SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

Except the baker is not discriminating against the person, if a heterosexual person asked for a similar cake....

I don't understand why they can't get this, as it's so clear. It has to be that it simply does not fit their narrative, so they refuse to acknowledge the truth.

[rogue06]

I don't understand why they can't get this, as it's so clear. It has to be that it simply does not fit their narrative, so they refuse to acknowledge the truth.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It is all about searching out someone who objects to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding and forcing them to make it. Of course, it's only conservative Christians that they are hunting in that they studiously avoid halal (Muslim) bakeries who, there are videos of, steadfastly refusing to make such a cake and telling those who ask to leave and go elsewhere. Never once have they tried to use the force of government to compel them make them a cake.

[Cow Poke]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with getting a wedding cake for a gay wedding. It is all about searching out someone who objects to making a wedding cake for a gay wedding and forcing them to make it. Of course, it's only conservative Christians that they are hunting in that they studiously avoid halal (Muslim) bakeries who, there are videos of, steadfastly refusing to make such a cake and telling those who ask to leave and go elsewhere. Never once have they tried to use the force of government to compel them make them a cake.

It just amazes me that liberals can never seem to win an argument on the facts.

They have to 'massage' the language, distort the truth, or just outright lie, or come up with idiot "it's JUST A CAKE" arguments.

[JimL]

Except the baker is not discriminating against the person, if a heterosexual person asked for a similar cake. The request would be denied. It is a person who disagrees with the notion of marriage as proposed, and doesn't want to custom tailor a message in support of that.

A heterosexual does ask for a similar cake, a wedding cake, a wedding cake to celebrate their marriage, and their request is not denied. Therefore the homosexual is being discriminated against when they are denied the same service provided to the heterosexual. It's not about the baker, he isn't making the cakes for himself he is making them for the general public, all of whom have differing beliefs. It's no different than a baker who claims not to believe in interacial weddings, he can't because of that, discriminate against interacial couples either.

You can get angry that you don't get to use the law to make a Christian bake a cake celebrating a gay wedding, but the baker should have a right to not make a custom artwork in support of an ideology he disagrees with.

Oh but homosexual people do get to use the law, it's called discrimination. The baker in the case at issue won his case on a technicality, i.e. he won because the Colorado civil rights board were said by the court to have acted with bias and intolerance.

They're free to buy a standard form wedding cake, with white glazing, some tulips made out of icing, and get the implements and figurines on the side.

The baker is free to operate a christian bakery, like a christian book store, but if they are not strickly christian, if they custom design cakes for Jewish weddings, Muslim weddings, interacial weddings etc etc. then they can't discriminate against homosexuals either.

[Tassman]

You really need to get out of your bubble. Some actually do, some are angry because they have memories of being bullied by Christians, some LGBTQ are furious that this or that denomination won't recognise their marriage in a religious setting. Those people exist. I've met them, seen them, and talked to them.

Most of them however don't really care about the baker issues, and take a more reasonable position like Starlights that standard wedding cakes, sold with minor alterations and or figurines and chocolate for decoration sold separately is all a baker would need to sell. However custom made cakes, most LGBTQ people agree fall under freedom of speech.

This "custom-made" cakes business is mostly nonsense. Most wedding cakes are fairly standard, perhaps the addition of same-sex figurines being the only distinguishing feature. And a baker is obliged to provide the same service to a gay couple as to a heterosexual couple under the Civil Rights Act regardless of his personal biases.

[Tassman]

Except the baker is not discriminating against the person, if a heterosexual person asked for a similar cake. The request would be denied. It is a person who disagrees with the notion of marriage as proposed, and doesn't want to custom tailor a message in support of that.

You can get angry that you don't get to use the law to make a Christian bake a cake celebrating a gay wedding, but the baker should have a right to not make a custom artwork in support of an ideology he disagrees with.

So you would be comfortable with a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple on the grounds of his personal ideology...because this is the logical extension of your argument. Or "Christ-killer" Jews?

They're free to buy a standard form wedding cake, with white glazing, some tulips made out of icing, and get the implements and figurines on the side.

Just as black people were free to use segregated public toilets in the good ol' Jim Crow days. Yes that sounds reasonable. <sarcasm>

[Leonhard]

A heterosexual does ask for a similar cake, a wedding cake, a wedding cake to celebrate their marriage, and their request is not denied.

There is an ideological disagreement here about what a marriage is, or isn't. The Christian does not believe that the simulation the gay couple will be going through will be a marriage. You might disagree. The gays might disagree with the Christian. But the fact of the matter is that its this celebration that the Christian does not want to endorse.

It's no different than a baker who claims not to believe in interacial weddings,

The whole issue of a ruling that respects religious freedom and free speech is of course whether it undermines Civil Rights issues. The problem with that is that the Civil Rights acts themselves are secondary to Freedom of Speech. If the Civil Rights Acts are undermining freedom of speech, then something is wrong. I believe people should have the right to conscientiously object.

The baker in the case at issue won his case on a technicality, i.e. he won because the Colorado civil rights board were said by the court to have acted with bias and intolerance.

The Supreme Court for understandable reasons prefer to rule on narrower grounds than wider grounds. There had been a great deal of religious prejudice against the baker, therefore a great injustice had been done against him. Therefore he won. The LGBTQ should really take this account if they start a witch-hunt on Christian bakers, florists, photographers, etc, who respectfully disagree with the 2015 ruling that permitted gay marriage. A ruling, which bent over backward to accommodate disagreement.

[Leonhard]

So you would be comfortable with a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple on the grounds of his personal ideology.

Comfortable would have nothing to do with it. Free Speech shouldn't make you feel comfortable. We don't just protect people who says things almost everyone agrees are right and true and honourable.

Or ... Jews?

That would be different. Refusing the services to a person, because of that person, would be wrong. Refusing to make a custom-tailored product for a specific event is different. This has already been tested by a Christian who asked a gay baker to decorate a cake with the message "Marriage is between one man and one woman". The baker refused on conscientious grounds. The court let the case go in the bakers favor.

Just like they should. This is exactly what we Christian wants to see happen.

[Leonhard]

This "custom-made" cakes business is mostly nonsense.

You're only saying that because its a thorn in the side of your argument. Its really this that the LGBTQ will have to deal with, and many of them are quite willing to concede that custom works are free speech. The Supreme Court Justices are also considering making a careful ruling with regards to that. Though they have a careful road to steer. Reading Justice Anthony Kenny on this they respect both sides of this argument. Contrary to you.

Most wedding cakes are fairly standard, perhaps the addition of same-sex figurines being the only distinguishing feature.

They can buy that, figurines on the side, etc... we've already been through this. If a gay baker can refuse to write a message on it she doesn't like, a Christian can, like her, offer to sell the implements on the side for them. Everyone is happy. Except you of course.

[rogue06]

This "custom-made" cakes business is mostly nonsense.

In that case they can simply pick up a generic wedding cake and there is no problem.

That Tass is a case of being hoisted by your own petard.

[rogue06]

Comfortable would have nothing to do with it. Free Speech shouldn't make you feel comfortable. We don't just protect people who says things almost everyone agrees are right and true and honourable.

Exactly. There is no need to protect what everyone agrees with or is comfortable with.

[Tassman]

Comfortable would have nothing to do with it. Free Speech shouldn't make you feel comfortable. We don't just protect people who says things almost everyone agrees are right and true and honourable.

Democracy requires minority rights be protected equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is understood today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how alienated a minority is from the mainstream society...including the once despised homosexual minority.

That would be different. Refusing the services to a person, because of that person, would be wrong. Refusing to make a custom-tailored product for a specific event is different.

This has already been tested by a Christian who asked a gay baker to decorate a cake with the message "Marriage is between one man and one woman". The baker refused on conscientious grounds. The court let the case go in the bakers favor.

Just like they should. This is exactly what we Christian wants to see happen.

I'm not familiar with this example. Links please!

[Tassman]

You're only saying that because its a thorn in the side of your argument. Its really this that the LGBTQ will have to deal with, and many of them are quite willing to concede that custom works are free speech. The Supreme Court Justices are also considering making a careful ruling with regards to that. Though they have a careful road to steer. Reading Justice Anthony Kenny on this they respect both sides of this argument. Contrary to you.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/op...ing-cake-case/

They can buy that, figurines on the side, etc...

Why should they have to accept anything less than full service from the cake-shop as heterosexual couples would expect and as is required by the Civil Rights Act?

[Leonhard]

Comfortable would have nothing to do with it. Free Speech shouldn't make you feel comfortable. We don't just protect people who says things almost everyone agrees are right and true and honourable.

Democracy requires minority rights be protected equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is understood today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how alienated a minority is from the mainstream society...including the once despised homosexual minority.

Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said. Just pure duckspeak.

Refusing to make a wedding cake for Jews or mixed race couples for religion-based reasons is the same argument as the one being made against gay couples.

Except in those cases it would be a matter of discriminating against persons, and not a matter of free speech. Something everyone here except you agrees with, and I have a feeling you're just trying to act like a contrarian. The only problem is that you're bad at it.

I'm not familiar with this example. Links please!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/o...ding-cake.html



Which made my example excellent, given your hostility to religion, and you using this case to advance an attack specifically on Christians. As several people have said here, it is transparently an attack on Christians. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness or discrimination. There's no lack of bakers who will bake a cake for a gay wedding. And many of these Christians were sought out, and then sued after that.

the majority did not rule ... on ... whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

As I told you. Glad you agree.

Why should they have to accept anything less than full service from the cake-shop as heterosexual couples would expect and as is required by the Civil Rights Act?

Why should a t-shirt company refuse to design a t-shirt logo for you? How discriminating! Except, you do have that freedom, and the LGBTQ at large (with whom its clear from this discussion you have zero contact with), also agrees that Christians shouldn't be forced to print Pride Parade t-shirts.

There's practically a one to one correspondance between that case and the baker case.

https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...y-pride-shirts

[Cow Poke]

This "custom-made" cakes business is mostly nonsense. Most wedding cakes are fairly standard,

This is absolute willful ignorance.

perhaps the addition of same-sex figurines being the only distinguishing feature.

So the same sex couple could buy their own cake and add the figurines. Problem solved.

And a baker is obliged to provide the same service to a gay couple as to a heterosexual couple under the Civil Rights Act regardless of his personal biases.

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true.