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

Liza B. said:

It's amazing to me, honestly, when Christians think the teachings of the Bible are bigotry and fascism. But there we are. That's an aside, by the way.

Click to expand...

That is bearing false witness against me and what I have said.

Shame on you!

In America we have freedom of religion. I know most people do not understand that, but it's enshrined our First Amendment. It makes things very different here. It's why this case has gone all the way to the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Congratulations. You also have a Constitution which says that all people are created equal.

Good luck with that one.

Liza B. said:

For I don't know how many times. This case is not about denying orders because black or gay. It would be about you being commissioned, and then forced, to paint an image you find deeply offensive, even morally repulsive. And then having the government say you WILL do this.

Click to expand...

'You want a portrait of Donald Trump in a gold dressing gown, with a halo?

'Terribly sorry, old fruit; I would love to oblige but I am simply swamped with work at the moment. Would you like me to recommend another artist to you?'

No problem.

Catherineanne said:

That is bearing false witness against me and what I have said.

Shame on you!

Click to expand...

Did you not overtly put down the Christian man in the OP's protest to making the cake to bigotry and fascism? Is that not exactly what you said? Were those not your very words, in fact?

Did you read his very comprehensive statement about why he will not participate in gay weddings? It was very thorough. Yet you put it down to bigotry and fascism. So you explain to me what you meant. Is it impossible for a Christian to read the Bible and be opposed to homosexuality without being bigoted, or what? You used the words. I did not.

Liza B. said:

Did you not overtly put down the Christian man in the OP's protest to making the cake to bigotry and fascism? Is that not exactly what you said? Were those not your very words, in fact?

Did you read his very comprehensive statement about why he will not participate in gay weddings? It was very thorough. Yet you put it down to bigotry and fascism. So you explain to me what you meant. Is it impossible for a Christian to read the Bible and be opposed to homosexuality without being bigoted, or what? You used the words. I did not.

Click to expand...

Strike two.

Catherineanne said:

'You want a portrait of Donald Trump in a gold dressing gown, with a halo?

'Terribly sorry, old fruit; I would love to oblige but I am simply swamped with work at the moment. Would you like me to recommend another artist to you?'

No problem.

Click to expand...

And you cried to me about 'bearing false witness', when you would outright say this to customers, even if it is not the truth. Okay.

I will never do this. In fact, I have taken principled stands in my own life that have cost me, and might cost me still. In some ways I think that's how you know you really believe what you believe. What will it cost you?

"Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."--Martin Luther

Catherineanne said:

Strike two.

Click to expand...

You are not a referee, are you, calling balls and strikes? What do you mean? You used the words bigotry and fascism, did you not? I am simply asking you to explain what you meant. Who is bigoted and fascist? The owner of the bake shop? You won't explain?

Liza B. said:

And you cried to me about 'bearing false witness', when you would outright say this to customers, even if it is not the truth. Okay.

I will never do this. In fact, I have taken principled stands in my own life that have cost me, and might cost me still. In some ways I think that's how you know you really believe what you believe. What will it cost you?

"Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."--Martin Luther

Click to expand...

Who says it is a lie?

I will always be too busy to paint such an image; it is perfectly true.

Although if tempted by enough readies I might oblige ... who knows?

Liza B. said:

You are not a referee, are you, calling balls and strikes? What do you mean? You used the words bigotry and fascism, did you not? I am simply asking you to explain what you meant. Who is bigoted and fascist? The owner of the bake shop? You won't explain?

Click to expand...

Strike three and out. (I am not holy enough to reach 70 x 7; you only get three chances.)

Nice chatting, bye.

Catherineanne said:

Strike three and out. (I am not holy enough to reach 70 x 7; you only get three chances.)

Nice chatting, bye.

Click to expand...

The baker was not motivated by bigotry and fascism. His motivations were spelled out. You won't explain what you meant however, so I suppose we are just left to guess. But okay.

Liza B. said:

It's amazing to me, honestly, when Christians think the teachings of the Bible are bigotry and fascism. But there we are. That's an aside, by the way.

Click to expand...

Not at all. It's when we treat others badly because of what we believe that it tips over into bigotry (and - if we use the power of the state to do it - possibly fascism).

Believe homosexuality is wrong, and I won't argue with you. Believe that you can treat a gay person less well than a straight person because of it, and I'll stand up for that gay person, every time.

That's why this is such a strongly argued issue; here we have a group of people who have been, historically and within living memory, treated incredibly badly; killed for who they are, beaten by others for sport in public; vilified through every medium imaginable, told that they are worthless human beings who are irredeemably going to hell, and so on.

What do we want these people to hear from the church? Do we really want it to be another version of, "You are less than the dirt beneath my feet, and I will attempt to use "religious freedom" to treat you that way"? Where is the grace in that?

Who has the power here, socially and politically? We do, still, mostly. Politics and law-making is dominated by straight white Christian men. And don't we have a responsibility to use that power to do good, to offer hope, to seek reconciliation and healing? Why then are we fighting for our rights to do the exact opposite?

Paidiske said:

Not at all. It's when we treat others badly because of what we believe that it tips over into bigotry (and - if we use the power of the state to do it - possibly fascism).

Believe homosexuality is wrong, and I won't argue with you. Believe that you can treat a gay person less well than a straight person because of it, and I'll stand up for that gay person, every time.

That's why this is such a strongly argued issue; here we have a group of people who have been, historically and within living memory, treated incredibly badly; killed for who they are, beaten by others for sport in public; vilified through every medium imaginable, told that they are worthless human beings who are irredeemably going to hell, and so on.

What do we want these people to hear from the church? Do we really want it to be another version of, "You are less than the dirt beneath my feet, and I will attempt to use "religious freedom" to treat you that way"? Where is the grace in that?

Who has the power here, socially and politically? We do, still, mostly. Politics and law-making is dominated by straight white Christian men. And don't we have a responsibility to use that power to do good, to offer hope, to seek reconciliation and healing? Why then are we fighting for our rights to do the exact opposite?

Click to expand...

The law is free of human identity. I deeply loathe identity politics. It is poisonous. It is destroying us.

Behind the gay couple being married they drag all kinds of history and shadows, but it's not fair to impose those on others. That's not fair to the living man they're about to confront. It's no more his fault that he was born white and male than it was anyone else's fault they were born black and female. Or whatever.

Whatever has gone on in the past, whatever the color of the skin involved or the history, they are demanding he custom design a cake, a work of art, for an event which deeply violates his conscience. He doesn't want to do it. He will sell them any number of other products in his shop. But not for this event. This is the impasse.

If your Christian conscience feels like the best course is to offer grace, you should do that. If his feels like he would be devoting his time and talent to a deeply sinful event, he should not be forced by the government into doing it.

Although I'm not insensible to the history behind each group, neither group can do anything about that. They are not living other people's histories. That way lies a great deal of injustice, in fact.

But it's not "other people's histories" when we're talking about things that happened to gay people alive today. That was my point about living memory. These things happen now.

We can either reinforce that - stand with that incredibly dehumanising treatment of others - or we can stand away from it. Christians have a responsibility to offer an alternative to the dehumanisation; but we can't do that while we're doing the "you're so sinful I can't sell you cake" dance.

That's why I'm so strongly for anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people here. They force everyone else to treat those gay people with at least baseline dignity, which ought to be the minimum we afford one another in civil society.

Zoii said:

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

Click to expand...

No one was thrown out in the Masterpiece case. They left cursing the baker. 24 Questions for Baker Who Gave Up Wedding Cakes for God

Nor were these customers asking for something that the baker did not make. But neither the customers refused something that anyone else could buy, but asked the baker/artist make a certain type of cake that some customers could contract to buy, and were refused on the basis of what the cake would be specifically created to celebrate.

The Muslim of convictions and conscience should not be compelled to create an item he does not make, nor create one of a type that he does make but for a specific purpose he finds grievous, whether it be celebrating the anniversary of the modern state of Israel or homosexual marriage. Provided perhaps that these were non-essential items, and which could be comparably obtained from another vendor, as was the case in Masterpiece.

Paidiske said:

But it's not "other people's histories" when we're talking about things that happened to gay people alive today. That was my point about living memory. These things happen now.

We can either reinforce that - stand with that incredibly dehumanising treatment of others - or we can stand away from it. Christians have a responsibility to offer an alternative to the dehumanisation; but we can't do that while we're doing the "you're so sinful I can't sell you cake" dance.

That's why I'm so strongly for anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people here. They force everyone else to treat those gay people with at least baseline dignity, which ought to be the minimum we afford one another in civil society.

Click to expand...

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

Paidiske said:

This is the core of it, though. Selling a cake isn't participation in the event it's sold for. And that's where the whole argument falls down.

Click to expand...

There is more to it though. The wedding cake has to be delivered to the wedding celebration where Jack Phillips interacts with people at the weddings. Jack Phillips also sees it as a personal endorsement to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible. Please see below for elaboration on why it goes against his conscience:

44. In addition to my creativity and artistic talent, the entire process involves a great deal of
resources. The process includes the time and talent spent consulting with the customer(s),
designing and sketching the cake, baking the cakes, sculpting (if necessary), making the
frosting and any decorations, creating the desired colors for frosting and decorations,
actually creating the cake itself and decorating it, and delivering it to the location of the wedding celebration.

45. As the creator of a wedding cake, I believe that I am an important part of the wedding celebration for the couple, and my creations are a central component of the wedding. By creating a wedding cake for the couple, I am an active participant and I am associated with the event.

46. A wedding cake communicates that a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated.

47. In some instances I interact with people at the weddings, particularly if the wedding ceremony and celebratory reception are held at the same venue.

86. As a follower of Jesus, and as a man who desires to be obedient to the teaching of the Bible, I believe that to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship that they were entering into.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-111-JA.pdf

hedrick said:

. This decision could lead to quite unexpected results. Consider a bakery that stocks cakes. One gay couple could come in and get a cake. If that was the last cake on the shelf, another gay couple could come in and be refused the exact same product because they were out of stock and would have to make it.

Click to expand...

He would be required to provided it when he made more, but the case here is not stocked off-the-shelf cakes, but special orders for special cakes, and the issue is whether the baker/sculptor/artist can choose what specific purpose he will create and sell cakes for.

The homosexuials were refused not because they were homosexuals, for they could have bought off-the-shelf cakes, or commissioned one for a valid straight wedding (not polygamy), but they were refused as homosexuals asked the baker to create a cake to celebrate their unlawful "wedding."

Lily of Valleys said:

There is more to it though. The wedding cake has to be delivered to the wedding celebration where Jack Phillips interacts with people at the weddings. Jack Phillips also sees it as a personal endorsement to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible. Please see below for elaboration on why it goes against his conscience:

44. In addition to my creativity and artistic talent, the entire process involves a great deal of
resources. The process includes the time and talent spent consulting with the customer(s),
designing and sketching the cake, baking the cakes, sculpting (if necessary), making the
frosting and any decorations, creating the desired colors for frosting and decorations,
actually creating the cake itself and decorating it, and delivering it to the location of the wedding celebration.

45. As the creator of a wedding cake, I believe that I am an important part of the wedding celebration for the couple, and my creations are a central component of the wedding. By creating a wedding cake for the couple, I am an active participant and I am associated with the event.

46. A wedding cake communicates that a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated.

47. In some instances I interact with people at the weddings, particularly if the wedding ceremony and celebratory reception are held at the same venue.

86. As a follower of Jesus, and as a man who desires to be obedient to the teaching of the Bible, I believe that to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship that they were entering into.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/16-111-JA.pdf

Click to expand...

Yet i think delivery can be optional.

Lily of Valleys said:

45. As the creator of a wedding cake, I believe that I am an important part of the wedding celebration for the couple, and my creations are a central component of the wedding. By creating a wedding cake for the couple, I am an active participant and I am associated with the event.

Click to expand...

That's a view... but I'd say it's pretty flimsy. The cake isn't at the wedding itself, it's at the reception. So in no way can he be said to be a participant at the wedding, even if one sees supplying a cake as "participation" (which I don't).

I think the greatest travesty in all this is that the prevailing culture has become so litigious that a conflict over the making of a cake for a particular cohort could not be sorted out amicably.

Paidiske said:

Is your opposition to this because you're afraid?

In my mind, the intolerance was in refusing service, and the couple had the right to seek justice. I look at the "ruined" lives, businesses, reputations and all that and think, well, maybe this will teach others to be just in their treatment of others. This is establishing precedent that says our society won't put up with corrosive bigotry.

We have to draw a line somewhere.

Click to expand...

So homosexuals picking a Christian bakery out of about a dozen in its 5 mile radius, and asking him to create a special cake specifically for the purpose of celebrating what both his faith and the state constitution held as unlawful, thus making him am accomplice, and thus being refused and then leaving the store cursing the baker in public and prosecuting him, resulting in a loss of above 40% of his business, and death threats and prolonged vituperate venomous language, and the media and public condemning him for not refusing to recognize what even state law did not, but somehow the homosexuals are the victims and not bigots?

I think your position is a real piece of cake for a one who IDS as Christian. Rather than homosexuals being the victim, this case is consistent with the tactics seen for decades used by homosexual activists, as laid out in