Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.

Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

I cannot tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with a bomb in it for a jihadist. I can't even tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with poison in it for a suicidal nut or someone who wants to kill his wife. Nor can I tell you where it is made mandatory in his religion to bake a cake for a gay couple, or for anybody else. I cannot tell you if his religion approves or disapproves of cakes. Not sure, but I don't think his religion approves of jihadist bombers, or suicide, or killing your wife. And I don't think his religion approves of helping anyone to do those things. I don't think his religion condones homosexual marriage. I think, quite the contrary, it considers the act of consummating same sex as sodomy. I cannot tell you if his religion is OK with the baker helping folks to celebrate their sodomy, or if it is totally indifferent to it, but I defer to the baker's own interpretation. I'm sure you disagree with it, but your not baking the cake.

IT'S NOT ABOUT SIMPLY BAKING A CAKE! No one disagrees with your wide, perhaps infinite, latitude of agreeability. But you simply cannot grant any reason for the baker's motives because you think they're stupid. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said something like what marks a bigot is not being able to see even the possibility of the other side's opinion.

Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

He was asked to do a service (paid favor) for the party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

Is that because religion is meaningless in this day and age? Apparently, many others don't see it that way. If you think religion was only useful in another day and age because it kept you out of a persecutor's rack, and had no other meaning than to get ahead in society, then it would have been intrinsically meaningless in all days and ages. And would have been just another social scheme, like all the social schemes of today, to make your life "better." Our social climbers and equal opportunity seekers are today participating in the scheme of today's political religion and bowing to its god the State. I guess, if the mantle of "religion" has been rewoven into the cloak of secular worship, religion is "stupid" and gaming the system is "smart."

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?

It's not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either the biblical or the political sense. It is baking to satisfy someone's personal fantasy--which most cakes, in some way, do.

[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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

-spence

What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs.

Or was it one of those cutesy things pet owners do which have no relation or meaning to the rest of society? You wanna make your dogs get "married," which don't amount to a pile of dog poop in terms of what marriage is as recognized either by religion or government? Don't mean squat to me (the baker) since it ain't for real. Here's your cake.

This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs.

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.

The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

I'm thinking he considered it no more than a harmless fantasy not intended to insult the tradition of marriage, or to change that tradition in any way. If there was some dog lover movement to "legalize" dog marriage, that would be a different story. Most Christians aren't so easily offended as, perhaps, Muslims are. If they were, the present state of government regulations and judicial decisions, as well as media portrayals, would have our society in a constant turmoil of burnings and bombings and all manor of havoc and killing as goes on in many Muslim dominated societies. Are you saying that he should have been more personally offended by the dog wedding? That's up to him. To be or not to be.

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

Jesus added a New Testament to the religion he was born in. I don't know if he intended to completely throw out the old religion. Certainly most Christians don't consider the Old Testament to be totally obsolete. They seem to abide much of what is in it, including its views on sodomy.

The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

Progressive judges have been making up laws for the past eighty years. And the progression and precedents of those "decisions" have led to not only laws on which present judges model their decisions, but have created a whole new mode of "interpretation." This judge follows in this progressive tradition by deciding on his own to determine what would create hurt or harm to society. The sense the Founders had of judicial decision was a determination based on law and an interpretation of what the words in the law meant, as written, and if governmental legislation actually abided by the restrictions the law allowed (i.e. enumerations in the Constitution). So, in his way, this judge added to this progressive tradition of inserting his personal views and feelings about what is good for society rather than following the ultimate law, the First Amendment. Their might be room for local government to impose restrictions on absolute (like that word here?) denial of service to a class of people (though, as I have said, that is in itself discriminatory), but not if it contradicts a constitutional guarantee. Not only did his decision, in the limited text of the reports, fail to include the State of Colorado's Constitution not recognizing gay marriage, but it violated the baker's First Amendment right in order to satisfy his personal opinion on what would harm society.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...



The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

Spoence, do you think a "marriage" between 2 dogs, is the equivalent of a marriage between two homosexuals? You don't see the difference there?

"The judge didn't make up the law."

But he may have ignored the constitution. That's what is bothersome to some here. Judges take an oath to uphold all of our laws, not just the ones they happen to like.