Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[JoeB131]

If the baker does not want to bake a cake for you, why would you want the cake that he is being forced to bake for you?

Oh, I wouldn't want to force him.

But I would totally report his lawbreaking to the appropriate authorities.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Shush, the grownups are talking.


Sure they do. But the funny thing is, in most cases, they don't walk away from good money if they don't approve of the marriage. As I've pointed out, there's no religious purpose to a wedding cake. In fact, it is a pagan tradition that passed on to the Christian world. (Except the Romans baked their cakes in the shape of genitals to encourage fertility.)



And Philips doesn't have to be a baker.



To be fair, by the time the case wound it's way into the courts, the trucking company had gone out of business and there was no one to collect from or defend their position. Again, an individual might have a right to refuse to work, but a company does not, once it becomes a public accommodation.



Not really. The trucking company had no legal reason to refuse the beer run, and they signed a contract to do so.



So why doesn't he apply the same standards to divorce or people living together before marriage? Oh, that's right, that would mean he'd never make any money selling wedding cakes.



Because a business doesn't have a religion. They were never suing Philips personally for being a homophobic bigot, they were suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. - A legal entity.


Well, no he doesn't, because Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. is a Public Accommodation.

As I've pointed out, there's no religious purpose to a wedding cake. In fact, it is a pagan tradition that passed on to the Christian world. (Except the Romans baked their cakes in the shape of genitals to encourage fertility.)

The cake isn’t the point, it’s what the cake is for. It doesn’t matter if it was balloons and flowers, it’s the celebration it was for that was the reason he declined to make the cake.

And Philips doesn't have to be a baker.

It’s a different scenario. The employee works for someone else, so they have to do what the employer wants, or, the employer has to make reasonable accommodations for the employee. However, wal mart can choose what items they want to sell, or not sell. Phillips, in kind, can choose not to sell things that go against his protected religious freedoms.

Again, an individual might have a right to refuse to work, but a company does not, once it becomes a public accommodation.

I disagree. PA laws cannot force someone to act against their constitutionally protected freedoms.

Not really. The trucking company had no legal reason to refuse the beer run, and they signed a contract to do so.

Correct, the trucking company didn’t have a reason to refuse the run, because they wanted to make the money, but had they raised a religious rejection, they could have just simply not contracted to that particular business that wanted them to haul the alcohol.

Let’s say, for example, that the owners of the trucking company were Muslim, would they be expected to haul loads of alcohol, which would violate their religion? Of course not, nobody would expect them to do that, just like nobody would expect a Muslim or halal butcher to process pork products.

So why doesn't he apply the same standards to divorce or people living together before marriage? Oh, that's right, that would mean he'd never make any money selling wedding cakes.

Who says he does? I guess someone would have to go into his bakery, and tell him they wanted to have a cake made specifically for their 5th marriage. If he does it, then you have a case for hypocrisy. It’s not like people go to places and advertise to them that they are on their 5th marriage. More than likely they just go in and say they need a wedding cake.

Besides, as I’ve said before, different religions have different views on marriage and remarriage.

Because a business doesn't have a religion. They were never suing Philips personally for being a homophobic bigot, they were suing Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. - A legal entity.

But the business doesn’t operate without the people, and, a business can decide what rules and principles it operates under. Again, just as other religions have their list of things they won’t do….

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uh, he was attacking them.

So if an interracial couple went into his shop and he said, "I don't do mixed marriages", would that be okay? Even if he claimed it was part of his religious belief system?



Here's the problem. You think being gay is a lifestyle, like someone woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to chose to engage in activity that will make me a social pariah, get family members to shun me and experience discrimination".

Nobody does that.

But in your bizarre ass Christian world, kids are suddenly deciding to be gay because a drag queen read them a story once.

In 50 years, most of the Churches will be pretending they had nothing to do with homophobia, just like they all pretend they had nothing to do with slavery and segregation.

(Hey, did you ever wonder why there is a Southern Baptists convention? )

Uh, he was attacking them.

So if an interracial couple went into his shop and he said, "I don't do mixed marriages", would that be okay? Even if he claimed it was part of his religious belief system?

He wasn’t attacking them. If he were to outright refuse services to gay people, just because they were gay, then you’d have something, but, as far as I can tell, he hasn’t refused services to gay people, in fact, he’s stated that he would sell to gay people, just not for the purposes of a gay wedding.

If an interracial couple walked into his shop, I’d expect he would serve them, because, I’m not aware of anything in Protestant religions that forbids interracial marriage.

Here's the problem. You think being gay is a lifestyle, like someone woke up one morning and said, "I'm going to chose to engage in activity that will make me a social pariah, get family members to shun me and experience discrimination".

No, I don’t think that. I could no more expect anyone would one day just wake up and decide they were going to be gay than any other person, but, it’s something that the Bible is against, and therefore people have the right, under freedom of religion, to not work in service of that activity.

But in your bizarre ass Christian world, kids are suddenly deciding to be gay because a drag queen read them a story once.

Well, that’s going to depend on the drag show…there are some that yeah, young kids should not be anywhere near, such as the ones where they dress in burlesque, or dance in suggestive ways, absolutely, just like you wouldn’t take a child to a burlesque show with women.

As far as the other drag shows, just realize that depending on the age of the child, it could be very confusing, and they are going to have questions, the answers to which, they may not understand. Children are impressionable at young ages, so, it could, if reinforced enough, lead to issues with sexual identity later down the line.

In 50 years, most of the Churches will be pretending they had nothing to do with homophobia, just like they all pretend they had nothing to do with slavery and segregation.

(Hey, did you ever wonder why there is a Southern Baptists convention? )

Homophobia (the fear that you might be gay) has nothing to do with churches. Now, the stigma attached to being gay? Maybe. Yes, churches preach against homosexuality…that’s to be expected, but not every church…not even just a few, are like Westboro Baptist Church…yes, all of them will preach against homosexuality, but few of them go out and make a spectacle of it.

So, the churches are responsible for slavery? Are we talking most of them, or a select few? I don’t know because I’ve never looked it up.

As far as the SBC, again, I’ve never looked it up…but…is this supposed to be some sort of dig at Protestant religions?

 

[dblack]

They make me sick to my stomach.

Yeah. Lots of people will do things you won't like. But that's not a reason to make it illegal.

No one should be forced to associate with others against their will.

 

[dblack]

But I would totally report his lawbreaking to the appropriate authorities.

That's the chickenshit version of forcing him.

 

[HeyNorm]

That's the chickenshit version of forcing him.

But no doubt Joe would do it.

It’s kinda a Joe thing.

 

[JoeB131]

The cake isn’t the point, it’s what the cake is for. It doesn’t matter if it was balloons and flowers, it’s the celebration it was for that was the reason he declined to make the cake.

You are right, it doesn't matter. THere's a law on the books and his company was breaking it.

It’s a different scenario. The employee works for someone else, so they have to do what the employer wants, or, the employer has to make reasonable accommodations for the employee. However, wal mart can choose what items they want to sell, or not sell. Phillips, in kind, can choose not to sell things that go against his protected religious freedoms.

And if he chose not to sell wedding cakes at all, he wouldn't have an issue here. If he choose not to sell custom decorated cakes, this wouldn't be an issue. instead, he said he would sell those things, but not to certain people.

I disagree. PA laws cannot force someone to act against their constitutionally protected freedoms.

Sure they can. Religious freedom doesn't exempt you from the law.

Just ask the Native Americans who want to smoke Peyote.
Or the Mormon splinter groups who want to practice plural marriage
Or the Branch Davidian who wants to marry his 11 year old daughter to the cult's leader.

Correct, the trucking company didn’t have a reason to refuse the run, because they wanted to make the money, but had they raised a religious rejection, they could have just simply not contracted to that particular business that wanted them to haul the alcohol.

Point was, the company took the contract. It's really not comparable at all.

Let’s say, for example, that the owners of the trucking company were Muslim, would they be expected to haul loads of alcohol, which would violate their religion? Of course not, nobody would expect them to do that, just like nobody would expect a Muslim or halal butcher to process pork products.

Except that doesn't discriminate because they aren't hauling alcohol or selling pork products to ANYONE.

Who says he does? I guess someone would have to go into his bakery, and tell him they wanted to have a cake made specifically for their 5th marriage. If he does it, then you have a case for hypocrisy. It’s not like people go to places and advertise to them that they are on their 5th marriage. More than likely they just go in and say they need a wedding cake.

Why does it have to be a fifth marriage? Why not a second marriage? Or a marriage after living with the partner for years? Either you follow all the bibles rules or you follow none of them. All of which is moot, because this is about his business, not him.

But the business doesn’t operate without the people, and, a business can decide what rules and principles it operates under. Again, just as other religions have their list of things they won’t do….

Awesome. They still can't break the law.

 

[dblack]

But no doubt Joe would do it.

It’s kinda a Joe thing.

It highlights an important principle of libertarianism: you should never ask the government to do something you wouldn't be willing to do yourself. You might not have the capacity, or weaponry, to do actually do it - but you should feel morally justified in using the threat of violence yourself before you delegate such an act to the state.

If Joe wouldn't feel righteous and just in going into the store and forcing the baker, at gunpoint, to bake a cake, he's a chickenshit hypocrite to support laws that do it on his behalf.

 

[JoeB131]

It highlights an important principle of libertarianism: you should never ask the government to do something you wouldn't be willing to do yourself.

Now, that just shows why libertarians are fucking children. As far as my willingness... 11 years in the Army, ready to do whatever the government asked me to.

You might not have the capacity, or weaponry, to do actually do it - but you should feel morally justified in using the threat of violence yourself before you delegate such an act to the state.

again, 11 years in the military... I would have had no problem using violence to achieve ends as directed.

If Joe wouldn't feel righteous and just in going into the store and forcing the baker, at gunpoint, to bake a cake, he's a chickenshit hypocrite to support laws that do it on his behalf.

Except there's no need to point a gun at this homophobic twit... Just hit him with fines until he either goes out of business or complies with the law.

Just like we would if he refused to follow sanitation laws or didn't pay his utility bills.

That's the chickenshit version of forcing him.

No, that's enforcing the laws we put into place. The Public Accommodation laws didn't magically appear one day. They are on the books because the majority of people in Colorado, through their legislators, said, "Yeah, that sounds reasonable."

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah. Lots of people will do things you won't like. But that's not a reason to make it illegal.

No one should be forced to associate with others against their will.

Then he shouldn't have opened a bakery.

 

[pknopp]

It highlights an important principle of libertarianism: you should never ask the government to do something you wouldn't be willing to do yourself. You might not have the capacity, or weaponry, to do actually do it - but you should feel morally justified in using the threat of violence yourself before you delegate such an act to the state.

If Joe wouldn't feel righteous and just in going into the store and forcing the baker, at gunpoint, to bake a cake, he's a chickenshit hypocrite to support laws that do it on his behalf.

If I could actually meet this person, I would bake them a cake, and then invite them to church.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are right, it doesn't matter. THere's a law on the books and his company was breaking it.



And if he chose not to sell wedding cakes at all, he wouldn't have an issue here. If he choose not to sell custom decorated cakes, this wouldn't be an issue. instead, he chose to not sell to certain people.



Sure they can. Religious freedom doesn't exempt you from the law.

Just ask the Native Americans who want to smoke Peyote.
Or the Mormon splinter groups who want to practice plural marriage
Or the Branch Davidian who wants to marry his 11 year old daughter to the cult's leader.



Point was, the company took the contract. It's really not comparable at all.



Except that doesn't discriminate because they aren't hauling alcohol or selling pork products to ANYONE.



Why does it have to be a fifth marriage? Why not a second marriage? Or a marriage after living with the partner for years? Either you follow all the bibles rules or you follow none of them. All of which is moot, because this is about his business, not him.



Awesome. They still can't break the law.

THere's a law on the books and his company was breaking it.

Again, can any legislator make a law that forces you to violate the cotus?

If he choose not to sell custom decorated cakes, this wouldn't be an issue, he said he would sell those things, but not to certain people

Except he didn’t choose to not sell to certain people, he chose to not to make a cake for certain events.

Sure they can. Religious freedom doesn't exempt you from the law.

Just ask the Native Americans who want to smoke Peyote.
Or the Mormon splinter groups who want to practice plural marriage
Or the Branch Davidian who wants to marry his 11 year old daughter to the cult's leader.

So, you’re suggesting that lawmakers can make laws the force you to violate your cotus protected freedoms?

Native American can use peyote:

42 U.S. Code § 1996a - Traditional Indian religious use of peyote

www.law.cornell.edu

polygamy, for religious purposes shouldn’t be illegal. The government shouldn’t be regulating people’s marriages, and if you want to marry multiple willing partners, that should be your right.

Branch davidians we’re not a religion, but we’re a cult.

Why does it have to be a fifth marriage? Why not a second marriage? Or a marriage after living with the partner for years? Either you follow all the bibles rules or you follow none of them

The number of marriages is irrelevant, my point was, has anyone ever tested this fact? Most people, when ordering a service, do bring up the fact that it’s their 2nd, 3rd, 4th..whatever wedding, not do they say they need something for then person they’ve been living with. They, more than likely come in and say “I need a cake for my wedding”. And again, different religions have different views on marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, can any legislator make a law that forces you to violate the cotus?

Not a constitutional issue. You don't have a right to break the law and use religion as an excuse. Otherwise, I would have the right to cut out my ex-boss's heart with an obsidian knife to please the Aztec Deities I just started worshipping last week.

Aw, who am I kidding... that guy didn't have heart.

Except he didn’t choose to not sell to certain people, he chose to not to make a cake for certain events.

Events he was perfectly willing to make cakes for if they belonged to certain groups (Heterosexuals).

So, you’re suggesting that lawmakers can make laws the force you to violate your cotus protected freedoms?

Native American can use peyote:

Only after Congress passed a law, which they only passed after SCOTUS ruled that the first Amendment doesn't protect drug use for religious purposes. You kind of made my point. Do you even read your own links.

polygamy, for religious purposes shouldn’t be illegal. The government shouldn’t be regulating people’s marriages, and if you want to marry multiple willing partners, that should be your right.

yet is is illegal. Now, I'd have no problem making it legal, either, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult. But the point is, we have a law that says that you can't marry more than one person at a time. Period. Full stop.

Branch davidians we’re(sic) not a religion, but we’re a cult.

What's the difference? How do we know that God wasn't talking to David Koresh any more than he was talking to Joseph Smith, Mohammed or Jesus? Maybe God just likes to fuck with people and tell them crazy stuff to see how it plays out.

Point was, the Branch Davidians believed that God said they should stockpile guns and give their wives and daughters to Koresh as sex slaves. The government had something to say about that.

Winner of the Darwin Award, 1993

The number of marriages is irrelevant, my point was, has anyone ever tested this fact? Most people, when ordering a service, do bring up the fact that it’s their 2nd, 3rd, 4th..whatever wedding, not do they say they need something for then person they’ve been living with. They, more than likely come in and say “I need a cake for my wedding”. And again, different religions have different views on marriage.

Yes, they do. Some religions- get this - even think Gays should be able to get married! So if there is a church somewhere who approves of this, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on to deny them.

 

[HeyNorm]

Now, that just shows why libertarians are fucking children. As far as my willingness... 11 years in the Army, ready to do whatever the government asked me to.




again, 11 years in the military... I would have had no problem using violence to achieve ends as directed.




Except there's no need to point a gun at this homophobic twit... Just hit him with fines until he either goes out of business or complies with the law.

Just like we would if he refused to follow sanitation laws or didn't pay his utility bills.



No, that's enforcing the laws we put into place. The Public Accommodation laws didn't magically appear one day. They are on the books because the majority of people in Colorado, through their legislators, said, "Yeah, that sounds reasonable."

Poor Joe. I think we need to ease his worried mind.

Joe keeps accusing the baker of being homophobic because he won’t make a same sex wedding cake. But Joe, same sex wedding can be between two homosexuals, two heterosexuals, one homosexual and one heterosexual, two bisexuals, a bisexual and a homosexual, a bisexual and a heterosexual and the list goes on and on. But this baker will not bake a wedding cake for any of them. So he is not using discriminatory practices.

And, we must assume that if the wedding cakes he has done for opposite sex couples, that the couples were made up of all races, creeds, national origins and sexualities, including gays.

Prove me wrong Joe. Show me a single marriage license application that requires the two individuals to declare their sexuality on the form.

I hope this clears things up for you Joe. I know you’d sleep better if you look at this logically.

Have a great day Joe!

 

[JoeB131]

Joe keeps accusing the baker of being homophobic because he won’t make a same sex wedding cake.

Shush, the grownups are talking.

 

[HeyNorm]

Shush, the grownups are talking.

No argument Joe, why? Because you lost this debate pages ago?

Obviously so.

 

[HeyNorm]

If I could actually meet this person, I would bake them a cake, and then invite them to church.

As is your right.

 

[dblack]

Now, that just shows why libertarians are fucking children.

Children who respect the rights of others - something you apparently can't grasp.

As far as my willingness... 11 years in the Army, ready to do whatever the government asked me to.

again, 11 years in the military... I would have had no problem using violence to achieve ends as directed.

Ohhh... well, maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe you're polishing up your jackboots at this moment. Or, maybe you're just hoping the government will force your will on others because you don't have the balls to do it yourself.

Except there's no need to point a gun at this homophobic twit...

That's not the point. But I'm sure you know that and are just evading.

No, that's enforcing the laws we put into place. The Public Accommodation laws didn't magically appear one day. They are on the books because the majority of people in Colorado, through their legislators, said, "Yeah, that sounds reasonable."

Yes, and for you, I suppose, the majority should always get its way.

Fuck that.

 

[dblack]

Then he shouldn't have opened a bakery.

The gall!! Who does he think he is? The government should keep all businesses on a short leash and supervise all their hiring and customer service decisions. And you nitwits whine when people call you socialists.

Bottom line - liberal social engineering has completely jumped the shark. You simply can't control other people the way you'd like, and if you keep trying the whole thing will go down in flames.

 

[HeyNorm]

The gall!! Who does he think he is? The government should keep all businesses on a short leash and supervise all their hiring and customer service decisions. And you nitwits whine when people call you socialists.

Bottom line - liberal social engineering has completely jumped the shark. You simply can't control other people the way you'd like, and if you keep trying the whole thing will go down in flames.

Joe absolutely kills me!

He keeps spouting on and on about “gay marriage”.

Before Obergfell, if you even mentioned “Gay Marriage” the LBTGQ. Went crazy. “It’s not Gay Marriage” it’s same sex marriage.

Same Sex marriage is just that. There is no sexuality required by the applicants.

Joe don’t get that. It can’t be discriminatory practice if the baker doesn’t offer same sex wedding cakes regardless what the sexuality of the couple is! Unless Joe can prove he’s provided a wedding cake for a heterosexual same sex couple, he not only loses the argument on merit, he looks like a bigot in the process.

I think Joe is scared of heterosexuals. He’s a heterophobe