The Colorado Wedding Cake Fight

[tyndale1946]

It was stunning to many people that the U.S. Supreme Court even took up the case of Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused, on religious grounds claiming a violation of First Amendment rights to make a cake for gay couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, who came in to buy a wedding cake... The following link below tells the whole story... Thoughts?... Brother Glen

Yesterday The Supreme Court Jolted LGBTQ People With A Frightening Reality

 

[InTheLight]

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)

 

[Adonia]

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..

 

[TCassidy]

Let's turn the tables. A gay couple owns a sign shop. Fred Phelps (yeah, yeah, I know - maybe his ghost) comes in and orders 10 large signs that say "God Hates Fags."

The couple refuses to make the signs.

What should happen?

When the shoe is on the other foot I wonder what the claimants would say.

 

[InTheLight]

Let's turn the tables. A gay couple owns a sign shop. Fred Phelps (yeah, yeah, I know - maybe his ghost) comes in and orders 10 large signs that say "God Hates Fags."

The couple refuses to make the signs.

What should happen?

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

End of story.

 

[TCassidy]

End of story.

That's the way it should be. If a business owner wants to discriminate against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, I believe he has the right to do so, and the government has nothing to say about it.

But a business that discriminates against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, will soon be out of business. Trust the market place to correct these situations.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

That's the way it should be. If a business owner wants to discriminate against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, I believe he has the right to do so, and the government has nothing to say about it.

But a business that discriminates against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, will soon be out of business. Trust the market place to correct these situations.

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.

 

[Salty]

Let's turn the tables. A gay couple owns a sign shop. Fred Phelps (yeah, yeah, I know - maybe his ghost) comes in and orders 10 large signs that say "God Hates Fags."

The couple refuses to make the signs.

What should happen?

When the shoe is on the other foot I wonder what the claimants would say.

Actually, this was brought up to the Supreme Court - (somewhat)
In Colorado, ." An individual who asked three businesses to create a cake opposing gay marriage
was refused and complained to the commission. The commission rejected his complaint."
Note: it was the same commision that required Mr. Philips that he must bake the homosexual-theme cake
Link for this info

Part of the argument revolves around: "there is a difference between refusing to create a cake because of the cake maker's deeply held religious beliefs, which is what Mr. Phillips did, and refusing to create the cake because of the customer's sexual orientation," (also from the same link)

Friendof Spurgeon brought up a good point - if the SCOTUS calls for the freedom of the baker - this could lead to "White-only" restaurants.
However, If it did happen - I doubt it would be widespread; as the culture of the USA has drastically changed since pre-civil rights days.

Ruling may not be made public until June 2018

 

[TCassidy]

However, businesses do not and should not have the right to discriminate against others.

So you are saying the gay couple who own the sign shop should be forced by the government to make the signs for WBC that say "God Hates Fags?"

As to being forced to use your talents, abilities, and resources to do something you don't want to do, something that violates the very core of your being, now correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the 13th amendment outlaw slave labor? And isn't that the "law of the land?"

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

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.

 

[Salty]

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.

Okay, but can you answer TC question.
IN post # 7 you said a business should not be allowed to discriminate.
but now you say a business should not be forced to make a cake or sign

So which is it?

 

[Reynolds]

That's the way it should be. If a business owner wants to discriminate against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, I believe he has the right to do so, and the government has nothing to say about it.

But a business that discriminates against gays, blacks, Jews, or Christians, will soon be out of business. Trust the market place to correct these situations.

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.

 

[thatbrian]

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.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

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.

What is the difference between a business that bakes cakes and a business that paints signs?

Why should one be forced to violate their beliefs but the other not be?

 

[Salty]

What is the difference between a business that bakes cakes and a business that paints signs?

Why should one be forced to violate their beliefs but the other not be?

Here is a response I saw on FB answering my "sign" question:
No. That is not anywhere near the same thing. False equivalency. The owner of that business is well within their rights to refuse. This is not anywhere near the same thing as discriminating against somebody based on sexual orientation.

and then he said:
One is a choice, the other is not. Call it what it actually is; A selective reading and cherry-picking of the Bible. Notice, these people don't say anything about premarital sex, wearing mixed fabric, using your left hand, or eating shrimp. It is pretty obvious that this is all about discrimination. No, it is not discriminating based on religion. It is simply not giving your version of Christianity special treatment.

 

[Salty]

Log In or Sign Up to View

 

[TCassidy]

Here is a response I saw on FB answering my "sign" question:
No. That is not anywhere near the same thing. False equivalency. The owner of that business is well within their rights to refuse. This is not anywhere near the same thing as discriminating against somebody based on sexual orientation.

and then he said:
One is a choice, the other is not. Call it what it actually is; A selective reading and cherry-picking of the Bible. Notice, these people don't say anything about premarital sex, wearing mixed fabric, using your left hand, or eating shrimp. It is pretty obvious that this is all about discrimination. No, it is not discriminating based on religion. It is simply not giving your version of Christianity special treatment.

So you quote a bible denier for your evidence?

 

[Don]

Here is a response I saw on FB answering my "sign" question:
No. That is not anywhere near the same thing. False equivalency. The owner of that business is well within their rights to refuse. This is not anywhere near the same thing as discriminating against somebody based on sexual orientation.

and then he said:
One is a choice, the other is not. Call it what it actually is; A selective reading and cherry-picking of the Bible. Notice, these people don't say anything about premarital sex, wearing mixed fabric, using your left hand, or eating shrimp. It is pretty obvious that this is all about discrimination. No, it is not discriminating based on religion. It is simply not giving your version of Christianity special treatment.

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.

 

[Alcott]

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

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