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

[MoonlessNight]

Interesting, was a supernatural agent involved in the compulsion? Any chance you were compelled to post some objective support for your oped rather than ad hom mine?

If you are trying to convince me that you have the ability to comprehend my posts, acting bewildered at common expressions is not a good way to go about it.

 

[super animator]

Indeed. One of the reasons I cut down on my posting here. I blame it on the US education system.

Don't blame the Education system, blame it on the overly strict rules.

 

[HereIStand]

The fact that people want to zero in on just this one particular aspect of "sin" shows that there's somewhat of an odd fixation with that particular "sin".

As I touched on in another thread, why is is that these bakers want to deny gay couples wedding cake services based on the notion "I don't want to condone non-biblical lifestyle choices", yet, I haven't heard of a single one that wants to deny service to fat people on the grounds that selling them cake is only enabling their gluttonous lifestyle (gluttony also being a sin)? I think it's safe to say that your average baker probably encounters way more obese people than gay people, and their sales to specific customers have probably enabled quite a bit of self-destructive behavior over the years.

It seems to always be one particular "sin" they want to zero in on.

Part of it is probably profit incentive...a bakery specializing in sweets probably isn't going to last very long if they target a group like the overweight/obese, as that's 60% of the population and likely the lion's share of their customers. However, targeting a group like gays means you're really only cutting 2% of the population so it allows them to appear like they're taking a noble stand, but meanwhile, not really impacting their bottom line.

Not really a comparison between gluttony and gay marriage, nor is gay marriage versus divorce a good one either. Homosexual sex violates the order of creation and the compatibility of male and female sex organs. For more information,
see this book.

 

[Tanj]

Not really a comparison between gluttony and gay marriage, nor is gay marriage versus divorce a good one either. Homosexual sex violates the order of creation and the compatibility of male and female sex organs. For more information,
see this book.

There's another book I have heard of, apparently it's called "The Bible", and is quite important. Perhaps you could indicate where that book ranks sins in order of their sinfulness.

 

[HereIStand]

There's another book I have heard of, apparently it's called "The Bible", and is quite important. Perhaps you could indicate where that book ranks sins in order of their sinfulness.

We are all sinners, but not all sins are equal. Judas' sin was greater than that of Pilate, as indicated by Christ. John 19:11

 

[HannahT]

It appears a specific custom design was asked for, so I actually have no problem with this result.

If the people asked for a cake this guy normally sold in his business to others, I would disagree with the ruling.

The case before the Supreme court involves a custom cake as well.

I'm confused here. Its the same circumstance. Why is one in the US Supreme Court, and the other won in a state Supreme court.

 

[Tanj]

We are all sinners, but not all sins are equal. Judas' sin was greater than that of Pilate, as indicated by Christ. John 19:11

Well some might disagree that passage has anything to do with Judas, but regardless, still not seeing where homosexuality is called a greater sin.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

It appears a specific custom design was asked for, so I actually have no problem with this result.

If the people asked for a cake this guy normally sold in his business to others, I would disagree with the ruling.

Precisely. This is nothing new - businesses have been able to refuse to reproduce designs and slogans that violate their values forever.

The line is crossed when someone is refused service on the basis of who they are. So you can't force a baker to bake a custom cake with "Go Trump!" on it, but the baker can't refuse to serve a Trump supporter who asks for an ordinary product.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

NM

 

[TheBear]

I would agree with that notion...however, the only caveat to that idea is that it only really works in a diverse area with a lot of competition. For example, if you had a small southern town in the sticks, that only had two grocery stores within 50 miles, and both decided to play the religious freedom card to refuse service to certain kinds of people, that has a much more sweeping impact than if it were a medium-large metropolitan area where you had literally dozens of other options.

These incidents always occur in diverse areas, where there's plenty of competition within a few blocks of each other. This particular incident occured in Bakersfield, Ca, where bakeries are scattered all over the place. Bad reviews of that bakery plus taking business elsewhere, is the best remedy. No need for government involvement, at all.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think a business should not be forced to serve anyone. Dont think it would be fair to be forced to deliver a service because someone show a card and claim that they are this way or that way.

I think a ruling would be in order if the business start requiring that a person tells them a religion or sexual orientation before agreeing to serve. But if one chooses to give this information, it should be ok to choose whether or not to serve based on this information.

One doesn't need a card to show skin color...

 

[iluvatar5150]

The fact that people want to zero in on just this one particular aspect of "sin" shows that there's somewhat of an odd fixation with that particular "sin".

As I touched on in another thread, why is is that these bakers want to deny gay couples wedding cake services based on the notion "I don't want to condone non-biblical lifestyle choices", yet, I haven't heard of a single one that wants to deny service to fat people on the grounds that selling them cake is only enabling their gluttonous lifestyle (gluttony also being a sin)? I think it's safe to say that your average baker probably encounters way more obese people than gay people, and their sales to specific customers have probably enabled quite a bit of self-destructive behavior over the years.

It seems to always be one particular "sin" they want to zero in on.

Part of it is probably profit incentive...a bakery specializing in sweets probably isn't going to last very long if they target a group like the overweight/obese, as that's 60% of the population and likely the lion's share of their customers. However, targeting a group like gays means you're really only cutting 2% of the population so it allows them to appear like they're taking a noble stand, but meanwhile, not really impacting their bottom line.

I would argue that it's more about zeroing in on sins that don't personally impact or tempt them.

Howsabout the sin of getting remarried after a non biblical divorce? I'll bet these bakers are more than happy to celebrate adultery.

Yep. Interfaith marriages, too.

 

[Radagast]

It appears a specific custom design was asked for, so I actually have no problem with this result.

If the people asked for a cake this guy normally sold in his business to others, I would disagree with the ruling.

To the best of my knowledge, there has not been one single case of a baker refusing to sell cakes "normally sold in his business."

All the cases being litigated have involved custom designs.

 

[Hank77]

Howsabout the sin of getting remarried after a non biblical divorce? I'll bet these bakers are more than happy to celebrate adultery.

How would they be violating their conscience about something they couldn't know?

 

[Tanj]

How would they be violating their conscience about something they couldn't know?

Ahh...so not a sin if I didn't know about it. Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law...but God's quite fine with it.

 

[Liza B.]

I would agree with that notion...however, the only caveat to that idea is that it only really works in a diverse area with a lot of competition. For example, if you had a small southern town in the sticks, that only had two grocery stores within 50 miles, and both decided to play the religious freedom card to refuse service to certain kinds of people, that has a much more sweeping impact than if it were a medium-large metropolitan area where you had literally dozens of other options.

I see no reason why the Supreme Court cannot address this type of situation. They can and have in other decisions.

 

[Liza B.]

Not really a comparison between gluttony and gay marriage, nor is gay marriage versus divorce a good one either. Homosexual sex violates the order of creation and the compatibility of male and female sex organs. For more information,
see this book.

I have already had the discussion about gluttony vs. homosexuality, if memory serves with the very same poster. *shrug*

 

[Paidiske]

My idea, would only apply to non essential businesses. Grocery stores, pharmacies etc., could not choose the denial of service based on religious beliefs.

I think a Catholic pharmacist refusing to dispense contraceptives has a stronger conscience case than a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, though.

The first directly involves the vendor in (what he/she perceives as) sin; the second does not. Selling a cake doesn't make you a party to the wedding.

 

[Liza B.]

I think a Catholic pharmacist refusing to dispense contraceptives has a stronger conscience case than a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, though.

The first directly involves the vendor in (what he/she perceives as) sin; the second does not. Selling a cake doesn't make you a party to the wedding.

If you're a baker, and you're very good at your job, then that's your artistry. Maybe you've dedicated your life to it for a decade or more. And if you're VERY good, then you know how important the cake is to people's celebrations, and you yourself have studied, learned, and honed your craft.

So donating your time, talent, and education to the celebration of an event that deeply violates your conscience would feel like a deep imposition. Because truly, what you're creating is artistry, and it takes hours. In a way it would feel like a singer's voice or a painter's brush. For the government to force you into accepting certain jobs that violate your conscience would absolutely feel like a violation. Imagine telling a singer, 'You will sing this song,' or a painter, 'You will paint this portrait'.

 

[Paidiske]

If you're a baker, and you're very good at your job, then that's your artistry. Maybe you've dedicated your life to it for a decade or more. And if you're VERY good, then you know how important the cake is to people's celebrations, and you yourself have studied, learned, and honed your craft.

So donating your time, talent, and education to the celebration of an event that deeply violates your conscience would feel like a deep imposition. Because truly, what you're creating is artistry, and it takes hours. In a way it would feel like a singer's voice or a painter's brush. For the government to force you into accepting certain jobs that violate your conscience would absolutely feel like a violation. Imagine telling a singer, 'You will sing this song,' or a painter, 'You will paint this portrait'.

But the question isn't whether one feels violated about it. The question is whether it objectively makes one a party to the marriage. (Which it doesn't, any more than the caterer or the florist or whatever else. They're selling a product, not saying "I will" or putting their signatures as witnesses). Feeling "violated" is a case of a mis-informed conscience when, in fact, you are not involved in any sin at all by selling a product.

Nobody is saying a baker should be forced to make a custom cake with gay-specific detailing. But if they want to sell "wedding" cakes, then they have to be willing to sell the same cake to anyone who wants one.