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

Lily of Valleys · Feb 9, 2018

Paidiske said:
Nothing "automatically" means that. But I'd argue that refusing service is an unloving action.

Does not rejoice in unrighteousness is one of the manifestations of love.

If you are a parent, you would know that refusing your children for certain things doesn't mean you are unloving to them, and you don't necessarily approve everything they do.

Delivering a sinner to Satan for the destruction of the flesh also seems to be unloving, but the purpose is to save their spirit.

Catherineanne · Feb 9, 2018

Paidiske said:
But if an identical cake would be perfectly acceptable for another couple (not talking here about details such as same-sex toppers, which the baker can refuse to make for anybody), then it's not the design or the making that's the issue. It's who the customer is and what they want to do with it.

And I keep coming back around to, that's the baker assuming moral responsibility inappropriately (what in technical terms we call "neurotic guilt," where you feel guilty for something where you're not actually morally culpable). It's neurotic guilt to feel morally culpable when you do something that is not sinful; in this case, designing, making and selling a cake which is no sin at all. The sin of the customer, however you understand it, is not something the baker should feel responsible for.

Indeed so. And if we want to go down the path of scrupulosity, given the many condemnations of gluttony in the Bible, and the problems with obesity in the US, it is questionable whether any cake sales are morally defensible.

BIBLE VERSES ABOUT GLUTTONY

SilverBear · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
The hate is on the homosexual side, and a few Westboro Baptist types, while there is discrimination on both sides for acting according to their nature. But as regards a virus, indulging in a practice that results in a deadly virus is a sure way to foster discrimination, and if a certain people are more likely to indulge in it, then it will affect all in that class, and should be expected.

Again, go back to my analogy. How would regular participants is a consensual activity such as the Lord's supper be treated if this resulted in over 80% of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older in the USA? And over 600,000 deaths mainly caused by it and after almost 40 years of trying to make it safe? Tell me how the atheists would not latch onto this.

I don't know any atheists who would be so morally bankrupt to try to use a virus to justify hate and discrimination.

SilverBear · Feb 9, 2018

Radagast said:
There are about 1,200,000 people with HIV/AIDS in the USA, and about 70% of them are gay men, meaning that (since there are about 2,000,000 gay men in the USA) about 40% of gay men have HIV/AIDS.

The incidence of HIV/AIDS among lesbian women is much, much lower, so if you group gay men and lesbian women together, it does come to about 1 in 5.

even conservative demographics put the number of homosexuals in the USA at about 10 million.

TLK Valentine · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
The hate is on the homosexual side, and a few Westboro Baptist types, while there is discrimination on both sides for acting according to their nature. But as regards a virus, indulging in a practice that results in a deadly virus is a sure way to foster discrimination, and if a certain people are more likely to indulge in it, then it will affect all in that class, and should be expected.

Again, go back to my analogy. How would regular participants is a consensual activity such as the Lord's supper be treated if this resulted in over 80% of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older in the USA? And over 600,000 deaths mainly caused by it and after almost 40 years of trying to make it safe? Tell me how the atheists would not latch onto this.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that only homosexual activity spreads HIV. This is a serious flaw in your reasoning .

Skreeper · Feb 9, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that only homosexual activity spreads HIV. This is a serious flaw in your reasoning .

I noticed that too. It's not homosexuality that spreads HIV so he is arguing against certain activities that are not even exclusive to homosexual people. One has to keep in mind that HIV based on raw numbers is most prevailing in heterosexual people.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
There wasn't and the cute doggie wedding was a make-believe one, versus a make-believe one being celebrated under the premise that it was valid and legal.

Neither of them were recognized by CO law, but for some reason the baker would only refuse to serve customers wanting a cake for one of them. Guess the question of being recognized by CO or not was irrelevant to his decision.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
PeaceByJesus said: ↑

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
As was shown you before, yet you must be ignorant of
C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado.

How could be irrelevant to the claim that the marriage was unlawful?

Because it says nothing about it being illegal to get married out of state. Nor does it say it is illegal to celebrate a wedding which happened in a different state. Nor does it say that it is illegal to provide food for such a party.

But more importantly, the whole worry about whether or not the wedding was recognized by CO is irrelevant. No one asked the baker to legally recognize an out of state wedding. The customer just wanted to buy a cake.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
No, this not a standard sandwich, and it would seem anyone who creates works that he/she has originally designed, and skillfully made and decorated or sculpted etc. (and thus can command a special price) can be called an artist.

Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:

A person who creates art.

A person who makes and creates art as an occupation.

A person who is skilled at some activity.

A person whose trade or profession requires a knowledge of design, drawing, painting, etc.

I'm skilled at driving. It doesn't mean I get to ignore traffic laws because I'm suddenly an artist. Same with the baker.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Free exercise of one's religion is in the first amendment to the US Constitution.

Yep, and the baker can still worship whichever god he wants and go to church whenever he feels like it. He just can't refuse service to minorities.

Seems Jack Phillips is not singling out gays. He refused situations covering divorce, witchcraft, adultery and fornication. Seems he is pretty consistent in refusing things which are sins in the New Testament teachings of Jesus and His apostles.

For some reason the claim he doesn't discriminate against gay customer always tries to change the subject away from the actual examples of him refusing to sell things he makes to gay customers. Instead, the subject changes to cases of him not selling things he doesn't make. That's pretty telling.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
It's about the event the wedding and not the people.

That can't be true. He has no problem with most weddings. It is only when the wrong type of people are involved that he has an issue.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
A paradox is that Liberals are noted for charging conservatives with being complicit in evil due to some omission or indirect action

Citation needed.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Should an artist be compelled to paint this?

What does that have to do with this thread? The more relevant question would be "If an artist paints copies of this picture should he be allowed to refuse to sell his paintings to Jews because the he believes Bible says they are Christ-killers?"

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Having private shops nationalized?

No idea why you'd propose that, but have fun trying.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Which is not the situation with designing a wedding cake for a gay wedding celebration.

People have to eat and need a roof over their head.

But gay people don't deserve to have parties. Or maybe they get their own separate but equal businesses which they're allowed to shop at.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
Wow that's medical care. How did we get from wedding cakes to medical care?

When the argument is that businesses don't have to serve minorities because the employees believe things, there's no limit to how far they can go.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

redleghunter said:
When Subway sells a sub for over $500 it better be a block long.

I'm not sure where this $500 thing is coming from, but it sure reads like minorities should be allowed to eat, just not buy nice things. Those are reserved for good upstanding straight people.

Radagast · Feb 9, 2018

SilverBear said:
even conservative demographics put the number of homosexuals in the USA at about 10 million.

NHSR No. 77 from the CDC (July 2014, "Sexual Orientation and Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey") reports 2,000,000 gay men in the USA (1.8% of the male population) and 1,729,000 lesbian women (1.5% of the female population).

There were an additional 481,000 bisexual men (0.4% of men) and 1,033,000 bisexual women (0.9% of women).

Overall that makes 3,729,000 gay and lesbian people (1.6% of the population) plus 1,514,000 bisexuals (0.7%), leaving 224,163,000 straight people (97.7%).

Note: these numbers do not include children under 18.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
How can anyone show you what you simply refused to accept?

Once again, the facts are that homosexual marriage is unlawful in the judgment of God, and was also unlawful as per the highest law of the state, and the baker would knowingly be providing a special creation for the express specific purpose of celebrating something unequivocally illegal.

Even granting that "not recognized by the state" is the same as "unequivocally illegal", which it isn't, what's wrong with celebrating things which the state doesn't recognize? Christians do it every time they pray.

And more importantly, how can something which is obviously expressive free speech be outlawed? That would be an obvious violation of the 1st amendment. It is very interesting how we're asked to selectively ignore various parts of the arguments in favor of legalizing discrimination to make other parts of the argument work.

KCfromNC · Feb 9, 2018

PeaceByJesus said:
And as has been amply stated here but ignored, an identical cake would not be perfectly acceptable to create for any other couple, for the baker has refused others based upon the immoral purpose of it.

Are those the cases where people have tried to confuse cases where he doesn't sell something to any customer with the cases where he sells to everyone except customers of specific orientations?

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

comes and goes

Regular Member

Regular Member

Similar threads