Christian Bakers and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Archivist]

Why aren't any of the folks who disagree with the baker answering this? The concept is exactly the same. Business owner refuses to sell something on moral grounds.

No one is replying because it has already been answered.

 

[Archivist]

Supply a cake IS participating in an event when the baker has to design it and most wedding cakes are usually delivered by the baker to the reception hall and assembled with finishing touches there.
Having to provide decorations specifically for an event is participating.

There is no constitutional right to a wedding cake, nor is there any constitutional prohibition to having one. And there sure isn't a constitutional right to force somebody to participate in something he/she feels is wrong. If the baker is out of business, who provides the cake then? Or if a baker isn't willing to take on the job, friends and family of the gay couple can do what I, with the help of others, have done for many friends and family who couldn't afford a professional cake or couldn't find a baker who would accommodate our unusual request--bake and decorate a cake ourselves.

And it still all comes down to the right of any person to choose what practices, events, occasions, etc. it is appropriate for him to be a part of. And that goes for all people, white, black, gay, straight, or name your flavor of choice.

If you are in business you have to obey the law. You can't refuse to provide something to a member of a protected class.

If this was a private individual who made cakes as a hobby and gave them to people, he wouldn't have to bake a cake for anyone. That isn't the case here.

 

[SilverBear]

If I changed it to a lesser weight would you answer the question?

Your only unambiguous verses come from Leviticus...how many of the 247 laws of Leviticus do you faithfully follow?

 

[Foxfyre]

If you are in business you have to obey the law. You can't refuse to provide something to a member of a protected class.

If this was a private individual who made cakes as a hobby and gave them to people, he wouldn't have to bake a cake for anyone. That isn't the case here.

Again I am not arguing the law or whether or not anybody breaks it. A law that requires somebody to participate in an event that the person does not wish to participate in is in my opinion a very bad law and violates every intent of the Constitution.

I don't base my sense of right and wrong on what the law is. No lawmaker and no judge has any constitutional right to dictate to me what my views on right and wrong, morality, justice, or values must be.

And though a different topic, since you brought it up, putting people into classes is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent. There is no way a person can be in a protected class and also be seen as a normal, mainstream citizen. it is a cruel thing and it actually prevents homophobia or racism or any other ugly isms from going away. i'm sure the Founders are rolling over in their graves re that concept as well as the idea that the baker has to participate in a wedding that he believes to be wrong.

 

[SilverBear]

Supply a cake IS participating in an event when the baker has to design it and most wedding cakes are usually delivered by the baker to the reception hall and assembled with finishing touches there.
Having to provide decorations specifically for an event is participating.

There is no constitutional right to a wedding cake, nor is there any constitutional prohibition to having one.

There are however constitutional rights to be treated equally and to have equal protection under the law

And there sure isn't a constitutional right to force somebody to participate in something he/she feels is wrong. If the baker is out of business, who provides the cake then? Or if a baker isn't willing to take on the job, friends and family of the gay couple can do what I, with the help of others, have done for many friends and family who couldn't afford a professional cake or couldn't find a baker who would accommodate our unusual request--bake and decorate a cake ourselves.

And it still all comes down to the right of any person to choose what practices, events, occasions, etc. it is appropriate for him to be a part of. And that goes for all people, white, black, gay, straight, or name your flavor of choice.

and if that person feels racial integration is wrong does he have the right to discriminate against blacks?

 

[SilverBear]

It is not at all harassment--please look up the definition of the word. It would be discrimination if it is refusal of a service or product that the business owner normally provides and it does not require the business owner to do something or participate in something that is offensive to him/her or that is out of the ordinary of services normally provided.

the Baker Phillips did refuse a service/product that the normally provides. He makes wedding cakes all the time and does not find that activity offensive. Its discrimination

The baker cheerfully provided whatever products he had for sale to the gay couple for years. No doubt had they ordered a special custom Christmas cake or Easter cake or Birthday cake, they would have gotten it without objection or hassle.

It was later claimed that he had no previous business with the couple and that the couple had purposefully sought out a Christian baker to sue.

It was a gay wedding that the business owner objected to and not the gay people themselves. It was participating in an EVENT that the baker objected to and not the gay people themselves.

because he would have not trouble selling a cake to a straight couple having a gay wedding.

And that right of refusal should be honored for all and by all intellectually honest people whether black, white, gay, straight or however they identify themselves.

just like this honorable and cheerful refusal should be honored....right?

 

[SilverBear]

And though a different topic, since you brought it up, putting people into classes is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent. There is no way a person can be in a protected class and also be seen as a normal, mainstream citizen.

individuals of protected classes are normal it is just that some individuals feel that they have the right to discriminate and treat some people as second class citizens. The members of the protected classes are not the ones with the problem.

it is a cruel thing and it actually prevents homophobia or racism or any other ugly isms from going away. i'm sure the Founders are rolling over in their graves re that concept as well as the idea that the baker has to participate in a wedding that he believes to be wrong.

you just wrote that gays are not normal mainstream citizens - as homophobia goes that is pretty ugly.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

No one is replying because it has already been answered.

Which post number would that be? I've checked twice.

 

[Galaxy Hunter]

Being a certain race is not something a person can control. Stop comparing apples to oranges. Being born with immoral desires is not the fault of humans either. Everybody is born with a desire to sin. Heterosexual men are born with a desire to be with every attractive woman they see. Acting on your illicit desires is where it becomes a sin. That's why I posted the Victoria's Secret question that nobody's touching. If a person can't control their immoral desires another person should not be forced by the government to support that behavior.

 

[pat34lee]

The baker bakes wedding cakes. He cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to certain classes of people. A food store doesn't have to stock any particular type of food, so long as they do not refuse to sell the food the stock to anyone in those classes. There is no way to require that they carry Kosher food or Campbell's soup or Total cereal.

He didn't refuse to sell them a cake. He refused
to personalize it the way they wanted.

 

[pat34lee]

That's a minority.



A great many of those folks you think of as "Bible believers" don't have a problem rendering services to gay people. My church doesn't teach it's participation in sin to bake a cake for two gay people, even if you believe gay marriage is wrong.

Not all churches teach conscientious objection
to war or serving in the military. That is still a
valid argument for some people.

 

[pat34lee]

Untrue. The couple went into the bakery. They were not there long before the baker realized they were a gay couple. Then the baker refused to serve them. The refusal was not because of what they wanted on their cake—they never even discussed the design—but only because they were gay. It was only later on, after the case had commenced, that the baker said he would sell them an undecorated cake.

Not 'because they were gay.' Because it was for a
ceremony celebrating a homosexual union, which
the state didn't recognize as legal at the time.

 

[pat34lee]

Supplying a cake isn't "participating" in an event. The baker isn't attending the event. The baker doesn't have to be on the premises. Lots of people bake cakes--how is this baker's cake "specially identifiable"? This was addressed by Justice Sotomayor during the questioning. She was also worried that a ruling for the baker would not only violate the dignity of same-sex couples, but could also cause real hardships. Most military bases, she noted, are in isolated parts of the United States, many of which are predominantly Conservative Christian. That means, she said, that there might only be one or two bakers to provide cakes for same-sex weddings – and a couple could be out of luck if all the available bakers cite religious beliefs as a reason to refuse to make a cake.

Have you ever baked and decorated a wedding cake?
It isn't like thirty minutes and it's done. There is a lot
of time, effort and creativity that goes into making a
personalized wedding cake.
Timeline of a Wedding Cake | American Dream Cakes

I wouldn't want to put all that time and energy into
something I thought was immoral either.

 

[pat34lee]

That would be you and those like you. Decades have been spent promoting hate, prejudice, fear and discrimination and enshrining these things into laws. Why does this minority need legal and governmental protections in the first place?

They are not a minority any more than bank
robbers are a minority. And it takes no more
hatred to say it is wrong than it takes to say
that robbing banks is wrong.

 

[Archivist]

Again I am not arguing the law or whether or not anybody breaks it. A law that requires somebody to participate in an event that the person does not wish to participate in is in my opinion a very bad law and violates every intent of the Constitution.

I don't base my sense of right and wrong on what the law is. No lawmaker and no judge has any constitutional right to dictate to me what my views on right and wrong, morality, justice, or values must be.

And there are bakers out there who wouldn't bake a cake for an interracial couple or for a Muslim couple. You apparently wouldn't have a problem.

And though a different topic, since you brought it up, putting people into classes is exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent. There is no way a person can be in a protected class and also be seen as a normal, mainstream citizen. it is a cruel thing and it actually prevents homophobia or racism or any other ugly isms from going away. i'm sure the Founders are rolling over in their graves re that concept as well as the idea that the baker has to participate in a wedding that he believes to be wrong.

My girlfriend is a normal, mainstream citizen. She is also in a protected class based on her sex. Oh, and if a Muslim baker would discriminate against you, you would be in a protected class. If there hadn't been discrimination based on race, color sex, creed, etc. we wouldn't need these laws.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Eloy Craft]

No YOU reduced homosexuality to just an attraction, and reduce an entire minority in the process. it isn't, just like heterosexuality is not just an attraction. And when you do this, it is truly unhealthy

What I'm saying is, I am not a heterosexual. I am a person who is heterosexual.

 

[Archivist]

Which post number would that be? I've checked twice.

You cannot discriminate based on various factors including sex. That's been said multiple times.

 

[Eloy Craft]

you have read misinformation.

it is true that "Icelandic doctors are required to tell expectant mothers about the availability of a screening test that can indicate (among many other things) the presence of Down syndrome in their fetus.
The Icelandic government does not mandate abortions for mothers whose unborn children test positive for Down syndrome, nor do they mandate that a mother is required to take the test in the first place."

still, I think almost all of them opt for the test and upper nineties percent (can't remember exact figure) the women who test positive abort their baby.

 

[Archivist]

He didn't refuse to sell them a cake. He refused
to personalize it the way they wanted.

You need to learn your facts. He originally refused to sell them a cake. They didn't even discuss the design. This is from the New York Times: "Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. Indeed, Masterpiece once even refused a cupcake order to lesbians upon learning that they were for the couple’s commitment ceremony." Only later did he offer to sell them a generic cake.

The full story can be found here: Opinion | Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake’ Case

 

[Archivist]

Have you ever baked and decorated a wedding cake?
It isn't like thirty minutes and it's done. There is a lot
of time, effort and creativity that goes into making a
personalized wedding cake.
Timeline of a Wedding Cake | American Dream Cakes

I wouldn't want to put all that time and energy into
something I thought was immoral either.

Does an auto plant worker think about the morality of the car he builds? No, he does his job and builds cars.