A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees.

The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the Muslim trucker case, Obama’s EEOC argued that employees at work can not be forced to act in any way that goes against their religion. The Christian baker is being asked to do the same exact thing, to abandon a specific tenet of his faith because he is at work.

Neither you nor I agree with the bakers pisition on gay marriage. That doesn’t mean that the first amendment doesn’t apply to him. That’s the beauty of the constitution, it doesn’t only apply when one side or the other agrees.

Like it or not, freedom of speech means that the an artist can hang a painting of Christ covered in manure. Like it or not, freedom of the press means that Rachael Maddow can go on the air and say things I despise. Like it or not, freedom of assembly means that the klan can hold a peaceful rally. And like it or not, freedom of religion means that people cannot be forced to act against their religion, even when they happen to be at work.

It’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you agree with the underlying principle. The test, is whether or not you support it when you don’t like the right being sought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the baker was informed that the cake was for a gay wedding, that was tantamount to asking the baker to participate in a wedding that was against his religion--regardless of what the cake looked like. Just asking for a wedding cake does not create a context that trespasses religious beliefs unless the religion bans weddings. That is why the gays specified what the cake was for. To create that context so that the baker could be sued if, as they expected, he refused.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When the baker was informed that the cake was for a gay wedding, that was tantamount to asking the baker to participate in a wedding that was against his religion--regardless of what the cake looked like. Just asking for a wedding cake does not create a context that trespasses religious beliefs unless the religion bans weddings. That is why the gays specified what the cake was for. To create that context so that the baker could be sued if, as they expected, he refused.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

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