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

[Paidiske]

death threats and prolonged vituperate venomous language,

These things are outside legal remedy, and I don't condone them.

I can't comment on the book as I have not read it. My position comes from my experience in pastoral care of GLBT folk who have been badly damaged by the church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

As shown, this was not just selling a cake, despite your insistence on reducing it to that (why?) after being reproved, but it was about refusing to contract to create a special cake expressly for the specific purpose of celebrating that which was unlawful in the eyes of God and even of the state. And yet you would compelled him to do so in the name of Christ?!

 

[Paidiske]

As shown, this was not just selling a cake, despite your insistence on reducing it to that (why?)

Because that's what it is. He gets money, they get cake. Any claims that this makes him a participant in the wedding are vastly overstating the case.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

my caveat would be that the business owner was consistent. You deny homosexuals because you are a Christian. What about the adulterers and the fornicators, etc. you can't claim you are doing something based on religious belief if you are inconsistent about it. And then what about all of the other sins? Going to have the customers fill out a questionnaire?

cherry picking what kind of sinners you won't serve sends an ill-message about Christianity.

You needs to be better informed. How much of the thread did you read before making your comment?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'm a singer and I used to be paid to sing for weddings. I would dearly love to see the government force a song from my throat.

You know, come to think of it, I wonder if certain posters would advocate the government forcing a song from a singer's throat she doesn't want to sing for someone's wedding she doesn't want to attend because "discrimination"? It's really no different.

If they would, can evangelical Christians force a pagan singer to sing for their wedding, then? Can we force them to sing the Lord's Prayer?

Is that where we are in America? Do these people never, ever imagine shoe-on-the-other-foot scenarios?

They may not force you to sing a certain song, but consistent with the florist and photographer cases, you would be compelled to perform, thus compelled to help celebrate what is contrary to your beliefs.

 

[SilverBear]

Wrong. Philips did not allow any other couple to contract with him to created wedding cakes, thus the divorcee was also discriminated against, and wedding cakes are simply not available to anyone else. And homosexuals should be able to buy on but one for an approved straight couples wedding, but cannot for their own, any more than a couple of 8 year-old kids could, nor a man and a goat, even if the state allows the latter.

RIIIGHHHTT....cause being gay is just like inappropriate behavior with animals. Why do you pretend this is about conduct and then go and post something as hate filled as this?

If SCOTUS equated being black with being homosexual .

its equating being a minority and being discriminated against.

 

[SilverBear]

Same reason the baker did not want to create a cake for the homosexuals. I do not like to promote it either, but which does not stop you.

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

 

[PeaceByJesus]

These things are outside legal remedy, and I don't condone them.

I can't comment on the book as I have not read it. My position comes from my experience in pastoral care of GLBT folk who have been badly damaged by the church.

So you must support gay marriage and perhaps even conduct the same, besides compelling a baker of contrary and Biblical convictions to contract to create a cake specifically to be used in the celebration of that which is unlawful in the eyes of God and even the state (at the time), thus making him an accessory to the crime?

 

[SilverBear]

This isn't about selling something.

do you read your own posts?

Would be interesting if a small town Salafist gas station owner refused to serve women drivers on religious grounds.

imo..
That's OK as long as he posted a sign that says he doesn't sell gas to women drivers.

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?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Because that's what it is. He gets money, they get cake. Any claims that this makes him a participant in the wedding are vastly overstating the case.

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, and knowingly creating and selling a special work specifically for that celebration facilitates/helps that sin by providing assistance, is sin. As shown, even US law, while dealing with weightier cases essentially aligns with this.

Spoiler: Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...

In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...

Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)

 

[SilverBear]

Wow it sure opens a can of worms in the USA. I can see this precedent going lots of places. If its lawful to marry, but its against a religion - then wow - I can refuse to bake a cake for an islamic birthday party; or a celebratory cake for a single (by choice) mother; this can go lots of places.

yes, you could refuse to sell anything to people of African descent if you just claim such was an offence to your religious beliefs

 

[bhsmte]

And I'm sure the doctor knows this.

Of course the doctor know, they are the one examining the patient and prescribing the medication.

 

[SilverBear]

Because the liberal Civil Rights people effectively decided they could override the constitution and prosecute a business for acting in accordance with the supreme law of the land, and courts agreed, invalidating the state constitution and what the voters by a clear majority decided. As usual.

just like when the courts ruled against segregated schools. Shame on them for placing the constitution over the whims of racists.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

It was not purposed to.

 

[SilverBear]

can one refuse to provide a cake sale from ones bakery if the customer is obese and according to your beliefs, has committed the sin of gluttony?

only if they are gay

 

[PeaceByJesus]

just like when the courts ruled against segregated schools. Shame on them for placing the constitution over the whims of racists.

Which shows the courts can be wrong. Good thing the separation clause did not prevent a minister and churches from influencing the state.

 

[SilverBear]

I wonder why they don't.

because they aren't the ones discriminating

 

[SilverBear]

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. They could not see it as, hey, our wedding is offensive to this guy. Nope.

In this case and other cases, they have to drag through the courts, ruin lives, businesses, reputations and everything. And beyond that, they want to compel the artistry.

That is not "tolerance", is it?

if only they would have been satisfied sitting in the back of the bus.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Which shows the courts can be wrong. Good thing the separation clause did not prevent a minister and churches from influencing the state.

Are you saying that desegregation was a mistake by the courts?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

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).

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.