It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 30
59
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

... and yet, this baker refused to sell to these customers because he felt that making a gay cake was sinful, right?

Are you saying that the baker DIDN'T have a religious issue with baking the cake? I would tend to agree, but I don't pretend to be able to read his mind.

The fact, despite attempts to muddy it, is clear. The baker stated that he would not make a gay wedding cake. That is a direct reference to the sexual orientation of the potential customers and thus was rightly brought before the Civil Rights Commission in CO. However, the Civil Rights Commission directed their comments not at the right to public accomodation, but instead, tried to adjudicate that one civil right was superior to another ... and SCOTUS corrected that today while simultaneously encoding in legal precedent that States can protect the rights of all citizens, including the gay and lesbian ones.


Ask him yourself.



I also wonder whether the people who have taken an interest in my case truly understand who I am and how I operate. It’s really quite simple: I serve everyone, but I can’t create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with my faith. That is why I told the gentlemen who are suing me that, even though I couldn’t design a custom cake to celebrate their same-sex marriage, I’d be happy to sell them anything else in my shop or create a cake for them for another occasion.

Everyone is welcome in my shop — be it homeless folks (many of whom I’ve befriended over coffee, cookies and conversation), the two men who are suing me, or anyone else who finds their way in. The God that I serve, whose arms are open to all, expects that of me, and it is my joy to obey Him. But creating a cake that celebrates a view of marriage in conflict with my faith is not something that I can do.


www.washingtonpost.com... 190efaf1f1ee_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.974215956868

Follow-up question: Has this baker ever designed a gay wedding cake on the request of a straight couple that walked into his shop? The answer would be "no"

post-edit: Blah. Getting late. Good job SCOTUS, you walked a fine line. Gay people can still get licenses and religious people can now expect to get a fair shake with State review boards. Meanwhile, the world keeps spinning. Night folks.
edit on 4-6-2018 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2018 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Follow-up question: Has this baker ever design a gay wedding cake on the request of a straight couple that walked into his shop? The answer would be "no"

Did that happen? As I have stated I'd love to see that happen to see what happens.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm well aware of what Mr. Phillips thinks:




Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake. “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips said. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.” The bakery is family owned and operated. Phillips said since 1993, it has turned away about a half dozen same sex weddings.


FOX 31 Denver

His religious belief, as he stated in his own words is directed at the SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the two guys who came into his shop. Homosexuality is the issue, not a wedding. (They were technically seeking goods for a reception not a wedding.)



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Follow-up question: Has this baker ever design a gay wedding cake on the request of a straight couple that walked into his shop? The answer would be "no"

Did that happen? As I have stated I'd love to see that happen to see what happens.


One more


I don't know, honestly. But if it did, and he did design a gay wedding cake, then he is a hypocrite and bigot. Considering he won't make Halloween cakes or other occult-themed materials, it's a fair bet that he reviews all the requests very closely has not taken on such a job. You are welcome to dig into that though, I'm going to bed.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good night. Very good discussion.




posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I'm well aware of what Mr. Phillips thinks:




Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake. “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips said. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.” The bakery is family owned and operated. Phillips said since 1993, it has turned away about a half dozen same sex weddings.


FOX 31 Denver

His religious belief, as he stated in his own words is directed at the SEXUAL ORIENTATION of the two guys who came into his shop. Homosexuality is the issue, not a wedding. (They were technically seeking goods for a reception not a wedding.)



Dammit gryph.

It's just doesn't matter.

He didn't kick them out. He didn't tell them to leave. He didn't swear them out. He didn't call them subhuman. He said he wouldn't design a specific cake for a specific event.

A CAKE.

I'm glad to see you back on the forums again by the way. But good grief man, find another molehill.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: RowanBean

Just remember, it's okay to make a cake to celebrate a "dog wedding" just not a gay one. It's really absurd.

He could have said "I'm not going to make that cake" and none of this would likely have happened.

SCOTUS has interpreted the First in general that a law must be neutral to religion. The law of public accomodation does not direct itself at any individual religion, in fact, it's not a religious matter at all, but one of commerce.

A public business that provides products and services that are considered public accommodations (lodging, food, drink, entertainment) cannot discriminate on any arbitrary basis.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll never get over him willing to bake cakes for dog weddings instead of gay weddings.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Teikiatsu. you know as well as I do this cultural conflict isn't about cake.

It's about a politico-religious belief that it's okay to treat certain Americans as second-class citizens. That's un-American.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll never get over him willing to bake cakes for dog weddings instead of gay weddings.


It invalidates his slim claim to a religious conflict, doesn't it?

Here's what I'd like to see. If Mr. Phillips doesn't want to sell wedding cakes to everyone, he should stop selling them to anyone. There are going to be same-sex weddings. It's a fact, and a long-standing inequity has been corrected.

If Phillips REALLY BELIEVES that making gay cakes is a sin, then he should stop putting himself in a position where he has a legal responsibility to do so.

Easy peasy.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 12:23 AM
link   
The two gay guys that filed the complaint in Colorado did indeed go to another shop to get the cake they wanted. They also admit that they cursed and made obscene gestures at the baker when he refused to made their gay reception cake. (That alone would have got them tossed out of my business.) However, they saw an opportunity to "get back" at him legally (whether on their own or with "guidance") ... and they took it.

Then, a government panel overstepped its bounds ... surprise. They should have ruled on the matter of public accomodation, instead, some of them tried to make it a conflict between equal protection of the laws and religious freedom.

Due to the cultural zeitgeist, this metastasized into a far bigger issue than it should have been. Politcal forces rallied to keep it going on both sides ... and now we have an answer from SCOTUS which is probably about the best I've seen in this session.

An answer which says what we all should have known all along ... government can't attack someone's religious beliefs and government can protect all of its citzens from unfair discrimination.

Neither side of this is bringing us together toward any kind of consensus. That's my overarching issue.
edit on 5-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

edit on 5-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Anyone who's actually followed this case KNOWS this is so wrong.

It was not about Creative Freedom.

The gay couple asked for a cake in a catalog that was already designed.

They did not ask for anything special.

We are so going backwards.


Um nice try at presenting LIES as fact and your not the only one.

first they asked for a cake to be DECORATED / CUSTOM for a same sex wedding.

the owner being a christian sect that views (as most do along with other faiths) homosexuality as a sin and wrong.

so they could not make the cake as asked for due to against their religion.

HOWEVER as you seen to want to be willfully ignorant on the baker told the couple that they were willing to make other custom cakes and sell stock cakes to them.

even if (and CLEARLY IT ISN'T) only about "creative freedom" that ALSO IS LEGAL .
we have countless examples of specific cake makers not making cakes with swastikas, the confederate flag, KKK markings and adult themed items.

Are you now gonna say that if someone walks into a bakery and wants a nazi theme cake you would defend them as hard as you are for this same sex couple?
I bet not.

So unless you HOLD ALL BAKERS to the same standard than you just another hypocrite .

Scrounger



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes, we are talking about discrimination. And the Supreme Court just allowed it to happen. So they might as well go all the way now, and get all up into people's business before they sell anything to them.


o please the gross pile of BS your spewing

first at the basic core you DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL, NATURAL, OR CIVIL RIGHT for any specific cake to be made for you.

Your life is not gonna be harmed if someone refuses to make you a cake to your exact specifications.

Now RELIGIOUS RIGHTS is GUARANTEED (with very limited exceptions like child brides and human sacrifice) under the constitution...
would you like me to tell you which amendment in the bill of rights and quote it for you?

now to be fair BOTH had their "rights" protected by this ruling.

the baker who didn't have to make a CUSTOM DECORATED cake due to his religious beliefs

The couple because there was no ruling or law saying that SOMEONE ELSE was forbidden (if they wanted their business) to make them a cake.
Nor does this ruling allow laws for banning same sex marriage, same sex relationships , ect (thus defusing your next rant) .

scrounger



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Because it is defined by the various religions as between a man and a woman. Unless you are ok with the state meddling in religious doctrine that has been around for more than a thousand years.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a religious issue with government paperwork for tax and identity reasons.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a religious issue with government paperwork for tax and identity reasons.


If I may use your quote as a jumping off point (as those who are already warming up to argue about religion getting tax breaks and being bigoted/homophobe/ect ).

there are LOTS OF TAX EXEMPT organizations by the definitions that the homosexual agenda (and others) use against religious organizations of discrimination.

for example an animal shelter that only takes in cats would be discriminatory against dogs, bunnies, ect.

A charitable group that helps only pregnant teen mothers would be discriminatory against teen fathers

Those that help minority scholarships but none for whites.

you get my drift.

when one opens the government to tell a particular group that because they help X they must help Y then no group has control or can help/serve who they want.

to bring it back to the issue here.

how is it religious freedom if the government (with some LIMITED SPECIFIC ISSUES ex child brides) gets to tell you what your belief has to be.

scrounger



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Random thought:

Odd that these men chose to go to a cake shop where the owner is openly devout, even refusing to decorate Halloween and divorce party cakes, in all of Colorado.

In all the articles I read, they consistently talk about how they've always wondered how they will be received, and wondering how they should phrase their marriage ("Husband? Partner? Friend?"), or even admit that they are. Going so far as to say that discrimination happens "from birth to death and everywhere in between" Source

Odd that they would forget this on the one day they walk into a cake shop, to order a a certain kind of cake, from someone that never hid his faith...

Could they possibly be activists pretending to be an aggrieved and innocent married couple?



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Wardaddy454

From what I understood the couple never got a chance to tell the baker what they wanted.


So they walk in, he looks up from a cake, and he says "sorry but no"?

That doesn't jive, since everything I've read states that he offered them a premade cake, and has sold baked good to same-sex couples previously.

So to recap, he didn't deny them service or sale, he denied them decoration for goods.
edit on 5-6-2018 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 04:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Given your history, that is pretty ironic.



posted on Jun, 5 2018 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I don't believe that's what the supreme court said in the hobby lobby case...
in that case it was more like they decided they had no place to judge the merit of any belief, or the sincerity of the person claiming to hold it.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join