Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: Annee
No he did not break the law. He broke somebody's interpretation of the law.

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Bone75

No. But I bet you still did it with compassion and with her feelings in mind?

Correct. So why are you so willing to assume the baker didn't?

a reply to: Christian Voice

Can you explain this? Was it done on a technicality or is their an actual law that makes it illegal to refuse to sell to anyone? I'm not american so I don't know the situation.

a reply to: Bone75

Because even though he may think he was doing it compassionately, he failed to realise his actions were going to cause distress to the couple. That is where the lack of understanding and compassion comes from.

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: Annee
No he did not break the law. He broke somebody's interpretation of the law.

Wrong. Colorado has a law against discrimination of sexual orientation. Which includes "if you bake a specific type of cake for one customer, you bake it for all customers".

So tell me. When my disabled mother was kicked out of a restaurant because the owner felt uncomfortable -- does your passion go to the intolerable owner?

originally posted by: mclarenmp4
a reply to: Bone75

Because even though he may think he was doing it compassionately, he failed to realise his actions were going to cause distress to the couple. That is where the lack of understanding and compassion comes from.

That doesn't even make sense. If he thought he was refusing compassionately, then obviously he did realize his actions would cause distress to the couple.

Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

originally posted by: Bone75



Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

I thought this didn't make sense. You mean he was willing to make cup cakes they could use for their ceremony, just not a cake? What if they asked him to stack the cupcakes in the shape of a wedding cake, do you think he would have done it? After all, technically it wouldn't be a cake, it would be cupcakes. How silly.

a reply to: Bone75

It makes perfect sense. If you can find me the passage in the bible dealing with marriage and where it says it must be between a man and a woman, you won't. You will find passages about raped women having to marry their rapists.
And in one part Marriage is defined as being between 2 israelites, not man and woman, 2 israelites.

I bet there is no baker in israel refusing to bake for an american couple being married in Israel.

It's based on his ignorance of the bible.

Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

And that restaurant owner who kicked my disabled mom (and 3 kids) out of his restaurant because her disability made him uncomfortable, politely offered to make "something to go".

As if discriminatory concessions make it Ok.

That was prior to the Disability Act. Only discrimination laws prevent discrimination.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

I thought this didn't make sense. You mean he was willing to make cup cakes they could use for their ceremony, just not a cake? What if they asked him to stack the cupcakes in the shape of a wedding cake, do you think he would have done it? After all, technically it wouldn't be a cake, it would be cupcakes. How silly.

I would have to know exactly what was said in order to make a determination. If he offered to make cupcakes or cookies for the ceremony, then he has no argument.

I think its more likely that in a moment of panic he was trying to reassure the couple that their sexual orientation was not the reason he was denying their request. A wedding cake has no other purpose than to be used in a wedding.

a reply to: mclarenmp4
Matthew 19:5 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh
That was Jesus speaking, he did not say hold fast to his life partner or his buddy Todd.
Genesis 2:24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said, Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord

a reply to: Annee

This has nothing to do with your disabled mother, apples and oranges

originally posted by: Christian Voice
a reply to: Annee

This has nothing to do with your disabled mother, apples and oranges

Hell if it doesn't.

It's the exact same situation. Minus the Jesus part. But, we are a secular government. And that trumps Jesus.

For you to blow it off like that, shows your true nature.

a reply to: Annee

Explain it to me then. How is your disabled mother like a gay couple ? What kind of disability and what exactly happened when she was kicked out. My neighbor had a rare form of mental retardation and was confined to a wheelchair and would occasionally scream out for no reason. There were a few times he was made to leave. It was not his fault but it was very disruptive to the other patrons. From that point on his parents found better suited places to take him.

a reply to: Metallicus

I'd make the cakes.. - I'd make the nastiest damn cakes those folks ever ate - that will put an end to this foolishness.

Heck.. instead of chocolate, I'd use a couple of boxes of Exlax. Taste Great and it will be a cake they will never forget LOL

I strongly disagree with forced sensitivity training because these people had the RIGHT to refuse because of their religious beliefs..

This is mixing church and state in ways that are supposed to be against the US Constitution. I'd fight this in court.

It's funny ya know.. When the extremist Muslims want to come into the US (and UK) and have their own rules, it's politically incorrect to turn them away but if the Christians ( who's principles this country was based on) want the same treatment - nope cant have that ! This is pathetic.

a reply to: Annee

Sorry Annee but Christian Voice is right. Your mother's story sounds tragic, but its not a fair comparison to the matter we are discussing. The restaurant owner had no religious reason to make your mom leave, he was just being an ahole. Either that or he didn't want to be sued for not having a handrail and enough room for a wheelchair in the bathroom.

a reply to: Christian Voice

The point is freedom to discriminate goes for anything. If you single out one thing that you're free to discriminate about (The Gay) and nothing else, then you're a self-righteous bigot and have now shown yourself to be so. But, if you're saying that someone should have the freedom to discriminate based on their beliefs, then Annee's point is just an uncomfortable reminder that - hey! you said they could discriminate, and they did based on a disability, so it's okay! "I think that all amputees are morally reprehensible, so I'm going to discriminate based on that!" It sounds stupid, because it is.

If you're a public accommodation, you have to comply with public accommodation laws. "Just go to a different one!" you might say. Uh huh ... so, the only hospital within a 2-hour drive decides that they want to discriminate against all people who aren't caucasian because caucasians are the supreme race, favored by their god. I was in an industrial accident, I have 3rd degree burns over 80% of my body, I'm black, and I'm turned away. I will die well before that 2-hour drive is up to the next hospital. But that's okay because it's the hospital's sincerely held religious belief so they can discriminate against me!

Okay, let's make exceptions for hospitals -- they have to treat everyone. And police. And firemen. And ambulance. And maybe funeral homes. Or maybe not. What about schools? Yeah, those should be the exception too, so they have to be open to everyone and can't discriminate. You very quickly run into an insurmountable problem of adding a myriad of businesses and services that may be exempted from non-discrimination, and those that aren't.

It makes so much more sense for the blanket rule that if you're open to the public, you have to comply with non-discrimination ordinances and laws. If your state includes sexuality, then you have to comply with that. Sure, it may not always make the most sense in all cases - if I were gay and wanted a wedding cake and knew that a baker hated The Gay then I wouldn't go to them even if I legally could - but it simplifies everything and does more good than bad.

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: Annee

Sorry Annee but Christian Voice is right. Your mother's story sounds tragic, but its not a fair comparison to the matter we are discussing. The restaurant owner had no religious reason to make your mom leave, he was just being an ahole. Either that or he didn't want to be sued for not having a handrail and enough room for a wheelchair in the bathroom.

Tell that to the person who was discriminated against.

Maybe he believed he could catch polio by standing next to a person who had polio. It doesn't matter if it was because of belief or whatever.

I don't agree it's different because religion wasn't involved.

Handrails and bathroom access? Not even in the picture. That was 30 years in the future.

a reply to: Annee

Then explain it so maybe we can understand because right now it just looks like you are using your mother's handicap to push the gay agenda.

a reply to: Christian Voice

Didn't see the word marriage in any of your posts yet. Please go on.