"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[bendog]

[Well, that's not a fair comment. First of all, you hide like a scoundrel behind the nature nurture thing with the tired old dead horse "well, gays don't have to be gays, maybe." Even if that had any scientific validity, and it does not because it's immaterial as to why an individual enjoys greater sexuality with a same sex partner, it would still be tripe. The muslim baker may not approve of alcohol, but he's baking cakes for couples with champagne toasts or he's gonna go out of biz and broke. That, is you're elevating one "sin" over another. And, your sin is irrelevant to me, anyway.

Second, there is no first amend SPEECH consideration in commerce beyond advertising. The baker has a first amendment contract right. However, the sup ct has said that right does not extend to overrule a law forcing one in commerce to offer public accommodation to all. If you want to relitigate civil rights ... good luck cause you're gonna lose. Roberts ain't going there. Furthermore, the mulsim baker has a choice. He can simply pay the fine or whatever and not bake the cake. He's not going to forced to convert under torture.

Lastly, this is simply too crazy to bother with, sorry.

It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting.

It doesn't fcking matter how somebody turned out gay, or why some white woman fell in love with a black man. It happens in nature.

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

[Well, that's not a fair comment. First of all, you hide like a scoundrel behind the nature nurture thing with the tired old dead horse "well, gays don't have to be gays, maybe." Even if that had any scientific validity, and it does not because it's immaterial as to why an individual enjoys greater sexuality with a same sex partner, it would still be tripe. The muslim baker may not approve of alcohol, but he's baking cakes for couples with champagne toasts or he's gonna go out of biz and broke. That, is you're elevating one "sin" over another. And, your sin is irrelevant to me, anyway.

Second, there is no first amend SPEECH consideration in commerce beyond advertising. The baker has a first amendment contract right. However, the sup ct has said that right does not extend to overrule a law forcing one in commerce to offer public accommodation to all. If you want to relitigate civil rights ... good luck cause you're gonna lose. Roberts ain't going there. Furthermore, the mulsim baker has a choice. He can simply pay the fine or whatever and not bake the cake. He's not going to forced to convert under torture.

Lastly, this is simply too crazy to bother with, sorry.

It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting.

It doesn't fcking matter how somebody turned out gay, or why some white woman fell in love with a black man. It happens in nature.

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

 

[Redfish]

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

or does the state have the power to force a wicken book store to stock Bibles, Korans, and Torahs?

does the state have the power to force a muslim bookstore to sell Bibles and Torahs?

Does the state have the power to force the gift shop in St Peters to sell pendants with the star of david or the holy crescent?

where does this shit end? we are either free or we are not. right now 'not' is winning.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.



>>>>

if any baker opens his store to the public and offers his wares anybody should be able to buy them....that does not include forcing the baker to bake a cake he does not normally bake....otherwise you are inhibiting his freedom to sell what he wants to sell...

where is this heading to.....? one-size-fits-all government-approved wedding cakes...?

IIRC, the premise of the question contained the condition that the Muslim baker routinely supplied wedding cakes. As a cake, that is something normally offered.

Now if the Muslim baker did not offer wedding cakes than that is a completely different issue. For example if a Muslim restauranteur did not offer pork products on the menu, then it doesn't matter who walks in and orders pork products, the owner isn't required to supply them since they are not on the menu. On the other hand if the Muslim restauranteur offer pork products then they can't refuse to sell them to Christians, Asians, Germans, Jews, Women, or (in some state) a lesbian.

Since the Muslim baker does offer wedding cakes, they are "on the menu". The Muslim baker though is free to remove wedding cakes from the menu for all customers.

>>>>

my understanding has been that it involves forcing the baker to produce 'gay wedding cakes'....such as two plastic men on top....

if the cake is just the standard wedding cake he normally bakes and sells.....then i agree he should sell that cake to a gay customer who is just another public customer.....but without having to alter it specifically to make it a 'gay cake'....

 

[bodecea]

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

You obviously don't know what the definition of broken is. An intact home is one in which both parents are present in the home. This would be my family. Now, every single one of my kid's friends? Broken home...parents living separately and the kids having to divide their time between them. Know what ALL the studies show? The intact home is best, the gender of the parents irrelevant.

'intact' my ass...two 'moms' doesn't cut it....despite your pathetic gay arguments...

it's been borne out that children growing up without a father creates problems....

so you fit right in with your broken-home neighbors....

the commie liberal 'sexual revolution' is destroying the moral fabric and the family unit which are the basis for a strong society and country.....

Concerning some of the "fathers" I've seen.....being without a father isn't such a bad thing. Having parents who care for and nurture a child are higher up in the "good parenting" scale. Sadly, there are many who pop out babies with no plan in that regard.

 

[bendog]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

or does the state have the power to force a wicken book store to stock Bibles, Korans, and Torahs?

does the state have the power to force a muslim bookstore to sell Bibles and Torahs?

Does the state have the power to force the gift shop in St Peters to sell pendants with the star of david or the holy crescent?

where does this shit end? we are either free or we are not. right now 'not' is winning.

I'll try to answer you and eagle in one post. But, again, keep in mind, I personally am not in favor of public accommodation laws. Still, they exist and are constitutional.

The Wicken and Muslim and St. Peter bookstore. Firstly, if the bookstore is actually on the premises of a house of worship, then I think you have a different situation than a baker. Because at that point you actually have the fed govt telling a religion, or religious corporate entity, to do or not do something that doesn't touch on land or water or public safety.

Secondly, even if a bookstore is wholey a private commercial operation, I'd think the question would have to be whether the wicken or muslim store was fulfilling some unique niche that isn't filled by whatever megabookseller has the market. (leaving out amazon) I don't think our baker is really filling a unique niche that isn't being met by other bakers.

So, I think the only hypo that you pose that really has much analogy is the Christian bookstore being forced to sell books on satanic worship. And, imo, that's a pretty good analogy. There is one important difference, I think. That's in terms of the nature of the biz. A baker doesn't need to finance a stock of pre-made products. Books are expensive. I think a bookseller may be able to show a financial hardship if forced to serve a very small and unique clientele.

So, I'll change they hypo a little Suppose we have a Christian printer of wedding invitations, and a couple ask him for invitations to their satanic wedding. (I'm not sure they exist, but if they do it'd be kinky (-

Maybe so. And maybe so with a satanic printer and a Christian wedding.

Like I said, I'm not a fan. But if a state or local govt wants to try and make out a case that intolerance is a big enough problem that all merchants have to compromise and sell stuff, even if they are not forced to say "it's all good," then .... welcome to Portlandia.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You obviously don't know what the definition of broken is. An intact home is one in which both parents are present in the home. This would be my family. Now, every single one of my kid's friends? Broken home...parents living separately and the kids having to divide their time between them. Know what ALL the studies show? The intact home is best, the gender of the parents irrelevant.

'intact' my ass...two 'moms' doesn't cut it....despite your pathetic gay arguments...

it's been borne out that children growing up without a father creates problems....

so you fit right in with your broken-home neighbors....

the commie liberal 'sexual revolution' is destroying the moral fabric and the family unit which are the basis for a strong society and country.....

Concerning some of the "fathers" I've seen.....being without a father isn't such a bad thing. Having parents who care for and nurture a child are higher up in the "good parenting" scale. Sadly, there are many who pop out babies with no plan in that regard.

yes sadly many 'pop out' babies with no regard for the baby...including gays who choose to deny that baby either his mother or his father from birth...that hardly comes under 'good parenting'....

 

[Seawytch]

Go look for me "bashing" California. Gosh, imagine that...you couldn't find a thing.





Watch your mouth.

No, I couldn't find you telling CA bashers to "shut their mouths". How come?

You couldn't find me "bashing" California; you mouthy, dishonest punk.

I didn't say you were bashing CA, I said you weren't defending CA and telling the bashers to "shut their mouths".

 

[Seawytch]

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

You obviously don't know what the definition of broken is. An intact home is one in which both parents are present in the home. This would be my family. Now, every single one of my kid's friends? Broken home...parents living separately and the kids having to divide their time between them. Know what ALL the studies show? The intact home is best, the gender of the parents irrelevant.

'intact' my ass...two 'moms' doesn't cut it....despite your pathetic gay arguments...



it's been borne out that children growing up without a father creates problems....



so you fit right in with your broken-home neighbors....



the commie liberal 'sexual revolution' is destroying the moral fabric and the family unit which are the basis for a strong society and country.....

That may be your opinion, but actual studies do not support your contention. Study after study shows that the children of gays are at no disadvantage to children of heterosexual parents.

 

[Seawytch]

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.



Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.



simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

That was just explained to you. You cannot require the business to sell a product they do not carry. You can't require an establishment to serve Kosher food. You also cannot refuse to sell Kosher food, if you carry it, to a Christian.

 

[Seawytch]

'intact' my ass...two 'moms' doesn't cut it....despite your pathetic gay arguments...



it's been borne out that children growing up without a father creates problems....



so you fit right in with your broken-home neighbors....



the commie liberal 'sexual revolution' is destroying the moral fabric and the family unit which are the basis for a strong society and country.....

Concerning some of the "fathers" I've seen.....being without a father isn't such a bad thing. Having parents who care for and nurture a child are higher up in the "good parenting" scale. Sadly, there are many who pop out babies with no plan in that regard.

yes sadly many 'pop out' babies with no regard for the baby...including gays who choose to deny that baby either his mother or his father from birth...that hardly comes under 'good parenting'....

Our children aren't "denied" anything...as long as they have two parents to love and support them.

 

[Unkotare]

Concerning some of the "fathers" I've seen.....being without a father isn't such a bad thing.

Well, that's the absurd statement of the day.

 

[bendog]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.



Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.



simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

That was just explained to you. You cannot require the business to sell a product they do not carry. You can't require an establishment to serve Kosher food. You also cannot refuse to sell Kosher food, if you carry it, to a Christian.

Oh God, those Hebrew National hot dogs .... but have you seen the fat content? It's unholy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

You don't seem to understand how Public Accommodation laws work:

If the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they are not required to sell them to anyone. They are not required to stock them because a customer might request one. As such they are not required to sell such books to anyone.

On the other hand if the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer because of the customers race, national origin, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation. If they do stock them, they can't discriminate in the sales.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

or does the state have the power to force a wicken book store to stock Bibles, Korans, and Torahs?

No, but if they do stock the they can't discriminate in their sales.

does the state have the power to force a muslim bookstore to sell Bibles and Torahs?

No, but if they do stock the they can't discriminate in their sales.

Does the state have the power to force the gift shop in St Peters to sell pendants with the star of david or the holy crescent?

No, but if they do stock the they can't discriminate in their sales.

where does this shit end? we are either free or we are not. right now 'not' is winning.

Public Accommodation laws have been around for centuries and extend back into Common Law. The current flavor in the United States has been around for decades but the current uproar didn't start until the gays were included.

In the end they will remain until we repeal Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that whether you like it or not, the state has the power to tell the baker to serve everyone or face a penalty.

Perhaps more importantly, I think you're mixing and matching "rights' to serve your own predetermined equities. The First means the govt can't have a state religion. But, Indians did not have a right to use peyote in religious ceremonies. Similarly, I may believe that God did not intend for whites and blacks to eat together, and I have no legal duty to sell my fried chicken to blacks. Simply put, if there is a really good reason your exercise of your religion is harmful to society, you're exercise of religion may be limited. There's nothing new, or remotely controversial in this. We do, from time to time, reconsider whether native americans smoking peyote, or Mormons marrying more than one wife at a time, really negatively affect society. Though why anyone would smoke something that can lead to puking, or having more than one nagging ball and chain at a time, is beyond me.

simply put, by mixing and matching rights, you seek to elevate your distaste for homosexuality above another's desire to be with a same sex partner, and in doing so you cry victim, when in fact you're no more or less a victim that the gay person. If a person wants a sexual relationship with another person, and doing so is detrimental to society, it can be proscribed. Similarly, if your behavior in exercising your contract rights acts in a way that's detrimental to society, and you don't have a really good reason to do so, you can be fined for not baking the cake.

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

You don't seem to understand how Public Accommodation laws work:

If the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they are not required to sell them to anyone. They are not required to stock them because a customer might request one. As such they are not required to sell such books to anyone.

On the other hand if the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer because of the customers race, national origin, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation. If they do stock them, they can't discriminate in the sales.​

>>>>

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....

it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

 

[WorldWatcher]

if any baker opens his store to the public and offers his wares anybody should be able to buy them....that does not include forcing the baker to bake a cake he does not normally bake....otherwise you are inhibiting his freedom to sell what he wants to sell...

where is this heading to.....? one-size-fits-all government-approved wedding cakes...?

IIRC, the premise of the question contained the condition that the Muslim baker routinely supplied wedding cakes. As a cake, that is something normally offered.

Now if the Muslim baker did not offer wedding cakes than that is a completely different issue. For example if a Muslim restauranteur did not offer pork products on the menu, then it doesn't matter who walks in and orders pork products, the owner isn't required to supply them since they are not on the menu. On the other hand if the Muslim restauranteur offer pork products then they can't refuse to sell them to Christians, Asians, Germans, Jews, Women, or (in some state) a lesbian.

Since the Muslim baker does offer wedding cakes, they are "on the menu". The Muslim baker though is free to remove wedding cakes from the menu for all customers.

>>>>

my understanding has been that it involves forcing the baker to produce 'gay wedding cakes'....such as two plastic men on top....

if the cake is just the standard wedding cake he normally bakes and sells.....then i agree he should sell that cake to a gay customer who is just another public customer.....but without having to alter it specifically to make it a 'gay cake'....

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", whether for a different-sex reception or a same-sex reception they have the same ingredients and are made in the same way.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

You don't seem to understand how Public Accommodation laws work:

If the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they are not required to sell them to anyone. They are not required to stock them because a customer might request one. As such they are not required to sell such books to anyone.

On the other hand if the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer because of the customers race, national origin, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation. If they do stock them, they can't discriminate in the sales.​

>>>>

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....

it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.

Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."

Then customers can select a cake, or not.

On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

so does the state have the power to force a Christian bookstore to provide satanic books for those public customers who demand them....?

You don't seem to understand how Public Accommodation laws work:

If the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they are not required to sell them to anyone. They are not required to stock them because a customer might request one. As such they are not required to sell such books to anyone.



On the other hand if the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer because of the customers race, national origin, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation. If they do stock them, they can't discriminate in the sales.​

>>>>

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....



it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

She sells WEDDING CAKES. There is no such thing as a gay cake.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You don't seem to understand how Public Accommodation laws work:

If the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they are not required to sell them to anyone. They are not required to stock them because a customer might request one. As such they are not required to sell such books to anyone.

On the other hand if the Christian bookstore DOES NOT stock satanic books, they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer because of the customers race, national origin, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation. If they do stock them, they can't discriminate in the sales.​

>>>>

well then....if a baker does NOT STOCK or make 'gay cakes' he should not be required to sell them....

it seems we agree on the books but not the cakes.....why...?

There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", a baker sells cakes. The ingredients and the methods of construction are the same with both.

Now a baker can choose a business model that says "I only produce the cakes I want to produce, I place them in the display case and you choose the one you want. I don't do special orders."

Then customers can select a cake, or not.

On the other hand if the baker does take special order for wedding cakes (typically they have a portfolio of designs to choose from), then they can't discriminate and accept special orders from some but refuse special orders based on race, ethnicity, sex, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to make custom wedding cakes, no one is forcing them to.


>>>>

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?