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

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

He made the plain cakes with intent to sell them, right? And according to you, he was willing to sell the gays a cake for their reception, just not the ones he would make for his other non-gay customers, right?

The biggest difference between the two separate but equal cakes is food coloring. /shrug

Intent and Participation.

Right. Applying food coloring with intent and participation is a sin. Got it.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Intent and Participation.

Isn't the baker participating if he sells ready made wedding cakes?

NM

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Intent and Participation.

Isn't the baker participating if he sells ready made wedding cakes?

Maybe this will help us understand .... Biblical Meanings of Colors

a reply to: Gryphon66

" And stop whining about it for Christ's sake."


Please do not take the Lords Name in Vain , it Offends Me..................

originally posted by: TrulyColorBlind
So, what you're saying is that if it was up to you, your feelings or beliefs are that you would bake the gay cake and just make the money; end of story.

Yup. Gay money is just as green as non-Gay money.

But.... that somebody else who has different feelings shouldn't be allowed to have their feelings or beliefs to NOT bake the gay cake?

I say let the free market decide, if some overly religious toolbag doesn't want to run a solid business (and the guy in question admits he lost 40% of his business when he stopped baking cakes/gakes) then that's what happens.

If you feel you have certain rights, then shouldn't everybody else also be allowed to share that same right?

Certainly, we should all share the same Constituional rights.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

He made the plain cakes with intent to sell them, right? And according to you, he was willing to sell the gays a cake for their reception, just not the ones he would make for his other non-gay customers, right?

The biggest difference between the two separate but equal cakes is food coloring. /shrug

Intent and Participation.

Right. Applying food coloring with intent and participation is a sin. Got it.

That's because you are stuck on the idea that the baker denied the couple out of special animus toward them.

If I buy a pig and take it to a halal butcher and demand they slaughter it in the halal manner, I will be denied. It isn't because they are discriminating against me especially. It's because handling pork and applying that ritual to it would be a sacrilege for them and be sinful for them, make them spiritually unclean.

Simply put, if they are devout in the faith they claim, they won't do it.

Now, I don't share their beliefs. I don't think it's going to hurt anything for them to say those prayers over a pig, touch it, and slaughter it in that ritual manner, but out of respect for their belief, I also won't ask them to do that. But perhaps that's because I'm a person of faith myself.

Although, I also find it interesting that when I bring this sort of thing up in these threads, I get told flatly that there is no comparison because a pig can't be slaughtered in the halal manner by the same people who insist this man could bake a wedding cake for this gay wedding from scratch. In other words, you have more respect for Muslim belief than Christian ones. Likely because they're your political allies of the moment, but I digress.

Sure, a pig could be slaughtered in that manner. You simply say the right prayers and slaughter it in the proper way ... much like two men (or two women) say the proper words and get their license.

And yes, to a Muslim that makes the pork "halal" the same way that it makes that couple "married" to a Christian who holds this belief on marriage.

Now none of that stops anyone from believing differently, and that's fine. It's what a free society is for, but we stop being free when we stop recognizing that having all these differences in belief doesn't necessarily make any one of us right, so the only way to survive like this is to respect each other and let well enough alone.

Maybe not everyone has to slaughter pigs, and maybe not everyone has to bake the cake.

a reply to: ketsuko

If I buy a pig and take it to a halal butcher and demand they slaughter it in the halal manner, I will be denied. It isn't because they are discriminating against me especially. It's because handling pork and applying that ritual to it would be a sacrilege for them and be sinful for them, make them spiritually unclean.

Not a good comparison. What would be a better comparison is taking a pig to any butcher and slaughter it and they deny that to the gay person which the butcher would not deny to non-gay people.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: ketsuko

If I buy a pig and take it to a halal butcher and demand they slaughter it in the halal manner, I will be denied. It isn't because they are discriminating against me especially. It's because handling pork and applying that ritual to it would be a sacrilege for them and be sinful for them, make them spiritually unclean.

Not a good comparison. What would be a better comparison is taking a pig to any butcher and slaughter it and they deny that to the gay person which the butcher would not deny to non-gay people.

Seriously, enough with the pork.

Pork is not offered.

Baked cakes were.

This is a very Solomonic issue. It’s not an easy one.


Okay, now based on religion he might be able to not make this damn cake.

What about the screwball religions. Those who want to deny their children medical aid.

Of course, some people think this guy’s religion is screwball.

And what about, for example, the black Muslims, who say we believe whites, are devils.

Or those who hate blacks so we don’t have to let them in our establishment; it’s our sincere religious belief.

Where do they draw the line?

a reply to: ketsuko

Glad my post could offer a point of departure for your lecture ... but based on what you said, you have no idea what I believe.

So I'll help you out by telling you (again.) The baker in this case STATED that his issue was with the homosexuality of the guys buying the cake (for a reception.) In Colorado, refusing public accomodation to anyone based on their sexual orientation is illegal. The baker's actions were illegal.

The fact is that the only rational, objective difference between what he was willing to sell them and what he wasn't has been shown to be food coloring ...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Gryphon66

" He needs to get over his irrational squeamishness,"


Seems the same could be said of the Customer . What , a Gay Bakery Not Good Enough for HimShe ?

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake

How many gays does it take to make a wedding cake?

Start by separating 4 gays....

Add 2 cups of sugar and whip 2 of them into stiff peaks.

Refrigerate for later.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Trap you? LOL. Ah hubris ... so these other cakes the baker was willing to sell... you’re okay with “separate but equal” then? The blank cakes are good enough for the gays?

Are you saying that food coloring is the difference between sin and no sin for the baker?

LOLOL

Have you seen this guys work?!

Man got skills!

I saw him airbrush Lincoln's portrait on a cake, he's no slouch.

Like asking Michelangelo to make you a lawn jockey/garden gnome. (whichever is PC)

Like telling van gogh to paint a starry night again!

He offered to give them the cake and the stuff to decorate it for themselves. iirc.

I don't do pizza.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: ketsuko

If I buy a pig and take it to a halal butcher and demand they slaughter it in the halal manner, I will be denied. It isn't because they are discriminating against me especially. It's because handling pork and applying that ritual to it would be a sacrilege for them and be sinful for them, make them spiritually unclean.

Not a good comparison. What would be a better comparison is taking a pig to any butcher and slaughter it and they deny that to the gay person which the butcher would not deny to non-gay people.

That is if course not what happened here. The baker did not discriminate against the gay couple. If it were a birthday cake, graduation cake, or any other celebratory confection, the baker said straight out that he would have made it for them. That they were gay had no bearing. That this cake was for a gay wedding, though, went against his beliefs and convictions to participate in. THAT is the line that was drawn here and why he won the case. He was not denying them service based on their sexual orientation. It was denied because of the intent of the cake.

a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

It seems that a lot of people are confused. No the baker hasn't won the case. At the least he has won the rehearing.
If it was based on the intent then he wouldn't have been selling the pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples.

Ok lets take a step back and look at the basic premise this whole issue seems to be based on.

that ANYONE has a RIGHT to have a CAKE DECORATED the way they want and if it is refused it is because of discrimination.
specifically in this case sexual orientation.

the cold hard fact is THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT.
Be the constitution, natural law, civil rights law , religious or any other derivative you care to use.

this applies not only to gays, but also religious sects, nazi, KKK, BLM, confederate flag, adult themes ect ect ect.

there are plenty of bakers that (for a few examples of many) that wont put a Confederate flag , adult theme , or nazi swastika on a cake, but will sell you a blank cake .

But I dont see the same supporters of this couple / issue defending the person who wanted a confederate flag on their cake and wal mart (I think that was the place) REFUSED.

the other fact is that this same bakers (if one cares to do research) DIDNT REFUSE to sell them any cakes they had and even said they dont mind doing custom decorating for them...JUST NOT A SAME SEX THEME.
Even more that came out they didnt do some other themes as well...

so while IF the baker had refused to do ANY SERVICE OR SELL THEM ANYTHING because they were gay, you have a case.

but to FORCE a business to do something they dont want to do (be custom decorating, carrying a specific food, work on a specific day, ect) for WHATEVER REASON or no reason at all is against the constitution.

I leave with this ONE QUESTION for those claiming that they had a "RIGHT" for this cake to be made....


WILL YOU SUPPORT ANYONE / GROUP WHO WANTS A (using this case) CUSTOM CAKE ?
WILL YOU TREAT NAZI, CONFEDERATE FLAG, ADULT THEME (TO NAME A FEW OF MANY) WITH SAME VIGOR?

Scrounger

Note I use these groups/issues as points of examples and point out hypocrisy
I in no way am using them because I believe or support the cause/symbol so spare the usual "you support racism" crap

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

It seems that a lot of people are confused. No the baker hasn't won the case. At the least he has won the rehearing.
If it was based on the intent then he wouldn't have been selling the pre-made wedding cakes to gay couples.

actually he did win.

the court didnt say he was required to make the cake nor set case law that any business had to decorate a cake for anyone.

they just stated that the commission showed bias for one side and that there was NO DISCRIMINATION due to sexual orientation (the whole basis for this situation) because the baker was willing to sell product to this couple

just NOT DO A SPECIFIC DECORATION.

to try to spin this as a non win for the baker is just intellectually and factually dishonest....

scrounger

a reply to: Edumakated

Here is what I would ask those who disagree with the SCOTUS decision.

Let’s say one day pedophiles were beginning to be widely accepted in our society. There will be many people that would still disagree with those pedos. If you owned a cake shop would you want to be forced to make a pedo themed cake for a pedo couple?

You see, just as most of us are against pedophiles, some people think that homosexuality is wrong too.

Not long ago homosexuality was considered amoral and “Being gay” (same-sex activity and partnership) used to be illegal in the U.S. and the U.K., and being gay is still illegal in many parts of the world.

I am in agreement with the SCOTUS decision and I think if any business wants to refuse business to anyone for what they see as a moral reason then they should have the right to do so. Race, color, religion, sex or national origin are good reasons not to discriminate, however if a reasonable MORAL argument can be made for refusing business to someone then I see nothing wrong with it. That’s my two cents.

a reply to: scrounger

Yep and yet we come back to the original point. The reason government is involved in marriage is for tax and identification purposes.

The government has a constitutional right to regulate certain aspects of commerce, even more so when it crosses state lines and that doesnt include their other constitutional responsibilities. What government does not have any authority to do is define marriage in a religious context. Government does not have a right to pass laws that target a segment of the population based solely on religious grounds cloaked in bureaucracy nor does government have authority to dictate to religions what their doctrine dictates.

The ONLY exception is protecting / preserving life in the sense of no human sacrifices / abuse of others, which are by definition crimes against persons and only because those actions would infringe on the rights of the members in question.

a reply to: Jubilation T Cornpone

Wow, you've gotten almost every single material fact wrong!

Rather amazing ...

The baker stated outright that the reason he refused to make the cake that was ordered was the fact that "homosexuality is not okay." Is the baker lying?

It was not for a "gay wedding" it was for a reception.

He "won the case" because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission attacked his religion rather than ruling on the merits of the case ... see the SCOTUS decision we're actually discussing for details.

He allegedly offered to sell them other cakes, also made by him, just not the one they ordered. All of his reasoning is based on "it's wrong for me to provide a cake because homosexuality" yet, he's willing to provide other cakes made by him, requiring his expertise, etc.

/shrug