Baker must make gay cakes

[thereisnospoon]

The baker, Mr. Phillips has already stated in the past that he is willing to go to jail rather than renounce his faith. I support him, no way would I ever abandon my religion because of some court ruling. I'd go to jail as well in order to keep practicing my faith.

Colo. Baker Willing to Go to Jail for Not Baking Cake for Same-Sex Wedding

Colo. Baker Willing to Go to Jail for Not Baking Cake for Same-Sex Wedding | National Review Online

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.

No it does not. You are misinterpreting public accommodations laws to suit your own agenda.
Please use SPELL CHECK.

 

[Peach]

The baker, Mr. Phillips has already stated in the past that he is willing to go to jail rather than renounce his faith. I support him, no way would I ever abandon my religion because of some court ruling. I'd go to jail as well in order to keep practicing my faith.



Colo. Baker Willing to Go to Jail for Not Baking Cake for Same-Sex Wedding | National Review Online

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

No it does not. You are misinterpreting public accommodations laws to suit your own agenda.
Please use SPELL CHECK.

Doesn't work online, I do not know why. It functions well on WORD documents. I am pleased your objection is based on spelling, rather than substance.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh bake the damn cake....collect the overpriced fee and laugh all the way to the bank.

There are still some folks in the world that put principle above money.

well that excludes you

 

[Plasmaball]

Jillian you're a retard so I am sure you won't get what I am about to say...but Ill give it a shot.

It is about the principles, morals, and values of the people who follow Christianity, it's not bigotry. It's sticking to your beliefs. Okay? I know christians who believe homosexuality is a sin that still treat homosexuals with fairness & as equals as fellow human beings, but your marriage is still counterfeit if it involves 2 people of the same sex in their eyes.

What you want is to force Christians to validate homosexuality, which is blasphemy. So cut the crap already. You have no right to force people to commit sacriledge and blaspheme their God. This country was founded on religious freedom & it'll fall if or when that is no longer the case.

hey look an irrelevant post.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

1) he served cakes at the time of this
2) he catered to the public
3) you are a retard and wrong
4) moving on

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

.

or he could have just adhered to the law and made the cake.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

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.

It isn't equal protection to make a guy bake a gay themed cake if he doesn't want to. And don't be so quick about the 'thou shall never overturn...' mantra. Many states have had laws that proved to be unconstitutional. All it takes is the right catalyst to make it to the Supreme Court where I don't believe it will pass muster.

I really don't know what a "gay themed cake" is. Isn't all cake kinda gay?

If you mean sexual or adult themed cakes, then I must ask "who demanded anyone do that?"

If anyone walked into a bakery and asked for an offensively shaped cake, then the baker could say "get out of my store!" Last I checked, no reasonable person would call "circle" or "square" offensive shapes. Maybe times have changed.

You say many states have had laws that proved to be unconstitutional. True, but do you know on what basis? There has to be some basis. What is this right of the baker that you think will override the rights of the same-sex couple? I mean, someone isn't getting their way. Either public accommodation does not extend to gay people or this baker should just bake a darn inoffensive not-anymore-gay-than-usual cake. Which are you going to choose?

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

neat!im sure this would work well at the court case...

Judge: wel he is breaking the law.

QW: i dont like that law so we shouldnt follow it.

Judge: stares at QW, realizes he is serious and finds the baker at fault, and disbars QW.

 

[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.

Except this is not about public accommodation laws because these businesses do not meet the constitutional definition of public accommodations.

Dude, just stop. There is no "constitutional definition of public accommodation"
There is the United States Code.
42 USC § 12181
(7) Public accommodation
The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And fortunately the bible and other religious dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections (Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)), where the states and local jurisdictions may not seek to subject them to disadvantage, regardless the dogma of ignorance and hate propagated by the bible.

That isn't what the First Amendment says.

The USSC remains the Court of jurisdiction to determine what is a protected class of persons. See Article III. Big Earl has the liberty to hate, he should not have the liberty to run a public business as a private club, and deny certain groups of Americans the use of that business.

Protected classes of persons are a fiction created to facilitate affirmative action, need I remind you of how the Court views affirmative action currently? Remember the 6-2 vote against it recently, the one that even the hard left Breyer joined?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And fortunately the bible and other religious dogma are legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

Gay Americans constitute a class of persons entitled to Constitutional protections (Romer v. Evans (1996), Lawrence v. Texas (2003)), where the states and local jurisdictions may not seek to subject them to disadvantage, regardless the dogma of ignorance and hate propagated by the bible.

That isn't what the First Amendment says.

Incorrect.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with the First Amendment.

There are no Free Exercise Clause issues involved because government isn’t seeking to place restriction of religious expression:

Although a State would be "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" in violation of the Clause if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons. See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166-167.

Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

Public accommodations laws seek only to regulate the markets, to ensure their integrity and the integrity of all other interrelated markets, completely unrelated to religious practice and the First Amendment.

If we weren't talking about state laws you might have a point.


Except the RFRA specifically reversed Employment Division v Smith.

Wrong again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The mistake that most are making is to incorrectly perceive the situation as one where the law was suddenly ‘sprung on’ the business owner.

This is in fact not the case.

However trite it’s nonetheless true: ignorance of the law is no excuse.

That the business owner was unaware of the law, or failed to understand how the law applies to him and other business owners, or the Constitutional jurisprudence that supports the law, none are mitigating circumstances allowing the business owner to ignore or violate the law, nor does it excuse his desire to do so, to discriminate against gay patrons based upon ‘religious beliefs.’

The mistake you are making is thinking you can read minds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[

Of course I've lost the argument. That's a given. As I've already said, in 15 to 20 years you're going to have the Social Democracy and authoritarian centralized bureaucracy for which you yearn. People will be afraid to speak their mind for fear of immediate and direct retribution. Conformity of thought will be bred into our very culture.

I'm not arguing, Joe. You're going to get your way. Not sure what else I can say there.

.

Guy, we have more conformity of thought in the past than we have now.

I'm still not sure what you are arguing here for? That you want bigots and homophobes to proudly display their hatred?

My point is the same as always: I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking and who agrees with them. And nothing flushes them out better or faster than the freedom to say what they are thinking. I can then engage in the heavy lifting of trying to change their hearts and minds. I'm not afraid of having them be heard.

Oh, I could go on, but there is no reason to. I've said all this a hundred times, and it's always taken out of context or distorted or spun.

I just hate seeing what you folks are doing -- especially from the side of the spectrum that has always claimed to value diversity and inclusion and freedom of expression and the challenging of the norm -- and I certainly realize there's nothing I can do about it. I've pretty much completed my grieving process for this country, now I'm just observing the decay.

.

I know the feeling. I was all geared up to fight against a religious theocracy, and ended up fighting a bunch of whacky idiots that think their position is even more righteous than the most whacked out religious loon I ever met.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh bake the damn cake....collect the overpriced fee and laugh all the way to the bank.

There are still some folks in the world that put principle above money.

There is no ‘principle’ in violating the law, nor is there ‘principle’ in seeking to discriminate against fellow Americans simply for who they are.

In other words, Martin Luther King was a common criminal, and the fact that we honor his birthday is an abomination on the face of America.

 

[justonemorevoice]

I think if it had just been a square cake that said congrats on it....this arguement would still be going on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

.

or he could have just adhered to the law and made the cake.

And Rosa Parks could have sat in the back of the bus.

But she didn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

neat!im sure this would work well at the court case...

Judge: wel he is breaking the law.

QW: i dont like that law so we shouldnt follow it.

Judge: stares at QW, realizes he is serious and finds the baker at fault, and disbars QW.

Funny how that is exactly what the lawyer argued, yet he didn't even get disbarred from the fake court he was in.

 

[DriftingSand]

Oh bake the damn cake....collect the overpriced fee and laugh all the way to the bank.

There are still some folks in the world that put principle above money.

well that excludes you

Duh hu hu hu. Wiwy cwever.

 

[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.

.

or he could have just adhered to the law and made the cake.

Conform.

Comply.

Do not question authority.

Do not challenge that with which you disagree.

The American Left truly has become what it used to hate.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
My point is the same as always: I want to know who the crazies are, where they are, what they are thinking and who agrees with them. And nothing flushes them out better or faster than the freedom to say what they are thinking. I can then engage in the heavy lifting of trying to change their hearts and minds. I'm not afraid of having them be heard.

Oh, I could go on, but there is no reason to. I've said all this a hundred times, and it's always taken out of context or distorted or spun.

I just hate seeing what you folks are doing -- especially from the side of the spectrum that has always claimed to value diversity and inclusion and freedom of expression and the challenging of the norm -- and I certainly realize there's nothing I can do about it. I've pretty much completed my grieving process for this country, now I'm just observing the decay.

.

It's not a matter of "not letting them say what they think".

People can always say what they think. But when you say it, there are consequences.

I could go into my boss's office and tell him I think he's a complete douchebag. (Incidentally this isn't what I think, but let's use this as an example.) Okay. Wonderful. I have the freedom to do that, but since I don't have a contract or union, he's got the freedom to terminate my employment.

Similarly, I could go on ranting about "*******" or "Fags" in the workplace, but my black and gay co-workers would have a right to complain.

Now, in this case, a business is running a public accommodation. Which means that all of us are paying for the infrastructure for him to be able to do that, from roads leading to his business to police making sure no one breaks in and steals his cookies. 50 years ago, we decided he couldn't refuse to serve blacks. Now we are deciding he can't refuse to serve gays, either. seems pretty reasonable.

So you can weep for the bigots having to mind their Ps and Qs, but frankly, I'm all for living in a civil society.