U.S. judge rules it would be ‘tyranny’ to force Christian to bake cake for lesbian ‘marriage’

WCH said:

Christians have been the victims of tyranny since before they were called Christians. But, you're right Christians aren't deviants.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are plenty of Christians who have deviated from Jesus' message due to their hatred of their neighbors.

Tigerace117 said:

Actually, there are plenty of Christians who have deviated from Jesus' message due to their hatred of their neighbors.

Click to expand...

I can't disagree with that. At the same time, the blame cannot be place on a single party.

Grand Mal said:

I'm not telling anyone how to live. I'm just objecting to bullsh*t. It's not a religious objection- there's nothing in the Bible about lesbians. It's a moral judgement. If they want to refuse to serve someone on moral grounds, fine, just don't give us crap about religion, like God told them not to serve lesbians.
If I was the judge I'd rule against them just on that basis. Be honest about it and you might get what you want. Bring bullsh*t into a courtroom and you deserve to be shot down.

Click to expand...

the bible speaks out against homosexuality in general.
at this point you are trying to pigeon hole the argument.

sorry it doesn't work that way.

WCH said:

I see your point.

FWIW, Somali cabdrivers in MN refused to allow people with dogs or alcohol in the vehicles. Not sure if this went to court.
https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-2007-04-04-voa62/404177.html

Click to expand...

The airport threatened to pull their cab permits at the airport.
While the cab company must make reasonable accommodations
the cab drivers have no options.

This lady on the other hand owns her own company.
This is the very case before the SCOTUS right now.

I find it interesting that this judge ruled this way. He is the first to do so.
We will see what the SCOTUS says but i have a feeling it will be a 5-4 decision.

The baker from CO was arguing the same thing a 1st amendment free speech issue on their
right to not make a cake.

If the cake was already made then of course she must sell it to them, but just as you cannot force an artist
to paint a painting they might find offensive. The same applies here since the cake is not made.

ludin said:

The airport threatened to pull their cab permits at the airport.
While the cab company must make reasonable accommodations
the cab drivers have no options.

This lady on the other hand owns her own company.
This is the very case before the SCOTUS right now.

I find it interesting that this judge ruled this way. He is the first to do so.
We will see what the SCOTUS says but i have a feeling it will be a 5-4 decision.

The baker from CO was arguing the same thing a 1st amendment free speech issue on their
right to not make a cake.

If the cake was already made then of course she must sell it to them, but just as you cannot force an artist
to paint a painting they might find offensive. The same applies here since the cake is not made.

Click to expand...

I agree.

WCH said:

I can't disagree with that. At the same time, the blame cannot be place on a single party.

Click to expand...

When one party, supposedly Christians, are crying "tyranny" because they have to follow Jesus' message to love your neighbor as you would yourself, there is a serious problem.

code1211 said:

There was a bakery in the town in which I grew up that made cakes with what appeared to be stool of excrement on the top. Several poop shaped squirts of chocolate frosting.

They were called "S--- Cakes" . The writing on the cake was generally something like: "You got promoted? Well, big S---!"

There was another bakery that did not make or sell these cakes. Should the second bakery have been forced by the government to make these cakes even if they were offensive to the bakers working there?

Click to expand...

Not the same...to be the same.. the second bakery would also have to make the cakes.. but simply not for certain types of people.

The bakery makes WEDDING cakes.

They don;t find wedding cakes offensive... they find the people that wanted to buy one.. "offensive".

ludin said:

The airport threatened to pull their cab permits at the airport.
While the cab company must make reasonable accommodations
the cab drivers have no options.

This lady on the other hand owns her own company.
This is the very case before the SCOTUS right now.

I find it interesting that this judge ruled this way. He is the first to do so.
We will see what the SCOTUS says but i have a feeling it will be a 5-4 decision.

The baker from CO was arguing the same thing a 1st amendment free speech issue on their
right to not make a cake.

If the cake was already made then of course she must sell it to them, but just as you cannot force an artist
to paint a painting they might find offensive. The same applies here since the cake is not made.

Click to expand...

But they aren;t forcing an artist to make something offensive. The bakery makes wedding cakes.

the bakers have decided they find the PEOPLE buying the cake are offensive.


All said and done... its just a frigging cake. How in the world can anyone think that a bakery baking a cake for a lesbian couple in anyway violates their Christianity?

jaeger19 said:

But they aren;t forcing an artist to make something offensive. The bakery makes wedding cakes.

the bakers have decided they find the PEOPLE buying the cake are offensive.
All said and done... its just a frigging cake. How in the world can anyone think that a bakery baking a cake for a lesbian couple in anyway violates their Christianity?

Click to expand...

artists makes painting yet they still can choose what they paint and don't paint.
based on what they find offensive.

No they have found their wedding not be something they believe in.
Just as you can't get a painter to paint something that they wouldn't agree with.

You will find that most christians do not believe in gay marriage.
Forcing them to do something that would support or celebrate that marriage
could in fact run into constitutional issues if on anything free speech.

that is why a similar case is before the SCOTUS.

ludin said:

artists makes painting yet they still can choose what they paint and don't paint.
based on what they find offensive.

No they have found their wedding not be something they believe in.
Just as you can't get a painter to paint something that they wouldn't agree with.

You will find that most christians do not believe in gay marriage.
Forcing them to do something that would support or celebrate that marriage
could in fact run into constitutional issues if on anything free speech.

that is why a similar case is before the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

right.. and if they find nudes offensive.. they can choose not to do nudes.

BUT they cannot decide that they do nudes.. but just not for black people because they find them offensive.

That's the point.

they make wedding cakes. And thus they don;t find wedding cakes offensive.. they find the people they are making them for offensive.

Forcing them to do something that would support or celebrate that marriage

Click to expand...

What a crock. Baking a cake as a business is not "supporting or celebrating a marriage".

I hope a lawyer is smart enough to realize this and brings this up in the scotus case. I am pretty sure that the bakery cannot show that they went to the trouble to make sure that all the OTHER weddings they made cake for were up to Christian standards. I am very much sure that the bakery made cakes for people that were adulterers, atheists, Jewish ceremonies, maybe wiccan ceremonies, and all sorts of weddings that did not meet "Christian standards".

IF the bakery was so concerned about following Christian values in who they baked for.. then there should be evidence that they evaluated each and every couple that they made cakes for.. to decide whether they fit into the Christian values or not.

But I doubt they did...

Free speech does not allow you to be an a hole when it comes to public accommodations and business. Otherwise the bakery could put up a sign that says.. we don't serve Negroes.

jaeger19 said:

right.. and if they find nudes offensive.. they can choose not to do nudes.

BUT they cannot decide that they do nudes.. but just not for black people because they find them offensive.

That's the point.

they make wedding cakes. And thus they don;t find wedding cakes offensive.. they find the people they are making them for offensive.


What a crock. Baking a cake as a business is not "supporting or celebrating a marriage".

I hope a lawyer is smart enough to realize this and brings this up in the scotus case. I am pretty sure that the bakery cannot show that they went to the trouble to make sure that all the OTHER weddings they made cake for were up to Christian standards. I am very much sure that the bakery made cakes for people that were adulterers, atheists, Jewish ceremonies, maybe wiccan ceremonies, and all sorts of weddings that did not meet "Christian standards".

IF the bakery was so concerned about following Christian values in who they baked for.. then there should be evidence that they evaluated each and every couple that they made cakes for.. to decide whether they fit into the Christian values or not.

But I doubt they did...

Free speech does not allow you to be an a hole when it comes to public accommodations and business. Otherwise the bakery could put up a sign that says.. we don't serve Negroes.

Click to expand...

actually they can choose to do whatever nudes they want. this is not an all or nothing game that you make it out to be.
they don't have to find wedding cakes offensive you are confusing issues on purpose.

Baking a cake would be supporting that marriage or sending a message of approval.

Again we are talking about free speech and whether or not you can force someone to create something that doesn't exist.
so far the answer to that question is no you can't.

No the argument is that you can't force someone to lend their talents and or skills and force them to make something that they do not support.
this happens all the time for various reasons.

Not serving negros is against the law that is not what they are doing nor are they refusing to serve gay people.
they could have bought any cake in the store they wanted to.

The question is does a business owner have the right to artistic expression. the answer in this case is yes they do.
can someone force another person to create and artistic piece for something the artist might object too so far the answer is no.

WCH said:

BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs. Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation. Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

snip...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory

Click to expand...

There are no social morals for free on a for-profit basis in public accommodation.

Not for-profit, is the moral highground Merchants in Commerce should take, when asking for that, "special dispensation".

Ill say the same thing in this thread I said in the other


Its really simple, religious rights and freedoms do not allow me to break the law and or violate the rights of others. In the end sexual orientation will be nationally protected because equal rights based on sexual orientation, equal protection laws, anti discrimination laws and public accommodation laws dont violate the first amendment nor do they violate my personal rights in any way what so ever.

BS like this was tried with minorities and women in the past. It failed because falsely trying to use religion in that way is an illogical and retarded claim that held no merit and the same will happen again. its a total farce that is as transparent as glass. THis is why nobody can ever answer the question of "as a christian myself what religious rights and freedoms do I factually lose because of equal protection, anti discrimination and or public accommodation laws". The answer is NONE, a few claim otherwise but hilariously can never state and prove any.


Reading more about this and now I like his ruling even more. Besides the fact it will pushed up the chain and be overturned he made a specific comment I thought was important.

Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances, the Bakersfield Californian reported.

Click to expand...

so he is basically saying in his opinion this is only ok because he doesn't feel sexual orientation is included currently. And while theres no facts that make his views wrong (only misguided) eventually thats how this is going to turn out. gender and orientation will be protected under sex by precedent.

In the end Equality and rights will win just like they have been.

ludin said:

actually they can choose to do whatever nudes they want. this is not an all or nothing game that you make it out to be.
they don't have to find wedding cakes offensive you are confusing issues on purpose.

.

Click to expand...

No sir you are confusing the issue. It is all or nothing. either wedding cakes are not something they provide.. or they are.

if they provide them.. its not the cake that they are offended by.. its the PERSON ORDERING IT.

Baking a cake would be supporting that marriage or sending a message of approval.

Click to expand...

A business baking a cake? in no way would it be supporting that marriage or sending a message of approval. Or are you contending that the bakers interviewed each and every applicant for a wedding cake so that the bakers could determine whether the wedding was up to Christian standards. I hardly doubt that.

Again we are talking about free speech and whether or not you can force someone to create something that doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

No we are not.. we are talking about whether a BUSINESS can discriminate against its patrons based on religion, creed, race or sexual orientation under the guise of "freedom of speech"

Not serving negros is against the law that is not what they are doing nor are they refusing to serve gay people.
.

Click to expand...

Yes its against the law and that's the question here. .. and they are refusing to serve gay people when they refuse to make a wedding cake.

they could have bought any cake in the store they wanted to.

Click to expand...

As long its not a wedding cake.

The question is does a business owner have the right to artistic expression. the answer in this case is yes they do.

Click to expand...

Nice try.. its not a question of artistic expression. I would bet that the gay couple would be selecting from a book of cake examples that the business had already made. this had nothing to do with artistic expression.. and everything to do with discriminating against the gay couple.

Skeptic Bob said:

I don’t care about the religious angle. I just don’t think somebody should be forced to makes something they don’t want to make, be it for gays, straights, atheists, Christians, blacks, whites, or whomever.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you here. I've owned a small business before, and I certainly tried to never turn away customers. But, I didn't want anyone telling me who I had to business with. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they choose. While I don't agree with the baker's reasoning, I understand they should have the right. That said, these things have punitive effects. The bakery loses business when they turn paying customers away. Some people will choose to take their money elsewhere. The owners know this and they make a calculated decision when they refuse a customer. That's one of the ways the free market is intended to work, even if it is distasteful at times. I'm sure there is a percentage of the consumer populace in that area that labeled this bakery as "the assholes who won't bake cakes for lesbians bakery" and they tell all their friends not go there. And I'm sure it cost them some business. And maybe it also got them some business from other assholes who discriminate against gays. Works itself out, no need for litigation.

This is but one area I typically break ranks with my liberal brethren. Rather than force a business to do something, I punish them by going somewhere else.

Lerxst said:

I have to agree with you here. I've owned a small business before, and I certainly tried to never turn away customers. But, I didn't want anyone telling me who I had to business with. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they choose. While I don't agree with the baker's reasoning, I understand they should have the right. That said, these things have punitive effects. The bakery loses business when they turn paying customers away. Some people will choose to take their money elsewhere. The owners know this and they make a calculated decision when they refuse a customer. That's one of the ways the free market is intended to work, even if it is distasteful at times. I'm sure there is a percentage of the consumer populace in that area that labeled this bakery as "the assholes who won't bake cakes for lesbians bakery" and they tell all their friends not go there. And I'm sure it cost them some business. And maybe it also got them some business from other assholes who discriminate against gays. Works itself out, no need for litigation.

This is but one area I typically break ranks with my liberal brethren. Rather than force a business to do something, I punish them by going somewhere else.

Click to expand...

In reality there is no force though. Its a business one CHOOSES to participate in and a product they CHOOSE to sell. If theres people you dont want to do business with based on race, religions, gender etc you should simply choose not to have a public accommodation business. History and relaity also proves more times than not does NOT work itself out. More times than not people simply have their rights violated (those discriminated against) and the business goes on. In todays world it works a little better but the fact these places exist is all that is needed to show it doesn't work usually work out.

Ill never really understand allowing one to break the law or violate the rights of others and turning cheek since we dont do it in other cases. We dont do it for robbery, theft, rape, breech of contract etc so why would it be ok to do it in this case? Without these laws things would be much worse for women and minorities and non christian religions, no thanks.

AGENT J said:

In reality there is no force though. Its a business one CHOOSES to participate in and a product they CHOOSE to sell. If theres people you dont want to do business with based on race, religions, gender etc you should simply choose not to have a public accommodation business. History and relaity also proves more times than not does NOT work itself out. More times than not people simply have their rights violated (those discriminated against) and the business goes on. In todays world it works a little better but the fact these places exist is all that is needed to show it doesn't work usually work out.

Ill never really understand allowing one to break the law or violate the rights of others and turning cheek since we dont do it in other cases. We dont do it for robbery, theft, rape, breech of contract etc so why would it be ok to do it in this case? Without these laws things would be much worse for women and minorities and non christian religions, no thanks.

Click to expand...

But where does it say I have a right to go in and buy a cake?

To be clear...I find discrimination based upon gender, skin color, religion, or sexual orientation to be repugnant. I'm just not sure I agree with regulating morality when it comes to this.

Lerxst said:

1.)But where does it say I have a right to go in and buy a cake?
2.)To be clear...I find discrimination based upon gender, skin color, religion, or sexual orientation to be repugnant. I'm just not sure I agree with regulating morality when it comes to this.

Click to expand...

1.) where did I make that claim?
2.) has nothign to do with morality has to do with rights.

WCH said:

BAKERSFIELD, California, February 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – It would be a violation of free speech for a Christian baker to be forced to make a same-sex "wedding" cake, a California judge ruled on Monday.

Cathy Miller owns Tastries Bakery, where 40 percent of her business is wedding cakes, many of which she personally designs. Last August two lesbians asked her to design a special cake to celebrate their “marriage,” and Miller politely redirected them to an accommodating competitor.

Nevertheless, as is the well-established LGBT pattern, the lesbians sued Miller anyway. They filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing, accusing Miller of violating California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which criminalizes denying service based on sexual orientation. Oral arguments were heard Friday.

Judge Lampe said that to force a Christian to create a cake that celebrates something against their religion is "violence."

snip...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-stuff-of-tyranny-christian-baker-scores-major-victory

Click to expand...

All this over a cake and supposed religious beliefs.
Stupid is as Stupid does, just more games..................

Lerxst said:

I have to agree with you here. I've owned a small business before, and I certainly tried to never turn away customers. But, I didn't want anyone telling me who I had to business with. Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they choose. While I don't agree with the baker's reasoning, I understand they should have the right. That said, these things have punitive effects. The bakery loses business when they turn paying customers away. Some people will choose to take their money elsewhere. The owners know this and they make a calculated decision when they refuse a customer. That's one of the ways the free market is intended to work, even if it is distasteful at times. I'm sure there is a percentage of the consumer populace in that area that labeled this bakery as "the assholes who won't bake cakes for lesbians bakery" and they tell all their friends not go there. And I'm sure it cost them some business. And maybe it also got them some business from other assholes who discriminate against gays. Works itself out, no need for litigation.

This is but one area I typically break ranks with my liberal brethren. Rather than force a business to do something, I punish them by going somewhere else.

Click to expand...

how well did that work for black people in the south? If it were not for accommodation laws.. we would have even more defacto segregation.

Lerxst said:

But where does it say I have a right to go in and buy a cake?

To be clear...I find discrimination based upon gender, skin color, religion, or sexual orientation to be repugnant. I'm just not sure I agree with regulating morality when it comes to this.

Click to expand...

Where does it say you DON"T have that right?

All this talk of cake, makes me want a cake...

Casper said:

All this over a cake and supposed religious beliefs.
Stupid is as Stupid does, just more games..................

Click to expand...

Judicial activism? Did those bakers advertise as Christian Bakers? If not, were they operating on a for-profit basis or not-for-profit basis in public accommodation?

They have no case, if they were not advertising as Christian Bakers, and were operating on a for-profit basis, in public accommodation.

AGENT J said:

1.) where did I make that claim?
2.) has nothign to do with morality has to do with rights.

Click to expand...

1) I didn't mean to imply you made that case. I was asking what the basis was for making the statement it's someone's right to go in and buy a cake. Under current Federal Law, LGBT is not a protected class when it comes discrimination over the sell of goods and services. Some states do offer that protection, including California. But we see how that ruling went, so I suspect this will go the Supreme Court. 2) Bad choice of words on my part.

Essentially I was engaging in a discussion of the actual legality of what a business must do or what they have the option of not doing, without violating a law.

jaeger19 said:

how well did that work for black people in the south? If it were not for accommodation laws.. we would have even more defacto segregation.

Click to expand...

You make a very good point. What I was getting at is whether or not it is a person's right to go in and buy something. Federally, LGBT's are not considered a protected class when it comes the sale of goods and services. As I stated above, only in certain states does anti-discrimination law cover LGBT. Not saying it's right, just saying it is a fact. Do I think LGBT should be a fully protected class? Of course. But my personal opinion doesn't overrule the law of the land, even if I want it to.

jaeger19 said:

Where does it say you DON"T have that right?

Click to expand...

See above.

I do not, on any level, advocate for businesses discriminating against others based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. But I do advocate for business owners having a say in who they do business with. Legally speaking, LGBT protections are not complete when compared to other protected classes.

I hate when the Klan have a rally and openly spew hates speech, it makes me sick. But they have an actual right to do that, regardless of how awful they are as people. Let's not turn this into some kind of adversarial discussion. Quite possibly I'm not conveying point well enough.

Lerxst said:

1) I didn't mean to imply you made that case. I was asking what the basis was for making the statement it's someone's right to go in and buy a cake. Under current Federal Law, LGBT is not a protected class when it comes discrimination over the sell of goods and services. Some states do offer that protection, including California. But we see how that ruling went, so I suspect this will go the Supreme Court. 2) Bad choice of words on my part.

Essentially I was engaging in a discussion of the actual legality of what a business must do or what they have the option of not doing, without violating a law.



You make a very good point. What I was getting at is whether or not it is a person's right to go in and buy something. Federally, LGBT's are not considered a protected class when it comes the sale of goods and services. As I stated above, only in certain states does anti-discrimination law cover LGBT. Not saying it's right, just saying it is a fact. Do I think LGBT should be a fully protected class? Of course. But my personal opinion doesn't overrule the law of the land, even if I want it to.



See above.

I do not, on any level, advocate for businesses discriminating against others based on their race, sexual orientation, gender, etc. But I do advocate for business owners having a say in who they do business with. Legally speaking, LGBT protections are not complete when compared to other protected classes.

I hate when the Klan have a rally and openly spew hates speech, it makes me sick. But they have an actual right to do that, regardless of how awful they are as people. Let's not turn this into some kind of adversarial discussion. Quite possibly I'm not conveying point well enough.

Click to expand...

They have no case, if they were not advertising as Christian Bakers, and were operating on a for-profit basis, in public accommodation.

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

Click to expand...