I would never say no to anyone if they came in and asked me to make something that I make all the time. If it is something that I don't make, then I might say no because I just can't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that's your right - you have the right to decide whether or not to say 'no'. The baker has teh same right.

It's easy to demonize this man Eben. Try something harder...try telling me why the Bill Of Rights, and the freedom of religion contained therein, doesn't apply to him.

We don't get to selectively decide who is protected by the Bill Of Rights, depending upon the ideological agenda that's popular at that moment.

And let me remind you that personally, I support gay marriage. But more than that, I support our constitution, and I don't like it when judges ignore sections of it that they don't happen to like. If we give judges that power, then maybe someday, someone will decide that the constitution doesn't apply to you. I wouldn't like that any more than I like this.

If this judge wants to be a gay rights activist, that's a noble thing, but he cannot do it when he's sitting on the bench. The concept of 'justice' demands that he put his personal agenda aside when he's wearing that robe. His only agenda is supposed to be the law.

Just upset that you beat me to it

Glass Swastika?

I'm pretty sure I've been in Places that have had signs that say "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service"


....and you're telling me that between two Gay Guys they can't figure out how to bake their own cake...C'mon :hee:

This story reminds me of the Barilla pasta owner who said he would not advertise with images of gay people. He has gay employees and provides benefits for them but feels any type of marketing portraying a gay lifestyle is not for his company. Predictably, the international backlash was loud.

They could have got an Entenmann's cake and put a nice topper like this on it.

Go to trial
 

In Colorado if it went to trial the jury might just side with the BB.

The judge in this case made a telling and instructive admission when he said that at first blush it would seem that the baker had a perfect right to refuse to sell his wares to anyone he wished . . . but on second consideration it was necessary to understand and correct the harm that would do to society. How he was even able to arrive at such a reason for judgment is based on how the court system has been transformed from merely adjudicating the law to judging by agenda. I had said in a previous thread that I didn't know of any progressive principles. But I had forgotten one of the very first--Woodrow Wilsons assertion that the Constitution was not to be seen, as the Founders did, as a "Newtonian" document--a mechanistic structure--but to be "interpreted" as a Darwinian one. It was, in the progressive view, an organic living thing, as was the government it instituted. The Constitution was not to be a rigid mechanically functioning structure to serve the people at the people's behest as any machine would do, rather it and the government which functioned through it were living things, subject to living evolution and self-fulfillment. A wholly different way of "interpreting" the Constitution was necessary in view of its transition from an immutable code to an organic living system of societal governance.

Government and its judges were not to be bound by mere structures of law, but would perform and judge as if by a living entity with its own ideas of necessity, efficiency, and justice. For that is what a healthy and rational living thing does. Of course, the reality is that only ACTUALLY living things, real people, would be the functionaries that operated this new system. So, in actuality, it was not some self-evolving "living" entity called government, but a small coterie of actual people deciding for the entire population what was law and what was not.

Judges developed new ways of interpreting the law. Interpretation was no longer about what the words in the Constitution, as written, meant, nor any longer only to decide if the law was actually within an enumerated power granted by the Constitution--rather, judges were to be free of such narrow limitations and allowed into a vaster sphere of interpretation based on utilitarian and equitable social justice, as well as other forms of "higher ideals," none of which stemmed from powers granted in the Constitution. Concepts of jurisprudence were concocted out of thin air such as government having "a compelling interest" outside the confines of prescribed constitutional limitations, or whether there was any, even the slightest theoretical, rational basis for legislation regardless of whether or not there was an actual constitutional basis for it.

Of course, a machine, as the progressives viewed the founders version of their Constitution, can have no "interests" much less any "compelling" ones. Such an entity does not have self-willed human attributes. Such a Constitution can only "compel" the government, as a guide or blueprint, to operate and legislate only within its enumerated boundaries. A progressive "living" governmental structure, on the other hand, is not restricted to things that refuse to give it life. A living thing must be free to meet new challenges in new ways, to grow beyond infantile restrictions and expand to a mature strength that gives it the power to more efficiently govern an evolving society. And so another principle the progressives derived from this living status of government was that this living thing must have the power to create its own bounds. That is, this living government must be unimpeded to function as it sees fit for the efficient and socially justified administration of law. That is, the government was to be basically unlimited in its power to govern.

And so the judge, in this baker vs. gays case can blithely go from the "first blush" of original constitutional property rights to the progressive socially justified distribution of the baker's property per force of a compelling government interest in protecting society from "harm". The irony that such a judgment is elicited from the "interpretation" of a document which was written to protect society from being harmed by government, goes unnoticed. It is, in fact, applauded by our ruling elites in academia, in the media, and in our branches of government. Some might say this is the new road to serfdom. Others would say, c'mon, that's extreme--couldn't happen. But one of the founding principles of the American Revolution, of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Constitution, was the individual right to possess property and dispose of it as one wishes. And one of the most important functions of the government that was originally founded is the protection of those property rights. Under the progressive model, however, those property rights are an obstacle to efficient and equitable governance. There is a burgeoning progressive philosophy that property is a public right not a private one. The government holds it in a sort of escrow for the people and distributes it through regulation and taxation to individuals to husband for the good of the community. Private property, essentially becomes public. And, in the final analysis, the baker has no right to withhold property from the gay couple.

Detbuch - good probing questions as usual...

"Would you as a Christian hospital have the right to say no to a gay person who was admitted with a life threatening injury which needed immediate attention?"

No, the Catholic hospital would not have that right, nor is any Catholic hospital threatening to withold care from anyone on any such basis. Catholics, as a group, do not want to eradicate homosexuals from the planet. Catholics care just as much about homosexuals as we care about anyone else, we (and I don't include 'me' in that 'we', as I am a Catholic who supports gay marriage) just don't want to call the union a marriage. That's not nearly the same thing as a Catholic doctor refusing to treat a gay patient. The Catholic catechism demands that we love homosexuals as much as we love ourselves.

There is a difference between opposing a marriage between two homosexuals, and refusing to treat them as human beings. Any religion based on love, and in my opinion Catholicism certainly qualifies, woudl dictate that I have empathy and compassion for anyone. Loving a person and condoning/supporting their specific behaviors, is not the same thing.

"I don't know the specifics of his particular brand of Christianity, but it doesn't seem to me that this is a question of practicing religion."

I don't know the specs either. But it's easy for me to see how a Christian might not want to accept this business, because you are in a sense, supporting that which your religion says is immoral. And according to Catholic cathechism, if you support that which is immorl, you are acting in a way which could result in excommunication from the Church.

To your question on medical care...Catholic doctors should be (and are) required to provide lifesaving care to those in need. However, my belief is that the state cannot force that same Catholic doctor to prescribe abortificant drugs to a pregnant woman, nor should the state be able to force a Catholic business owner to provide his employes with birth control if his religious beliefs lead him to conclude that is immoral.

"But we have gone very far down the road as a society whose government and its judicial system does exactly that (selectively applied the Bill Of Rights".

Yes, this particular president has a real habit of doing that. It's repugnant.

"as in restricting the second amendment to own firearms to what they consider a "sensible" level, "

I actually wish we had more stringent gun control, but in my opinion, we would need to amend the constitution first, to allow for that. As the constitution is written today, I would not support radical gun control.

"How he was even able to arrive at such a reason for judgment is based on how the court system has been transformed from merely adjudicating the law to judging by agenda"

Correct, this was a perfect example of judicial activism, and I always hate that.

FIRST THE CAKES!

NEXT THE CHILDREN!

You people are clowns.

I think the matter of baker vs. gays goes well beyond religious freedom. Unfortunately, when I write a long response, I usually do it extemporaneously, as was the case in the above post to which you respond here. Because in long posts I'm thinking on the run, there are pauses for thought which add to the already long amount of time needed to finish the post. This leads to a glitch that I often run into which makes the site not allow my post but must refresh with back button, etc. And this is not always successful, and I lose the post and the considerable time spent writing it. So I sometimes pause with a note that there is more coming and will be back shortly in order to prevent the glitch from happening. I see that you posted a response before I finished adding to the post after the pause in which I said more was coming. The addition further added my thoughts on the importance of the property rights issue and how we were losing that most important reason for which there was a revolution and a Constitution. You might go back and read the eding.

that's not really answering the question...

you make things from glass...he makes things from flour etc...he might make cookies for the show case every day as you make ornaments for the window ....

should you, in your business have the right/ability to refuse the request to make something (I doubt he makes cakes for weddings every day, usually special order I think) that you feel represents something that you disagree with ethically, politically or otherwise ...or...might be used at an event that celebrates something that you disagree with on the same grounds? remember, you are an artisan, if they request that you make something "that you make every day" for an event, by making items for that event you are putting your signature on the event, if you decide that you do not want your work associated with that event or group or cause....should a judge then be able to force you to provide the product/service or face a fine or worse?

I can offer some obvious example but that would be me assuming a bias on your part

I have said no when kids ask me to make them bongs... But let's be clear here.. I would never in a million years say no to someone because they were gay, a different race or religion than me.
And while I have said no to bongs/pipes to kids.. I do make them for MMJ card holders. Even though I am slightly opposed to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the basic argument here isn't "Why he said No" but "Does he have the Right to say No"

I mentioned a Glass Swastika earlier...if a Group of White Supremists came in and asked you to make one for them....would you?...knowing full well that your name will be attached to it as soon as it leaves your door.

You have the right to say No...just like the baker has the right to say No.

And the Gay couple has the right to let their friends know this guy wouldn't do it for them....he may lose business because of his decision...but thats his choice and if he can live with whatever repercussions come from it....So Be It.

Simply not a matter for the courts to decide...

Like I said...."We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service"

I'd charge a lot and I wouldn't sign it. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But.. Just like Jim had to make the stretch all the way to the westboro baptists, you are making the stretch all the way to a white supremacist group. Both groups represent hate and intolerance.

A couple who want to be together and have a piece of paper that entitles them to the same legal rights as a man and woman who are married I a threat to no one.
Last I heard, there hasn't been and gay supremacist groups or gays out picketing funerals of fallen vets.

The baker is probably dealing with some seriously strong gay genetics and has had to go to god to help repress them.. The biggest homophobes I know would probably love to soak the cork given the chance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Technically the West Baptist Church isn't a threat to anybody....they are just a bunch of Misguided A-Holes out picketing....But you don't like what they stand for....just like the baker doesn't like what Gay Marriage stands for.

....and its not a stretch to use the WBC or the KKK....if the court rules that the baker doesn't have a right to refuse their business....then people can't refuse the WBC's business under the same ruling...

If the court rules that he has to make a cake for a gay wedding...then in the same vein he would have to make a Cake for the WBC that says something hateful about fallen vets....there is absolutely no difference, as there shouldn't be, in the eyes of the court.

I have no issue with Gay Marriage....but some do.

Again...its not Why he says no....just should he have the right to say no...

Anti descrimination laws are in place for these types of things. :$)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It seems like the problem with the discussion between Nebe and others is an argument between opinion and principle.

Can you explain on what principle those laws are made?

"Jim had to make the stretch all the way to the westboro baptists, you are making the stretch all the way to a white supremacist group. Both groups represent hate and intolerance. "

I agree, Westboro represents hate, in fact, that was my point. Because in this case, the judge said that the baker doesn't have the right to hurt the feelings of the happy couple. My response, and I think it's valid, is this...if the Westboro Baptist Chruch has the right to hurt people's feelings during the course of practicing their religion, so does the baker.

How is that wrong? That fact that Westboro Baptist are a reprhehensible bunch of jerks does not refute my point, it strengthens my point. Because why do they have freedom of religion, but not the baker?

Your response?

You're claiming that I am equating a homosexual couple with the Westboro baptists, and that's not even close to what I'm doing. I'm saying the baker has as much right to practice his religion, even if it hurts someone's feelings, as Westboro Baptist.

"The biggest homophobes I know would probably love to soak the cork given the chance."

This from the guy who recently said we need to be tolerant of those who disagree with us. Here's a tip, start with yourself.

I think "why he says so" is crucial. If he says so because of his religion, then how does the constitution not guarantee him that right?

Courts have said that Westboro Baptist Chruch can spew their hate for one reason, and one reason only...they are doing so in the course of practicing their religion, and hurtful as it may be, the freedom of religion gives them that right.

Why doesn't the baker have as much right to practice his religion, as WBC?

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

I would like to know what religion the baker is, plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays. Even the Pope just recently came out and said "Who are we to Judge". Be interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up.

You made a good point about freedom of speech. I looked it up...the ACLU, of course, has defended the Westboro Baptists on both freedon of speech grounds and freedom of religion grounds...

"I would like to know what religion the baker is"

Some kind of Christianity...

"plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays"

Very true.

"interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up"

The baker, who can get free representation if he chooses, has not yet decided (last I checked) whether o rnot he will appeal.

I wonder if ACLU will defend his right to freedom of religion, as they did for Westboro Baprist? Not likely!

Yes, the court decided their right was under Freedom of Speech. I would think the same applies to the baker vs. the gays issue. But, unless the case is appealed and gets up to the SCOTUS, it remains a State issue and the gays win.

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

Not the same as there are specific laws in place for Employment Descrimination.

Here is what you are not grasping...this baker's religion, presumably, does not say that homosexuals do not have the right to be employed. His religion does say they don't have the right to marry.

Look at it this way...Catholic hospitals cannot refuse to hire homosexual doctors, but they can absolutely refuse to let that homosexual doctor get married in the hospital chapel.

You may well have a point about discrimination. However, you never, not once, addressed the baker's right to fredom of religion.

Exactly.

There are also specific laws in place that guarantee the right to practice your religion as you see fit.

As TDF says, employment laws do not apply to refusal to provide service. Even more, I believe at the Federal level, businesses with less than 15 employees don't have to abide by sexual orientation discrimination law. State laws differ in many ways. Depends on Colorado's discrimination laws.

The problem with anti-discrimination laws is that they discriminate. They are on shaky philosophical grounds and definitely on our Federal Constitution grounds. The Constitution does not prohibit individuals from discriminating. It prohibits government from doing so. So when government creates laws which discriminate in favor of one party over another, it does that which it prohibits against and does so against that which it is prohibited.

Your right to discriminate, so long as it does not deny someone else their right to life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness, is one of those unalienable rights not specified but inherent in the understood VAST RESIDUUM of rights not given to government but retained by the individual.

In an aside but much related topic:

Can't stand bishop Tobin or the church he represents but he had the RIGHT to say what he said about Mandela,its guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.And yet there's a grassroots effort to force him to apologize.

I can see it already "I apologize for using my 1st Amendment right to an opinion".