Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[Nebe]

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Somehow, he cannot connect the dots to conclude that it's the gay rights activists who are trying to force their beliefs onto the baker.

Originally Posted by Nebe

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays..

2 guys wanted a cake and the baker didn't want to make it for them.....and now they are Gay Rights Activists and the Baker is forcing his religion down their throats.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....

Seems to me that one could therefore say the same thing about the Boy Scouts?

[Jim in CT]

I don't beleive I'm struggling even a bit, I don't think it could be more simple. But Merry Christmas to you as well!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

2 guys wanted a cake and the baker didn't want to make it for them.....and now they are Gay Rights Activists and the Baker is forcing his religion down their throats.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....

right...whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

[FishermanTim]

What about a store cashier that sues because they were fired for not selling alcohol because their muslem religion forbids them from doing so?

If memory serves me right (hopefully) that clerk won their lawsuit because they shouldn't be forced to do something that was against their religious beliefs.

So what it sounds like is that the courts only acknowledge religions OTHER than Catholicism as real religions worthy of constitutional protection.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

What about a store cashier that sues because they were fired for not selling alcohol because their muslem religion forbids them from doing so?

If memory serves me right (hopefully) that clerk won their lawsuit because they shouldn't be forced to do something that was against their religious beliefs.

So what it sounds like is that the courts only acknowledge religions OTHER than Catholicism as real religions worthy of constitutional protection.

....that was in the UK

also there also remains the fact that in the US and the UK if the clerk/server is under 18, they can't sell you alcohol either, but have to get someone else to do it. a bit different than refusing someone service completely.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. "

Wrong What you cannot grasp, is that there is a huge difference between asking to be left alone to paractice one's religion, and actively forcing your religion on someone else.

What is the baker doing to "force" anything on these guys? Is he asking them to go to church? Is he asking them to go to confession, or to accept Jesus? Is he asking them to speak out against gay marriage? Is he asking them to read the Bible, or to get communion?

No, no, no, and no. What the baker is asking, is to be allowed to practice his religion as he sees fit, without interference from the government.

"So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks?? What if he refused service to Muslims???"

Let's say I own a restaurant. I don't think I'd have the right to exclude Muslims who wanted to come in and eat. But if Muslims asked me to cater, and therefore participate in, a Muslim religious ceremony, I should have the right to refuse. Not that I would personally refuse, but like it or not, I have the constitutional right to do so.

It is the gays, and the court, that are trying to force this man to participate (as he sees it) in something which violates his religion. That doesn't sit well with me.

"I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. "

Yeah, yeah, whatever. The more opposed one is to homosexuality, the more gay that person is, right? Sure. Now you're a psychiatrist. Using your 'logic', if I think all pedophiles should be put in jail for life, does that make me a closet child molester, Dr Freud?

"What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??"

You're an artist, so that makes you a sissy too then? When backed into a corner from which there is no escape, just insult the guy for his career choice.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

You've expanded the perception of being "left alone" to ridiculous widths. If the baker ran a business that was only open to those of his religion, he still wouldn't be left alone. If your definition of being "left alone" is not to be impinged upon by anyone who might disagree with you in any way, you would have to be a hermit. But then you would have to accept the intrusions of distasteful weather, and creepy beasties. It is impossible to be "left alone" if by that is meant not to be affected by that outside of yourself. I think what is generally meant in this context is to be allowed your personal beliefs so long as you do not deprive others of theirs. If you are forced to relinquish your beliefs to the satisfactions of anyone else's beliefs, you have none. That would work in a world where no-one believes anything.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

As far as I can tell from this story is that the baker didn't refuse to sell to the gays (or blacks or Muslims), but he refused to sell something he did not have. Nor, because of his beliefs, would ever have.

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

In this manner of thought, your mere presence is "forcing" it on someone else. If your presence annoys me, I can leave and force you to be deprived of my presence. If you speak to me you are forcing your words on me. Actually, I don't have to listen. And by not listening I am forcing you not to be heard. If I preach my religion to you through my presence and my words, you may choose to not listen to my words, or to leave my presence. If you force your presence and words on me by demanding I make something that I don't make nor choose to make, should I not be free to repel your force with my own? Should not my reaction be equal to your action?

The baker was not FORCING his religion on the gays. They were in no way compelled to be part of his religion. They had every right and means to reject his religion. Their imposition of personal behavior on him should in no way compel him to abandon his own. He was not refusing to give them service. He was refusing to give them a service he did not provide--making something that was intended for a behavior which his religion condemned.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, are you forcing your peculiar notion on the rest of us? We can reject it, and force you to have no effect.

And if the gays had asked merely as customers, not by imposing their presence as gays, the baker to bake a pretty cake with little roses, he may have done it. But if he didn't want to, should he have been forced to?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As far as I can tell from this story is the baker didn't refuse to sell to the gays (or blacks or Muslims), but he refused to sell something he did not have. Nor, because of his beliefs, would ever have.

Aren't most wedding cakes made to order?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Aren't most wedding cakes made to order?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the first Amendment's protection of that right?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the Second Amendment's protection of that right?

is he a one man operation?
if not, why didn't he just have one of his heathen sinner employees bake it?

then he's free from supporting sinners.

or does he only hire god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every sunday children of the all holy god?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

is he a one man operation?
if not, why didn't he just have one of his heathen sinner employees bake it?

then he's free from supporting sinners.

or does he only hire god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every sunday children of the all holy god?

I don't know. Maybe he used Christianity as a cover but was actually a member of some secret heterosexual Satanist cult which commanded a form of jihad against gays.

Maybe his religion dissuaded him from hiring "heathen sinners." I'm not sure if that's a class protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Even so, ordering the heathen sinners to bake the cake would still implicate him in supporting sinners. And I doubt if his god would approve of his trying to get around his faith in devious ways. That is one of the many ways "god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every Sunday children of the all holy God" differ from the less than scrupulous among us. We tend not to like cheating ways when used against us, but admire and recommend it to friends and family when it's to their advantage. Politicians are especially good at it.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't know. Maybe he used Christianity as a cover but was actually a member of some secret heterosexual Satanist cult which commanded a form of jihad against gays.

Maybe his religion dissuaded him from hiring "heathen sinners." I'm not sure if that's a class protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Even so, ordering the heathen sinners to bake the cake would still implicate him in supporting sinners. And I doubt if his god would approve of his trying to get around his faith in devious ways. That is one of the many ways "god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every Sunday children of the all holy God" differ from the less than scrupulous among us. We tend not to like cheating ways when used against us, but admire and recommend it to friends and family when it's to their advantage. Politicians are especially good at it.

I'm pretty sure most Gods don't give a damn who you bake a cake for, but they do care when you discriminate against your fellow man.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the Second Amendment's protection of that right?

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Like I said before, I could see the baker refusing to make an outlandish cake, perhaps in the shape of a swastika or sexually suggestive somehow. But so far I've not read anything that suggests anything but a standard cake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The use is different in exactly the way you described it. It's used to celebrate a gay wedding. Its use is different in the same way a hammer's use to pound nails in construction differs from using it to break into someone's home. Just about any object can be used in different ways, some of which are not approved of by some people who would not therefore choose to sell the object to someone who would use it in a destructive way. The use of the baker's cake to celebrate something his god would forbid differs from that baker selling a cake to be used for something which his god would either approve or not disapprove.

Take it out of the context of religion and into a matter of law. It may be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. But its usually not illegal to sell a gun to a "respectable" person with the right papers. It is assumed that the gun will be used for different purposes by people with anti-social character than by upstanding folks.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Like I said before, I could see the baker refusing to make an outlandish cake, perhaps in the shape of a swastika or sexually suggestive somehow. But so far I've not read anything that suggests anything but a standard cake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you should expect more of yourself.

The couple asked him to provide a cake for, and therefore somewhat participate in, a gay wedding. He chose not to.

The complexity of the cake is not relevant.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you should expect more of yourself.

The couple asked him to provide a cake for, and therefore somewhat participate in, a gay wedding. He chose not to.

The complexity of the cake is not relevant.

The guy is on record having baked a cake for a wedding between two dogs. Was he participating in that also?

-spence