On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

[eastofeden]

Ideally, that would be the case. But since it isn't, I don't agree with the sign on the window. If he's going to put a sign on the window for gays, then he'll need to put one on for anyone else he has objections to. So, if he doesn't like Muslims, then he needs to put a sign out stating he doesn't serve them, or atheists, or anyone else his "religion" allows him to refuse. Although, since you mention it, it would be a bit like life in this country up until 1965, when The Civil Rights Act was signed into law by LBJ, and places could no longer refuse to serve Black people. Up until that point, there were signs everywhere, and what did they allow? They allowed allowed people to discriminate. Legally. And even when the signs came down? People still discriminated. A sign (pro OR con) is just a gesture, and meaningless. And ironically, gay culture demands "fairness," but is not itself known for its open arms to lesbians and minorities, although that is somewhat less the case now than even 10 years ago.
If he doesn't want to make cakes for gays, why force him to? I wouldn't patronize a company that had a poor history of its treatment of women, Indians, Muslims or Blacks: I just wouldn't go there.

My wanting the sign is to make the case eventually for discrimination. At the moment..we have religious freedom on trial and since that is the case...we have to take two steps backward first before we can move forward,...

A sign reminds everyone EXACTLY what we are dealing with.....

...and sooner than later..the sign will be THE FACTOR is deciding it is discrimination...

That is the reasoning that I am using.....

...and I would love it if they did the same to everyone they disliked. I think people forget who and what exactly they are dealing with too often. I want them to put a sign up so we remember....and then we deal with it permanently.

Make no mistake..I definitely see this as discrimination...period....but religious freedom is one ht table and must go through a conservative court where I think the baker will win...so the sign is a great reminder and will serve as a catalyst for change in the future.

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way....





JUNE 2018????



I thought a decision was pending fairly imminently! Oh well! We wait to see!

I suspect it's that far in the future because at least one justice wants to further investigate and ponder, and is going to try to get the others to go along drawing a very fine line.

 

[Kulindahr]

this moronic Supreme Court also thinks money is speech ---which gives billionaires a loud roar of a voice compared to the average Joe and money here in politics is the beginning of the end of a democracy . I think this couple should form a boycott of this bakery ---but if it passes---if a landscaper arrives at a house and see's 2 guys living there can he choose to not work---can a gay couple in a restaurant be refused service cause the waiter hates gays and it's against his religion---can a gay couple be refused any kind of service in any form if it's defined as speech? We're fucked as a minority if that happens---

That's been the position of SCOTUS since the 70s, from a case that involved Senator McCarthy, IIRC. On that point, the Citizens United decision was just following the accepted position. Where they went awry was in deciding that inanimate entities are entitled to speech -- a notion that is abhorrent to everything this country was founded on (especially if you think this is supposed to be a Christian nation; in that case, in Citizens United SCOTUS endorsed idolatry).

 

[Kulindahr]

To the hard core Bernie Bros....If all the other "stuff" hasn't convinced you yet....THIS is why Hillary would have been a much better choice....

...and FUCK OFF SUSAN SARANDON

"Hard core Bernie bros" voted more dependably for Hillary than did the rest of the Democrats, by the record.

 

[Kulindahr]

My wanting the sign is to make the case eventually for discrimination. At the moment..we have religious freedom on trial and since that is the case...we have to take two steps backward first before we can move forward,...

A sign reminds everyone EXACTLY what we are dealing with.....

...and sooner than later..the sign will be THE FACTOR is deciding it is discrimination...

That is the reasoning that I am using.....

...and I would love it if they did the same to everyone they disliked. I think people forget who and what exactly they are dealing with too often. I want them to put a sign up so we remember....and then we deal with it permanently.

Make no mistake..I definitely see this as discrimination...period....but religious freedom is one ht table and must go through a conservative court where I think the baker will win...so the sign is a great reminder and will serve as a catalyst for change in the future.

I would think that people like this baker would be thrilled with a law that required them to put up a sign saying "It is a violation of our consciences to serve gays" for the simple reason that they'd really rather gays didn't even pass through their door(s).

And I would be delighted, if that were in effect, and at some point I needed a cake, to go to said shop, read the sign, then go in and tell the owner that as a Christian, I cannot patronize his shop because he plainly hasn't heard the words of Jesus.

 

[Benvolio]

That's been the position of SCOTUS since the 70s, from a case that involved Senator McCarthy, IIRC. On that point, the Citizens United decision was just following the accepted position. Where they went awry was in deciding that inanimate entities are entitled to speech -- a notion that is abhorrent to everything this country was founded on (especially if you think this is supposed to be a Christian nation; in that case, in Citizens United SCOTUS endorsed idolatry).

Nonsense. Congress was deprived of the power to limit speech and the press. All people and groups of people, including corporations, benefit.

 

[nycguydowntown]

I don't know why these guys want to buy a cake from this scumbag religious moron---but if he has a business open to the PUBLIC it seems to me he can't discriminate against random people his religion says are no good---where does it end? --he should become a priest or religious freak leader ---then he could do what he wants including not pay taxes .

 

[mcbrion]

My wanting the sign is to make the case eventually for discrimination. At the moment..we have religious freedom on trial and since that is the case...we have to take two steps backward first before we can move forward,...

A sign reminds everyone EXACTLY what we are dealing with.....

...and sooner than later..the sign will be THE FACTOR is deciding it is discrimination...

That is the reasoning that I am using.....

...and I would love it if they did the same to everyone they disliked. I think people forget who and what exactly they are dealing with too often. I want them to put a sign up so we remember....and then we deal with it permanently.

Make no mistake..I definitely see this as discrimination...period....but religious freedom is one ht table and must go through a conservative court where I think the baker will win...so the sign is a great reminder and will serve as a catalyst for change in the future.

Well, that's why it's going to the Supreme Court. The baker has said he has no issue with gays. He just doesn't believe in gay marriage. So, it is not as clear-cut as it seems. He's baked cakes for gays before. A little gray area there, no?

 

[mcbrion]

Just so it is clear, here is an article citing the baker's stance and why he declined to make the cake.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/0...ake-a-gay-wedding-cake-just-took-another-turn

 

[Kulindahr]

No law requiring someone to act against his conscience is valid. That's been a principle for hundreds of years.

 

[frankfrank]

So if it's against their conscience, they should not go into that business.

I'm rather torn on the issue, and I may or may not have commented earlier that I could not vote with conscience. There are excellent arguments on both sides. I "lean toward" being required as accommodating the public, but my convictions are too conflicted on it to be firm and strong.

That's because even most hate speech in this country is considered to still be "free speech" - which means that, if the finding is for the plaintiff, i.e. the cake should be required, the court system would be flush with lawsuits for [STRIKE]cakes[/STRIKE] (OK, let's say T-shirts) with messages such as "All faggots and Jews must die" or "Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me"...

Or, if it goes for the baker, get ready for anybody who feels like it, even including health care, pharmacists, state agencies, etc. to claim "religious" objections and refuse services, once some of these states pass their most extreme form of "religious freedom" laws. Of course those laws are ALL about LGBT, almost the sole reason-for-being for these laws...though, once passed, I'll bet that Muslims and Buddhists could be discriminated against...

Seems these laws are always taken to the extremes nowadays.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

Well, that's why it's going to the Supreme Court. The baker has said he has no issue with gays. He just doesn't believe in gay marriage. So, it is not as clear-cut as it seems. He's baked cakes for gays before. A little gray area there, no?

Not "believing" in Gay Marriage means he very well does have a problem with Gay people. Otherwise, he wouldn't have a problem with it. It's a stupid contradiction.

That kind of comment sounds like "I'm not racist, I have a black friend."

 

[Benvolio]

No law requiring someone to act against his conscience is valid. That's been a principle for hundreds of years.

Sorry, that is wrong. My conscience forbids me from paying income taxes, but alas, I have to pay anyway. The point is we cannot objectively know what another's conscience actually is, and what is just a manipulation. If conscience was sufficient to exempt one from law or invalidate the law, there could be no effective law. Parents cannot use conscience as a reason to neglect their children or refuse treatment or vaccines. What prisoner does not try to use conscience or religion as a way to control or change his treatment? Conscientious objectors have usually been required to show that they are members of an established religion which forbids military service.

 

[Benvolio]

No law requiring someone to act against his conscience is valid. That's been a principle for hundreds of years.

I should add that the baker's religious argument that it is against his religion is a losing argument for the reasons I stated. It is too easy to avoid the law by claiming conscious and there is no objective way to determine if it is just a manipulation. And, there is little that the law could effectively require if it was so easily avoided. BUT, freedom of speech and press is a very solid reason for the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the baker: the state can require him to sell A cake to gays, but it cannot tell him how to decorate it. If you have a problem with this, ask yourself if he should be required to sell a cake with nazi or kkk words or decoration.

 

[Manlyboy]

Of course he should have to bake the cake. This is why I can't stand the sanctimonious hypocritcal left. They call everyone else bigots yet themselves are the real bigots. I am gay myself yet was torn on the issue of whether homosexuals can marry, because it goes against my Christian ethics. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether you agree or disagree is besides the point, service providers like bakers should not be forced to do something that is completely at odds with their beliefs. This whole case smacks of totalitarianism.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Of course he should have to bake the cake. This is why I can't stand the sanctimonious hypocritcal left. They call everyone else bigots yet themselves are the real bigots. I am gay myself yet was torn on the issue of whether homosexuals can marry, because it goes against my Christian ethics. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether you agree or disagree is besides the point, service providers like bakers should not be forced to do something that is completely at odds with their beliefs. This whole case smacks of totalitarianism.

So should every customer be vetted to make sure they live up to christian principles, or just the gay ones?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

No law requiring someone to act against his conscience is valid. That's been a principle for hundreds of years.

This isn't REAL conscience and you're well beyond smart enough to know that. Conscience is "that person looks hungry I think I'll go to the store and buy them some snacks." Conscience is NOT "I can't make this couple a cake because they both have penises."

 

[peeonme]

Of course he should have to bake the cake. This is why I can't stand the sanctimonious hypocritcal left. They call everyone else bigots yet themselves are the real bigots. I am gay myself yet was torn on the issue of whether homosexuals can marry, because it goes against my Christian ethics. The Bible clearly states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Whether you agree or disagree is besides the point, service providers like bakers should not be forced to do something that is completely at odds with their beliefs. This whole case smacks of totalitarianism.

What if it was a couple of mixed race, a black and a white? Many dredge up a verse from the O.T. to object to inter-racial marriage.
Could the baker claim that it violates his ethics?

Does the baker check and make sure that a man and woman have not been previously married? Jesus taught to not put away your wife except for cause of adultery, He said if you put away your wife for any other cause and marry another then you commit adultery.
Does the baker demand to see proof that the marriage is indeed in keeping with the teachings of Christ?

If the baker uses O.T. law to oppose the union of 2 men does he keep the law with his baking? The N.T. says that if you begin in the law and don't fulfill it that you violate the whole law. If the baker does this he condemns himself.

If you want to dislike people, reject them, discriminate against them and be a bigot then have at it.
But don't wrap yourself in the Bible for protection.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

What if it was a couple of mixed race, a black and a white? Many dredge up a verse from the O.T. to object to inter-racial marriage.
Could the baker claim that it violates his ethics?

Does the baker check and make sure that a man and woman have not been previously married? Jesus taught to not put away your wife except for cause of adultery, He said if you put away your wife for any other cause and marry another then you commit adultery.
Does the baker demand to see proof that the marriage is indeed in keeping with the teachings of Christ?

If the baker uses O.T. law to oppose the union of 2 men does he keep the law with his baking? The N.T. says that if you begin in the law and don't fulfill it that you violate the whole law. If the baker does this he condemns himself.

People who are arguing in favor of discrimination are carefully avoiding that part like the plague. I've asked 16,000 times for consistency and if all customers should be vetted according to the bible and all I hear is crickets.

 

[peeonme]

No law requiring someone to act against his conscience is valid. That's been a principle for hundreds of years.

If the baker worked out of his home and had no business license then I would agree that he shouldn't be compelled by the government to bake a cake for anyone.
If he has opened a business on main street and has a business permit and serves the public by baking wedding cakes then he should serve all of the public.

By baking a wedding cake for two men the baker is not agreeing to gay marriage. He is not taking part in any thing other than mixing some ingredients and decorating a cake.

Let's say a few years into the marriage they find a leak in their roof, should the roofer say that he knows what takes place under that roof and will have no part in it?

Should the mechanic refuse to work on their car?

This whole issue is a statement, not of faith or belief, but against the right of two men or two women to be married.