the cakeshop and been present for their interaction with Phillips, telephoned to ask Phillips why he had declined to serve her son. Phillips explained that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings

For gays, in other words.

because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage

Because they were gay..
Because they were gay..
Because they were gay..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Jesus was most likely gay himself. How old was Jesus when he died? "He dates the crucifixion to the 33rd year of the life of Christ" so let's say 33. Now there's no way a popular guy like Jesus didn't screw around during all that time. Where are all of his descendants? He somehow managed not to get any women pregnant? With no reliable contraception available? Who did he sleep with?

Cargill concludes. “What's important is that Jesus had both male and female disciples in his ministry, which was not necessarily common at the time.”

Bisexual then? Was Jesus gay?

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

This man should move to Saudi arabia or somewhere that doesn't value freedom or human rights. He should get the hell out.

 

[JoeB131]

And until recently, no such thing as a same sex marriage cake.

When it became a product he could produce, he declined, regardless of the sexuality of the couples!

No, not really. The funny thing is, a gay wedding cake is no different than a straight wedding cake, and gay people have been ordering them long before gay marriage became legal. In fact, at the time the original couple sued this piece of garbage, gay marriage was illegal in Colorado, but discriminating against gays in the sale of products was still a violation of the PA laws.

But that doesn’t apply here. The baker didn’t refuse to make this cake, until they told him it was for a transition party. See, you all think he refused to bake a cake for a trans or gay couple, that’s not the case. He just refused once he found out the reason.

Which is why he is in violation of the law.

It would be just the same if he took an order for Mr. Smith, and then refused to give Mr. Smith the cake when he came in and turned out to be a black man.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He makes cakes. Cakes are a product he makes. He was offered a job making a type of cake he doesn’t offer. Never in the history of his bakery has he ever offered such cake.

He doesn’t offer it to straights
He doesn’t offer it to gays.

Are you sure he has never made a cake with two colors of icing before?

 

[JoeB131]

I don’t think that’s the case, it’s not about cakes, nor is it about any refusal to accept anything, it’s about religious liberty vs the lefts hatred of religious liberty and their insistence that one’s personal freedoms outweigh another’s religious freedoms.

Nope. You see, if the baker was truly devote, he would also have to refuse to sell wedding cakes to...

1) Anyone who lived together before marriage - about 75% of the people who get married now.
2) Any woman wearing pants. Totally prohibited by the bible.
3) Anyone with a tattoo - also prohibited by the bible.
4) Any woman who wasn't a virgin on her wedding night. Pretty much 99% of brides. Might be awkward to ask, though.
5) Anyone serving pork or shellfish at the wedding.

Now, about that meme you posted…there are a few problems with it:

1) SHE is not selling condoms because SHE is not the owner of wal mart. She is an employee of wal mart and she is doing her job of cashing out the items that wal mart sells.

But you miss my point. Why should only the OWNERS of a business have religious protections? It should apply to the wage slaves as well. In fact, it should apply more to the wage slaves, and there's actually case law for this. Such as the two Muslim truck drivers who were fired because they refused to deliver alcohol. Because the company could have assigned other drivers, they were found in violation of the driver's rights.

Jury sides with Muslim men fired for refusing to deliver alcohol

Jury found the delivery company violated religious beliefs of men in lawsuit filed by Equal Opportunity Commision

www.cbsnews.com

2) I’m not catholic, but I don’t think the religion prohibits working for a store that sells condoms, they just frown on people using them.

I was brought up Catholic. using any kind of contraception is a sin. It's a rule nearly all Catholics ignore but for the really crazy ones, it's still a rule.

3) if wal mart had a religious objection to selling condoms, they could simply refuse to stock them, and if someone wanted to buy them..they could go to another store…just because wal mart sells anything and everything, you couldn’t file a lawsuit against them because they don’t sell condoms.

But that wasn't the point. The point was, could a cashier refuse to ring up condoms because under your logic, it would be a violation of their conscience to sell them?

4) I’m not a Muslim but I’m not aware they are prohibited from working for a store that sells pork products, they are just not supposed to consume them. The ham is covered in a plastic covering so she doesn’t have to touch the ham.

Nope, they can't even ring it up.

Target shifts Muslims who won’t ring up pork

Muslim cashiers at some local Target stores who object to ringing up products that contain pork are being shifted to other positions where they don’t need to, the discount retailer said Saturday.

www.nbcnews.com

Now this is a case of Muslims being a protected class, the Catholic refusing to sell condoms would still get thrown out on her ass.

5) even if she could claim a religious reason for not handling condoms, knowing the customer has a ham, why would she send them down to register 8, knowing that person is a Muslim, she could just send them down to register 10, where the person there doesn’t care what they ring up on their register.

There's actually a longer version of this meme, which goes through all the options.

The point is to show all the absurdities when you allow people to let their superstitions decide who they will do business with.

6) I notice that you, or whoever made that woke meme used a woman as the cashier, further still, they depicted the Muslim at register 8 as a woman also. Is this some misogynistic way of saying that only women can be cashiers, or that most women are cashiers? Why couldn’t it have been a man?

In the longer version, some of them are men.

 

[HeyNorm]

Well, I for one am starting to better understand the earnest poster Norm's concerns.
A 'Regular Cake', mixed, made, baked and offered by the baker to any and all customers.....is clearly a different type of cake than, say, a 'Transition Cake', which he does NOT offer.

And the difference between those two cakes in obvious, transparent, and undeniable to all.
For example, as one can observe above....the 'Regular Cake' (on the left).....is a far different type of cake than the 'Transition Cake' (on the right).

Selling the Transition Cake to a gay couple is, first, wrong....but second, impossible.

Impossible because the baker doesn't bake the type of cake on the right.
He only bakes cakes of the type on the left.

I am mildly convinced that all here can readily understand Norm's concerns.

Correct! The bakers chooses the products his business sells!

 

[HeyNorm]

No, not really. The funny thing is, a gay wedding cake is no different than a straight wedding cake, and gay people have been ordering them long before gay marriage became legal. In fact, at the time the original couple sued this piece of garbage, gay marriage was illegal in Colorado, but discriminating against gays in the sale of products was still a violation of the PA laws.


Which is why he is in violation of the law.

It would be just the same if he took an order for Mr. Smith, and then refused to give Mr. Smith the cake when he came in and turned out to be a black man.

And, gay marriage was not what was legalized!

Same sex, regardless of sexuality, marriage was!

And unless the baker provided a wedding cake for a heterosexual same sex marriage, he’s not discriminatory by not making one for a homosexual same sex marriage!

Glad you got that figured out Joe!

 

[JoeB131]

No it’s not. It’s only that way in your mind because you refuse to consider anyone else’s freedoms other than the ones you agree with. You, like many on the left, hate the idea of religious freedom, so you’ll completely ignore their side of things, because you want what you want, be damned that someone else wants.

And again, it’s not like this baker is refusing service to gay and trans person, they just refused to bake a cake for the transition party.

I'm all for religious freedom. You have religious freedom. You still have to comply with other laws. If you can't do the business you set yourself up to do without violating your religious principles, then you need to find something else to do for a living.

As I pointed out elsewhere, these laws protect religious people. Let's take the Evangelical who thinks that Mormons are a Satanic cult. (Well, they are a cult, just not a Satanic one). Should he be allowed to refuse service to a Mormon couple? Or Jews because they don't accept Jesus?

You are wrong and you have no proof or any indication that is the case, you just want to think of it that way so you do. In the first case, the reason for the cake was stated up front and the baker refused, in this case, the baker was going to make the cake until he found out what it was for.

You’re right, it’s not his business what the cake is for…..unless the customer tells them what it’s for……

Then it still isn't his business. He agreed to bake a cake. His business is a public accommodation.

This person, being a Colorado LAWYER very much already knew that this guy had been to court for this just a few years ago, so the trans person, doing this, is obviously because they want to drag him through court again. This lawyer should know this is harassment. The scotus, regardless of how narrow the margin, already ruled in the bakery’s favor, so this lawyer, fresh off the respect for marriage act, is going to test the waters once again.

Actually, the only thing SCOTUS did was say that Commission should have taken his religion into consideration. (I guess some snarky things were said.) They did not overturn public accommodation laws because that would be the kind of Cash Register Chaos in my meme.

All of this stems from the lefts, incorrect, assumption that these people hate gays. There is no evidence to suggest they hate gays, they just feel it’s a violation of their religious principles to use their craft in support of a gay/trans ceremony.

Um, except the cake is not part of the ceremony. The ceremony takes place in the Church. The cake is used at the reception. The cake is no more part of the ceremony than the Chicken Dance.

By the way, you can bet the left has done a deep dive on the Twitter, instagram, and Facebook accounts of both masterpiece cake shop, and Jack Phillips, so, that being the case, where are all the anti gay/trans quotes from Phillips? If he is so anti gay, there has to be quotes right? If there were, we should be seeing them every other post here….please share them if you have them.

If he said those things, he'd probably be banned from Facebook. I got a post taken down once because I used the term "Tranny" instead of Transgender.

 

[JoeB131]

And, gay marriage was not what was legalized!

Same sex, regardless of sexuality, marriage was!

Shush, the grownups are talking.

 

[DudleySmith]

Wales sucks so much that even 5,000 years ago, after digging up the blue stones for Stonehenge there, they moved them all out well into England instead!

They like to claim they are descendants of the original settlers, but I suspect they were just filthy Irish pirates who were too foul even for Ireland and got run off by the other pirates.

 

[ThisIsMe]

To the contrary, you've largely agreed with me and refuted nothing I've said nor why. He illegally refused service once he found out the intended customers were gay or trans, just as he'd done multiple times before. Not serving gay weddings is equivalent to not serving gays. This is not rocket science unless one deliberately deludes themself. Got any happy gay couples or trans customers of the Masterpiece Cake Shop to shout about? No? Gee, big surprise! All these hypothetical objections amount to circular BS unless and until you can demonstrate otherwise.

The Supremes ruled narrowly in favor of this baker, but the result affirmed the larger point of Colorado bakers needing to now obey the State's valid and reasonable anti-discrimination statutes in general. Phillips was only rewarded somewhat because (mainly Kennedy) thought he'd been treated poorly by the Commission.

Note, no free speech baloney asserted initially. He opposed gay marriage. Therefore, refused to sell any gay couples a wedding cake, period. Regardless of any religious or freedom of speech claims concomitantly posed. He wanted to illegally discriminate because he is/was a bigot so he did. Prove otherwise or kindly shut your yap.

For gays, in other words.

For gays, in other words.

Because they were gay..
Because they were gay..
Because they were gay..

Again, incorrect. He didn’t refuse to bake the cake when he found out they were gay, he refused when he found out the cake was for a trans ceremony. In this instance in particular, he was going to bake the cake until he found out it was for a transition celebration.

Just like the other statements, he said he wouldn’t make cakes for same sex wedding, we’ll yes, that’s certainly what he did, nobody is questioning that, but it wasn’t specifically because they were gay, but because they wanted a cake for a wedding.

Your statement that not serving gay weddings is equivalent to not serving gays is wrong. There’s no evidence to suggest he regularly turns away gay people, he just doesnt do gay weddings, for the reasons he has stated.

Again, if he’s so anti gay, then where are all the Twitter, Facebook, instagram posts of anti gay statements? Where are all the complaints throughout the years from gay people who say that the baker refused to bake a cake for them for any other reason? He’s been in business long enough that I’m sure plenty of gay people have come through his shop, and he’s probably done work for plenty of gay people. If he has an anti gay stance then there would be many other examples of him just outright refusing to do anything for gay people. If that’s the case, there should be evidence of that. So, show us.

What you have here is examples of people wanting him to make a cake for a ceremony. Yes, he doesn’t agree with the gay lifestyle, but until evidence surfaces otherwise, he’s not refusing service to the gay community, just specifically for gay/trans ceremonies.