Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn't Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

[HereIStand]

Great news for religious freedom.
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

 

[bhsmte]

It appears a specific custom design was asked for, so I actually have no problem with this result.

If the people asked for a cake this guy normally sold in his business to others, I would disagree with the ruling.

 

[RaymondG]

It appears a specific custom design was asked for, so I actually have no problem with this result.

If the people asked for a cake this guy normally sold in his business to others, I would disagree with the ruling.

I think a business should not be forced to serve anyone. Dont think it would be fair to be forced to deliver a service because someone show a card and claim that they are this way or that way.

I think a ruling would be in order if the business start requiring that a person tells them a religion or sexual orientation before agreeing to serve. But if one chooses to give this information, it should be ok to choose whether or not to serve based on this information.

 

[Tree of Life]

Great news for religious freedom.
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

Interesting. But what really matters is the Supreme Court case pending about the same issue.

 

[bhsmte]

I think a business should not be forced to serve anyone. Dont think it would be fair to be forced to deliver a service because someone show a card and claim that they are this way or that way.

I think a ruling would be in order if the business start requiring that a person tells them a religion or sexual orientation before agreeing to serve. But if one chooses to give this information, it should be ok to choose whether or not to serve based on this information.

One way to look at it. But, I believe, it is fair for all people, to expect to be served equally, in public accommodating businesses, where the business owner, invites them in the door.

I would take no issue with a business owner claiming religions reasons to refuse to serve someone, with this caveat, that business owner post a notice on their website and storefront, of which types of customers they will refuse to serve.

 

[RaymondG]

One way to look at it. But, I believe, it is fair for all people, to expect to be served equally, in public accommodating businesses, where the business owner, invites them in the door.

I would take no issue with a business owner claiming religions reasons to refuse to serve someone, with this caveat, that business owner post a notice on their website and storefront, of which types of customers they will refuse to serve.

Dont get me wrong, I believe in doing to others what i want them to do to me.....So I would serve everyone, as long as my service doesnt hurt anyone. This also happens to be the reason I wouldnt condone forcing anyone to do anything against their will or desire......I Would not want for my will and desires to be compromised by others.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

One way to look at it. But, I believe, it is fair for all people, to expect to be served equally, in public accommodating businesses, where the business owner, invites them in the door.

I would take no issue with a business owner claiming religions reasons to refuse to serve someone, with this caveat, that business owner post a notice on their website and storefront, of which types of customers they will refuse to serve.

I would agree with that notion...however, the only caveat to that idea is that it only really works in a diverse area with a lot of competition. For example, if you had a small southern town in the sticks, that only had two grocery stores within 50 miles, and both decided to play the religious freedom card to refuse service to certain kinds of people, that has a much more sweeping impact than if it were a medium-large metropolitan area where you had literally dozens of other options.

 

[bhsmte]

I would agree with that notion...however, the only caveat to that idea is that it only really works in a diverse area with a lot of competition. For example, if you had a small southern town in the sticks, that only had two grocery stores within 50 miles, and both decided to play the religious freedom card to refuse service to certain kinds of people, that has a much more sweeping impact than if it were a medium-large metropolitan area where you had literally dozens of other options.

Good points.

My idea, would only apply to non essential businesses. Grocery stores, pharmacies etc., could not choose the denial of service based on religious beliefs.

 

[HereIStand]

Good points.

My idea, would only apply to non essential businesses. Grocery stores, pharmacies etc., could not choose the denial of service based on religious beliefs.

I wouldn't sanction the idea of denying service in general based religious beliefs. That wouldn't be fair. It's really in the narrow area of wedding ceremony related services.

 

[durangodawood]

Would be interesting if a small town Salafist gas station owner refused to serve women drivers on religious grounds.

 

[HereIStand]

Would be interesting if a small town Salafist gas station owner refused to serve women drivers on religious grounds.

No doubt that's happening somewhere.

 

[Sanoy]

Has the supreme court decision been made on this situation? I haven't really been able to find much on it. If not when is it supposed to be made. ( Not the California case)

Answered.

 

[bhsmte]

Has the supreme court decision been made on this situation? I haven't really been able to find much on it. If not when is it supposed to be made. ( Not the California case)

Spring time I think.

 

[Belk]

Great news for religious freedom.
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

Freedom of speech, actually. This is only a preliminary injunction though.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I wouldn't sanction the idea of denying service in general based religious beliefs. That wouldn't be fair. It's really in the narrow area of wedding ceremony related services.

The fact that people want to zero in on just this one particular aspect of "sin" shows that there's somewhat of an odd fixation with that particular "sin".

As I touched on in another thread, why is is that these bakers want to deny gay couples wedding cake services based on the notion "I don't want to condone non-biblical lifestyle choices", yet, I haven't heard of a single one that wants to deny service to fat people on the grounds that selling them cake is only enabling their gluttonous lifestyle (gluttony also being a sin)? I think it's safe to say that your average baker probably encounters way more obese people than gay people, and their sales to specific customers have probably enabled quite a bit of self-destructive behavior over the years.

It seems to always be one particular "sin" they want to zero in on.

Part of it is probably profit incentive...a bakery specializing in sweets probably isn't going to last very long if they target a group like the overweight/obese, as that's 60% of the population and likely the lion's share of their customers. However, targeting a group like gays means you're really only cutting 2% of the population so it allows them to appear like they're taking a noble stand, but meanwhile, not really impacting their bottom line.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The fact that people want to zero in on just this one particular aspect of "sin" shows that there's somewhat of an odd fixation with that particular "sin".

As I touched on in another thread, why is is that these bakers want to deny gay couples wedding cake services based on the notion "I don't want to condone non-biblical lifestyle choices", yet, I haven't heard of a single one that wants to deny service to fat people on the grounds that selling them cake is only enabling their gluttonous lifestyle (gluttony also being a sin)? I think it's safe to say that your average baker probably encounters way more obese people than gay people, and their sales to specific customers have probably enabled quite a bit of self-destructive behavior over the years.

It seems to always be one particular "sin" they want to zero in on.

Part of it is probably profit incentive...a bakery specializing in sweets probably isn't going to last very long if they target a group like the overweight/obese, as that's 60% of the population and likely the lion's share of their customers. However, targeting a group like gays means you're really only cutting 2% of the population so it allows them to appear like they're taking a noble stand, but meanwhile, not really impacting their bottom line.

Yes, atheists and other seculars do tend to focus on discussing the sin of homosexuality quite a lot.

We Catholics are quite familiar with this sort of thing. The pope will give a long address, and the next day the only reporting will be on the one sentence he said about homosexuality.

It's quite sad that such groups would have such a narrow view of moral science that they would be blind to all but such a narrow issue, but that's the way of things I suppose.

 

[Tanj]

Yes, atheists and other seculars do tend to focus on discussing the sin of homosexuality quite a lot.

That's not true.

Search thread titles on this board containing the word "homosexuality". Check how many are started by non Christians... it's not a whole lot.

We Catholics are quite familiar with this sort of thing.

What thing? Being homosexual, talking about homosexuality, or falsely complaining that it's everyone else that talks about it?

 

[Tanj]

The fact that people want to zero in on just this one particular aspect of "sin" shows that there's somewhat of an odd fixation with that particular "sin".

Howsabout the sin of getting remarried after a non biblical divorce? I'll bet these bakers are more than happy to celebrate adultery.

 

[MoonlessNight]

What thing? Being homosexual, talking about homosexuality, or falsely complaining that it's everyone else that talks about it?

I realize that for some people time or reading comprehension might limit reading ability to one sentence at a time. However, I feel compelled to inform you that there were sentences beyond what you quoted that might potentially help you understand the meaning of that sentence.

(Well, unfortunately I said that in two sentences so who knows if both will be read. I can still hope for the best.)

 

[Tanj]

I realize that for some people time or reading comprehension might limit reading ability to one sentence at a time.

Indeed. One of the reasons I cut down on my posting here. I blame it on the US education system. Also complete lack of understanding of any aspect of irony. covfefe.sad.

However, I feel compelled to inform you that there were sentences beyond what you quoted that might potentially help you understand the meaning of that sentence.

Interesting, was a supernatural agent involved in the compulsion? Any chance you were compelled to post some objective support for your oped rather than ad hom mine?

(Well, unfortunately I said that in two sentences so who knows if both will be read. I can still hope for the best.)

I responded directly to 2 of your 3 sentences, the third being oped poutrage.