- Joined
- Sep 9, 2011
- Messages
- 13,745
- Reaction score
- 8,546
- Location
- North 38°28′ West 121°26′
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]
It seems that this almost, but not quite, makes a point I was trying to think of how to make.
If a wedding cake were just a generic sort of cake, that you could walk into a bakery, grab one off the shelf, pay for it, and walk out with it, then there'd be no issue. There'd be no reason for the baker to ask, or for the customer to tell, any details about the wedding in which that cake was going to be used.
But wedding cakes are usually an individual, customized item. Traditionally, there are figured of a bride and a groom on top, and the names of the bride and groom somehow worked into the decorations. The cake is specific to the wedding in which it is to be used.
Now, if a customer walks into a bakery,and he wants the baker to make a “wedding cake”, but instead of a bride and groom on the top, he wants two grooms; and the names to be put on the came are “Jonathon” and “George”, then it obvious that the cake is not intended for an actual wedding, but for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding. There is good reason why most people would find it immoral to have any part in such a sick mockery, and it is certainly both immoral and unconstitutional to use the power of government to force or coerce someone into doing so.
I would argue that the bakers refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the customer but, rather, on the purpose to which they were going to put the cake. The customer didn't ask for just any cake. They wanted a cake to commemorate a wedding. It's perfectly reasonable that a heterosexual individual requesting such a cake would also be refused that service under some circumstances. The objection was not, as far as I can tell, based on the sexual orientation of the customer.·I don't see anywhere in that statute where a "public accommodation" can't refuse goods or services based on what they will be used for. Now, if a homosexual walked into the bakery and said "I am getting married to an opposite sex partner and want a cake" and that request was refused simply on the basis that the individual was a homosexual that would be a different story.
·
·
It seems that this almost, but not quite, makes a point I was trying to think of how to make.
If a wedding cake were just a generic sort of cake, that you could walk into a bakery, grab one off the shelf, pay for it, and walk out with it, then there'd be no issue. There'd be no reason for the baker to ask, or for the customer to tell, any details about the wedding in which that cake was going to be used.
But wedding cakes are usually an individual, customized item. Traditionally, there are figured of a bride and a groom on top, and the names of the bride and groom somehow worked into the decorations. The cake is specific to the wedding in which it is to be used.
Now, if a customer walks into a bakery,and he wants the baker to make a “wedding cake”, but instead of a bride and groom on the top, he wants two grooms; and the names to be put on the came are “Jonathon” and “George”, then it obvious that the cake is not intended for an actual wedding, but for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding. There is good reason why most people would find it immoral to have any part in such a sick mockery, and it is certainly both immoral and unconstitutional to use the power of government to force or coerce someone into doing so.