The wedding cake issue again

Status
Not open for further replies.
rgp said:
Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...

Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?

I'll find another place.
Click to expand...

Actually, just that simple and easy!
 

Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?

rgp said:
Jumping in here ?.....If it is a totally private, out-of-pocket- run business? Yes...

Like I said earlier...if I walk in and he [restaurateur] says sorry, we don't serve old fat guys in green shirts?...Fine !...why in the world would I WANT to EAT there & spend my MONEY there ?

I'll find another place.
Click to expand...

ClassicRockr said:
Who the owner turns away should be completely up to the owner, no matter race, gender, whatever.

If you owned a business, would you want others telling you how you can/can not run it?

Rules and policies are set up by the owner of the business.

Why own a business if the owner can’t run it the way they want to?
Click to expand...

ClassicRockr said:
Actually, just that simple and easy!
Click to expand...

Oh my. I would have thought you'd at least be embarrassed to admit it. Wow, guys. Shades of Archie Bunker.
 
Camper6 said:
What about no shoes, no shirt, no service?
Am I forced to watch a guys hairy armpits while I eat?
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 

StarSong said:
Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?







Oh my. I would have thought you'd at least be embarrassed to admit it. Wow, guys. Shades of Archie Bunker.
Click to expand...

Not really. We simply don't see things the way you do. Nothing wrong with that. Not embarrassed to state how we feel. Why should we be? There are those that don't like numerous things and state that they don't.
 
Why would anyone be concerned about the gay couple's rights and not the baker's? Does he not have any rights?? I'm happy that the SC made the correct judgement.
 
StarSong said:
Not trying to start anything here, but hoping for clarification. Are you suggesting that it should be ok for a restaurant owner to turn away African-Americans or gays from his establishment?
Click to expand...

Under our current federal laws, African Americans are a protected class. As far as I know, sexual orientation is not considered to be a federally protected class.

Here is a list of federally protected classes as I understand them.


  • Age
  • Race
  • National origin
  • Religious beliefs
  • Gender
  • Disability
  • Pregnancy
  • Veteran status


It gets messy trying to navigate this list. Maybe someday a list will not be necessary, we can just say that all human beings or people are protected from discrimination.
 
I'll bet the couple knew they would lose but accomplished gaining attention for their community's cause. We're still debating it after all.

If they actually wanted a cake they would have gone elsewhere.
 
Anyone who believes this SCOTUS decision gives bakers or anyone else the right to discriminate against gay people or anyone else should really read the decision to see what the court DOES say. It only rules on the very narrow question of the Civil Rights Commission's actions at the lower level, and in no way decides the question of whether a baker can refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. Nobody but this particular baker gains anything under this ruling and it is unlikely that it can be used as precedent in any litigation about anything except maybe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It particularly does not give bakers the right not to serve gay people and it says precisely that in its text.
 
hearlady said:
I'll bet the couple knew they would lose but accomplished gaining attention for their community's cause. We're still debating it after all.

If they actually wanted a cake they would have gone elsewhere.
Click to expand...

More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions. One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand. Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.

All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.
 
StarSong said:
More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions. One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand. Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.

All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.
Click to expand...
Great point. It’s the movers and shakers that change the world.
 
Butterfly said:
Anyone who believes this SCOTUS decision gives bakers or anyone else the right to discriminate against gay people or anyone else should really read the decision to see what the court DOES say. It only rules on the very narrow question of the Civil Rights Commission's actions at the lower level, and in no way decides the question of whether a baker can refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. Nobody but this particular baker gains anything under this ruling and it is unlikely that it can be used as precedent in any litigation about anything except maybe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It particularly does not give bakers the right not to serve gay people and it says precisely that in its text.
Click to expand...

Except the Colorado Civil Rights Commission? Isn't that the case in a nutshell?
 
I think what makes this case so difficult is the nature of the guy's business. If he was, say, just a regular bakery selling bread, rolls, ordinary cakes and pies, it might make sense to declare that he has to sell his items
to everyone. He cannot say, "No, you are black so I won't sell you anything." I'm pretty sure that's a civil rights violation.

But this guy considers himself an artist. His cakes are special creations, I imagine expressing the couple's love for each other, and each cake requires a certain amount of emotional commitment on the part of the artist
as well. He's not just baking an ordinary cake and slapping some chocolate icing on it. And because the cakes are works of art, he is probably within his rights to pick and choose those clients whom he wishes to honor
with an artistic creation.

That's what makes this case so hard to decide.
 
That's a good point, Sunny.

This isn't about discrimination. This is about Biblical Scripture and Constitutional rights. To the baker, it's about Obeying God's Will. To The Constitution, it's about "not interfering with a person's practice of their religion".

Personally, I have no problem with gays choosing marriage. If that's what they want to do then that's their choice and the judgment is for God to make (which he has made in scripture). I leave that up to God.

I don't judge but I do know that God is against it according to scripture. Would I participate in the marriage by baking them a cake? No, because the Constitution says it "prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion" and I would not feel comfortable participating in something God would not be pleased about.

Here's what The Bible says about who the participants should be in a marriage: https://www.gotquestions.org/gay-marriage.html

Here's what The Constitution says about Freedom of Religion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment
 
StarSong said:
More than 60 years ago Rosa Parks refused to move to the back of the bus. She was arrested and fined for not complying with the bus driver's instructions. One could argue that if she wanted to get to her destination she could have simply changed her seat as per the driver's demand. Maybe she knew she'd lose her case but wanted to draw attention to something she believed to be an injustice.

All too often it appears we're still debating that one, too.
Click to expand...


IMO that one was entirely different. She was on a city bus...a civil service provided by tax dollars & a fare. As such she had every right to not only ride the bus, but sit where she damn well pleased [again IMO] She was bossed around, but stood her ground...I don't blame her.
 
Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this. And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue.

Lara, with all due respect for your religious beliefs, and your ability to speak for God, all that is irrelevant to this case. We are not a theocracy, and what's involved here is whether or not there was a violation of civil rights.

rgo, that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation. Hypothetical example: If an emergency room doctor refuses to treat a patient because the patient is gay, or the wrong color, wrong religion, etc., is that a Constitutional violation, or just a violation of medical ethics? What if he was not working in a public hospital but conducting a private medical practice? Does that change the rules?

One way to consider this case is to reverse the positions of the litigants. What if a Bible-thumping fundamentalist wanted to order a cake from a gay baker who did artistic creations, and the baker refused on religious grounds? Who would be right in that case?
 
Sunny said:
What if a Bible-thumping fundamentalist wanted to order a cake from a gay baker who did artistic creations, and the baker refused on religious grounds? Who would be right in that case?
Click to expand...
First of all, "Bible-thumping fundamentalist" is condescending name-calling, rude and not allowed in the forum. Don't worry, I won't report you...just bringing it to your attention. To answer your question, there is no religion that says a husband and wife must be same -sex. But let's just say the gay baker did have a religion like that...then the Christian would have to choose another baker that wants his business...there are plenty, no problem.

Sunny said:
Well, reading the last two responses, I realize that I don't know enough about Constitutional law or civil rights legislation to make any meaningful comment about this. And I think this really boils down to a civil rights issue....We are not a theocracy, and what's involved here is whether or not there was a violation of civil rights...
Click to expand...
It has EVERYthing to do with the First Amendment of the Constitution which is about religious freedom and "the right to practice what the baker believes [to be God's will in biblical scripture] without government interference". The gay couple can choose another of the thousands of bakers around. The Christian baker has no other options but God's will. It is not a civil rights issue.
 
"First of all, "Bible-thumping fundamentalist" is condescending name-calling, rude and not allowed in the forum. Don't worry, I won't report you...just bringing it to your attention. "

Come on....really the veiled threat of I might tell mommy ??

And [opinion here] but there are indeed "Bible-thumping fundamentalist "....they cruise this neighborhood damn near every Saturday. Some are very pushy & annoying , while some are polite, but still pushing their religious agenda.

The same folks have stopped here several times....Just how many times do I have to say no before they get the picture? They are indeed "bible-thumping" And THAT is rude.
 
"rgo, that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation. Hypothetical example: If an emergency room doctor refuses to treat a patient because the patient is gay, or the wrong color, wrong religion, etc., is that a Constitutional violation, or just a violation of medical ethics? What if he was not working in a public hospital but conducting a private medical practice? Does that change the rules?"

I think you mean [rgp] ? Me ?

"that's an interesting point about whether tax dollars are involved. I really don't know if that factors in as an element of civil rights legislation."

That is my point...it really isn't a civil-rights issue. The bus was/is provided as part of infrastructure / city service . A citizen boards the bus , drops the fare in the box..takes a seat & rides to their destination. The only civil-rights issue was the fact that she was black.

As for your hypothetical....Frankly this can, can be kicked just about as far as one wishes. In many cases humanity should enter somewhere ?...but that cannot be regulated . And it is something , some folks just do not have.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top