Support NeoGAF

[Big Blue]

To me the ultimate question is whether the baker will make them a regular birthday cake, or whatever. If he does, then he is not discriminating against them as people, just choosing not to participate in a specific thing he opposes.

If he refuses to bake any cake for people because they are gay, that is illegal discrimination. For the same reason a Jewish bakery should be able to turn away a swastika cake for the local alt-right party.

If you enforce one instance and not the other, then the state is choosing between viewpoints, which is impermissible.

Neo-Nazis are not a protected class under the 14th amendment or CRA of 1964. Based on precedent, LGBT people are.

 

[Dude Abides]

You moron he didn’t refuse to sell the product.

Yes he did. He wouldn’t sell them a wedding cake. That’s what the case is about. Perhaps you need to read up on it.

 

[Dunki]

Neo-Nazis are not a protected class under the 14th amendment or CRA of 1964. Based on precedent, LGBT peope are.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without discrimination or repression.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

So I would argue your political believes are also protected. Again you can not say yes to one and no to the other.

 

[Blood Borne]

You're a bigoted rightist who doesn't understand racism, so I doubt you don't understand discrimination. Before 1964, white business owners were allowed to refuse service to black people Asian people, etc. SO from your stance, I assume you see no problem if this cake shop owner told an interracial or black couple that he doesn't make cakes for black marriages and cites the Bible as his reason. (Christianity was seen as the justification for slavery, so this is plausible) After Civil Rights of 1964, Congress deemed this illegal as to the protections outlined in the 14th and 15th amendment.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark marriage Supreme Court case, confirmed gay people as a protected class by referring to the Fourteenth Amendment as a protection.

When baker refuses to serve the gay couple, strictly because of his "religious beliefs", he's using his "freedom of religion" to infringe on the rights of that couple, by discriminating against them. Freedom of religion does not give you the privilege to disrupt anyone elses freedom to equality. That is especially so when you own a business.

This is hilarious. It's you that doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Pre 1964, it was the government that forced businesses to segregate. I repeat, GOVERNMENT FORCED BUSINESSES TO SEGREGATE. THEY WERE JIM CROW LAW ON THE BOOKS. GOVERNMENT DEMANDED THAT BUSINESSES SEGREGATE THEIR BUSINESS. People didnt segregate on their own volition. I really hate leftist revisionism that government always have clean hands.

To answer question, yes. The baker can refuse service to anyone. They will suffer bad pr and poor sales but that's their own doing, no need for government to threaten them with jail or death. Besides, why would a person want service from someone that clearly hates them.

Simply put, someone's right is going to be violated, it's either the baker or the gay couple. Clearly, you want the rights of the Christian to be violated because to you, you find religion to be stupid and their beliefs and values nonsensical.

I'm simply saying in order to avoid violation of anyone's rights, the transaction shouldn't take place. They should both go their separate ways. Kinda like when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

 

[Dude Abides]

This is hilarious. It's you that doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Pre 1964, it was the government that forced businesses to segregate. I repeat, GOVERNMENT FORCED BUSINESSES TO SEGREGATE. THEY WERE JIM CROW LAW ON THE BOOKS. GOVERNMENT DEMANDED THAT BUSINESSES SEGREGATE THEIR BUSINESS. People didnt segregate on their own volition. I really hate leftist revisionism that government always have clean hands.

To answer question, yes. The baker can refuse service to anyone. They will suffer bad pr and poor sales but that's their own doing, no need for government to threaten them with jail or death. Besides, why would a person want service from someone that clearly hates them.

Simply put, someone's right is going to be violated, it's either the baker or the gay couple. Clearly, you want the rights of the Christian to be violated because to you, you find religion to be stupid and their beliefs and values nonsensical.

I'm simply saying in order to avoid violation of anyone's rights, the transaction shouldn't take place. They should both go their separate ways. Kinda like when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

This isn’t true. The Woolworth’s counters that were the target of the well-known sit ins were not required to discriminate. There’s no empirical basis for the belief that the market will eliminate discrimination.

 

[bevishead]

From CNN:

It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. "I didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith," he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween. Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

The baker also refused to make Halloween cakes, I guess he should get sued for that as well. It looks like he designs these cakes by hand. Its not just a basic cake in the store window. He would sell the guys another cake, but he doesn't want to design a cake that goes against his beliefs.

 

[RastaMentality]

From CNN:

It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. "I didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith," he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween. Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

The baker also refused to make Halloween cakes, I guess he should get sued for that as well. It looks like he designs these cakes by hand. Its not just a basic cake in the store window. He would sell the guys another cake, but he doesn't want to design a cake that goes against his beliefs.

But he bakes wedding cakes. What’s the difference between a wedding cake for a gay couple and one for a straight couple?

Oh yeah

Nothing

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

The baker also refused to make Halloween cakes, I guess he should get sued for that as well.

If people who observed halloween were a protected class, he could.

 

[Big Blue]

This is hilarious. It's you that doesn't know what the hell you're talking about.

Pre 1964, it was the government that forced businesses to segregate. I repeat, GOVERNMENT FORCED BUSINESSES TO SEGREGATE. THEY WERE JIM CROW LAW ON THE BOOKS. GOVERNMENT DEMANDED THAT BUSINESSES SEGREGATE THEIR BUSINESS. People didnt segregate on their own volition. I really hate leftist revisionism that government always have clean hands.

To answer question, yes. The baker can refuse service to anyone. They will suffer bad pr and poor sales but that's their own doing, no need for government to threaten them with jail or death. Besides, why would a person want service from someone that clearly hates them.

Simply put, someone's right is going to be violated, it's either the baker or the gay couple. Clearly, you want the rights of the Christian to be violated because to you, you find religion to be stupid and their beliefs and values nonsensical.

I'm simply saying in order to avoid violation of anyone's rights, the transaction shouldn't take place. They should both go their separate ways. Kinda like when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object.

I hope you're not American. Every kid in America read about Plessy v. Ferguson. That ruling is what ALLOWED for Jim Crow laws. And Jim Crow laws where created on the state and local level and Southern Democrats VOTED in support of these laws in a time where black people were not allowed to vote. They existed until the FEDERAL government deemed them unconstitutional. Jesus, is our education system failing us this badly???? Please actually start reading. It's disgraceful that someone so uneducated can discuss these topics, let alone vote. You need to go back to school or watch a few Youtube videos.

 

[RastaMentality]

Some of y’all need to go back to high school and retake civics. This is embarrassing.

 

[Big Blue]

From CNN:

It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. "I didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith," he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween. Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html

The baker also refused to make Halloween cakes, I guess he should get sued for that as well. It looks like he designs these cakes by hand. Its not just a basic cake in the store window. He would sell the guys another cake, but he doesn't want to design a cake that goes against his beliefs.

Does anyone on the baker's side know what a protected class is?? Bueller???

 

[Sarkozix le Gaulois]

Does anyone on the baker's side know what a protected class is?? Bueller???

Yes, yes, we get it already. From a purely legal standpoint, the baker can't refuse to serve the gay couple. We all know they're gonna win the case.

Still doesnt change my opinion.

 

[appaws]

Neo-Nazis are not a protected class under the 14th amendment or CRA of 1964. Based on precedent, LGBT people are.

But the turn away is not a turning away a person based on their individual characteristic. It is a turning away a specific creatition based on a creative content.

(That is why I make the distinction between a regular birthday cake, which they should produce for absolutely anyone, and a cake with a specific moral content that can be seen as objectionable for whatever reason.)

My argument has nothing to do with the person submitting the order, only the order itself.

The First Amendment should prohibit the state choosing to force one form of creative content over another for any reason.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think many of you are thinking about this case and its repercussions too narrowly. In this example, the gay couple was given a plethora of other places to go. But now imagine being in rural Alabama. Your nearest shop that does wedding cakes is a 17 mile drive. They tell you no. Next nearest place is 38 minutes away, but it's rural Alabama, so they also say no.

Not everyone has a liberal urban center to go to where discrimination isn't tolerated. And those bakeries that turn down the couples in the rural regions aren't going to be punished by a lack of customers. On the contrary, they'd likely lose more business by serving to them. If the gay couple was just asking for a normal wedding cake without anything that would force the baker to make something on it that he could morally object to, then he should have to do it. Otherwise you're opening Pandora's box not just for gay people, but any other discriminated group as well.

With that said, I have no idea what the Constitutional aspect is on this matter, which is what the Supreme Court will be using to make its decision.

I agree with you. It's easy to think narrowly when you are part of the privelaged class. Sad too.

 

[Big Blue]

But the turn away is not a turning away a person based on their individual characteristic. It is a turning away a specific creatition based on a creative content.

(That is why I make the distinction between a regular birthday cake, which they should produce for absolutely anyone, and a cake with a specific moral content that can be seen as objectionable for whatever reason.)

My argument has nothing to do with the person submitting the order, only the order itself.

The First Amendment should prohibit the state choosing to force one form of creative content over another for any reason.

But this issue is dependent on who the person submitting the order is. It all changes when you put that content up for sale. At that point it's no longer an issue of creation, but of commerce and thus a denial of service. The artist can for the most part sell who he wants to, but he can't use race, creed, origin as criteria for it. And once he admits he is indeed discriminating, you have a hell of a problem on your hands.

 

[Dunki]

But this issue is dependent on who the person submitting the order is. It all changes when you put that content up for sale. At that point it's no longer an issue of creation, but of commerce and thus a denial of service. The artist can for the most part sell who he wants to, but he can't use race, creed, origin as criteria for it.

So it is better he lied about it? Said they were assholes?

 

[Big Blue]

So it is better he lied about it? Said they were assholes?

Yes, legally it would have saved his ass, because it would be a lot harder to prove his homophobia. But I don't know how he would get away with not being able to make a wedding cake when it's most likely advertised as his business.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

You leftists sure do love putting people in groups. You never see people as individuals. Some collective marxist bullshit.

Oh the irony.

You yap about everyone being leftist, as you generalize people people whose political opinions you know nothing about. You're a total hypocrite.

 

[appaws]

But this issue is dependent on who the person submitting the order is. It all changes when you put that content up for sale. At that point it's no longer an issue of creation, but of commerce and thus a denial of service. The artist can for the most part sell who he wants to, but he can't use race, creed, origin as criteria for it. And once he admits he is indeed discriminating, you have a hell of a problem on your hands.

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

If he said "I don't make cakes for gay people," I would be right there with you.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

If he said "I don't make cakes for gay people," I would be right there with you.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

I love this post you actually get it.

He will bake them any cake not because they are gay, but because his faith doesn’t believe in gay marriage. (Which this case was made before it was legal.)

He is not saying because your homosexual I won’t serve, I’m not going against my faith...it’s totally reasonable approach. Go to another bakery that’s not faith based.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

Or... anti-LGBTs aren't a protected class...

 

[Shamylov]

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

If he said "I don't make cakes for gay people," I would be right there with you.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

I'm not convinced by the content argument. First of all, he is denying them the cake based on content that affirms that they are gay (namely by the fact that they're getting married) so this falls under the issue of protected class. Secondly, he doesn't refuse to bake cakes based on wedding themes but rather gay wedding themes specifically. Again, this falls under the issue of protected class.

 

[Shamylov]

I love this post you actually get it.

He will bake them any cake not because they are gay, but because his faith doesn’t believe in gay marriage. (Which this case was made before it was legal.)

He is not saying because your homosexual I won’t serve, I’m not going against my faith...it’s totally reasonable approach. Go to another bakery that’s not faith based.

It's not a reasonable approach. He's pretty much saying that he's willing to serve them if he can ignore the fact that they're gay. By baking them a wedding cake, he's not able to do so. The explicit reason is the "gay" cake.

 

[Big Blue]

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

If he said "I don't make cakes for gay people," I would be right there with you.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

I'm looking at this from a pragmatic and Constitutional view. Having an opinion is not a protected class. I got banned on this message board for criticizing Australia's censorship of a anti-Vaxx speaker, even though I'm staunchly for vaccination.

Thus, I answer yes to both, only if the printer made it known that they refused it because the customer was gay OR straight. That's the law.

There was a video of a gay cafe owner who kicked out a few people that were handing out anti-abortion papers throughout town. He actually screamed at them them out because they were Christian and hate gay people. He was wrong, and should face the consequences for discrimination.

In this scenario, the baker flat out refused to even make the cake. The content wasn't even discussed.

 

[Resident_UA]

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

If he said "I don't make cakes for gay people," I would be right there with you.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

If you say yes to the first one, but not the second, you are probably just favoring the content you agree with and not resting your decision on any universally applicable principle.

He's not "saying that" at all. His faith doesn't recognize gay marriage, not them as people.

Your whole premise is INSANE. Baking a cake for the gay wedding is not some sort of very specific sin in a bible. It's just made up bullshit. Bible also looks down on interfaith marriages and is often OK with slavery. Should we also try to incorporate those beliefs into a freaking BAKERY?!!!! The whole argument is nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination. There's no grey area.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

It's not a reasonable approach. He's pretty much saying that he's willing to serve them if he can ignore the fact that they're gay. By baking them a wedding cake, he's not able to do so. The explicit reason is the "gay" cake.

He’s not “saying that” at all. His faith doesn’t recognize gay marriage, not them as people.

 

[Shamylov]

He’s not “saying that” at all. His faith doesn’t recognize gay marriage, not them as people.

Let me put it another way for you to understand.

He's only willing to provide a service if it falls within the limits of the discriminatory beliefs he holds against people of a certain class, "gay" in this case. Therefore, he's denying them the same access to his services that straight customers are allowed. That's discriminatory against gay people and should be protected by the government.

EDIT: the last sentence should read that the government should protect against discrimination.

 

[Dude Abides]

I really don't think it is. You seem to be saying that his denial of service is based on the fact that they men are gay? But he would make them a birthday cake, no? So, his denial is based on the content of the cake and not on the fact that they are homosexuals.

It has nothing to do with the content of the cake. There was no discussion of the content of the cake. As soon as he found out they were going to use it for a gay marriage celebration, he said he wouldn't do it.

He will sell wedding cakes if the wedding is two straight people. He will not sell wedding cakes if the wedding is two gay people. Pretty straightforward discrimination.

I don't think that this talk of protected classes applies, because we are talking about content and not people. The government can't, at the risk of repeating myself, discriminate between content that a creator has to be forced to provide on demand, and content that does not receive that benefit.

Should the state require a printer to print an pro-LGBT leaflet? If the person submitting the job is gay, would refusing it be an example of discrimination based on a protected class if the printer refuses? Or is it just the right to refuse certain types of content.

What if it is an anti-LGBT leaflet? Should the state force a gay printer to do that job?

Again, you are confused. There is nothing in the record to indicate the cake would be any different from any other wedding cake. It was not going to be a rainbow cake or a "Yay gay marriage" cake.

 

[<+)O Robido O(+>]

Again, you are confused. There is nothing in the record to indicate the cake would be any different from any other wedding cake. It was not going to be a rainbow cake or a "Yay gay marriage" cake.

I'm listening to a podcast about it right now. The guy says they walked in asked for a wedding cake, dude said "nah", they left.

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm listening to a podcast about it right now. The guy says they walked in asked for a wedding cake, dude said "nah", they left.

Correct. The cake guy in his Supreme Court brief doesn't even say what appaws and others are asserting on his behalf for whatever reason.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-ts.pdf

 

[Airola]

I will quote myself from post #148:

Biblical marriage is about a holy communion between a male and a female, who then become one by marriage. It is not about just two persons becoming one. It is not about two people in love wanting to make their love official by a priest. It is about a male and a female becoming one. You can call it old fashioned or whatever else, but that is how it is. To change that you would have to change the Bible.

So if the baker is religious enough to think that he is supposed to be part of making this holy communion happen and that his cake is supposed to be symbolical part of it, then I understand very well if he doesn't want to be part of it that way.

I wonder if the baker would've had any issue with baking a cake for a not-religious ceremony by gay people. I mean, he offered to make another types of cakes to them.


It's not about him not wanting to make something to people who he thinks are sinners. It's about him not wanting to take active part on a ceremony and produce a symbolical thing to that ceremony he thinks is holy and is about two different genders becoming one according to his religion. He would be ready to make them a cake for birthday because it doesn't involve him being part of a thing that is holy and very important to his religion.

So even if you would think it's still discriminatory because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, it still isn't completely about them being gay. If it would be, he would deny any service from them and wouldn't sell them anything, which clearly is not the case here.

 

[Shamylov]

I will quote myself from post #148:

Biblical marriage is about a holy communion between a male and a female, who then become one by marriage. It is not about just two persons becoming one. It is not about two people in love wanting to make their love official by a priest. It is about a male and a female becoming one. You can call it old fashioned or whatever else, but that is how it is. To change that you would have to change the Bible.

So if the baker is religious enough to think that he is supposed to be part of making this holy communion happen and that his cake is supposed to be symbolical part of it, then I understand very well if he doesn't want to be part of it that way.

I wonder if the baker would've had any issue with baking a cake for a not-religious ceremony by gay people. I mean, he offered to make another types of cakes to them.


It's not about him not wanting to make something to people who he thinks are sinners. It's about him not wanting to take active part on a ceremony and produce a symbolical thing to that ceremony he thinks is holy and is about two different genders becoming one according to his religion. He would be ready to make them a cake for birthday because it doesn't involve him being part of a thing that is holy and very important to his religion.

So even if you would think it's still discriminatory because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, it still isn't completely about them being gay. If it would be, he would deny any service from them and wouldn't sell them anything, which clearly is not the case here.

I don't care what his "real" reason is. You could have too many "real" reasons for people to use. The end result is that he bakes for straight couples but not gay couples. That's discrimination and the government shouldn't allow it. It's pretty simple this way.

 

[Dude Abides]

I will quote myself from post #148:

Biblical marriage is about a holy communion between a male and a female, who then become one by marriage. It is not about just two persons becoming one. It is not about two people in love wanting to make their love official by a priest. It is about a male and a female becoming one. You can call it old fashioned or whatever else, but that is how it is. To change that you would have to change the Bible.

So if the baker is religious enough to think that he is supposed to be part of making this holy communion happen and that his cake is supposed to be symbolical part of it, then I understand very well if he doesn't want to be part of it that way.

I wonder if the baker would've had any issue with baking a cake for a not-religious ceremony by gay people. I mean, he offered to make another types of cakes to them.


It's not about him not wanting to make something to people who he thinks are sinners. It's about him not wanting to take active part on a ceremony and produce a symbolical thing to that ceremony he thinks is holy and is about two different genders becoming one according to his religion. He would be ready to make them a cake for birthday because it doesn't involve him being part of a thing that is holy and very important to his religion.

So even if you would think it's still discriminatory because he doesn't believe in gay marriage, it still isn't completely about them being gay. If it would be, he would deny any service from them and wouldn't sell them anything, which clearly is not the case here.

The only reason this ceremony is an abomination and affront to his faith is because the participants are gay. You are asserting a distinction without a difference. It's also a stretch to call selling someone a wedding cake "participation" in the wedding.

 

[Moneal]

Or... anti-LGBTs aren't a protected class...

Most anti-lgbt groups are religious based, and Religion is a protected class. if their religious beliefs were anti-lgbt, and they were denied service they could sue on those grounds as well.

 

[mckmas8808]

Biblical marriage is about a holy communion between a male and a female, who then become one by marriage. It is not about just two persons becoming one. It is not about two people in love wanting to make their love official by a priest. It is about a male and a female becoming one. You can call it old fashioned or whatever else, but that is how it is. To change that you would have to change the Bible.

So if the baker is religious enough to think that he is supposed to be part of making this holy communion happen and that his cake is supposed to be symbolical part of it, then I understand very well if he doesn't want to be part of it that way.

I wonder if the baker would've had any issue with baking a cake for a not-religious ceremony by gay people. I mean, he offered to make another types of cakes to them.

I wonder if he would make a birthday cake for a 7 year girl that was born out of wed-lock and was with her single mother.

 

[Airola]

The only reason this ceremony is an abomination and affront to his faith is because the participants are gay. You are asserting a distinction without a difference. It's also a stretch to call selling someone a wedding cake "participation" in the wedding.

No. A wedding of a gay man and a lesbian woman would be completely ok.

It's all about the communion between a male and a female. It doesn't matter what their sexuality is. He would react the same if two heterosexuals would get married. He would react the same if the couple would be bisexual. He wouldn't react the same if they were gay and lesbian but would get married with each other. It's about being a male and female and having a holy communion to become one. It's not about anything else.

A Biblical view of marriage is not about two persons in love making their relationship official. It's about a male and a female becoming one. That's the angle the baker has with this subject.

 

[Dude Abides]

No. A wedding of a gay man and a lesbian woman would be completely ok.

It's all about the communion between a male and a female. It doesn't matter what their sexuality is. He would react the same if two heterosexuals would get married. He would react the same if the couple would be bisexual. He wouldn't react the same if they were gay and lesbian but would get married with each other. It's about being a male and female and having a holy communion to become one. It's not about anything else.

A Biblical view of marriage is not about two persons in love making their relationship official. It's about a male and a female becoming one. That's the angle the baker has with this subject.

His objection to making the wedding cake is because it will be a wedding of two gay men whether that's because he thinks it's gross or because he sincerely believes in mawkish twaddle about holy communion and two becoming one or whatever does not really matter for purposes of realizing that he's treating people differently based on their sexual orientation. You're arguing something nobody is disputing

 

[Airola]

I wonder if he would make a birthday cake for a 7 year girl that was born out of wed-lock and was with her single mother.

Why wouldn't he?

First of all, celebrating a birthday isn't considered holy. It's not a religious sacrament.

Secondly, it's not about not making something to people because they are sinful or something like that. For the baker, a marriage between two people of same gender doesn't exist, at least not in a religious sense. A girl still has her birthday no matter how potentially sinfully she was conceived. So even if it was about being against sinful people, which it isn't, the girl wouldn't have anything to do with the way she was conceived and with her parents' decisions or whatever has happened that has made the mother single.

 

[Airola]

His objection to making the wedding cake is because it will be a wedding of two gay men whether that's because he thinks it's gross or because he sincerely believes in mawkish twaddle about holy communion and two becoming one or whatever does not really matter for purposes of realizing that he's treating people differently based on their sexual orientation. You're arguing something nobody is disputing

Again, gay people can get married. It's completely ok. It just has to happen between a male and a female. So it's not about them being gay. But yes, it's about them being two males. It's a gender issue more than a sexuality issue.

 

[Shamylov]

No. A wedding of a gay man and a lesbian woman would be completely ok.

It's all about the communion between a male and a female. It doesn't matter what their sexuality is. He would react the same if two heterosexuals would get married. He would react the same if the couple would be bisexual. He wouldn't react the same if they were gay and lesbian but would get married with each other. It's about being a male and female and having a holy communion to become one. It's not about anything else.

A Biblical view of marriage is not about two persons in love making their relationship official. It's about a male and a female becoming one. That's the angle the baker has with this subject.

You are basically advocating against same-sex marriage with this argument, which should have been put to pasture years ago. But ok, let's do this again, I guess.

If the baker is fine with different-sex couples getting married, regardless of whether or not they are straight, then he only supports happy and fulfilling marriages between straight people. He is denying gay couples a cake if he thinks they could have happy and fulfilling same-sex marriages.

Why should happy and fulfilling marriages for straight couples be the only ones that get protection from the government?

 

[Horsemama1956]

I take it the couple think they are accomplishing something amazing here?

 

[Shamylov]

Again, gay people can get married. It's completely ok. It just has to happen between a male and a female. So it's not about them being gay. But yes, it's about them being two males. It's a gender issue more than a sexuality issue.

You shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on sex or gender either. Still not ok.

 

[BANGS]

I'm on the fence with this issue. I don't want government telling me what to do as a business owner, but I don't want people discriminated against and having trouble finding goods and services. The slippery slope is full of slippery shit in both directions...

 

[Big Blue]

I take it the couple think they are accomplishing something amazing here?

This didn't make it to the Supreme Court for shits and giggles. If you don't understand the scope of this, then IDK what to tell you...

 

[appaws]

I love this post you actually get it.

He will bake them any cake not because they are gay, but because his faith doesn’t believe in gay marriage. (Which this case was made before it was legal.)

He is not saying because your homosexual I won’t serve, I’m not going against my faith...it’s totally reasonable approach. Go to another bakery that’s not faith based.

Agreed, and well said.

Or... anti-LGBTs aren't a protected class...

So if a gay national socialist wants a swastika flyer made by a Jewish printer, does the printer HAVE to do it because he is a member of a protected class?

Again, distinguish the job from the person.

I'm not convinced by the content argument. First of all, he is denying them the cake based on content that affirms that they are gay (namely by the fact that they're getting married) so this falls under the issue of protected class. Secondly, he doesn't refuse to bake cakes based on wedding themes but rather gay wedding themes specifically. Again, this falls under the issue of protected class.

I think these are the most reasonable arguments I've read from your side, but I think the concept of content "affirming" that they are gay could be stretched all to hell and become meaningless. There has to be some line beyond which a purveyor of some sort of custom product can say "no," even to a member of one of the oppressed groups of the moment. And that line can't be as simple as "protected classes" get whatever they want, as in my gay national socialist example above.

I'm looking at this from a pragmatic and Constitutional view. Having an opinion is not a protected class. I got banned on this message board for criticizing Australia's censorship of a anti-Vaxx speaker, even though I'm staunchly for vaccination.

Thus, I answer yes to both, only if the printer made it known that they refused it because the customer was gay OR straight. That's the law.

There was a video of a gay cafe owner who kicked out a few people that were handing out anti-abortion papers throughout town. He actually screamed at them them out because they were Christian and hate gay people. He was wrong, and should face the consequences for discrimination.

In this scenario, the baker flat out refused to even make the cake. The content wasn't even discussed.

Your whole premise is INSANE. Baking a cake for the gay wedding is not some sort of very specific sin in a bible. It's just made up bullshit. Bible also looks down on interfaith marriages and is often OK with slavery. Should we also try to incorporate those beliefs into a freaking BAKERY?!!!! The whole argument is nonsense. Discrimination is discrimination. There's no grey area.

I'm not sure what you are even responding to, since I never said anything about sin, the Bible, or anything other than legal principles.

It has nothing to do with the content of the cake. There was no discussion of the content of the cake. As soon as he found out they were going to use it for a gay marriage celebration, he said he wouldn't do it.

He will sell wedding cakes if the wedding is two straight people. He will not sell wedding cakes if the wedding is two gay people. Pretty straightforward discrimination.



Again, you are confused. There is nothing in the record to indicate the cake would be any different from any other wedding cake. It was not going to be a rainbow cake or a "Yay gay marriage" cake.

That is very interesting, and really makes me think about it differently. If there is no "content" to the cake for him to find objectionable, I think the case against him makes a lot more sense.

 

[Dude Abides]

Again, gay people can get married. It's completely ok. It just has to happen between a male and a female. So it's not about them being gay. But yes, it's about them being two males. It's a gender issue more than a sexuality issue.

This is silly. The only time two men will get married, barring some absurd movie comedy, is if they are both gay. Saying you object to two men getting married is for all intents and purposes the same thing as saying you object to gay people getting married. This is a distinction without a difference.

In addition, this was going to be for the reception as far as I'm aware, not for the ceremony itself. So his sacred cake was not going to "participate" in the unholy wedding of sodomites. It was going to be used for a celebration afterward, which makes this objection weaker. Will he refuse to make cakes for anniversary celebrations for gay couples based on his religion?

That is very interesting, and really makes me think about it differently. If there is no "content" to the cake for him to find objectionable, I think the case against him makes a lot more sense.

Agreed. If the request was for a cake that said "In celebration of Obergefell!" then he'd have a much stronger case both legally and morally (though he'll probably still win given the makeup of the court).

 

[Shamylov]

I'm on the fence with this issue. I don't want government telling me what to do as a business owner, but I don't want people discriminated against and having trouble finding goods and services. The slippery slope is full of slippery shit in both directions...

The government already tells business owners what to do on a myriad of issues, from employment practices to the quality of the products, etc. The issue should be whether the government is right in telling the business what to do in this instance. The problem with the religious freedom argument is that you shouldn't use your freedom as a weapon to discriminate against other protected groups, so the government should not allow it.

I don't know what slippery slope we go down on when we stand up for the rights of historically-marginalized groups. Feel free to expand on this.

 

[mckmas8808]

If people who observed halloween were a protected class, he could.

The problem that most people here have (that agree with the Baker) is that they honestly don't think there should be a protected class in America.

 

[Night Angel]

I take it the couple think they are accomplishing something amazing here?

I didn't know wanting to be treated with the same respect given to everyone else is something to mock people over.

 

[bevishead]

No. A wedding of a gay man and a lesbian woman would be completely ok.

It's all about the communion between a male and a female. It doesn't matter what their sexuality is. He would react the same if two heterosexuals would get married. He would react the same if the couple would be bisexual. He wouldn't react the same if they were gay and lesbian but would get married with each other. It's about being a male and female and having a holy communion to become one. It's not about anything else.

A Biblical view of marriage is not about two persons in love making their relationship official. It's about a male and a female becoming one. That's the angle the baker has with this subject.

Yup basically. As a liberal, I am all for free love, marry who you want to and all. The church is a whole different beast. I still go to church due to my family and I gotta tell ya, many church pastors are definitely anti gay and heavily discourages the lifestyle. For the "devout" they would definitely ensure they do their part to also discourage the lifestyle. There is also likely the case where the baker isn't actually that devout and likely hiding his prejudice behind the bible. Either way if the baker refused to sell the couple a generic wedding cake that he would sell to anyone, he is in the wrong. If the couple wanted a custom designed wedding cake that was specific to their gay relationship/wedding such as having two men figures on top of the cake, then I can see the baker not being comfortable designing that cake. Its not the same as refusing to design an interracial wedding cake because the bible doesn't condemn interracial marriages.