''General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Baptist Joint
Committee for Religious Liberty, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church,
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Chicago Theological Seminary.
Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups,'' The 1st
Amendment also includes freedom of assembly, which means you can assemble with
whomever, or not with whomever.
Warbunny says: "Cake is not a civil right such as voting. It is
not worthy of importance."-- No, but equal treatment is.Bookstores sell books; they stock what sells. Furthermore, they will
sell any book they have to sell to any customer; they don't discrminate
against who can buy the book.LGBT customers aren't dangerous,
they're not purchasing a wedding cake in order to commit any act of
terrorism. Your comparison is unjust; it's an attempt to portray LGBT
customers as "dangerous".Discrimination is not a
"positive value", it's not a value at all.
Cake is not a civil right such as voting. It is not worthy of importance.
Businesses can discriminate about pornography, alcohol, weapons, ammo,chemicals,
items which require specialized training, such as filling Scuba tanks, Some
bookstores won't sell Mormon books. Others, more justifiably, do not sell
anti-Mormon books. The government should NOT intrude on business when there is
no danger or harm. The competitive economy will eliminate merchants whose
values are in conflict with standards of a community. It's free enterprise
at work. There is logic to some discrimination/profiling. If an angry arab in a
beard, shemagh or burqa wants to buy quantities of dangerous materials known to
be used in bombs or a man in a black hoodie wearing gloves and sunglasses walks
into the store in the middle of the night, or a wild eyed person speaking
gibberish wants to buy ammo or a youth wants tobacco etc. I certainly hope a
business owner is alert and responsible enough to discriminate. Some
discrimination is just good judgment, and reinforcement of positive values.
@J888;"...the whole situation was a setup and this particular
Baker was singled out after the area was canvassed ..."--- That
is an outright lie. So much for sincere religion when you can't even obey
"Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor".@Ghost Writer, daniwitz13, Warbunny;Was it a government intrusion
into business when they were suddenly forced to serve black people? What you
are arguing is that it is OKAY to refuse to serve black people based on religion
if it is also OKAY to refuse services to LGBT people. @Giordano
& Warbunny;The baker doesn't make abortion cakes for
anyone, therefore he wouldn't be required to make one.
How soon we forget that the top reason the earliest colonists came to America
and established these United States WAS religious freedom. It doesn’t seem
like this baker or anyone should be allowed that NATURAL freedom. It was
astounding to me that Gov. Herbert came out in favor of opposing the Baker. It
should be noted the whole situation was a setup and this particular Baker was
singled out after the area was canvassed to see which baker would object. I
suggest people look a little deeper into the facts. This isn’t the only
case where certain businesses were targeted.
It looks like Catholics and Mormons are the only ones standing up for religious
liberties and traditional Christian values.
Only in a dumbed down America could people confuse the Bill of Rights to be
something that gives you the freedom to discriminate against law abiding
citizens who have done no wrong in the eyes of the law and come into your
business seeking the same services you offer to everyone else.
Either you believe in freedom and the Bill of Rights, or you don't. Any
business owner should have the right to serve or not serve whomever he wants
without Big Brother coming in to referee. Any other solution results in what we
have now -- A giant litigation mess that will do nothing but grow and grow.
Does this mean that a Doctor or Nurse who are strongly opposed abortion for
religious reasons should be required to perform an abortion because a women is
recognized to have that right?
One simple question on this accommodation law. Where does is say that an owner
of a business, must accommodate anyone TOMORROW and even when closed? No one
can accommodate the future and no one has to open business in the future for
anyone. Can anyone show where it say those words? If it does not, everything
The incorrect assumption is that this is a conflict between "People of
Faith" and legally married, same sex couples.That irrationally assumes
that LGBT People do not have their own "faith beliefs," and must
surrender their faith and beliefs to someone who feels motivated to
discriminate.In fact, LGBTQ People are of all faiths. An LGBTQ
Unitarian, Mormon, Baptist, Jew or Catholic couple (to name just a few
instances) has as much right to their religious beliefs as anyone else. The vast majority of Christian Denominations, and their voting members in the
United States, are wholly and officially on the side of non-discrimination.
Each and every one has declared that LGBTQ discrimination is a sin, and outrage,
and an attack on our Constitution.No one can any longer argue for
discrimination on "the majority rules" notion, nor can they claim that
their religious rights are being abridged. Each and every American has the
right to practice, preach and believe their faith. No one is threatening that.
We just can't weaponize our faith, or use it to victimize people. As a
Mormon who does business in the Midwest, I need and appreciate that
Bigotry is alive and well. It has many justifications, just until YOU are the
victim of someone else's "faith based" reason to discriminate
against you. As Mormons, we should absolutely get that already.Imagine
the absurdity of a law that allows Muslims, Jews, Atheists and Buddhists to
refuse service to those who they find to be "wrong" in their theology.
Imagine a Baptist turning away Mormons for that very same reason. A law that
allows for discrimination against any particular individual, would allow
discrimination against almost anyone.Better yet, imagine equality, dignity
@Dan Smith wrote, "It is not discrimination when the baker is
willing to make a cake for any LGBT for any other events, except for ones
related to celebrating gay marriage."First of all, they are
celebrating their marriage, not a "gay marriage". And if
you sell wedding cakes to straight people for their marriages, and you refuse to
sell the identical wedding cakes to gay people for their marriages, you are
The baker is opposed to abortion. If Planned Parenthood ordered a cake to
celebrate a "woman’s right to choose," should the baker be forced
by law to provide it? The vast majority of people, gay and straight, would say
no, the baker has the right not to participate in something that celebrates
abortion, even though it is legal.It is the same for gay marriage.
The baker has the right not to participate in something that celebrates gay
marriage, even though it is legal.
....if a straight person...even same religion as the baker,or other
merchant...wanted an obscene or graphic image or words on a cake...or printed on
a T-shirt or sign or banner etc....etc..... I sure hope he could refuse and
reject it and not be brought into court or sued for some frivolous charge
because he refused to violate his own standards......this is a larger issue than
being forced to comply with or support and accept a homosexual union.
If a straight person ordered a cake for a gay wedding, would the baker have
declined to provide it? Yes, he would have. And his reason for doing so would
have nothing to do with the sexual preferences of the person ordering the cake.
The baker has the right to vote against gay marriage, as well as the
right to not participate in gay marriage.
@Livin Large"What if a man or woman who happen to be gay want a legal,
yet offensive graphic image on his or her birthday cake, should the baker be
required to abide?"Are they rejecting the cake because the
customer is gay? No? Then they can reject it. The issue with the
weddings is that since the reason they are rejecting the wedding cake is because
it's for a same-sex wedding, the interpretation by many is that they are
rejecting the cake because of sexual orientation.@Christmas"Is it okay for a gay business owner to throw out a pro-life Christian
group from his coffee shop in Seattle just because they were "offensive"
to him? "Depends on reasoning. He can't throw them out
because they're Christian. @SLars"Who has the
greater right, religion or same-sex?"Depends. If we're
arguing about whether the nation should allow same-sex marriage then the court
overturns your religious wish to ban it, but if we're arguing about whether
a church has to marry same sex couples then the court is going to side with a
church saying no. @Woohoo"It was actually illegal for a
white person to do business with a black person"False.
Forget the free exercise of religion for a minute...and this is clearly becomes
a frivolous lawsuit about governmental intrusion on free enterprise ! Should the
government be allowed to intrude on and tell ANY business how he must conduct
business? NO! The exception might be if safety or health are at stake but that
is not the case in choosing for whom to bake a cake! If the baker said
"sorry but I'm too busy to accept another order right now" or
"I'll be on vacation on the date of your request" would the
customer or government have a right to prosecute him? uhhh.... (hint)..... only
in a communist society or dictatorship!
@Dan Smith;You're telling a fib. When you will sell a wedding
cake to EVERYONE else without question, and then you refuse to sell to just one
small group, that IS discrimination. We don't sell guns or alcohol to
minors because that is against the law. This lawsuit is about a
BUSINESS that violated the law about non-discrimination. Nothing more, nothing
less. The fact that the man is "Christian" (questionable) is irrelevant.
(Christlike: i.e., acting like Christ - who would Christ refuse to serve?).
Baccus0902As I have navigated through life, I have come to realize
that people read what they want to read. Just as you have. I didn't say
EVERY one on the left. I only said "so many on the left". This article
is about someone filing a lawsuit against a Christian baker who did not want to
participate in kind with a gay wedding. I think an unbiased observer would agree
that many on the left do as I just described. Now, if this article was about
right wing overzealous. Yes, there are many on the right that do and say things
that are not Christlike. However, if our standard is the Savior's example,
how many are turning the other cheek when an offense is given? How many are
being humble, patient? In this society, not many. Ranch handNot selling a wedding cake to someone is not discrimination. If
that's the case, almost every business owner is guilty of discrimination
because I refuse to sell guns to minors, I refuse to sell alcohol to people I
know are alcoholics, I refuse to sell products that I know won't benefit
someone, no matter how much they think they need it. Sell them other products,
but not those. Sorry, business owners do it all the time.
I recently patronized a business with the following sign:"Due to
our religious beliefs, ALL people are welcome here"That made me
happy. How does it change the conversation to require
(hypothetically) those of us with discriminatory religious beliefs to post on
the front door:"Gays not welcome here"or"Jews not welcome here" or "Left handed people not
welcome here" Just let us know who you wont serve up front... I
don't think a business with ANY such sign would last long!
@vern"The argument that, if a baker chooses not to make cakes
for gay couples, they can just go elsewhere is the same one used sixty years ago
to justify separate lunch counters and separate schools. Nobody should be forced
to "just go elsewhere" or "go where they like you." That's
called discrimination and it is the opposite of what Christ would have us
do."No actually it isn't the same argument. During that
time period there were actually laws on the books that whites would have to do
business with whites and blacks would have to do business with blacks. It was actually illegal for a white person to do business with a black
person whether they wanted to or not.
@Karen"As long as other hotels were available to take in Jackie
Robinson, why force the owner's of his teammates' hotel to go against
their beliefs?"There are plenty of bakers or people that can
bake cakes. Are there as many hotel owners as there are bakers?No
one is arguing to prohibit Gay couples from being married but that you
can't force an artist to make art that goes against their personal
@Dan Smith;It doesn't matter that the baker will sell a cookie
or cupcake to an LGBT couple, he refuses to sell to them a product he sells to
EVERY other customer - without question. That, sir, is the very definition of
discrimination. Treating one group differently than all others. Twist things
all you want but that won't change the FACTS.
@ Dan Smith" The left twists the words, like Zeezrom did, and then
invoke the belief of God in the argument. This is done by so many people on the
left. " Dan, my dear brother, people on the left who invoke God
do that as our brothers on the right do. What is the difference? Could it be,
perhaps, that you have bought on the arrogance and mistake notion that people on
the left are all agnostic and atheist? Could it be that you have joined
those who put LGBTQ on one side and Christians on the other?When I
mention my beliefs in God and some of the scriptures is because those are
important to me and I believe my sincerity is not less than yours.I
am a gay man, who is very liberal regarding live and let live. Yet, I am very
conservative in how I live my personal life. Also, I am a follower of The Christ
as many or most of my LGBTQ friends are.Those 1300 religious
individuals and religious entities mentioned in this article read the same
scriptures and pray to the same God that you worship. Many of the them are of
the left.Don't they have the right to invoke their belief in God as
you do?You may like to explain Zeezrom to Sharrona.This
is my last comment.
@OlderGreg wrote,"Why on earth would anyone want to hire an
artist or craftsman to do a job that that their heart is not into? There is only one reason, having to do with willing to sacrifice a beautiful
personal memory for the cause of an agenda."Well, Greg, Mr.
Brown wanted his daughter Linda to attend the "white" school that was
two blocks away from their Topeka home instead of the "black" school two
miles away. Do you think he should have been concerned as to whether the
teachers had their heart into educating his black child? Beautiful personal
memories of fifth grade, and all that?
@patriot..."I don't support FORCE from the government. Since the
beginning of time there were 2 plans presented -- one based on free agency and
the other FORCE. Not much has changed since then." But you sure are in favor
of the government forcing NFL players to stand during the National Anthem.
Isn't that just a great big statement of hypocrisy?
sharronaI'm not sure you understood exactly what I was saying.
My point was the debate is not about discrimination like the left wants us to
believe. Discrimination is they won't serve LGBT period. It is not
discrimination when the baker is willing to make a cake for any LGBT for any
other events, except for ones related to celebrating gay marriage. The left
twists the words, like Zeezrom did, and then invoke the belief of God in the
argument. This is done by so many people on the left. Your words,
while likely quoted accurately (subject to check), are not going to win any
hearts. James said "...he which converteth the sinner from the error of his
way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."
(James 5:20) I'm pretty sure the converting part will not come about with
constant Christian threats of eternal hell.
Maybe the baker should kneel while he makes the cake. That should satisfy
everyone who is saying the NFL players are disrespecting the flag. The baker can
show his dissatisfaction in this way and that should show everyone how much he
doesn't approve of gay people.
Ms. Dallas, this is supposed to be an in-depth news article and not an
editorial (let alone an editorial with alternative facts). You wrote, "The
Masterpiece Cakeshop case originated in July 2012, when a gay couple, David
Mullins and Charlie Craig, discussed a wedding cake order with cake shop owner
Phillips. Phillips declined to participate in their celebration, citing his
religious concerns." This is not what happened.No
one asked him to "participate" in any celebration. The wedding was
2000 miles away, and he wasn't invited. The cake was for the reception,
which he also wasn't invited to. And he did not cite religious
concerns when turning them down. His exact statement [per an interview with a
reporter from the Denver Post] was, "I don't make cakes for same sex
weddings". Phillips and the gay couple both agreed that there was no
"discussion" of what kind of cake they wanted; he told them he would not
make a cake for a same sex wedding, period. The "participation" or
"religious belief" claims were never used until much later, after he was
charged with violating the Colorado statute.
Religion is poison to the human mind.
Are we saying that the Christian owner of a Maaco shop can refuse to paint a car
owned by gays if they request rainbow colors or pink because it might sent a
gay message?Are we saying that a Christian pharmacist can refuse to
sell Viagra or similar products to gays because doing so would facilitate their
gay behavior?Can a Christian grocery store owner refuse to sell food
to a gay couple because the food would fuel their gay lifestyle?It's a slippery slope aimed at overturning gay rights. It's a Jim
@ El GringoRichardB expressed something similar early on in this
thread: If there are others to serve you, why force someone to do so against
their conscience? My response to him, which I hope you'll
reply to: Should Jackie Robinson have been content with the fact that there were
hotels that would take him in so that those accommodating his Dodger teammates
wouldn't have to let him in against their will?@ Older Greg and
Huskies-ruleThe couple didn't complain because they wanted to
force the baker to bake their cake. They complained because they believed they
were discriminated against (and all the courts agreed). They did move on and
get a cake from someone else.Why not just do that without
complaining? Because if everyone did that, the laws against discrimination would
be as meaningful as if they didn't exist.
RE: Dan Smith “This debate is about whether a baker should be forced to
bake a cake...for an LGBT wedding.”God hates what is contrary
to His nature. Among the things God hates are idolatry (Deu 12:31; 16:22), child
sacrifice, sexual perversion (Lev 20:1–23).James on sin
“You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the
world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world
becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4). No one can serve two masters
(Luke 16:13), Christians must choose between sin and righteousness.@
God has set Christians apart. “we are a holy nation, a people belonging to
God (peculiar people/KJV)” (1 Peter 2:9 NIV).RE: Baccus0902, a
person who marries the one he/she loves in a same sex marriage, receives
rejection, public humiliation, and supposedly the judgment of God. I know my
Christ doesn't teach that.Do not be afraid of those who kill
the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both
soul and body in hell.(Mt 10:28)Then they will go away to eternal
punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."(Mt 25:46)It is a
dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.(Heb 10:31)
@El Gringo wrote, "He offered them one of his stock cakes. He
did not want to make a specialty cake for their wedding. What if the cake is a
rainbow themed cake or some other symbol?"Um, no, that's
not what happened.First of all, Phillips has never had off-the-shelf
wedding cakes for sale. Secondly, by his own admission, as soon as
he realized that it was two men getting married, he said, "Sorry guys, I
don't do same sex weddings". All parties involved agree that there
was no discussion of the design of the cake.Third, the cake was for
their reception in Colorado, weeks after their marriage in Massachusetts. The "rainbow" theme might get a little tricky, but if he has
been willing to make cakes with dyed batter (e.g. pink or blue for a baby
shower), then he's on shaky legal ground if he refuses to make a seven
tiered cake with rainbow colors. I'd like to know what the
answer is to your own rhetorical question. What if they wanted a rainbow themed
cake? If he'd make one for my daughter (whose surname happens to be
Bright), then he couldn't refuse to make one for a couple who just happens
to be gay.
Current headline: Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of
Christian baker in Supreme Court casePerhaps a more fitting
headline: Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing Christian baker's
effort to discriminate
Why on earth would anyone want to hire an artist or craftsman to do a job that
that their heart is not into? There is only one reason, having to
do with willing to sacrifice a beautiful personal memory for the cause of an
Bottom line -- civil/secular business should be conducted without the proprietor
practicing prejudicial discrimination - if he/she/it provides a good/service to
some people. he/she/it should provide it to all people; if he/she/it refuses to
provide a good/service to some people. he/she/it should refuse to provide it to
all people. BUT if the proprietor/business is allowed to refuse to
provide a good/service to a selected lass of people, he/she/it must be required
to advertise that fact, in all advertisements and blatantly on premises so that
no potential customer is humiliated by refusal of service if the proprietor
deems him/her unworthy of being served (either entirely or for a given product).
This can be done either through signs that say in effect "we don't
discriminate -- if you're buying we're selling" or which say
"we will not provide a [given product] to [a given class of people]. That
way the civil/secular marketplace can determine whether the proprietor is
someone with whom they would be welcome, or with whom they would choose to do
business.Our family, although welcome in their business, would
choose not to do business with those who discriminate.
@jsf wrote,"If he does not believe there is a prophet, then he
really is not a Mormon."It sounds like you are saying that a
Mormon who drinks coffee (and sees nothing wrong with it) is not a Mormon? In that case, someone who refuses to treat others as they would be
treated themselves does not follow the teachings of Christ, and is not a
Christian, no matter what church they attend on Sundays.
It is chilling to see America as a country where merchants place signs saying
"Gays not Welcome." And should this baker be successful, how long before
an employer asserts that he will not hire women, because his religious beliefs
assert that women should be at home, raising children?
Based on the ACLU case in Texas supporting a LDS and Catholic family in a small
Texas town - where pre-game prayers at the HS football game called on Jesus to
soften LDS and Catholic students to become "real Christians" - you would
think many would recognize that freedom of religion is often used as a
sword...sometimes against *them*.Religion in the public square,
often hurts, ironically, the religious.
I love the Book of Mormon and how it applies to our day. Zeezrom
questioned Amulek asking if God would "...save [H]is people in their
sins." When Amulek said no, Zeezrom said to the people remember how Amulek
said God "...shall not save his people-as though he had authority to command
God." (Alma 11: 34-35)This debate is about whether a baker
should be forced to bake a cake...for an LGBT wedding. The baker would probably
make a cake for the LGBT person if it was a birthday cake, a retirement cake, a
promotion cake, etc. Just not a wedding cake. However, the Zeezrom's of the
world say that the banker refuses to make a cake for any LGBT person. Then they
bring in the Savior and state that the Savior would not treat people this way.
The correlation is striking.
El GringoAgain, a false comparison. Blacks in the South could get
served in many if not most places. But Blacks had to use separate facilities.
Does Plessy v Ferguson ring any bells, or did your "research" and
thoughts about the issue fail to discover this fact?The
"Cake" case is just the same in the opinion of most legal minds. Well,
not those hired by Fundamentalist Churches who are paid to manufacture legal
claims, but by most. Telling a same sex couple that they could use one service
of a Public Business but not the other is no different than telling a Black
person to use one water fountain over another.Why is this so hard
for people to comprehend? You go into business, and you serve the public and
obey public law. You can believe whatever you wish, but you can not
Do you really want to eat a cake prepared by someone who was forced to bake it.?
As I ponder about the lack of love of my Christian brothers and sisters
displayed here, I started to think about guilt and love.A person
condemned to the death penalty, it is indulged with his/her favorite the dinner
before execution. A small token that will not change the outcome of the law. But
society feels love, pity perhaps, for the person who will die because of his/her
action against somebody. The guards and system follow the rules, and society
expect they follow those rules with respect and dignity toward the offender.What I fail to understand is, if certain people because of their
religion believe that SSM is a sin, a serious sin, and those involved in it
probably will suffer the judgment of God. Shouldn't this Christians show
some mercy, compassion for these poor souls? Instead they jump into the
prosecution wagon with torches and elements of torture. Is that what God expects
from them?The murderer condemned to die receives some compassion
from his to be executioner. However, a person who marries the one he/she loves
in a same sex marriage, receives rejection, public humiliation, and supposedly
the judgment of God. I know my Christ doesn't teach that.
This issue is so much more complicated than people make it. The comparison to
refusals to serve blacks in the 60s is an easy one, but also very lazy. Prior to
civil rights laws, blacks as a group suffered from a lack of access to services
throughout the country and specifically the South that was much more percasive
than this. We needed the government to step in in order to give them a fair
shot. There are not many bakers, if more than 1, who will not bake a cake for
gay couples. He offered them one of his stock cakes. He did not want to make a
specialty cake for their wedding. What if the cake is a rainbow themed cake or
some other symbol? What if the next person wanting a cake goes to a gay baker
and wants a bible cake with a quote from the Old Testament the gay baker finds
offensive. Or if a KKK member asks a black baker to bake a burning white cross
cake? Surely there is a line we draw somewhere. If LGBT were suffered the same
pervasive persecution as blacks did, I would support forcing this baker to bake
their cake. They don't. I think we should allow conscience to rule here for
religious and other reasons. If I were a baker, I'd feel fine baking a cake
despite my beliefs.
If ever there were a textbook example of biased journalism, here it is:Headline: "Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of
Christian baker in Supreme Court case" More accurate headline:
"Faith leaders raise their voices in support of LGBT rights in Supreme Court
Case" With regard to the case itself, it seems that in the age
of social media everyone has to have an opinion about everything, even without
doing any research beforehand. The SCOTUSblog has plenty of documentation
available describing this case, including judgements from lower courts which are
being appealed to the supreme court. After reading through the conclusions held
by lower courts, it is plain to me why they ruled the way they did--in favor of
the same sex couple. I would be surprised if the supreme court were to overturn
those previous decisions. But then again, stranger things have happened...
RE: Happy Valley Heretic “The question I asked, and the article,
aren't about whether Jesus was silent on homosexuality, it's whether
or not he said not to serve them, or blacks, or Samaritans.”
It’s not about race, E.g.., Therefore go and make disciples of all
nations(G. Ethnos/ethnicities/black or white)baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit(Mt 28:19) &(Acts
13:1 KJV)”.. at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and
Simeon that was called
(black G3526) and Lucius of Cyrene
Saul.”@ But It is about sin, “Flee from sexual
immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who
sins sexually sins against his own body. (1 Cor 6:18)Do not be
deceived: "Bad company corrupts good character." 1 Cor 15:33
our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave
him.” (2 Peter 3:15)
CMTM -RE: Happy Valley Heretic. Jesus wasn't silent on homosexuality. Jesus
was saying that to understand marriage and the sexual union, etc...The question I asked, and the article, aren't about whether Jesus was
silent on homosexuality, it's whether or not he said not to serve them, or
blacks, or samaritans. No one has been able to produce that elusive scripture,
that people of faith are using as justification for choosing this particular
sin, as a primary target to discriminate against, and judge some people as
unworthy of being treated as a human.
Discrimination is wrong.How many times have they baked a cake for
couples who live together? Who are divorced? Who have sex outside of marriage?
If you don't want to support gay marriage - don't get gay
married. What other people do is really none of your business. Stop acting like
a martyr - Christians are still a majority in this country.
''cake decoration is a form of expression protected under the First
Amendment.'' The 1st amendment freedoms are freedom of speech,
press, religion, assembly and petition. Freedom of Religion includes
assembly, press and speech. Freedom of petition is to petition the government
(According to Carlyle, The Boubon kings had a 'hanging garden' wherein
messengers in behalf of peasants came to petition the king for food, or
whatever. The messengers were hung on trees to rot (until about 1787).
Apparently the practice was centuries old.) Under James 2nd, (according to Sir
Walter Scott), refusal to immediately swear an oath prescribed for and
supportive of the King was punished by summary execution - shooting - no
trial, no counsel, no indictment, no submission of witnesses, no testimony
(1685-1688 Scotland). If refusal of Cake decoration is a crime, what of
Bibles in motel room drawers? Or copies of the Book of Mormon? refusal to
RE: Tekakaromatagi . What is your point and how is it relevant to my comments?
" phobias.”E.G.. heterophobia. heteros "the other
another, different. Take straight men, for example. Most of my life I avoided
. At one point I was just as heterophobic as I thought they were
homophobic, and I lived in isolation. —Cameron Lopez @The
fear(phobia) of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy
One is understanding ( Greek LXX O.T. Proverbs 9:10)E.g..,Amazing
Grace. Twas grace that taught my heart to fear, And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear The hour I first believed!RE:
Happy Valley Heretic. Jesus wasn't silent on homosexuality. Jesus was
saying that to understand marriage and the sexual union, we must go back to the
beginning and see how God created humanity and to what end. (See Mt 19 and Mark
10.) Jesus account of the creation story in Genesis as authoritative , telling
us that God created each of us male and female, each for the other. And the
sexual union that God created and ordains is for husband and wife to come
together in physical union, one flesh.
The title of this article is misleading. Instead of saying "Faith leaders
raise their voices in opposing rights of Christian baker," it should read
"Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing prejudice and bias of
Christian baker in Supreme Court case."
@CMTM:You quoted Biblical scriptures about having a fear of God. What is
your point and how is it relevant to my comments?@Happy Valley
Herectic:I doubt there is any Christian scripture that says to boycott
certain things.If given the choice between KFC Chicken and Chick-Fil-A,
would you pass on the Chick-Fil-A as a sign of your moral disagreement with the
CEO's support of traditional marriage? If the answer is yes, where in the
PC scriptures or PC manifesto does it say to boycott businesses because of the
religious beliefs of the CEO? If the answer is none, then why are Christians
the only ones required to have a conscience which stands up to legal
analysis?That is a double standard.
RE: Happy Valley Heretic . “Swing and a miss, you are misrepresenting
these scriptures as a justification for not following Christ's one
commandment, the golden rule.” Actually,Jesus ”Love the
Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
mind.’ This is ‘the first and greatest commandment.’ Do
you?And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as
MT 22:37-38Do you? Love your neighbor as
yourself test, Where you see *Love, insert your name and see .*Love is
patient and kind;*love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude.
It((Love)does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it
does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. *Love bears all
things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. * Love never
fails. —1 Cor 13:4-8) .
@sharrona "Jesus, “No one can ‘Serve two masters. "-So as a commercial retailer, everyone who asks of you service is your
"Master" I don't agree with that interpretation at all. You, as a
retail merchant have put yourself into the service position, but it's
hardly a position of worship.“therefore, any one of you who
does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. You cannot be a true
disciple of Jesus and allow other things to control you, dictating what you will
do. Luke 14:33-Law of poverty, how many of your fellow christians
are homeless by design? How many practice this scripture of self denial?"Am I now seeking the approval of men, or of God? Or am I striving
to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a
‘servant of Christ. Gal 1:10"-Maybe you shouldn't be in the
service business, if you believe service is offensive to God?Swing
and a miss, you are misrepresenting these scriptures as a justification for not
following Christ's one commandment, the golden rule.
@ Happy Valley Heretic. Christians who believe they shouldn't serve
"some" get their commandment from?Jesus, “No one can
‘Serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or
you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God
and money. “ Matthew 6:24“therefore, any one of you who
does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple. You cannot be a true
disciple of Jesus and allow other things to control you, dictating what you will
do. Luke 14:33Am I now seeking the approval of men, or of God? Or am
I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a
‘servant of Christ. Gal 1:10You adulteresses! Do you not know
that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore, whoever
chooses to be a friend of the world renders himself an enemy of God.(James
@Light and LibertyWhat does adultery have to do with serving
"others."You can't discount the Good Samaritan then
spin a commandment on adultery, like a politician selling trickle down, and
claim victory. Would your so called christian baker refuse to bake for all those
who have committed adultery? Adultery isn't about who your married to, but
your commitment to that marriage.What is considered "Normal
Marriage" has changed many time through out the bible and modern history.
Why a local church completely turned America on it's head with it's
interpretation of "Normal Marriage" which in time changed too.This should be about Christ's teachings of love, instead of religious
teachings of justification.Still waiting for a reference to Not
serving others, should be very easy to find, since so many claim it.
@Christmas“Is it okay for a gay business owner to throw out a
pro-life Christian group from his coffee shop in Seattle...?”No. Next question.
The 1300 individuals are a much smaller sample than the organizations that have
sided with the bakers. Who has the greater right, religion or
same-sex? If the couple being married had compassion for those who have
different beliefs, they would go elsewhere.
One of my favorite "smart" people is Walter Williams (look him up if you
don't know who he is), commented in June 2010 that in a free society people
should be able to determine who they serve. He is not advocating
discrimination, but making a rational statement about a free society. The
problem here is that the government is telling private citizens how to run their
business. A business is an extension of themselves, it is theirs, not the
governments. Governments should not be allowed to discriminate, but they should
not tell people how to run their lives and their businesses.Mr. Williams
says it best: "One does not have to be a racist to recognize that the
federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit racial or any
other kind of discrimination by private parties. Moreover, the true test of
one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he
permits people to associate in ways he deems appropriate. It comes when he
permits people to voluntarily associate in ways he deems offensive."
The pro-same sex marriage supporters love to quote the good samaritan story, or
'love your neighbor' expression, all wonderful and Christ centered
approaches to representing Him. However, when it comes to Christ clearly
stating that obedience to the 7th commandment is something deeply embedded in
following Him, or any of a number of other scriptures that explicitly state
God's word about His plan regarding Adam and Eve and every other marriage
since then that should follow that pattern, it is usually a deafening silence.
In fact, to emphasize those teachings is to be labeled a bigot, a perversion of
the meaning of 'love', etc., etc., as if all Christians are to throw
out the window a few of the most important teachings to accommodate those who
have chosen to misinterpret his holy word and take us all to a place that puts
us in direct conflict with those teachings. No thanks. If you are going to use
His word as if it is something you dearly love, perhaps accepting all of His
teachings without deleting the ones you don't agree without excuse would be
a good place to start.
Religious freedom has everything to do in coming together on common ground not
against one another. Religious freedom is respecting each others believes and
rights which means we do not force each other to believe in what someone else
believes whether we agree or not, but we respect each other. Religious freedom
is having our government abide by our constitutional rights and believes. Which
means the government and religious groups responsibility is to build common
ground to bring all people together not against each other. Religious freedom is
based upon our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan by honoring one of his gifts
to us in regards to our free agency. Religious freedom is not discriminatory; in
fact it is quite the opposite. Its soul purpose is based upon the concept of
what the teachings of what our Savior taught while he was here upon this earth
and that is to “Love one another” especially when others believes
may be different from our own. Religious freedom is to do good amongst ourselves
and together not tear each other apart. Religious freedom is not political it is
sacred. Religious freedom is not the enemy, it is the peacemaker.
Why are banks allowed to discriminate against certain industries? Even though a
strip club is a for profit business a bank is not required to lend money to
them- it is something called headline risk. It would not be good business for
Zions Bank to be associated with a for-profit strip club. The issue
of Christian individuals selling their baked goods to the public as a business
is complex and there are valid arguments on both sides. However, if a bank can
discriminate then individuals should be allowed to as well.
The position taken by these individuals is a direct attack on freedom of speech.
The government is trying to forve the baker to engage in speech he does not want
to do. Such is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
The basic problem that most people fail to grasp is that different people have
differing viewpoints concerning morality. To many, a wedding cake espousing
same-sex marriage is no moral problem; you regard it as a legal issue of
discrimination( at least towards one party ). People take their own viewpoint
very seriously. How can reconciliation or mediation be achieved ? By force ? Or
should thoughts of reasonable accommodation be pursued ? In a civilized society
( do we claim so to be ? ), the latter course of action will be chosen. The
right to freedom of conscience is an important step in this direction. No one
should be forced to act against his/her conscience merely to provide a service
or product as a privately owned company. If this right of conscience is not
accepted, all other rights are tenuous at best. Today, a baker is
pilloried and faced with losing his business; tomorrow it will be a church that
refuses to permit same-sex marriages within the walls of its sanctuary..
Can any of these so called Christians who believe they shouldn't serve
"some" get their commandment from? Please be specific not a vague
scripture that could mean anything, but one that specifically says "Do not
serve those who believe differently than you."I seem to remember
a good samaritan story, There was no room at the Inn, but that was a supply and
demand thing. Can't find it in the ten commandments, can't find it in
Is it okay for a gay business owner to throw out a pro-life Christian group
from his coffee shop in Seattle just because they were "offensive" to
him? After all, discrimination is discrimination. All they wanted was a
drink. @2close2callIf I had a gay child who asked me
to bake a cake for his gay marriage, I would graciously decline and show him/her
how to bake his/her own wedding cake.
RE: Tekakaromatagi . “We should go get a Greek dictionary and start
discovering new kinds of phobias.” heterophobia. heteros "the other
another, different. VS homophobia. homos the same.Biblical examples G.
5399. PhobeÓ. Definition: I fear, dread, reverence. RE: a bit
of reality "Perhaps I suffer from bigotryphobia? "The
fear(phobia) of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy
One is understanding ( Greek LXX O.T. Proverbs 9:10)He and all his
family were devout and ‘God-fearing;’ he gave generously to those in
need and prayed to God regularly. Act 10:2Brothers, children of
Abraham, and you Gentiles ‘who fear God’, it is to us that this
message of salvation has been sent. Acts 13:26And ‘fear’
not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 10:28
I am curious about those that hold the belief that making a cake for a gay
couple is against their religion, would they also refuse to make a cake for
their adult child if their child turned out to be gay and was entering a same
1,300 individual Christian, Muslim and Jewish leaders signed briefs filed on
behalf of gay couples vs. 46 on behalf of the bakers. Unfortunately, we know
which side the LDS Church is on. Fortunately, this shows that America and most
religious organizations have progressed in their belief in equality.
The right of the individual supersedes that of any religious institution or
government institution when exercising their God-given right to earn their daily
bread by the sweat of their brow. The bakers have every right to refuse service
for any reason and the would-be buyer has the right to seek service elsewhere.
The market-place is the arbiter of the outcome - not court orders. If the
decision by the bakers is offensive to some they can express that concern by
purchasing their bakery goods elsewhere. The free market is the final arbiter
of societal values and the preservation of individual rights. This is not a
religious matter but a freedom of choice matter.
So the majority of LDS are opposed to letting business owners refuse service
(52%). That seems to mirror the national average, which suggests that LDS
don't have any special opinion here.
Headline in article was confusing because it is liberal and leftists
organizations who support gay rights who are leading the charge against Colorado
baker. Thank goodness the Catholic and LDS are in support of religious freedom.
All of this is because of the Kennedy swing vote being the deciding 5-4 decision
legalizing same sex marriage. Hopefully the left tilt if Supreme Court will get
@Tekakaromatagi,You asked me,“You think it is
immoral to decline to cater a gay wedding. What kind of a phobic are you? (I
don't mean that rhetorically, I really would like the Greek term for
whatever phobia you must have that makes you feel that way.)”No, I don’t think it is immoral to decline to cater a gay wedding. I
think it is *illegal* to decline to offer services to protected classes
*because* they are a member of that class.I would accept living in a
society where people are free to discriminate against others because of their
sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. I would be okay with that. But those
aren’t the laws in the United States. Here, we’ve come to an
agreement as a society that we aren’t going to discriminate based upon
those things. Maybe the Supreme Court will overturn 5 decades of precedence and
change the law, but I don’t think the country will be a better place if
people feel empowered to flaunt their bigotry by refusing to serve people that
they have a problem with.Perhaps I suffer from bigotryphobia?
When it comes to a product that you are going to eat, it is best that you go to
an establishment that is not forced to serve you. As F.Gump would say "You
never know what you're going to get". Maybe, a chocolate pie like that
served in "The Help".This Baker has the agency to determine
who s/he wants to do business. Just as LGBT have the agency to determine their
choice of partner.
Re: "Phillips declined to participate in their celebration" by
providing a cake.Let's not forget the rights of other
Christians.Christian clothing store owners shouldn't have to sell
tuxes that the gays might wear to their celebration.Christian
wedding-center owners shouldn't have to rent to them.Christian limo
services shouldn't have to drive them somewhere afterward, especially if
they're in the back seat and feeling way friendly.Christian motel
owners shouldn't have to rent a room to them because of what goes on behind
closed doors.And Christian grocery store owners shouldn't be forced
to sell food to them that provides the caloric energy needed to engage in a gay
lifestyle.In a free country, Christians must be free to
Just another friendly reminder that the Masterpiece coverage and associated
comments are trending in the same direction as Utah's Kitchens SSM
litigation and then the Obergefell SCOTUS decision. Kitchens and
Obergefell were shocking and disappointing for many DN readers because of the
same false hope and confidence being expressed in these comments.Then, like now, commenters expressed a range of earnest and passionate
opinions about what they felt the outcome -should- be, with little regard for
the narrow legal questions SCOTUS will decide. The Masterpiece case
is confined to a fixed set of facts and circumstances, Colorado's
state laws, and applicable SCOTUS precedent. As with Kitchens, it
is tempting to indulge yet another game of legal whack-a-mole every time DN runs
a Masterpiece article... explaining why and how the same repeated hypotheticals
have no bearing on this case. And how the specific facts and law make it
unlikely Masterpiece will prevail.Reminds me of the misplaced
optimism of Charlie Brown who never learns that Lucy will -always- pull the ball
away before he can kick it. Nothing will stop him from trying
again...so why bother. Good grief!
The cake the baker is making in this picture attached with the article is a very
intricately designed cake. I think the couple who wanted the cake made should
respect a person's right to not accept a job from them or anyone else.
Should this case against the baker be supported it would set a precedent for
anyone else - even people who wanted vulgar designs or things the baker
wouldn't feel comfortable doing. Does this mean if the couple went to an
artist requesting a painting that the artist didn't feel comfortable doing,
he would likewise be forced to do so? I agree with others if someone
doesn't want to do something don't force them. The fact that there is
actually a suit doesn't sit well with me - get another baker!
The thing that gets me is our Mayor is all for protection of gay rights, but
she's ok with abusing the rights of an baker who could not with good
conscience bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Until the LGBT community goes after Muslims to force them to go against their
religion, this is all about forcing Christians.
They are forgetting that religious practices are not conducted only in or at
official church services. Faith is practiced within each faithful person all
day long during activities, work and so on. Yes, forcing a faith minded person
to make cakes symbolizing moral issues that the individual does not believe in
is wrong. I totally support the baker is this case. The person who ordered the
cake is deliberately making an issue out of this even when it would be much
easier to go to another cake shop.
EscherEnigma: Let me see if I get your reasoning. A baby is not a protected
class. So, by your own admission the only protected class is what the law says?
Is this correct? So, you only believe what is written in the law? So, if the
law is superior to God's word or my conscience, then unless you are ready
to say that your conscience is superior to mine, what only matters is the law.
So, who is to say what is 'right' or 'wrong'? or
'just' or 'fair'? Should I wait for the Supreme Court to
rule what is 'right', 'wrong', 'just', and
'fair'? Now, as stated, if I believe it is wrong to be compelled to
write a message that conflicts with my conscience, even if the law states
otherwise, you should be more than happy to support one that says I have a right
to not bake a cake that promotes something against my conscience and God's
word when the law says I have that right? Otherwise, you must admit you
don't have a conscience, other than what the states says is your
conscience. How dystopian is that?
The issue is more complex than the article or other commentators make it out to
be. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the baker has is not claiming a general right to
refuse service to LGBTQ individuals. He is fine if customers buy off-the-shelf
cookies and pies, or ask him to custom-make birthday cakes. What he is
uncomfortable with is designing a bespoke wedding cake to celebrate a ceremony
that violates his religious beliefs.Reasonable people can, and
vigorously do, disagree about the best result here. The custom-made nature of
the cake is, in my view, hugely significant. Precisely because the Constitution
forbids slavery, an enormous body of law says you can’t force people to
perform “personal services” against their will. If the
state is going to require personal services to not “discriminate,”
it has to be consistent on what “discrimination” actually means.
There’s evidence that Colorado was perfectly happy with bakers who refused
to make cakes for anti-gay events, but then punished bakers who refused to make
cakes for pro-gay events. The First Amendment doesn’t permit the State to
have it both ways.
A note to churches ; wait until these pro-LGBT people come after you, if you
don't toe their line. This current case is just a stepping stone. They are
saying their rights are more important and take precedence over religious rights
to long established beliefs.
He is an artist. He has the right to choose how to employ his art. If he sold
off the shelf cakes, he can’t refuse to sell. And why does a couple want
a cake made in Colorado for a wedding in the Northeast?
Here is the (what if) factor...What if a man or woman who happen to be gay want
a legal, yet offensive graphic image on his or her birthday cake, should the
baker be required to abide?
I support the Christian baker to decide who he sells to. I don't support
FORCE from the government. Since the beginning of time there were 2 plans
presented -- one based on free agency and the other FORCE. Not much has changed
it is my business and I can choose to serve whomever I choose if you want to
buy a n already made item you can choose what is on the shelf but I do not need
to make something that goes against my core.
@Light and LibertyTo put it simply, you seem confused on how
non-discrimination law actually works in this country, and I lack the character
count, post count, and inclination to sufficiently explain. Bottom line? Yes,
you can legally refuse any pro/con abortion cake you want without fear of being
sued, and yes, the refused customer can turn around and call you a bigot,
extremist, hater, and so-on. And that's entirely irrelevant to the
discussion at hand, as "abortion" is not a protected class anywhere in
the country.That said, you entirely missed my point: If
"compelled service" is such a "wrong direction", then you lot
started it decades before "sexual orientation" was included in any
jurisdiction's non-discrimination law.So to repeat my constant
refrain: Either we both have to ignore what your God says about gays and serve
the other, or we both can consider what your God says about gays and tell the
other to jump in a river. But expecting me to ignore what your God says, while
you get to consider it? That's not acceptable.So continue down
this road if you want. But striking down non-discrimination laws that protect
gay people will hit you too.
We have had this fight in the UK and the Ulster bakers lost in our highest
court. Let us be clear these bakers did not refuse to bake a cake for a gay
couple, they refused because of the gay propaganda which was in the message. So
if the Supreme Court rules that any baker must supply regardless of the motives
or message requested, then a Muslim baker will be required to bake a cake with a
cartoon about Mohammad . Good luck with that !! I suppose you have the same
sensitivities in the USA, the Christian Minority has to toe the line, but our
Islam friends have much more slack.
@Vermonter"Generic (off-the-shelf) goods and services should never be
denied to anyone. But, customized goods and services, especially those that
require use of special artistic skills are another story. Some legal authority
needs to make this distinction"Hey, so long as it cuts both ways.Either we all have to play nice, or we all get to be as nasty as we
want. But me having to play nice, while y'all get to be nasty?
That's unacceptable.To put it simply: if you want the freedom
to discriminate against gay people, then you better not only be willing to
accept being discriminated against, but actively arguing that people should be
able to discriminate against you. You've enjoyed the protection of
non-discrimination laws for decades, it's awfully curious that you suddenly
discovered they're problematic, but only in the context of gay people.
Mormon Christians are discriminated against every day. They can't join
Christian organizations like the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Lawyers
Christian Fellowship, Trail Life, etc... ad infinitum.... simply because we
believe Jesus is the SON of God and not God himself like 99 % of all other
Christian churches.But, I don't know any Mormons who want the
law to step up and say these organizations must allow Mormons. It is doubtful
the baker in this case would want to make a cake for a Mormon wedding either as
evangelicals dislike Mormons more than anyone. But, I say he shouldn't
have to. His religion is part of him. I'll go find a different baker, no
big deal.Asking folks, "is it okay to discriminate..." gets
different answers than "Should a business owner be forced to participate and
create art for an organization or person in direct opposition to deeply held
religious beliefs."Even if you are a left-wing liberal, you
should be able to see the difference.
@KSM's Dad -- and other who use similar logic as this:"Next, they will require Jewish or Muslim delis to sell pork
products."If pork products are on the menu at a kosher/halal
restaurant or store, well, it should be served to anyone who comes through the
door, regardless of their beliefs or practices.As for government
coercion of religious believer's practice, Utah recently enacted stronger
legislation to prohibit even the 'appearance' of polygamous marriages,
among a certain set of religious believers who belief strongly about such.In the case of a baker, while I'm sure are some bakers who put
messages on cakes such as "Joanie loves Chachi", but for all the high
end weddings I have attended during years as a wedding photographer, I have
never seen such a message. I can't recall a cake, even for those in less
circumstances having such a message for a wedding cake.What I do
see, are figures on the top of a cake, and if a baker does not have a 'same
sex' figurine toping... it's not on the menu, which is exactly the
case with the kosher deli owner not having pork products (or even beef products
not properly slaughtered and butchered for that matter) on the menu.
@Macfarren;"This is very simple. The ruling should follow the
same path as Hobby Lobby and the Affordable Care act. Make the dividing line
closely held-corporations, or private corporations, or sole proprietorships, or
similar. The bakery at Kroger is one category, but the independently-owned shop
down the street is something altogether different."-- Should we
allow these businesses to refuse services to blacks, Mormons, & Jews too?
If not, why should we allow them to refuse services to LGBT customers? This
should be an all or none situation - either they can refuse *anyone* - including
religious people, black people, etc. or they should not be allowed to refuse
anyone.@jsf;What do you do when your "prophet"
says about a predecessor: "he was just speaking as a man"? It happens a
EscherEnigma: So, if I go into a cake maker that doesn't believe in
abortion and tell him that I want him to make a cake that says 'abortion is
wonderful to God', then should I be compelled to make that cake? Can I
label him a bigot, religious terrorist, extremist, and by the law compel him to
write that message on the cake, not to mention fine him or send him to jail for
his 'extremist views'?
@a bit of reality:"Yes, if a baker is a bigot perhaps you should
just take your business elsewhere. "Big question: So how did you
determine that the baker is a bigot?Is anyone and everyone with a
moral objection to anything a bigot? I think it is immoral for a government to
machine gun peasants from a helicopter? Am I a bigot? I think it is immoral to
be unkind to strangers, or to oppress a widow. Am I a bigot?People
throw around a term 'homophobia' and they use it for anyone and
everyone who has a moral objection to two people of the same gender having
sexual relations. We should go get a Greek dictionary and start discovering new
kinds of phobias. Do you think it is immoral to make crude comments to a new
secretary in the office? We can find a term for that. Do you think it is
immoral to let your friends vote for Trump? We will have a term for that.You think it is immoral to decline to cater a gay wedding. What kind of
a phobic are you? (I don't mean that rhetorically, I really would like the
Greek term for whatever phobia you must have that makes you feel that way.)
@Million"This baker would not do Halloween cakes either as being
pagan."That's fine, since he doesn't make Halloween
cakes for anyone.
So interesting to me that gay folks can choose to discriminate and destroy the
business of someone they don't agree with. How isn't it discrimination
for gays to choose to belittle and sue a person who chooses not to produce a
product for their gay wedding? I can see if the baker wouldn't bake a cake
for a gay person, that is one thing - but to bake one for a gay marriage is
something else.Hope the supreme court gets this right and rules in
favor of freedom of expression!
"I am a Mormon. ...In my opinion, the LDS church is simply on the wrong
side of this legal issue."IMHO, either your an ex Mormon, or if
you think your a good Mormon and believe their is a prophet of god, you might
just be on the wrong side of God.And yes all the anti-Mormon,
atheist don't go getting snarky. If he does not believe there is a
prophet, then he really is not a Mormon.
Generic (off-the-shelf) goods and services should never be denied to anyone.
But, customized goods and services, especially those that require use of special
artistic skills are another story. Some legal authority needs to make this
distinction. SCOTUS will begin to do this, ruling whether the Colorado Law that
Masterpiece violated is constitutional or not. It is concerning that
one of the amicus briefs states that small business owners can be forced to do
work that they don't want to, as long as it does not "directly and
substantially burden actual religious exercise." This may seem to run
counter to First Amendment. But, then we have the precedent in Reynolds v. US
that upheld a prohibition of an actual religious practice that could be argued
was a very direct and very substantial burden to Reynolds' religious
beliefs. So, SCOTUS appears to have a lot of latitude on this case.
Still, I can easily see a 5-4 decision one way or the other, with Justice
Kennedy being the swing vote, as usual.
"actual religious exercise"These people want the federal
government to decide for you and for me what "actual" religious exercise
is, as long as it fits their definition.Talk about unconstitutional.
This is very simple. The ruling should follow the same path as Hobby Lobby and
the Affordable Care act. Make the dividing line closely held-corporations, or
private corporations, or sole proprietorships, or similar. The bakery at Kroger
is one category, but the independently-owned shop down the street is something
@ Light and Liberty Yes, if a baker is a bigot perhaps you should
just take your business elsewhere. On the other hand, if somebody you don't
like wants to buy a cake from you, perhaps you should just sell him the cake.
After all, you did choose to go into the business of selling cakes. I'm quite sympathetic to your libertarian position (or are you arguing
for anarchy? I can't tell). I'm in favor of freedom. But the concept
of public accommodation laws have been with us for decades. We've already
made the decision as a society that it's okay to require businesses to sell
their wares to everybody who wants to purchase them--even people of race, sex,
and religion that the seller might not like.This guy chose to be a
baker. It's hard to feel that sorry for him being required to expand his
market by 1% and be willing to sell cakes to gays, too.
"But should we evaluate another person's 'worthiness' or
value; to judge and condemn? To decide they are not worth selling our products
to? It makes no sense. Lots of people break commandments I prefer to keep. How
is it my concern?"I wholeheartedly agree. But that is not what
is happening here. There was a case in your home state of Washington where a
florist had done business for a gay man for years. She only declined to provide
floral arrangements for the man when he was going to get married to another man.
So all along she had been doing business with the person even though she
believed his lifestyle was immoral. She had no problem with the person's
lifestyle.But she did not want to profit from an activity that she
considered to be immoral.
@Light and Liberty"[...] we have decided as a nation to move in a
direction that is dangerous indeed [...]"The Civil Rights Act was
signed into law in 1964. But sure, it's when *gay* people are protected by
such laws, over 50 years later, that suddenly the country is moving in a
"dangerous direction".In other words: If you feel that
strongly about laws compelling service, then worrying about *gay people* is kind
of like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted. And while you can
try to get all the horses back in the barn, it'll look awfully suspicious
if you *only* worry about the gay horse, and ignore the horses that are
characterized by race, ethnicity, sex, religion, nationality, marriage status,
veteran status, disability, and so-on.
RE: dotGone ”judging' which Christ told us not to do”.
Context,"Hypocritical judgment is wrong. Jesus’ command not to
judge others in Mt 7:1 and comparisons to hypocrites (Mt 6:2, 5, 16) and
followed by a warning against hypocrisy (Mt 7:3–5). When we point out the
sin of others while we ourselves commit the same sin, we condemn ourselve"s
(Romans 2:1).But, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but
instead judge correctly” (John 7:24). The right type of judgment versus
the wrong type. Taking this verse and some others, we can put together a
description of the sinful type of judgment.The Bible’s command
that we not judge others does not mean there should be no way for dealing with
sin. The Bible has a book called Judges. The judges in the O. T.
were raised up by God Himself (Judges 2:18). The modern judicial system,
including its judges, is a necessary part of society. In saying, “Do not
judge,” Jesus was not saying, “Anything goes”.
@Thid: "If it had been a Muslim or a Buddhist baker who refused to make a
cake for a gay wedding, no problem! However, for a Christian to do that is
intolerable by the left? "Where do you even come up with this
stuff? Persecution complex much?
The right to boycott is a fundamental first amendment right. The ACLU said that
last week in the context of a city in Texas that has said it will not give flood
relief to those who boycott Israel.It isn't a religious liberty
issue. This is about the right of a business owners to boycott based on their
consciences. At one time in the US it was an expectation that businesses would
be socially responsible. Because of that belief a lot of companies boycotted
South Africa until they ended apartheid.In today's environment
that would be illegal because it is discrimination.
I just revisited this article and I realized that I had missed the headline
"Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of Christian baker in
court case"Well, DN I think the title of the article is wrong.
Because "if" the baker has the right or not to discriminate in his
business is the center of the controversy. That is what the Supreme Court will
Bitofreality: Your thinking is a little cloudy. Does that mean if I don't
want to abort one baby, I should then abort two? If the courts
'compel' him to do something against his conscience (which Martin
Luther 500 years ago understood to mean aligning your conscience with God's
will, not your own), then he must abide, even if it is against his conscience.
However, to take away someone's agency, even if it is wrong, goes against
every principle of Christian doctrine that I know of, which is that you always
have choice in this life--even if it is the wrong choice. For those siding with
the SS couple want to compel people to live a certain way that conflicts with
his clear choice to live differently, then we have decided as a nation to move
in a direction that is dangerous indeed, 'compulsion' as the means to
an end! Sad, sad, sad. Wouldn't it be better if the offended couple just
went to another business? Oh, but that would mean we are upholding the
principle of choice, something that some don't want--at any price.
Million - Riverton, UT, You asked, "This baker would not do
Halloween cakes either as being pagan. Would we require a black baker to do KKK
and confederate flag cakes or a Jewish baker to do Nazi symbol cakes? All legal
symbols. This list could go on and on."You misunderstand the
fundamental issue. The courts who ruled against the baker all agreed that he
wouldn't be required to write, "God loves gays" or "The baker
who baked this cake is in favor of same-sex marital rights" or whatever it
is he disagrees with. The law does NOT compel a baker to write something on a
cake he disagrees with. The judges who have unanimously ruled against the baker
all agree on this point.The question before the court is whether a
gay couple can go into his shop and order a *generic* wedding cake out of his
catalog, or whether the baker can say, "Sorry. Although I would bake the
specific cake you want for a heterosexual couple, I will not bake it for
The Bible is clear about how Christians should respond to laws requiring them to
serve people who don't share their religious beliefs. If somebody compels
you to bake a cake for them, bake for them two.
The issue with me is, Why would you force someone to make a cake or give other
service "IF" doing so, made someone uncomfortable. Move on to someone
who will gladly do it.
There is a subset of commenters who view this issue thru a libertarian
freedom-to-contract lens, most from Utah given the regional nature of DN.A genuine question: why have you not already worked to repeal
Utah's public accommodations statute? While it does not include
LGBT as a protected class, the libertarian-ish argument for abolishing this sort
of restriction on businesses generally should not hinge on -which- groups are
named as protected classes.Libertarian purists have always advocated
for repeal of restrictions on free-flow of commerce...with limited success. But
these baker-comments sound a bit like cafeteria libertarianism...a plausible
free-market rationale, that is of interest now only due to protection of LGBT in
This baker would not do Halloween cakes either as being pagan. Would we require
a black baker to do KKK and confederate flag cakes or a Jewish baker to do Nazi
symbol cakes? All legal symbols. This list could go on and on. If the baker
politely said no to artistically drawing two men in wedding outfits on a cake
then just take a plain cake and draw it themselves. We are getting too
politically correct to see the forest because of the trees.
"American citizens should never be forced to choose between their religious
faith and their right to participate in the public square," read a brief
signed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other Catholic
groups."I find the quote above very political. In sharp contrast
to Joseph Smith statement: " “Let us here observe, that a religion
that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to
produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” We all
are forced to make hard decisions in order to be at peace with our conscience
and our God. If the baker in question cannot provide service to all. Perhaps he
needs to make proper adjustments. Perhaps limit his business to birthdays and
bake the most glorious birthday cakes the world has known. We as a
society should have moved away from using religion as a discrimination tool;.
In my opinion, there is a major difference in discriminating by refusing to SELL
to a gay couple and refusing to put a MESSAGE on the cake which violates
one's religion. I agree that a business open to the public should serve all
members; free speech, however, should protect the right of the business not to
promote standards it opposes. There must be limits. All of us can surely imagine
some message which would offend those who otherwise support a business having to
serve all the public.
The argument that, if a baker chooses not to make cakes for gay couples, they
can just go elsewhere is the same one used sixty years ago to justify separate
lunch counters and separate schools. Nobody should be forced to "just go
elsewhere" or "go where they like you." That's called
discrimination and it is the opposite of what Christ would have us do.
Headline: "Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of Christian
baker in Supreme Court case."No. The exact opposite.The article describes how these faith leaders are protecting the baker's
existing rights under Colorado's public accommodations laws which will be
undermined should he prevail at SCOTUS. Colorado businesses covered
under the state public accommodations law cannot currently refuse him service
because he is Christian. Religion is a long-standing protected class in
Colorado and most (all?) other states.Religious leaders naturally do
not want their congregants to repress their faith or leave a community as a
result of faith-based refusals by shop owners and restaurants. They also know
that members of smaller faiths may need these protections most, but how dominant
faiths of today may in those same margins in the future.These faith
leaders recognize that the legal argument for the loophole Masterpiece seeks can
and will be used by business owners who want to discriminate against unpopular
faiths.Opposing a dubiuous new loophole/right is both consistent and
necessary to protect this Christian baker's existing religious civil
active gandalfso if I want a disgusting cake made in the spirit of free
expression, then the cake maker is forced to make it right? where does it stop?
It is reassuring that "active" members (whatever that means) are so much
more knowledgeable than church leaders. And yes I have friends and an extended
family member that are gay. They believe this whole issue is laughable. Lots of
cake makers out there.
At RichardB - Why does someone else have to be available to cook for them? As
far as I'm concerned, they can make their own cake. It's their own
responsibility to cook their own food. Having someone else do it for you is a
convenience and nothing more. No one has the RIGHT to have someone do their
baking for them. There doesn't need to be anyone else available.
He doesn't have to take it. If it were me, I would close shop before giving
in. He started one successful business, he can start another. As for me, I am a
business owner, and I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any
reason, or no reason. Period. Try to force me to serve someone I don't want
to serve. Good luck with that.
Next, they will require Jewish or Muslim delis to sell pork products.
Religious evangelicals have made this case about religion.It is
not.This is about a multi-cultural society that wishes to express
the value that all people deserve dignity and equal treatment. No one is
telling the baker to get same sex married or go to a church that does not
sanction same sex marriage. No one is telling the baker he/she has to be in a
public business operating under state/local law. No one is refuting the notion
that the baker has to believe any certain way. The notion that a business
should be free to discriminate has been roundly dismissed for all manner of
other minorities, and now the LGBT community is recognized in some states and
localities as worthy of protection as well. America is evolving.The
controversy is ginned up by religious evangelicals as a rear guard method of
trying to turn back the clock. Most of America has moved on from. And most of all, this is about cake. Cake! Cake! Cake! Cake has no
religion or political notions. It is eaten because it tastes good and is served
on many occasions.
If it had been a Muslim or a Buddhist baker who refused to make a cake for a gay
wedding, no problem! However, for a Christian to do that is intolerable by the
I don't see the problem with making a cake for people whose life style you
would not choose. To me, it comes under the category of 'judging'
which Christ told us not to do. It's His job not ours. I think
we're okay evaluating people to the degree that we want them in our lives
or not, like if they are just too toxic to associate with. But should we
evaluate another person's 'worthiness' or value; to judge and
condemn? To decide they are not worth selling our products to? It makes no
sense. Lots of people break commandments I prefer to keep. How is it my
I have had gay employees. No issues or problems at all. I treated them fairly
and well. Never was a topic or even mentioned- never. I expected all my
employees to do their job. It was an atmosphere of kindness with not anybody
forcing their beliefs upon each other. But this situation strikes me as clearly
being a set up and entrapment. Sort of forcing themselves on the baker- not the
Wait a minute! Didn't we just have our own Utah religious leaders come out
and support this baker, even the LDS Church leaders? Hmmm!The baker
is a perfect example of how there needs to be a separation of Church and
Economics. The baker is within his rights to oppose gay marriage on religious
reasons, but as a business owner, who is not a religious organization, he cannot
discriminate on who he does business with. Just as he needs to make
accommodations for those in wheeled chairs, he needs to equally allow his goods
and services to be bought by those with a different sexual orientation. If the
baker is so opposed to selling to gay couples then he needs to become a
religious organization and file his business as a religious operation; then he
can discriminate all he wants.
I’m an active LDS church member and I oppose the position that business
owners should be allowed to refuse service to members of the LGBT community
based on the religious beliefs of the business owner. Once you enter the public
square in a profit making activity, you have no license to discriminate against
others on the basis of their immutable characteristics. If the Supreme Court
rules in favor of the cake maker, what is the limiting principle? Why should
that same cake maker not be able to refuse service to an inter-racial couple
based on a business owner’s good faith religious belief that miscegenation
is a sin? Or refuse to serve Jews on the basis that Jews killed the cake
maker’s Savior? Or serve any non-Christians on religious grounds? In my opinion, the LDS church is simply on the wrong side of this legal
@ play by the rules"They came for the people who used the word
God..."...and they said, "If we let you refuse to serve gay
couples, then how can we tell Muslims they must serve Jews, or Southern Baptists
they must serve Mormons? How can we tell LGBT business owners they have to
serve folks who hold certain religious beliefs about them?"@
RichardB"As long as other people are available that can satisfy
their baking needs, why force them to go against their beliefs?"As long as other hotels were available to take in Jackie Robinson, why force
the owner's of his teammates' hotel to go against their beliefs?
Any and every customer has the right to buy or not to buy from someone.With that right in hand, why doesn't a seller have the same right?
No one said that all religions would not want to participate in gay weddings.
This case simply says that those who dont want to , should not be forced to do
so. It is a completely reasonable position to make which will allow
the rights of both groups to be respected.
They came for the people who used the word God and no one stopped them. They
came for the people who stood for the 10 Commandments and no one stopped them.
They came for the people who worshipped out of conscience and no one stopped
them. Who will they come for next?Before they came for all the people on
your list, they came for the gay people. And the 'they' who came after
them would all fit nicely into the categories you specified. You know, used the
word of god, stood for commandments, worship out of conscience folks. The
nations' beleaguered bakers and florists and photographers need to give it
up and get a vacuum truck instead. Nobody on either side of those transactions
worries about the religion of the other.
As long as other people are available that can satisfy their baking needs, why
force them to go against their beliefs?
They came for the people who used the word God and no one stopped them. They
came for the people who stood for the 10 Commandments and no one stopped them.
They came for the people who worshipped out of conscience and no one stopped
them. Who will they come for next?