Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Jughead]

From your link:

"Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance andreligious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.​

Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."


>>>>

I was referring to this section of the Free Exercise Clause interpretation:

It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion.

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been clearly targeted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I was referring to this section of the Free Exercise Clause interpretation:

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been clearly targeted.

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

 

[Jughead]

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been clearly targeted.

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I was referring to this section of the Free Exercise Clause interpretation:

Public Accommodation Laws don't specifically target religion, they have general application.

The law was quoted in previous posts, please go back and show the section that applies only to Christians (or Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wicans, etc...). Is there a section that says Christians can't discriminate but it's OK for every other religion? If so please point it out, I may have missed it.



>>>>

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been targeted.

It seems you don't understand what "targeting a specific religion" means.

A law that says Christians can't discriminate based on religious dogma, but Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, etc. can - that is targeting a specific religion. But laws that say business, in general, can't discriminate based on race, religion, national origin, gender, etc. (and in this case sexual orientation) do not target a religion, they have general applicability.

You know Justice Scallia right? Not exactly one of the most liberal justices. He wrote in the Employment Division v. Smith decision:

" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."

He quoted Minersville v. Gobits "Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."

and then wrote...

"Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."​

>>>>

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been clearly targeted.

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That's the difference between you and me. I would bake them a cake so bad they would be shiting for two weeks afterwards.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

"Their kind?"

I assume you mean humans. Because as a Christian, SURELY you're not looking down on another who was made in His image.

Surely not.

I was meaning those of their chosen lifestyle. It will only be harder for them to get respect now.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. I thought that you placed me on your ignore list.

 

[WorldWatcher]

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That's the difference between you and me. I would bake them a cake so bad they would be shiting for two weeks afterwards.

You'd poison the entire wedding party? Wow.


Expect to lose (a) your buisness license, (b) everything you own to the civil suit, and (c) years in jail for attempted poisoning. Ya, that will teach'um.


>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That's the difference between you and me. I would bake them a cake so bad they would be shiting for two weeks afterwards.

You'd poison the entire wedding party? Wow.


>>>>

The wedding party, the guests - yup. If his sanity was ever in question? There's your sign.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's the difference between you and me. I would bake them a cake so bad they would be shiting for two weeks afterwards.

You'd poison the entire wedding party? Wow.


>>>>

The wedding party, the guests - yup. If his sanity was ever in question? There's your sign.

>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

You'd poison the entire wedding party? Wow.


>>>>

The wedding party, the guests - yup. If his sanity was ever in question? There's your sign.

>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?
Here's a suggestion sale them a gake at 10,000

If you're open to the public, you do not have the right to refuse service.

I'd serve them a shity tasting cake.

Your business would fail. You'd have the rep of a business owner who does not believe that the customer is always right and therefore should not be trusted.

Funny how market forces justify societal evolution, ain't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What ever happen to the right to refuse service on private property?
Here's a suggestion sale them a gake at 10,000

If you own a business open to the general public, there is no such ‘right.’

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, if the judge here is basing his decision using the law at hand, he is clearly superseding the shop owner's religious beliefs. The shop owner would gladly prepare a standard cake that is available to everyone. However the moment someone forces him to prepare a customized "gay" cake that is not available to anyone because of his religious beliefs, then this shop owner's religion has been clearly targeted.

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

 

[Tank]

Your business would fail. You'd have the rep of a business owner who does not believe that the customer is always right and therefore should not be trusted.

Funny how market forces justify societal evolution, ain't it?

Then let this guy not serve homosexuals and lets see if his business fails

 

[Quantum Windbag]

serve them a shitty tasting cake. The judge cannot force the owner to make a good cake.

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That’s ridiculous.

If one is unwilling to obey public accommodations laws, he simply wouldn’t open a business in the first place.



As an aside, your animus toward same-sex couples is both un-Constitutional and un-Christian.

The only rational response to fascism is resistance. You can kill me, but I will not assimilate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you're open to the public, you do not have the right to refuse service.

I'd serve them a shity tasting cake.

Your business would fail. You'd have the rep of a business owner who does not believe that the customer is always right and therefore should not be trusted.

Funny how market forces justify societal evolution, ain't it?

Hows so? Are you suggesting that their are no bakeries other than that one, the faggots could have gone too? those faggots are only doing this as some fucked political statement
And Your cake would be uneatable and the price would cost you at least 1000

 

[bigrebnc1775]

True. However, as a man of faith myself I could not in good conscience do such a thing. I would refuse to bake the cake, and yes would even go to jail to protect my religious freedoms.

That's the difference between you and me. I would bake them a cake so bad they would be shiting for two weeks afterwards.

You'd poison the entire wedding party? Wow.


Expect to lose (a) your buisness license, (b) everything you own to the civil suit, and (c) years in jail for attempted poisoning. Ya, that will teach'um.


>>>>

Their is no law that can force a person to make a good tasting cake or food
If that was the case Duncan doughnuts would be shut down long ago.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'd serve them a shity tasting cake.

Your business would fail. You'd have the rep of a business owner who does not believe that the customer is always right and therefore should not be trusted.

Funny how market forces justify societal evolution, ain't it?

Hows so? Are you suggesting that their are no bakeries other than that one, the faggots could have gone too? those faggots are only doing this as some fucked political statement
And Your cake would be uneatable and the price would cost you at least 1000

Don't you understand by now that bigots and idiots never last long in business? That 'exclusive' personality trait only serves angry White Republican men and is always roundly rejected by the sane people who make up the majority of the world. That's why it always fails in business and politics and ultimately in life..

 

[strollingbones]

what happened to the 'right to refuse service' .......am i the only one old enough to remember those signs? i think it went....'we reserve the right to refuse service'

 

[WorldWatcher]

what happened to the 'right to refuse service' .......am i the only one old enough to remember those signs? i think it went....'we reserve the right to refuse service'

You can still refused service.

However there are certain reasons under which you cannot refuse service. Depending on Federal Law and State Law (yours may very), if you are refusing service based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, martial status, veteran status, etc. Then those are illegal reasons under the law.

So basically the sign means nothing. You can refuse service because you own a restaurant and have a dress code, say Jacket & Tie for men, and a prospective patron doesn't meet the code. If you post the requirements and then consistently enforce them - not a problem. However you cannot refuse to services a patron because they are Jewish.

You can't "reserve a right" that is against the law.

Just to be funny - I could put a sign in my car window that says "I reserve the right to drive 80 in a 50 zone." Doesn't mean the Judge will buy it as a defense for a speeding ticket.

>>>>