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

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

.

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?”

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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."

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Correct, looks like they were just ahead of the Colorado change in law.

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.