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

[Kulindahr]

I doubt if any of those people would ask for a cake decorated to celebrate the mother of a gay; or two divorcees, or the adopted child of a gay couple as such. In other words, the decoration would not reflect the factor that the baker objects to. Who would want a kid"s cake to say he was adopted?

He's doing a standard lawyer thing: proposing hypotheticals as test cases. Whether anyone would actually do them is irrelevant; the point is how the person of interest would handle them if they should occur.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

A good case can be made that most people here are arguing against discrimination, and that includes arguing against your position, which can be seen as discriminatory because you're treating human beings as objects that should be required to satisfy your personal views -- that's the only way I can interpret your desire to use government coercion to make people act contrary to their religious beliefs.

This isn't "contrary to their religious beliefs" UNLESS every single person that walks through their door is vetted and ascertained to live according to their Christian principles. Cherrypicking a minority group that COINCIDENTALLY happens to be the least popular and a current target for the self-righteous crowd has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I've brought this up about 4987396873096834734089674390864739689376438658347639864 times and you all are avoiding it like the plague. If every customer is supposed live according to their beliefs does that mean each customer fills out a quesetionaire, or is it a see-no-evil type of thing where you can be a pedophile, an alcoholic, a wife abuser so long as it doesn't happen in the shoppe and we aren't aware of it we're cool?

As an African American I must say I'm glad the big ole meanie pants government stepped in and forced people to act contrary to their religious beliefs otherwise I'd still be in chains picking cotton for a cup of corn meal and a slab of bacon a week.

 

[ptrm610]

Being gay it's hard to say this but I think they have the right to refuse to make the cake. Business has the right to refuse service! They will have to bear the consequences of tat decision, and they may want to reconsider as they will certainly face a backlash! I would not patronize this bakery however, I believe they do have the right to refuse.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Being gay it's hard to say this but I think they have the right to refuse to make the cake. Business has the right to refuse service! They will have to bear the consequences of tat decision, and they may want to reconsider as they will certainly face a backlash! I would not patronize this bakery however, I believe they do have the right to refuse.

How is that any different from this? Maybe YOU can explain because no one else has really been able to

 

[Kulindahr]

This isn't "contrary to their religious beliefs" UNLESS every single person that walks through their door is vetted and ascertained to live according to their Christian principles. Cherrypicking a minority group that COINCIDENTALLY happens to be the least popular and a current target for the self-righteous crowd has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I've brought this up about 4987396873096834734089674390864739689376438658347639864 times and you all are avoiding it like the plague. If every customer is supposed live according to their beliefs does that mean each customer fills out a quesetionaire, or is it a see-no-evil type of thing where you can be a pedophile, an alcoholic, a wife abuser so long as it doesn't happen in the shoppe and we aren't aware of it we're cool?

As an African American I must say I'm glad the big ole meanie pants government stepped in and forced people to act contrary to their religious beliefs otherwise I'd still be in chains picking cotton for a cup of corn meal and a slab of bacon a week.

In moral terms, you're right, but in legal terms your argument is meaningless. It's pretty settled in precedent that the government cannot require a citizen to stick to every belief his or her professed religion asserts, it can only assess whether or not a belief in question actually is a belief of that religion (or specific church body).

And again, it isn't about the people, it's about a particular action. To use one of your examples, it's irrelevant if a customer is a member of NAMBLA, but it would be relevant if that NAMBLA member requested a cake celebrating sex with the pre-pubescent. The former is already settled law: you can't discriminate on the basis of a customer's personal beliefs. And in fact you can discriminate on the basis of some customer actions; for example, if I were to walk into an Office Depot and start singing Christmas carols and playing my guitar I could be asked to desist or leave, or if I were to enter a Safeway grocery with a pet I could be asked to leave.

So the question isn't whether a business can discriminate; it's almost always been ruled that they can't. The legal question here is whether an individual can be obligated under threat of government force to act contrary to the free exercise of his religion. And since he can't, under the First Amendment free-exercise clause, SCOTUS' job here is to draw a line allowing the individual his free exercise while forbidding the business to discriminate.

Your final paragraph brings in another point, which is the matter of discrimination on the basis of class, and that's so settled as to be more solid than the Washington Monument -- it was in fact part of the driving force behind some of the careful wording in the Fourteenth Amendment. But that isn't in play here, by the baker's own testimony: he isn't objecting to a class of people, he's objecting to being required to perform a specific action. When I had my own business I didn't have to worry about that (I can't think of any handyman job that would require an action anyone could think of as immoral), but it does give me the perspective to differentiate between the two issues of disapproving of the customer v refusing to do a certain action -- I did handyman work for more than a few people I had reason to despise, but that was no grounds for refusing a job.

 

[Kulindahr]

Being gay it's hard to say this but I think they have the right to refuse to make the cake. Business has the right to refuse service! They will have to bear the consequences of tat decision, and they may want to reconsider as they will certainly face a backlash! I would not patronize this bakery however, I believe they do have the right to refuse.

If it were nearby I'd be tempted to patronize it just for the chance to point out that they're acting contrary to Jesus' very specific words.

 

[Kulindahr]

How is that any different from this? Maybe YOU can explain because no one else has really been able to

It has been explained: the baker didn't refuse to serve because of who they were, he refused because they were asking an action contrary to his beliefs.

The equivalent is not a "No Blacks" sign, but a refusal to rent a hall for a wedding between a black and a white. That's a hugely important distinction for liberty.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

It has been explained: the baker didn't refuse to serve because of who they were, he refused because they were asking an action contrary to his beliefs.

The equivalent is not a "No Blacks" sign, but a refusal to rent a hall for a wedding between a black and a white. That's a hugely important distinction for liberty.

Oh, right, I forgot about that bible verse that said thou shalt not create cakes for men who layeth with men. I still don't see how making a cake for two men is contrary to his beliefs, were they having sex on the counter while they ordered the cake?

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

In moral terms, you're right, but in legal terms your argument is meaningless. It's pretty settled in precedent that the government cannot require a citizen to stick to every belief his or her professed religion asserts, it can only assess whether or not a belief in question actually is a belief of that religion (or specific church body).

And again, it isn't about the people, it's about a particular action. To use one of your examples, it's irrelevant if a customer is a member of NAMBLA, but it would be relevant if that NAMBLA member requested a cake celebrating sex with the pre-pubescent. The former is already settled law: you can't discriminate on the basis of a customer's personal beliefs. And in fact you can discriminate on the basis of some customer actions; for example, if I were to walk into an Office Depot and start singing Christmas carols and playing my guitar I could be asked to desist or leave, or if I were to enter a Safeway grocery with a pet I could be asked to leave.

So the question isn't whether a business can discriminate; it's almost always been ruled that they can't. The legal question here is whether an individual can be obligated under threat of government force to act contrary to the free exercise of his religion. And since he can't, under the First Amendment free-exercise clause, SCOTUS' job here is to draw a line allowing the individual his free exercise while forbidding the business to discriminate.

Your final paragraph brings in another point, which is the matter of discrimination on the basis of class, and that's so settled as to be more solid than the Washington Monument -- it was in fact part of the driving force behind some of the careful wording in the Fourteenth Amendment. But that isn't in play here, by the baker's own testimony: he isn't objecting to a class of people, he's objecting to being required to perform a specific action. When I had my own business I didn't have to worry about that (I can't think of any handyman job that would require an action anyone could think of as immoral), but it does give me the perspective to differentiate between the two issues of disapproving of the customer v refusing to do a certain action -- I did handyman work for more than a few people I had reason to despise, but that was no grounds for refusing a job.

As eloquent as your "Well technically.... what the law ACTUALLY states" posts are I still don't get it. Where in the bible does God condemn making a cake for two homos? The act they asked him to perform is not written as a sin on a single page from genesis to revelations, there isn't one verse, not half a verse, not one corner of a verse that says; he can't perform the task, God will punish him if he performs the task. This isn't about religion and no amount of admittedly well-constructed paragraphs can change that. If he can make cakes for atheists or Jews or unwed couples (or people that eat shrimp, people who work on Sundays, people who had kids out of wedlock) then he can make a cake for gay people. I'm going to be up for quite a few hours so you have ample time to show me where in the bible God (or Jesus, or Paul, or Timothy or ANYBODY) says he's not allowed to perform the service they requested.

 

[peeonme]

It has been explained: the baker didn't refuse to serve because of who they were, he refused because they were asking an action contrary to his beliefs.

The equivalent is not a "No Blacks" sign, but a refusal to rent a hall for a wedding between a black and a white. That's a hugely important distinction for liberty.

Of course he refused because of who they are. If it was a man and a woman he would bake it, no questions asked.
But, because of the gender of the two getting married, he refused.

Baking a cake is not against his beliefs. No one is making marry a man.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Of course he refused because of who they are. If it was a man and a woman he would bake it, no questions asked.
But, because of the gender of the two getting married, he refused.

Baking a cake is not against his beliefs. No one is making marry a man.

This is the critical element I'm missing. What part of this is "against his religion?" Granted I didn't pay the utmost attention in Sunday school but I'm having a hard time believing there's a verse that says he's not allowed to make a cake for some cocksuckers.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, right, I forgot about that bible verse that said thou shalt not create cakes for men who layeth with men. I still don't see how making a cake for two men is contrary to his beliefs, were they having sex on the counter while they ordered the cake?

If the cake is for a wedding, he believes that by making it he is affirming that marriage.

It's really a rather unChristian view, that by providing something for a certain activity you partake in the morality or immorality of that activity. Jesus really puts the slam on that at the wedding at Cana, where the people were already pretty plastered and He made more wine when they were running out. If their reasoning were sound, then right there Jesus endorsed getting drunk.

It's the same logic that leads people to divest themselves of stock in a company that violates human rights or something: they feel that by owning stock in the company they're giving their approval of its behavior. They're not saying that being a company is wrong, they're saying the behavior is wrong, and that if they're part of the company it makes them guilty of the behavior. As another example, there are people who won't go to strip bars because they feel that would mean giving their approval of exploitation of people for sexual arousal: they're not saying there;s anything wrong with having a bar with entertainment, they're saying that kind of entertainment is wrong and they won't give their approval of it. So the baker is saying that by participating in the wedding via making a cake explicitly for two men, he's endorsing that kind of marriage and thus would be guilty of saying it's acceptable.

 

[Kulindahr]

As eloquent as your "Well technically.... what the law ACTUALLY states" posts are I still don't get it. Where in the bible does God condemn making a cake for two homos? The act they asked him to perform is not written as a sin on a single page from genesis to revelations, there isn't one verse, not half a verse, not one corner of a verse that says; he can't perform the task, God will punish him if he performs the task. This isn't about religion and no amount of admittedly well-constructed paragraphs can change that. If he can make cakes for atheists or Jews or unwed couples (or people that eat shrimp, people who work on Sundays, people who had kids out of wedlock) then he can make a cake for gay people. I'm going to be up for quite a few hours so you have ample time to show me where in the bible God (or Jesus, or Paul, or Timothy or ANYBODY) says he's not allowed to perform the service they requested.

It's the concept from the Old Testament that if you participate in or help someone to do something sinful, you're guilty of that sin. He's looking at the "sin" of homosexuality and at the "one man one woman" description of marriage in the Old Testament and concluding, following the Old Testament logic, that if he makes a came for a gay wedding then he is participating in the sin of homosexuality.

It's not relevant, legally, that he may make cakes for others that can be objected to on the basis of the Bible, it's only relevant that whatever church he belongs to actually believes that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Kulindahr]

Of course he refused because of who they are. If it was a man and a woman he would bake it, no questions asked.
But, because of the gender of the two getting married, he refused.

Baking a cake is not against his beliefs. No one is making marry a man.

No, because he didn't object to making a plain ordinary cake for them; he only objected to making a wedding cake. And if I'm not confusing this with another case, he says he has made items for gay people and has no problem with that; his only problem is with making a wedding cake for gays.

So he isn't objecting to who they are, he's objecting to participating in what they're doing by supplying them a means for celebrating what they're doing.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is the critical element I'm missing. What part of this is "against his religion?" Granted I didn't pay the utmost attention in Sunday school but I'm having a hard time believing there's a verse that says he's not allowed to make a cake for some cocksuckers.

Actually, asking for a specific verse is being just as idiotic as the baker: it's abusing the Bible for one's own ends.

There's no verse in the Bible that says you can't supply a horse to a killer -- but it does say that if you help someone in the commission of a crime, you're guilty of the crime. That's what he's following; there doesn't have to be a verse about baking a cake because there are (supposedly) verses against homosexuality.

 

[ChickenGuy]

1. Making a child's birthday cake.... for a gay couple's adopted son.

2. Making a gay couple's mother/mother-in-law a birthday cake.... which has rainbow colours on it.

3. Making a wedding cake for an atheist who is having a civil marriage.

4. Making a wedding cake for two divorcees.

5. Making a birthday cake for one of the married gay couple.... which will be coloured pink.

After quite some consideration offline yesterday, I would tentatively say that, in my opinion, he shouldn't be able to refuse 1, 2, or 5 under anti-discrimination laws, but he should be able to refuse 3 or 4 under freedom of religion laws.

And an idea came to me - if a baker wants to refuse making a gay wedding cake, he should be required to give the gay couple information like a contact address for a business that WILL make it for them.

And if he refuses to even do THAT by claiming it's against his religious beliefs, he should be overruled by the courts. Having a religious objection is one thing, but actively trying to impede and obstruct a couple obtaining a product is another, and is discriminatory.

 

[opinterph]

And an idea came to me – [the baker] should be required to give the gay couple information like a contact address for a business that WILL make it for them.

Wouldn’t that make him an accomplice to the religious transgression?

 

[Kulindahr]

And an idea came to me - if a baker wants to refuse making a gay wedding cake, he should be required to give the gay couple information like a contact address for a business that WILL make it for them.

That's been said several times here, and I think that's where the court will come down. Businesses have arrangements like that all the time; just as an example, two of the places I take my truck for repair will send people elsewhere for a variety of reasons from better expertise to work load.

And if he refuses to even do THAT by claiming it's against his religious beliefs, he should be overruled by the courts. Having a religious objection is one thing, but actively trying to impede and obstruct a couple obtaining a product is another, and is discriminatory.

I like that way of looking at it.

Though I wonder -- could I sue him for making my religion look bad? He is claiming to be a Christian, after all... and is doing a bad job of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wouldn’t that make him an accomplice to the religious transgression?

Now that opens a whole basket of philosophy of religion 'worms'.....

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Actually, asking for a specific verse is being just as idiotic as the baker: it's abusing the Bible for one's own ends.

There's no verse in the Bible that says you can't supply a horse to a killer -- but it does say that if you help someone in the commission of a crime, you're guilty of the crime. That's what he's following; there doesn't have to be a verse about baking a cake because there are (supposedly) verses against homosexuality.

Which brings us right back to consistency. There are verses against a trillion things that people do every day but the baker isn't refusing service to people guilty of those acts, which means he isn't exercising religious freedom rather selective (I'm so sick of even typing this word) discrimination.

Yes, I am aware that I'll get blood from a stone before I'll get consistency from a religious person.