The wedding cake issue again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shalimar said:
“The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course. I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.
 

Camper6 said:
Yeah but the baker has the trump card. His artistic talent. Leave that out out the picture and what do you have? No argument at all. Just a bakery shop. Michealangelo argued with the Pope. Michealangelo won.
Click to expand...

The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks. Until he didn't anymore.

Societies move forward. Neanderthals die off or evolve. We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum. People who teach their children that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.
 
Last edited:
Dopey! Much ado about not much! If someone tried to force me to do something, in my business, that I was opposed to doing, for whatever reasons I might have, I would easily find a way out of the same. The baker could have easily told the couple that their design was too challenging for him, and then recommended another bakery. If not that, he could have said he didn't have the flavors/fillings they wanted. He could have done lots of other things to get out of doing the cake without making it the big deal it became.
 

StarSong said:
The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks. Until he didn't anymore.

Societies move forward. Neanderthals die off or evolve. We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum. People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.
Click to expand...
Post of the week!
 
Shalimar said:
“The in your face stuff,” and accompanying weariness goes both ways, of course. I am content to believe as I do, and, unlike some, I don’t resort to being rude simply because of an opposing opinion. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
Keesha said:
You are NEVER rude about expressing your opinions Shalimar. You do it with style, grace and dignity.
Click to expand...

That's true Shalimar. Forums are for expressing our opinions without being rude. And you do that nicely.
 
But in reality..IMO the homosexuals didn't really go there to get a cake...they went there to stir up, exactly what they did. Homosexual or not, their not stupid. Why go there and insist on spending their money at that persons place of business? Again [opinion] to stir up a storm, just as they did.

As for the baker?...yeah a crap cake would have sent them away but....That would not have made his beliefs known to the world either.

Had {I} been the baker?....I do not understand homosexuals , and I do not agree with their ways but. I would have made them the nicest cake & charged the max amount. Why send away business?..........jmo
Click to expand...

I completely agree, RGP. I have never really thought this case was about a cake; who really cares about a wedding cake, to that extent? I think the whole thing was engineered, on both sides, to make the case they
to make. The gay men thought they had a groundbreaking case which would be a landmark for gay rights. The baker thought he was being a religious hero. Both sides were wrong, and both sides were right.
 
StarSong said:
The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks. Until he didn't anymore.

Societies move forward. Neanderthals die off or evolve. We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum. People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.
Click to expand...

This IS a great post:clap:
 
StarSong said:
The bus driver had the trump card with Rosa Parks. Until he didn't anymore.

Societies move forward. Neanderthals die off or evolve. We each get to decide where we want to be on that continuum. People who teach their that they are better than others, or that God loves them more than others (Good grief!) will doom them to a lifetime of anger and pain.
Click to expand...

The bus driver was an employee of the transit corporation and I would hardly call that being an artist.

The cake baker had a special talent for designing wedding cakes and refused to bake one against his principles.

Colorado didn't agree but the Supreme Court did.

The cake baker suffered a lot of abuse. So much for tolerance.
 
Sunny said:
I completely agree, RGP. I have never really thought this case was about a cake; who really cares about a wedding cake, to that extent? I think the whole thing was engineered, on both sides, to make the case they
to make. The gay men thought they had a groundbreaking case which would be a landmark for gay rights. The baker thought he was being a religious hero. Both sides were wrong, and both sides were right.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It was all one sided. The baker offered to sell anything in the store to them. He just wasn't going to cave in to their demands. They took to the civil rights. He didn't.
 
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.

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?[/QUOTE]

First off, I don't think the matter changes at all no matter who's catchin' and who's pitchin'. The law says that if you are running a business offering goods or services to the general public, you must treat everyone the same.

Secondly, I think the "right" and "wrong" of it, if indeed there is one, is in the eye of the beholder. The legality of the situation, however, is in the province of the courts and the law. Courts do not judge who is "right," they judge who is in compliance with the law.
Click to expand...
 
Lara said:
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution doesn't specify any particular religion for which it's protecting.

It's protecting any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time. http://https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

That's what this is all about and that's why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Christian baker.

The baker has the right to practice doing what he believes is the will of God according to biblical scripture.

The gay couple have the right to walk across the street and order their cake at that bakery.

Today, much of society hasn't read the Constitution, has grown up in a highly litigious society, and just wants to rant because anger, loudness, and stepping on other people's rights, is perceived as the best way to get your way instead of simply going to another bakery where everyone can be instantly happy.
Click to expand...

No, Lara, it isn't. I suggest you read the online decision of the Supreme Court. The Court did NOT touch the issue of whether the baker had a right to refuse or not. It based its VERY narrow ruling on things that took place at the Civil Rights Commission below ("technicalities" if you will) and specifically stated it was NOT ruling on the issue of the baker's refusal.

The Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Baker was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law or whether or not law that law is unconstitutional. I note that Colorado expanded its anti-discrimination laws in 2007 and 2008 to include forbidding discrimination with regard to sexual orientation.

I also suggest you do further research on the issue of your assertion that the First Amendment allegedly protects the right of "any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time." Your assertion is a bit broad, to say the least.
 
Butterfly said:
No, Lara, it isn't. I suggest you read the online decision of the Supreme Court. The Court did NOT touch the issue of whether the baker had a right to refuse or not. It based its VERY narrow ruling on things that took place at the Civil Rights Commission below ("technicalities" if you will) and specifically stated it was NOT ruling on the issue of the baker's refusal.

The Court did NOT rule on whether or not the Baker was in violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination law or whether or not law that law is unconstitutional. I note that Colorado expanded its anti-discrimination laws in 2007 and 2008 to include forbidding discrimination with regard to sexual orientation.

I also suggest you do further research on the issue of your assertion that the First Amendment allegedly protects the right of "any and all religions to practice their beliefs at any time." Your assertion is a bit broad, to say the least.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification, Butterfly.

Shal - I agree with the others. You have a gift for succinctly stating your opinions without being rude or offensive. Kudos!
 
Since I don’t really know much about the law, I look forward to reading Butterfly’s posts. She did after all work in a law office and seems to really know her stuff on these types of topics.

And Ive told Shalimar many times, that she has a gift for choosing the right words
 
StarSong said:
Many find that sincerely accepting others and finding common ground creates a society immeasurably better for all. Only by being respectful toward other people can we truly respect ourselves.
Click to expand...


Accepting others ? Hmm. You mean like being referred to as Neanderthals ?
(see starsong's post)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top