How bakery case at Supreme Court will frame future religious freedom debates.
@unrepentant progressive – you wrote: “Some of us have lost
perspective on what really matters. If the baker in Colorado has to make cake
for a same sex wedding, no one is going to die. Yet, if we don't deal with
the other issues mentioned above, someone will.
focus your energies on
life/death consequences.”The suffering and death of people
affected by the events you mentioned are indeed tragic, and we should absolutely
do all we can to alleviate their suffering and put measures in place to reduce
the likelihood of recurrence. I haven’t seen any suggestions in this
thread that we should ignore those issues in favor of this one, and suspect that
many of the religious people in this thread are equally as focussed on saving
people physically as well as spiritually. For those who believe life
goes on for eternity after physical death, and that our choices in this life
will affect our quality of life for the eternities to come, the consequence of
how we live weigh just as heavily (if not more so), as when or how we die. For
such, pleasing God is far more important than trying to please all people, and
having an eternal perspective IS what really matters.
@FJSL - you wrote: “The difference isn't the event. They're all
weddings. For the baker, it's the gender of the couple that determines
whether or not he has an objection.”As has been pointed out
multiple times, this baker has and still does create all sorts of cakes for
homosexual customers. Therefore, the baker clearly does NOT simply discriminate
based on gender or sexual preference. The difference here IS absolutely the
event: an event celebrating a ceremony which the baker believes offends God
(i.e. same-sex marriage) v.s an event that celebrates a ceremony that the baker
believes does not offend God (i.e. opposite-sex marriage).
With all the challenges of today and the future, one has to wonder what it is
that makes a very loud, vocal minority in this country become so unhinged when
the subject of same sex marriage arises.Really, debating wedding
cake when so many got killed in Las Vegas? Or the nuclear threat of North
Korea? Or healthcare for all? Or environmental disasters in the Gulf Coast?Some of us have lost perspective on what really matters. If the baker
in Colorado has to make cake for a same sex wedding, no one is going to die.
Yet, if we don't deal with the other issues mentioned above, someone will.
We get it. You don't like same sex marriage. Fine, don't
get same sex married. Otherwise focus your energies on life/death consequences.
JoeCapitalist writes,If someone in the KKK went to a gay baker and
demanded that he make them a cake for one of their private 'rallies'
that had all kinds of derogatory words and images about homosexuals on it that
went against everything that baker believed; should he be required to make
it?Joe, that question has been answered a half dozen times already
in just this set of comments. The usual question is "Should the Jewish
caterer have to serve pork?" But here it is again:The answer
is: It depends. You need to answer Yes to both of the following questions.Is the KKK a protected classification?Does the baker make
this product, with these particular words and images, for other people, but
refuses to make it for the KKK?Unless both of these answers are Yes,
then the baker can legally turn down the order. In Phillips' case, both
answers were Yes, but his lawyers are arguing that somehow the First Amendment
means it doesn't apply to him.
If someone in the KKK went to a gay baker and demanded that he make them a cake
for one of their private 'rallies' that had all kinds of derogatory
words and images about homosexuals on it that went against everything that baker
believed; should he be required to make it? Should he be driven out of business
just because he was willing to bake cakes for other private parties where the
cake did not personally offend him?I think that gay baker should be
able to tell the KKK customer to leave and never come back. In most likelihood,
the Klan specifically targeted that baker in order to take him to court when he
refused; but even if that was not the case, he should have the right to refuse
service with zero consequences (other than the loss of some business from the
If a business would not serve me for any reason. I would find another business.
I would not sue them. This wedding cake stuff is just outright ridiculous. In
Lakewood Colorado there are other bakers. I would allow him to have his beliefs
and try another business. Some people don't like me or what I stand for. I
have never tried to sue them. Even a boycott and telling all your friends about
the horrible service seems to be a bit extreme. You know I went to lunch the
other day and the food was not good, I didn't come back to the office and
make sure everyone knew where I ate, and that the food was horrible. I just
won't order that again if I go back. Going through anything in the court
system is expensive and very time consuming. Is someone not willing to write
what you want on a cake really worth a court battle for an average American?
What is the intent of this lawsuit? What harm did the business owner inflict
on these customers? I don't think it was emotional. I don't think
they were embarrassed since they have taken out to the entire world. I
don't think it was financial, apparently they have money to burn on a
lawsuit. Civility encouraged!
Fred44 this has nothing to do with republican/democrat. It is a fundamental
freedom question that transcends party affiliation. Maybe you missed it?
Discrimination is practiced all the time. I discriminated against all other
women when I married my wife. I discriminate against all other religions when I
choose to practice what I believe.The right for the BSA to determine
its qualifications of admission was affirmed by the SCOTUS. (BSA has since bowed
to public pressure, not the SCOTUS, and changed their qualifications for
admission.)How is it different for this baker (or anyone else) to
decide against a particular message the customer wants to send? What
if the customer wanted to use sexually explicit wording or images on a cake for
a private party? Would the baker be justified in refusing to honor that
request?Too bad we don't live in a perfect society.
@ DAB"There is BIG difference between..."The
difference isn't the event. They're all weddings. For the baker,
it's the gender of the couple that determines whether or not he has an
objection.@ Woohoo"99 out of 100 times they are
going to be served THAT wasn't the case with the whole 'separate but
equal' argument."This was the set of facts in at least one
lunch counter case in the early 1960's. The business owner would let black
people shop in his store and use the bathrooms, but he wouldn't serve them
in his restaurant. Imagine the lawyer for the store owner arguing, "Your
honor, if they never ordered food, there'd be no segregation here!"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 took care of this nonsense.
If someone refused to bake a cake for me, I really couldn't care any less
I'd simply take my business somewhere else.
Read all of the comments. All of them.You will easily see how easy it is
for otherwise law abiding Americans to resent and demonize LGBTQ People,
claiming that they are not deserving of the same Constitutional Rights as
Blacks, Latinos, the handicapped and.......Mormons.It really comes down to
precisely this......do you think that your beliefs give you the right to
categorize and exclude ANY group of Americans for discrimination? If so, you
use the same cleverly bigoted arguments used by the vast majority of Americans,
at various times in our national history, to persecute and demonize Quakers,
Catholics, the Irish, Baptists, Mennonites, Shakers, Blacks, Latinos......the
list goes on and on of the Americans who were and still are persecuted on wholly
religious grounds. Are we forgetting the "deeply held religious
beliefs" for persecution against LDS Americans for over a century? Who is
next to be excluded?
Daedalus, Stephen: 'Puerto Rico is experiencing a human catastrophe that
will require weeks if not months of massive assistance and support to prevent
100,000 or more deaths. And DN runs yet one more puff piece on Colorado cake
"artist".'I'm sure that you are equally outraged
when the main stream media totally ignores some really important story so that
it can focus on some minutia that supports its far-left political agenda as
@U. C. Professor – You missed the point: this isn’t about refusing
to serve or do business with someone because you disagree with their lifestyle
or beliefs; this is about declining a business order for a specific customized
product because it would associate your name and products with an event that
you consider offensive to God.There is BIG difference between
refusing to serve someone because you personally dislike them, and declining an
order that supports an event that you sincerely believe God has proscribed.
Tyrex says:"In a disagreement such as this, where is the greater
harm? A person being told by the state they can't freely exercise their
religion? Or a gay couple going to another shop to get a cake?(* -
this has never been an issue of serving someone who is gay, but participating in
a gay wedding EVENT)"-- First, the greater harm lies in the
person being told to go somewhere else by a business that DOES NOT post a sign
detailing which "events" it won't do business for.Second, you blithely separate the LGBT couple from their "event" and
absolutely refuse to separate the LEGALLY separate business from the individual
running it. BTW, businesses have no beliefs to violate since they're
non-living, non-thinking entities.@truebeliever;Marriages existed long before "the bible" was even a twinkle in the
various author's eyes.@windsor;You are offended by
being compared to gays because of "choices". Well, bigotry is also a
choice (as is religion).@Yorkshire;Couldn't care
less if you accept us, but you must treat us just like everyone else.
That's what we ask.
Picture it.The Supreme Court rules that any American, because of
"deeply held beliefs" can refuse service to anyone they have a moral or
religious objection to. Anyone. A Baptist can refuse to do any business
with any Mormon, because Mormonism is a Cult. Yes, they really believe that.
Jews can refuse to sell stocks, open a bank account, or sell a Pastrami
sandwich to anyone who is not "the Chosen People," or eats pork. That is
very clearly an abomination. Any American Businessperson, who is a
Presbyterian, United Methodist, Unitarian, Nazarene, Episcopalian or
Calvinist, or any other Main Stream American Protestant Denomination that has
officially and openly declared that "discrimination, in any form, is
sin" will be refusing business to those who commit, or even defend, the sin
of discrimination. Anyone can now ask you who and what you are, thanks to
the Supreme Court decision. Did you think this would only apply to minority
Christian beliefs?After all, the Constitutional right to refuse service or
merchandise to anyone, because of "deeply held religious or moral
beliefs" cannot be limited to just one sin, or just one religious precept.
Reading some of the letters from people who oppose same sex marriage, you can
sense a palpable fear. The overwhelming majority of writers are not wedding
vendors, but they seem to believe that if SCOTUS votes against Phillips, they
will lose something. And indeed, they have already lost it--"it" being
the right to be openly contemptuous of their LGBT neighbors--and not be
criticized. Logical reasoning has no effect. There are plenty of
people in the US (of all religions and of no religion) who think that it is just
fine to discriminate against a mixed race couple. And asking them if they think
it's OK to use the "religious freedom" excuse to discriminate
against Mormons is useless; living in Utah, they can't imagine that ever
@Karen"I have yet to hear an argument from the pro-baker side
that doesn't lower gay couples to second class while elevating religious
vendors to a special class."Second class..when it comes to
forcing others to celebrate something they disagree with on religious grounds
which I am fine with being second class as well on there's PLENTY of
bakeries in this country!Is it really "separate but equal"
if they are not really being separated? If they never ordered a wedding cake at
this bakery your whole argument goes poof!99 out of 100 times they
are going to be served THAT wasn't the case with the whole "separate
but equal" argument. Soooo you've got some holes to fix in your
argument if your going to keep pushing the whole "separate but equal"
angle.Tolerance doesn't seem like a thing that the left
understands too well.@Silo"The Baker discriminated
against a protected class (at least in colorado)."Nope they we
refusing to make a cake for an event that they disagreed with. I'd imagine
they'd refuse anyone who came in asking for a cake celebrating SSM whether
the person were LGBT or not.
@ TyrexEverything I can find on taxi services and service dogs says
that it's a violation of the American Disabilities Act to refuse to serve
someone with a service dog. No religious exceptions. So if a cab driver
believes this would be too grave a violation of his conscience to bear, then he
needs to find another form of employment.Religious freedom was
included in the Bill of Rights because of religion's history of being used
as a tool of persecution, including in the original 13 colonies. Madison and
Jefferson recognized that a secular form of government was needed if freedom of
conscience was to be protected. (Think about that: Religion doesn't
protect freedom of conscience. Left alone, it's a threat to it. It's
secularism that affords the protection.)"To those who don't
embrace faith...you don't understand."Do you understand the
faith of those whose religion doesn't condone mixed-race marriage? Are you
fighting for their right not to have to violate their consciences and sell
wedding cakes to mixed-race couples? If not, why not? What is the distinction
Should evangelicals be allowed to turn away Mormons? Can a white supremacist
refuse to serve a black customer? I mean, where does it stop?Maybe
if we just followed Christ's teachings and helped everyone, and let God do
the judging, we'd be better off.
I recently heard someone express surprise that an observant Jew, had never
tasted bacon. The individual responded that although he heard bacon was awesome,
his beliefs were more important. Several years ago while on an overseas business
trip, I was had dinner with a group that included an Indian man. We knew this
man was a faithful Hindu and with a language barrier tried to communicate to the
restaurant that he couldn't eat beef. When his dinner arrived there was
beef in his meal. He didn't want to make a fuss and chose not to eat. Of
course we insisted he receive another meal. His willingness to avoid eating
altogether impressed me. Especially considering other Hindus I worked with had
no problem eating beef.There are the Muslim cab drivers who refuse
patrons with service dogs, an accommodation the law allows, because it would
conflict with their religion.To those who don't embrace faith,
a large, vocal segment of our population, it is hard to understand why some
people do or don't do things that might be trivial to you and me. If you
believe religion is merely a choice, you don't understand. There is a
reason the framers enshrined the freedom of religion first and foremost.
The Supreme Court cares about wedding cakes because it knows that it made a
gross error when it created marriage equality law from nowhere. Religious Liberty IS in the Constitution, but Marriage is not in the
Constitution; it's in the Bible. So either way you look at this the
baker enters the ring already injured by the SCOTUS homosexual wedding decision
which interfered in religious law causing an undue burden of conscience for the
baker, and the fact that the baker was targeted and discriminated against by
homosexuals who wanted to force him to violate his faith. The baker should
win this case if the court rules in favor of justice.So ding ding
ding, the bell has sounded and the first round of briefs are being submitted. I
believe the Oral Arguments portion of the legal proceedings should be televised
so We The People can see what's going on.
Two thousand, four hundred, and fifty three words in this "in depth"article...going on and on and on with the variations of the "compelled
speech" argument...but not *one* word explaining the position of
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.And not a single word--let
alone a couple of sentences--quoting the judges who ruled against Phillips.The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against him.The
Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against him.The Colorado State
Supreme Court ruled against him.How "in depth" is an essay
when you leave off fifty percent of the story? Phillips didn't
lose at the three courts because he forgot to show up. He lost because his
after-the fact argument was specious and full of holes. He lost because
America heard the same arguments in Newman vs. Piggie Park--over fifty years
ago--and rejected them then.
@ Tyrex"...where is the greater harm?"Bakers who
don't believe in mixed-race marriage for religious reasons can't
freely exercise this belief. Mixed-race couples aren't asked to find
another shop. Your solution would effectively treat the religious belief about
SSM as more important than the one about mixed-race marriage. Do we really want
government making such a call?Every day in the marketplace we ask
people, religious and nonreligious, to accommodate the law over their beliefs
because it benefits all in a diverse society (and that's just one reason).
If I'm a judge, I'm going to want to know why we should undermine this
endeavor for the sake of one specific belief. And one specific religious belief
at that. Because your solution doesn't protect the nonreligious person who
doesn't believe in SSM. That person would be compelled to serve the gay
couple because his belief isn't an exercise of religion.So I
don't agree with your conclusion re: harm. Your solution creates a
"more equal" class. That's the idea our ancestors died fighting
against 240 years ago.
If the faith of the baker is so important to him/her, and his belief that even a
hint of complicity would endanger his soul, then why not stop baking wedding
cakes for anyone? Problem solved, no religious beliefs compromised, and a law
satisfied.As an analogy, LDS eschew caffeine but don't make it
against the law to sell it in their restaurants. And I am sure there are still
more real life examples with a more dire religious consequence.Such
a simple choice, he can still make cookies and birthday cake. Seems
to me he wants to eat his cake and have it too. Grandma taught me long ago that
this is no way to conduct oneself.
How does Jack Phillips go about removing pedophiles, rapists, Atheists, domestic
violence abusers, child abusers, Satanists, Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims,
neo-Nazi's, criminals, and all others who might conflict with his Christian
religious beliefs?Does he have a questionaire he has all customers
complete so he can determine who he wants to serve or if their beliefs or
lifestyle are in conflict with his? How far does one go to make sure they are
only serving those that are in line with all of their religious beliefs?
Why would a gay couple* want to hire a baker, who believed gay marriage was
wrong, to create a cake celebrating gay marriage? Even if the baker were
reluctantly willing. Especially when scores of other like-minded bakeries would
happily take the business?How can those of us who disagree with
same-sex marriage not see this as a punitive act meant to punish a person
engaging in wrongthink? How is this not an example of using the force of
government to penalize someone for a deeply-held religious belief while forcing
a state-sanctioned belief upon others (contra 1st amendment)? Should a belief
that same-sex marriage is wrong be outlawed? Isn’t that is what is being
argued by the state of Colorado?Certainly we recognize we live in a
diverse community with people who think differently than us? Why would we want
the government to compel someone to provide us a service against their will?In a disagreement such as this, where is the greater harm? A person
being told by the state they can't freely exercise their religion? Or a gay
couple going to another shop to get a cake?(* - this has never been
an issue of serving someone who is gay, but participating in a gay wedding
@ PortLibertadThank you for the generous compliment."I would assert, that is okay, because the choices gay people make to live
a life style that is so contrary to what many believe is natural..."What I hear you saying is, "It's okay because of how deeply we
believe it's wrong." I do get this and respect that it makes the
baker's position very difficult. I just don't think we should hold
others responsible for our feelings or freely chosen beliefs.*I also
don't think the fact that the feelings/beliefs are religious in nature
warrant special treatment. To treat them as such imply that the feelings and
perspectives of non-religious folk are somehow less worthy.Finally,
we do give the government the right to constrain some forms of religious
exercise, thus compelling the believer to accommodate society's best
interests rather than vice-versa.*I'm even more opposed if the
evidence strongly suggests that the basis of the belief is mistaken (which is
the case with homosexuality; everything we now know points to "natural,
normal, no more or less healthy than heterosexuality").
Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. the State of Colorado will be the earthly deciding
case as to whether competing rights of the inalienable religious freedom will
win over non-discrimination civil right. This issue is so important for the
baker because it also has eternal consequences. Spiritually speaking, what will
be the deciding factor of eternal life will be the truth vs. the lie with regard
to God, marriage and family.Marriage is religious (Genesis 1:26;
2:24, Matthew 19:4), designed in a creative capacity, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD. This
is scripture and the baker cannot look at it any other way. For the Christian,
a marriage law that contradicts the biblical law is a counterfeit. THIS IS THE
BURDEN OF CONSCIENCE FOR THE BAKER. If someone wanted to marry their computer
and asked the baker to bake the cake, he would decline because it would
counterfeit the Image of God in marriage.I believe Sister Lucia of
Fatima was correct when she revealed a secret of Mary that the final battle
between God and Satan will be about family.
To "jeclar2006" so, then using your logic, if a baker does not offer
same sex wedding cakes, then they would not have to provide same sex wedding
If a person or business provides a service to the public, then that means all of
the public, not a specific segment of the public. The Baker by providing a
public offering, has implicitly accepted that the public may include individuals
that may have philosophical or religious differences. If The Baker wanted to
only cater to a segment of the general public, he could have made his business a
private club baking business, and issued club memberships as he saw fit.Some have mentioned a number of situations such as 'what if a
Jewish baker was asked to put a swastika on a cake'... well if a
'swastika' was on the menu/list of greetings, by all means the Jewish
baker offering such services for such a design would be 'compelled' to
offer that to all, regardless of their political inclinations.Since
a Jewish baker would not be offering such a design, the baker could decline such
a request.And speaking of religious convictions... no one is born
with any religious convictions at all. This are all taught, and at some point
someone has made a choice to be a member one or another religious confession, or
none of the above.Religion is a choice.
@Karen R:You asserted "Otherwise, IMO, these vendors are asking
the government to compel gay couples to be treated differently for the sake of
the vendor's religious belief. In the public square".You
may be correct in that observation. I would assert, that is okay, because the
choices gay people make to live a life style that is so contrary to what many
believe is natural (eg, counter natural anatomical and counter natural
physiological sexual activity) and so-forth that it really runs counter to our
religious sense of the true nature of God's creative purposes for his
children. So yes, some vendors would support the supreme court in allowing some
differentiation when it comes to applying their artistic expressive speech in
support of same-sex weddings. As usual, you ask thought provoking
questions that enhance the quality of the dialogue in this forum.
Windor correctly asserted:"But don't try to make the
behaviors you chose as a gay--and wedding events people you sue for refusing to
take part in your SSM--as in any way comparable to my skin color as a black
person."A truer statement was never made than that!
Query: what if the baker refused to place the Nazi symbol on the cake for a
white supremacy couple ? Discrimination under Colorado law or the United States
Constitution ?Just asking.
The US Constitution is based on the concept of natural rights. The purpose of
the document is to empower government with certain limited powers by consent of
the governed. For this reason, the Bill of Rights was technically unnecessary,
but was agreed upon in the event that people would begin to misinterpret the
purpose of the Constitution, to believe that it is the instrument which grants
rights to individuals (as appears to be the case today for many people). A
couple of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was that it would give the
enemies of natural rights traction with which to fight against individual
rights, and it might make it appear that any natural rights inadvertently
omitted from the Bill of Rights were not rights at all.The latter
seems to be the case with economic freedom, which we seem to have surrendered
with hardly a fight. Yet economic freedom is a natural right, and is the primary
meaning of the phrase, "Pursuit of Happiness". It is unfortunate that
nobody is using economic freedom as the primary defense in these kinds of cases.
It would be nice to get the highest court in the land to acknowledge it as a
silo said: "When the baker in question stated that he wouldn't make the
cake because the customers were gay, it was no different than if he said he
wouldn't bake the cake because they were Jewish, or because they were
black."I know both Blacks and Jews and other groups who hate
being compared to being gay. What one said was "Being born a Jew
or an Italian, or Black or Chinese or anything else is not the same. While it
may be true that some are born gay, it is the choices they make that make this
comparison to us ridiculous, offensive and insulting. Yes, we may all be born
whatever we are, but it is the choices we make that are what matter. If
someone is born gay, fine. But don't try to make the behaviors you
chose as a gay--and wedding events people you sue for refusing to take part in
your SSM--as in any way comparable to my skin color as a black person."
To "RanchHand" it is easy to say that a cake is art because it is. A
roof is not art because there is only 1 way to properly install a roof. It is
either correct or not. There is not 1 single way to decorate a cake, that makes
it art.To "Laura Bilington" so again, in this case, we had a
custom cake being requested. Pure and simple. It was not anything out of a
catalog.So again, the point is do we ignore religious freedom and
freedom of expression and force businesses to take on clients that they
don't want?To "FJSL" so you are all for slavery. Your
ilk decries the crime of slavery at the same time that you want to enslave
people. You do realize that this is why your ilk has lost much of its
unrepentant progressive said: "At the end of the day, the discussion is
about two competing goals.Freedom to express your disgust with same sex
marriage(and refuse service to these same people)or Freedom from
discrimination."I would say the two competing sides/goals
are:1.LGBT who insist same-sex sex & SSM will be forced to be
recognized, taught & accepted as completely fine.2. And those who do
not believe this is the case....who believe LGBT should be treated with kindness
& respect as fellow humans, never taunted, bullied, harmed---but that the
LGBT wish/goal to have same-sex sex & same-sex marriage be admitted as
normal and fine wont happen.Just as some say how much they
don't like Trump & will never change their position, the same can be
said for those who will never change their feelings about/position on same-sex
sex & SSM.I think from comments about this over the years that
we can all say 'we will have to just agree to disagree.'LGBT are never going to change some minds. Ever.And those who
refuse to embrace same-sex sex, with or without 'marriage' are never
going to change any LGBT minds. (except recent 2 LDS LGBT who have changed their
minds & divorced)
Despite the lawyers having chosen to go down the freedom of speech/expression
route, the real issue here is religious conscience. The baker’s reason for
declining to accept the order had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of
the customers. He has and is still willing to serve homosexual customers. What the baker was not willing to do is create a product that celebrates
an event he believes is a violation of a religious ceremony instituted by God.
Even if the cake were to have had no visible decorations or wording to
distinguish it as celebrating a same-sex marriage, (which would have been highly
unlikely), the baker believed his willing participation in its creation, knowing
what it would be used for, would have constituted support for the event, and
thereby he would have offended God.Based on this premise I fully
support his choice.If the tables had been turned, and the baker had
been in a same-sex marriage, and someone asked him to create a cake for an event
opposing same-sex marriage, then I would also have supported his choice to
decline the order.
Some complain that wedding cakes aren't as important as job creation or
helping those suffering in disaster areas.1) It matters when the
balance of judicial review, state/federal powers, and the right of free speech,
religious expression, and religious association, collide with a right that no
one seemed to know existed in the constitution until 2015.2)
I've been asked why a church needs a mall or to own warehouses. I believe
the jobs we create and semi-trucks of supplies we send into disaster areas is
reason enough. Maybe if those pointing fingers joined us in such causes, they
wouldn't have anything to complain about. If everyone in the world joined
our Fast Offering program (merely a single program in our faith), world hunger
would end today.3) If the LGBT or the secular left think it's
trivial for the court to tackle whether or not they have the right to force a
baker to bake their cake... they shouldn't have started all the court
battles in the first place.It's one thing to think you're
right. It's something else to pick a fight based on it then call your
opponent trivial for merely defending themselves. Such self-serving logic
isn't all that remarkable.
Marriage is religious; it's in the Bible not the Constitution. Christians
who do business in the wedding industry should not be forced to use their
talents in celebration of an event that contradicts and mocks their faith.
I suspect the supreme court will rule narrowly on this but will hopefully give
enough clarity to hopefully prevent the onslaught of slight variant copy cat
cases.Also I will respect the courts decision which every way they
go on this.
@ Jack"Who would want a 'Wedding Cake' made by someone
who didn't want to make it."So after centuries of being
persecuted and harassed and treated as second-class citizen;and
relative moments after finally, FINALLY being acknowledged as equal before the
law (but still the subject of attacks and indignities in many areas);gay people confronted by someone breaking the law meant to protect them
shouldn't stand up for their rights? They should feel so confident and
secure that they can brush it off and head down the street?Seems a
little unreasonable to expect.It also seems unreasonable to expect
someone to be respectful of another's position when the person opens with a
rejecting statement. Particularly in a public setting.
At the end of the day, the discussion is about two competing goals.Freedom to express your disgust with same sex marriage (and refuse service to
these same people)or Freedom from discrimination.Frankly, I know that I choose freedom from discrmination.
And besides all that cake decorating may be an "art" to some, but to
most of us it is a craft, not unlike cooking or painting. This is all such a
ridiculous smoke screen put out there to make religious bigotry the law of the
land. I hope that our Judiciary finds the wisdom to come down on the side of
righteousness, which in this case the freedom for all to live without fear of
If one is arguing that one should be allowed to discriminate against serving
folks based on sexual orientation, then how is that different from and
should we allow one to discriminate against serving folks based on race and
ethnicity, and how is that different from and should we allow one to
discriminate against serving folks based on sexual gender, and how is that
different from and should we allow one to discriminate against serving folks
based on religious affiliation, and philosophical ideology, and political
affiliation, and how is that different from and should we allow one to
discriminate against servings folks based on socio-economic differences?Libertarian-conservatives Barry Morris Goldwater Senior (1909 – 1998)
and Ronald Wilson Reagan Senior (1911 - 2004) both opposed enforced civil rights
because they both thought that the State had no right telling folks not to
discriminate against anybody for any reason what so ever (even though neither
one of these two would have personally discriminated against anyone).So
question that remains is this: should we allow the individual the right to
discriminate against anyone for any reason what so ever?I say no! What say
How many other bakers are there? And is buying a cake (at any bakery) a core
right? People have a right to follow their conscience. It is draconian to
force everyone to follow a single belief.
So since it's ok to force a baker to make a cake, can someone point me to a
black baker so I can order a Klu Klux Klan cake? Maybe a Jewish baker to make me
a Nazi cake? If it's ok to force people to use their talents in a manner
offensive to them, I want a gay baker to make me an anti-LGBT cake. Maybe
something with a rainbow flag that is burning. If we, as a society, are honestly
going to say that it doesn't matter about personal beliefs, where do we
draw the line? Can I marry my cat? Seriously. Where's the line? Is there no
line? It's ok if I force you to do something - whatever your profession is
- that degrades you and your mother? No? They why aren't you affording the
same rights to everyone else?
How far is this going to go? The couple could have simply taken their business
elsewhere and another baker would have profited by their transaction. I
wouldn’t say that the baker had exercised wise professionalism in not
taking their business, but isn’t that his call? Wouldn’t the free
market make a better judge than the bench in this case? If this guy is in the
habit of treating customers in a discriminatory fashion, the business is going
to founder and disappear without any help from the judiciary system. On the
other hand, it is also being said that the couple knew of the baker’s
predilections and targeted his bakery to sue it into submission because they
could. It is not possible to legislate curtesy, morality, professionalism, or
even a general sense of kindness. The more a government micromanages its
citizenry, the worse the divisive kickback becomes. The tsunami of bad karma is
getting bigger by the moment.
@kaysvillecougarA reasonable comparison is anything relating to
interracial marriage, the other example in our history of a type of marriage
that was banned, but now opened, and frequently opposed because on religious
@RedShirt wrote, "That is the difference between Smith's
Bakery and their standardized cakes and going to a bakery where the cake
decorator is an artist....putting on a roof... is not the same as cake
decorating. With a roof, either the job is done correctly or else it is
wrong."First of all, Red, it doesn't matter if the baker
considers himself an artist. Remember, he shows people that book of stuff he
already did. He is skilled enough to accurately copy a design (regardless of
who originated it). That takes skill but it is copying, not creating.But he won't want to make large, tiered, white iced cakes for gay
couples, whereas he had no problem making the identical large, tiered, white
iced cakes for straight couples. It isn't the product that's
different. It isn't the even the occasion that's different.
It's the customer. And in Colorado, that's against the
@LDS Liberal1. Trump was pretty close to my last choice so
don't call him "My President" unless you are a mind reader.2. Your comment: "Your President is about to start a nuclear WWIII
killing millions over being called names. 3.5 million Americans in Puerto Rico
are facing a humanitarian disaster and are being ignored by him out of political
revenge." Is off topic and has no bearing on this article.People
who are turned down when trying to buy a wedding cake suffer zero financial
harm, no physical harm and only a minor emotional slight. A penalty of over
$100K is way out of line.
Liberals are guilty of intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting the
facts here.Re: the lunch counter down South. Liberals have rewritten
history... again.The situation there would be exactly the same as
the present case, IF... if the proprietor had declared to those valiant blacks
challenging racism... that sure, they could keep their seats and order anything
on the regular menu, but he, the proprietor, would absolutely not fix them the
42-egg veggie super omelet, which he would only prepare for white people.But, of course, that is not the way history ran. Blacks were denied ANY
and ALL services, which could be referred to as a "General
Accommodation". Allowing the proponents of "gay rights"
to be able to take people to court who demand the right to withhold only
Creative Services, or "Special Accommodations", while still providing a
wide range of General Accommodations to every one who walks through the door,
means that future government agents will become judges of all creative works.Do we want a country in which government will be judging all creative
work to decide whether it meets sets of criteria in every area of creative
Deseret News, this is a great piece! Please develop the resources so
that you can put out this level of writing and expertise on a broad range of
RedShirtHarvard says:"Again putting on a roof, plumbing,
electrical work, etc... is not the same as cake decorating. With a roof, either
the job is done correctly or else it is wrong."-- Who says, you?
Using the logic of this case, any roofer could claim that his work was
"custom" and "artistry". Who is going to tell him otherwise?
If the baker can use this argument, then why can't others?
A baker who cannot refuse a custom wedding cake for a homosexual wedding cannot
refuse a custom cake for a white supremacist themed wedding. After all, most
all white supremacists are white and discrimination based on race is wrong.I have to wonder if there is anyone other than ordained ministers that
liberals will concede should be allowed to decline to participate in or provide
custom goods and services to a homosexual wedding.Are wedding
photographers recognised as artists? Or would you force a Christian
photographer to set up poses and make art of conduct he holds as immoral?What of organists and other wedding musicians or DJs? Artists who can
decline any job they want? Or mere laborers who must not hurt the feelings of
any homosexual couples?Custom dress makers?And be
honest. How many of you would just as soon eliminate the ability for clergy to
perform legal marriages if they won't provide equal services to homosexual
events as to real, conjugal marriages?No one should be denied
general goods and services.No one should be compelled to support
events or messages that offend him.
To "Laura Billington" no that is not splitting hairs. That is the
difference between Smith's Bakery and their standardized cakes and going to
a bakery where the cake decorator is an artist.With the bakery the
decorator will show you what they have done, much like a resume.Again putting on a roof, plumbing, electrical work, etc... is not the same as
cake decorating. With a roof, either the job is done correctly or else it is
It's interesting the can of worms that was opened by approving same sex
marriage. This was so predictable. Unfortunately, there will be many more cases
like this that will lead to the supreme court being forced to make a decision. I
just don't understand how sexual rights which in my opinion are not found
anywhere in the constitution, take precedent over religious rights and rights of
conscience. I think the comparison of someone coming in to a cake shop asking
that a swastika be painted in red and black is a reasonable comparison. Many
Americans view gay marriage as reprehensible and no amount of legal cramming it
down someone's throat will convince them that it's a good thing.
What the author and others fail to admit is that if religious belief is
sufficient reason to refuse services to LGBT customers, then it is also
sufficient reason to refuse services to black customers, Mormon customers,
female customers, elderly customers, etc. If not then why? Who
would get to decide which religious beliefs are sufficient reason? The
government? The business? If the business, then ANY business could justify
ANYTHING using "religious belief". That leads to a breakdown in our
civil society.Others try to claim that it's about separating
out the customer from the event, but then they refuse to separate out the
business from the owner - the two are in actuality two separate legal entities!
All these "amici" ignore the basic reasoning that this is a
business, not a religion and that we do actually restrict certain religious
practices in our society.Public discrimination based on religious
beliefs should not be allowed at all.
It's astonishing to me that the left is essentially arguing for slavery
here. If I own a business and a gay person walks in the door.... I'm not
allowed to refuse him anything, am I? On pain of "Discrimination! Bigot!
Hater! You must comply because the gay has more rights than you!"We have the 13th amendment prohibiting slavery. But the left is arguing that
you must, no choice at all, do whatever the gay person wants or you are
"violating their rights!" Of course, it is Democrats that
would argue that one class of people (blacks in 1856, Christians now) must do
whatever the favored, Democrat voting class of people demands (White
slaveholders in 1856, LGBT types now). If you don't like it, don't be
a black back then or a Christian now, right? Democrats: proposing slavery for
I charge you $50 grand for a cake, and if you don't like my price, you can
freely shop elsewhere, (I must add in court and attorney costs to the price,
which companies call passing the cost along to the customer, which happens all
the time.) Airlines raise price of first class ticket to keep me out.
"dress designers were allowed to decline working for Mrs. Trump"They were not "allowed to decline". Its all just talk.Some designers have SAID they would not work with Mrs. Trump, but we
don't have a case where Melania asked and was denied. If actually asked,
the designer might relent. If not, she could sue them... just like the gay
couple did with the baker.
@mayfair"some bakers etc do not like gays, lesbians and their
weddings. So that fills your requirement for justified excusing themselves from
being involved."Annnnnd no. Not even close. Let's change
a couple words in your comment and see if you notice the key issue here."Some bakers etc do not like blacks, hispanics, or Jews, and their
weddings. So that fills your requirement for justified excusing themselves from
being involved"You can't use your religion to discriminate
against blacks. You can't use your religion to discriminate against
gender. You can't use your religion to discriminate against other
religion. And you can't use your religion to discriminate against gays in
Colorado. You can try, but you'll likely face the same legal obstacles as
this particular baker.
OK here comes the question . Who would want a "Wedding Cake" made by
someone who didn't want to make it. The only reason I can think of is not
to get a cake but to force compliance to their way of thinking. While I
don't necessarily agree with the Baker, I do believe he has the right to do
his "Expressive Art" how he wishes it to be done. On the other hand if
he is selling donuts he needs to sell them to everyone.
@Redshirt, you're splitting hairs trying to distinguish Phillips'
cakes as "custom" or "unique artistry". If he has a binder of
pictures of cakes he has made--and he does--and you point to the one on page 63
and say, "I want one just like that", then there is no uniqueness, and
no artistic expression--you are asking for a copy of a cake he already made for
somebody else. It takes skill to make a good copy, certainly. Just like it
takes a certain amount of skill for me to put a roof on a house, and have the
rows all perfectly parallel and the right distance apart. But it's a roof,
not an artistic creation, and if I turned down a job from a church because I
disapproved of what they taught, I would, rightly, get hauled into court, and no
amount of "religious freedom" argument would prevent me from getting
@a bit of reality: I just noticed the false racial claim you made that if a
"black" (your word) football player takes a knee.Race
baiting, like all identity politics, is evil.
"Phillips' journey to the high court began in July 2012, when a gay
couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to request
a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips declined, explaining that
participating in their event would go against his religious beliefs."No, Ms. Dallas, that is *not* what happened. In the words of Jack
Phillips, himself, from a videotaped interview: After the couple said they
wanted a wedding cake, "I said, 'Sorry, guys, I don't make cakes
for same-sex weddings.'."All the talk about "artistic
expression" and "religious freedom" and "participation" came
much, much later---after the state investigated and fined Phillips for violating
the state nondiscrimination statute.
@a bit of reality: Yes, many Americans believe that the penalty for millionaire
football players disrespecting the flag and the anthem should be that they no
longer have the opportunity to entertain us in return for mountains of money.
That would be a decision made by a private enterprise, not the government, nor
would it be enforced at gunpoint, as the government does (and did).I
find it interesting and instructive that the left often conflates government and
Remember the Kitchens case challenging Utah's SSM ban and all the articles,
opinion, and analysis that buoyed expectations that Utah would prevail? Those articles shaded the facts and legal analysis a bit too
optimistically, given the SCOTUS decision in Windsor. That added to the real
disappointment and frustration of folks who genuinely believed that the SSM-bans
would be upheld.The coverage and comments on Masterpiece is like
deja vu all over again.The dispositive fact in Masterpiece will be
how the couple never had a chance to discuss any sort of decoration before being
refused service. The baker needs the compelled speech/free expression element,
and he just does not have it.Other 'bad facts' for the
baker: the SSM ceremony would occur well before and 1000 miles away from the
"event" where he did not want his cake served for religious reasons.
And how he had no religious objection to baking a wedding cake for a dog
marriage/Lastly, SCOTUS would need to overturn its well established
precedent, Employ Div. v. Smith, which controls in states like Colorado that did
not pass a mini-RFRA, and create a gaping loophole in all state public
@ Billy Bob"The determining factor is that the baker does not
want to participate in a gay wedding."What is the determining
factor in making a wedding "gay?"@ RedshirtYour
cite doesn't come close to resembling your claim."They were
not denied the cake because they were gay."Correct.
Technically, they were denied because they're the same gender."He would have created custom cakes for them for anything else."Wonder if he'd object to making an anniversary cake. That's a
celebration of a same-sex marriage."The only protected class
here is religion."Phillips isn't claiming religious
discrimination because none took place. The law would've applied to a
baker of any denomination. The claim is violation of freedom of artistic
expression. But again, he has to get past the fact that he WILL make wedding
cakes for some, and the reason he won't for others is his freely chosen
religious beliefs. He's essentially saying that gay couples should
accommodate HIM. Neat trick when you can get other people to bear the
consequences of your choices.
@ HSTucker - Holladay, UTYou said, "@Fred44: No conservative is
suggesting that the government should fine football players $137000 every time
they take a knee during the national anthem. That's the difference."A somewhat influential Republican did in fact say that if a black
football player takes a knee during the national anthem, he should be fired from
his job. A crowd of Republicans cheered in agreement. In this particular case,
that is a much stiffer penalty than a $137,000 fine.
To "Karen R." the article stated "To bolster and expand on these
arguments, several of the amicus briefs dedicate pages and pages to religious
freedom-related arguments, emphasizing the importance of allowing people like
Phillips, who says his faith prevents him from participating in a same-sex
marriage, to live out their beliefs."Now, if you want to talk
protected classes. What about religion. Religion is a protected class.But we don't really have an issue with gays. They were not denied
the cake because they were gay. He would have created custom cakes for them for
anything else. If they wanted a custom retirement cake, he would have made
it.The only protected class here is religion. Why are you and your
ilk seeking to take away the protected class of Religion?
Karen R,The determining factor is clearly not gender. He is willing
to make a cake for a gay person for a birthday, a work event, a just for the
heck of it party, etc, etc, etc. The determining factor is that the baker does
not want to participate in a gay wedding. Personally, if I was a baker, I would
not refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding even though I do not agree with it.
Its business. But it should be up to the business owner whether or not he or she
will participate in the event that they disagree with. And to be clear, I would
have the same opinion if an atheist or evangelical or whatever baker had refused
to make a cake for my LDS wedding reception or my kids baptism or whatever
because he didn't agree with the event. I would just bring my business
elsewhere. It really is that simple.
Go to an area where Mormons are not the majority. Then convince the majority of
the landlords there to refuse to rent to Mormons for religious reasons. I'm
betting the argument will change as soon as they find out their missionaries
have no place to stay and no restaurants that will serve them food.
Clothing designers refuse service to the First lady based on politics. Bakers
can certainly refuse service based on religious freedom. Private companies can
actually refuse service to anyone for any reason. Employment is a different
matter...however, this isn't an employment issue. To force the
bakeries to cook a cake for an event they religiously oppose is called FREEDOM!
The gay couple also has the FREEDOM to take their business to another bakery.
The problem arises if the gay couple was forced to go the bakery, which they
weren't. Lets go folks, you can't pick up the only one end of the
debate, if you cry for freedom, it for all, even private companies.
The Governor of Puerto Rico was on a well-known show Wed., Sept.27 and said
"The President called BEFORE the hurricane hit and I have talked to him
every day since. He has sent FEMA and other organizations>"
silo said: "Designers are free to refuse to do business with Melania
because they don't like her"Many would say that is exactly
the point in this debate--that some bakers etc do not like gays, lesbians
and their weddings.So that fills your requirement for justified
excusing themselves from being involved.
@ Dan Smith"The baker was not willing to bake a cake for the
homosexual's wedding with the person of the same gender."The determining factor in your sentence is gender. Gender isn't an
event.@ Redshirt"It states that EVERYBODY who wants
custom items made will be subject to the religious beliefs of the business
owner."Please cite where this is stated. In any event, this is
disingenuous in that it pretends that all are equally impacted, as is the case
with Halloween. Not so with weddings and what determines the impact is gender,
a protected class.@ observatorThe custom/shelf item
distinction: Even shelf items are designed, aren't they? So if a baker
designed the shelf cakes (apparently the case in the Masterpiece matter), and is
willing to sell this cake to a gay couple, it proves what I've noted
before: that "celebration" is entirely under an individual's
control. It can't be compelled.
@Bluto"As to the Florist situation, nobody is suggesting a business
can deny service to walk up customers."Um, actually... we've had
a Michigan auto mechanic say he'll refuse service to any gay customers, a
Michigan pediatrician drop a patient because the girl's parents were
lesbians, an Ohio baker cancel an order for a birthday cake after e-stalking the
customer and finding out she was a lesbian, that Utah judge that refused to
approve an adoption by a gay couple because they were gay, gay people fired,
evicted, and so-on, and that's before we even talk about parents who
kick-out their minor children for being gay.And this is before we
even talk about what the ADF (lawyers in this case) has said and done over the
years. (long story short, they *earned* the SPLC's "hate group"
designation)So yeah. Lots of folks are 100% on-board with denying
all sorts of things to gay people.
@windsor"Anyone disagreeing with this is just showing themselves to be
a egregious hypocrite"Actually, anyone agreeing with what you
wrote is simply demonstrating that, like you, they simply don't get it.Designers are free to refuse to do business with Melania because they
don't like her, because she's a Trump, because she's a
republican, because she's from new York, or any number of reasons.They are not free to refuse to do business with her because she's white,
nor because of her religion, nor if she was gay.When the baker in
question stated that he wouldn't make the cake because the customers were
gay, it was no different than if he said he wouldn't bake the cake because
they were Jewish, or because they were black. The Baker discriminated against a
protected class (at least in colorado).
To "Moderate" I don't know what planet you were married on, but I
have never heard of somebody going to a wedding cake decorator and just pick one
out of a catalog. Every bride I have seen go through the process has requested
a custom cake. It may be similar to other cakes that the baker has created, but
they request a bunch of custom features.But, you also have to
consider what the baker shows a bride. Is the baker showing them a catalog or a
portfolio. If it is a catalog, then yes, he should sell regardless of the event
because it is not a custom item. If it is a portfolio, then the couple is
requesting a unique item.
HS Tucker,You said "@Fred44: No conservative is suggesting that
the government should fine football players $137000 every time they take a knee
during the national anthem. That's the difference." I
think there is a reason that they aren't suggesting that the government
should fine them, is because the government can't because they are not
breaking any laws. I would think suggesting that you fire the SOB's
ultimately if carried out has the same effect on the individual, it takes away
their ability to make a living as they choose. One has been found
to be breaking the law as currently written one is not. Which one do the
republicans support? I am not unsympathetic to the baker, I just find it
interesting that so many on the right want a wide interpretation for the freedom
of speech which is mentioned in the article as one of their arguments and such a
narrow interpretation when it comes to something that isn't even against
current law. To say that the left wants to determine what is
freedom of speech and what is freedom of religion but being unwilling to
acknowledge that the right is doing the very thing for which you complain about
Wedding cakes and flower arrangements are not important. However, they have been
made important because they are the focal point of the controversy between
selling commodities and performing personal services. Can an actor refuse a part
in a movie they find morally repugnant?Until the courts resolve this issue
(The public is now polarized to the exclusion of reason.), both sides will
continue in partisan confusion.
What's next America?An American version of the Reichszentrale?----The Reichszentrale was created on 10 October 1936 The Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion
(German: Reichszentrale zur BekÄmpfung der HomosexualitÄt und der
Abtreibung) was the central instrument of Nazi Germany for the fight against
homosexuality in Nazi Germany and the fight against abortion.
"We like #321" they say, "except of course the names should say Mary
and Jane instead of Mary and John."Looking at the pictures in
the article, it appears to be much more involved than just changing the names on
the cake. Someone is making a one-of-a-kind creation. While Mozart's
symphonies have a similar style, they certainly vary by much more than just the
key signature. To be honest, I'd be happy with cake #321
personally, but somehow folks go out of their way to find someone to make a
unique, individual, never before made and never to be replicated article of
confectionery. Because if it were only icing the names on the cake I think
I'd be with you there, too. But these seem to be a lot more involved than
If according to Vogue at least eight designers — including Marc Jacobs,
Tom Ford, and Philip Lim — have come out to say that they will not design
clothes for Melania Trump (because they do not want personally and
professionally to be linked in any way to her husband or to the GOP) then
since they get to refuse on those grounds, all wedding industry people who
do not want to personally or professionally be involved with a Same-Sex wedding
should be allowed out of it as easily and gracefully as these dress designers
were allowed to decline working for Mrs. Trump.Anyone disagreeing
with this is just showing themselves to be a egregious hypocrite.
The Baker is not refusing to bake a cake or even sell one at a brick and mortar
store.. He is refusing the messaging on the cake.Let's
say I want a cake with a swastika or a hammer and sickle or an anti- Semitic or
Anti-Mormon slogan?Maybe I want a prohibited pejorative word or
slogan for any group, on my cake.You know, the A-Z words.**Must sell a cake to the public...Absolutely!**Be compelled to
portray a message, contrary to your own personal beliefs, or lose your license
or be fined, absolutely NOT!As to the Florist situation, nobody is
suggesting a business can deny service to walk up customers. That is not the
situation here. However, it is an entirely different thing to be
ordered to set up floral arrangements at a reception site or, by Govt. edict,
you lose your Business License..Does a Printer have to print
anything that walks in his front door?Say, racist, hateful, anti-whatever,
violent, or subversive material?I think not.People have such
a lack of understanding of the First Amendment.If you don't think so,
try having a protest at your place of employment and see what happens.
This is not a discrimination issue. This is a freedom issue. Any business should
be able to do business as they see fit. Big Brother needs to stay out of Private
businesses. The gay couple that was refused the cake needs to go to counseling
and merge with the other snowflakes who have been wronged by society. Hopefully
then they can get over the tremendous discriminatory harm that was done to them
as clearly they have the right to have any bakery they want to bake their cake
the way they want with a proper smile on the baker's face.
@The RockI don't know, why are you trying to reward religious bakers
for choosing to be offended by giving then an "opt-out of laws of general
applicability free" card?Me? I'm not offended, or looking
for revenge. I just want an equal playing field. Either we both are obligated
to ignore your religious beliefs, or we both are free to consider them. But
allowing you to consider your beliefs while I'm legally obligated to ignore
them? No dice.
observator "If they refused to sell cake #321 from their catalog, or any
other typical shelf item, I'd be right with you. But that's not what
we're talking about. We are talking about a custom-made, one-of-a-kind
work."But that is exactly how it works. A couple wants a cake.
They look up "bakery" and Google shows them a list of businesses. They
pick one. The baker (businessman to me, artist to you) shows them a binder of
cakes he has made. "We like #321" they say, "except of course the
names should say Mary and Jane instead of Mary and John.""Mary and Jane? I'm sorry, but #321 with different names makes it a
unique creation. I am an artist and refuse to have my art displayed at your
marriage."The claim to artistry is a sham. It is a business
that discriminates, plain and simple.
@The Rock - Federal Way, WASept. 28, 2017 10:13 a.m.I always
thought that Stick and Stones could break my bones but names can never hurt me.
Clearly names do hurt but only if you allow them to do so.=======
Your President is about to start a nuclear WWIII killing millions
over being called names.3.5 million Americans in Puerto Rico are facing a
humanitarian disaster and are being ignored by him out of political revenge.....and you are worried about a single baker in Colorado - whos'
'religion' which is left un-disclosed - right to bigotry?
It is interesting to note that the Old Testament required restitution when a
crime was committed. If you stole you had to restore it.This is a
good way of insuring that the penalty fits the crime.If you ask some
groups the penalty for not baking a cake is a death sentence for their business.
Clearly the penalty is way too large. Can any couple who had to visit
more than one cake shop show they were harmed in any way? Was there physical
injury? Financial injury? No to both cases. Were their feelings hurt? Oh yes
and they want revenge on those with an attitude that they do not like.I always thought that Stick and Stones could break my bones but names can
never hurt me. Clearly names do hurt but only if you allow them to do so.I was once publicly humiliated in front of more than 100 people and I
was offended and angry. I wanted revenge. I though of all kinds of things I
could do, to get revenge. When I realized the hate was destroying me. I stopped
thinking about it and those feelings went away. It took effort to put it out of
my mind. I made the decision to be offended and I made stop being offended.Being offended is a decision. Why reward people for that?
@Thomas Thompson"On the merits of the cake case, I have to express my
surprise that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case at all."Well,
the case first came up to the court while it was sitting at 8 members, and they
repeatedly kicked the can down the road until after Gorsuch was appointed. So
it's safe to assume that prior to Gorsuch, there was exactly three votes to
hear the case†. It's pretty easy to guess who those three votes
were.But you are correct that the court overturns more often then it
confirms. ________†if there was already four votes, they
would have already accepted it. If there was only two votes, then there was no
point in waiting as the new justice wouldn't change things anyway)
So are any of these folks defending *my* right to refuse service to someone
because their holy book literally calls for my death?No?Well, if I have to ignore everything your holy book says about me, and serve
you anyway, I think it's only fair to expect you to *also* ignore
everything your holy book says about me, and serve me anyway.Or to
put it another way... if your beliefs are a good basis to refuse me service,
then they're a good basis to refuse you service. So either we both can
consider your beliefs, or we both have to ignore your beliefs. But demanding I
ignore your beliefs, while you get to consider them? Is not acceptable.
I compliment Kelsey Dallas and the D-News for an in-depth article on an
interesting case that could have far reaching implications. The pics emphasizing
artistic expression may be a bit too much, but the point is well taken. I
support same-sex marriage, but this issue is a little more complicated and it
will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court proceeds.
@Fred44: No conservative is suggesting that the government should fine football
players $137000 every time they take a knee during the national anthem.
That's the difference.
Karen R"So rather than only gay couples being subject to a
vendor's religious beliefs, let's agree that EVERY customer must be.
The vendor must make a good faith effort with EVERY customer to determine that
s/he doesn't violate a belief that the vendor feels s/he can't in good
conscience overlook."Your approach is flawed and here's
why. The Baker was willing to make a birthday cake for a person who was
homosexual. The baker was willing to make a promotion cake for a person who was
homosexual. The baker was willing to make a retirement cake for a person who was
homosexual. The baker was not willing to bake a cake for the
homosexual's wedding with the person of the same gender. Now do
you see the difference? It's not discrimination against the PERSON.
It's refusing to make a cake for the EVENT. So, should the
baker be forced to bake a cake for events at a neo-Nazi event? white supremacist
event? Black Panther event? Republican Party event? Democratic Party event? The
answer is clearly NO. If you say otherwise, please think of the group you least
despise and then ask yourself if you would want to be forced to go work for/with
" A plumber creates a unique work of art in fixing a leak. An auto mechanic
creates a unique work of art in replacing the brakes."Not the
same thing here. Replacing brakes is a common technical issue. When you can
demonstrate that someone out there is putting brakes on a car in a way that is
unique to anyone else, maybe we can have a discussion. And, having done my own
plumbing, I can tell you that clever piping is not the same as creating a
unique, expressive work for a particular event.Again, if the bakery
closed their doors to a class of people entirely, I'd be right with you.
If they refused to sell cake #321 from their catalog, or any other typical shelf
item, I'd be right with you. But that's not what
we're talking about. We are talking about a custom-made, one-of-a-kind
work. Suppose John Williams refused to write the soundtrack for a movie because
(for whatever reason) he didn't like the movie? And, for argument's
sake, let's say the film's director and producer are gay. Is Williams
required to write the score, because not doing so will be a discriminatory act?
To "Karen R. " did you read teh article??? It states that EVERYBODY who
wants custom items made will be subject to the religious beliefs of the business
owner.That means the gay couple will be treated equally as the
family who wants the Halloween cake as the NAZI's who want and anti-Jewish
cake, etc....You are getting what you want.To
"goodnight-goodluck" this is not deciding who can and cannot be served
when buying pre-made items. The flamboyantly gay couple can still go into the
shop to buy a standard cake.To "Moderate" a plumber and
mechanic are NOT artists. They are not creating anything. They are repairing
existing items. I would worry if a mechanic was "artistic" when
replacing an alternator. There is only one way to replace an alternator on my
vehicle, and I would hope it is done right.
Like it or not there will be dissenting opinions on matters of public policy.
You don't change people's minds through legal punishments, though you
may change their behavior. Artistic people may abandon their craft out of fear
of punishment. Or they may comply, also out of fear coupled with economic
necessity. But fear doesn't change hearts; it only causes more division.
It's harder to love your neighbor when he/she comes after you with the
threat of fines, financial destruction and/or imprisonment, under color of
law.By declaring that same sex marriage could not be prohibited the
court left other questions, like this one, undecided. It is right that they
consider the question of compelled artistic expression which some seem to
believe stems from their right to marry.I thought the Left
celebrated Civil Disobedience and diversity. In the immortal words of Rodney
King, "Can't we all get along?"
"don't think it is ok for professional football players to take a knee
during the national anthem because that is not the appropriate time to express
their freedom of speech right." Wrong thread. What you are asking is that
those opposed to the idea expressed by those taking a knee, is not allowed. The
President and on down has the freedom to speak, even when it opposes somebodies
actions and free speech. The idea continues by liberals that the
voice of free speech must only be allowed on one side. Truly a draconian
concept of a totalitarian society.
What if a baker refused to bake a cake that celebrated the ante-bellum South ?
What if a Muslim baker refused to do a cake that he/she felt insulted
her beliefs ?
observator - "If a painter is offered a commission for a new painting, is
he/she required to accept it?... The question isn't similar to the lunch
counter."Your example does not reflect the case, and the question is
exactly similar to the lunch counter.Customers are not going to an
artist and asking them to create a cake. They go to a business that advertises
wedding cakes. The baker is not accepting commissions, they are selling
product. Once they made the decision to sell product, they are required to
submit to the regulations of a business. They must serve all.To
argument "the baker's creation is unique and therefore art" applies
to anything. A plumber creates a unique work of art in fixing a leak. An auto
mechanic creates a unique work of art in replacing the brakes. The world is
filled with "artists" who run a business. Yet none can restrict sales
based on lifestyle or race.
Just so I am clear, republicans think it is ok to refuse to bake a cake for a
paying customer because that is there religious freedom right, but they
don't think it is ok for professional football players to take a knee
during the national anthem because that is not the appropriate time to express
their freedom of speech right. Seems a bit hypocritical.
@Thomas ThompsonI believe it only takes four justices to grant a
petition for a writ of certiorari. If Justice Kennedy is one of those who wants
to hear the case, don't expect it to turn out the way the petitioners hope.
I thought this was resolved by the civil rights act of 1964, you don't get
to decide WHO gets a seat at your lunch counter, absent maybe no shoes no
shirt.if you're in business to serve the public serve them.
If a painter is offered a commission for a new painting, is he/she required to
accept it?If a composer is offered a commission for a new symphony,
is he/she required to accept it?If we are saying that a baker must
create a custom work (not something off the shelf, or a common item, but a
unique artistic creation) for any particular reason, without the opportunity to
refuse, then we are saying that any artist must create and/or perform for any
occasion in support of any message, whether the artist agrees with the message
or not.The question isn't similar to the lunch counter. No one
is being prohibited from entering a store, or purchasing any typical menu item
(the baker in this example sold many items to anyone who walked in the door).
This is about the right of an artist to accept or reject a commission in support
of a specific message, for any reason, or no reason at all.
I have yet to hear an argument from the pro-baker side that doesn't lower
gay couples to second class while elevating religious vendors to a special
class.But let's say we do want to give special consideration to
those whose beliefs are based in a religion. We want them to be accommodated in
a way others are not. But we also believe in equality (exception: belief types)
and recognize that "LGBT customers can obtain their desired services from
many willing vendors..." is really just "separate but equal."So rather than only gay couples being subject to a vendor's
religious beliefs, let's agree that EVERY customer must be. The vendor
must make a good faith effort with EVERY customer to determine that s/he
doesn't violate a belief that the vendor feels s/he can't in good
conscience overlook. And, of course, the vendor too would be subject to such
tests when s/he is a customer.Otherwise, IMO, these vendors are
asking the government to compel gay couples to be treated differently for the
sake of the vendor's religious belief. In the public square.That is messed up (IMO).
Many thanks to Kelsey Dallas for a very fine article.On the merits
of the cake case, I have to express my surprise that the Supreme Court agreed to
hear the case at all. But very often, when the Court agrees to hear a Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari, it is because a majority of the Court disagrees with
the lower court and wishes to reverse. The Court of Appeals sided with those
who would force the baker to bake the cake. My prediction is that the Supreme
Court will reverse (that's not the result I would personally prefer, but it
is what I think will happen).
Puerto Rico is experiencing a human catastrophe that will require weeks if not
months of massive assistance and support to prevent 100,000 or more deaths.And DN runs yet one more puff piece on Colorado cake
"artist".Wake up...the real world needs you!