Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case

Della said:
Knight, you seem to have missed the part where I said that I go to a church that does not follow all the Old Testament laws but rather believes that in the New Testament Jesus showed us a new more loving path.
Click to expand...
Explain then why you would post using the example of Leviticus. This is about the baker refusing to bake a cake not your religious belief system.
 

Gary O' said:
I pretty much get yer point @Knight

But, man

It's tough to legislate morality, if that's where yer going
Click to expand...
Gary my point is & I think you understand, is these are humans that deserve the same treatment as any other human.
The baker using religion, probably the verse Della posted probably is the reason.

If using the bible to excuse hateful treatment of another human then as an example. Any sad person wanting to be happy could use this bible verse to be happy. But we know that wouldn't fly in court.

Psalm 137:9 — The New International Version (NIV)​

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

As for morality, we both know the answer. Legislating morality isn't possible , but society put laws in place to try to prevent injustice. As I see it the baker is challenging the law which IMO is a good thing. It shows that in America society has the option to secure a definitive answer to what works to insure rights.
 
Last edited:
oscash said:
Hi Knight: If I knew some pastry business refused to serve those that are LGBT I wouldn't support their business. I have a granddaughter who is Gay and is celebrating their wedding in October. My sister totally disagrees with it, but she is not invited to their wedding.
Click to expand...
oscash maybe I misinterpreted your post. To be clear I think your granddaughter should be able to go anywhere she chooses to buy something to be able to enjoy he wedding. This is about a baker, but lets suppose your granddaughter was refused for a wedding gown, a church, a reception venue based on the religious belief of those. Going someplace else as a resolution IMO isn't a resolution at all . Recognizing your granddaughter as you do as a valuable human being that should be able to shop/buy anywhere should be the way we treat each other.
 

Della said:
I was not comparing disease to religious belief, I was comparing causes of grief.
Someone said that the number one cause of grief in the world was wars caused by religion. I disagree. You asked me if I discounted the grief caused by 911. Of course not. I don't discount any form of grief, but do you discount the grief a mother has when her child dies of smallpox? No the smallpox wasn't caused by religion but her grief was just as terrible. That's all I'm saying. Not all the grief in the world is caused by religion. Not even most of the grief.

It's been said many times on this thread that the bake shop owner is intolerant and hatefilled. Maybe he is. Or maybe not. Maybe he likes the gay couple, he has served them before, but when they asked for a cake specifically to celebrate a gay wedding, he may have felt that if he made the cake he would be condoning same sex marriage, thereby committing a sin according to his beliefs. By going directly against the teachings of Jesus* he may have been afraid he himself would go to Hell. So his refusal would be to save himself not based on any sort of hatred for the couple. For all we know he loves them and prays for them every night.

*Jesus didn't ever speak specifically about homosexuality, but he was a devout Jew who followed Old Testament laws like this one from Leviticus: "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Jesus would not have hated anyone, but that doesn't mean he thought everything they did was good. He loved everyone and he forgave prostitutes, theives and murderers. That didn't mean he thought prostitution, stealing and murder were okay things to do.

Fundamentalist Christians, like the baker, still believe those things are wrong. If someone had asked for a cake to give to a prostitute in exchange for sex he probably would have said no to that too.

I myself believe, like most modern day Christians, that alternate orientation is a perfectly acceptable personal choice. I am an Episcopalian. My local Bishop is a lesbian. But I repect those whose belief is more strictly Bible adherrent, just as I respect people who follow other religions, or none at all.

I don't think the gay couple has the right to force the baker to go against his deeply held personal beliefs to make them a cake. In fact I think it is unkind, intorerant and rather hatefull of them to ask him to do that, just for the sake of their cake which than can easily bake themselves.

I believe it's the baker's constitutional right to practice his religion of choice both in and out of his business.
Click to expand...
Very well said.
I think the issue is more about compassion and understanding between people.
I think, once again, that the soldiers of every war found out that when you needed someone, it was the individual next to you regardless of race or religious beliefs. You needed each other to survive......period!
I suspect that most veterans miss that bonding more then anything else.
In the world, we fight, argue, resort to violence and in general disagree and rebel with everything and everybody that is different and threatens our way of life. The Government doesn't help and quite frankly they have not got a clue as to the right thing to do.

You want a cake to celebrate your wedding. Great! A particular baker has problem with that, because of beliefs. Fine! Have some compassion and find another baker. Unless..............................you have a reason and want to prove a point of law. In which case you could care less about someone you may have known for sometime and just, regardless of relationship, want to force him to do what you want.
Make a statement, get 15 minutes of fame. Why?
Money to the lawyers and what.....satisfaction! most cases, no.

I'm not looking for likes or dislikes on this on this. Just a statement.

rbtvgo
 
rbtvgo said:
Unless..............................you have a reason and want to prove a point of law.
Click to expand...
Remember when gays feared coming out of the "closet". Taking the next step of no fear to have their names published fighting for points of law that shouldn't need to be proven can't be fun.

So many posted opinions that they would go to another bake shop. But IMO being brave enough to "force" recognition that takes courage.
Avoiding rather than confronting an injustice thankfully isn't what America was founded on. We enjoy now what the colonists did in 1775.

A little off topic but.
Given the new FDA guidelines of blood donations acceptable from gay men. Do you think anyone needing life saving blood will challenge that guideline due to religious beliefs?
 
PeppermintPatty said:
Isn’t being prejudice against others a sin?
The list why people can be prejudice could be a mile long, yet it’s still discrimination no matter how its worded or who it is.

What if this couple were a mixed race and their personal beliefs were that different races shouldn’t mix?

What if it were a couple that had a 50 year difference in age ?

What if it were a couple and the man came in wearing a dagger since it’s part of his religious custom to wear one. A kirpan? Or a Jamba?

What if it was an ex convict asking for a cake?

Maybe a prostitute who sells herself at the corner from where this bakery is?

Or maybe it’s a guy with tattoos and nose ring?

Maybe it’s a clairvoyant medium who does readings for a living.

What about a pregnant unwed woman?

How about a homeless person?

What if a gang of bikers ordered a cake?

What if it’s a polygamous marriage and the man has 7 wives and wants a wedding cake for the 8th wife?

Maybe there should be a notice on the door stating all these prejudices as a warning to others. A list of people who won’t be tolerated or served.

According to this article there’s a huge list of people Christian’s should avoid.

https://medium.com/@amie.stockstill...to-stay-away-from-certain-people-47f52c5f5d15

This bakery is providing a public service and the public is generally very diverse. If these bakers can’t handle the diversity of their customers, maybe they are in the wrong type of business.
Click to expand...
So very well said PeppermintPatty, if it is a public business, they should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Unless the customer is asking them to do something illegal, do the job and move on. It is none of your business what the people do with the products they purchase from you. You do not have to approve. If you are selling a product, you cannot pick and choose who can buy it and who can't.
 
ohioboy said:
In essence it was a show of force. As soon as they filed a complaint with the CO civil rights division, they were attempting to force by their reasoning of the law, a Declaration to force compliance.
Click to expand...
Yes they certainly did which I think was unnecessary but I also think denying customers a cake due to personal preferences is equally unnecessary. This entire court procedure was childish on both sides.

All of my commentary up to now , has been about the first decisions both parties made before it went to court. It shouldn’t have gone that far.

s76l42 said:
So very well said PeppermintPatty, if it is a public business, they should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone. Unless the customer is asking them to do something illegal, do the job and move on. It is none of your business what the people do with the products they purchase from you. You do not have to approve. If you are selling a product, you cannot pick and choose who can buy it and who can't.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Unless customers are doing something illegal in the store or requesting something illegal, there should be no issues.
Nobody should be discriminated against for ANY reason including religion. We ALL have personal preferences and when they interfere in relationships, it causes issues. When it interferes in business relationships, it also causes issues. Claiming these issues stem from religious beliefs and ‘expecting’ seniority or a special pass isn’t fair to the rest of society. There’s NO EQUALITY whatsoever in using religion as an ‘exception.’
 
I for one am sick & tired of folks telling me whom I should/must like.

If I [or anyone] owns a self owned , stand alone business, free of any tax relief, consideration, etc. And I do not agree with the behavior/agenda of a potential customer ? Then I should have the right to decline doing business with that person/those persons.

I disagree with & denounce the gay/queer lifestyle , and so long as I do not hurt them in any way, then I should have the right to to feel as i do ..... and once again , refuse to do business with them.

I have read that the gay/queer population is somewhere near 1.5-5% of the total population ..... the way in which so many speak here ..... it would seem that the rest of us [approx] 95% have no rights !/?
 
Discrimation is not against the law except in certain situations, like employment oportunites and hiring practices, realestate sales and government provided public services.

A public service is something such as health care, transportation, or the removal of waste, which is organized by the government or an official body in order to benefit all the people in a particular society or community.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

People in private situations can discriminate as much as they want. If a black woman decides she doesn't want to date white men, that's her right. If someone knocks on the door of a private home and home owners choose not to open the door because they don't like the look of the person knocking, that's their right.



A bakery is not a public service but a private buiness

Bochetto attorneys on private business:
Few people are aware that businesses have rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, as well as certain responsibilities. While their constitutional responsibilities largely surround regulations and paying taxes, the rights surround the right to free speech, the right to free association, and the rights of corporations. When you translate these rights from the high-level language of the Bill of Rights down to how they apply to everyday business, they come down to the following basic abilities:

  • The right to make decisions about how you run your business as long as it is not in violation of any federal, state or local laws
  • The right to refuse to supply goods and services as long as it is not in violation of federal, state or local laws
  • The right to invest as much capital in your business as you want or believe you need to ensure success and increased productivity.
Click to expand...
Whether or not the bakery owner based his decision on his religion or he just didn't like gays doesn't really matter. He owns a private business and he has a legal right to refuse service to customers, just as we can refuse entry to our private homes. If a group of pro-life members want to hold a rally on my front lawn I can tell them no. If someone wants to put signs in my yard saying vote yes on issue 1, I can tell them no. I can do the same thing if someone wants to put signs for a candidate I don't like in the window of my business.

Discrimination, racism, bigotry are all ugly things. They are unkind and unfair, but we live in a free country where we have freedom of speech and thought and we don't use the law to force people to be kind.

It frightens me that people are beginning to think you can legislate kindness.

Hate crime laws were the first attempt to try to make laws against an emotion. We already have laws against assault should it matter what the assailant is feeling when he attacks someone?

The first time I ever heard of different criminal sentences depending on who the victims were it was about the laws in Victorian England where a man might get a slap on the wrist for attacking a servant girl but hanged for attacking a gentlewoman. I thought it was outrageous, but was all in the past.

Apparently not. Now, we have laws that says if a man mugs an old woman he gets x number of years in prison, but if he mugs a young gay man he will get x number of years plus more. Our legal system is saying that some people are more valued than others.

We no longer have equality in sentencing but greater legal protection for certain people. If we care about equality, we should look to the blatant discrimination in these laws, and not be worried about a small business owner exercising his legal right to refuse to sell a cake.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line, there can be pro people and con people on ANY topic/ law.

In Roosevelt's declaration of War against Japan, there was still 1 NO vote in the House. Go figure!
 
You can thank social media for that. So much information, so many points of view. So many statistics and statistical reviews.
Too much information, a lot of which is suspect. Who do you believe????????????

I understand completely.
I know my neighbors, my neighborhood, my town and I see most people just trying to live their lives with as much peace as they can find.
The wackos, crazys and extremist grab the headlines and the first impression is that we are being overrun. Not so.

I have nothing against anyone who is different then me. I try to understand and accept the fact that we live in a huge world with many different people.

Some of my best friends are gay or black. I don't care. They are friends. They mean a lot to me.
Don't get carried away by all the nonsense that appears on your computer. Trust your instincts and look around at your neighbors.
rbtvgo
 
Knight said:
As for morality, we both know the answer. Legislating morality isn't possible , but society put laws in place to try to prevent injustice. As I see it the baker is challenging the law which IMO is a good thing. It shows that in America society has the option to secure a definitive answer to what works to insure rights.
Click to expand...
Good post and spot on!
Legislating morality can’t possibly be done but laws can be put in place to prevent injustice.

Direct and to the point!
 
Della said:
Discrimation is not against the law except in certain situations, like employment oportunites and hiring practices, realestate sales and government provided public services.

A public service is something such as health care, transportation, or the removal of waste, which is organized by the government or an official body in order to benefit all the people in a particular society or community.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, protects employees and job applicants from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

People in private situations can discriminate as much as they want. If a black woman decides she doesn't want to date white men, that's her right. If someone knocks on the door of a private home and home owners choose not to open the door because they don't like the look of the person knocking, that's their right.



A bakery is not a public service but a private buiness

Bochetto attorneys on private business:

Whether or not the bakery owner based his decision on his religion or he just didn't like gays doesn't really matter. He owns a private business and he has a legal right to refuse service to customers, just as we can refuse entry to our private homes. If a group of pro-life members want to hold a rally on my front lawn I can tell them no. If someone wants to put signs in my yard saying vote yes on issue 1, I can tell them no. I can do the same thing if someone wants to put signs for a candidate I don't like in the window of my business.

Discrimination, racism, bigotry are all ugly things. They are unkind and unfair, but we live in a free country where we have freedom of speech and thought and we don't use the law to force people to be kind.

It frightens me that people are beginning to think you can legislate kindness.

Hate crime laws were the first attempt to try to make laws against an emotion. We already have laws against assault should it matter what the assailant is feeling when he attacks someone?

The first time I ever heard of different criminal sentences depending on who the victims were it was about the laws in Victorian England where a man might get a slap on the wrist for attacking a servant girl but hanged for attacking a gentlewoman. I thought it was outrageous, but was all in the past.

Apparently not. Now, we have laws that says if a man mugs an old woman he gets x number of years in prison, but if he mugs a young gay man he will get x number of years plus more. Our legal system is saying that some people are more valued than others.

We no longer have equality in sentencing but greater legal protection for certain people. If we care about equality, we should look to the blatant discrimination in these laws, and not be worried about a small business owner exercising his legal right to refuse to sell a cake.
Click to expand...
You raise some interesting issues, but I am not sure you are right. According to findlaw (https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/small-business/is-your-private-business-a-public-accomodation/):

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1980 prohibit discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicitiy, religion, and disabilities in places of public accommodations.

But, what is a public accommodation? Does it apply to your small business?

Public Accommodation
Generally, a public accommodation is any business that provides services to the public. Title II of the Civil Rights Act defines a public accommodation as any hotels, restaurants, theaters, or any business' whose operations affect commerce.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Acts has an even broader definition of public accommodations. These include:

Inns, hotels, and motels,
Restaurants and bars
Theaters and stadiums
Bakery, grocery store, clothing stores, and any sales or rental establishment
Laundromats, dry-cleaners, and banks
Accountants and lawyers' offices
Museums, libraries, and zoos
This is just a short list of the many private business that are considered to be public accommodations. Essentially, if your business is open to the public, it should be open to all members of the public regardless of race, religion, gender, disability.
And as I understand it the courts have interpreted the protected classes to include se*ual orientation. See Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Prohibits Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity-Based Discrimination https://www.employmentlawworldview....entity-based-discrimination-in-employment-us/

So the bakery does appear to me to have a legal requirement to serve these people. Being a private business does not change that.

Perhaps someone with greater legal expertise will chime in and let me know if I misunderstand this. @ohioboy do you agree?
 
The decision came from the United States Supreme Court. Here is the decision about the Lorie Smith graphic artists case and it is the most complete decision. It fully addresses all the issues where the 2018 bakery case did not. The issue is the same for both the cases because both involve the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.

Here's a link, in case you haven't read it. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf. The beginning is the syllabus from the oral hearing before the court in the fall of 2022 and the court's opinion begins on page 7. Will anyone who hasn't read it, read it now?

The decision has been made by the highest court in the land and there is no appellate court higher. No American can be compelled to create speech they don't believe in.

The issue is speech, not the cake, the speech written on the cake. The issue for the artist is speech, not the website, the artist's speech written on the website. We have freedom to speak our beliefs AND freedom not to speak against our beliefs in this country.
 
If I were ruling on the this Supreme Court case, I'd tell the whole lot of them to smarten up and get a life.
 
Rob, the State definition at the time is what was relevant.

This paste is a quote from the Cake case

Colo. Rev. Stat. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017).
The Act defines “public accommodation” broadly to include any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public,” but excludes “a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” §24–34–601(1).
 
Last edited:
Oh, the bakery could refuse service to anyone, as has been discussed, even though it was a PA. It is just must comply with PA laws when denying a service.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
If you own your own business you certainly can discriminate against anyone for any reason at all but you can also LEGALLY be taken to court and sued an incredible amount of money. The choice is always yours. 😊
Click to expand...

And that is what is wrong !! .... It should not cost a business money just for saying no thanks I'd rather not have your business.

Again demanding that is preserving the rights of one at the expense of another .... How can that be civil/moral/just .... ? pick an adjective.
 
Myrtle said:
The decision has been made by the highest court in the land and there is no appellate court higher. No American can be compelled to create speech they don't believe in.
Click to expand...
There it is. The baker was happy to sell the couple cookies and cake he just didn't want to write something on it he didn't believe in -- and he didn't have to.

"For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? " St Paul in 1st Corinthians.
The baker is free to think, speak and write according to his own beliefs, no matter if the rest of us think he's being mean according to our conscience.
 
From wedding cakes and flowers to haircuts and lodging, we are seeing some business owners claiming religious rights to turn away LGBT people, ignoring that the public marketplace must be open to everyone regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs. Legal arguments trying to win new religious rights to reject customers easily can open the floodgates of religiously motivated discrimination.

What if medical professionals decide for religious reasons not to care for a pregnant woman because she isn’t married? Or, if an employer believes that men should be the head of the household and so pays men more than women? Or if a landlord believes that gender is determined at birth and its expression must never change, and so refuses to rent to transgender people?

Courts that have considered the arguments pressed by the bakery in this case consistently have come to the same conclusion: the Constitution does not give anyone the right to harm others based on religious beliefs. And laws requiring business people to follow civil rights laws when selling goods or services do not violate free speech rights.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the appeal of a 2012 case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Denver-based bakery on behalf of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple who sought to purchase a cake for their wedding reception.

At that time, Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Acting on complaints filed by Mullins and Craig, the Colorado Civil Rights pision DETERMINED THAT the CAKESHOP HAD VIOLATED COLORADO LAW PROHIBITING PUBLIC ACCOMMADATIONS FROM REFUSING SERVICE BASED ON FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS or S-E-X-U-A-L ORIENTATION!!!!


Note: Anyone is free to believe whatever they want but when you ACT on your personal beliefs against others, it’s against the law.

I’m not sure how clearer it can be.
 
PeppermintPatty said:
From wedding cakes and flowers to haircuts and lodging, we are seeing some business owners claiming religious rights to turn away LGBT people, ignoring that the public marketplace must be open to everyone regardless of anyone’s religious beliefs. Legal arguments trying to win new religious rights to reject customers easily can open the floodgates of religiously motivated discrimination.

What if medical professionals decide for religious reasons not to care for a pregnant woman because she isn’t married? Or, if an employer believes that men should be the head of the household and so pays men more than women? Or if a landlord believes that gender is determined at birth and its expression must never change, and so refuses to rent to transgender people?

Courts that have considered the arguments pressed by the bakery in this case consistently have come to the same conclusion:What if medical professionals decide for religious reasons not to care for a pregnant woman because she isn’t married? Or, if an employer believes that men should be the head of the household and so pays men more than women? Or if a landlord believes that gender is determined at birth and its expression must never change, and so refuses to rent to transgender people? to follow civil rights laws when selling goods or services do not violate free speech rights.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the appeal of a 2012 case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the Denver-based bakery on behalf of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple who sought to purchase a cake for their wedding reception.

At that time, Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Acting on complaints filed by Mullins and Craig, the Colorado Civil Rights pision DETERMINED THAT the CAKESHOP HAD VIOLATED COLORADO LAW PROHIBITING PUBLIC ACCOMMADATIONS FROM REFUSING SERVICE BASED ON FACTORS SUCH AS RACE, SEX, MARITAL STATUS or S-E-X-U-A-L ORIENTATION!!!!


Note: Anyone is free to believe whatever they want but when you ACT on your personal beliefs against others, it’s against the law.

I’m not sure how clearer it can be.
Click to expand...

We can "what if all day" . It is still pushing aside someones rights to preserve the rights of others . Why should only their right be protected/preserved ?

An employer should be permitted to pay whom-ever, what-ever he chooses.

" Constitution does not give anyone the right to harm others based on religious beliefs. "

Refusing to bake a cake, does not harm anyone.

It cannot be anymore clear than that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top