Religion is supposed to be protected from government, I personally think this is an assault on moral and religious convictions.
It has everything to do with his religious expression in response to a union he believes to be sinfull. The Colorado law prosecutes his refusal as a crime which is a dangerous precedent. This slippery slope is turning into a cliff, Ive always knew it would because culture war issues always do. Wedding cakes are not Constitionally protected rights, the free exercise of religion is, or at least was.The baker is free to believe and worship as he wishes. The no religious freedom issue here. All he has to do is bake a cake for a customer just like he would for any other. Nothing at all to do with religious beliefs or practice.
It has everything to do with his religious expression in response to a union he believes to be sinfull. The Colorado law prosecutes his refusal as a crime which is a dangerous precedent.
Wedding cakes are not Constitionally protected rights
I thought the baker testified he wouldn't sell any wedding cake to a gay couple - custom or not. There's an interesting lack of consistency in the arguments made in his favor. Almost as if they're ad hoc rationalizations to try to justify why gay people don't deserve the same treatment as the rest of his customers.That's it.
His wedding cakes are all custom made. They could have bought anything in the store that was already made, including a cake.I thought the baker testified he wouldn't sell any wedding cake to a gay couple - custom or not. There's an interesting lack of consistency in the arguments made in his favor. Almost as if they're ad hoc rationalizations to try to justify why gay people don't deserve the same treatment as the rest of his customers.
It has everything to do with his religious expression in response to a union he believes to be sinfull.
The Colorado law prosecutes his refusal as a crime which is a dangerous precedent. This slippery slope is turning into a cliff, Ive always knew it would because culture war issues always do. Wedding cakes are not Constitionally protected rights, the free exercise of religion is, or at least was.
His wedding cakes are all custom made. They could have bought anything in the store that was already made, including a cake.
A gay couple could have bought a custom cake for a m/f marriage celebration event.
Gay couple comes into the store. One of them says, "We'd like to buy a wedding cake for my sister. We want to spend up to $800. Could I leave my CC information with you? Do you have a business card that I can give to her?"
Would this be a problem for this baker, Phillips? No, he doesn't turn away gay customers.
But he doesn't design and make, create, custom cakes for certain events.
Like, for example, the union between a black man and a white woman?
Including the right for a businessman to tell someone, "we don't serve your kind here."
That's not described as an abomination or the result if vial passions.
There is no connection of racial discrimination to New Testament theism
It has everything to do with his religious expression in response to a union he believes to be sinfull.[sic]
His wedding cakes are all custom made. They could have bought anything in the store that was already made, including a cake.
A gay couple could have bought a custom cake for a m/f marriage celebration event.
A cake for a wedding would be a wedding cake. These people needed a wedding cake
As long as the customer lies, the baker will oblige?
His wedding cakes are all custom made. They could have bought anything in the store that was already made, including a cake.
A gay couple could have bought a custom cake for a m/f marriage celebration event.
Gay couple comes into the store. One of them says, "We'd like to buy a wedding cake for my sister. We want to spend up to $800. Could I leave my CC information with you? Do you have a business card that I can give to her?"
Would this be a problem for this baker, Phillips? No, he doesn't turn away gay customers.
But he doesn't design and make, create, custom cakes for certain events.
I don't get how this is a free speech issue when it more a free exercise of religion. This has set the case up for failure since whether or not this an exercise of Constitionally protected speech isn't a real question. The genie is out of the bottle, gay rights activists should be carefully what they ask for. This trend in Constitional law is dangerous and ripe for abuse. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts finding this will ruin this bakers life, the Colorado law reads like a criminal indictment. Religion is supposed to be protected from government, I personally think this is an assault on moral and religious convictions.
YupThe baker makes custom wedding cakes as a normal course of his business, correct?
Who said anything about lying? They were telling the truth. His sister and her fiance would have to come in and answer the baker's questions so that he could create the cake. That is how he does it.As long as the customer lies, the baker will oblige?
It doesn't matter what they use it for, he did not participate in making a wedding cake. He made a generic cake.Even if the baker knew it was going to be used for a wedding? I thought the whole point was that he was an active participant in anything his baked goods were used it, so I'm not sure that this approach would work.
But having a belief that a black person should not live in a black household is essentially denying the person to live. In contrast, homosexuals do not have to get married or even have a wedding reception. In fact many homosexuals choose not to get married.But living in a black household is, which is why I brought it up as an example of an act which is based entirely on the identity of the person performing the act.
I have actually addressed that in my previous post. I said it is their identity only because they choose to identify themselves with the activity. Not everyone who experience same-sex attraction identify themselves with homosexual act though.Kinda like the identity of the couple is the only think which determines which type of marriage is taking place. Weird you'd have to ignore that and talk about something else.
I meant not all homosexual couples choose to get married. I didn't say they choose to have a straight wedding.How does a homosexual couple choose to have a straight wedding?
He'd do that for any customer unless the artistic expression through what he creates would convey a message that violates his conscience. We'll wait and see how the supreme court will rule on whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.If he'd do that for any customer he wouldn't be in the legal trouble he is now.
I don't get how this is a free speech issue when it more a free exercise of religion. This has set the case up for failure since whether or not this an exercise of Constitionally protected speech isn't a real question. The genie is out of the bottle, gay rights activists should be carefully what they ask for. This trend in Constitional law is dangerous and ripe for abuse. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts finding this will ruin this bakers life, the Colorado law reads like a criminal indictment. Religion is supposed to be protected from government, I personally think this is an assault on moral and religious convictions.
Nonsense, civil law is a site for damages, usually with a property settlement or monetary penalty. The original law came with jail time, or and by the way, a civil rights violation carries a heavy federal penalty. Either this is a civil rights issue or it's not, the Supreme Court isn't and Ivy League social engineering tool.It's a civil, not a criminal law, in Colorado.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?