Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of Christian baker in Supreme Court case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    Dec. 6, 2017 9:09 a.m.

    ''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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 8, 2017 2:20 p.m.

    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.

  • Warbunny Puyallup, WA
    Nov. 7, 2017 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 6, 2017 12:10 p.m.

    @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.

  • J8888 Lehi, UT
    Nov. 6, 2017 11:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Bigger Bubba Herriman, UT
    Nov. 6, 2017 10:42 a.m.

    It looks like Catholics and Mormons are the only ones standing up for religious liberties and traditional Christian values.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    Nov. 6, 2017 8:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Ghost Writer GILBERT, AZ
    Nov. 6, 2017 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • RFJ OGDEN, UT
    Nov. 6, 2017 4:24 a.m.

    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?

  • daniwitz13 Kaneohe, HI
    Nov. 5, 2017 11:30 p.m.

    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 is moot.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Nov. 5, 2017 12:41 p.m.

    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 Constitutional protection.

  • Lilly Munster , 00
    Nov. 5, 2017 5:08 a.m.

    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 and justice.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    Nov. 4, 2017 8:54 p.m.

    @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 discriminating.

  • Giordano Seattle, WA
    Nov. 4, 2017 4:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Warbunny Puyallup, WA
    Nov. 4, 2017 2:08 a.m.

    ....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.

  • Giordano Seattle, WA
    Nov. 3, 2017 8:44 p.m.

    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.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 3, 2017 6:37 p.m.

    @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.

  • Warbunny Puyallup, WA
    Nov. 3, 2017 1:18 p.m.

    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!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 3, 2017 9:39 a.m.

    @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?).

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Nov. 3, 2017 8:49 a.m.

    Baccus0902

    As 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 hand

    Not 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.

  • Bikedude Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 3, 2017 7:24 a.m.

    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!

  • Woohoo Somewhere, ID
    Nov. 2, 2017 9:52 p.m.

    @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.

  • Woohoo Somewhere, ID
    Nov. 2, 2017 9:50 p.m.

    @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 religious beliefs.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 4:33 p.m.

    @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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 2, 2017 4:00 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Nov. 2, 2017 3:47 p.m.

    @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?

  • eenie meanie Roy, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 1:48 p.m.

    @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?

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Nov. 2, 2017 1:26 p.m.

    sharrona

    I'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.

  • eenie meanie Roy, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 12:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Misty Mountain Kent, WA
    Nov. 2, 2017 12:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 11:53 a.m.

    Religion is poison to the human mind.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 11:43 a.m.

    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 Crow thing.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Nov. 2, 2017 11:39 a.m.

    @ El Gringo

    RichardB 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-rule

    The 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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 11:37 a.m.

    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)

  • Laura Billington Maple Valley, WA
    Nov. 2, 2017 11:15 a.m.

    @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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:57 a.m.

    Current headline: Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing rights of Christian baker in Supreme Court case

    Perhaps a more fitting headline: Faith leaders raise their voices in opposing Christian baker's effort to discriminate

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Laura Billington Maple Valley, WA
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:04 a.m.

    @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.

  • mamiejane Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 10:01 a.m.

    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?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 9:46 a.m.

    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.

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Nov. 2, 2017 9:02 a.m.

    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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Nov. 2, 2017 7:43 a.m.

    El Gringo

    Again, 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 discriminate.

  • Huskies-rule Gig Harbor, WA
    Nov. 2, 2017 7:08 a.m.

    Do you really want to eat a cake prepared by someone who was forced to bake it.?

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Nov. 2, 2017 6:29 a.m.

    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.

  • El Gringo Mesa, AZ
    Nov. 2, 2017 12:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Cheesecake Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2017 12:00 a.m.

    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...

  • CMTM , 00
    Nov. 1, 2017 4:50 p.m.

    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… and 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)

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 3:33 p.m.

    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.

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 1:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Edmunds Tucker St George, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 1:01 p.m.

    ''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 perform marriages?

  • CMTM , 00
    Nov. 1, 2017 12:57 p.m.

    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 them … . 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.

  • Red Corvette St George, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 11:58 a.m.

    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."

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 1, 2017 11:39 a.m.

    @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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 11:14 a.m.

    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 yourself.’…MT 22:37-38

    Do 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) .

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 9:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 9:13 a.m.

    @ 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 14:33

    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

    You 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

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 8:16 a.m.

    @Light and Liberty
    What 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.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Nov. 1, 2017 3:08 a.m.

    @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.

  • SLars Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2017 1:55 a.m.

    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.

  • logical Meridian, ID
    Nov. 1, 2017 12:07 a.m.

    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."

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:54 p.m.

    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.

  • happymom123 Clearfield, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:30 p.m.

    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.

  • MoreQuestionsThanAnswers Centerville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:28 p.m.

    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.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:17 p.m.

    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.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 5:56 p.m.

    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..

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 4:58 p.m.

    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 Christ's teachings.

  • Christmas South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 4:57 p.m.

    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.

    @2close2call

    If 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.

  • CMTM , 00
    Oct. 31, 2017 4:10 p.m.

    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 10:2

    Brothers, children of Abraham, and you Gentiles ‘who fear God’, it is to us that this message of salvation has been sent. Acts 13:26

    And ‘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

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 3:38 p.m.

    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 sex marriage?

  • Red Corvette St George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 3:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Backtobasics Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 2:31 p.m.

    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.

  • junkgeek Agua Dulce, TX
    Oct. 31, 2017 2:29 p.m.

    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.

  • New to Utah Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 2:20 p.m.

    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 balanced.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 31, 2017 2:11 p.m.

    @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?

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:54 p.m.

    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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:52 p.m.

    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 discriminate.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:45 p.m.

    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!

  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:40 p.m.

    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!

  • Mr. SNAFU Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:41 p.m.

    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.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:40 p.m.

    Until the LGBT community goes after Muslims to force them to go against their religion, this is all about forcing Christians.

  • Bob Tanner Price, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:25 p.m.

    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.

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:19 p.m.

    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?

  • medford Ogden, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:12 p.m.

    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.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:11 p.m.

    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.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Chessermesser West Valley City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:09 p.m.

    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?

  • LivinLarge Bountiful, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:05 p.m.

    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?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 12:52 p.m.

    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 since then.

  • hbeckett Colfax, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 12:25 p.m.

    @Light and Liberty
    To 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.

  • LDS Brit United Kingdom, 00
    Oct. 31, 2017 12:13 p.m.

    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.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 11:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • texascamp Grand Junction, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • jeclar2006 Oceanside, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 11:26 a.m.

    @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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 11:17 a.m.

    @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 lot!

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 11:13 a.m.

    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'?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:52 a.m.

    @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.)

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:49 a.m.

    @Million
    "This baker would not do Halloween cakes either as being pagan."

    That's fine, since he doesn't make Halloween cakes for anyone.

  • Jacobiuntherus Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:44 a.m.

    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!

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:36 a.m.

    "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.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:28 a.m.

    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.

  • benjjamin Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:14 a.m.

    "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.

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Oct. 31, 2017 10:13 a.m.

    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.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:53 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:51 a.m.

    "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.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:49 a.m.

    @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.

  • CMTM , 00
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:33 a.m.

    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”.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    @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?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 31, 2017 9:06 a.m.

    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 decide. Right?

  • Light and Liberty St George, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:26 a.m.

    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 you."

  • a bit of reality Shawnee Mission, KS
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:16 a.m.

    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.

  • sweepitup slc, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 8:10 a.m.

    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 other states.

  • Million Riverton, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:53 a.m.

    "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;.

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:51 a.m.

    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.

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:39 a.m.

    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 rights.

  • Mom jeans man is gone Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:33 a.m.

    active gandalf
    so 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.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:29 a.m.

    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.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:25 a.m.

    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.

  • KSM's Dad Ogden, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:22 a.m.

    Next, they will require Jewish or Muslim delis to sell pork products.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Oct. 31, 2017 7:01 a.m.

    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?

  • dotGone Puyallup, WA
    Oct. 31, 2017 6:51 a.m.

    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 concern?

  • Eastern CO Coug Elizabeth, CO
    Oct. 31, 2017 6:13 a.m.

    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 other way.

  • Egyptian origins Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 6:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Gandalf Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 5:59 a.m.

    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 issue.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Oct. 31, 2017 5:50 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Oct. 31, 2017 1:19 a.m.

    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?

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Oct. 30, 2017 11:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 10:56 p.m.

    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.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 10:42 p.m.

    As long as other people are available that can satisfy their baking needs, why force them to go against their beliefs?

  • play by the rules South Jordan, UT
    Oct. 30, 2017 9:42 p.m.

    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?