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

[bhsmte]

In America, with our First Amendment, having your religious conscience violated, especially if the government is forcing you to do something, is absolutely a matter of grave importance. It doesn't matter if making the cake makes you party to the marriage or not. If making the cake violates your religious conscience, you shouldn't have to make it. The Supreme Court found this so compelling they took the case.

Religious rights are not limitless. In fact, no right is limitless. Rights tend to reach their limit, when they begin to step on the rights of others and especially so, in public accommodating businesses. In private situations, people can discriminate, to a much higher level.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Swing and a miss, nice try though. That maybe an issued with being a pharmacist. There are lots of jobs I will not do. For example, I would not work in a convenience store to sell cigarettes because they are harmful to people. Some of those stores everything they sell is harmful.

That would NOT disqualify someone from being a medical doctor because only a specialist should prescribe sex hormones to gay people. I take medicine for my heart and that is prescribed by a specialist doctor. My regular doctor is not qualified to prescribe that drug because he is not certified.

It's not really a swing and a miss...

If you're a medical doctor, that title comes with a certain set of responsibilities to your patients and if adherence to one's religious beliefs are going to preclude them from providing comprehensive care, then their religious preferences need to take a back seat to them actually fulfilling their duties.

For your second part, I think you're confusing a few things...gay people don't have to take sex hormones, I think you're confusing them with trans-folks.

There are certain religious beliefs and convictions that, if the holder of them felt compelled to project those rules onto others, would prevent them from fulfilling the duties of being an M.D.

For instance, if a religious person chose to be very strict about the concept of not seeing a person of the other gender with certain body parts exposed, that could prevent someone from being an MD.

IE: a doctor in the hospital can't simply say "sorry, that women who was brought in, that was in a car crash, was wearing a short skirt and revealing top...looking at that might cause lust so I have to step away from the situation".


There are certain key roles within a society that just don't mix well with the idea of what I like to call "professional activism". For instance, I wouldn't want a cop arresting someone for drinking at age 24 on the grounds that "I don't care what the state says, I think the legal age should be 25!"

There's a reason why certain positions within our society require state licensing and certification (Medical Professionals being one of them)...being a doctor is different than working at Target.

 

[KCfromNC]

This has nothing to do with discrimination.

Nice assertion. Any reason to believe you are correct?

 

[MoonlessNight]

One thing I find funny about the general discussion and debate sections is that this site has been around for over a decade, and people still believe that if they calmly explain their position they might convince people not to call them a racist homophobic bigot (with cheap shots at Christianity or Jesus probably being thrown in their for good measure).

(It's also kind of funny that people expect that if we fix the rules enough that the situation might possibly change.)

 

[bhsmte]

It's not really a swing and a miss...

If you're a medical doctor, that title comes with a certain set of responsibilities to your patients and if adherence to one's religious beliefs are going to preclude them from providing comprehensive care, then their religious preferences need to take a back seat to them actually fulfilling their duties.

For your second part, I think you're confusing a few things...gay people don't have to take sex hormones, I think you're confusing them with trans-folks.

There are certain religious beliefs and convictions that, if the holder of them felt compelled to project those rules onto others, would prevent them from fulfilling the duties of being an M.D.

For instance, if a religious person chose to be very strict about the concept of not seeing a person of the other gender with certain body parts exposed, that could prevent someone from being an MD.

IE: a doctor in the hospital can't simply say "sorry, that women who was brought in, that was in a car crash, was wearing a short skirt and revealing top...looking at that might cause lust so I have to step away from the situation".


There are certain key roles within a society that just don't mix well with the idea of what I like to call "professional activism". For instance, I wouldn't want a cop arresting someone for drinking at age 24 on the grounds that "I don't care what the state says, I think the legal age should be 25!"

There's a reason why certain positions within our society require state licensing and certification (Medical Professionals being one of them)...being a doctor is different than working at Target.

The other thing is this; many people who get prescribed types of birth control, are prescribed them for medical reasons, because they have hormone imbalances, that the birth control corrects.

 

[TLK Valentine]

One thing I find funny about the general discussion and debate sections is that this site has been around for over a decade, and people still believe that if they calmly explain their position they might convince people not to call them a racist homophobic bigot (with cheap shots at Christianity or Jesus probably being thrown in their for good measure).

Not that I agree with the persecution complex, but some people can be bigots without frothing at the mouth over it... although I do agree that the label gets tossed around more often than it should.

(It's also kind of funny that people expect that if we fix the rules enough that the situation might possibly change.)

Laws come first -- hearts and minds come later... sometimes much later, if at all.

It does help when people see that the sky doesn't fall... then they wonder what they were all worked up about in the first place.

 

[Hank77]

Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law...but God's quite fine with it.

Actually it is a defense in the eyes of the law in many cases. Someone might buy a stole item, if they didn't know that it was stolen they are not arrested as a thief even though the item is in their possession.

God does look at willful acts of disobedience differently than acts that were not willful.

 

[Hank77]

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.

And selling what has been prescribed by a doctor doesn't make the pharmacist a party to the decision of the doctor and patient. Contraceptives are not prescribed just to prevent pregnancy. When a woman has prolonged bleeding a doctor will prescribe birth control pills, half of them, to get the bleeding stopped, which may have been caused by cancer. But the first step in founding out what is going on is to stop the bleeding.

 

[Hank77]

But you have to be able to demonstrate how it violates your conscience.

Is it a sin to bake a cake? Clearly not, since they do it for a living.
Is it a sin to sell a cake to a gay person? Clearly not, since they do so for other occasions.
Is it a sin to sell a cake to a gay person for their wedding? I say no; because what someone does with what they buy is not the moral responsibility of the baker.

If what someone did with what they bought were the moral responsibility of the vendor, we would have to have people signing "sin disclaimers" before a Christian could sell anything in good conscience; clearly this is ridiculous, and so is the claim that what someone does with something you sell them, is on your conscience.

So how then is it a conscience issue, if the occasion for which the cake is bought is not morally relevant to the baker?

I'd argue that it has not been adequately demonstrated to be a conscience issue. You can't just claim, "it's a conscience issue." You have to be able to show where the objective sin is, and why doing something violates your conscience. Conscience isn't a free pass to break the law without a reason.

It's not about selling something. It's about being forced to use one's speech/expression to design and create something that you do not want to speak about.

 

[Hank77]

But you have to be able to demonstrate how it violates your conscience.

I have a question for you.
Should a painter or sculptor that creates art depicting a man and woman in an intimate embrace be forced to create art depicting same sex couples in an intimate embrace? Would this violate their freedom of speech/expression?

 

[Hank77]

The regular pharmacist was having a baby and the temp pharmacist was not certified for that drug and she got herself into trouble when she did not handle it properly.

Something that I didn't know. My son and my daughter-in-law are pharmacists and I didn't know there were certifications for certain drugs.

 

[Paidiske]

That would NOT disqualify someone from being a medical doctor because only a specialist should prescribe sex hormones to gay people.

How did we get from contraceptives - something most women want from their doctor at some point - to sex hormones for gay people? (And did you mean transgender, anyway?)

And selling what has been prescribed by a doctor doesn't make the pharmacist a party to the decision of the doctor and patient. Contraceptives are not prescribed just to prevent pregnancy. When a woman has prolonged bleeding a doctor will prescribe birth control pills, half of them, to get the bleeding stopped, which may have been caused by cancer. But the first step in founding out what is going on is to stop the bleeding.

For an observant Catholic, dispensing contraceptives is itself a sin. Some Catholic pharmacists refuse to stock them. I have no problem with this, as long as such pharmacists don't set themselves up in a situation where their customers have no viable alternative.

It's not about selling something. It's about being forced to use one's speech/expression to design and create something that you do not want to speak about.

Most wedding cakes won't tell you the sex of the people getting married. As long as the baker isn't forced to make a design they find objectionable (same-sex couple toppers, for example), they should be prepared to make a cake identical to what they'd make for a straight couple.

I have a question for you.
Should a painter or sculptor that creates art depicting a man and woman in an intimate embrace be forced to create art depicting same sex couples in an intimate embrace? Would this violate their freedom of speech/expression?

This is irrelevant to making a wedding cake.

 

[Hank77]

For an observant Catholic, dispensing contraceptives is itself a sin. Some Catholic pharmacists refuse to stock them. I have no problem with this, as long as such pharmacists don't set themselves up in a situation where their customers have no viable alternative.

I don't know how I feel about it. I want to agree, for their sake, on the other hand they are part of the medical profession and that causes me to hesitate.

This is irrelevant to making a wedding cake.

Phillips case before the SCOTUS is based on this very idea. That artists should not be forced to speak by designing and creating art that they don't want to create.

 

[Liza B.]

But you have to be able to demonstrate how it violates your conscience.

Is it a sin to bake a cake? Clearly not, since they do it for a living.
Is it a sin to sell a cake to a gay person? Clearly not, since they do so for other occasions.
Is it a sin to sell a cake to a gay person for their wedding? I say no; because what someone does with what they buy is not the moral responsibility of the baker.

If what someone did with what they bought were the moral responsibility of the vendor, we would have to have people signing "sin disclaimers" before a Christian could sell anything in good conscience; clearly this is ridiculous, and so is the claim that what someone does with something you sell them, is on your conscience.

So how then is it a conscience issue, if the occasion for which the cake is bought is not morally relevant to the baker?

I'd argue that it has not been adequately demonstrated to be a conscience issue. You can't just claim, "it's a conscience issue." You have to be able to show where the objective sin is, and why doing something violates your conscience. Conscience isn't a free pass to break the law without a reason.

It's not "what they do with what they buy", the baker is creating that artwork expressly for that particular wedding. I agree with you entirely insofar as, if there is a Christian who sells kitchen goods, that Christian should not be held accountable is someone uses the knife set to murder someone. The Christian could have no idea the buyer had intention to do that. However, if the buyer stated outright he was looking for a set of knives with which to kill his wife, that's a different story, right?

(BTW, I am not equating a gay wedding to murder. Murder is worse than a gay wedding. I'm just using an example.)

 

[Paidiske]

It's not "what they do with what they buy", the baker is creating that artwork expressly for that particular wedding.

It's irrelevant what the occasion is, though. It has no moral freight for the baker. It is no sin for the baker to make or sell a cake, which is what "conscience" speaks to. Is it a sin? If not, it's not a conscience issue, but some other sort of issue (in this case, moral outrage, I suspect; but you don't have a right not to be morally outraged).

Part of the reason this is not a conscience issue is that the cake is, in fact, irrelevant to the wedding. You don't need a cake to get married. A cake ritual is not an intrinsic part of the ceremony. It's part of the celebration, but the baker isn't supplying anything that makes a wedding, a wedding.

However, if the buyer stated outright he was looking for a set of knives with which to kill his wife, that's a different story, right?

That's a situation where I hope anyone would intervene, but the issue there is not in selling the knives. Knowing of the intent and doing nothing about it would make one an accessory to the crime, would it not?

 

[thesopranopiano]

if there is a Christian who sells kitchen goods, that Christian should not be held accountable is someone uses the knife set to murder someone. The Christian could have no idea the buyer had intention to do that. However, if the buyer stated outright he was looking for a set of knives with which to kill his wife, that's a different story, right?

Perhaps there should be a "Don't ask, don't tell," policy for bakers then. As long as they don't know it's for a gay couple, is the baker in the clear?

 

[redleghunter]

Great news for religious freedom.
Judge Rules Bakeshop Owner Doesn’t Have To Bake Wedding Cake For Gay Couple

For those who will discount a report from the Daily Caller, here is one from CBS.

Judge rules bakery owner can refuse to make wedding cake for same-sex couples

 

[redleghunter]

Interesting. But what really matters is the Supreme Court case pending about the same issue.

On a related front:

And we have this from May 2017:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-to-print-gay-pride-shirts-not-discrimination

Which now is going to the state supreme court:

Gay pride T-shirt case will be heard by Kentucky Supreme Court

 

[redleghunter]

One way to look at it. But, I believe, it is fair for all people, to expect to be served equally, in public accommodating businesses, where the business owner, invites them in the door.

I would take no issue with a business owner claiming religions reasons to refuse to serve someone, with this caveat, that business owner post a notice on their website and storefront, of which types of customers they will refuse to serve.

This decision is based on artistic expression. Which from a California perspective is not surprising.

For example, artists refuse work which they feel their expressive design should not support. Should a liberal artist be legally obligated to paint a work for Donald Trump Tweeting? I think not.

Last year before the inauguration, several American dress designers refused to make a dress for the first lady. No one other than Fox News batted an eyelash.

Now if the first lady walked into a shop to get an off the rack dress (highly unlikely) and was refused it would be discrimination.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

A grocery store is a bad example. They provide basic necessities and have yet to hear of grocery stores or tire shops denying homosexuals from basic services.