If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Silhouette]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. Thanks for clearing that up. That's how the Court saw it too; and why it recently Ruled the way it did.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He doesn't refuse to bake cakes for queers.

He refuses to create special cakes fo homo fake weddings.

There's a diff. He wouldn't create cakes that celebrated satanism, either.

So are you saying he would sell a wedding cake to two straight guys having a wedding reception?


.>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Look, in 99.9% of cases, if a Christian vendor declines to service a gay wedding, the gay couple can very quickly and easily just find other vendors. No one is being "denied" anything. If a secular baker declined to bake a gay wedding cake because he didn't believe in marriage at all and thus did not bake any wedding cakes for anyone, the gay couple would just find another baker. The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

And your evidence of that?

 

[Syriusly]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

 

[Silhouette]

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

Well maybe school administrators have been to gay "pride" parades and have seen with their own eyes what LGBT lifestylists like to do where they hope and invite children to be watching? Just a guess.

Along those lines Syriusly, do you think with the USSC Ruling recently that public schools in CA should either 1. Add "important Christians in history" class as mandated to students, tying a person's accomplishments to their faith? or 2. Subtract "Important gays in History" class as mandated to students, tying a person's accomplishments to their deviant sex habits? Add or subtract? Because neutrality and Law now demands one or the other.

 

[hadit]

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

False

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.

Wedding cakes are not a "new product" - he freely admits that he makes/made wedding cakes. The only difference between is a wedding cake for a different-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding is the "different" and "same" part.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.

Except that Mr. Phillips never refused any design elements of the wedding cake, he immediately refused service upon finding out that the customers were both male. He would not have sold them a wedding cake form his online portfolio, cakes already designed and with not "speech" or "religious" component.

But in general we agree, Public Accommodation laws are government overreach and should be repealed. But that is a discussion about what "should be" not "what is".


.>>>>

So a songwriter should be forced to create art he cannot relate too?

Elements? Art is a complete work. So if the songwriter goes against the clients wishes an excluded any reference to the specific nature of the relationship, he would be without liability?

Like a wedding cake. The baker could just hand them a cake in the same fashion?

What other constitutional freedom must we also take down to accommodate a non essential want?

A baker could get around it by staying up front that he will bake a plain cake for anyone, but if they want something written on it, there's a set of Bible verses that he will write and nothing beyond that. He would lose a lot of business, but if he started it up front, it's take it or leave it.

 

[Silhouette]

A baker could get around it by staying up front that he will bake a plain cake for anyone, but if they want something written on it, there's a set of Bible verses that he will write and nothing beyond that. He would lose a lot of business, but if he started it up front, it's take it or leave it.

Or he can just keep doing what he's always done and tell gay dudes to go pound sand because his 24/7 religious convictions disallow him to condone, participate in or promote anything that has to do with gay lifestylists spreading the idea that "gay is OK" in his culture. Or that.

Which by the way is what the Court broadly hinted at is going to be the final outcome of all this. No, this time it's your cult that's going to have to do some adjusting to the new Findings.

 

[kaz]

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers.
That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents.

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

He did refuse to sell them a product that he normally supplied based on their sex. Since they were being married as a "same-sex" couple that is pretty much defining it. If they were a "different-sex" couple he would have sold them the wedding caket

You defined selling "wedding" cakes more broadly to cast a wider net.

He won't sell a wedding cake that says "Congratulations To Mike and Steve" to anyone. Not man, woman, man/man, man/woman, woman/woman, woman and her pet dog, no one.

Sex discrimination is about what his answer is based on the sex of the person in front of him. That is irrelevant here. You're trying to conflate his view of gay marriage with the people in front of him. Sex discrimination is about the people in front of you, not your opinions. His answer didn't change because they people in front of him were gay. Anyone else would have gotten the same answer

 

[hadit]

A baker could get around it by staying up front that he will bake a plain cake for anyone, but if they want something written on it, there's a set of Bible verses that he will write and nothing beyond that. He would lose a lot of business, but if he started it up front, it's take it or leave it.

Or he can just keep doing what he's always done and tell gay dudes to go pound sand because his 24/7 religious convictions disallow him to condone, participate in or promote anything that has to do with gay lifestylists spreading the idea that "gay is OK" in his culture. Or that.

Which by the way is what the Court broadly hinted at is going to be the final outcome of all this. No, this time it's your cult that's going to have to do some adjusting to the new Findings.

Which cult is that? It's hard to keep track of which one I'm supposed to belong to week to week.

 

[kaz]

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers.
That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents.

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

He did refuse to sell them a product that he normally supplied based on their sex. Since they were being married as a "same-sex" couple that is pretty much defining it. If they were a "different-sex" couple he would have sold them the wedding cake.

And as pop keeps pointing out and you're not grasping, he won't sell a same sex wedding cake to a man and a woman or a heterosexual couple either.

First of all the product is "wedding cake", the customers are different-sex and same-sex. He clearly indicated he would sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples and refused to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

The sex of the customers is not the reason he won't sell the cake. There is no way you can argue therefore that the sex of the customers is why he won't sell the cake

You confuse "reason" with "behavior". His act/behavior was to refuse service. There is no exception in the law for reasons for an act. The SCOTUS punted on that question because the hostile comments of the Commission tainted the process. But note:

The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Employment Division v. Smith.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Newman v. Piggie Park.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Bob Jones University v. United States.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in the Muslim Taxi driver case from Minnesota.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient for Mormons that believed in polygamy.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Elane Photography v. New Mexico (where the SCOTUS allowed the State Supreme Court ruling to remain in effect)

Two gay men. Will you sell us a birthday cake?
Baker: Sure, you're gay aren't you?
Two gay men. As a kite
Baker: Just wondered. What name do you want on the cake?

Irrelevant as the law does not say "pick and choose" what goods and services need to be made available under the Colorado PA law, the law clearly states "full and equal" access to all "goods and services", not a subset of goods and services.

Their sex isn't relevant, it's just not

I know, it wasn't part of the case.

Now if Mr. Phillips had argued before the court that sexual orientation wasn't the issue in providing full and equal goods and services to the male/male customers but it was the sex composition of the customers - then we would be having a different discussion with different case history to comment on.

Right now we are just discussing Pops theoretical justification to absolve Mr. Phillips of being exempt from the law (i.e. it wasn't about sexual orientation) because he wouldn't have sold the wedding cake based on the sex of the couples regardless of their sexual orientation. By selling to different-sex couples and - by his own words - refusing to sell them to "same-sex" couples the criteria causing the behavior is clearly defined as the sex composition of the couple.


.>>>>>

He doesn't refuse to bake cakes for queers.

He refuses to create special cakes fo homo fake weddings.

There's a diff. He wouldn't create cakes that celebrated satanism, either.

Yes, public accommodation laws are about who you provide service to. He didn't refuse them service because of their sex, he refused them service because he didn't want to make what they wanted to buy, and he would have refused service to anyone who requested that product

 

[Pop23]

^^ Just not "gay" wedding cakes worldy. It is a new market and one his faith won't allow him to participate in.

EXACTLY

Just like Muslim cabbie's faith won't allow them to transport riders with seeing eye dogs.......

Sorry, what law changed that made taking your dog in your cab legal?

Hmmmmmm, no such change

So the cab driver knew, to drive a cab, he must sin

The Baker made his business plan on the understanding he could make wedding cake without creating a sinful liability.

But that was a good effort non the less

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

Typical and well worn made up bigoted bovine excrement and the nasty gay people against the oh so virtuous Christians. Get the fuck over it. You have no fucking idea what those gay people care about. Poor little innocent victim!!

 

[Pop23]

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers.
That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents.

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

He did refuse to sell them a product that he normally supplied based on their sex. Since they were being married as a "same-sex" couple that is pretty much defining it. If they were a "different-sex" couple he would have sold them the wedding cake.

And as pop keeps pointing out and you're not grasping, he won't sell a same sex wedding cake to a man and a woman or a heterosexual couple either.

First of all the product is "wedding cake", the customers are different-sex and same-sex. He clearly indicated he would sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples and refused to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

The sex of the customers is not the reason he won't sell the cake. There is no way you can argue therefore that the sex of the customers is why he won't sell the cake

You confuse "reason" with "behavior". His act/behavior was to refuse service. There is no exception in the law for reasons for an act. The SCOTUS punted on that question because the hostile comments of the Commission tainted the process. But note:

The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Employment Division v. Smith.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Newman v. Piggie Park.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Bob Jones University v. United States.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in the Muslim Taxi driver case from Minnesota.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient for Mormons that believed in polygamy.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Elane Photography v. New Mexico (where the SCOTUS allowed the State Supreme Court ruling to remain in effect)

Two gay men. Will you sell us a birthday cake?
Baker: Sure, you're gay aren't you?
Two gay men. As a kite
Baker: Just wondered. What name do you want on the cake?

Irrelevant as the law does not say "pick and choose" what goods and services need to be made available under the Colorado PA law, the law clearly states "full and equal" access to all "goods and services", not a subset of goods and services.

Their sex isn't relevant, it's just not

I know, it wasn't part of the case.

Now if Mr. Phillips had argued before the court that sexual orientation wasn't the issue in providing full and equal goods and services to the male/male customers but it was the sex composition of the customers - then we would be having a different discussion with different case history to comment on.

Right now we are just discussing Pops theoretical justification to absolve Mr. Phillips of being exempt from the law (i.e. it wasn't about sexual orientation) because he wouldn't have sold the wedding cake based on the sex of the couples regardless of their sexual orientation. By selling to different-sex couples and - by his own words - refusing to sell them to "same-sex" couples the criteria causing the behavior is clearly defined as the sex composition of the couple.


.>>>>>

He doesn't refuse to bake cakes for queers.

He refuses to create special cakes fo homo fake weddings.

There's a diff. He wouldn't create cakes that celebrated satanism, either.

Yes, public accommodation laws are about who you provide service to. He didn't refuse them service because of their sex, he refused them service because he didn't want to make what they wanted to buy, and he would have refused service to anyone who requested that product

Regardless of sex, regardless of sexuality.

Let’s see if the State of Colorado does anything more to punish Christians.

 

[Pop23]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

Typical and well worn made up bigoted bovine excrement and the nasty gay people against the oh so virtuous Christians. Get the fuck over it. You have no fucking idea what those gay people care about. Poor little innocent victim!!

Well, to be honest, we do know that two gay people care more about having a symbol of fertility at a party then they GIVE A DAMN IF THE BAKER BELIEVES HE WILL SPEND ETERNITY IN FLAME.

Just sayin.

 

[Pop23]

It is also quite clear that he would make wedding cakes for any sex and any sexuality in the traditional style, he simply does not, nor has he ever carried or created the new product.

False

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.

Wedding cakes are not a "new product" - he freely admits that he makes/made wedding cakes. The only difference between is a wedding cake for a different-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding is the "different" and "same" part.

As in my example of the song writer, the artist cannot create the art that he does not relate too.

Forcing an artist to create art is absurd.

Except that Mr. Phillips never refused any design elements of the wedding cake, he immediately refused service upon finding out that the customers were both male. He would not have sold them a wedding cake form his online portfolio, cakes already designed and with not "speech" or "religious" component.

But in general we agree, Public Accommodation laws are government overreach and should be repealed. But that is a discussion about what "should be" not "what is".


.>>>>

So a songwriter should be forced to create art he cannot relate too?

Elements? Art is a complete work. So if the songwriter goes against the clients wishes an excluded any reference to the specific nature of the relationship, he would be without liability?

Like a wedding cake. The baker could just hand them a cake in the same fashion?

What other constitutional freedom must we also take down to accommodate a non essential want?

A baker could get around it by staying up front that he will bake a plain cake for anyone, but if they want something written on it, there's a set of Bible verses that he will write and nothing beyond that. He would lose a lot of business, but if he started it up front, it's take it or leave it.

Heck, I’ve said before that any same sex wedding cake would be made as long as payment was made to an anti gay organization.

Problem solved.

 

[Pop23]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

If the law has the word “groups” in it, the prosecution is OBLIGATED to prove he has a “Bias against a GROUP”

Again, what “group” of a protected class is that BIAS practiced against when his policy is APPLIED EQUALLY.

Worldy, Pop is right here. Just give it up..

Pop- now that Silhouette agrees with you- aren't you now questioning your stance?

No, Sils arguments make complete sense

 

[Pop23]

He doesn't refuse to bake cakes for queers.

He refuses to create special cakes fo homo fake weddings.

There's a diff. He wouldn't create cakes that celebrated satanism, either.

So are you saying he would sell a wedding cake to two straight guys having a wedding reception?


.>>>>

No silly WW. He doesn’t offer that product.

 

[buttercup]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

Typical and well worn made up bigoted bovine excrement and the nasty gay people against the oh so virtuous Christians. Get the fuck over it. You have no fucking idea what those gay people care about. Poor little innocent victim!!

People are individuals and imo everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. That said, I have seen many homosexuals who clearly have a hatred for the biblical worldview, and hate the fact that there are people who think homosexuality is sinful or unnatural.

There’s much more to this than you seem to realize. It’s a battle, a cultural battle. And there are certain people behind the scenes who aren’t just trying to defend the rights of LGBTQ. It’s so much more than that. Social engineering is going on, a strategic and intentional agenda to change public opinion on numerous things, to destroy traditional/biblical ideas, and to try to normalize things that many many people will never accept as normal.

Do you honestly think that these things always happen randomly and innocently? No, certain powers behind the scenes sometimes go out of their way to look for a fight, in order to create a court case to push their political/social agenda. The same thing happened with abortion. "Jane Roe", (Norma McCorvey, the woman behind Roe v. Wade) was used in order to push a particular agenda. She didn’t realize it at the time, but many years later she did.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. This is not simply about gay citizens…In many cases, they are being used as pawns. There are powers behind the scenes who are pushing a political agenda, and that agenda is subversive and anti-Christian. So of course they're going to target Christians. And there's actually even more to it than that, but I'm not going to get into all that because you wouldn't believe it or understand it. But just because you don't believe this, or you think it's crazy doesn't make it untrue. You'll see, someday. Mark my words.

 

[Pop23]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. These gay couples don't really care if this or that Christian vendor declined to bake a cake for them, or to photograph their "wedding," or to set up flowers at their "wedding." They don't care about that. They quickly and easily made other arrangements. They saw an opportunity, and in some cases sought an opportunity, to harass and persecute Christian vendors. That's what this is really all about, and deep down we all know it.

Typical and well worn made up bigoted bovine excrement and the nasty gay people against the oh so virtuous Christians. Get the fuck over it. You have no fucking idea what those gay people care about. Poor little innocent victim!!

People are individuals and imo everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. That said, I have seen many homosexuals who clearly have a hatred for the biblical worldview, and hate the fact that there are people who think homosexuality is sinful or unnatural.

There’s much more to this than you seem to realize. It’s a battle, a cultural battle. And there are certain people behind the scenes who aren’t simply trying to defend the rights of the LGBTQ community. It’s so much more than that. Social engineering is going on, a strategic and intentional agenda to change public opinion on numerous things, to destroy traditional/biblical ideas, and to try to normalize things that many many people will never accept as normal.

Do you honestly think that these things always happen randomly and innocently? No, certain powers behind the scenes sometimes go out of their way to look for a fight, in order to create a court case to push their political/social agenda. The same thing happened with abortion. "Jane Roe", (Norma McCorvey, the woman behind Roe v. Wade) was used in order to push a particular agenda. She didn’t realize it at the time, but now she does.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point. This is not simply about gay citizens…In many cases, they are being used as pawns. There are powers behind the scenes who are pushing a political agenda, and that agenda is subversive and anti-Christian. So of course they're going to target Christians. And there's actually even more to it than that, but I'm not going to get into all that because you wouldn't believe it or understand it. But just because you don't believe this, or you think it's crazy doesn't make it untrue. You'll see, someday. Mark my words.

The only way they believe they can be accepted is to be put on the same level as this other protected status that is not something you are born as.

They are not trying to lift themselves to that level, but bring religious belief down to theirs.

It’s already showing signs of failure

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People are individuals and imo everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. That said, I have seen many homosexuals who clearly have a hatred for the biblical worldview, and hate the fact that there are people who think homosexuality is sinful or unnatural.

Really? Many "homosexuals"? Who are they? where are they? Most gay people do dot give a fuck what the biblical bigots think as long as they leave the alone and do not pursue their bigoted agenda to take back their hard fought for rights. You people are entitled to believe in your fairy god father in the sky and gays have the right to be who they are and live accordingly. Again, as I have said many times before, to position the argument as the "gays vs Christians" is dishonest, irresponsible and just fucking stupid,