I was at three weddings this summer I'm so glad that the cake bakers blessed each of those weddings. Too bad the chef at Woolworths didn't think of claiming his hamburger making was artistic 50 years ago.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

50 years ago, an owner of a restaurant could have run his business in accordance with his religion without being convicted of denying someone else's civil rights.

Paul, I don't agree with their position either. But if Muslim truck drivers can refuse to transport alcohol, why can't Christian bakers refuse not to participate in a gay wedding? What's the difference?

Bashing them is very easy. Try telling us why the First Amendment doesn't apply to them...

50 years ago, it wasn't considered controversial to say "if you have a wee-wee, you go to the men's room".

Obama decide he got to pick and choose who the Bill Rights applied to, and who it didn't apply to. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

First of all, slipknot said it was because of all of the "pro-gay stuff" they wanted on the cake. They never discussed the details of what the cake would say or look like. He didn't reject them based on the design of the cake, but once he figured out they are gay, he refused to make it.

The way Colorado law is written, he broke the law. He could have refused to make certain designs or phrases. He cannot refuse to sell them a cake he would sell to a straight couple.

Red herring. See above post. He can't refuse to sell them a cake that he would sell to a straight couple. They never asked him to do that.

why would a straight couple want a gay wedding cake?

nothing I've read indicated he straight out refused to sell them a cake...he apparently refused to decorate a cake for celebrating a gay wedding...he's apparently never refused to sell other items in his shop to anyone...just did not want to be contracted to decorate a wedding cake for a gay marriage...nor Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, or a cake celebrating a divorce

Bingo

This is what he stated, under oath, to the supreme court on Tuesday

“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion."

And that is why a Jewish Baker could refuse to put pro-nazi wording on a cake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting comment from Justice Kennedy during arguments

“Tolerance is essential in a free society,” he said. But, he continued, “It seems to me that the state in its position here has neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs.”

I Believe by quote-unquote custom cake he means a wedding cake. Has nothing to do with the wording. He would sell them cupcakes brownies excetera but not a wedding cake regardless if they wanted wording on it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored or say gay people are the best or have two men holding hands on it. He could reject that.

He cannot, based on the law, reject to make them a white cake with blue flowers or whatever because it would be eaten at a wedding for people of the same sex. If he would make a white cake with blue flowers for a wedding of straight people, it is discrimination to not make it for any group of gay people, black people, Mormons, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.

I wonder if he realized that gay couples already eat his cakes all the time at weddings. I also wonder how many cakes he's made for same sex weddings that were brokered by wedding planners and he had no idea.

He seems personally concerned as to how his talents are used, which I would assume to mean he puts love into his cakes to celebrate the love of a union.

Perhaps he should focus less on the sex and more on the love.

Based on Colorado law, he cannot refuse to bake a cake just because it will be used at a gay wedding.

But according to the first amendment to the us constitution, which trumps Colorado law, he absolutely can. Congress shall pass no law which interferes with the free exercise of religion.

If he is an atheist who just hates gays, the constitution doesn’t afford him the right to refuse. But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is that a choice of his or was he just born that way?

Perhaps you should read the first amendment. It doesn’t say that freedom of religion only applies to people who, according to you, are sufficiently focused on love.

I am in favor of gay marriage. I’m also in favor of upholding the constitution. It’s not mutually exclusive.

Maybe the gay couple could practice the tolerance they expect from others, and use another baker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His religious beliefs? They are a choice. And the constitution says he has the right to act according to that choice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument, Mr. Phillips now emphasizes his other First Amendment rights — freedom of speech and expression. His cakes are his artistic expression, he says, and he should not be forced to express ideas to which he is opposed.



Mr. Phillips makes a good case that he is an artist. So might many others who sell the fruits of their labor to those celebrating a wedding. But that doesn’t give any of them the right to refuse service to people protected under an anti-discrimination law. If the couple had asked Mr. Phillips to write a message on their cake endorsing same-sex marriage and he had been punished for refusing, he would have a more plausible First Amendment claim, since he wouldn’t write that for anyone. But Colorado’s law doesn’t compel Mr. Phillips, or any proprietor, to say anything they don’t want to say, or to endorse any specific message. It requires only that they treat all customers equally.

Mr. Phillips claims he already does this. He’s happy to sell any of his pre-made products to gay people, he says, or to bake them a custom cake for another occasion. What he won’t do is custom-bake anything intended for use in a same-sex wedding. As the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said in ruling for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig, that’s a distinction without a difference. Since only gay people have same-sex weddings, he’s discriminating against gay people.

Some free-speech advocates argue that this case is simply a matter of deciding which sorts of expression merit First Amendment protection and which do not. Cake bakers may be a close call, but what about photographers? Florists? Caterers? Calligraphers? In fact, cases like these have already been brought around the country. If the justices rule for Mr. Phillips, they will be hard-pressed to find a clear limiting principle. And that would render public-accommodations laws like Colorado’s effectively meaningless.

This, of course, is precisely the objective of the rear-guard action undertaken by religious objectors who, thwarted in their efforts to prevent gay couples from enjoying the rights and benefits that flow from marriage, are now invoking their own constitutional rights to avoid treating those same couples equally in the marketplace

Text of the first amendment, emphasis added by me...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

How is this not the end of the argument? This was the basis for Obama's EEOC saying that Muslim truckers could not be forced to transport alcohol. It was the Supreme Court's basis for ruling against Obama who wanted to tell Christian business owners that they had to provide birth control and abortions.

The Christian baker is being discriminated against, because liberals don't happen to agree with the religious principle he wishes to act upon.

Why is the religious freedom argument weak, exactly?

Is it because he was willing to sell them a pre-made cake for use at a gay wedding, but not make another cake? That would seem to weaken his case I guess...I didn't know he was willing to give them an already made cake.

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). 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. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says. "We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

you've lost a lot on your fastball

Nope. As Obama's EEOC lawsuit on behalf of Muslim truck drivers said, we need to allow religious folks to maintain their convictions, where reasonable alternative accommodations are possible. Were there no other bakers?

When the Obama administration sued on behalf of the Muslim truck drivers, I'll bet you $5 that you weren't concerned that it would lead to human sacrifices. You only raise the red flag, when people you don't agree with, seek the same protections.

Try making that wrong.

I'm beginning to wonder if they are really gay. C'mon Teal and Red....talk about clashing. They should know better :hihi:

Sure. Because of liberal tolerance and respect and inclusion. Right?

No irony there, nope.

Trump has had that effect on a lot of liberals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/o...mendment.html\

As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s. In 1968, a few years after the Civil Rights Act passed, the court ruled unanimously against the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain who invoked his religious freedom to refuse to serve black people. The act “contravenes the will of God,” he claimed. The court called that argument “patently frivolous.”

That was the paragraph above the one I started quoting. He is argueing more on the freedom of speach than a religious one.

I think all of his wedding cakes where considered "custom" cakes. He would sell them cup cakes or pies - same as everyone else.

More like an eephus pitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s"

I don't see that law as "neutral", it forces someone to abandon their beliefs, and for no good reason, assuming there are other bakers nearby.

It's going to bean interesting decision.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niCiKpgeRYo

Some comic levity.

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

"The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. " https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/o...ding-cake.html

“We went in with a bunch of ideas,” said Mullins, 33. “But [Phillips] came in, asked who the cake was for and then he said he wouldn’t make a cake for us. We were shocked and mortified and got up and left.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...912-story.html

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

His religion would not want Mr. Phillips to deny gays, or anyone else, their right to eat. Sinners are to be fed as well as the faithful. Participating in their right to eat would not be prohibited by his religion, it might even be encouraged by it. But when the food is used to celebrate what is forbidden by his religion, he feels compelled not to participate in what is forbidden. That position applies to all of his customers regardless of their sexual orientation. Straights who want to buy any of his goods to celebrate some festivity that his religion condemns, presumably, would also be rejected.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

I would have to read the details of the ruling. One inherent difference is that one case apparently involves employees and the other involves a business owner.

I imagine the questions revolved around the burden placed on the business to use other drivers, but I am just guessing.

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?