Featured The Colorado Wedding Cake Fight

If this is a case of religious freedom vs. civil rights, I think the baker loses.

If however, this is a case of artistic freedom, or freedom of speech, I think the baker wins, because the government cannot compel individuals to disseminate a particular point of view. As I understand it the gay couple could have bought anything else from the baker, so he wasn't denying them per se, he simply did not want to be forced to express thoughts he didn't agree with. Also, there were other bakers the gay couple could have gone to.

Interesting when the plaintiff described the baker as being intolerant to gays Justice Kennedy, asked, "what about showing tolerance to the baker" (or somesuch, I'm paraphrasing)

 

I think that the right to religious freedom is paramount. Not only does this case contain the religious issue, but also the issue of artistic expression. No citizen should have to participate in some action that is so against the moral compass that they live by..

 

Fred Phelps asks, "Why won't you make my 'God Hates Fags' sign?"
Business owner: "I don't want to."

End of story.

 

I usually agree with you on so many things. However, businesses do not and should not have the right to discriminate against others. Otherwise, we'd still have "white only" restaurants. One, it's the law of the land. Two, personally and (spiritually), I think it's just wrong. As a Christian, I do my best to serve all of my clients - regardless of color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, whatever -- all to the glory of God.

This is an interesting case because it pits "rights" against each other. I am betting that it will be a very narrow opinion confirming the couple's civil rights and baker's artistic & religious rights. We'll see.

 

There's a huge difference between owning an business that is open to everyone vs. forcing someone to make signs, bake cakes, etc. with slogans that goes against your beliefs.

 

I agree that a business should be allowed to discriminate. I don't agree that it will put them out of business. It may or may not, many factors go into that.

 

Liberty demands that if a person wants to have a "whites only" business, he should be free to do so. I would not be a customer of such a store, but that is another store.

 

Salty - in the second part, there are some glaring errors. For example, premarital sex - how does a baker know a couple is having premarital sex? When compared to a same-sex couple who ask for a wedding cake, it's blatantly obvious that the same-sex couple is marrying each other, and therefore going to engage in homosexuality. The same cannot be said for a man & woman who ask for a wedding cake. You'd have to ask them outright if they're having pre-marital sex; and they're not required to answer. There can only be an assumption regarding their sexual status, with either a valid or invalid outcome; with a same-sex couple, the assumption will always be valid.

As for the other references to Old Testament laws, well, premarital sex and homosexuality can be found in the New Testament.

 

Put up a sign that says "We sell cakes to same-sex couples. 50% of such proceeds are donated to the American Family Association."

 

Now how would the DuPont family have prospered if their agents not sold to both sides?