Would Hay-soos bake a cake for a gay couple?

[hsnh]

I don't remember any bit where Jesus asked the sexuality of people in crowds before sharing his bounty of loaves and fishes with them.

It's not about that.
It would be if they refused to serve them alltogether, or if they harassed them with homophobic slurs like your besties do.

It's about the fact that different people have different definitions of marriage.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You just can't shut up, can you?

If you don't like what I wrote either stop reading it or quit whining.

Jesus, dude.

Snappy comeback in 5...4...3...

The only one whining about your post is you.

 

[Que]

The only one whining about your post is you.

Why are you whining about his whining?

 

[jaF0]

What if they said 'it's against my religion to serve black people'? Or 'it's against my religion to serve blind people?' Or 'people with one arm?'

Discrimination is discrimination.

'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' only goes so far. 'No hat, no shirt, no shoes, no service' is based on the individual, any individual no matter what they look like or where (or if) they follow a fictional being.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not even sure why this is in court (again). Didn't the Scrotes just do this regarding a florist out west some where?

 

[Que]

What if they said 'it's against my religion to serve black people'? Or 'it's against my religion to serve blind people?' Or 'people with one arm?'

Discrimination is discrimination.

'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' only goes so far. 'No hat, no shirt, no shoes, no service' is based on the individual, any individual no matter what they look like or where (or if) they follow a fictional being.

They are not being refused service. I'm sure that they are welcome to buy a cake they are welcome to buy scones they are welcome to buy cupcakes. What the owners are refusing to do is to make a gay wedding cake. A specifically gay wedding cake. That is not in their repertoire, it is not something that they offer.

If they came in saying I need to buy a birthday cake for my gay lover the bakery would happily accommodate that, because that is not giving the imprimateur of acceptance of gay marriage.

If a gay man owned a t-shirt screen printing shop and was asked to produce "God hates fags" t-shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church that owner would be well within his rights to refuse to use his business to promote an idea that he abhors.

Personally I think refusing to make the gay wedding cake is silly. It is unnecessarily unneighborly, and their God cannot possibly think that making this cake is some sort of sin or directly supporting the idea of gay marriage meaning the same thing that their limited view of marriage encompasses. They however do, apparently think that, and have every right to be as narrow-minded as they wish.

The controversy is easier to understand if you picture a homophobic photographer being asked to take pictures of the happy couple. Why on Earth would the happy couple, if they were genuinely just interested in getting some good service, seek out, and try to contract the services of, a homophobic photographer?

I do see some relevent, valid legal arguments to the contrary. In the above example, what if the above, theoretical photographer was also opposed to miscegenation, and was very uncomfortable taking pictures of a mixed-race couple. There, you have the actual civil rights act, on point, to contend with.

It comes down to what is a public accomodation, and whether civil rights laws which have specific, delineated protected classes are simply going to be stretched to include any class of persons we decide to gather into a class.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're arguing about something entirely different than my point.

You don't sell a product to "a wedding" or "a couple". You sell it to a person. What the person does with the product when he owns the product is that person's business.

Let's say it's a cake.

The customer can take his cake (it's his now, he bought it) and serve it at a Jesus-approved Christian opposite sex wedding...
...or an abominable ghey wedding...
...or use it as a movie prop...
...or serve it at the annual summer bash of the local Ku Klux Klan...
...or just eat it himself...
...or fuck it...
...or perform a statanic ritual with it in his basement...

If someone is uncomfortable with the idea that products he sell to the public may be used by the public in (legal) ways he doesn't approve of... maybe he shouldn't be in the business of selling products to the public?

"I'm sorry, I refuse to sell you this car, because I fear you may use it to transport lesbians. Or Catholics. Or even worse, lesbian Catholics."

It's just not, you know, reasonable.

THIS ^^^^^^


And THIS vvvvvvv

Well. The law is apparently not clear, or the SCOTUS wouldn't be hearing the case. I was talking more about the principles that should apply, IMO.

You should be able to specify what you sell. For instance "I only sell wedding cakes with a bride and groom on top." Or a party planner can specialize in Bar Mitzvas but don't offer to arrange Quinceañeras. Or a caterer should get to specify that ALL their food contains bacon, and offer no menu for jews, muslims and vegetarians. In my opinion.

The law is pretty clear that you can't discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation et al, who you sell it to. If a gay man want to buy a straight themed cake, you can't refuse to sell it to him just because he's gay.

You should, imo, also not have a say in how the product you've sold is used.

There is some leeway there. For instance, you might stipulate that you don't accept any complaint once the customer tampers with the product (for instance, replace the bride-and-groom figurines). But that's pretty much the extent of your reach, and if the customer agrees, sell the damn cake.

The right of protected classes to be free of discrimination and readily secure goods and services in the public and private marketplace is settled law. Neither a sole proprietor nor a production line employee preparing a product for final shipment should be able to invoke "freedom of religion" to detrimentally affect that right.

Feel free to practice your religion in church, at home, or even at your job site if you wish, but it is INCUMBENT UPON religious zealots to find ways to make a living that does not infringe on their beliefs OR the rights of protected classes.

Now everybody get out of my courtroom!!!

 

[Liar]

To be fair, I'm not 100% familiar with this case.

Is the baker in trouble for refusing to make a cake design with an explicit gay marriage theme?

Or is he in trouble for refusing to sell a regularly designed wedding cake that he would sell to other people, because it would be used in a gay wedding?

 

[hsnh]

THIS ^^^^^^


And THIS vvvvvvv



The right of protected classes to be free of discrimination and readily secure goods and services in the public and private marketplace is settled law. Neither a sole proprietor nor a production line employee preparing a product for final shipment should be able to invoke "freedom of religion" to detrimentally affect that right.

Feel free to practice your religion in church, at home, or even at your job site if you wish, but it is INCUMBENT UPON religious zealots to find ways to make a living that does not infringe on their beliefs OR the rights of protected classes.

Now everybody get out of my courtroom!!!

I think that you and Liar are mostly right, with one comment:

Whereas I agree with the legal part that they probably were in breach of their "duty to serve all customers and to not discriminate" or something like that,
From a moral point of view I would personally go easy on labels such as the one highlighted.
-- I would apply it only if they refused to bake cakes for the gay couple in other situations, or they showed other discriminatory behaviors.

We have to remember that until a year ago, marriage between two men wasn't legal.
And these folks live in religious communities where this is still not accepted.
-- It's hard to change people's mentalities just by a legal ruling.
Start by negociating with Clerics and those higher up to adapt their teachings to the times.

 

[zipman]

The Liberal Left and Fundamentalistic Islam are allies in the war on Western culture.


They want to deconstruct Christianity as the underpinning of "morality."


As I was just discussing in the McDonald's thread their "empathy" drives them to the goodness they feel when they improve alternative communities and ignore the detriment caused to other communities. It feels so good to force Christians to "eat cake." It feels even better to have a Gay Wedding cake baked by a Christian, another victory in the deconstruction of the culture.



Islam gets a pass, because where Liberals live, they are a peaceful minority that causes no harm. They do not see in Islam what they see in Christianity's past, so they hold them to a much lower standard of behavior. As long as the Muslims stay out of their space and keep their proclivities private, they are left alone to be misogynist homophobes who dislike Christians too.

The extremist right wing and radical islam are allies in their war against gays. They both want to live under a theocracy, as long as it is their religion.

The liberal left simply believes in equal rights. How dare they!

 

[Wrong Element]

If you took everything Jesus said about homosexuality and put it in a Lit post, you'd be told the post was 5 characters short of being complete.

 

[zipman]

If you took everything Jesus said about homosexuality and put it in a Lit post, you'd be told the post was 5 characters short of being complete.

Personally, I've always wondered why homosexuality didn't make it into the ten commandments if it is so important.

Christians don't seem to have a problem with lying which is in them.

Cherry picking the bible is the problem.

 

[hsnh]

I don't get GBers (most of who are Americans) attitude towards Christianity.

I'm anything But religious, but I hold a deep respect for it.
-- It's our cultural heritage.
And yes, there are a few bigoted and backward elements in the way some teach religion (these need to be changed) but the rest of teachings are a source of deep spirituality and meaning.

I'm wondering if religious institutions have become more fundamentalistic in the US than in other parts. And if US atheists are just as radicalized.
-- Because one doesn't often come across such attitudes in Europa and Australia.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What if they said 'it's against my religion to serve black people'? Or 'it's against my religion to serve blind people?' Or 'people with one arm?'

Discrimination is discrimination.

'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' only goes so far. 'No hat, no shirt, no shoes, no service' is based on the individual, any individual no matter what they look like or where (or if) they follow a fictional being.

Show me the religion.

Hypotheticals don't count.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

They are not being refused service. I'm sure that they are welcome to buy a cake they are welcome to buy scones they are welcome to buy cupcakes. What the owners are refusing to do is to make a gay wedding cake. A specifically gay wedding cake. That is not in their repertoire, it is not something that they offer.

If they came in saying I need to buy a birthday cake for my gay lover the bakery would happily accommodate that, because that is not giving the imprimateur of acceptance of gay marriage.

If a gay man owned a t-shirt screen printing shop and was asked to produce "God hates fags" t-shirts for the Westboro Baptist Church that owner would be well within his rights to refuse to use his business to promote an idea that he abhors.

Personally I think refusing to make the gay wedding cake is silly. It is unnecessarily unneighborly, and their God cannot possibly think that making this cake is some sort of sin or directly supporting the idea of gay marriage meaning the same thing that their limited view of marriage encompasses. They however do, apparently think that, and have every right to be as narrow-minded as they wish.

The controversy is easier to understand if you picture a homophobic photographer being asked to take pictures of the happy couple. Why on Earth would the happy couple, if they were genuinely just interested in getting some good service, seek out, and try to contract the services of, a homophobic photographer?

I do see some relevent, valid legal arguments to the contrary. In the above example, what if the above, theoretical photographer was also opposed to miscegenation, and was very uncomfortable taking pictures of a mixed-race couple. There, you have the actual civil rights act, on point, to contend with.

It comes down to what is a public accomodation, and whether civil rights laws which have specific, delineated protected classes are simply going to be stretched to include any class of persons we decide to gather into a class.

This is the nut of the whole thing.

As I pointed out, the bakers were more than willing to sell the couple anything that was in their store. They demanded a service.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sorry Colonel.

You are wrong. Your point is that the KKK could demand that a black bakery must provide for their rally...



As in free speech, there has to be a limit to what "being in business" means that you have to accept and endure any outrageous claim upon your services or goods. There is an absolute right to say no. It doesn't even have to be religious. I don't care about law. Law has become perverted and we have had this conversation many times before. The courts have become agents of social engineering.

 

[Liar]

They are not being refused service. I'm sure that they are welcome to buy a cake they are welcome to buy scones they are welcome to buy cupcakes. What the owners are refusing to do is to make a gay wedding cake. A specifically gay wedding cake. That is not in their repertoire, it is not something that they offer.

If they came in saying I need to buy a birthday cake for my gay lover the bakery would happily accommodate that, because that is not giving the imprimateur of acceptance of gay marriage.

First of all, cake does not have sexual orientation. Of if they do, I'm pretty sure they're all gay as fuck.

Second of all, do you know the specifics of this case or are you assuming what the baker would hypothetically do?

The crux of the matter seems to come down to: Did the gay customer demand same sex marriage themed cake decoration? If so, the baker has a point. Did the gay customer just want a generic wedding cake? If so, the baker has no point.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Sorry Colonel.

You are wrong. Your point is that the KKK could demand that a black bakery must provide for their rally...



As in free speech, there has to be a limit to what "being in business" means that you have to accept and endure any outrageous claim upon your services or goods. There is an absolute right to say no. It doesn't even have to be religious. I don't care about law. Law has become perverted and we have had this conversation many times before. The courts have become agents of social engineering.

The KKK is a protected group????

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Liar wins this thread, and hopefully our Supreme Court has a few members who read this. I cosign on his distinctions.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

To be fair, I'm not 100% familiar with this case.

Is the baker in trouble for refusing to make a cake design with an explicit gay marriage theme?

Or is he in trouble for refusing to sell a regularly designed wedding cake that he would sell to other people, because it would be used in a gay wedding?

He is in trouble for refusing to make a custom cake design used in a gay marriage. I'm not certain what you mean by "theme," but I don't believe that is the issue. And he will lose this case for the same reasons he has previously lost at every level.

1. He is in the business of making CUSTOM cake designs.

2. While some of the artistry and creativity is unarguably the result of his marketable talent, much of the customization is directly attributable to the wishes and directions of his clients.

3. Thus, specifically directed themes or words ordered by a client do not represent either "HIS" PERSONAL SPEECH OR "HIS" FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. He has already made that quite clear.

4. Somewhat ironically, he has perfectly legal grounds to refuse designing a cake with an upraised middle finger or one depicting a topless female simply because the people ordering those cakes are not necessarily a protected class under the law.

Anti-discrimination laws do not FORCE you to engage in COMMERCE or MESSAGES you find objectionable, UNLESS it is the very COMMERCE ITSELF FROM A PROTECTED CLASS engaged in a lawful act (in this case, same-sex marriage) that you find objectionable. In fact, the very application of the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act (CADA) as it as been applied by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the basis for the petitioner's claim.

From the petition to the Supreme Court:

"It is undisputed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (the “Commission”) does not apply CADA to ban (1) an African-American cake artist from refusing to create a cake promoting white-supremacism for the Aryan Nation, (2) an Islamic cake artist from refusing to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church, and (3)three secular cake artists from refusing to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage for a Christian patron."


http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf

In other words, he reasons, if they can refuse to make cakes based on their personals beliefs, why can't I? Petitioner Phillips has also made it a practice not to design cakes for Halloween, those with anti-American themes, anti-family, atheism, racism or indecency.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law with regard to "public accommodations" is as follows:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html

But what Phillips doesn't understand is that Colorado's protected classes make no provision for either the Ayran Nation or on the basis of religious discrimination at all. Thus, the discrimination against the Westboro Baptist Church and the generic Christian group by the other cake decorators are specifically within Colorado law. In fact, I was rather surprised to find this exclusion.

But that exclusion not only justifies Phillip's refusal to make Halloween cakes or those with obscene messages, it would also lawfully support his refusal to deny a fundamentalist Muslim wishing to have a cake designed to insult Christians.

But by virtue of his business being founded on creating custom wedding cakes for all other lawfully executed marriages, he clearly DOES NOT have the right to discriminate based on the lawfully executed marriage of two people engaged in what he believes to be an "unholy" sexual orientation.

Sexual orientation is a protected class under Colorado law. This case isn't about the "obscenity" of two figurines on top of the cake sucking each other's dicks.

It's just about discrimination against a protected class from the delivery of goods and services which the petitioner routinely supplies, within the general range of standards of taste and quality, to all his other customers.

Which is why he is going to lose in the Supreme Court as well.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Sorry Colonel.

You are wrong. Your point is that the KKK could demand that a black bakery must provide for their rally...



As in free speech, there has to be a limit to what "being in business" means that you have to accept and endure any outrageous claim upon your services or goods. There is an absolute right to say no. It doesn't even have to be religious. I don't care about law. Law has become perverted and we have had this conversation many times before. The courts have become agents of social engineering.

That is NOT my point, and as explained above, the KKK could NOT demand such a service from an African American baker under Colorado law, as a very specific instance under that law aptly demonstrates.

 

[Que]

I'm not opposed to including it, any more than I understood Goldwater's concerns about the Civil Rights Act violating freedom of association, but how does SCOTUS shoehorn in sexual orientation in, since (I think?) No such federal language exists? Or did I miss a memo somewhere? I remember legislation proposed, discussed, and argued about.. but I don't remember specifics of anything passing but maybe I just disremember.

Or is that not really the issue here the issue simply being would religious freedom prevent Colorado from having such a law in which case I guess I can see that point?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I'm not opposed to including it, any more than I understood Goldwater's concerns about the Civil Rights Act violating freedom of association, but how does SCOTUS shoehorn in sexual orientation in, since (I think?) No such federal language exists? Or did I miss a memo somewhere? I remember legislation proposed, discussed, and argued about.. but I don't remember specifics of anything passing but maybe I just disremember.

Or is that not really the issue here the issue simply being would religious freedom prevent Colorado from having such a law in which case I guess I can see that point?

You are correct that federal law does not cover "sexual orientation" as a protected class, and that was one of the arguments against same sex marriage as being a states' rights, rather than a federal issue.

So, no, that is NOT the issue here. Nor would I expect the Court to have any problem with the Colorado law protecting sexual orientation or, say, 'disability' as a class. The issue, as raised by petitioner Phillips, revolves around his First Amendment rights of free speech and 'free exercise' of religion. If fact, if anything, I would think the Colorado law might be suspect because it does NOT protect 'religion' as a protected class as does federal law. When I read about the failure of several bakery owners refusing to bake various "advocacy cakes" for Westboro Church and the ad hoc Christian group opposing same sex marriage, I was surprised that the bakery owners could quite obviously discriminate on the basis of a doctrinal religious message lawfully sought by a client. But the Colorado law affords no such protection.

But since that is not really at issue in this case, I doubt that will be ruled upon either.

It really is all about Phillips' misinterpretation of his legal rights under Colorado law and those of the protected sexual orientation class and whether that state law is a violation of his Constitutional First Amendment rights. In some ways I understand his confusion. Logically speaking, if he is free to abstain from commercial trade in the blasphemous representations of naked ladies and sexual organs, why would he not be allowed to extend that restraint on the equally blasphemous conduct of homosexuality?

Answer: Because marriage between same sex couples is now legal across the land, and, in Colorado, those same sex couples are a protected class entitled to all "public accommodations" and that includes wedding cakes that are no more obviously "sexually suggestive" than any other standard wedding cake that Mr. Phillips regularly sells.

It's going to come down to: you cannot, as a business proprietor, discriminate in the sale or provision of public accommodations to a protected class on the basis of your religious beliefs -- regardless if you're doing it as an excuse to discriminate (obviously ) but not even if those beliefs are sincerely held. The applicable SCOTUS precedent is the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith which held that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

 

[hsnh]

What if they said 'it's against my religion to serve black people'? Or 'it's against my religion to serve blind people?' Or 'people with one arm?'

Discrimination is discrimination.

'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' only goes so far. 'No hat, no shirt, no shoes, no service' is based on the individual, any individual no matter what they look like or where (or if) they follow a fictional being.

They refused to bake a cake with the logo indicating that it's a gay wedding.

From what I understand, they didn't or wouldn't have refused to serve the gay couple otherwise, like bake them anniversary cakes or so on.

So it's not at all clear cut whether they failed to abide by their public contract so to speak
because of religious beliefs,
or out of homophobia.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

It's going to come down to: you cannot, as a business proprietor, discriminate in the sale or provision of public accommodations to a protected class on the basis of your religious beliefs -- regardless if you're doing it as an excuse to discriminate (obviously ) but not even if those beliefs are sincerely held. The applicable SCOTUS precedent is the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith which held that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability even as an expression of religious belief. "To permit this," wrote Justice Scalia, "would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

I just read through the civil right act, and it does not seem to me that his business falls under the definition of a public accommodation. It would be fine if it can be shown how it is, but I also dont personally feel that it is.