Letter: Colorado baker case should not have gone to the Supreme Court

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • eenie meanie Roy, UT
    Dec. 22, 2017 3:51 p.m.

    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

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 22, 2017 1:08 p.m.

    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.

  • eenie meanie Roy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2017 1:48 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Dec. 21, 2017 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • eenie meanie Roy, UT
    Dec. 21, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2017 7:10 a.m.

    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?

  • Shackleford Rusty St George, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 4:47 p.m.

    @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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 2:43 p.m.

    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?

  • Shackleford Rusty St George, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 1:27 p.m.

    @redshirt

    The 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)

  • Yorkshire Logan, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 11:38 a.m.

    "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.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 8:17 a.m.

    "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?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 20, 2017 7:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Shackleford Rusty St George, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 11:28 p.m.

    @RedShirt

    The 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?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 6:54 p.m.

    barfolomew - Tooele, UT

    Seriously, 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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 3:21 p.m.

    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?

  • Shackleford Rusty St George, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 2:58 p.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard

    In 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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 19, 2017 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 19, 2017 6:53 a.m.

    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?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 18, 2017 11:24 p.m.

    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?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 7:16 p.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard

    The 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.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 18, 2017 4:23 p.m.

    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".

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 18, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    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 consistent.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 2:21 p.m.

    @RedShirtHarvard

    The 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 comes.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 2:10 p.m.

    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?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 2:00 p.m.

    @ 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 pratt.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 2:00 p.m.

    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.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 1:50 p.m.

    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.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 1:39 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Dec. 18, 2017 12:32 p.m.

    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.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2017 12:04 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Dec. 18, 2017 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob E Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2017 8:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 17, 2017 1:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2017 12:57 p.m.

    @mike richards

    You are incorrect. No cake of any kind was offered. No design discussions took place. Read the complaint online.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Dec. 17, 2017 9:48 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Dec. 16, 2017 7:48 p.m.

    @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 complicated?

  • Selznik Saint George, UT
    Dec. 16, 2017 6:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Dec. 16, 2017 6:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 16, 2017 5:10 p.m.

    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 over again.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 16, 2017 4:45 p.m.

    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?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Dec. 16, 2017 4:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Dec. 16, 2017 4:04 p.m.

    "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.