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

[KCfromNC]

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 ​

Emphasis mine.

 

[HereIStand]

That's why my church doesn't consider marriage a sacrament. It's a civil institution that the Church chooses to bless. There's no special magic happening in a church at a wedding, and certainly none in a wedding cake. If there's any idolatry happening here, it's among the folks that insist that a wedding cake has some kind of inherent religious significance.

It can be debated whether marriage is sacramental, or whether a wedding should be civil or religious. Marriage and sex have religious significance and either one (or both) can be abused on religious grounds. Noting these abuses and avoiding them isn't idolatrous.

 

[KCfromNC]

Many gay people--not all by a long shot, but many--do not see diversity as a gift. These people, even if they were deeply offended, could not just leave it alone, see.

Imagine telling another minority that they're being uppity for wanting to be treated equally and see how bad that sounds.

 

[KCfromNC]

For I don't know how many times. This case is not about denying orders because black or gay.

How many straight couples were refused service because of their orientation?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Pretty sure it was because despite the claims of cakes sending obvious, clear, unmistakable messages about the beliefs of the baker, they somehow missed the message that one of the cakes in your link is for a gay wedding. Weird how this alleged straightforward endorsement of immorality by a baker escaped someone who was specifically telling us how important it was. Almost as if the reality of the situation doesn't line up with the propaganda coming from people who want to give businesses a blank check to refuse service to certain groups.

Rather, you miss the fact that the picture served to refute the assertion that its "just a cake," and that a cake for a straight wedding and a cake for a gay wedding for "all intents and purposes" are identical. That the cake I showed actually had lesbian couple on it actually further served to substantiate my argument. And that the baker should have a right what he writes out a check for.

Sorry you missed it, per usual.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are you calling comprehensive care? Birth control and performing abortions?

Could be anything really...

Like I noted in my example, there are scenarios where doctors are going to see patients in an undressed state. For someone who's a strict literalist, that would violate some biblical rules.

If you're part of a religion that opposes blood transfusions, that could present a problem...

Typically, your average MD isn't encountering the elective abortion scenario a whole lot as there are specialized facilities for that, however, the birth control example is one that your average GP is probably going to encounter quite a bit...and if a patient is asking for the pros and cons to each method, the doctor owes it to them to give a science-based, factual, and informed analysis and not just simply dismiss it with a religious response of "birth control usage is a sin"

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps base dignity should include not forcing people to participate in a ceremony which violates their religious conscience.

No one is even being asked to participate in a ceremony, much less forced. They're just being asked to sell a cake.

 

[KCfromNC]

Rather, you miss the fact that the picture served to refute the assertion that its "just a cake," and that a cake for a straight wedding and a cake for a gay wedding for "all intents and purposes" are identical.

They were close enough you accidentally posted one which "endorsed" something you are morally opposed to. Seems to me that the reality doesn't match the spin.

 

[KCfromNC]

So homosexuals picking a Christian bakery out of about a dozen in its 5 mile radius

Did the Christian bakery advertise that they didn't serve gay customers? If not, this reads a lot like victim blaming.

 

[KCfromNC]

all you were doing is promoting the fact you can't identify a "cake created for homosexuals" when you see one

It is almost as if whole "but it is a gay cake" thing isn't the real reason far-right business owners don't want to serve gay people.

 

[FireDragon76]

Don't have to rent apartments to non-Christians because one would be endorsing a non-Christian lifestyle. Don't sell food to a married gay couple for the same reason. Refuse to treat the child of a gay couple because of their "lifestyle choices".

Guess which of these have actually happened so far?

All of them. It's the same old argument for the supposed right to discriminate, repackaged. The Christian Right knows that "gays=ick" no longer flies as a legal argument, so they have to be sneakier.

 

[KCfromNC]

Says who? 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

Fist off, do you call all marriages "sexual unions"?

Second, see the link above showing the couple was legally married.

Third, which CO law makes it illegal to celebrate an out of state marriage using cake? Please be specific.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It doesn't seem other "sin groups" are dragging bakers into court.

Other sin groups aren't being denied service in a very public way under the guise of "religious freedom".

Then you should join the various groups which want sugar taxes and closings of shops which sell unhealthy foods.

I thought at one point you were a libertarian? To each his own. What changed?

I'm not advocating that at all...while I do advocate better public research into health and nutrition, I'm in no way suggesting that we deny cakes to fat people...if they want to balloon up to 400lbs, that's on them.

My statements were meant to highlight the lack of consistency among some of these folks. Now, that's not to say that the other side doesn't demonstrate the same inconsistencies.

Neither side has demonstrated a consistent position on this one and both seem to have a love-hate relationship when discussing business owner property rights vs. individual rights.

For example, if you ask one of the people who support these Christian bakers how they feel about business being able to hang the "No guns" signs in the window, many will change their tune pretty quick. The inverse is true for when you ask many left-leaning folks about it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Perhaps to facilitate and to assist with the celebration of two people's commitment in a homosexual relationship is a better way to put it.

Yep. Wouldn't want to risk selling a gay couple a car or rent a mixed-religion couple an apartment, lest we facilitate their commitment to each other.

 

[KCfromNC]

it was for a party ...are parties held by gay people suddnly now illegal?

Strange the baker didn't immediately report them to the authorities if he really felt that way.

 

[Phil 1:21]

There's hope for California yet.

 

[Hank77]

do you read your own posts?

Well, when responding to a scenario specifically about selling gas...

So can you explain (in a way that makes sense) why in your opinion why it's OK to post a sign advertising a business choice to not serve women but you blanch at the idea of a business posting a sign advertising its choice to not serve blacks?

I don't remember responding to your 'whites, blacks only' post at all.
However, you might go back and read my post about selling gas....
I never condoned signs that say any group of people will not be served. I said I wouldn't have a problem with a sign about selling a particular product to a particular group, as full disclosure. 'Gas to women drivers.'
But after further thought I would have a problem with them not selling gas to women because it would impede their freedom to travel, which is the true nature of the federal public accommodations act.

I don't have a problem with the federal public accommodations law, even if they added sexual orientation to the list of minorities.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Don't have to rent apartments to non-Christians because one would be endorsing a non-Christian lifestyle. Don't sell food to a married gay couple for the same reason. Refuse to treat the child of a gay couple because of their "lifestyle choices".

Guess which of these have actually happened so far?

The second, but which still leaves you with no argument, for that is not the same as the other two. For an apartment is not specifically, expressly for a uniquely non-Christian lifestyle, in fact most therein would be common practices. To be analogous the landlord would be refusing to rent a function all specifically to celebrate an offensive event.

Likewise helping a homosexual to be well, or changing his flat tire (which i want to do) may help him in some degree to a live non-Christian lifestyle, but it is not specifically and only for that purpose, but can help them in many valid ways.

Thus as before, all your analogies fail.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The only unlawful marriage I'm aware of in this context was the dog wedding one of the bakers said he'd provide a cake for.

Which as showed, was allowed since it was not to celebrate any claimed actual marriage, and but was like marrying Ken and Barbie (and the dogs were not both male i am confident), and was not that of affirming a claim to an actual marriage. Whether you can see the difference or (most likely) not that the baker did is irrelevant.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑
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 ​

Emphasis mine.

As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of,

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

Emphasis mine​