Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Foxfyre]

a baker refusing service is discrimination because it is a public accommodation and as such is under the equal protection clause meaning they get to serve everyone equally. A church is not a public accommodation.

Okay let's say I run a bakery. A gay man comes in and orders a hamburger. I advise him that I don't do hamburgers. So he leaves. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a dozen snickerdoodles. I wrap them up and sell them to him. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a dozen scones. I advise him that I'm sorry but I don't do scones. So he leaves. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake for a witch's wedding. I advise him I'm sorry but I don't do the occult. So he leaves. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake decorated with clowns as a topper that I personally see as too frivolous and unserious for a wedding. I advise him I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience do that. So he leaves. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a birthday cake for his significant other/partner and I cheerfully take the order and present him with a beautifully and personally decorated cake. No incident.

A gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake for his wedding that is against my beliefs, requires a topper I don't carry and assembly at the reception hall. I advise him that I'm sorry but I can't do that.

And somehow that last thing is a federal offense that costs me my business and my livelihood?

Disclaimer: illustrations for purpose of debate only, and not intended to necessarily reflect my personal beliefs.

 

[SilverBear]

Okay let's say I run a bakery. A gay man comes in and orders a hamburger. I advise him that I don't do hamburgers. So he leaves. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a dozen snickerdoodles. I wrap them up and sell them to him. No incident.

The same gay man comes in and orders a dozen scones. I advise him that I'm sorry but I don't do scones. So he leaves. No incident.

you run a bakery but don't do scones?

The same gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake for a witch's wedding. I advise him I'm sorry but I don't do the occult. So he leaves. No incident.

Technically you just broke the law just as if you had refused service to Jews. Wicca is a religion and falls under the protection of public accommodation laws. refusing services based on a person's religion is discrimination.

The same gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake decorated with clowns as a topper that I personally see as too frivolous and unserious for a wedding. I advise him I'm sorry but I can't in good conscience do that. So he leaves. No incident.

Would it be frivolous if the happy couple were both professional clowns?

The same gay man comes in and orders a birthday cake for his significant other/partner and I cheerfully take the order and present him with a beautifully and personally decorated cake. No incident.

considering you have treated him previously I got to wonder why he (or anyone) comes back to your bakery

A gay man comes in and orders a wedding cake for his wedding that is against my beliefs, requires a topper I don't carry and assembly at the reception hall. I advise him that I'm sorry but I can't do that.

and again you have broken the law and engaged in discrimination

And somehow that last thing is a federal offense that costs me my business and my livelihood?

it is a state law not federal and the wedding cake had nothing to do with what ever consequences befall you for choosing to discriminate.

Disclaimer: illustrations for purpose of debate only, and not intended to necessarily reflect my personal beliefs.

yeah got that.

 

[dms1972]

As I understand it , correct me if I am wrong, the masterpiece cake shop owner, was not being asked for white iced slabs of cake, he might well have sold them if the gay couple had asked, what he was being asked would mean putting himself into the decorating of a cake in way that went against his conscience/beliefs, and that 'putting himself into his creation', as most artists will say is not an activity one can compartmentalise. That was his conflict and to me its very understandable.

 

[SolomonVII]

As I understand it , correct me if I am wrong, the masterpiece cake shop owner, was not being asked for white iced slabs of cake, he might well have sold them if the gay couple had asked, what he was being asked would mean putting himself into the decorating of a cake in way that went against his conscience/beliefs, and that 'putting himself into his creation', as most artists will say is not an activity one can compartmentalise. That was his conflict and to me its very understandable.

It is also very understandable how social justice warriors who see Christians as the white oppressors see the issue as a way to strike a blow at Christian conscience, and progressively begin to deconstruct Western civilization.

 

[Archivist]

As I understand it , correct me if I am wrong, the masterpiece cake shop owner, was not being asked for white iced slabs of cake, he might well have sold them if the gay couple had asked, what he was being asked would mean putting himself into the decorating of a cake in way that went against his conscience/beliefs, and that 'putting himself into his creation', as most artists will say is not an activity one can compartmentalise. That was his conflict and to me its very understandable.

If you read the thread you know that the gay couple weren't even given the chance of ordering a plain white cake. When the owner of the bakery saw they were a same-sex couple he informed them that he wouldn't not serve them. No discussion of what would be on the cake took place.

 

[pat34lee]

you mean crimes like having a tattoo or not being a virgin on your wedding night?

I mean what I asked.
Do you believe in the death penalty for any crime?

 

[Foxfyre]

you run a bakery but don't do scones?

Technically you just broke the law just as if you had refused service to Jews. Wicca is a religion and falls under the protection of public accommodation laws. refusing services based on a person's religion is discrimination.

Would it be frivolous if the happy couple were both professional clowns?

considering you have treated him previously I got to wonder why he (or anyone) comes back to your bakery

and again you have broken the law and engaged in discrimination

it is a state law not federal and the wedding cake had nothing to do with what ever consequences befall you for choosing to discriminate.

yeah got that.

I don't read or respond to chopped up posts like this. Sorry. But quickly scanning it I will only say that there are good laws and bad laws, beneficial laws and wrong laws. I do not look to human law for what God expects of me or what is morally right or wrong, and I would not expect anybody else to do that.

 

[Archivist]

I don't read or respond to chopped up posts like this. Sorry. But quickly scanning it I will only say that there are good laws and bad laws, beneficial laws and wrong laws. I do not look to human law for what God expects of me or what is morally right or wrong, and I would not expect anybody else to do that.

This has been explained before in this thread. Let me try to explain it again. Under the Colorado statute you cannot discriminate "because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry." Refusing to sell someone a scone because you don't bake scones isn't discriminatory because you aren't refusing service because of one of the listed factors. If you don't bake cakes for any holidays then you can refuse to bake a Halloween cake for a witch. The law doesn't require that you bake something that you wouldn't ordinarily bake. But if you do bake scones, you cannot refuse to sell them to same-sex couple or to blacks or to Italian-Americans or to women. If you bake cakes for holidays you can refuse to bake a Hitler's Birthday cake for a Nazi because Nazis aren't in a protected class. But you cannot refuse to bake a Halloween cake for a witch because Wicca falls within a protected class. If you bake wedding cakes you cannot refuse to bake one for anyone in one of those protected classes, including same-sex couples.

 

[Foxfyre]

This has been explained before in this thread. Let me try to explain it again. Under the Colorado statute you cannot discriminate "because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry." Refusing to sell someone a scone because you don't bake scones isn't discriminatory because you aren't refusing service because of one of the listed factors. If you don't bake cakes for any holidays then you can refuse to bake a Halloween cake for a witch. The law doesn't require that you bake something that you wouldn't ordinarily bake. But if you do bake scones, you cannot refuse to sell them to same-sex couple or to blacks or to Italian-Americans or to women. If you bake cakes for holidays you can refuse to bake a Hitler's Birthday cake for a Nazi because Nazis aren't in a protected class. But you cannot refuse to bake a Halloween cake for a witch because Wicca falls within a protected class. If you bake wedding cakes you cannot refuse to bake one for anyone in one of those protected classes, including same-sex couples.

Let me explain it again. I am NOT arguing points of the law as that is 100% immaterial to the argument I have been making. I would just as strongly defend a gay person's right or anybody else's right to choose not to participate in any event in any capacity that he/she did not wish to participate in. It does not matter what I personally think about an event or what I personally would choose or what the law or interpretation of the law is. It is a much larger principle that I am arguing.

I am arguing for what liberty looks like. I am arguing for the ability of any person to follow their conscience in what activities they choose to participate in. I am arguing that refusing to participate in a same sex wedding IN ANY CAPACITY is NOT discriminating against gay people but is choosing not to participate in an event. Whenever the law or somebody's application of the law violates that principle and forces any person for any reason to participate in an event that violates that person's conscience, it is the law and or application of the law that is wrong.

 

[SolomonVII]

Let me explain it again. I am NOT arguing points of the law as that is 100% immaterial to the argument I have been making. I would just as strongly defend a gay person's right or anybody else's right to choose not to participate in any event in any capacity that he/she did not wish to participate in. It does not matter what I personally think about an event or what I personally would choose or what the law or interpretation of the law is. It is a much larger principle that I am arguing.

I am arguing for what liberty looks like. I am arguing for the ability of any person to follow their conscience in what activities they choose to participate in. I am arguing that refusing to participate in a same sex wedding IN ANY CAPACITY is NOT discriminating against gay people but is choosing not to participate in an event. Whenever the law or somebody's application of the law violates that principle and forces any person for any reason to participate in an event that violates that person's conscience, it is the law and or application of the law that is wrong.

I always find it surprising of how in America of all places, people have forgotten what liberty looks like. Courts being corrupted by oppressive ideals, or politicians being corrupted, are things that eventually will be corrected in a free society.
But here it is people's very souls that have been corrupted into seeing the exercise of freedom as being something that is cruel and evil.
It is a godless people that no longer believe in freedom.

 

[Archivist]

Let me explain it again. I am NOT arguing points of the law as that is 100% immaterial to the argument I have been making. I would just as strongly defend a gay person's right or anybody else's right to choose not to participate in any event in any capacity that he/she did not wish to participate in. It does not matter what I personally think about an event or what I personally would choose or what the law or interpretation of the law is. It is a much larger principle that I am arguing.

I am arguing for what liberty looks like. I am arguing for the ability of any person to follow their conscience in what activities they choose to participate in. I am arguing that refusing to participate in a same sex wedding IN ANY CAPACITY is NOT discriminating against gay people but is choosing not to participate in an event. Whenever the law or somebody's application of the law violates that principle and forces any person for any reason to participate in an event that violates that person's conscience, it is the law and or application of the law that is wrong.

So refusing to provide a wedding cake to an interracial couple is just fine. That's not discrimination at all, right?

Oh, and what does the Bible tell us about obeying civil authorities? Try reading Romans 13.

 

[Foxfyre]

So refusing to provide a wedding cake to an interracial couple is just fine. That's not discrimination at all, right?

Oh, and what does the Bible tell us about obeying civil authorities? Try reading Romans 13.

Refusing to participate in an event arranged by an interracial couple should be anybody's right to do just as the interracial couple should have the right to refuse to participate in something they did not wish to participate in, most especially if they in good conscience could not participate in it.

We don't have to agree with anybody's reasons. But if I don't wish to participate in your wedding or any other event for ANY reason, I should not be required to do so. Any law that would require me to do so violates the very core of the U.S. Constitution and the values this country was founded on.

At the same time, I think it is only right and Christian to sell you any product I have for sale no matter who or what you are so long as you conduct yourself decently on my premises. Discriminating against a PERSON is a very different thing than choosing not to participate in an event that person participates in.

I don't know why that is a concept so difficult for some to understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

I always find it surprising of how in America of all places, people have forgotten what liberty looks like. Courts being corrupted by oppressive ideals, or politicians being corrupted, are things that eventually will be corrected in a free society.
But here it is people's very souls that have been corrupted into seeing the exercise of freedom as being something that is cruel and evil.
It is a godless people that no longer believe in freedom.

Bless you my friend. I was beginning to think I was the last sane person participating on this board. I don't know if it is being so socially brainwashed or deliberate intellectual dishonesty or true conviction that makes the concept/principle so difficult for people to understand. But it warms my heart that at least one other person does understand it.

 

[Archivist]

UOTE="Foxfyre, post: 72300221, member: 397806"]Refusing to participate in an event arranged by an interracial couple should be anybody's right to do just as the interracial couple should have the right to refuse to participate in something they did not wish to participate in, most especially if they in good conscience could not participate in it.[/QUOTE]

I trust that you do realize that the primary reason for the inclusion of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was because states were refusing commercial intercourse with neighboring states. So Pennsylvania businesses should have the right to refuse to do business with people from Maryland? That certainly goes against what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: "We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility."

We don't have to agree with anybody's reasons. But if I don't wish to participate in your wedding or any other event for ANY reason, I should not be required to do so. Any law that would require me to do so violates the very core of the U.S. Constitution and the values this country was founded on.

Madison seemed to think otherwise.

At the same time, I think it is only right and Christian to sell you any product I have for sale no matter who or what you are so long as you conduct yourself decently on my premises. Discriminating against a PERSON is a very different thing than choosing not to participate in an event that person participates in.

OK

I don't know why that is a concept so difficult for some to understand.

What you are saying might make sense until a black motorist runs out gas in a small town and the nearest station that will sell gas to him is 50 miles away. That was fairly common until anti-discrimination laws were adopted.

 

[Foxfyre]

UOTE="Foxfyre, post: 72300221, member: 397806"]Refusing to participate in an event arranged by an interracial couple should be anybody's right to do just as the interracial couple should have the right to refuse to participate in something they did not wish to participate in, most especially if they in good conscience could not participate in it.

I trust that you do realize that the primary reason for the inclusion of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution was because states were refusing commercial intercourse with neighboring states. So Pennsylvania businesses should have the right to refuse to do business with people from Maryland? That certainly goes against what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers: "We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility."



Madison seemed to think otherwise.



OK



What you are saying might make sense until a black motorist runs out gas in a small town and the nearest station that will sell gas to him is 50 miles away. That was fairly common until anti-discrimination laws were adopted.[/QUOTE]

My response to your post begins here:
I am not interested in discussing the law here though any law that violates the Constitutional principle of personal liberty is, in my opinion, bad law and is in and of itself unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure Madison would agree with me on that.

The illustration of the black motorist is in no way what I have been arguing however much you might want to twist my words to make it that.

 

[Archivist]

I am not interested in discussing the law here though any law that violates the Constitutional principle of personal liberty is, in my opinion, bad law and is in and of itself unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure Madison would agree with me on that.

But Madison did not see regulation of commerce as a violation of personal liberty. I have offered evidence of that. Any proof you have to the contrary would be appreciated.

The illustration of the black motorist is in no way what I have been arguing however much you might want to twist my words to make it that.

Your words: "Discriminating against a PERSON is a very different thing than choosing not to participate in an event that person participates in." You are, I presume, aware that many southern gas station and motel owners discriminated against blacks precisely to prevent them from participating in anti-segregation events. Are you saying that it is alright to discriminate if it is being done to prevent these people from reaching an event, but it is otherwise not acceptable?

 

[SolomonVII]

....
The illustration of the black motorist is in no way what I have been arguing however much you might want to twist my words to make it that.

Good for you.
It is scurrilous that people would twist your words that way in order to defend what is basically just anti-Christian bigotry.

 

[Foxfyre]

But Madison did not see regulation of commerce as a violation of personal liberty. I have offered evidence of that. Any proof you have to the contrary would be appreciated.



Your words: "Discriminating against a PERSON is a very different thing than choosing not to participate in an event that person participates in." You are, I presume, aware that many southern gas station and motel owners discriminated against blacks precisely to prevent them from participating in anti-segregation events. Are you saying that it is alright to discriminate if it is being done to prevent these people from reaching an event, but it is otherwise not acceptable?

I give up. You insist on arguing a topic that I am not arguing. When you are ready to address what I am arguing, I will be happy to discuss it with you. But the argument you are making in rebuttal to my argument has nothing to do with the argument I am making and in fact constitutes a straw man argument.

Do have a pleasant afternoon and evening though.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good for you.
It is scurrilous that people would twist your words that way in order to defend what is basically just anti-Christian bigotry.

I don't know that it is intended to be anti-Christian but it does get really tiresome when somebody refuses to even acknowledge the point being argued and/or insist that it is something that is not being argued.

 

[cafefan374]

Do you believe that a baker ought to be financially ruined by the Law for having a different point of view on this than you?

Do you think that the baker is evil for believing that SSM is wrong, and that he does not want to take part in it in any way that goes against his conscience?

Sorry for the late response, but no I don't believe the baker should be financially bankrupt for this. I believe it should go both ways. It is a private business. I also realize that everyone does not agree with SSM and nor should they. So no to both questions.