Baker must make gay cakes

[Iceweasel]

My girlfriends and I picked out my wedding cake. My husband had nothing to do with it. He was with me when we picked out the wedding invitations, but then again, today you can just print those off at home. The truth is, we did our wedding on the cheap. We didn't have a lot of money.

That's one of the advantages of being a guy. Wedding plans take care of themselves.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

He didn't refuse to serve gay people. No doubt the bakery served a lot of gay people.

He really cannot be ordered to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple when he doesn't make them for anyone else.

That's not what I asked.

What you asked was a falsity. It never happened. Since the baker didn't refuse to serve gay people all you really have is a hypothetical. IF the baker had refused to serve gay people would that be an exercise of religion? Then of course you are bollixed up by the fact that he didn't refuse to serve anyone.

If you offer a service to the public, then you are subject to public accommodation laws.
If the service you offer to the public includes baking cakes, then you are subject to public accommodation laws pertaining to baking cakes.
No, you cannot be forced to bake "mature themed" cakes as that is another type of service.
No, you cannot be forced to write "The questions in this thread are mostly an admission ignorance with some on the conservative side being deliberately obtuse" because that too would be a different kind of service.
If you opened up a shop that offered adult themed cakes with offensive messages, then that service would be subject to public accommodation... and special zoning!...laws.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not what I asked.

What you asked was a falsity. It never happened. Since the baker didn't refuse to serve gay people all you really have is a hypothetical. IF the baker had refused to serve gay people would that be an exercise of religion? Then of course you are bollixed up by the fact that he didn't refuse to serve anyone.

If you offer a service to the public, then you are subject to public accommodation laws.
If the service you offer to the public includes baking cakes, then you are subject to public accommodation laws pertaining to baking cakes.
No, you cannot be forced to bake "mature themed" cakes as that is another type of service.
No, you cannot be forced to write "The questions in this thread are mostly an admission ignorance with some on the conservative side being deliberately obtuse" because that too would be a different kind of service.
If you opened up a shop that offered adult themed cakes with offensive messages, then that service would be subject to public accommodation... and special zoning!...laws.

Speaking of being deliberately obtuse.

You pretend as if from the far left with each of these incremental forced-insanities you cannot hear the shuffling of millions of middle-block voters' feet to the right of center.

You pretend that you can push sanity and common sense past the breaking point and still win elections.

Good luck with that. P.S. Conservatives wish you would make more bizarre strides and intrusions into people's first amendment rights and their right to sovereign governance in the various respective states. Makes their job easier this Fall. Heck, they probably won't have to even dream up any ads to run. You're doing it all for them.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hahaha. Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about. Bam!

Look ... if a queer must go to a straight dude to get a cake just go in and ask for a cake without announcing your sexual preferences. I don't go to Subway and ask for a sandwich then blurt out: " by the way ... I'm straight ... just so ya know." Only a mentally incompetent goon would announce his sexual activities when ordering food.

Let's say you have a fiance, you are getting married. You and she go to a bakery recommended by a friend for the quality of their wedding cakes. Wedding cakes are not something kept in the display case, they are special ordered. The baker needs more information so he can make suggestions and design a cake. He asked "So who's getting married", the answer is "Joan and I".

You really think that is "announcing your sexuality"?

Now if a queer goes in and asks the baker to draw an image of a penis on the cake the baker has EVERY RIGHT UNDER THE SUN to decline such a mentally screwed up request.

If a baker does not normally produce a "penis" cake, then they are not required to produce it for anyone. On the other hand of the baker routinely makes "penis" cakes, then he can't refuse to sell them base on the class of the customer.

If a baker does normally make wedding cakes, they cannot refuse to sell them based on the class of the customer.



>>>>

Well, you're in luck, this baker doesn't make wedding cakes anymore. Happy now?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9189649-post196.html



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

The question really is can the court order an individual to provide a service to gays when that service isn't offered to the general public. Can the basis of such order be that the individual is capable of providing the service even if they don't offer it?

There is no precedent for forcing a person to perform a personal service.

State law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

besides state law.

Not even state law! If the goods or services is not offered to the general public, the provider is not obligated to provide it to the prospective customer even if they are a member of a protected class. Not even if they are black!

A black person cannot go into an Italian restaurant and order grits and gravy, then claim they were discriminated against because they didn't get it.

A gay person cannot go into a bakery that does not offer wedding cake services and demand a wedding cake.

 

[Mac1958]

Well, you're in luck, this baker doesn't make wedding cakes anymore. Happy now?

The homosexual couple could have just gone to a business that actually wanted to work with them, but they chose to make an issue out of it. It's how the PC Police operates - when someone dares to cross them, they choose to punish them. They are not required to do so, but they pretend as if they are.

It's all about control.

By the time the Left has achieved its goal of a pure European-style Social Democracy with an Authoritarian central bureaucracy -- maybe, what, 15 to 20 years -- most of us will have been conditioned to conform to their sanctioned worldview or else. A nice, comfortable little mediocrity for which we will all have to settle. Tough shit.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Gays may someday find themselves in a position where they cannot find a bakery in their locale that makes wedding cakes at all except for those personally known. They will sue to their hearts content and still not win.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays may someday find themselves in a position where they cannot find a bakery in their locale that makes wedding cakes at all except for those personally known. They will sue to their hearts content and still not win.

Possible, but highly unlikely on any great scale which is why it's time to think about repealing Public Accommodation laws in general as they apply to private businesses. I agree with Barry Goldwater that they were wrong, although I can recognize at the time they were considered needful.

The reality is that more and more people are finding no moral objection to same-sex relationships and one of the main skews being age. Old people have moral objections, but the vast majority of younger generations don't and that is the attitude that will be carried forward in time.


>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

If you offer a service to the public, then you are subject to public accommodation laws.
If the service you offer to the public includes baking cakes, then you are subject to public accommodation laws pertaining to baking cakes.

You do realize there are 50 states, right? It depends on if a state has such a law, how it is written and the transaction involved. In WA, we cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation but even then it doesn't state that you have to accommodate their orientation. That's where a lot of folks get confused.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You do realize there are 50 states, right? It depends on if a state has such a law, how it is written and the transaction involved. In WA, we cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation but even then it doesn't state that you have to accommodate their orientation. That's where a lot of folks get confused.

Below is the WA law, could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what you mean by you can't discriminate but you don't have to accommodate blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, Irish, men or women, straights or gays, Army Veterans, etc..

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

You do realize there are 50 states, right? It depends on if a state has such a law, how it is written and the transaction involved. In WA, we cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation but even then it doesn't state that you have to accommodate their orientation. That's where a lot of folks get confused.

Below is the WA law, could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure what you mean by you can't discriminate but you don't have to accommodate blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, Irish, men or women, straights or gays, Army Veterans, etc..

RCW 49.60.215
Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement — Trained dog guides and service animals.

(1) It shall be an unfair practice for any person or the person's agent or employee to commit an act which directly or indirectly results in any distinction, restriction, or discrimination, or the requiring of any person to pay a larger sum than the uniform rates charged other persons, or the refusing or withholding from any person the admission, patronage, custom, presence, frequenting, dwelling, staying, or lodging in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, except for conditions and limitations established by law and applicable to all persons, regardless of race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, status as a mother breastfeeding her child, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability: PROVIDED, That this section shall not be construed to require structural changes, modifications, or additions to make any place accessible to a person with a disability except as otherwise required by law: PROVIDED, That behavior or actions constituting a risk to property or other persons can be grounds for refusal and shall not constitute an unfair practice.

RCW 49.60.215: Unfair practices of places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, amusement ? Trained dog guides and service animals.​

>>>>

I did. I'll try to break it down smaller for you. If you charged a gay man more you would violate the law. Or refused to serve him based on his sexual preferences. There's nothing that states you must accommodate his desire to produce a homosexual theme of sorts. Seattle goes further and fines you if you don't but there is nothing in state law that would require a sign maker to produce a banner that says "Homosexuality is great".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First, the guy says that he is going to close the bakery, rather than compromise his beliefs. Then he says he would bake cup cakes for gays, but not wedding cakes. Face it guys. The guy is just making a statement for the press. He will stay in the bakery business and not bake wedding cakes. Big deal. Post it on the electronic billboard at Times Square. Nothing but berry strudel for gays! Jesus is Ok with that.

Weirdly enough, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple isn't compromising his beliefs at all. No is forcing him to become gay.

Weirdly enough I bet you would object to being forced to write a story about how wonderful female circumcision is. The best part about that is that, despite all your sputtering nonsense, you wouldn't be able to describe a real difference between writing that story and decorating a wedding cake with a homosexual theme.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Baker must make gay cakes

Actually not.

Business owners must comply with necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures, where religious beliefs may not be used to ‘justify’ violating those measures, as such measures in no way ‘violate’ religious belief.

Except that the laws are not actually necessary or proper, not to mention constitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Weirdly enough, baking a wedding cake for a gay couple isn't compromising his beliefs at all. No is forcing him to become gay.

True ... as long as he doesn't have to write anything on the cake that's contrary to his beliefs. The best solution to this entire thing is for gays to go to a gay baker instead of a Christian baker. Problem solved.

Its not like there are signs on the front window stating GAY BAKERS EMPLOYED HERE is there?

Why not? Are they afraid of the negative feedback?

 

[Jughead]

There is NO attempt to prevent him from practicing his beliefs(.) The law requires PUBLIC businesses to accomodate the general public; one may be a Nazi, KKK, or "5 percenter", one still must abide by laws. Tough break, felons compain about it I know.

When the bible states that homosexuality is a sin, and I deliberately bake a gay wedding cake in support of homosexuality, I am abandoning my faith. I'll go to jail first!!!

bible<laws

State law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

end of conversation

That's why I would choose to go to jail rather than renounce my faith. For me there is no contest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see this issue as no different than serving blacks was back in the 60s. If you owned a cafe/restaurant, whatever, the civil rights law dictated that you served blacks as well as whites: that you couldn't discriminate. This is no different: if you own a business, you can't say who you will serve and who you won't serve. That's the bottom line. There is nothing here up for discussion until you can undo the civil rights law.

Is that because you are choosing not to think, or because you are just stupid?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't Jefferson say that there is no case of tyranny clearer than the government forcing people to violate their conscience?

And yet you have no problem with forcing this man to make a gay wedding cake because now gay is the new crusade that you progressives shove on everyone like it or not, beliefs or not.

Seriously, what ever happened to liberals having tolerance for other peoples values and beliefs?

Seems to have vanished into the thick smoke screen of self-righteous leftist triumphalism.

Just like restaurants were "forced" to serve blacks and interracial couples, despite the fact that it violated their conscience.

When you partner with a locality to own a business, you agree that you will abide by the laws of the locality. Many localities have public accommodation laws and some even include "the gheys".

There are even Federal Protections that say you must serve people and can't deny them based on certain things like race, country of origin, gender, etc. You've read the Civil Rights Act, yes?

By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[20]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[19]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Actually, if you actually go look at history, you will see that Jim Crow laws forced restaurants not to serve blacks. But thanks for proving this is about something other than right and wrong with you, it is all about you winning.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

What you asked was a falsity. It never happened. Since the baker didn't refuse to serve gay people all you really have is a hypothetical. IF the baker had refused to serve gay people would that be an exercise of religion? Then of course you are bollixed up by the fact that he didn't refuse to serve anyone.

If you offer a service to the public, then you are subject to public accommodation laws.
If the service you offer to the public includes baking cakes, then you are subject to public accommodation laws pertaining to baking cakes.
No, you cannot be forced to bake "mature themed" cakes as that is another type of service.
No, you cannot be forced to write "The questions in this thread are mostly an admission ignorance with some on the conservative side being deliberately obtuse" because that too would be a different kind of service.
If you opened up a shop that offered adult themed cakes with offensive messages, then that service would be subject to public accommodation... and special zoning!...laws.

Speaking of being deliberately obtuse.

You pretend as if from the far left with each of these incremental forced-insanities you cannot hear the shuffling of millions of middle-block voters' feet to the right of center.

You pretend that you can push sanity and common sense past the breaking point and still win elections.

Good luck with that. P.S. Conservatives wish you would make more bizarre strides and intrusions into people's first amendment rights and their right to sovereign governance in the various respective states. Makes their job easier this Fall. Heck, they probably won't have to even dream up any ads to run. You're doing it all for them.

Spare me your appeal to fear. I'm not on the far left. I'm not even on the left. I could give a darn if panicked elderly voters rush to the polls because Rove managed to get another "We Ain't Gay!" proposition on the ballots in 48 states. The law in Colorado protects sexual orientation in public accommodation. You are not going to overturn public accommodation law. You aren't going to overturn Colorado's equal protection.
And you obviously don't know what "obtuse" means, not because you attempted to label me with the term, but because you assumed "obtuse" meant "impolitic" as in "It would be impolitic of me to support the rights of same-sex couples in this case as that would anger voters and empower the Republicans, assuming I was interested in that".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If gays want two boy dollies on their cake they can go to their local Walmart and buy two boy dollies. Don't force the baker to do something that goes against his conscience. See how easy that is?

if you can't do your job, you should go into another business. your personal prejudices do not allow you to discriminate against people who wish to access your business... not based on race, religion or gender or other things protected constitutionally.

now if they don't have the money to pay for the service you provide, you DO get to say you won't serve them.

otherwise, find another job/business. that goes for bakers, pharmacists, doctors or anyone else offering a public service who wants to use their religion to justify hate.

if a baker said he refused to work for christians, the wingers would be standing in front of the business threatening to shut it down.

The whole thing here is that, in a free society, the government does not get to dictate to you what your job is. I fail to comprehend why people that claim to support freedom don't get that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Then what you're saying is that Charles Manson can force a baker to bake a cake with an outline of a knife sticking out of Sharon Tate's stomach? The baker must comply?

wow, guy, you are really stretching looking for a non-retarded analogy, aren't you?

Gays aren't Nazis and they aren't the manson family.

This has got to be the dumbest post in the thread.