You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gothmog

That is essentially the problem isn't it?

Government is trying to define marriage for everyone, and some people feel that now this falls under their definition of sexual orientation.

The problem is that most religions have their definitions of marriage, and in most cases, this is going to clash with the government one that upholds sexual orientation.

Now let's look at laws that protect both sexual orientation and religion as things you can't discriminate against.

How does any Civil Rights commission do that without discriminating against one or the other in cases like this?

The question of marriage is a State's responsibility , not a Federal responsibility.
It is up to each State to determine what they recognize as a lawful marriage.
Any laws on marriage passed by the Federal government to be followed by all States is a violation of State's rights.
The freedom to practice religion is a right provided by the Bill of Rights.

a reply to: Gothmog

Not entirely... Marriage is an issue that is governed by the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. If it was not then people married in one state who then move to another state could see that state refuse to recognize their marriage (that is all inclusive for gay marriage / marriage).

In order to prevent that Congress can define what is covered by full faith and credit and marriage is one of them. Just as are legal documents / legal proceedings / convictions / driver's license / actions by state governments etc etc.

That whole pesky crossing state lines issue rears its ugly head.

Personally speaking if marriage is recognized as religious then im not really sure how Congress can legislate it since it would violate appear to violate the establishment clause of the constitution. The only exception would be the marriage documents themselves.

originally posted by: RowanBean

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: RowanBean

Because he had no issue making gay people cakes for birthdays and individual observations. He respects them as people, he just feels strongly that their marriages aren't moral. Imagine that, respecting someone while still not advocating or championing their behaviors and choices blindly!

I would agree with you about decoration but this is a damn cake. Also I wonder if the baker realize the hypocrisy in him picking and choosing which verses to support his beliefs.

Sure, no prob with a big ol neon swat sticker sign, right?

Just a sign.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

neon swat sticker sign

I had to google that to see what that meant. Got it. LOL.

I probably wouldn't have any problem with it because it doesn't say "Go away Jews!".

can you imagine the outrage from the christian right if some bakery chain just up and decided that they would no long make any cakes with the "Merry Christmas" greeting on it...
or no more wedding cakes for couples where one is divorced from a previous marriage.
or interracial marriage...

may I suggest that we stop gov't loans for businesses now since we risk having people's biased stupidity causing suicidal business decisions?

may I also suggest that businesses be required to include such policies in their advertising and in their place of business so their biases don't cause people to waste their valuable time?

a reply to: Edumakated

Cool someone saw sense, persecution of Christians is getting out of hand and I think it is time that some of those Christian lawyers (if such a contradiction in terms can be real) should immediately launch a class action counter suit and sue for millions against the state which wrongly persecuted and ruined the business of this guy.
I am not anti gay though to be fair I just don't understand it sexual persuasion or not but I am just sick and tired or gay right's activists forcing it down everyone's throat's and even corrupting education of kids in school's.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Yet still a State's Right to determine their own definition of marriage .
You do know the powers of the US Federal Government VS the State's rights , yes ?

a reply to: Abysha

I appreciate the nuance in what you're saying ... a quality sadly in short supply these days.

I was looking more at your argument "Cake is art. Art is expression. Free expression (including the right not to express) is a constitutional right."

The fact that this artist is glad to use his art for dogs and not his fellow citizens suggests to me the weakness of his claim.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Xcathdra
Yet still a State's Right to determine their own definition of marriage .
You do know the powers of the US Federal Government VS the State's rights , yes ?

Yeah and if one state decides not to recognize drivers license, marriage certificates and legal proceedings and outcomes life gets harder - yes? no?

As I said the State government has no legal right to define what marriage is. That is a government body wading head deep into a religious issue.

Unless your ok with a State religion?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Legal marriage is not a religious matter, but a civil one. Those who are willing to destroy legal marriage (like say Alabama) just so that a certain small percentage of Americans they don't like can't call themselves married ... are absurd.

No one has claimed that a church has to celebrate the rites of marriage for same-sex couples, mainly because, church isn't public accomodation.

If they do argue for that, they are absurd as well because that is clearly unconstitutional.

Marriage involves the issuance of a license that affects property rights, power-of-attorney and other assets to name a few ...these are not religious matters but temporal, civil ... legal.

That is why marriage, a legal contract, is governed by the US Constitution and Federal law.

Americans are dual citizens, both of their State of residence and of the United States, indivisible.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Marriage involves the issuance of a license that affects property rights, power-of-attorney and other assets to name a few ...these are not religious matters but temporal, civil ... legal.

So if that's all marriage involves, why are we all arguing over a cake? I don't see where it comes in.

If someone won't make a cake to celebrate yours or mine, so what? The I missed where the government guarantees it as part of our legal rights.

a reply to: ketsuko


We're discussing the SCOTUS decision that corrected Colorado's assault on a man's religious rights while maintaining the right of Colorado to protect the civil rights of all citizens, gay, straight or what have you.

Those civil rights might cover buying cakes or being married ... rights that all Americans have.

originally posted by: lakenheath24
What if a gay baker refuses to bake a boobie cake or an atheist refuses to bake a jesus cake? The whole issue is ludacriss. Let the market decide.





a reply to: Edumakated

The market will decide. If a baker decides not to bake "a Boobie cake" as you suggested, then let it be so.

a reply to: Xcathdra

where do you get that marriage is a "religious issue"?
ya, for some, their is a great deal of religious significance in a marriage...
but that isn't to say that a union with no religious undertones, recognized by the community is less of a marriage and to be honest, historically speaking that was the most common form of marriage till the catholic church decided that forcing marriages to within the church would bring them more money into the coffers.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko


We're discussing the SCOTUS decision that corrected Colorado's assault on a man's religious rights while maintaining the right of Colorado to protect the civil rights of all citizens, gay, straight or what have you.

Those civil rights might cover buying cakes or being married ... rights that all Americans have.

Except there is no right to food, or right to marriage...

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

where do you get that marriage is a "religious issue"?
ya, for some, their is a great deal of religious significance in a marriage...
but that isn't to say that a union with no religious undertones, recognized by the community is less of a marriage and to be honest, historically speaking that was the most common form of marriage till the catholic church decided that forcing marriages to within the church would bring them more money into the coffers.

Sounds like you are describing a civil common-law partnership/contract.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No one said that there is. There is, however, a right to equal treatment before the laws. See the Fourteenth Amendment. (As well as arguably the Fifth.)

Honestly, I never thought the baker would win but I'm glad he did. If the movie "Waiting..." taught you only one thing, it's you don't # with the people who make your food. Why would you force someone to make you a cake, when you can easily find someone more than willing to do a good job for your wedding? If they don't want to serve you, walk away; I'm sure there's other's who would gladly do it for free just for the publicity of being "open-minded" or "progressive" or whatever the term is this week.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

it's called common law MARRIAGE... I should know, I have one....
but no, I am going back further in time... before the catholic church grew in power.

a reply to: thov420

It's not a matter of being open minded ... it's a matter of the legal right to public accommodation, a concept we inherit from the English Common Law which has been codified in local, State and Federal law in the US.

The baker was depriving other citizens of this right because of their sexual orientation which is expressly forbidden by law in Colorado.

Besides, the "why can't we all just get along" works against the baker just as well. Just because he doesn't believe in "gay marriage" doesn't mean he should discriminate against his customers. The Bible doesn't forbid same-sex marriage nor making cakes for the sinful. Why can't he get over his squeamishness and provide the services he holds out to the public?