Christian baker not backing down after Gov't punishes him for refusing to make gay wedding cake

[martybegan]

When you applaud government force to adjudicate butt hurt remedies, you are a fascist.

And when you don't want to answer questions put to you, but instead go back to the same tired explanation you have repeated ad nauseum, you are an idiot.

when you dismiss discrimination as 'butt hurt', you show that you really don't get it. And my argument is consistent. I don't have to equivocate something like guns to same sex marriage. No slender reed of an argument for me! I know I'm correct because I'm not ouit to erode rights but to protect them.

When you equate having to spend 1/2 an hour with getting someone else to make your cake with a person having to either go against their morals or go out of business and be fined a ridiculous amount, that shows you are an oppressive asshole, who only can see things from their own viewpoint.

And you are definitely out to erode someone's rights, but because you hate religious people you don't give a rats ass about it. Stop trying to pretend you are the "nice person" in all of this.

If my particular 'moral code' dictates that I shall not serve African Americans because dealing with a sub-human species is an abomination, is my 'moral code' enforceable in the courts of justice or public opinion? Perhaps the problem, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Using the cover of religious freedom to foment hatred does a disservice to religion. I do not believe in a right to discriminate when that discrimination serves no purpose other than to demean.

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Then those laws would be fought and REPEALED or else a Kosher or halal baker/restaurant would not get such a business license. See how easy that is?

You don't like a PA law, REPEAL IT....don't get a business license and think you can just ignore the laws/regs you pretend are against your "religion".

The big difference between kosher and haall restaurants is the menu. Kosher and halaal dishes are served. In the bakeries, wedding cakes are on the menu.

you really are retarded, or you are just not getting it. Halal and kosher BUTCHERING practices, not the food itself.

Can a Dept of health ban kosher or halal slaughter or not? what about a building department?

Show me a kosher pork chop.

Again, not the argument. Halal and Kosher slaughter are very specific procedures on allowed animals. Can a Department of Health or a Department of Buildings ban the use of said procedures?

Can you force a Halal butcher to follow modern butchering practices on a goat?

Departments of Health or Building Codes may do so only if there is an infraction of existing codes.

Kosher butchers perform ritual procedures assuring their products are, in fact, kosher.

A baker bakes wedding cakes as part of their business. A same sex couple is not asking for a product that exceeds the normal menu of services provided. A same sex wedding cake looks, incredibly, just like any other wedding cake. Or, to put it another way, a same sex wedding cake is indistinguishable from any other wedding cake. What's the problem?

The baker believes that he will be committing a sin by participating in the wedding event. This is not a judgment against the couple it is a judgement that the baker is making against himself.

Does the left now want to eliminate internal controls of right and wrong?

 

[Nosmo King]

when you dismiss discrimination as 'butt hurt', you show that you really don't get it. And my argument is consistent. I don't have to equivocate something like guns to same sex marriage. No slender reed of an argument for me! I know I'm correct because I'm not ouit to erode rights but to protect them.

When you equate having to spend 1/2 an hour with getting someone else to make your cake with a person having to either go against their morals or go out of business and be fined a ridiculous amount, that shows you are an oppressive asshole, who only can see things from their own viewpoint.

And you are definitely out to erode someone's rights, but because you hate religious people you don't give a rats ass about it. Stop trying to pretend you are the "nice person" in all of this.

If my particular 'moral code' dictates that I shall not serve African Americans because dealing with a sub-human species is an abomination, is my 'moral code' enforceable in the courts of justice or public opinion? Perhaps the problem, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Using the cover of religious freedom to foment hatred does a disservice to religion. I do not believe in a right to discriminate when that discrimination serves no purpose other than to demean.

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

 

[martybegan]

When you equate having to spend 1/2 an hour with getting someone else to make your cake with a person having to either go against their morals or go out of business and be fined a ridiculous amount, that shows you are an oppressive asshole, who only can see things from their own viewpoint.

And you are definitely out to erode someone's rights, but because you hate religious people you don't give a rats ass about it. Stop trying to pretend you are the "nice person" in all of this.

If my particular 'moral code' dictates that I shall not serve African Americans because dealing with a sub-human species is an abomination, is my 'moral code' enforceable in the courts of justice or public opinion? Perhaps the problem, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Using the cover of religious freedom to foment hatred does a disservice to religion. I do not believe in a right to discriminate when that discrimination serves no purpose other than to demean.

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The government is imposing on all citizens the government's concept of sin and demanding that all citizens accept the government's definition as gospel.

Does that justify the narrow interpretation of some 'Christians' to impose their moral template on society?

Only liberals are imposing their moral template.

LOL, you're tripp'n. This may be the dumbest comment you've ever posted - and there have been many.

 

[Nosmo King]

If my particular 'moral code' dictates that I shall not serve African Americans because dealing with a sub-human species is an abomination, is my 'moral code' enforceable in the courts of justice or public opinion? Perhaps the problem, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Using the cover of religious freedom to foment hatred does a disservice to religion. I do not believe in a right to discriminate when that discrimination serves no purpose other than to demean.

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

 

[JoeMoma]

Here is my take (which may seem a little different than what I said before).

If the wedding cake involved is generic, meaning the cake itself is no different one that is used in a heterosexual wedding, then the baker should make the cake. After all, he is not responsible for the venue that his other baked goods may be used either. The baker has no need to have any knowledge about the wedding that the cake is going to be able to fill the cake order. Perhaps a don't ask don't tell policy could be in place about who is getting married.

However, if the cake is somehow customized artistically to show support for same sex marriages or otherwise homosexual behavior, the baker should have the right to refuse. The baker should have the right to refuse to decorate the cake with rainbows to represent gay pride or to put the figures of two grooms on the top off the cake rather than a bride and a groom.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

It's not like forcing a baker to bake the cake would never result in an inferior product. Noo never.

 

[RodISHI]

Not when they are bigots and haters.

The problem is any asshole that believes they have the right to demand a small business owner goes to their event and caters to them. Use a corporation in that business that doesn't have a conscience and leave the privates alone.

A small business does not have to cater to haters and bigots, you are correct in that aspect.

 

[JoeMoma]

And that conveniently lets the side you like "win", and the side you don't like "lose". What you are proposing IS discrimination, but its done by government as your proxy, against people you don't like or understand (or care to understand) so you get to keep your hands clean and still get what you want. Meanwhile a couple is ruined and stopped from doing what they love to do simply over a wedding cake.

For some reason we rarely saw this with regards to race, because when it came to weddings most groups "stick to their own", so the issue never really came up. Plus you don't really see many white supremacists in the cake business, what you do see is plenty of religious people, and their rights are being curtailed in the name of "fairness" which is basically bullshit.

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

And forcing a baker to make a cake against his will might result in getting an inferior product.

 

[RodISHI]

Here is my take (which may seem a little different than what I said before).

If the wedding cake involved is generic, meaning the cake itself is no different one that is used in a heterosexual wedding, then the baker should make the cake. After all, he is not responsible for the venue that his other baked goods may be used either. The baker has no need to have any knowledge about the wedding that the cake is going to be able to fill the cake order. Perhaps a don't ask don't tell policy could be in place about who is getting married.

However, if the cake is somehow customized artistically to show support for same sex marriages or otherwise homosexual behavior, the baker should have the right to refuse. The baker should have the right to refuse to decorate the cake with rainbows to represent gay pride or to put the figures of two grooms on the top off the cake rather than a bride and a groom.

The baker refused to deliver it, not make it. They wanted the baker to cater it to their wedding and the baker said no they wouldn't do that. The couple could have had a cake picked up but they didn't. They sued instead.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The government is imposing on all citizens the government's concept of sin and demanding that all citizens accept the government's definition as gospel.

Does that justify the narrow interpretation of some 'Christians' to impose their moral template on society?

Only liberals are imposing their moral template.

LOL, you're tripp'n. This may be the dumbest comment you've ever posted - and there have been many.

Isn't forcing the baker to set aside his moral judgments imposing a different moral template on him.

 

[Picaro]

The problem is you are pretending to be god and deciding who's humility is worthy of addressing. You think it isn't humiliating for a man to lose his livelyhood, food and shelter for his family for not going along with something he considers morally wrong? I'd rather the gays couple be inconvenienced by going elsewhere.

You use the term Christian in quotes as if you are the final arbitrator of what is truly Christian. That's the level of tyranny and arrogance we've come to expect from the left.

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

Mental health 'experts' like who?Many of the so-called 'researchers' are homosexuals themselves, and reading the 'science' on it shows there is zero evidence proving it's not a mental illness. The fact is the 'professionals' are liars and politicized to the point where they can't say anything to the contrary without losing their jobs and careers, and they don't have the character and morals to give that up by speaking the truth about the sickos.

'The 'mental health experts' don't have much of a record of objectivity orcredibility even before the homo hoax broke out.

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

It's not like forcing a baker to bake the cake would never result in an inferior product. Noo never.

If that baker intentionally sabotaged a wedding cake, how much business could they expect in the future?

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem is not the cake but the actions of the baker.

And if I understand your last sentence, you're in favor of unfairness. An untenable position

The issue is punishing the baker for the butt hurt of others, and no actual harm.

There is going to be unfairness regardless of which side wins. How is it fair to force a baker to bake and provide a cake they don't want to provide?

If you had ever been on the receiving end of discrimination, you would not be so cavalier or dismissive. You call it "butt hurt", but you utterly fail to see it for what it is. Unwarranted, unnecessary and impolite treatment and humiliation of a customer who came to ytour shop expecting the same high level of service every other customer enjoys. Couples are impressed with the artistry produced by your shop and fully expect that their money is just as green as everyone else's

But when obscure 'Christian' dogma confronts them, they are left not only without the baker of their choice, but the feeling that they are unworthy of service simply because some 'Christian' deems them so. No actual harm? Get told that you are not welcome simply because someone else disagrees with your way of life. Sure, you're an American citizen protected by law. But not if someone without legal standing thinks so. What kind of Land of the Free do you want? Perhaps you could look to Apartheid South
Africa or Jim Crow south as your paradigm of freedom then give up all the pretense of loving America for our freedoms.

This isn't a point of sale service in front of other customers, it is a contracted service which was politely denied.

I have been picked on for being smaller, smarter and less outgoing than my classmates. I didn't advocate banning them or ruining them, which is what is going on here. I got over it and moved on, and I am a stronger person because of it.

Having to go to another baker is an easier solution, and a more fair one than forcing the baker out of business because it doesn't want to provide a contracted service to one type of customer.

Maybe progressives like you need to be actually picked on a bit to grow a fucking spine.

The baker might happily prepare a wedding cake for a Mafia princess, even though they know it would be paid for with blood money. bakers routinely prepare wedding cakes.

Your classmates were kids. They were not business people with state issued business licenses.

And, in small towns and rural settings, going to another baker might not be so easy. Additionally, going to another baker might result in getting an inferior product.

And forcing a baker to make a cake against his will might result in getting an inferior product.

Because that baker is so filled with fear, hate and suspicion that they would intentionally sabotage a wedding cake. Ah! But they're 'Christians', right? Ridiculous hypocrisy

 

[Nosmo King]

The government is imposing on all citizens the government's concept of sin and demanding that all citizens accept the government's definition as gospel.

Does that justify the narrow interpretation of some 'Christians' to impose their moral template on society?

Only liberals are imposing their moral template.

LOL, you're tripp'n. This may be the dumbest comment you've ever posted - and there have been many.

Isn't forcing the baker to set aside his moral judgments imposing a different moral template on him.

How is the immortal soul of a baker in peril for baking a cake?

 

[Nosmo King]

Same sex customers at a bakery are patrons. They are not putting the baker, whose reason for business is to provide baked goods, out of business. The actions of the baker, imposing a mercantile imperator, a seal of approval, for which he has no brief, on a couple is what is putting him out of business.

Do these 'Christian' bakers morally vet each of their clients, or just the ones they hate?

And I use quotes arouyd the word Christian referring to these bakers because they are using Christianity to serve a vile purpose the same way the Taliban uses Islam.

Dear Nosmo King
1. You are right in terms of "accommodating customers" it is well established it is UNLAWFUL to bar customers just because they are gay.
but that's not the issue here with actually baking cakes.
2. To require a business to "provide a certain service" is different from accommodating customers in a store.

What if I provide grooming for dogs, but REFUSE to service pitbulls because I don't know if they are trained or not?

What if I sew formal wear for women, but don't do men's suits because that requires expertise I don't have or I just don't enjoy doing that kind of work. I just want to do ruffles and lace, not long boring seams that have to be perfect or it ruins my professional reputation.

What if I provide filming of parties, but REFUSE to do adult sex parties that go against my beliefs?

Where are people getting that you can force ANYONE to provide services that are outside their area of focus, much more if they are AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

What happened to common courtesy and common sense?

There is a limit as to what you can be required to do for customers.
so if the ACTIVITY of the customers is objectionable,
then even if a gay, straight, Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Jewish customer walks in
and ask you to film or bake a cake for a gay wedding the answer could be NO I don't believe in participating or supporting that kind of ACTIVITY.

It's not discriminating against the CUSTOMER if ALL customers get the same answer:
NO I don't do gay weddings.

A bakery makes wedding cakes as part and parcel of their business. Baking, decorating and delivering a wedding cake is not outside their area of expertise or beyond their normal business practice.

What do you suppose a same sex wedding cake looks like? In y imagination, it looks exactly like any other wedding cake. Meanwhile, the same sex couple will not provide any unspecified danger to the baker. The wedding cake is from a 'menu' of services normally provided by the baker. The same sex wedding itself is a legal activity, unlike some adult sex parties.

As for religious beliefs, where did this dogma come from? As a Christian myself, I can testoify that my minister has never issued any admonishment or edict against commerce with homosexuals.

Anecdotal stories aren't a basis for making law, and neither is being afflicted with a mental illness that manifests itself in nasty harmful sexual fetishes; it's not a constitutional issue, it's a mental and public health issue.

Experts in mental health disagree. Homosexuality is not an affliction or condition of mental illness. There is no public health problem.

Mental health 'experts' like who?Many of the so-called 'researchers' are homosexuals themselves, and reading the 'science' on it shows there is zero evidence proving it's not a mental illness. The fact is the 'professionals' are liars and politicized to the point where they can't say anything to the contrary without losing their jobs and careers, and they don't have the character and morals to give that up by speaking the truth about the sickos.

'The 'mental health experts' don't have much of a record of objectivity orcredibility even before the homo hoax broke out.

Thus spake yet another science denier. And a Conservative at that. what are the odds?

 

[emilynghiem]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Do onto others as you would have them do onto you is the value I learned in Catechism from the Nuns. It seems the baker in this situation and Hobby Lobby owners for example, are faux Christians - they go to church, wear the cross of Christianity but have been infected with hate, not the love of Christ's Gospel.

So when you leftist filth bags push to punish those who don't follow your line...YOU should expect the same when the tables are turned? Glad to hear that.

Dear OffensivelyOpenMinded and Wry Catcher
Sadly that's exactly what has been happening.
both sides persecute, harass and politically hang and punish each other over differences in beliefs.
Two wrongs don't make anything right.
At some point we will learn a better way, but both sides have to suffer the same consequences
to learn this approach doesn't work. Retribution feeds on itself and becomes self-destructive
to both sides that both lose. Just like war, it's a phase people go through to defend
their turf. Until we learn to manage conflicts and diverse groups more civilly. We will learn, eventually, but at what cost?

There is nothing civil about discrimination, and discrimination creates conflict. We should have learned from the labor movement and the civil rights movement but have not. The new Populism is an example of what is wrong when people are singled out because of their demand for equal rights, or their color, ethnicity or sexual orientation . Bakers who do discriminate are rewarded by other bigots, may lose customers (I'll never go to Hobby Lobby or Chick-fil-a for example, or even Wal-Mart because I do not believe they reflect Traditional American Values).

That's my opinion, but I will never tell you or others not to frequent those who I believe foster discontent.

Hi Wry Catcher I agree about discrimination:
the treatment against "discrimination" should ALSO be applied equally to all cases, and not DISCRIMINATELY.

So if atheists and secularists can bar Christian prayer and practice and activity in public policy and institutions
"because they don't believe in it"
so should people who don't believe that homosexuality is natural and equal nor believe in gay marriage
be able to argue no we don't approve govt and public endorsement or involvement in these private practices and faith based beliefs.

The same arguments go BOTH WAYS.

So I agree with you, and just ask that the same standards
of practice and civility be applied to both
* beliefs for or against gay marriage
* beliefs for or against Christianity, homosexuality, transgender identity,
and anything else NOT PROVEN but equally FAITH based.

Treat "faith based" beliefs the same and keep govt NEUTRAL. Agreed!
No discrimination by creed for or against one belief and not another. Treat them the SAME
political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, where these remain individual free choice WITHOUT penalty or harassment.

 

[JoeMoma]

Here is my take (which may seem a little different than what I said before).

If the wedding cake involved is generic, meaning the cake itself is no different one that is used in a heterosexual wedding, then the baker should make the cake. After all, he is not responsible for the venue that his other baked goods may be used either. The baker has no need to have any knowledge about the wedding that the cake is going to be able to fill the cake order. Perhaps a don't ask don't tell policy could be in place about who is getting married.

However, if the cake is somehow customized artistically to show support for same sex marriages or otherwise homosexual behavior, the baker should have the right to refuse. The baker should have the right to refuse to decorate the cake with rainbows to represent gay pride or to put the figures of two grooms on the top off the cake rather than a bride and a groom.

The baker refused to deliver it, not make it. They wanted the baker to cater it to their wedding and the baker said no they wouldn't do that. The couple could have had a cake picked up but they didn't. They sued instead.

Then I support the baker. He should not have to cater to a venue he finds morally offensive (especially if based on his religion). He also shouldn't be forced to cater a KKK themed wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

Amid the religious liberty cases increasingly heading to the courts, there’s one prominent legal battle that could potentially have some sweeping ramifications: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that surrounds baker Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips, much like Oregon bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein and numerous other wedding venders across the U.S.,


Christian Baker Not Backing Down After Gov’t Punishes Him for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well good for them standing their grounds on their beliefs..................
Go to another cake maker who doesn't give a rats ass would have been much simpler.
If I were to believe as they do because it was against my religion to do so I'd do the same dam thing I sure in the hell wouldn't cower down to some BS LAWS where just because some moron made it a law etc doesn't mean it is a fair nor right law.

Fascinating how you object to States rights.