The wedding cake issue again

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

This was precisely what was proved in the similar case here. It wasn't about the cake.. it was about whose rights took precedence over another
 

There's a lot of words in these threads: Bible thumpers, PCers,.......... Neanderthals. I'm sure I could pick out others. I don't choose to be offended by any of them just because they are part if a comment.
 

Thats simple. The bible thumbing fundamentalist would just turn the other cheek. Walk out and get a cake somewhere else and that's what most people would do. You don't want my business I'll take it down the street instead of taking it to the civil rights commission. We are talking about a blooming cake not a life threatening situation.
Click to expand...

Camper, how do you know they would do that? Probably most people would do as you said. But what if they felt that their religious rights were being trampled by a secular society, which is going to hell in a handbasket? Would they simply "turn the other cheek?" Or would thy see this as a clearcut opportunity to get some legislation in favor of the religious fundamentalists, who have been ridiculed and victimized by this society long enough?

Although I am 180 degrees away from that point of view, I can imagine someone making a case for it. See how easy it is to turn this kind of issue around? Every side sees themselves as a victim. Apparently, there is at least one man who continually sees himself as some kind of victim of a vicious band of angry feminists. Victimhood is, sometimes at least, in the eyes of the beholder.

Probably the only way to untangle this can of worms is to examine the details of civil rights legislation, to see whether discrimination against particular groups for whatever reason, is legal or not. "Right or wrong" are practically irrelevant here, when the issue is one of law.
 
Sunny said:
Camper, how do you know they would do that? Probably most people would do as you said. But what if they felt that their religious rights were being trampled by a secular society, which is going to hell in a handbasket? Would they simply "turn the other cheek?" Or would thy see this as a clearcut opportunity to get some legislation in favor of the religious fundamentalists, who have been ridiculed and victimized by this society long enough?
Click to expand...

Just going by past experience. Who are the ones quick to run to the civil liberties? Who are the ones that complain because a mayor won't join their parade?

Although I am 180 degrees away from that point of view, I can imagine someone making a case for it. See how easy it is to turn this kind of issue around? Every side sees themselves as a victim. Apparently, there is at least one man who continually sees himself as some kind of victim of a vicious band of angry feminists. Victimhood is, sometimes at least, in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Well no. Not everyone sees themselves as a victim to go to the Supreme Court over a lousy cake.

Probably the only way to untangle this can of worms is to examine the details of civil rights legislation, to see whether discrimination against particular groups for whatever reason, is legal or not. "Right or wrong" are practically irrelevant here, when the issue is one of law.
Click to expand...

Being a 'victim' is in the eye of the beholder. It gets tiresome. Honestly most people get tired of hearing this constant complaining about trivial matters.
 
hollydolly said:
This was precisely what was proved in the similar case here. It wasn't about the cake.. it was about whose rights took precedence over another
Click to expand...

And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo
 
I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.
 
mitchezz said:
I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.
Click to expand...

He has felt the pinch. He was willing to sacrify the pinch. But he does cater to everyone. He was willing to sell any item in the shop so he wasn't discriminating based on sexual preference. He was sticking up for his own beliefs as an artist creating special wedding cakes like they are a work of art.
 
Should that leeway also be afforded to caterers for the reception? After all some chefs consider themselves artists. I think if someone does not want to service gay weddings they should be open and advertise that fact. Then when it hurts them in the hip pocket we'll see if it's a matter of conviction or prejudice.
 
mitchezz said:
Should that leeway also be afforded to caterers for the reception? After all some chefs consider themselves artists. I think if someone does not want to service gay weddings they should be open and advertise that fact. Then when it hurts them in the hip pocket we'll see if it's a matter of conviction or prejudice.
Click to expand...

Catering a wedding involves more than one employee and a facility. There's no comparison.

Money isn't everything. The principle of this case proved it.
 
Camper6 said:
Catering a wedding involves more than one employee and a facility. There's no comparison.

Money isn't everything. The principle of this case proved it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mitchezz said:
I wonder if the baker advertised his services as a wedding cake baker. Perhaps he should add a disclaimer that he does not cater to gay couples. I doubt he would do that as he would feel the pinch in his takings on other bakery items.
Click to expand...

Or......he might be flooded with 'new' business? I believe the area he's in would play a part ?
 
Wonder how long that baker has been in the location it happened? Wonder if he's had any other "run-ins" like this before, but it was never pushed like this couple did?

If someone wanted to open up a business, but didn't want to serve certain people, be it race related and/or gender related, they should chose an area of the U.S. where they wouldn't have the problems this baker had. IOW, he should have had his bakery in an all Christian area and/or all Straight area. There are areas like this in different parts of the U.S..
 
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...

Full services other than creating a work of art for a cause he didn't believe in.

See this is the part I don't like. Why try to force the issue.? If it's successful you are just going to get a piece of crap.

This is what I am against. Forcing people to do things against their principles. It's obscene.
 
ClassicRockr said:
Wonder how long that baker has been in the location it happened? Wonder if he's had any other "run-ins" like this before, but it was never pushed like this couple did?

If someone wanted to open up a business, but didn't want to serve certain people, be it race related and/or gender related, they should chose an area of the U.S. where they wouldn't have the problems this baker had. IOW, he should have had his bakery in an all Christian area and/or all Straight area. There are areas like this in different parts of the U.S..
Click to expand...

In my opinion the gay couple picked that particular bakery. He shouldn't have to leave a business he built up based on two guys over a lousy cake.

They should just back off and go somewhere else.
 
rgp said:
And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo
Click to expand...

Yep no argument witch'ya
 
rgp said:
And when ya think about it......No ones rights should take precedence period. The homosexuals should have every right to live their lives as they please. And the baker should have every right to say he does not wish to be a participant in their nuptial celebration...........jmo
Click to expand...

This is about where I sit on the matter. I see both points of view as equally relevant and worthy of respect & consideration.
 
The baker doesn't want to use his time & talent to make a cake for two people he has no obligation to sell to. The two people aren't limited to only this baker. The real problem in all this is religion is the focus. If the baker was an athiest and didn't want to make a cake for the two, would this even have been something to discuss?
 
Camper6 said:
In my opinion the gay couple picked that particular bakery. He shouldn't have to leave a business he built up based on two guys over a lousy cake.

They should just back off and go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Balance of the baker's livelihood versus a stupid cake. Seriously.
 
"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


 
"...Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue." Unless you are the baker, then apparently your equal rights and dignity don't matter.
 
C'est Moi said:
"...Monday's decision makes clear that our fight for equal rights and dignity for all must continue." Unless you are the baker, then apparently your equal rights and dignity don't matter.
Click to expand...

What equal rights are you referring to?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top