Christian Complaint that Baker Refuses to Decorate Cake with Anti-Gay Message

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating

In my country it's against the law to insult people. Discrimination with the law as your guide is actually mostly seen as correct and ethical behaviour.

Depending on what the message was, I agree. If it was not "religious" and merely insulting, then it should not be protected. If it's a Bible quote, then it should be.

My opinion is that this is all nonsense and both bakers should be able to refuse.

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech against government laws.

It does not protest speech in terms of forcing other citizens to repeat your speech.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Jamie1
Finally somebody is catching on!!!!

There are NO laws to force a business to create any type of custom content or message, or produce any specific type of custom product.

No one is "catching on". We already know this. The only reason we've accented the fact that the baker doesn't print derogatory messages for ANY customers, is that it makes her non-discrimination perfectly clear. If she iced a cake with "Religious Bigots Suck" and then refused to ice a cake with "God Hates F**s", there COULD be more strength to a case brought against her, claiming that she refused, based on religious grounds, depending on how it was viewed in a court of law.

You're right. There are no laws that force a business to create custom content or messages. But the fact that she refuses derogatory messages across the board, makes her non-discrimination case very strong.

The content is irrelevant.

A writer who says, "I only write anti-Christian books" is free to do so.

There has never been a court ruling in the history of the U.S. that forced somebody to create content which they did not want to produce.

The "Christian" who started this is an idiot, and is diverting the entire topic. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with the person he hired to be free to choose which type of work he will produce.

There are no laws requiring "fairness" or "equality" in self-expression.

a reply to: ParasuvO

EVERYTHING is rooted in religious beliefs whether you care to believe it or not.

At first I was going to tell you no, because secular humanism has imposed it's human ideals over what religion considers absolutes, but on second thought humanism is a religion of its own decree anyway, the Surpreme court said so, and so did it's followers when John Dewey signed the humanist manifesto.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I understand full well that the govt tells us not to murder people, but the law also tells us we can murder unborn babies, sooooooo I think you need to revisit your thinking on what our laws are doing and what the motive is behind it.

I didn't say I agree with it. In fact, I agreed with you that sometimes the government goes too far.

So please do not patronize me on the meaning of the law,

I assure you, that was not my intent. I'm sorry if you were offended or felt patronized by what I said.

a reply to: truckdriver42

You seem to think that people involved in these cases have received some large monetary compensation. Sure, the people breaking discrimination laws do end up paying a lot of money, but that is in attorney fees and fines that get paid to the state. And in the subsequent lawsuits the damages awarded usually cover attorneys fees and a minor reward which is hardly worth the time and effort in filing the lawsuit. In the Masterpiece Bakery case, the cake wasn't even really for a wedding, but for a reception since gay marriage was not yet legal in Colorado. And by the end of the legal action almost a year had passed and their reception had come and gone.

If we allow people to discriminate against homosexual couples at this level, it will set precedent for all sorts of discrimination allowing businesses to discriminate based on political party affiliation (no libertarians allowed!), political opinion (no feminists allowed!), or even to the most extreme what sports team you like (no cheeseheads allowed!).

This just shows the false equivalency that people believe in. If a christian, conservative person tries to stand up for something they are a hero, but if a gay person does it they are a bigot and a bully. Orwellian newspeak at its finest.

First - I'm a Christian & the lady that set this baker up like that is an idiot - she's giving reasonable Christians a bad name

Second - Freedom of speech is for everyone, including the baker

I may be wrong but I thought private businesses could deny service to anyone they wanted to...

a reply to: coldkidc

I may be wrong but I thought private businesses could deny service to anyone they wanted to...

They cannot deny service based on race, sex, creed, disability, and in some states sexual preference.

You can deny an individual but not based on those things.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

ok thanks

a reply to: Jamie1

Funny I didn't see anything in the amendment that limited free speech to dissent only against the government. Did I miss something or is this just your interpretation. Do tell.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

It looks like you missed the point.

She said:

It does not protest speech in terms of forcing other citizens to repeat your speech.

She meant protect not protest. Maybe you can figure it out now.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Jamie1

Funny I didn't see anything in the amendment that limited free speech to dissent only against the government. Did I miss something or is this just your interpretation. Do tell.

The 1st Amendment limits the powers of the government over the citizens.

The government shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof. You might have misunderstood my post.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

It looks like you missed the point.

She said:

It does not protest speech in terms of forcing other citizens to repeat your speech.

She meant protect not protest. Maybe you can figure it out now.

She is still defining free speech as limited to dissent against government law, and interpreting the amendment to mean you can dissent against government laws but not against other stuff.

free speech is free speech until it's not. Hate speech laws are really a Progressive mechanism designed to stop dissent against their personal peevish demands. It's even more than that.

All western european countries have hate-speech laws. In 2008, the eu adopted a framework decision on “Combating Racism and Xenophobia” that obliged all member states to criminalize certain forms of hate speech. On the other side of the Atlantic, the Supreme Court of the United States has gradually increased and consolidated the protection of hate speech under the First Amendment. The European concept of freedom of expression thus prohibits certain content and viewpoints, whereas, with certain exceptions, the American concept is generally concerned solely with direct incitement likely to result in overt acts of lawlessness.
Yet the origin of hate-speech laws has been largely forgotten. The divergence between the United States and European countries is of comparatively recent origin. In fact, the United States and the vast majority of European (and Western) states were originally opposed to the internationalization of hate-speech laws. European states and the U.S. shared the view that human rights should protect rather than limit freedom of expression.

Rather, the introduction of hate-speech prohibitions into international law was championed in its heyday by the Soviet Union and allies. Their motive was readily apparent. The communist countries sought to exploit such laws to limit free speech.

www.hoover.org...


Yep communist countries want to limit free speech.... who would have guessed that lol

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Jamie1

Funny I didn't see anything in the amendment that limited free speech to dissent only against the government. Did I miss something or is this just your interpretation. Do tell.

The 1st Amendment limits the powers of the government over the citizens.

The government shall make no law establishing a religion, or prohibiting the free expression thereof. You might have misunderstood my post.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. But while we are at it, can we just cite the whole thing

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

en.wikipedia.org...


I think that clarifies things.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This has nothing to do with hate speech laws nor is it about western europe so I have no idea why you even bring them into the mix. Maybe you just feel like going off topic.

She defined how the 1st Amendment works. If you have been paying attention she is saying the 1st Amendment can not force another person to repeat your speech. Which is true.

The thread is about a guy who lodged a complaint because a baker will not repeat on a cake what he wanted. Jamie has been explaining with defining the 1st Amendment why the 1st Amendment has not been infringed.

Maybe you feel the 1st Amendment does have something to do with the OP if so please explain.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This has nothing to do with hate speech laws nor is it about western europe so I have no idea why you even bring them into the mix. Maybe you just feel like going off topic.

She defined how the 1st Amendment works. If you have been paying attention she is saying the 1st Amendment can not force another person to repeat your speech. Which is true.

The thread is about a guy who lodged a complaint because a baker will not repeat on a cake what he wanted. Jamie has been explaining with defining the 1st Amendment why the 1st Amendment has not been infringed.

Maybe you feel the 1st Amendment does have something to do with the OP if so please explain.

It has everything to do with hate speech laws. Everything in this thread is about how a baker didn't want to put hate speech on a cake and the laws about hate speech and discrimination.
The International part of it just happens to be the wider circle of it. When we are at a point of international laws seem to trump US Constitutional law or when our politicians and lawmakers kow tow to the International community, we know we have lost sovereignty.
Is that explanation enough? Yes I think several people here have used the term "hate speech" so I think it's not entirely without merit to discuss it. The Hoover Institution also discussed US law.
I find it very odd you did not understand the implication of the baker not wanting to be accomplice to what she viewed as hate speech, or at the very least a party to something she could legally get in trouble for.
And everyone else was talking about the first amendment so why suddenly I'm the one off topic. You just wanted to rant at me because you dislike me.

But whatever. Your trip. Also, is there some reason why we should not cite the entire amendment so as not to chop off the full meaning? Why do you have a problem with this?

a reply to: Grimpachi

So who gets the nod when matters of conflicting creeds butt heads?
The store owner or the customer?
Have the courts ruled on that at some point?

I find it hard that in the land of the "corporations are people" mindset the store owner is left with lesser rights than their customer...

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

It has everything to do with hate speech laws. Everything in this thread is about how a baker didn't want to put hate speech on a cake and the laws about hate speech and discrimination.

Can you post the hate speech law that pertains to this case?


Didn't think so.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Grimpachi

So who gets the nod when matters of conflicting creeds butt heads?
The store owner or the customer?
Have the courts ruled on that at some point?

I find it hard that in the land of the "corporations are people" mindset the store owner is left with lesser rights than their customer...

This isn't about who gets the nod when creeds collide.

Even the guy who lodged a complaint knows that.

The guy who lodged the complaint claims he was discriminated against because of his religion. It is a religious discrimination complaint.

Learn About Religious Discrimination

Above is a link maybe you can figure out what part applies because I can't.

As for who rules on the case that is the bottom of the OP on page one.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

It has everything to do with hate speech laws. Everything in this thread is about how a baker didn't want to put hate speech on a cake and the laws about hate speech and discrimination.
The International part of it just happens to be the wider circle of it. When we are at a point of international laws seem to trump US Constitutional law or when our politicians and lawmakers kow tow to the International community, we know we have lost sovereignty.
Is that explanation enough? Yes I think several people here have used the term "hate speech" so I think it's not entirely without merit to discuss it. The Hoover Institution also discussed US law.
I find it very odd you did not understand the implication of the baker not wanting to be accomplice to what she viewed as hate speech, or at the very least a party to something she could legally get in trouble for.
And everyone else was talking about the first amendment so why suddenly I'm the one off topic. You just wanted to rant at me because you dislike me.

But whatever. Your trip. Also, is there some reason why we should not cite the entire amendment so as not to chop off the full meaning? Why do you have a problem with this?

This has nothing to do with "hate speech" laws since there are no "hate speech" laws in the U.S.

This also has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment which protects individuals from being prohibited by the government from restricting their speech.

Neither the baker, not the customer, could get in trouble for writing "hate speech" on the cake.

Did you read the story cited in the OP and follow along with the thread at all?

This is simple. Businesses are not required to produce content demanded by a customer.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Grimpachi

So who gets the nod when matters of conflicting creeds butt heads?
The store owner or the customer?
Have the courts ruled on that at some point?

I find it hard that in the land of the corporations are people mindset the store owner is left with lesser rights than their customer...

I expect nothing will come of this, because nothing wrong or illegal was done.

If anything, a warning should be issued to the man who filed the complaint. But, that's doubtful --- unless he files similar multiple complaints, which I doubt, because that would be stupid. Better to have different people continue with the agenda ---- one at a time.

Only time will tell who plays the "game" better.