Liberal and Conservative

[Tigger45]

So it begs the question. If the KKK where a protected class under the law of the land in which you reside would you post a statement against your own conscience?

No, but then I would also make certain I was not placed in a position to have to make the choice to break the law.[/QUOTE]
But these laws are relatively new. You could be an entrepreneur, baking, doing what you love. Open up a shop by building clientele, and then years later the laws change. Would you give up everything you worked for or violate your conscience?

 

[Belk]

But these laws are relatively new. You could be an entrepreneur, baking, doing what you love. Open up a shop by building clientele, and then years later the laws change. Would you give up everything you worked for or violate your conscience?

The law changes all the time. It is up to you to ensure you conscience is not violated. Especially since you can still run a bakery without selling wedding cakes. You don't get to drink and drive simply because you were doing so before the law changed.

 

[Tigger45]

But these laws are relatively new. You could be an entrepreneur, baking, doing what you love. Open up a shop by building clientele, and then years later the laws change. Would you give up everything you worked for or violate your conscience?

The law changes all the time. It is up to you to ensure you conscience is not violated. Especially since you can still run a bakery without selling wedding cakes.

So you would just stop selling wedding cakes? Actually you would have to stop taking all orders requiring any specially ordered inscription or decoration. So much for doing what you loved for a living.

 

[Paidiske]

He objects to an event. You are attempting to make it about the couple. It is about the event. The couple is irrelevant.

The event is irrelevant, if the item is itself inoffensive. The sale of the cake doesn't involve or implicate him in any way in the event for which it's sold.

 

[Belk]

So you would just stop selling wedding cakes? Actually you would have to stop taking all orders requiring any specially ordered inscription or decoration. So much for doing what you loved for a living.

Which is more important? The work you love or your devotion to your religion? You do not get to flout the law simply because one of the choices you have to make is difficult.

 

[Radagast]

The event is irrelevant, if the item is itself inoffensive. The sale of the cake doesn't involve or implicate him in any way in the event for which it's sold.

As far as I know, the baker in question was totally happy to sell generic cakes to anybody.

AFAIK, the debate was actually about custom decoration and messages. And to hand-decorate a "Best Wishes Chris and Alex" cake does involve one, at least to some extent, with Chris and Alex, doesn't it? And with whatever might be depicted in the decorations?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The event is irrelevant, if the item is itself inoffensive. The sale of the cake doesn't involve or implicate him in any way in the event for which it's sold.

The mere sale of a generic cake is inoffensive.

The artistic creation of a fancy cake for a wedding of two people does implicate the artist in the event. Anyone can pick up a generic cake anywhere. You are intentionally conflating the two situations.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

So you would just stop selling wedding cakes? Actually you would have to stop taking all orders requiring any specially ordered inscription or decoration. So much for doing what you loved for a living.

Right. It essentially ended lifetime careers for some biblically adherent Christian bakers. And that is religious bigotry. Wedding cakes are a huge part of the bakery business for those who do them, since they are so time-consuming and require much artistry. It isn't as if Christian bakers had a corner on all cakes and no one could acquire a wedding cake without going to a Christian baker. There were hundreds of other bakeries passed up by the plaintiffs in the Masterpiece case.

Note they didn't make this demand in a Muslim bakery. That wouldn't fly.

 

[hedrick]

Its been a while but wasn’t it a gay wedding cake?

No. There have been a number of incorrect statements here. Other cases have established that you can't make someone express a message with which they disagree. If they had asked for a message saying anything pro-gay, the baker would have been within his rights to refuse it. He shut it off before there was any discussions about the design of the cake. He was unwilling to make a cake of any kind for a gay wedding, though he would sell things already made.

The case will never be decided on its merits. The Supreme Court found in favor of the baker, because the state commission that ruled on the case also expressed overt distaste for his religion. They believed that this violated his right to be heard in an unbiased way. Thus they never reached the merits of the case.

 

[Belk]

As far as I know, the baker in question was totally happy to sell generic cakes to anybody.

AFAIK, the debate was actually about custom decoration and messages. And to hand-decorate a "Best Wishes Chris and Alex" cake does involve one, at least to some extent, with Chris and Alex, doesn't it? And with whatever might be depicted in the decorations?

AFAIK this is incorrect. There was no discussion of a custom message or even how a custom cake would look.

 

[Belk]

The mere sale of a generic cake is inoffensive.

The artistic creation of a fancy cake for a wedding of two people does implicate the artist in the event. Anyone can pick up a generic cake anywhere. You are intentionally conflating the two situations.

In what way? At my wedding my wedding cake was a tradition Io served to my guests. I did not care about my bakers opinion and it was not sought. It was simply a cake.

 

[Tigger45]

No. There have been a number of incorrect statements here. Other cases have established that you can't make someone express a message with which they disagree. If they had asked for a message saying anything pro-gay, the baker would have been within his rights to refuse it. He shut it off before there was any discussions about the design of the cake. He was unwilling to make a cake of any kind for a gay wedding, though he would sell things already made.

The case will never be decided on its merits. The Supreme Court found in favor of the baker, because the state commission that ruled on the case also expressed overt distaste for his religion. They believed that this violated his right to be heard in an unbiased way. Thus they never reached the merits of the case.

My point was no business should be forced to violate their conscience. And believe it should go both ways where a gay business owner shouldn’t be forced to creative anti homosexual slogans.

 

[Tigger45]

Which is more important? The work you love or your devotion to your religion? You do not get to flout the law simply because one of the choices you have to make is difficult.

No, I see this mindset as highly problematic for all when extended out to it’s fullest expression and will voice my opinion, vote my conscience and if need be would fight for my rights in court.

 

[Belk]

No, I see this mindset as highly problematic for all when extended out to it’s fullest expression and will voice my opinion, vote my conscience and if need be would fight for my rights in court.

You may see it as such but the courts have been very consistent from Jim Crow through to modern anti discrimination laws. Unless it is a free speech issue you will lose in the courts. Quite frankly I find it worrying that so few can see why they will lose this fight.

 

[Tigger45]

You may see it as such but the courts have been very consistent from Jim Crow through to modern anti discrimination laws. Unless it is a free speech issue you will lose in the courts. Quite frankly I find it worrying that so few can see why they will lose this fight.

The only ones that ultimately lose are those who give in to injustice as history has shown. Don’t forget what Martin Luther King Jr said; “Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.”

 

[Belk]

The only ones that ultimately lose are those who give in to injustice as history has shown. Don’t forget what Martin Luther King Jr said; “Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere.”

Having to obey anti discrimination laws is not an injustice. Just ask MLK's widow.

 

[Tigger45]

Having to obey anti discrimination laws is not an injustice. Just ask MLK's widow.

You mean to discriminate against the business owners choice to go against their conscience when the client can find service from like minded retailers. Again the business owner wouldn’t be denying the customer service only drawing a line with particsipating in their beliefs. Forcing the owner to participate in advancing a statement they don’t want to state is a violation of their freedom of speech on the flip side of the same coin.

 

[Dave-W]

Note they didn't make this demand in a Muslim bakery. That wouldn't fly.

Indeed. Good point.

 

[Dave-W]

At my wedding my wedding cake was a tradition Io served to my guests. I did not care about my bakers opinion and it was not sought.

But did the baker care about YOUR opinion?

You are only one side of the issue here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Having to obey anti discrimination laws is not an injustice. Just ask MLK's widow.

You don't get to equate behaviors that are unseen with race, that is always seen. You can't even tell who the former are, unless they tell you. False equivalency.