The wedding cake issue again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Olivia said:
What equal rights are you referring to?
Click to expand...

The baker has his right to say “sorry can’t, due to my religious beliefs”, just as the gay couple have the right to say, “ok, then we’ll go somewhere else.”

Thing about is, AGAIN, the gay community is pushing their beliefs onto others as well as the baker is pushing the religious communities beliefs onto others.
 

Olivia said:
Really? Since when?
Click to expand...


Should be since forever........Here we go again,..why should one's rights prevail over another's? I / we want to buy a cake....I don't want to bake you one........The end !
 

rgp said:
Should be since forever........Here we go again,..why should one's rights prevail over another's? I / we want to buy a cake....I don't want to bake you one........The end !
Click to expand...

Again, what "rights" are you referencing? In Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights?

Also:

[FONT=&quot]The Supreme Court ruled Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in a limited decision that leaves for another day the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.

[/FONT]https://wtop.com/supreme-court/2018/06/justices-side-with-colorado-baker-on-same-sex-wedding-cake/
Click to expand...
 
Olivia said:
"Freedom of religion is a cherished and well-protected constitutional right in the United States, and the civil rights community is dedicated to safeguarding religious liberty for everyone.

But religion must not translate into a license to discriminate -- nor trample people's protections under the law. Requiring companies to abide by nondiscrimination laws does not require business owners to abandon their religious beliefs. It merely requires them to honor the clear constitutional rights of others.

Some people might dismiss the principles at stake in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case by arguing that a gay couple can simply purchase their cake elsewhere. But Masterpiece Cakeshop is no more about cake than Piggie Park was about barbecue. The court acknowledged that "it is a general rule that (religious) objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services." Otherwise, the door to widespread discrimination will open, undermining the legal foundation for equal rights and justice.

Consider the consequences had the Supreme Court given Phillips a sweeping victory. If a company can refuse to sell wedding cakes to a gay couple on the basis of religious convictions, can a restaurant also then refuse to serve food to a divorcée or an unmarried couple with a child? Can a taxi driver deny a ride to an interracial couple?

Through much of our nation's history, the concept of sincerely held religious beliefs excused legalized discrimination against African-Americans -- including at restaurants and schools, and in marriage. Those policies tore apart families, devastated futures and relegated communities, including immigrants and people of color, to second-class citizenship.

Piggie Park marked the beginning of our courts acknowledging and enforcing America's obligation of equality under the law when it comes to public accommodations. Fifty years later, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case posed the same question, and the court affirmed the underlying principle that our nation's businesses should be open to all. But make no mistake: Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue."

http://www.kitv.com/story/38352235/...g-reaffirms-that-businesses-cant-discriminate
Click to expand...

Olivia said:
What equal rights are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Olivia said:
Really? Since when?
Click to expand...

Olivia said:
Again, what "rights" are you referencing? In Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights?

Also:
Click to expand...
Great debate for equal rights Olivia.
Good presentation.
 
"Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"

Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?

Again this has virtually nothing to do with cake.....it was just two people [the homosexuals] wanting their way. If indeed all that they wanted was a cake ? they could have simply gone to another baker.

They didn't want a cake...they wanted attention.....so they stirred up a firestorm.
 
"n Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights? "


OK, and again the S/court decided that it did not apply here.

And you see it as equal , to ask / expect a man to completely stop making weeding cakes , as asking the homosexual couple to seek one somewhere else?

IOW...all the other couples getting married would / should loose access to his cakes....just because these guys were refused?.......yeah OK....these 'all inclusive' people only seem to care about what they want......typical.
 
I wonder what would happen if the baker was forced to make a cake & the cake was not what the couple thought was good enough then refused to pay for it.
 
Umm...talking about "typical"? I had no delusions that anyone who disagreed in the first place who suddenly agree now. So, does that mean I or anyone else should not present their own counter arguments? I think you would at least agree that on a discussion board not only should they, but absolutely must.
 
rgp said:
"Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"

Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?

Again this has virtually nothing to do with cake.....it was just two people [the homosexuals] wanting their way. If indeed all that they wanted was a cake ? they could have simply gone to another baker.

They didn't want a cake...they wanted attention.....so they stirred up a firestorm.
Click to expand...

Just like the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964? That stirred up something, too, didn't it?
 
mitchezz said:
Principle? What principle? This baker was happy to have gay couples contribute to his overall income but denied them the full service offered to other customers.
Click to expand...


The principle is one of religious freedom ! The principle is one of morality. Why is that so hard to understand ?

The baker was willing to sell his products to anyone. A birthday cake would not have been a problem. But, being forced to participate in a homosexual wedding is another matter entirely.

Speaking as a chef, I would be happy to feed anyone. BUT, no power on earth could force me to cater a party specifically for neo-Nazis.

The principle is exactly the same even though it does not involve religion. My refusal to cater to neo-Nazis, would be my moral right.
 
rgp said:
"Again, what "rights" are you referencing?"

Rights...everyone's rights wishes ? call them what you will, why should your desires override mine, in a case such as this ?

Again this has virtually nothing to do with cake.....it was just two people [the homosexuals] wanting their way. If indeed all that they wanted was a cake ? they could have simply gone to another baker.

They didn't want a cake...they wanted attention.....so they stirred up a firestorm.
Click to expand...

Also true.

Perhaps it might depend on location. Here where we live protection of religious rights has a profound impact.

Going a bit off topic slightly but years ago in the province I live in a teenager went to his high school with a long dagger in his belt. The teachers were alarmed, called the police and he was arrested for carrying a dangerous weapon on school property.
He appealed later , went to court and won on the account that the dagger is part of his religious and cultural beliefs. They sued and won. This really surprised me a lot.

Now a new law might be passed that anyone who wears a turban due to religious beliefs doesn’t have to wear a motorcycle helmet or a helmet of any kind.

The world is changing.
 
IMO a business should not have the same rights as an individual.

A business should be required to offer the same level of service to anyone that walks in the door.

If the individual that owns the business is not comfortable with that then he should do as was suggested above and not offer wedding cakes or other specialty items that require him to compromise his beliefs or that he may find offensive.

If the owner of the bakery wants to make a wedding cake for a family member or close friend as a gift I have no problem with that.





 
rgp said:
"n Colorado, there are anti-discrimination laws regarding sexual orientation. So, the couple had the option to go seek a wedding cake somewhere else? Well, the baker had the option to just not sell wedding cakes if he was not willing to sell to everyone. How's that for equal rights? "


OK, and again the S/court decided that it did not apply here.

And you see it as equal , to ask / expect a man to completely stop making weeding cakes , as asking the homosexual couple to seek one somewhere else?

IOW...all the other couples getting married would / should loose access to his cakes....just because these guys were refused?.......yeah OK....these 'all inclusive' people only seem to care about what they want......typical.
Click to expand...

No, the Court did not rule that "it" (nondiscimination laws) did not apply here. It ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission screwed up in its procedures Nothing more,nothing less. Try reading the decision to see what it really said.
 
rgp said:


IOW...all the other couples getting married would / should loose access to his cakes....just because these guys were refused?.......yeah OK....these 'all inclusive' people only seem to care about what they want......typical.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY ! Some folks are endlessly spouting their so-called inclusiveness and acceptance . Yet if someone disagrees with them, out come the claws and fangs.

For them, inclusiveness means, "as long as you agree with us". If someone disagrees with them, it's going to quickly get bloody.
 
Oh heck, there must be bakers in the Denver area that would have no problem making a wedding cake and delivery it to a gay couple wedding. Denver has a fairly large gay community, like most major, big cities do.

The couple could have easily accepted the bakers decision, but NO they had to make s big deal of it.
People are throwing around the “discrimination” word nowadays to get what they want.

We all know discrination has existed for years and still does. It will never stop! Even Seniors get discriminated against for their age concerning a job.
 
Aunt Bea said:
IMO a business should not have the same rights as an individual.

A business should be required to offer the same level of service to anyone that walks in the door.

If the individual that owns the business is not comfortable with that then he should do as was suggested above and not offer wedding cakes or other specialty items that require him to compromise his beliefs or that he may find offensive.

If the owner of the bakery wants to make a wedding cake for a family member or close friend as a gift I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Aunt Bea, and that is exactly the way the law views it. If a business sets itself up as offering services to the public, it must offer the same services to ALL the public, not just selected groups. Just like a business cannot say only white people can sit at its lunch counter or rent apartments or anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top