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

[Manlyboy]

Absolutely. Any service provider should have the right to refuse service on any grounds. I don't agree with the principles behind not serving a mixed-race couple, but the nanny state shouldn't intervene to prevent people from not providing their service for something with which they don't agree. I thought that was the whole point in living in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience?

As a homosexual Christian, I just find it sick making to see homosexuals go on and on about alleged bigotry from Christians, when in fact I see it much more the other way. Look at the way that Christians were related during the debate here in Australia.

I may be homosexual but I in no way identify with the gay movement. Full of sanctimonious, hypocritical moral virtual-signalling scum.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Absolutely. Any service provider should have the right to refuse service on any grounds. I don't agree with the principles behind not serving a mixed-race couple, but the nanny state shouldn't intervene to prevent people from not providing their service for something with which they don't agree. I thought that was the whole point in living in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience?

As a homosexual Christian, I just find it sick making to see homosexuals go on and on about alleged bigotry from Christians, when in fact I see it much more the other way. Look at the way that Christians were related during the debate here in Australia.

I may be homosexual but I in no way identify with the gay movement. Full of sanctimonious, hypocritical moral virtual-signalling scum.

Contradiction of terms, perfectly exemplified by your completely one-sided and unrealistic demonization of "the gay movement" which A) ignores the fact that overall we are fighting for equality while Christians are fighting against our equality, not the other way around and B) the Christian right are just as scummy as it gets, married men being caught with drugs, minors and prostitutes but I guess it's all good if they say three hail Marys or something.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Any service provider should have the right to refuse service on any grounds. - but the nanny state shouldn't intervene to prevent people from not providing their service for something with which they don't agree. I thought that was the whole point in living in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience?

You can't actually refuse service on any grounds, that's not what freedom of speech or choice (or attempting to follow your conscience) means. You couldn't refuse to rent me, say, a room at the inn if the room was for rent and open to everyone else. You could lie and say it's taken, or lie and say it's currently uninhabitable for any number of reasons - plumbing, infestation, ect. You can refuse on specific grounds for specific reasons and many of those reasons are perfectly legal, but you're not actually allowed to 'randomly' refuse service.

Otherwise, the men wouldn't be going to court, now would they. Christ.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

You can't actually refuse service on any grounds, that's not what freedom of speech or choice (or attempting to follow your conscience) means. You couldn't refuse to rent me, say, a room at the inn if the room was for rent and open to everyone else. You could lie and say it's taken, or lie and say it's currently uninhabitable for any number of reasons - plumbing, infestation, ect. You can refuse on specific grounds for specific reasons and many of those reasons are perfectly legal, but you're not actually allowed to 'randomly' refuse service.

Otherwise, the men wouldn't be going to court, now would they. Christ.

 

[peeonme]

Absolutely. Any service provider should have the right to refuse service on any grounds. I don't agree with the principles behind not serving a mixed-race couple, but the nanny state shouldn't intervene to prevent people from not providing their service for something with which they don't a. Igree thought that was the whole point in living in a democratic society with freedom of speech, freedom of choice and freedom of conscience?

As a homosexual Christian, I just find it sick making to see homosexuals go on and on about alleged bigotry from Christians, when in fact I see it much more the other way. Look at the way that Christians were related during the debate here in Australia.

I may be homosexual but I in no way identify with the gay movement. Full of sanctimonious, hypocritical moral virtual-signalling scum.

I am a Christian, who happens to be gay. We had a this thing called the civil rights act back in the '60's here in the states that made it illegal to refuse service to a mixed race couple.

Gal.3:26 '26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

I am a Christian, who happens to be gay. We had a this thing called the civil rights act back in the '60's here in the states that made it illegal to refuse service to a mixed race couple.

Gal.3:26 '26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'

I'm waiting on someone to quote the verse about NOT judging, maybe that's too obvious here that they are judging the gay couple as unworthy of their services.

 

[moniker]

Judges should be leery when one side makes bad faith arguments. When the side that wants to force the baker to make the cake obviously just wants to harass the baker and not enjoy a cake they are acting in bad faith. After all, who would even taste a cake made by someone who probably doesn't like you very much?

 

[luckynumbah7]

This whole issue is a statement - against the right of two men or two women to be married.

(Truncated since the issue isn't a question of how sincere a belief is, just that belief was stated.)

And? People are allowed to make statements without violating the letter of the law. That's not possible to legislate against.

What stopped the couple from getting 'accidentally' endorsed by asking for the cake they wanted, having it made by the same baker (who apparently volunteered a cake so long as he didn't have to call it wedding) and then using it in their wedding instead of requiring it be listed under 'wedding cake' in the bill of sale? The baker knew damn well anything they asked for would resemble their original request but from what I can tell he didn't refuse to make a cake and call it something else for form's sake; that would have been mentioned.

To me making a cake to be used in a wedding is a wedding cake, no matter what some fool tries to call it so he can still collect moneys for 'getting around' his badly executed belief structure. The letter and not the spirit, imagine that.

I'd think selling them a cake that'll be used in their wedding is awfully similar to selling them a wedding cake when everyone is aware of particulars. Offering his product when the baker was aware of its intended use is itself a type of endorsement, tho I dunno that any of them have realized it. The 'degrees of separation' is a bit odd because the use of the product, the product itself and the participants sexualities never change, just the title of the product.

They both seem to be making a statement and I'm not real keen on either of 'em at the moment. It'd be difficult to claim that the statement is an unwillingness to provide cake at a gay wedding when he volunteered other cake under a different heading to be (obviously) used in a wedding. Not impossible to claim, but it's really fucking hard to argue 'No Service' when service was offered.

The only thing I can see that's left is what the baker believes a 'real wedding' is, not actually providing cake for a gay wedding.

Well, this might be a new concept for some people, but you can't make someone say they believe in you.

In that vein,

I'm shocked, shocked I say, that not one person noted the double standard regardin' accessibility of space in my bathhouse example. It was a good example of not selling a product because 'definitions don't scan for everyone. The couple still had access to a service - at least it looks like they could've gotten their wedding cake from the guy under other cakely headings. I can't say similar when I asked about entrance policy compared to the squirrelly definition they were using. But for refusing to sell based on the conception of a definition, it was pretty spot on.

I'm just about positive there's people stupid enough to reply with 'But their belief you don't meet the definition trumps your right to access a public business' which, entirely by accident I'm sure seems to be the same argument the baker is using. If queer guys get their own definition of a word, so does everybody else.

 

[opinterph]

I'm waiting on someone to quote the verse about NOT judging, maybe that's too obvious here that they are judging the gay couple as unworthy of their services.

Is this the one to which you refer?

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7:1-3 KJV

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Is this the one to which you refer?

That and many others. STILL waiting on someone to explain to me how arbitrarily applying cherry-picked condemnations to customers is freedom of religion.

 

[peeonme]

Most of us that claim to be Christians are 'pick and choose' types. We like some parts of the Bible a lot, other parts not so much.
I think that it is the nature of man to gravitate like a moth to a flame when a man sees or hears comforting words.

So I can readily accept the part about eternal life and God's love for me. The part about love your neighbor, well, I know about it and I try.

I worked for some Christians over the years. I am talking fundamentalist Baptists. I was amazed at how detached they could be from the Bible when it came to dealing with employees and customers. They cheated me on a few occasions, nothing big in their eyes.
When I asked about a raise they had promised, they said they 'forgot' and would start it next week. Of course they owed me from the date the raise was promised.

I say this because i know the drill, use the Bible when you want, where you want and how you want.

In fundamentalism, homosexuality is "the big one", if people are divorced and remarried a few times, well, we can work around that.
I never, I mean never, not one time heard a sermon on divorce and remarriage. If you want to be a popular preacher, pick on those who aren't there, those gays. Gods gonna git 'em!

I just saw a trail (binding arbitration) The cake baker had dealt with the gay man, sold him doughnuts, cup cakes or what ever.
When the gay made needed a wedding cake, no dice.

Baking a wedding cake is no different that a cup cake, it's bigger and more expensive. The baker is not sanctifying a marriage by mixing some eggs and flour, making some frosting and producing a cake.

But, refusing to do it gives the baker a chance to let the world know where he stands... on the rights of others, when it comes in handy.

 

[Benvolio]

That and many others. STILL waiting on someone to explain to me how arbitrarily applying cherry-picked condemnations to customers is freedom of religion.

Without agreeing with, it the argument is that a number of people participate into wedding; the minister, witnesses, organist and the baker who creates a special cake. So the baker is being required to participate in an occassion which is contrary to his religion. I have said this a losing argument, but the baker should prevail on freedom of speech.

 

[opinterph]

… the argument is that a number of people participate into wedding; the minister, witnesses, organist and the baker who creates a special cake. So the baker is being required to participate in an occassion which is contrary to his religion.

Sounds a lot like interstate commerce.

 

[Benvolio]

Sounds a lot like interstate commerce.

It is still just a local cake, and regulation of interstate commerce does not trump freedom of religion or freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights was adopted later, amending the Constitution, and is specific: “Congress shall pass no Law.....”

 

[opinterph]

It is still just a local cake, and regulation of interstate commerce does not trump freedom of religion or freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights was adopted later, amending the Constitution, and is specific: “Congress shall pass no Law.....”

I can argue against the local idea, but regardless -- it does remind us of commerce, yes?

 

[Benvolio]

I can argue against the local idea, but regardless -- it does remind us of commerce, yes?

I will even concede that if it came down to that, the court majority would hold that the cake is in interstate commerce—the great slippery slope of the Constitution.

 

[opinterph]

the cake is in interstate commerce—the great slippery slope of the Constitution.

I haven’t studied the case. Does the baker normally execute a unique formal contract for each customer, or do the customers simply order the product and pay him for his services?

 

[luckynumbah7]

I haven’t studied the case. Does the baker normally execute a unique formal contract for each customer, or do the customers simply order the product and pay him for his services?

Er, I think a contract happens whenever someone takes on a commission. I envision it as kinda like buying at rent-a-center, only you're renting the design process and the knowledge (to a point), and then you finance/buy the creation if it's doable. A percentage of the likely finished product's cost is often used as a nonrefundable 'down payment' during the 'brainstorming' and design process as part of the finances for the materials. It gets considerably more complicated depending on what someone asks for. There's standard artist's contracts that help navigate what the customer vs what the designer are expected to contribute to the endeavor so standard contracts when creating other content would be likely.

Specifically, it's likely when everyone is demanding 'unique creations for their very own special day' in exactly the manner they envision.

(I have a theory no one works with people for very long without putting some really tight reins on what 'free work' people think they're owed'. "No substitutions' is popular for reasons.)

 

[Kulindahr]

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

No, they should just either have an employee who has no trouble with it or have information readily available indicating someone who will do it.

Though the Christian response would be to bake an even better cake than being paid for, in the spirit of "If a man requires you to go with him one mile, go two".

 

[Kulindahr]

Conscience is NOT "I can't make this couple a cake because they both have penises."

Conscience has to do with what you believe is moral and immoral. To the idiots who claim to follow Jesus but have failed to hear His message, making a wedding cake for two people who both have penises is the moral equivalent of making one for a rapist and his victim.

Their consciences may be warped, but it's still their conscience.