Me thinks you/he doth protest too much. I think those words painted you into a
corner you didn't mean them too and now you are stuck there with nothing to
do but back peddle. tsk tsk
To "eenie meanie" you may have taken the words from him, but you used
them out of context with his character and the things that he believes in. What
you did is no better than lying.
I just took the words right out of his mouth. He said it was not against his
religious beliefs. If marriage is ONLY between a man and a woman, dog marriage
should, therefore, also be against his religious beliefs. Maybe you should learn
to read better.
To "eenie meanie" that is called bestiality, and is against against
biblical teachings. FYI, you are not following the same logic because you are
leaving the basis for the logic out, which is Biblical teachings.Maybe next time you can put some effort into a response.
RedShirtHarvard..."As for providing wedding cakes for a dog wedding, how is
that going against his beliefs? He assumed that the dogs were heterosexual, so
how is that against his beliefs?"So by your logic...marriage is not
just between a man and a woman. Marriage can also be between dogs as long as
they are heterosexual. So following that logic...it is ok for a heterosexual
person to marry a dog as long as they are of the opposite sex. But same sex
marriage is against God's law. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
To "Shackleford Rusty" but it is just your opinion about supporting an
event by making a custom cake. You are not an artist. Making a wedding cake is
not like making hamburgers. A wedding cake is an artistic product that takes
skill and talent to produce.But RMP is not owned by a single person,
so that is totally different. Plus connecting a church to the power system is no
different than buying a cupcake at a bake shop. The baker will sell anybody
cupcakes, regardless of gender.The example of a photographer that I
provided is EXACTLY what is going on. The gay couple's sexual orientation
had nothing to do with this case. It was the event. This particular baker also
refuses to make Halloween cakes. If a gay person went in to buy a Halloween cake
they would be denied a cake there too, not because of sexual orientation but
because of the event.You are imposing your idea of what is offensive
on to the bakers. Just because you are ok with something that does not mean
others are. Put yourself in the place of the baker, and imagine you are asked to
do something that you believe is wrong. Would you want the government to force
you to produce something you are opposed to?
@redshirt.If this is about events does Rocky Mountain Power have an
obligation to provide power to Temples and churches if that goes against the
owners beliefs?Your scenario about the photographer is groundless.
Are you saying a wedding cake is offensive to the baker only because of who it
is sold to? In your above scenario what does the photographer take offense to?
The gay couple or the pornographic poses. Was the couple asking for a design
that offended the baker and if so what was the design that was offensive? If the
answer is any wedding cake what so ever then that is discrimination. The only
thing that is offensive to the baker absent any design is obviously the gay
couple. Also he is not supporting an event he is making a product.
If a heterosexual orders a wedding cake and he complies but a gay couple orders
the same cake and doesn't sell it to them then that is discrimination. What
ever happens to the cake after it leaves his bakery has nothing to do with him.
To "Shackleford Rusty" this is not about the people. This issue is
about the event.Think of it this way, would you require a
photographer who doesn't believe in pornography to take pictures of a gay
couple in pornographic poses? If the photographer said no, would claim that the
denial was due to the couple's sexual preference?I do
understand what the baker is doing. He is declining business because his
religion doesn't allow him to support an event. He is ensuring that the
couple will get the best product possible because if he was forced to make it,
he would not put in the same effort that he would for an event he supports.So again, we are back to the same basic questions. Is it good for the
government to force people to act contrary to their religious beliefs? Can the
government force you to speak in favor of something you oppose?
@redshirtThe baker offered brownies, cookies or a birthday cake and
I believe he said after the fact, not while they were there. Also
what would your stance if this baker refused to make a wedding cake for a black
couple or interracial couple? Its the same excuse anyone could use to deny
services or products. Do you understand what the baker is doing? He
is discriminating based who the customer is and not based on artistic
expression. This would be no different than if he rejected a interracial couple,
a black couple, or an interfaith couple. This would be no different than a
restaurant owner rejecting wedding celebration dinner and stating he would not
serve this couple his award winning steaks based on who they were. (think pre
civil rights era)
"The Colorado baker case should have never reached the Supreme Court.
Instead, it should have been thrown out at the state level."Sooo
right. Should have never been in a court system at all.
"Any business should be able to choose who they do business with."That would return us to the dark days in the South where black people
couldn't be served at the lunch counter, wouldn't it?
To "Shackleford Rusty" actually no, it isn't that different. They
say it is different, but in reality it is not.Masterpiece did offer
to sell them standard cakes or anything from their shop. Read the NY Times
article where they talked to both sides. Had Azucar known that the group wanted
an anti-gay marriage cake they would not have even bothered to discuss design
either. But making a cake intended to be a centerpiece for an event does display
a positive message about the event.If the baker never knew that it
was for a gay wedding until it was being picked up, you could do that and be
deceitful. If you have already paid for the cake and the baker refuses to turn
it over then you may have a case, but even that would be hard to determine
because you would have to lie to the baker first and there may be some legal
issues there. However, that is not what happened in this instance.
@RedShirtThe Azucar Bakery case is different in the fact that design
was discussed and the bakery offered to bake the bible cake but not put what the
owner felt was hurtful messages. Masterpiece did not offer to bake a
cake at all. No design was discussed. I believe people have free speech
constitutional rights but when a design isn't discussed it is plain
discrimination. The bakery was not asked to put any pro gay symbol or message on
the cake. Essentially he was choosing who could or not buy a product provided
to the public based on who the customer was and not based on artistic
expression. Think about this. What if the baker never knew the cake
was for a gay wedding in the beginning? It is entirely possible for only one
person to go to the bakery discuss design and leave. And assuming that design
did not offend the baker. Would the baker have a right to refuse to hand over
the cake if the couple came together to pick up the cake?
barfolomew - Tooele, UTSeriously, most businessmen would bake a cake
glorifying the devil himself, if you pay him enough money. This opinion if from
one who believes that money is seen as the most successful strategy in the
struggle to survive, and the drive to survive is stronger than any other force
acting upon living things.
To "Shackleford Rusty" unless it is shown that the complaint didn't
contain the entire narrative. Then the contents of the complaint are
important.But in the SCOTUS case the complaint is irrelevant. What
is relevant is the law and how it is being handled. The problem is if you
force Masterpiece Bakery to make a cake that is contrary to their beliefs, then
you must also do the same to Azucar Bakery that refused to make a cake that
conveyed a message contrary to the owners beliefs (that includes believing a
message is derogatory).You see, the law is not being applied
equally. The question is do you and your ilk want to see people forced to do
work that they don't want to work? A more simple way of looking at it is
this: Do you want a return to slavery?
@RedShirtHarvardIn a court case what matters is what facts were
stated in the complaint. Masterpiece bakers is the petitioner in the Supreme
Court case. A newspaper article has zero bearing on the facts in the court
case. As far as his first amendment rights go I believe individuals
should have those rights. However this case could never be ruled narrowly in
favor of the baker. Just because the baker was willing to provide other goods
doesn't mean another baker would based on their beliefs. Another point you may have not considered is a deeply held religious belief
could mean another baker could refuse service to an interracial couple. However you and many others have very valid points.
RedShirtHarvard says:"Do you think it is good for government to
force you to violate your religious beliefs?"-- Yes. The Civil
Rights act prevents "religious" people from discriminating against
blacks. -- Yes. You are not allowed to practice human sacrifice.Religious freedom does not mean anything goes.
To "Shaun" so now it doesn't matter what the truth is???We know the Constitutional rights that are being looked at with this case.
You have 2 rights that were violated, first you have Freedom of Religion.
Second you have Freedom of Expression.Do you think it is good for
government to force you to violate your religious beliefs?Do you
think it is good for government to force you to express things that you
don't believe in?As the NY Times article shows, this is NOTHING
like the 1960s. This was not an issue with their sexual preference, race,
religion, political affiliation, gender, etc... This was an issue with an
event.The best comparison is this: Would you force a photographer to
take nude photos of somebody if the photographer thought pornography was wrong?
Jim.... you comments make no sense what so ever. Your example of your own
experience is about shop keepers not having what you want. There is a huge
difference between that, and a shop keeper having what you want, but not selling
it to you because he doesn't think Mormons are Christians. Or the shop
keeper doesn't like hispanics, or other people of color. Or he
doesn't like blonds. Or hates people of European decent. Or thinks
you're out of shape and don't need a cake. Huge
difference. Not having a product is a lot different then denying service based
on some supposed social class difference. What next, "White's
Only" at shop doors again?
@RedShirtHarvardThe NY Times doesn't matter. The legal
complaint in the court system matters.I truly do not know where
constitutional rights lie in this case because the SC has ruled in many
different directions and varying majorities on cases involving work and
constitutional rights. Also If religious beliefs are all that is
needed to reject providing a customer a service or product then civil rights of
the 1960's would be mute.
To "Shaun" why would they have to discuss the decorations? Once they
said they were a gay couple looking for a wedding cake for their own
celebration, any discussion would be a waste of everybody's time.Again, look up the NY Times. They interviewed both parties, and the baker
stated that he offered them other goods that are "off the shelf".
To "Prometheus Platypus" but it is. According to the NY Times, the
owner of Masterpiece Bakery said "I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower
cakes, cookies, brownies...I just can’t make a cake for a same-sex
wedding." Are you saying that the the NY Times got it wrong?Also according to the NY Times, the couple told him what it was for, then the
baker declined.As for providing wedding cakes for a dog wedding, how
is that going against his beliefs? He assumed that the dogs were heterosexual,
so how is that against his beliefs?If a gay man wanted to marry a
gay woman, Mr. Philips would bake a cake for them. He has remained quite
@RedShirtHarvardThe legal complaint states no design considerations
were even discussed. I do not know when a cake becomes a gay wedding cake or not
so it is hard to judge when someone is just being discriminatory or has
legitimate religious beliefs concerns. As far as the bakery
offering them other baked goods that defeats the whole purpose of the
couple's visit to the bakery. They were not interested in purchasing
cookies. @barfolomew Seriously, folks. If I were to walk
into an African-American owned bakery and asked for a cake to be made honoring
the KKK, do you think they would make it? Do you think they should
make it?No I don't, I think an artist should have a creative
license but stated in the legal complaint, there were no design considerations
discussed. When does a cake become a gay wedding cake? I don't know. I am really sympathetic to the couple and the baker. I am only posing
these questions because you could see either way unintended consequences come
from this ruling. In the end I will respect the SC decision when it
barfolomew, comparing gay marriage, a celebration of love and commitment, to
hate groups, a celebration of hate, anger, racism, doesn't even need to be
defended by normal minded folks. Hate groups are not a protected
class, because America doesn't believe in protections for racist hate
groups, or it looks like that could change under a POTUS who believes that Nazis
and Nazi protesters are on morally equal footing?
@ barfolomew: Do African-American bakeries regularly make KKK cakes? Do Jewish
bakeries regularly make Nazi cakes?No - those are message cakes and
not regularly sold by any bakeries, let alone the specific types of bakeries you
mention. Masterpiece cake shop sold wedding cakes. This couple
wanted to buy a wedding cake. They didn’t want anything other than what
the cake shop supplied to every other customer. Your argument is
barfolomew -claims: "America was created by people who yearned to be free.
People who would no longer stand to be ruled by a monarchy; to live under
tyranny and oppression."Except for those people owned by those
yearning to own other men, and use their labor and lives to create wealth for
themselves, guess it was the first version of "trickle down" by
conservatives, who in their minds were doing gods work?Also your
comment assumes everyone in America came from a tyrannical monarchy, which they
most certainly did not.Most came here at the opportunity to profit
in a new frontier with little to no laws, regulations or taxes.
RedShirtHarvard claims falsely...again: "but this isn't about serving
people that come into the bakery. The baker was more than willing to sell them
anything out of his shop. He only refused to make a custom cake that presented a
message contrary to his religious beliefs."Except that
isn't what happened, is it?Nope, no discussion was had about a
"message" or Custom work, it never got that far, once he heard they were
gay, he refused to work with them. His deeply held religious convictions which
apparently allows for dog marriages and wedding cakes for animals, but not gay
folks. I'm really interested in what this bakers religion is, because he
seems to be making it up as he goes, just to cover his true religion,
bigotry.Guess with the right wing logic, anybody can claim religious
rights, and even make them up, since nobody is calling them on where these
teachings can be found in holy script.
Seriously, folks. If I were to walk into an African-American owned bakery and
asked for a cake to be made honoring the KKK, do you think they would make it?
Do you think they should make it? Or if I walked into a
Jewish bakery and asked for a cake commemorating the American Nazi Party with a
swastika on it? This question is aimed at Impartial7, Karen R, Ultra
Bob, Selznik, Shaun, EscherEnigma and anyone else who would care to honestly
answer the question.
To "Impartial7" but this isn't about serving people that come into
the bakery. The baker was more than willing to sell them anything out of his
shop. He only refused to make a custom cake that presented a message contrary
to his religious beliefs. The sexual orientation of the couple had nothing to
do with it. Think of it like going to a BBQ restaurant and requesting that they
cater a gay vegan wedding. They probably won't because they don't do
vegan menus. To "Shaun" again, the owners of Masterpiece
bakery did not refuse to serve the gay couple. They offered to sell them
anything they wanted out of their shop. They were willing to serve them. The
gay couple wanted the owners of the bakery to violate his religious beliefs.
Tell us why is it ok to force somebody to violate their religious beliefs?I read statements from the bakers, and they offered to sell them
anything out of their shop.
@ Ultra Bob"America was created by businessmen seeking
wealth."It is a sad day when American citizens believe that to
be true. America was created by people who yearned to be free.
People who would no longer stand to be ruled by a monarchy; to live under
tyranny and oppression. "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed."These are the principles on which this great nation
was founded. Not greed.
So repeal the CRA (1964) and all comparable state level laws.But
funny enough, every proposed "religious liberty" bill, every
"conscience" legal argument, every "just go somewhere else"
person, stops short of rescinding *your* legal protections. You just don't
want gay folk to enjoy them too.
Baking a cake is a commercial endeavor, subject to the laws and regulations for
commercial activities; it is in no way a religious endeavor. Subjecting the
sale of merchandise to a religious test is illegal, and extremely offensive. So
a Jewish clerk can't sell a pork sandwich because it's against his
religion to eat pork? And marriage is a civil construct that is protected by the
laws of the U.S.; you can perform a religious ceremony in a church but until you
register that marriage with the state, it is not recognized. It is NOT a
religious rite that is defined by Christ that marriage is only between a man
and a woman. That is your belief, not the legal definition.
The Constitution of the USA, as amended, is the supreme law of America. No
state or local law may allow, promote or enforce any rule, regulation or law
that is contrary or defeating the intent of the Constitution. If
you accept the Constitution, as amended, as freedom of religion for individuals,
you cannot allow organized groups, businesses, to discriminate their operation
based on religion. Or a number of other specified lifestyles. If
you believe the First Amendment only applies to organized religions and
churches, then you can accept the discrimination according to religion by
businesses or any other group.Business discrimination is a major
factor in the quality of life, and as such, is a prime tool for winning over new
members and keeping old members into the desired groups. Some discrimination by
business is good. Age limits for purchases of adult products is good.
@mike richardsYou are incorrect. No cake of any kind was offered. No
design discussions took place. Read the complaint online.
As with most same-sex marriage related cases, those arguing against equal
treatment in this case seem to have the facts wrong. The baker is
the one pursuing the case to the Supreme Court. If the case had been thrown out
at the state level, the baker would be the loser.
Impartial7,Your insults are falling on deaf ears. I'm fairly
certain that you understand the 1st Amendment that protects us from the State
dictating the terms of our religious ceremonies. The baker offered to sell the
same-sex couple any premade cake in his bakery. He refused to honor them or
their "wedding" cememony by baking them a cake that would help them
celebrate a religious rite that opposed the definition that Christ gave to the
world that marriage is only between a man and a woman. I'm sure that you
understand that NO governmental authority can force any citizens to forfeit his
1st Amendment rights before allowing him to run a bakery. I'm sure that
you understand that God requires all who profess Christ to stand as witnesses at
all times and in all places, including a bakery, that Christ, not the State of
Colorado, is the author of the definition of marriage.You may reject
that message. You may lift the State of Colorado above the throne of God, but
the State of Colorado did not create the earth nor did it create the spirit that
lives in our bodies. The unrebellious understand that their spirit serves
Christ, not the State of Colordao.
@MikeRichards;"Let's turn the question around. If the State can
force a business to participate in the State's choice of religious ceremony
(real marriage between a man and a woman as ordained of God) even if the couple
in a same-sex union claim that the ceremony is not religious, then just who is
defining religion? The Constitution forbids the State from dictating religion or
religious practice. How many ways has the State of Colorado violated the
Constitution?"I'm going to assume that you're not this
obtuse. Nobody is asking, or forcing, anyone to participate or officiate in a
SSM. They want to buy a cake from a business that makes cakes. Is that so
Baking a cake for somebody doesn’t mean you’re participating in or
condoning the reason the cake was needed, any more than supplying the knives and
forks. And nobody forced you to get into the cake baking business in the first
place. But having decided to set up a commercial venture, you’re bound by
the laws that govern that endeavor- something you should have known going in.
This letter is really comparing apple to oranges. The three places didn’t
refuse to serve him.The fundamental issue to this case is
who’s freedom supersedes. Who’s religion supersedes.I
don’t know the answer.
America was created by businessmen seeking wealth. However, the task needed an
army of people willing to fight and die for the new nation. People won’t
normally give up life and limb for someone else’s benefit without some
very good rewards. The very intelligent and smart businessmen came up with some
promises that was worth much more than mere money. Those promises are written
in the Declaration of Independence. Thus, we have two opinions on which is more
important, people or business profits. If the decision comes out in
favor of business, America will follow the same destiny as all other nations in
the history of the world. When the oppression of the people by business becomes
unbearable the people will revolt and a new government will start the cycle all
Let's turn the question around. If the State can force a business to
participate in the State's choice of religious ceremony (real marriage
between a man and a woman as ordained of God) even if the couple in a same-sex
union claim that the ceremony is not religious, then just who is defining
religion? The Constitution forbids the State from dictating religion or
religious practice. How many ways has the State of Colorado violated the
Yes, going from shop to shop voluntarily because you were looking for something
specific is just like going from shop to shop involuntarily because one or more
of them won't serve you.
"Any business should be able to choose who they do business with."Right, Jim. You'd do well in the 1960's in the South. How
about you get refused to be seated in a restaurant because you're LDS? Or
White? Or Straight? I'm betting you'd be wailing in the streets due to
those businesses discriminating against you.