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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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."

[DZ]

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.

[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.