Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[irosie91]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

 

[WorldWatcher]

what are you calling "accommodation" ? If the baker refused to sell a cake to a person because the person
is a homosexual---THAT IS DENIAL OF A PUBLIC
ACCOMODATION----but the baker cannot be forced
to create a cake that he considers immoral. That is why
I have stated that the proposed situation did not provide
enough INFORMATION

Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes doesn't consider Wedding Cakes to be immoral, he advertises for their sale.

He considered the customers immoral because of their sexual orientation and therefore refused sale of a good and service he normally provided as part of his business model. If Mr. Phillips considers wedding cakes as immoral, he is free not to produce them for anyone. However if he produces them for one group, then it's not the cake, it's the customer he's discriminating against.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

Nope.

According to Mr. Phillips as confirmed in the Statement of Facts from court documents that Mr. Phillips acknowledged as accurate - there was never any discussion about design. As soon as he determined the sale was going to be to a same-sex couple he refused service.


>>>>

 

[BS Filter]

In that they are forcing through government power private individuals to do things they do not want to do because other private individuals want them to do it, they very much touch on any number of rights held by private individuals. I have a right to choose not to associate with other people; they do NOT have a right to force others to associate with them. Because of this, public accommodation laws, in and of themselves, violate the Constitution. It is one thing to say that public sector entities, such as government agencies, must service everyone. It is entirely another to say that private sector entities must do so.

Furthermore, to say, "They can believe what they want; they just can't practice it" is to say "They cannot believe it". A major problem with left-think on this subject is that it conflates "belief" with "thought", and assumes that one's beliefs are merely thoughts in one's head, divorced from one's actions. The exact opposite is the truth: one's beliefs are NOT what one thinks, or even what one says. What a person DOES is the truest measure of what he believes, particularly when circumstances are most difficult. The First Amendment recognizes this by guaranteeing not only "freedom of religion" but also "the free exercise thereof".

You are still arrogating to yourself the right to approve the beliefs of others. You are saying, "They have the right to believe what they want, so long as it is acceptable to most people." The First Amendment doesn't exist to protect belief that is generally acceptable to society at large; if it's acceptable to most people, it doesn't NEED protection, because it won't be attacked. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect belief that most people find repugnant.

And yeah, I actually think you should be free to restrict your business only to well-endowed blondes, if that's what you want to do. Of course, I also think you should be free to avail yourself of bankruptcy court when your business closes two months later. What I DON'T think is that you should be legally required to pretend that you like skinny brunettes if you don't choose to.

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

 

[bodecea]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

Name calling rolled in with a sense of entitlement. Not surprising.

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

Name calling rolled in with a sense of entitlement. Not surprising.

Yeah. Go study the 14th amendment that you use and abuse to try to justify your fascist agenda. Idiot.

 

[bodecea]

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

Name calling rolled in with a sense of entitlement. Not surprising.

Yeah. Go study the 14th amendment that you use and abuse to try to justify your fascist agenda. Idiot.

I have...as has the Supreme Court.

 

[Tilly]

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

Maybe it would be, but I doubt murderers announce the fact they are murderers and ask for a cake to celebrate their murder(s)?

 

[BS Filter]

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

Name calling rolled in with a sense of entitlement. Not surprising.

Yeah. Go study the 14th amendment that you use and abuse to try to justify your fascist agenda. Idiot.

I have...as has the Supreme Court.

And the leftist activist judges that abuse the 14th Amendment will agree with you, but the authors of the 14th Amendment wouldn't. They had no idea about same-sex marriage when they wrote the amendment. You statist pissants just magically see your agenda in 150 year-old amendments that originated with the end of slavery that were designed to make full American citizens and their descendants from former slaves.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not offering birth control as compensation isn't treating others badly.

Yes it is. It may put that woman at risk of illness or an unwanted pregnancy (How do you feel about abortion?)

She’s so dumb she’ll risk illness or pregnancy rather than sort out some birth control for herself? And you think that’s someone else’s responsibility/fault?

What the fuck do you mean " sort out some for herself?" Are you actually a woman? Do you know that it can be expensive? Do you understand the benefits beyond birth control:

Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill | Center for Young Women's Health

Birth control? Is expensive? Clearly YOU are not a woman.

I don't give a fuck about the benefits beyond birth control if I'M not the one taking it. Do YOU understand that if it's "HER body, HER choice", then it's HER fucking problem?

Nice unhinged right wing rant. Thank you for confirming that you are a selfish, heartless, tea party freedom caucus type that does not give a fuck about anyone else. And you might not think that BC is cheep but I know for a fact that some women struggle with the cost

 

[Skull Pilot]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

 

[Skull Pilot]

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

Maybe it would be, but I doubt murderers announce the fact they are murderers and ask for a cake to celebrate their murder(s)?

It doesn't matter does it?

Or is ignorance of sin an excuse?

 

[Skull Pilot]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

Until then the whole its a sin to bake a cake for sinners is still a feeble excuse for disobeying the law

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

I don't give a fuck if you believe in a magic sky fairy that farts rainbows.

 

[BS Filter]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

There was never any discussion of design.

Also, many wedding cakes in Mr. Phillips catalog didn't use figurines at all.


>>>>

 

[BS Filter]

Yes, yes, I'm well aware that you've passed a law, and you somehow think "the law is" equals "the law should be". But there actually is a difference, and the argument isn't what laws exist, but what laws SHOULD exist.

And "Violate your beliefs or don't work!" is a feeble excuse for morality from someone who presumes to dictate morality for everyone.

Please give me a cogent argument why baking a cake (or providing ant service)for a gay couple is a worse sin than baking a cake (or providing any service) for a murderer, a rapist, a pederast, or an adulterer.

And FYI "Because I said so." is not a cogent argument

I have never said "Because I said so". What I have said, and will continue to say until you get it through your head, is that you are not entitled to ANY argument about anyone's beliefs, because IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I don't have to explain my beliefs to you and make you understand and agree with them, Mr. Phillips doesn't have to do so, no one does. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT.

There is no number of times that you are going to try to make this about justifying what people use their First Amendment rights for that is going to get me to validate your nosy judgemental hubris.

The first amendment that you are citing allows me to give my opinion on other people's beliefs.

I don't accept hypocritical justifications for bigotry like you do.

And the people claiming religious reasons for not serving people are being hypocrites because they have no problem serving 99.999% of sinners.

It's pure bullshit and I would be saying the same thing if there were no public accommodation laws. And I have every right to call people out on their beliefs if I want to.

And if my opinion is irrelevant then so is the opinion of the religious bigot but at least my opinions are not hypocritical or capricious as I treat everyone with the same level of respect.

I wonder if you'd hold the same opinion if your boss fired you just because you were a woman justifying it by saying the new religion he just converted to says that it's a sin for a woman to work

Christophobic bigot.

I don't give a fuck if you believe in a magic sky fairy that farts rainbows.

And I don't give a whit that you believe the anus is a sex organ.

 

[dblack]

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

There was never any discussion of design.

Also, many wedding cakes in Mr. Phillips catalog didn't use figurines at all.


>>>>

Sifting through the details of this case reminds me of the first time I went into a strip bar. I remember the women were all wearing "pasties" - these little covers over their nipples. I asked about it and someone said it was a state law. And I remembered imagining lawmakers, deliberating on this law - discussing the size and material required for the nipple coverings.

My thought at the time was similar to my reaction now. Is this really the kind of shit we want government worrying about?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

 

[Tilly]

"serving people" ? what does that mean? The issue of
CREATING A CAKE was the subject. Specifically ---not
selling a cake to a homosexual couple-----the issue was CREATING A CAKE SPECIFICALLY SANCTIFYING A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE BY CREATING A CAKE THAT
SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTS A HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE. The cake baker has a right NOT TO USE
HIS ART ----to order. He cannot REFUSE to sell a cake
to a homosexual just because the person is a homosexual---but no one has a right to DEMAND that he represent homosexuality on a cake. "serving people" refers to things like LUNCH IN A RESTAURANT

FYI the cake doesn't sanctify anything. It's a cake that is all it is.

But let's use your example.

Does making a cake for a murderer sanctify murder?
Does making a cake for an adulterer sanctify adultery?

You see IDGAF if people refuse service but I will tell them when they are inconsistent and hypocritical.

No one will tell me why the gay sin is somehow worse than all the other sins that a cake baker will ignore

a cake for a murderer? as in "CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR FIRST MURDER" ??? I do believe that a baker should not be required to create such a cake. Regarding the
cake for a homosexual marriage-------we were not provided
with ENOUGH INFORMATION

I see you , like everyone else, avoided my question.

If making a cake for a gay guy is a sin why isn't making a cake for any other sinner a sin?

Maybe it would be, but I doubt murderers announce the fact they are murderers and ask for a cake to celebrate their murder(s)?

It doesn't matter does it?

Or is ignorance of sin an excuse?

If you don’t know a person has sinned (ie murdered in your example) you don’t know, do you????

 

[BS Filter]

It IS illegal to terminate an employee based on discrimination on race or gender------

In Colorado, the state where Masterpiece Cakes is, it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Mr. Phillips, admits he makes wedding cakes, he refused service not because he didn't make wedding cakes - he refused service based on who the sexual orientation of the customers.


>>>>

the requested cake was not SPECIFIC to homo-sexuality?

No it looked like any other wedding cake.

There was no writing on it, the people would have provided their own top figurines and could have put them on the cake themselves

They said it was for a same-sex wedding. The baker doesn't believe in queer marriage, and that's his right.

So what?

The cake was no different than any other cake. His refusal of service violated the public accommodation laws.

There is no exemption. He might believe interracial marriage is a sin too would he be justified in refusing service there too?

And I really don't care but if you want to be consistent ( and I don't think you do) then you would be just fine with your boss being able to fire you because of your religion if he didn't agree with it.

"So what". Exactly. You leftists demand respect, but you somehow think you don't have to show any.