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

[Kulindahr]

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.

Nicely stated.

It really is inconsistent and even contradictory to pick one or two points from the Old Testament and neglect the rest (with the exception of working on your own life to improve it). But then to even claim to follow Jesus and yet ignore His plain words about loving your enemies and going the second mile and all is contradictory.

Were I a preacher in this guy's town I would be expounding this from the pulpit, warning my flock to not fall for this ploy of the devil.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

There's a distinction here that's important (and I hope it's going to be the result that explains why a ruling will take so long): his business should have to serve, but he himself should not. I've mentioned more than once the very simple solutions to that, but here's another: he could set up a standard contract with another baker to do the kind of work his conscience won't allow him to do.

BTW, your last line invokes a false dichotomy: faith or belief can have everything to do with making a statement. Martin Luther King's faith demanded he not remain silent, just like the Reformer whose name he bore (the original Martin Luther back in the Middle Ages).

 

[Kulindahr]

... the gay movement. Full of sanctimonious, hypocritical moral virtual-signalling scum.

Which is to say full of humans.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

It isn't a contradiction in terms. Christians make up a large portion of groups and floats in Pride parades, representing churches and denominations fighting for equality.

As for his "demonization of the gay movement", for a time after I was first out I felt the same way due to the way I was treated. Besides that, your automatic pegging of all Christians as being our enemies is the very sort of thing that leads to that criticism.


BTW, the "Christian right" are "just as scummy as it gets" because they are operating with a contradictory belief system: it is not logically possible to believe in Jesus as one's Lord and Savior while believing in using the coercive power of the state to regulate others' behavior. More foundationally, it isn't logically possible to believe in Jesus as one's Lord and Savior while believing that the Old Testament Law has any hold today -- and that's how they end up in the scum, because trying to adhere to the Law can only, according to the New Testament, result in sin and more sin. Looking at Jesus' and Paul's words in the New Testament, it's a simple matter to predict that people operating that way is going to result in a lot of "scummy" behavior.

The sad part is that if this were pointed out to them, they almost certainly wouldn't see Jesus and Paul as describing them.

 

[opinterph]

… they should … have an employee who has no trouble with it

As I understand the case, the baker is ostensibly selling a product that includes unique artistic expression. If that is true, then “an employee” [who does not object to producing cakes for gay weddings] may not be able to render the “artistic quality” that the store is intent to produce and may therefore damage the brand they wish to project, which in turn causes pecuniary harm to “the artist(s)”.

 

[Kulindahr]

(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.

I knew a couple who got their wedding cake done, and done superbly, without ever calling it a wedding cake -- they just provided pictures of what sort of thing they wanted. They weren't pictures of cakes, either, they were of monuments and buildings with an impression of grandeur.

The result was awesome, BTW, bearing resemblance to the Parthenon and the U.S. Capitol building among others.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Looking at verses about judging doesn't support this question: there are three different Greek words that all get translated as "judg[ing]" in English, and one of those could actually be used to support this baker's position (weakly, really, but possible).

As for cherry-picking what to apply, that comes form being mortal an limited. In politics we don't try to focus on every last issue at once; we'd never get anything done, because humans don't have that capacity. Exercising one's religion works much the same way; you have to pick what issues you're going to focus on.

The real issue is -- as has been pointed out by several in this thread -- that they shouldn't be "picking" at all, since one part of the law is as important as every other, and Jesus fulfilled all of them so that the OT laws are no longer significant: the focus is supposed to be on love, especially as exemplified in the admonitions to do more than you are asked.

Indeed were He speaking today, Jesus could well have told what we call the Parable of the Good Samaritan the Parable of the Good Homosexual.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Most Christians who pick and choose do so because they've never actually grasped the Gospel, so they treat it as a new Law rather than as the opposite of Law. Among such, your example of the raise issue isn't surprising, as they honestly hold that Christian ethics don't apply to business (too bad this baker didn't think that).

It's maddening to me that "homosexuality is the 'big one'" because the case for that being so relies on an erroneous interpretation of scripture: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, then linked to the verse that righteousness exalts a nation with the corollary that lack of righteousness will destroy a nation, leading to the conclusion that allowing gays any rights at all is inviting God to destroy the nation. But the Bible itself declares that the sin of Sodom was lack of hospitality and generosity and treating strangers like trash -- so that in reality, this baker and those like him are actually repeating the "sin of Sodom"!

Of course the other way in which they have failed to grasp the Gospel is that they have the notion that someone else's sin (granting for the moment, for the sake of argument that homosexuality is a sin) can in some way make them unclean. That very concept is part of why Paul said following the Law can never make one righteous -- under the Law, what others do can in fact make one unclean. But under the Gospel, that's been turned around: nothing from outside can make one unclean, nor can anything done in love. And as Christ commanded loving one's enemies, if gays are enemies then they are to be treated with love, and the loving thing to do (following the "go the second mile" principle) would be to not only bake the cake, but to make one even better than was requested.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Is there a legal principle where rights relating to sexuality and rights relating to religion are held to be interchangeable under equality legislation i.e. so whatever is decided in this case will automatically apply to a Christian couple making demands of a gay baker?

In other words, are gay rights and freedom of religion upheld as equal concepts, with equal protection?

And would this case be described as being about freedom of expression? That the state cannot come in to any man's life and use its power to control behaviours and actions, so long as those actions are not directly violent?

Is this not a fundamental principle applied in every free democratic society to all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion?

So is not one group (LGBT) justifying restrictions on the rights of another group (Christians) by claiming that these rights can be overridden because.... what? Because he will not endorse a same-sex marriage? Because he has a business? Because he is deemed to have no rights to any refusal? Even if he is a private self-employed citizen who runs his own affairs?

Would we support a gay baker being forced to design a Christian wedding cake, with a cross on top, and a message saying "Marriage under God is between one man and one woman?

If we truly believe in equality for all, mustn't we accept either both, or neither?

I choose neither.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

It is a losing argument, and all he has to do in terms of freedom of speech is not put the names on or two male figures.

I think the big reason the date for a ruling is so far out is because Kennedy is going to try to draw as fine a line as possible, and he's the deciding vote here. I really expect the ruling will say that no individual can be compelled to act against his/her religion but the business has to provide service, and that in terms of freedom of speech they have to make the cake and decorate but not any part that indicates it's for a gay wedding.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sounds a lot like interstate commerce.

Heh. The problem with interstate commerce sounding like that is that the clause was meant to limit the federal government to being a referee between the states so they didn't make economic barriers between them, not to authorize carte blanche interference with any and all economic matters.

 

[Stardreamer]

As I understand the case, the baker is ostensibly selling a product that includes unique artistic expression. If that is true, then “an employee” [who does not object to producing cakes for gay weddings] may not be able to render the “artistic quality” that the store is intent to produce and may therefore damage the brand they wish to project, which in turn causes pecuniary harm to “the artist(s)”.

What happens if he breaks his arm? If he doesn't have a business plan for dealing with situations where he cannot do the work himself he is not likely to stay in business long. If there is a not an employee able to do the work then subcontract the work to another bakery. You might wind up taking a loss on the job but nobody said having convictions is to be cost-free.

 

[opinterph]

Heh. The problem with interstate commerce sounding like that is that the clause was meant to limit the federal government to being a referee between the states so they didn't make economic barriers between them, not to authorize carte blanche interference with any and all economic matters.

I expected your reply. Thank you.

 

[opinterph]

What happens if he breaks his arm?

What happened to the value of his works when Picasso died?

 

[Stardreamer]

What happened to the value of his works when Picasso died?

I don't see the value of a consumable product like a cake going up after the decorator's death nor his business lasting if he doesn't have someone to do the same level of work if needed.

 

[opinterph]

equality legislation

Please explain your interpretation of the meaning and/or context of that term.

 

[Stef]

The baker should be professional and bake the cake - Freedom of religion allows him to believe worship & share not impose it on others to the detriment of their civil rights

 

[luckynumbah7]

Would we support a gay baker being forced to design a Christian wedding cake, with a cross on top, and a message saying "Marriage under God is between one man and one woman?

Not so fast there. In the original description he offered to make them a cake (according to the article, he volunteered), he just didn't agree on what to call it as a washy way to distance himself from behavior he doesn't believe in instead of referring them elsewhere or giving the job to an employee. Technically a description (wedding) could be a part of a form of artistic expression, but to describe it on the level of an active visual message when your ass (or mine) likely couldn't pick that refused-to-call-it-wedding cake from a lineup guessing by theme, why, that'd be a bit disingenuous.

But still, technically, refusal is legal for just such barely-made-the-grade reasons (with stipulations and restrictions and penalties, blah blah blah).

 

[Benvolio]

Mr Justice Gorsuch asked a question suggesting this argument: Colorado requires the baker to give instructions to his emoployeed so compliance with the non discrimination law; that, he suggests is a violation of his freedom of speech. He pointed out that the law does not just require that the employees be trained, but that the employer must inform then.

 

[opinterph]

Mr Justice Gorsuch asked a question suggesting this argument: Colorado requires the baker to give instructions to his emoployeed so compliance with the non discrimination law; that, he suggests is a violation of his freedom of speech. He pointed out that the law does not just require that the employees be trained, but that the employer must inform then.

I have approved this post, but have no idea what you are talking about.