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

Lerxst said:

1)

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.
.

Click to expand...

I understand. I was going to the point of how well.. "the free market".. works when it comes to discrimination. It doesn't work well.

danielpalos said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, I think the judge feels differently. The ruling was that the plaintiffs could buy anything the bakery currently for sale, however they couldn't force the bakery to make a custom cake that they objected to on religious grounds. 1st Amendment protections. I'll be surprised if the ruling isn't appealed.

Lerxst said:

Well, I think the judge feels differently. The ruling was that the plaintiffs could buy anything the bakery currently for sale, however they couldn't force the bakery to make a custom cake that they objected to on religious grounds. 1st Amendment protections. I'll be surprised if the ruling isn't appealed.

Click to expand...

A lot would depend on the definition of "custom" cake.

A "wedding cake".. would hard to define as a "custom cake".. particularly if they are picking from a book of wedding cake examples.

now.. if the plaintiffs wanted a cake with the two of them pictured grinding on the cake...that could be grounds for a custom cake that they could object to.

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.

3.)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.

Click to expand...

1.) no harm no foul!
There is no right to buy a cake its about discrimination. You are correct currently on a national level sexual orientation is not protected but I was adressing your statment of force and you saying:

" Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they choose. "

Did you mean whoever as in "IF" they are not currently nationally protected by civil rights?

2.) no problem again
3.) Yes but in this case it is illegal. While not nationally the dishonest excuse of religion has never been a legal reason to break the law.

I mean i WISH you were right, I wish(ESPECIALLY IN 2018) these things WOULD work themselves out but they simply dont in the majority of cases and we would be a much worse country without these laws and protections for all of us.

jaeger19 said:

A lot would depend on the definition of "custom" cake.

A "wedding cake".. would hard to define as a "custom cake".. particularly if they are picking from a book of wedding cake examples.

now.. if the plaintiffs wanted a cake with the two of them pictured grinding on the cake...that could be grounds for a custom cake that they could object to.

Click to expand...

Lol I literally had a paragraph about "what if they came in and one girlfriend wanted cake that looked the other girlfriend's vagina" and kind of got into the weeds about "where do we draw the line." But I deleted it because I could already tell it was going to get very convoluted.

AGENT J said:

1.) no harm no foul!
There is no right to buy a cake its about discrimination. You are correct currently on a national level sexual orientation is not protected but I was adressing your statment of force and you saying:

" Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they choose. "

Click to expand...

I think they should certainly be allowed to refuse business to anyone, so long as it is not done for reasons of discrimination as prescribed by law. I think that is fair way to get to where I am going. If the customer is too pushy, wants me to create something genuinely offensive or dishonest, they act like jerks, etc. Reason that have nothing to do with the type of discrimination we are discussing here.

Did you mean whoever as in "IF" they are not currently nationally protected by civil rights?

Click to expand...

That's where I was going. There are valid instances where a business owner is very justified in refusing to serve someone. Discrimination as a matter of law, is not one of them.

2.) no problem again
3.) Yes but in this case it is illegal. While not nationally the dishonest excuse of religion has never been a legal reason to break the law.

Click to expand...

Agree with you but I will say that I don't think the religious excuse is dishonest, I think it is abhorrent. If someone allows their religious beliefs to dictate how they treat others, fine, makes it easy to identify them and call them out. There are plenty of racists and homophobes who cite their religious beliefs as the reason the self-segregate. When they say God demands it, I say fine..."you're still a bigoted asshole, and your religion sucks as bad as you do."

I mean i WISH you were right, I wish(ESPECIALLY IN 2018) these things WOULD work themselves out but they simply dont in the majority of cases and we would be a much worse country without these laws and protections for all of us.

Click to expand...

What I was getting at was that if a businesses operates in a manner that offends some of their customers, it has repercussions. Such as lost business revenue from people refusing to patronize their business as a result of their reputation, bad reviews on social media, etc. I penalize bad businesses with closing up my wallet and giving them a bad rating on social media outlets, and they hate it.

The law will not change the way this people think or feel (and I'm not suggesting the law be changed), they will continue to refuse service to those they are bigoted against, they just won't make a spectacle of it. They'll cite some other reason (customer was rude, we had too many other things going on to make the cake they wanted and they weren't interested in what we had available, etc.).

I fully appreciate what purpose the law serves. I think one of my faults (if you can call it that) as a straight, white man I can easily find myself discussing the subject of civil rights and end up in trick bag without intending to go there. Being entirely honest, I cannot fully understand what it is like to be discriminated against the way minorities do. Which is why I occasionally end up having to clarify a lot of things. I was involved in the "Jeff Sessions/Anglo-American heritage" discussion in another thread and we were discussing whether or not it was actually important to cling to the "Anglo" part of the Anglo-American legal tradition. You would have thought I was proposing we piss on the flag.

Lerxst said:

Well, I think the judge feels differently. The ruling was that the plaintiffs could buy anything the bakery currently for sale, however they couldn't force the bakery to make a custom cake that they objected to on religious grounds. 1st Amendment protections. I'll be surprised if the ruling isn't appealed.

Click to expand...

Me too; it is clearly judicial forms of activism.

Part 1

Lerxst said:

1.)I think they should certainly be allowed to refuse business to anyone, so long as it is not done for reasons of discrimination as prescribed by law. I think that is fair way to get to where I am going.
2.) If the customer is too pushy, wants me to create something genuinely offensive or dishonest, they act like jerks, etc. Reason that have nothing to do with the type of discrimination we are discussing here.
3.)That's where I was going. There are valid instances where a business owner is very justified in refusing to serve someone. Discrimination as a matter of law, is not one of them.
4.)Agree with you but I will say that I don't think the religious excuse is dishonest, I think it is abhorrent. If someone allows their religious beliefs to dictate how they treat others, fine, makes it easy to identify them and call them out. There are plenty of racists and homophobes who cite their religious beliefs as the reason the self-segregate. When they say God demands it, I say fine..."you're still a bigoted asshole, and your religion sucks as bad as you do." .

Click to expand...

1.) agreed and thats how it is
2.) also agree there and that too is how it is and how it should be
3.) absolutely!
4.) its completely dishonest in my opinion. Im christian and selling a cake is NOT participating in a wedding. Its a complete fallacy. Not to mention, does this lady sell cakes to other religions? People who are on there 2nd+ marriage?, nonreligious weddings as long as its still man and woman? Im guessing she does. Im sure she doesn't ask every customer their religion and number of marriages so not only is she bigoted but id be willing to guess she is a huge hypocrite. Does she also make sure Valentine days products are not for adulterer? Its completely nonsensical in my opinion. The vast majority of the country is christian, so it stands to reason the majority of bakery owners are also, its weird only a vast minority act like this bigoted lady. Nobody in my church or any church ive been to supports this crap. If she can accept the law for every other case she can accept the law for this case also. Or she cannot be an idiot and CHOOSE not to open a public accommodation business or CHOOSE not to make wedding cakes. Its VERY simple solution that she CHOOSES to avoid and blame others for her bigotry.

Oh yeah, and I agree with the rest of what you said lol

PART 2

Lerxst said:

5.)What I was getting at was that if a businesses operates in a manner that offends some of their customers, it has repercussions. Such as lost business revenue from people refusing to patronize their business as a result of their reputation, bad reviews on social media, etc. I penalize bad businesses with closing up my wallet and giving them a bad rating on social media outlets, and they hate it.
6.)The law will not change the way this people think or feel (and I'm not suggesting the law be changed)
7.) they will continue to refuse service to those they are bigoted against, they just won't make a spectacle of it. They'll cite some other reason (customer was rude, we had too many other things going on to make the cake they wanted and they weren't interested in what we had available, etc.).

8.)I fully appreciate what purpose the law serves. I think one of my faults (if you can call it that) as a straight, white man I can easily find myself discussing the subject of civil rights and end up in trick bag without intending to go there. Being entirely honest, I cannot fully understand what it is like to be discriminated against the way minorities do. Which is why I occasionally end up having to clarify a lot of things. I was involved in the "Jeff Sessions/Anglo-American heritage" discussion in another thread and we were discussing whether or not it was actually important to cling to the "Anglo" part of the Anglo-American legal tradition. You would have thought I was proposing we piss on the flag.

Click to expand...

5 that will happen but its not enough and doesn always matter in many areas
6.) Correct the law cant change feelings or beliefs and nor should it. people are totally free to have what feelings and belief they like
7.) but they actually wont and cant if its against they law and they get caught. Yes of course they can always do it in a legal way but they will have to be very careful. And if they do it legally then no harm no foul really. If EVERY black person is rude, or EVERY women is an idiot and not worth hiring/promoting, or EVERY gay cake is offensive then they will still have explaining to do.

But you are right and to me thats what makes these bigots even more sick. They arent educated enough or are so ignorant and proud of their bigotry they want it on display. They could have avoid their fines etc if they simply came up with a rational reason.


8.) thats NOT a fault, and the reason why its not a fault is because you just proved you have the ability to recognize that. You FULLY understand that walking a mile in your shoes is NOT walking a mile in a gay person's, women'd or minoritie's shoes and that your perception may not be the most accurate or reality based.

That my friend is called, integrity and rational. its being objective and trying your best to be farsighted. Its what the world needs much more of. We dont all have to see things the same way, some of the best conversations i have had here over the years are with those that have different opinions, but we all have to realize that our own little bubble is not factually representative of all.:thumbs:

The point is, the right wing is all talk and no action. Those bakers have the option of advertising their Religious beliefs and operating on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis in public accommodation, if they want to better ensure their privileges and immunities.

danielpalos said:

Me too; it is clearly judicial forms of activism.

Click to expand...

You certainly have to be suspicious when a judge makes remarks that don't make sense. By characterizing compliance with the law as "violence" against bakery owner's religious beliefs I think it went from a legal determination of compliance or non-compliance with the law to some kind of personal position the judge was taking. It just seemed very over the top.

Lerxst said:

You certainly have to be suspicious when a judge makes remarks that don't make sense. By characterizing compliance with the law as "violence" against bakery owner's religious I think it went from legal determination of compliance or non-compliance with the law to some kind of personal position the judge was taking. It just seemed very over the top.

Click to expand...

It would be, if they had clearly advertised as Christian Bakers employing Christian morals, and operate on a not-for-profit basis, to prove it for free under Any form of Capitalism.

AGENT J said:

PART 2




5 that will happen but its not enough and doesn always matter in many areas
6.) Correct the law cant change feelings or beliefs and nor should it. people are totally free to have what feelings and belief they like
7.) but they actually wont and cant if its against they law and they get caught. Yes of course they can always do it in a legal way but they will have to be very careful. And if they do it legally then no harm no foul really. If EVERY black person is rude, or EVERY women is an idiot and not worth hiring/promoting, or EVERY gay cake is offensive then they will still have explaining to do.

But you are right and to me thats what makes these bigots even more sick. They arent educated enough or are so ignorant and proud of their bigotry they want it on display. They could have avoid their fines etc if they simply came up with a rational reason.


8.) thats NOT a fault, and the reason why its not a fault is because you just proved you have the ability to recognize that. You FULLY understand that walking a mile in your shoes is NOT walking a mile in a gay person's, women'd or minoritie's shoes and that your perception may not be the most accurate or reality based.

That my friend is called, integrity and rational. its being objective and trying your best to be farsighted. Its what the world needs much more of. We dont all have to see things the same way, some of the best conversations i have had here over the years are with those that have different opinions, but we all have to realize that our own little bubble is not factually representative of all.:thumbs:

Click to expand...

I agree with you on all of this and thank you for the kind words. It's good when people can engage in civil, intelligent debate on a very polarizing subject and find common ground. As much as I like argue with certain posters on this board, I really would like to see this kind of discussion occur on other topics.

danielpalos said:

It would be, if they had clearly advertised as Christian Bakers employing Christian morals, and operate on a not-for-profit basis, to prove it for free under Any form of Capitalism.

Click to expand...

You've made a very good point with your comments on how there is a legal way for them to invoke their religion and avoid serving certain protected classes of people. The obvious drawback being they must operate as a non-profit. I truthfully was unaware a company could use a 501(c)(3) status to skirt accommodation laws.

The difference between a "Christian operated bakery" and a bakery "owned by Christians." I can't say that I like that provision in the law, but at least there does seem to be a punitive effect of some kind for the ugliness.

Lerxst said:

I agree with you on all of this and thank you for the kind words. It's good when people can engage in civil, intelligent debate on a very polarizing subject and find common ground. As much as I like argue with certain posters on this board, I really would like to see this kind of discussion occur on other topics.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.
and I appracite the same type of conversation.



Anytime an exchange is honest, facts and opinions are identified and not blurred this is the type of exchange youll always have with me. Now for those posters that lie or troll or deem their feelings facts, well . . . not so much I will simply stay the course identify what is just an opinion, what is a lie, what is a mistake and what facts are. Posters that are not honest and civil seem to hate that

Lerxst said:

You've made a very good point with your comments on how there is a legal way for them to invoke their religion and avoid serving certain protected classes of people. The obvious drawback being they must operate as a non-profit. I truthfully was unaware a company could use a 501(c)(3) status to skirt accommodation laws.

The difference between a "Christian operated bakery" and a bakery "owned by Christians." I can't say that I like that provision in the law, but at least there does seem to be a punitive effect of some kind for the ugliness.

Click to expand...

Public accommodation is for everyone.

Why didn't those bakers proclaim, "we will be saying our prayers for you while we bake your cake"?

danielpalos said:

Public accommodation is for everyone.

Why didn't those bakers proclaim, "we will be saying our prayers for you while we bake your cake"?

Click to expand...

That really would be preferable. I know a number of Christians who would have never turned them away. I mean seriously, gluttony is called out in the bible. How man overweight brides and groom have they said no to? Or overweight customers period? I know i"m getting very critical now, but considering Agent J's remark about it being dishonest to hid behind your religion, I would have to say there is undoubtedly a huge level of hypocrisy going on. I mean sin is sin, or so we are told.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Just makes me dislike these people even more.

Grand Mal said:

Yeah, I get that. But how can the law be applied consistently if Joe's religion, or his interpretation of it, allows him to do something but Joan's interpretation of the same religion says she can't do the same thing? Doesn't the law need to be the same for everyone?
See, my beef is with the judge making his ruling based on the religion of the baker. The baker objected on religious grounds.So now, with that precedent, everyone is free to treat anyone else however they want if they can justify it based on the scripture of their religion. Is that gonna work when a Muslim taxi driver refuses to drive an unescorted woman somewhere?

Click to expand...

Judging by the news today, I wouldn't do anything alone with any unescorted woman for any reason at any time. If the lady is present and alone, the door is open.

That aside, though, if the unescorted woman was demanding that the driver deliver her to her destination in a Ford and he happened to be driving a Chevy, that is more parallel to the baker example.

Perhaps he does business in San Francisco and she wants a ride to New York. If he routinely goes there, fine. If not, it seems alright that he refuse the fare and direct her to an Airport.

Can we expect the driver to produce something that he cannot provide to satisfy the request of someone who makes the irrational demand?

molten_dragon said:

Calling a rose a rose is not judgmentally condemning Christians. Bigoted actions don't magically become not bigoted because they're performed by a religious person.

Click to expand...

Don't you just hate it when people edit your posts to change the entire meaning and then present them as if they have not been edited?

jaeger19 said:

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".

Click to expand...

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between the types of cakes in the two examples.

Apparently the judge in the case thought the product was different. Do you have a link that shows that the requested cake was exactly the same cake as the ones they routinely made?

code1211 said:

I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between the types of cakes in the two examples.

Apparently the judge in the case thought the product was different. Do you have a link that shows that the requested cake was exactly the same cake as the ones they routinely made?

Click to expand...

So look at the cake you put in the picture? Does that cake differ artistically from any other typical wedding cake that would be produced?

So.. if the bakers would have been making a cake that artistically did not deviate from prior cakes... then the issue is not artistic expression...But the difference would be WHO they were making the cake for.

Which is discrimination.

And I have found no evidence that the product WAS substantially different. Which would indicate that the requested cake was artistically similar to the cakes that they routinely made for heterosexual couples.

jaeger19 said:

So look at the cake you put in the picture? Does that cake differ artistically from any other typical wedding cake that would be produced?

So.. if the bakers would have been making a cake that artistically did not deviate from prior cakes... then the issue is not artistic expression...But the difference would be WHO they were making the cake for.

Which is discrimination.

And I have found no evidence that the product WAS substantially different. Which would indicate that the requested cake was artistically similar to the cakes that they routinely made for heterosexual couples.

Click to expand...

How did the baker know that the cake was not for a heterosexual couple?

Did you see any tell tale signs on the pictured cake indicating it was for a heterosexual couple?

I plan to be getting married next Spring. I hope to be married by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church. Might not work out as I may not be acceptable under the rules of the Church.

If I'm not acceptable to the Catholic Church, that will guide me to find a different church in which to get married and practice my faith. It won't change me. It will change the church through which I donate my time and money.

It's not a big deal.

The only difference is that the Catholic Church will probably refrain from suggesting an alternate source to satisfy my needs as this baker is said to have done for the Lesbian couple.

code1211 said:

How did the baker know that the cake was not for a heterosexual couple?

Did you see any tell tale signs on the pictured cake indicating it was for a heterosexual couple?

I plan to be getting married next Spring. I hope to be married by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church. Might not work out as I may not be acceptable under the rules of the Church.

If I'm not acceptable to the Catholic Church, that will guide me to find a different church in which to get married and practice my faith. It won't change me. It will change the church through which I donate my time and money.

It's not a big deal.

The only difference is that the Catholic Church will probably refrain from suggesting an alternate source to satisfy my needs as this baker is said to have done for the Lesbian couple.

Click to expand...

Probably because the customers came in together and said they wanted a cake made..

Did you see any tell tale signs on the pictured cake indicating it was for a heterosexual couple

Click to expand...

The cake itself.. no.

On the cake someone placed a plastic man and a woman. So you could make the cake and simply sorry.. but you will have to place a woman and woman, because we don't carry those plastic pieces.

no big deal.

I plan to be getting married next Spring. I hope to be married by a Catholic Priest in a Catholic Church. Might not work out as I may not be acceptable under the rules of the Church.

If I'm not acceptable to the Catholic Church, that will guide me to find a different church in which to get married and practice my faith. It won't change me. It will change the church through which I donate my time and money.

Click to expand...

sure.. so? the church is not a business entity... it isn;t under the guidelines of public accommodation.

jaeger19 said:

Probably because the customers came in together and said they wanted a cake made..



The cake itself.. no.

On the cake someone placed a plastic man and a woman. So you could make the cake and simply sorry.. but you will have to place a woman and woman, because we don't carry those plastic pieces.

no big deal.



sure.. so? the church is not a business entity... it isn;t under the guidelines of public accommodation.

Click to expand...

So? So I will move forward.

I am not familiar with the conversation held by the customer and the baker. Was the couple asking for a different kind of cake?

Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis always face a "conflict of interest", when claiming morals and not establishing their business as, not-for-the-profit-of-lucre-but-social-morals-for-free.