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

[Zoii]

Wrong, for you are part of the celebration of that wedding, in this case an unlawful wedding. And you cannot restrict being "a party" to something to direct involvements, not if being an accessory to a crime means more than that.

Who says? I strongly disagree, for to varying degrees you are facilitating it. You might as well rationalize you could knowingly sell gas specifically to toast Jews with clear conscience, since it just makes you a vendor. Sure the crime is greater, but the point is you are still facilitating a certain crime.

I can have scruples helping my neighbor unload a old sofa from another city which charges for pick up to throw away in the trash here where there is no charge.

Of course we are, if we know how they will be used! If your child was killed by a man who bought a gun from a dealer who knew how he was going to use it, then i think you would feel differently. And yes, the baker knew the cakes was to be expressly and specifically used to celebrate what was unlawful.

No, you are essentially using a strawman, clearly misrepresenting the case. This is not a matter of selling any item to some person who might use it to do or celebrate that which is unlawful, but of the baker being told what this special order was to be specifically used for and effectively, effectually consenting to facilitate it. Lets be consistent with the facts.

The is obscurantism, for again there is a critical difference with btwn simply selling items to people who may use them unlawfully, and selling a special item knowing it was to be expressly and specifically only used for something unlawful.

Wrong again, the manifest special status of this is morally relevant, for the size, elaborate decoration, cost and special order status was because this cake had a specific special use, to celebrate that which is unlawful.

Prepared, yes, as well as prepared to say no in the case of unlawful use. In the Masterpiece case the wedding that the couple wanted to celebrate was itself unlawful according to the highest state law, and contrary to its definition. He might as well have refused to create a work specially for celebrating a kid getting an illegal license.

Also erroneous in any case, since a Christian must obey God over men, and to contract and create and provide a cake celebrating that which is unlawful can no more be rationalized than creating a golden calf knowing it is to be specifically used in in idolatry. Hard to believe any Christian could rationalize this guilt away (not that i could not try).

In the MP case he refused only after knowing its specifically would be used to celebrate that which is unlawful in the eyes of God (as well as the state). And has refused to make other specific cakes that were for the express purpose of celebrating something immoral, including half a wedding cake for a man to celebrate his divorce.

Sigh. No, creating and selling a cake is not just selling a cake when you know it is to be specifically used to do something unlawful. Celebrating an unlawful sexual union is sin, and knowingly creating and selling a special work specifically for that celebration facilitates/helps that sin by providing assistance, is sin. Even in US law, while dealing with weightier cases aligns with this.

Spoiler: Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...

In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...

Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)

You mention several times that the wedding is unlawful - But I thought gay weddings were lawful in the USA or am I wrong on that point?

 

[Paidiske]

I think it differs in different states there?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Wrong. Philips did not allow any other couple to contract with him to created wedding cakes, thus the divorcee was also discriminated against, and wedding cakes are simply not available to anyone else. And homosexuals should be able to buy on but one for an approved straight couples wedding, but cannot for their own, any more than a couple of 8 year-old kids could, nor a man and a goat, even if the state allows the latter.

An eight year old might not be able to, not being old enough to enter into a contract. But a man intending to "marry" a goat can buy anything he wants, and so can a gay man for his own wedding. I could buy a "wedding" cake just because, if I wanted to, for no particular celebration at all.

This is the whole blinking point. Anyone can buy a cake for any reason. It's none of the baker's business what they do with it.

Wrong. You could by a generic wedding cake if such was available off the shelf (or robot), but you simply cannot require the baker or artist to create a work specifically for celebrating that which is unlawful in the eyes the God He believes in (and the one you profess), any more than if it is unlawful in the eyes the state, which in the MP case it was!

It is the baker's business to decide what he is going to put his labor and talent into creating, just as much it is for a sculpture, and it is simply wrong for you to require him to do otherwise. Seriously!

 

[Zoii]

Wow it sure opens a can of worms in the USA. I can see this precedent going lots of places. If its lawful to marry, but its against a religion - then wow - I can refuse to bake a cake for an islamic birthday party; or a celebratory cake for a single (by choice) mother; this can go lots of places.

 

[Zoii]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Wrong. Philips did not allow any other couple to contract with him to created wedding cakes, thus the divorcee was also discriminated against, and wedding cakes are simply not available to anyone else. And homosexuals should be able to buy on but one for an approved straight couples wedding, but cannot for their own, any more than a couple of 8 year-old kids could, nor a man and a goat, even if the state allows the latter.

Wrong. You could by a generic wedding cake if such was available off the shelf (or robot), but you simply cannot require the baker or artist to create a work specifically for celebrating that which is unlawful in the eyes the God He believes in (and the one you profess), any more than if it is unlawful in the eyes the state, which in the MP case it was!

It is the baker's business to decide what he is going to put his labor and talent into creating, just as much it is for a sculpture, and it is simply wrong for you to require him to do otherwise. Seriously!

Ah - so gay marriage was unlawful in that state? Then how did the marriage proceed. Im confused then

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You mention several times that the wedding is unlawful - But I thought gay weddings were lawful in the USA or am I wrong on that point?

The Masterpiece case offense is from 2012 in CO:

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. (In 2000, Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a bill banning same-sex marriage.[1] In 2006 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent voters had passed Colorado Amendment 43 which defined marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman.[2] On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] Since 2014, the state has since allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.)[4]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in 2012 to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[5]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings[5]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colorado

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony. - BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is)

Until 2013, a couple with an out-of-state civil union or same-sex marriage could not dissolve their relationship in Colorado, because C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado. - Same-Sex Marriage & Civil Unions

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation.[5] Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."[7]

Masterpiece appealed the decision with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the State's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding cake business;[4] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him 40% of his business.[8] Alongside the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.[3]

The State's decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals on appeal. In its decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion.[4][9]

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal.

The Court of Appeals distinguished its decision in Craig from another case in which three bakeries refused to create a cake with the message "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22",[3]:21 citing that in the latter, the bakeries had made other cakes for Christian customers and declined that order based on the offensive message rather than the customers' creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to provide Craig & Mullins with a wedding cake "was because of its opposition to same sex marriage which...is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."[3]:21

...the Commission has allowed bakers to refuse to provide cakes with anti-same-sex marriage messages on them, even though the Commission said these refusals were appropriate due to the offensiveness of the messages and not on the basis of religion. - Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

Which is absurd, for both opposition to homosexual marriage as well as support of it (and opposition to speech condemning it) flows from belief. Masterpiece opposes homosexual marriage because of his belief, and some bakeries oppose the Leviticus 18:22 message because of their belief. And both the special-purpose cake and the inscripted one are expressions.​

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ah - so gay marriage was unlawful in that state? Then how did the marriage proceed. Im confused then

Because the liberal Civil Rights people effectively decided they could override the constitution and prosecute a business for acting in accordance with the supreme law of the land, and courts agreed, invalidating the state constitution and what the voters by a clear majority decided. As usual.

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal. - Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

 

[TLK Valentine]

And I'm sure the doctor knows this.

And doesn't care.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Here is Jack Philips' affidavit for the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It would explain better why creating a custom-made wedding cake to celebrate same-sex weddings would violate his conscience:

I, JACK PHILLIPS, do hereby state the following:

1. I am a Christian.

2. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, and I am accountable to Him.

3. I have been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years.

4. As a follower of Jesus Christ, my main goal in life is to be obedient to Him and His teachings in all aspects of my life.

5. I own and operate Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

6. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. opened for business in 1993.

7. I desire to honor God through my work at Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

8. The Bible instructs: “Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Col. 3:17 (NIV).

9. The church I belong to believes the Bible is the inspired word of God.

10. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

11. I believe the accounts contained in the Bible are literally true and its teachings and commands are authority for me.

12. I believe that God created Adam and Eve, and that God’s intention for marriage is that it should be the union of one man and one woman.

13. I derive this belief from the first and second chapters of Genesis in the Bible, as well as other passages from the Bible, including Ephesians 5:21-32 which describes marriage as a picture of Christ’s relationship with the Church.

14. The Bible states“[F]rom the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.” Mark 10:6-9 (NIV).

15. I believe this is a quote from Jesus Christ which shows unequivocally that, in His own words, He regards marriage as between a man and a woman, and anything else is sinful.

16. The Bible further instructs me to “flee” or run from sinful things, and particularly those relating to sexual immorality: “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18, 19 (NIV)

17. In 1 Thessalonians 5:22, the Bible instructs me to “reject every kind of evil,” and Romans 1:32 says, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

18. I believe the Bible commands me to avoid the very appearance of doing what is displeasing to God.

19. I believe that if I do not, I am displeasing to God and dishonoring Him.

20. I believe it is also very clear that Bible commands me to flee from sin and not to participate or encourage it in any way.

21. I believe, then, that to participate in same-sex weddings by using my gifts, time and talents would violate my core beliefs, the instructions of the Bible and displeasing to God.

22. I will not deliberately disobey and violate the commands of the sovereign God of the universe.

23. I am also aware same-sex marriage is prohibited under the Colorado law (C.R.S. § 14-2-104), as well as Article II, Section 31 of the Colorado Constitution.

24. Neither I nor my business would serve other weddings that are not legally recognized, nor will we create cakes that celebrate illegal activities.

25. If a client wanted a cake for a polygamous wedding, or a wedding for a reception for a man or woman waiting for their divorce to be finalized, but still actually married to other people, we would decline to design and create wedding cakes for such occasions.

26. Creating a bone-shaped cake for a celebration of a dog’s “wedding” hosted by an animal breeder, while I personally don’t think that this would be a prudent use of time or resources, is not religiously objectionable. It is a celebration that is not illegal, immoral or unbiblical that no one, including the animals, thinks is a legitimate marriage.

27. I have worked in bakeries for nearly 40 years, and have been decorating cakes for most of that time.

28 I believe that decorating cakes is a form of art and creative expression, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. logo which appears in the store, on business cards, and on our advertising reflects this view.

29. Our logo is an artists’ paint palate with a paintbrush and whisk.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because the liberal Civil Rights people effectively decided they could override the constitution and prosecute a business for acting in accordance with the supreme law of the land, and courts agreed, leading to the CO SC invalidating the state constitution and what the voters by a clear majority decided. As usual.

Wait... the CO SC declared the SSM ban unconstitutional before the bakery brouhaha or as a result of it?

 

[Zoii]

The Masterpiece case offense is from 2012 in CO:

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. (In 2000, Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a bill banning same-sex marriage.[1] In 2006 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent voters had passed Colorado Amendment 43 which defined marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman.[2] On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] Since 2014, the state has since allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.)[4]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in 2012 to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[5]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings[5]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colorado

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014.

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony. - BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is)

Until 2013, a couple with an out-of-state civil union or same-sex marriage could not dissolve their relationship in Colorado, because C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado. - Same-Sex Marriage & Civil Unions​

Oh thanks for this - very interesting. My dad works in health and he does a lot of patient complaints/incident management - My thoughts on this is just how unnecessary and expensive it must have been.

For the baker Id say - Step up your customer management. If you'd been like - Guys this is my religious conviction but may I refer you to person XYZ who has an excellent reputation... and wish them the very best - insist that you actually want their business, you certainly don't want to offend them but need to reconcile your religious conviction....chances are that tends to soften people.

To the married couple Id say - Really? Couldn't you have just gone elsewhere - Ok if you couldn't then maybe fair enough but gee - All this was so unnecessary and probably so upsetting for a lot of people - and wow how polarising would this issue have been. It didn't need to be that way.

My solution? - Get all three of them - Married Couple and Baker - Now collectively bang their heads together. problem over!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't think we can go any further. I argue that selling something to someone which they use to celebrate something, doesn't implicate you in their celebration. (It's not like you're there signing the wedding certificate).

You think it does, and I think you're wrong, but there's really nowhere to go from here, except round and round, is there?

Well, if that is all you can see and do...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wait... the CO SC declared the SSM ban unconstitutional before the bakery brouhaha or as a result of it?

Sorry, that is an error. The State's decision was upheld by the CO SC declined to hear an appeal of the decision by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation.[5] Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6]

The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."[7]

Masterpiece appealed the decision with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the State's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding cake business;[4] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him 40% of his business.[8] Alongside the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.[3]

The State's decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals on appeal. In its decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion.[4][9]

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal.[9]:3 Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Here is Jack Philips' affidavit for the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. It would explain better why creating a custom-made wedding cake to celebrate same-sex weddings would violate his conscience:

I, JACK PHILLIPS, do hereby state the following:

1. I am a Christian.

2. I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior, and I am accountable to Him.

3. I have been a Christian for approximately thirty-five years.

4. As a follower of Jesus Christ, my main goal in life is to be obedient to Him and His teachings in all aspects of my life.

5. I own and operate Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

6. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. opened for business in 1993.

7. I desire to honor God through my work at Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

8. The Bible instructs: “Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Col. 3:17 (NIV).

9. The church I belong to believes the Bible is the inspired word of God.

10. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.

11. I believe the accounts contained in the Bible are literally true and its teachings and commands are authority for me.

12. I believe that God created Adam and Eve, and that God’s intention for marriage is that it should be the union of one man and one woman.

13. I derive this belief from the first and second chapters of Genesis in the Bible, as well as other passages from the Bible, including Ephesians 5:21-32 which describes marriage as a picture of Christ’s relationship with the Church.

14. The Bible states“[F]rom the beginning of creation, God made them male and female, for this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.” Mark 10:6-9 (NIV).

15. I believe this is a quote from Jesus Christ which shows unequivocally that, in His own words, He regards marriage as between a man and a woman, and anything else is sinful.

16. The Bible further instructs me to “flee” or run from sinful things, and particularly those relating to sexual immorality: “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body.” 1 Corinthians 6:18, 19 (NIV)

17. In 1 Thessalonians 5:22, the Bible instructs me to “reject every kind of evil,” and Romans 1:32 says, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.”

18. I believe the Bible commands me to avoid the very appearance of doing what is displeasing to God.

19. I believe that if I do not, I am displeasing to God and dishonoring Him.

20. I believe it is also very clear that Bible commands me to flee from sin and not to participate or encourage it in any way.

21. I believe, then, that to participate in same-sex weddings by using my gifts, time and talents would violate my core beliefs, the instructions of the Bible and displeasing to God.

22. I will not deliberately disobey and violate the commands of the sovereign God of the universe.

23. I am also aware same-sex marriage is prohibited under the Colorado law (C.R.S. § 14-2-104), as well as Article II, Section 31 of the Colorado Constitution.

24. Neither I nor my business would serve other weddings that are not legally recognized, nor will we create cakes that celebrate illegal activities.

25. If a client wanted a cake for a polygamous wedding, or a wedding for a reception for a man or woman waiting for their divorce to be finalized, but still actually married to other people, we would decline to design and create wedding cakes for such occasions.

26. Creating a bone-shaped cake for a celebration of a dog’s “wedding” hosted by an animal breeder, while I personally don’t think that this would be a prudent use of time or resources, is not religiously objectionable. It is a celebration that is not illegal, immoral or unbiblical that no one, including the animals, thinks is a legitimate marriage.

27. I have worked in bakeries for nearly 40 years, and have been decorating cakes for most of that time.

28 I believe that decorating cakes is a form of art and creative expression, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. logo which appears in the store, on business cards, and on our advertising reflects this view.

29. Our logo is an artists’ paint palate with a paintbrush and whisk.

There is no doubt he qualifies as having deeply held religious beliefs, as can Muslims who believe in polygamy, but that alone will not warrant an conscientious objector status. What is missing here, who i hope is in the briefs, is that anyone could buy any off-the-shelf cake but the wedding cake was a special contracted work for specific purpose, but which was easily obtainable from about a dozen bakeries within a 5 mile radius.

And whole re-education class indoctrination (see post) is absurd. Did they have to salute the flag of Sodom?

Time to sleep, by God's grace.

 

[Zoii]

There is no doubt he qualifies as having deeply held religious beliefs, as can Muslims who believe in polygamy, but that alone will not warrant an conscientious objector status. What is missing here, who i hope is in the briefs, is that anyone could buy any off-the-shelf cake but the wedding cake was a special contracted work for specific purpose, but which was easily obtainable from about a dozen bakeries within a 5 mile radius.

And whole re-education class indoctrination (see post) is absurd. Did they have to salute the flag of Sodom?

Time to sleep, by God's grace.

Will you be legally thrown out of the shop if you go to a islamic baker and want a hot cross bun order?

 

[redleghunter]

I can find Salafi sources online which say that women should not participate in work in environments which would require her mixing with men.

If she owns the gas station I think this would not apply.

I'm pretty sure a gay couple would avoid a Salafi baker.

 

[Hank77]

Then, by that logic, neither is it a wedding cake when sold to a gay couple (but rather a cake made in a style commonly associated with weddings), and the baker has no issue.

No. It is not about the cake or selling the cake, it's about what he is being told he has to do that violates his conscience and forces him to speak when he doesn't want to.
For Phillips when he creates a custom wedding cake it is to celebrate the Holy Sacrament of marriage between one man and one woman. Now he is being told he has to create a custom cake for an event to celebrate a corruption of that Holy Sacrament, thus violating his conscience. Just like he doesn't make cakes for a Halloween event, it doesn't glorify God.
I can't say that it doesn't violate his conscience or that it shouldn't.
1 Corinthians 10:28-31

 

[Zoii]

No. It is not about the cake, it's about what he is being told he has to do that violates his conscience.
For Phillips when he creates a custom wedding cake it is to celebrate the Holy Sacrament of marriage between one man and one woman. Now he is being told he has to create a custom cake for an event to celebrate a corruption of that Holy Sacrament, thus violating his conscience. Just like he doesn't make cakes for a Halloween event, it doesn't glorify God.
I can't say that it doesn't violate his conscience or that it shouldn't.
1 Corinthians 10:28-31

Which is why I am wondering if this precedent will enable an islamic baker to refuse to accept an order from a christian asking for hot cross buns. The religous conviction there being there is only one God (Allah) and the notion of Jesus as the son of God is an offence.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Which is why I am wondering if this precedent will enable an islamic baker to refuse to accept an order from a christian asking for hot cross buns. The religous conviction there being there is only one God (Allah) and the notion of Jesus as the son of God is an offence.

I think that would probably be OK - I'd be nervous if there was a legal requirement forcing people to take part in another religion's ceremonies or produce items specifically for that ceremony.

However if the Muslim baker refused to sell a bun they already had in their store to a christian, that should be illegal (and visa versa).

 

[redleghunter]

Of course I'm assuming that. An he might refuse women drivers because thats the tradition in a Salafist country of origin.

Has this happened? I don't see any Salafist gas station owners on the SCOTUS docket.

Maybe the homosexual lobby should start targeting conservative Muslim businesses and see the reaction.

Wait someone did some research on this already:

Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight