Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case

Raddragn said:
Lie I said, it's mainly grandstanding. Baking a cake for someone isn't necessarily an endorsement of any of their beliefs
Click to expand...
Call it what you wish, but a complaint was filed with the state of Colorado's Civil Rights division. It had to be addressed, period.
 
What I have never understood about any of these lawsuits is if you go to a business and they can not or will not make a cake / website/ floral arrangements........... there are other bakeries/ florists / web designers etc. so many times the first thing is to file suit and label a person a hater instead of taking your business elsewhere.......... they all end up getting a cake or flowers etc from somewhere else.

My question would be is this worth the time / stress and money a lawsuit is? my guess is groups with an agenda pay to sue and try to cancel these businesses and people ......... how is that gaining acceptance expecting the courts to tell them they are haters and wrong....
if anything this backfires.
My son and his husband if anyone even seemed like maybe they were not on board for another place to do business.

Walk away and go to next place to plan your cake etc.
Why would you want to force someone to do it .. then if it is less then perfect / a bit dry / color not right shade on frosting you can complain again...
 
Raddragn said:
Lie I said, it's mainly grandstanding. Baking a cake for someone isn't necessarily an endorsement of any of their beliefs
Click to expand...
we've had several similar cases in the uk which ended up in court..including one where it was a B&B run by Christians who refused to allow a male couple who had booked and paid for their stay already..remain on the premises....the guys never got past the front door..that was a long drawn out case.. and of course several cake making places who refused to endorse or make any cake for other than straight couples..
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
Why must the xxxxx rights be the only rights considered ? What about the rights of the service provider / business owner?
Click to expand...
This was said with regard to race in opposition to civil rights in the 60s. The decision then, one that is almost universally accepted today was that business doing business with the public could not discriminate. Private clubs and the like are still free to discriminate, just not public ones.

It would work both ways, a gay baker could not refuse a heterosexual couple.
 
Alligatorob said:
This was said with regard to race in opposition to civil rights in the 60s. The decision then, one that is almost universally accepted today was that business doing business with the public could not discriminate. Private clubs and the like are still free to discriminate, just not public ones.

It would work both ways, a gay baker could not refuse a heterosexual couple.
Click to expand...
That is the funny thing about discrimination ..... unless you admit to it ... there is not proof only accusations. plenty of work around if people want to. seems like alot of hassle on both sides of these items....
Some go directly to the defense of religious issues....... even if in general they might not have wanted to work with the couple for other reasons.
 
Jeni said:
My son and his husband if anyone even seemed like maybe they were not on board for another place to do business.
Walk away and go to next place to plan your cake etc.
Click to expand...
Your son and his husband are wise and you did a great job raising him. I seriously can't imagine taking something to the SC if I tried to get a cake (or anything else) done and the owner told me they don't serve ladies over 50 with blonde hair and blue eyes. I'd go somewhere ELSE and never ever make a big deal out of it. I may write a negative review of the business online, but the Supreme Court?!
 
Last edited:
rgp said:
If a baker, photographer ..... whom ever, feels that by providing their service to a gay couple is promoting the gay lifestyle , [and they disagree with it]...and chooses not to participate .... it should be their choice not to.

Why must the queers rights be the only rights considered ? What about the rights of the service provider / business owner?
Click to expand...
Providing a service to the general public doesn’t include picking and choosing who you will do business with. That’s called discrimination.

Also calling them queers is a derogatory term.
 
Jeni said:
That is the funny thing about discrimination ..... unless you admit to it ... there is not proof only accusations. plenty of work around if people want to. seems like alot of hassle on both sides of these items....
Some go directly to the defense of religious issues....... even if in general they might not have wanted to work with the couple for other reasons.
Click to expand...
What other excuse ….( cough ) reason , … would the company give?
 
PeppermintPatty said:
What other excuse ….( cough ) reason , … would the company give?
Click to expand...
Ever see a sign as we have here in the US ....... businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone...
there are other reasons any customer who has unrealistic expectations or demands ...... plenty of bridezillas types. people who call and make "changes" several times etc.....who want to pay lets make a deal with negotiated price etc.
There are nightmare customers in every business ............
but NOW if a place say sorry we cannot accommodate this request they are instantly labeled. that is to me .......extortion "do what i want or we will shame you or sue you telling everyone you are homophobic"
how is that all cool to do?
 
Raddragn said:
That's one of my biggest problems with ALL religions. Almost all seem to feel an urge to try and force others to live by their beliefs. I don't give a darn who sleeps with who. It's none of my business (or anyone else's).
Click to expand...
I don't think the theoretic cake shop owner is trying to force the couple to live by his beliefs. He just doesn't want to be forced to help celebrate the gay couple's beliefs when he believes their lifestyle is an "abomination."

Someone up thread said Jesus used to "frequent" prostitutes and thieves. I don't know about the frequent part. He talked to everyone, stoned no one, and forgave anyone who asked even while he was hanging on the cross. But those ones who became his disciples and followed him gave up those practices. He would tell them they were forgiven, then tell them to "go and sin no more."

I once had a family doctor who was Catholic. He refused to prescribe birth control pills to any of his young women patients. So I went to someone else for my pill prescription, but still went to him for everything else. I never felt he was trying to force his beliefs on me. I respected him for sticking to his principles even though it meant a loss of some patients.
fuzzybuddy said:
It's my religious belief not to pay taxes. It's against my religious belief to stop at stop signs. It's my religious belief to rob nonbelievers. It's my religious belief to kill infidels. It's my religious belief to own slaves. It's my religious belief to have sex with children. It's my religious belief to take up arms against my country. It's against my religious beliefs to obey any national laws. It's my religious belief to set fires. It's my religious belief.....................
And how would the Supreme Court rule if a gay black person was refused at the bakery?
Click to expand...
Your religious beliefs don't get to override the constitutional rights or the personal safety of others. The cake baker isn't hurting or endangering anyone.

We are capitalists! If we don't like what a business owner is doing we punish him with our wallets and take our business elsewhere! We can't legislate love.
 
Alligatorob said:
Yep, lots of them. When I was a kid that was the polite way of saying no black people served here. Don't recall seeing one lately.
Click to expand...
I still see them traveled a bit and saw in a few states .....
while it could be used as you describe..................... many in my area use it as ways to kick out people whom are on drugs/ creating a diversion for theft ..... and generalized other bad customers.
 
ohioboy said:
Call it what you wish, but a complaint was filed with the state of Colorado's Civil Rights division. It had to be addressed, period.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily! It depends on where the court is and the political and religious composition of the court. Courts can and do refuse cases. Then there are others eager to take on such cases to rule for or against the issue. Very few are bias free.
 
Raddragn said:
Not necessarily! It depends on where the court is and the political and religious composition of the court. Courts can and do refuse cases. Then there are others eager to take on such cases to rule for or against the issue. Very few are bias free.
Click to expand...
The original venue court must accept the case, the disposition of it is another matter. The SC of course, as we all know, has discretionary authority, except in Original Jurisdiction cases.
 
Jeni said:
I still see them traveled a bit and saw in a few states .....
while it could be used as you describe..................... many in my area use it as ways to kick out people whom are on drugs/ creating a diversion for theft ..... and generalized other bad customers.
Click to expand...
Right. PA laws are not abrogated due to such signage, regardless if that is the "hidden message".
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top