What's lost in all this about the bakery is that potential customers with any kind of clear reasoning would have taken their business elsewhere if they found the bakery not conducive to their request. Something about a free market and decisions. Will be interesting to see how the SC rules. With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

Constitutionally, I really don't see that it matters. The bill of rights doesn't say the freedoms only apply when it's sufficiently convenient.

These are deeply held beliefs. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't genuine and sacred to these people.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution, the right to have a cake at your wedding. I do see the guaranteed right to exercise your religion as you see fit.

And I googled bakeries in Lakewood Colorado (where the bakery in question is), there's quite a selection. So in this case, it would have been easy (and dare I say, tolerant??) for the gay couple to leave this poor man alone and simply go elsewhere. But that's not what liberals tend to do when they don't get their way.

Because as much as the left (especially on this issue) claims that it's about "live and let live", that notion only applies to their side. They demand tolerance, but show none to others. They are the ones, not the Christians, forcing their beliefs on others. That cannot be denied. This baker isn't trying to outlaw gay marriage, he's trying to practice his religion as he sees it.

We need to stop acting as if we have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

There's that tricky word "equally" again. What is equality in the marketplace? Isn't equality the antithesis of a market . . . of a free market? Competition, lower prices here than there, porn here, bibles there, open mon-fri 9-5, open 24/7, Italian here, Chinese there. You go to the place that sells what you want when you want it. Going to a porn video store and demanding they sell you The Passion of Christ is not exercising equality. Nor is going to a general book store which does not stock bibles and demanding it sells you one. Going to a Christian baker and demanding he sell you a cake for a gay wedding--now THAT'S equality.

Precisely the objective of the vanguard action undertaken by Progressive militants is to undermine our constitutional government, dispense with so-called outdated 18th century notions of individual freedom and classical liberalism. And to replace that with a Post-Modern, Marxian one size fits all collective equality under the false notion of diversity.

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of. The same principle applies to Christian photographers, florists, restaurant owners, whatever.

You can not be forced to abandon your religion at work. The Muslim truck driver case makes that clear, as does the Hobby Lobby case and the Little Sisters Of The Poor case.

But if he refuses to make a penis cake for anyone who might enter his shop, he isn't discriminating against anyone. In this case, he is treating one class of customers very differently. If his basis for doing so is bigotry, that's illegal. If his basis for doing so is religion, the constitution protects that. It's sort of a specific kind of discrimination, that we have to tolerate if we pretend that the constitution means anything. If it only applies when everyone agrees, we don't need it.

Actually it's all about the cake. The baker doesn't want to go through the artistic effort of making a cake he knows will be used for a same sex wedding...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

When he has no issue with some pre-made cupcakes being used for god knows what because he doesn't have a spiritual/artistic attachment to those baked goods any longer. He has let go.

he wasn't...this is a quote from Dave Mullins the day after the incident

The couple has now "decided to go to the gayest cake shop we could think of. We went to Le Bakery Sensual and had a great experience," Mullins says. "They made us feel great, and no one batted an eye. When we told them what had happened, more than a few eyebrows went up."

I don't think it was.. "Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October."

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to this reality during oral arguments. At the time that Jack Phillips declined to bake a same-sex wedding cake, Colorado wouldn’t even recognize — let alone issue — same-sex marriage licenses. So the same-sex couple couldn’t get the state of Colorado to recognize their relationship as a marriage. “And yet when he goes to this bake shop, and he says I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won’t do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he’s created a grave wrong,” Alito stated. “How does that all that fit together?”

Correct, looks like they were just ahead of the Colorado change in law. Not sure it really matters though. You still can't discriminate on sexuality regardless of the same sex union.

It wasn't on the grounds of sexuality. It was on the grounds of religion. He was willing to sell his pre-made cakes to them regardless of their sexuality. It wasn't about their sexuality, it was about his religion. He wasn't refusing to serve them, he was refusing to bake a cake which was going to be used to celebrate something contrary to his religion. Had the couple been of a different sexuality, and they wanted the baker to create a product that contradicted what he religiously believed, he could have, on those religious, not "sexuality", beliefs, refused the service.

The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple. He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The service they asked for was for him to bake a cake- a service he provides to others in his business. It is reasonable for him to refuse certain aspects of cake design.

It is discriminatory to refuse the service of baking the cake because of the association between where/when it is eaten and the clients' sexuality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it would be interesting to see a link to where he got that quote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. The scope of those beliefs would in some cases involve straight couples as well.

And if, as you say, the court would not likely have entertained the case if certain phrases or designs were requested, then that would be the "difference without a distinction." If the phrases or designs were intended to celebrate gay marriage, then the cake would be celebrating gay marriage, which the cake would do without the phrases and designs if it were intended to be used for a gay marriage. The purpose and use for which the cake is made, not its particular design, is what makes the baker intentionally complicit in a sacrilegious ceremony.

His pre-baked goods were not made with those intentions. If he is required to sell whatever he has made and displayed to all comers, he has no control of how his goods are used once they leave the store. But he does have the volition not to make those goods in the first place. But if he makes them with the intention that they be used for unholy purposes, then he is complicit in those purposes and shares the sin.

That may sound silly or "odd" to a non-believer, but to a devout faithful it is religious worship.

"he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple"

One can make a compelling case, that the first amendment says he can, as long as his refusal to do so, is based on religion. At least 3 SC justices will say he can (probably).

When Obama's EEOC argued that Muslim truck drivers could not be forced to abandon their religion, the EEOC didn't say "unless anyone is offended, in which case they can be forced to abandon their religion."

It is interesting how those who claim that the First Amendment or other rights derived from the structure of the Constitution are not absolute, yet then claim an absoluteness to various legal interpretations of those Amendments and rights.

As I have said several times in other threads, constitutional rights cannot contradict themselves. They work in concordance with each other. The right of free association, and the right to freely dispose of or use personal property cannot negate another's right to the same.

Granted that a seller of property cannot, without contractual agreement, prohibit how the buyer uses that property once it is paid for, nor prohibit with whom the buyer associates when using his product once it is paid for. But it is also the right of the seller not to sell, and also the right of the seller to associate with whom he chooses. Neither, in either case, is denying the other's "rights." If one or the other is forced to deny his own right to satisfy the other's desire, that is tyranny, not a case of constitutional property rights, nor an instance of freedom of association, certainly not a support, in this case, of religious freedom.

Kelsey Whipple from Westword.com in Denver published a sympathetic article the day after the incident which included several quotes from the aggrieved....

http://www.westword.com/restaurants/...couple-5727921

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I have said, over and over, rights must conform and be in concordance, in ultimate agreement, with all other rights. Those are the only limitations on rights. They are limited by their encroachment on other rights.

When sexual rights encroach on other rights, there must be a concordance of those rights. Sexual rights are not absolute against other rights. The right to sexuality does not trump all other rights. You cannot force your sexuality on someone who wants no part of it.

The reasons for resisting someone's sexuality are various and numerous. One of those reasons is religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs may range from celibacy, to premarital sex, and to marriage.

Sexuality, in and of itself, is a personal right. But the rights of others not to participate in your sexuality must not be abridged so long as it does not curtail your right to your personal sexuality. The right not to participate in your sexuality because of religious beliefs should not be abridged if it does not curtail your sexual rights. Not materially, nor otherwise, participating in your marriage because of religious views does not prohibit you from marrying or from celebrating your marriage, or from practicing your sexuality.

he does not bake create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce. to all customers !!!

not just gay one's.. please present the whole story

defenders of this behavior are mostly the same anti government crowd they know the constitution better than you crowd the my religion is better than you crowd and ray more and Trump never assaulted anyone crowd and the i'll never side with someone who they i thinks a liberal crowd reguardless of the evidence or behavior or lie spoken by anyone

and claim they are objective and love MAGA

wrong again...and it does matter because at the time the State that he operated his business in didn't even recognize same sex marriage but you seem to think he should have been forced to

the law in Colorado didn't change till July 2014....the incident was July 2012...and at that time Colorado not only would not recognize same sex marriage but as recently 2006 voters had voted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman...two years later things changed in Colorado

Colorado Amendment 43 was a referendum approved by the voters in 2006 that added a new section to Article II of the Colorado Constitution to define marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman. It passed with 56% of the vote.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Colorado since October 7, 2014. Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014.

if you rewrite that in decipherable English I will try...

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, that religious issues of a sexual nature are still protected. The SC ruled that the ObamaCare laws that mandated that Christian business owners pay for birth control and abortion-like procedures, were unconstitutional.

I

Read the text of the first amendment, and tell us why it doesn't apply here. It's so easy to label this guy a bigot. It's a lot harder to tell me why the first amendment doesn't apply.

Then there's the Obama government's argument in the case of Muslim truck drivers. The federal government said that if reasonable accommodations can be made, then people at work cannot be forced to abandon their religious beliefs. In this case, there are other bakeries nearby, which were happy to provide the service. How is that not a reasonable alternative?

There's nothing easier than insulting this guy. That's not the point. T

WDMSO, do you think that the Bill Of Rights only applies to those sympathetic to liberals?

"he my religion is better than you crowd"

Who the hell is saying that here?

ALL you have is insults. Nothing even remotely pertinent to the Bill Of Rights, which is all that matters. I don't agree with the baker on this issue. But obviously the text of the First Amendment, and the feds' argument in the Muslim trucker case, make it clear he has this right.

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

Because the text of the first amendment, and how that has been interpreted, is all that matters. You can go on and on about how bigoted and close minded the guy is, and it's worth having that discussion on the issue of gay marriage (the liberals convinced me that gay marriage is something I should support).

But if the question is whether or not the baker has this right, all that matters is that sentence in the bill of rights. Your opinions of what a jerk this guy is (and he may be a jerk), mean absolutely nothing to the question of whether or not he has the legal right to do it.

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point. If you have legal decisions to suggest that Americans must forfeit their religious freedom to avoid hurting the feelings of others, please share. I mean that sincerely, that wasn't a wise-ass comment.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

At the time the First Amendment was drafted, it applied to the federal government. It now still applies to the federal government but also to the states.

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

who are the absolutists now?

It was done by the amendment process which the Founders put in the Constitution. It wasn't a matter of someone later just negated the Founders will.

And the First Amendment rights were not taken away. They were made stronger and more expansive by applying them to the states.

Freedom of speech (now referred to as expression) and the free exercise of religion were meant to be freedoms practiced in the public, as well as the private, square. So there must be accommodations for those freedoms and others when they conflict.

If gay couple has right to buy whatever a baker sells, does the baker have a right not to sell certain products? Obviously, he has that right. He doesn't have to bake or sell Middle Eastern pastries, for instance. Would that be considered ethnic discrimination? No, it would be ethnic discrimination if he refused to sell the wares he makes to a Middle Easterner.

So why, if he must sell whatever he makes to gays, should a baker have the right not to sell a wedding cake meant to be served at a gay wedding? If he practices his business according to his Christian beliefs, there is nothing in his religion that says he must not sell his wares to a non-believer. ln general, his baked goods have no religious connotation, with the exception of special occasions such as Easter and weddings. On those special occasions, his religion is paramount in the conception of the products meant to celebrate them. In his religion, those occasions represent a holy day or a holy sacrament. He cannot force anyone to buy his Easter cookies.

In his religion, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a holy sacrament. Marriage between same sex couples would be sacrilegious. For a Christian baker, if he is devout, there is no such thing as a gay wedding, and there would be no such wedding cake for him to make. Asking to bake such a cake would be asking him to participate in a blasphemy. Does he have a right to refuse such a request under his right to freedom of religion?

If he is willing to sell to gays any of his wares which he has made with no intention that they serve some irreligious purpose, then in that respect he does not discriminate against them. But in matters of freedom of religion, as practiced in his public life, should he be forced to trespass his faith by participating in something that counters it? Is there no accommodation there between gay rights and religious rights?

Sure there is. As was said above, he will sell any of the wares he creates in which he has or had no intention that they be used to blaspheme his religion. All the products pre-made and on his shelves are of that nature. If you prefer to have him bake something rather than buying a pre-made product, don't ask him to do so with the intention of serving some purpose that is contrary to his faith. That is asking him to participate in what he religiously believes is wrong. Just ask him to bake a cake. Then do whatever you want with it. Even ask for a wedding cake, but you don't have to tell him what it's for. If he asks you what it's for, and your honest, don't expect him to comply with your request if it makes him complicit in what he considers sin.

His right to practice his religion in the public square does not negate a homosexual's right to marry. Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

yes...

Exactly.

But that's not good enough for the liberals, at least on this issue. Everyone must be forcibly made to agree with them.

this is abundantly clear....

The couple wasn't demanding a sugar-free baklawa, they were looking for the same sort of wedding cake the baker made every day.