USA: Supreme Court decides Colorado GAY wedding cake case. Christian WIN

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/05/876/493/694940094001_5668790863001_5668756397001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The case – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple’s right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S.

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the Court said in its decision. "While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/04/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-timeline-events.html

[arista]

Yes Every state
has their own views.

[Oliver_W]

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

often in these cases it rather tells you more about the people involved than it does about what they claim the issue is...

[Northern Monkey]

often in these cases it rather tells you more about the people involved than it does about what they claim the issue is...

Yeah if the shop in question doesn’t offer gay wedding cakes then go to one that does.

[Northern Monkey]

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

True.If you’re spending that much on something you want the people making it to take a bit of pride in its creation.Plus they might spit in it or something.
I’d go to another cake shop.

[Cherie]

The correct decision, plenty other cake shops and like other people have said why would you want something so special from them

[Jamie89]

A small victory for them but homophobia loses in the long run.

Oh god, this is gonna have a ****storm similar to when two people were removed from a cafe for taking up a table without buying anything, isn't it...

Regardless of my views as to whether or not business should be able to decline custom, why would anyone want food prepared by someone who doesn't want to make it for them? "That homophobe doesn't want to make me a cake, BUT HE MUST!" What made them feel the need to try and force them?
I wouldn't wanna eat anything made by someone who didn't like, especially if they were mandated by a court.

I doubt they took them to court just because they wanted the cake, I think it's more likely they did it to punish them and deter other companies from discriminating against gay people. This is what the courts (and anti-discrimination laws) are for. They probably would get a cake from somewhere else even if they'd won for all we know. (in fact this all started years ago didn't it so they're probably already married and don't need one anyway :laugh: )

[AnnieK]

Whilst this is a court win I would imagine the business has been damaged.

[Shaun]

How proud he must feel...

[Oliver_W]

I doubt they took them to court just because they wanted the cake, I think it's more likely they did it to punish them and deter other companies from discriminating against gay people. This is what the courts (and anti-discrimination laws) are for. They probably would get a cake from somewhere else even if they'd won for all we know. (in fact this all started years ago didn't it so they're probably already married and don't need one anyway :laugh: )

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

[Jamie89]

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

It's not just because of that though. It's walking into a shop and being refused the service you'd expect to receive based on how they advertise themselves, just for being gay. What the shop sells isn't important it's the principle that that shouldn't happen to people. I wouldn't want it happening to me. I don't think it's petty to want to defend that principle.

[TomC]

It's still a bit petty, to rake someone through the coals just because they wouldn't mix egg and flour for them...

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

[Tom4784]

Just another step backwards for a country that's been somersaulting backwards since 2016.

Unless it's something grossly offensive, I don't think bakeries that offer custom cakes should be able to deny services based on their beliefs, especially when it's discriminatory to someone else.

There's a **** ton of contradictions within the bible and if people choose to ignore the illogical teachings yet still believe in the anti-gay stuff then they don't deserve to use their religion as a shield.

[Maru]

Good... I would feel very uncomfortable to be forced into that situation myself. Like if commissioned to do a work celebrating an act that goes against my core... I can respect a person who refuses on those grounds. I would not walk into church and do something to disrespect their space.,, just the same, I would not want to put another person through that kind of distress... I feel like tolerance should work both ways... If they were the only bakery in town, then maybe the bakery could make it right somehow ... but their call to make if it is not a reasonable request... companies have to accommodate religious practice, etc... so I feel a sole proprietorship or small business shouldn't be forced on that basis... if the requests are frequently unreasonable then they will develop a majorly bad rep and go out of business... but I think most folk might complain but not sit there and argue... it just can't be on unreasonable grounds... but I'm not a lawyer so not sure how that law would be written... but I have had to follow weird requests on those grounds in the past and I prefer to respect that ... anyway I would probably talk their ear off if they are respectful about it and then be on my way... maybe that could even change their mind some... but belittling someone on the basis of something they believe to the core and treating them like sh** for it won't help either person to grow... it is quite weak to try to force our views on others... it means we don't believe enough in our views, that we can't affect their hearts the right way... a missed opportunity imo...anyway I try to respect, but also understand, we aren't all the same make up... but it's hard when both sides want to cheat their way out with petty move... create a stalemate and then try to box your opponent in... my way or the high way... and they say we shouldn't stigmatize Muslim folk... and here it is being done to Christians... anyway, I feel strongly in freedom of expression... like someplace in Europe, burqas were banned... cultural identity and religious beliefs are very often intertwined and so we can't protect one and then not the latter... same for Christians in the West.

[thesheriff443]

People in business turn down work all the time based on their personal views, they just use the line, sorry I/we are too busy.

[Maru]

People in business turn down work all the time based on their personal views, they just use the line, sorry I/we are too busy.

Yes. I have to do this in my line of work... usually to avoid a money-draining time-sink, which is practice to avoid. However, if it were a situation where I would be too uncomfortable to work with them on creative/principled grounds, the same move would apply... I've not had that issue yet, but I know others who have and it's a very stressful situation for that person if they ignore their gut and accept the job anyway.

[kirklancaster]

Good... I would feel very uncomfortable to be forced into that situation myself. Like if commissioned to do a work celebrating an act that goes against my core... I can respect a person who refuses on those grounds. I would not walk into church and do something to disrespect their space.,, just the same, I would not want to put another person through that kind of distress... I feel like tolerance should work both ways... If they were the only bakery in town, then maybe the bakery could make it rightsomehow ... but their call to make if it is not a reasonable request... companies have to accomodate religious practice, etc... so I feel a sole proprietorshio or small business shouldnt be forced on that basis... if the requests are frequently unreasonable then they will develop a majorly bad rep and go out of business... but I think most folk might complain but not sit there and argue... it just can't be on unreasonable grounds... but I'm not a lawyer so not sure how that law would be written... but I have had to follow weird requests on those grounds in the past and I prefer to respect that ... anyway I would probably talk their ear off if they are respectful about it and then be on my way... maybe that could even change their mind some... but belittling someone on the basis of something they believe to the core and treating them like sh** for ir won't help either person to grow... it is quite weak to try to force our views on others... it means we don't believe enough in our views, that we can't affect their hearts the right way... a missed opportunity imo...anyway I try to respect, but also understand, we aren't all the same make up... but it's hard when both sides want to cheat their way out with petty move... create a stalemate and then try to box your opponent in... my way or the high way... and they say we shouldn't stigmatize Muslim folk... and here it is being done to Christians... anyway, I feel strongly in freedom of expression... like someplace in Europe, burqas were banned... cultural identity and religious beliefs are very often intertwined and so we can't protect one and then not the latter... same for Christians in the West.

:clap1::clap1::clap1:

[kirklancaster]

I've researched this case quite a bit and once all the B.S is stripped away we are left with this being nothing to do with cake and all to do with the deliberate targeting of a KNOW staunchly Christian baker to invoke a guaranteed response for political purposes.

The USA Supreme Court got this decision oh so right.

I am waiting for the day when a staunchly Muslim Cake Shop is targeted instead of these 'easy target' Christian ones.

Now THAT will be interesting.

[GoldHeart]

I've researched this case quite a bit and once all the B.S is stripped away we are left with this being nothing to do with cake and all to do with the deliberate targeting of a KNOW staunchly Christian baker to invoke a guaranteed response for political purposes.

The USA Supreme Court got this decision oh so right.

I am waiting for the day when a staunchly Muslim Cake Shop is targeted instead of these 'easy target' Christian ones.

Now THAT will be interesting.

:clap1:
I say this all the time Christianity & Catholicism are always easy targets, there is no way a huge fuss to this degree would be made about a Muslim bakery or Jewish bakery being taken to court over their beliefs.

And i bet the civil partner couple would just be on their way and go to another cake shop, sure they might be a bit upset but hmm would they care as much and would it go to court ? i doubt it :bored: .

This is all a terrible political petty act to shame a particular religion once again :notimpressed: .

[Crimson Dynamo]

There is truth in the fact that Christians are easy targets and the pair would not have the balls to take on a Islamic baker for example imo

that kind of makes them lo-key bullies

[Jamie89]

I'm more than tolerant of someone else's beliefs. But if somebody is running a business that conflicts with their beliefs then that is their problem, not mine or anybody else's. What they have to do, like anybody running a business, is figure out a way of solving that problem or compromising. Instead, their solution was to offload the problem onto the public so they didn't have to deal with it themselves. For want of a better expression they are having their cake and eating it.

From the publics point of view its very simple. See a service is advertised, request that service, get refused service on the grounds of sexuality. Would that be acceptable if we were talking about race? Sex? Of course it wouldn't (and that is just as valid a point as 'what if it were an Islamic bakers'). Anybody serving the public can serve someone whilst retaining their feelings of prejudice against them, nobody's actually being asked to change their beliefs.

It doesn't have to be a case of 'who's rights are more important' both sides deserve their rights to be respected but there is only one side that had no choice in this situation occurring and that's the gay couple. There was no way for them to know they would be refused service or for it to happen because of their sexuality. The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place. So the 'it works both ways' thing, it's not exactly equal looking at it both ways, there's quite a big difference. In terms of one side's reasonable expectations of what service they will receive, those expectations are managed entirely by the other side. For it to be twisted into 'the gay couple are being prejudiced or intolerant towards christians', or 'so gay rights are more important than religious rights?'.. I can't fathom any of that at all as it just doesn't make any sense to me.

It's 'petty' or worse to go through course bc you didn't want to make a cake though

This is true as well, why are accusations of pettiness being directed towards the gay couple? They didn't take this to the supreme Court, the bakery did. And this obviously factors in quite heavily to that decision...

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court

[user104658]

The bakery did know this would happen. Based on the service they provide and the beliefs they hold they knew fine well this would happen and did nothing to prevent it/didn't care, the onus was on them. They aren't being discriminated against by somebody requesting the service that they advertise. But they are discriminating against others by refusing that service. The gay couple aren't unreasonable in expecting to receive the advertised service, the bakers are unreasonable to expect that customers will somehow know they are going to be refused service, and so not request the service in the first place.



True, as soon as gay marriage was legalised, a shop selling wedding cakes would know that they were at some point going to be asked to make one for a gay wedding... so, I guess, it is in some ways up to that service provider to make a choice, and if they're so opposed to making a wedding cake for an "unconventional" marriage then they should simply stop offering wedding cakes altogether.

I also don't really buy that it's all about religious rights here. Are they refusing to make wedding cakes for couples where one or both of them are divorcees? I highly doubt it as that would significantly impact their business... but the bible says no to that too :shrug:.

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

[Crimson Dynamo]

you cant really win against a man who says he believes in an invisible god and murmurs under his breath each night to him. A god that he thinks has blessed him with good luck when he won a marmalade making competition on the same day he watched 20,000 die of preventable disease and hunger

its a no win situation. until that country stops pretending to believe in some random middle eastern cult then things like this will keep on keeping on

[Jamie89]

Buuut when it comes right down to the core of it, I still think there's little point in "forcing" anyone to do anything. Does any couple really want the little shop o' bigots making their cake with a fake smile plastered across their face? Wouldn't it be better for people to know who they're dealing with / giving their money to, so that they can find someone who is happy and enthusiastic about making their cake?

I agree with this and I reckon most people wouldn't want that but I think there's something more fundamental which is being able to walk into a shop without worrying that you'll be turned away because of something like sexuality, for me that's the core of it. If I was to be turned away then no I wouldn't want to force them and I wouldn't want their products, but it's that the situation is allowed to happen in the first place that I think is the problem, and yes I think I would do something about that.
If the bakers problem is the conflict between their religion and their business, the solution to that shouldn't have to be the customer walking away after being refused service to find someone else, that's putting their problem onto the customer when it's theirs to deal with.

[Livia]

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

[user104658]

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

To be fair though, if a Muslim owned a sandwich shop you would assume it would state clearly on the sign that it's Halal, in fact it would probably even be used AS advertising, so there's an expectation of "no ham". I guess the cake shop owner could put "No gay wedding cakes" on the sign but it wouldn't make for great advertising...

[bots]

Well, it's an interesting one .... Could someone go in to a hardware shop and demand that the shop supplied them with pink or blue nuts and bolts. I think the answer would be a most obvious no. If the person wanted blue and pink nuts and bolts, they would try and find a supplier that could provide them, they wouldn't try and sue the original shop.

[Jamie89]

Well, it's an interesting one .... Could someone go in to a hardware shop and demand that the shop supplied them with pink or blue nuts and bolts. I think the answer would be a most obvious no. If the person wanted blue and pink nuts and bolts, they would try and find a supplier that could provide them, they wouldn't try and sue the original shop.So that would be a case of them refusing to sell a product because they don't have the product, thats not what happened in this case. The comparison would be them having the blue and pink nuts and bolts and refusing to sell them to someone because the person buying them is gay... because it's against their religion to celebrate gay people doing DIY.

The service that the gay couple asked for is exactly what the bakers advertised.

[user104658]

So that would be a case of them refusing to sell a product because they don't have the product, thats not what happened in this case. The comparison would be them having the blue and pink nuts and bolts and refusing to sell them to someone because the person buying them is gay... because it's against their religion to celebrate gay people doing DIY.

To be fair, in this case it's been made clear that it's not about them "refusing service to gay people" and they've stated that they would have no problem making a birthday cake (or any other cake) for gay people, it's specifically because it's a wedding case.

Do we even know if they're actually against gay relationships in general? Or are they fine with homosexual relationships but their objection is based on the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing? But then like I said; if it's the latter, they would refuse to make wedding cakes for previously divorced people too... presumably...

[Livia]

Gay people and religious people have the same rights. They have the right to request a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage and the Christian baker has a right to politely refuse. You can't make one set of people's rights more important than someone else's rights. How many more wedding cakes are we going to be discussing? The vast majority of cake makers would probably make a cake for anyone so long as they pay. This couple went on a crusade and I'm sure it completely overshadowed their wedding.

[Jamie89]

To be fair, in this case it's been made clear that it's not about them "refusing service to gay people" and they've stated that they would have no problem making a birthday cake (or any other cake) for gay people, it's specifically because it's a wedding case.

Do we even know if they're actually against gay relationships in general? Or are they fine with homosexual relationships but their objection is based on the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing? But then like I said; if it's the latter, they would refuse to make wedding cakes for previously divorced people too... presumably...I think it's splitting hairs sorry TS, if the people involved were straight they would have be served. They might not refuse service to all gay people in all situations, but in this situation that was very much the reason behind it. There may have been other interrelated reasons to do with marriage etc but the bottom line is if they weren't gay they wouldn't have been refused sale.

[Livia]

Why do these people choose Christian bakers? Why not a Muslim one? Or a Jewish one? I'm sure the case wouldn't get as far as court if they did.

[Tom4784]

No one would insist that a Muslim make them a ham sandwich. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs. I'll say the same thing the next time we have a gay couple wanting Christians to make them a wedding cake and then make a crusade of it when it doesn't happen.

I wouldn't go to a Halal store and expect a Ham Sandwich tbh. Not providing someone with a ham sandwich isn't the same as not providing someone with a product they do sell because of their discriminatory beliefs is a different ball park.

[Tom4784]

Why do these people choose Christian bakers? Why not a Muslim one? Or a Jewish one? I'm sure the case wouldn't get as far as court if they did.

These bakeries that hide behind their religions to discriminate against people are rarely companies that have religion as their USP tbh. Nobody would have looked at this company or the one in Ireland and think 'ah, this is a christian bakery.'

[user104658]

These bakeries that hide behind their religions to discriminate against people are rarely companies that have religion as their USP tbh. Nobody would have looked at this company or the one in Ireland and think 'ah, this is a christian bakery.'

http://wtag.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/happy-birthday-jesus-cake-happy-birthday-jesus-adventures-with-teresa-amazing.jpg

[Livia]

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/06/gake-cake-fight-why-bakers-had-right-to-refuse-order

[Cherie]

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/06/gake-cake-fight-why-bakers-had-right-to-refuse-order

sums it up for me

[user104658]

I agree with that, seems pretty succinct really, and the point is that no one has to like it - they can refuse to buy from there again, spread the message to other gay couples not to shop there (for any cake), tell their friends who may then also avoid etc. but it should never be an actual legal obligation when it's a political stance like this... And it is one.

It seems like a strange and difficult to understand thing for most people I guess, but I've encountered quite a few religious people who are actually totally fine with homosexuality and same sex relationships / "life partners", have gay friends, etc. and yet are opposed to same sex marriage, with the focus being more about their beliefs about what marriage is or should be... In the sense that "the Bible explicitly says its between a man and a woman" so therefore any other coupling isn't legitimately marriage. So I agree that its more akin to refusing to print / publish / legitimise a political message than it is direct discrimination.

[Marsh.]

Why do these people choose Christian bakers? Why not a Muslim one? Or a Jewish one? I'm sure the case wouldn't get as far as court if they did.

Is it advertised as a christian bakery?

The Americans are a funny lot.

[Marsh.]

I agree with Peter Tatchell on the subject of gay marriage, he seems to have worked it out. This is about the Northern Ireland case, but the subject is the same.


“Although I strongly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to marriage equality,” the veteran LGBT and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell has observed, “in a free society neither they nor anyone else should be compelled to facilitate a political idea that they oppose.” He is right.

Had Ashers refused to serve Lee because he was gay, or because of his support for same-sex marriage, then I can see why it would be guilty of discrimination. But it did not. It declined to decorate a cake with a particular message.

The Ashers discriminated not against an individual but against a specific political demand. To compel an individual or business not to discriminate between political demands has, as Tatchell points out, “dangerous implications”: “A Jewish publisher could be obliged to print a book that propagates Holocaust denial. Likewise, Muslim publishers could be legally pressured, against their will, to print the Danish cartoons of Muhammad that Muslims find deeply offensive.”



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/06/gake-cake-fight-why-bakers-had-right-to-refuse-order

I don't understand the comparison. In this instance they're making cakes, that they make, for the consumption of the customer paying for it.

A publisher doesn't just print any and all books, but books they as a company select and choose to finance/publish? :conf2:

It's why I don't get the halal comparison either. That would be a company being requested to make foods they don't sell, this isn't. It was a customer asking for a cake... from a cake shop.

[Walter White]

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/12/05/876/493/694940094001_5668790863001_5668756397001-vs.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.

The case – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple’s right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S.

The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court's conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop.

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," the Court said in its decision. "While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/04/supreme-court-decides-colorado-gay-wedding-cake-case-timeline-events.htmlSo the US Supreme Court supports bigotry. Good to know.

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://wtag.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/happy-birthday-jesus-cake-happy-birthday-jesus-adventures-with-teresa-amazing.jpg

christ has risen

[Alf]

Oh dear, what a bummer.

[user104658]

I don't understand the comparison. In this instance they're making cakes, that they make, for the consumption of the customer paying for it.

A publisher doesn't just print any and all books, but books they as a company select and choose to finance/publish? :conf2:

It's why I don't get the halal comparison either. That would be a company being requested to make foods they don't sell, this isn't. It was a customer asking for a cake... from a cake shop.You could think of it as a printer rather than a publisher though... You can self-publish, but surely, if someone writes a book full of dangerous propaganda and orders 5000 copies to be printed, we want the owner of that company to be able to say "no I'm not OK with printing this."

Again this cake situation isn't about declaring them to be good people or morally justified or that they shouldn't face a boycott or whatever... It's just about making sure that no one is FORCED into anything :shrug:. I can see the point in legislation against this sort of discrimination when it's a larger company or chain... But a small business like an independent shop or soul trader, really their business should be "their business".

The only other effects are 1) hurting / offending the couple, but then I say again, better that they know what to think of that person...

And 2) costing themselves customers for a stupid bigoted reason. But if they want to do that then :shrug:

[Marsh.]

You could think of it as a printer rather than a publisher though... You can self-publish, but surely, if someone writes a book full of dangerous propaganda and orders 5000 copies to be printed, we want the owner of that company to be able to say "no I'm not OK with printing this."

True but then that ceases to be a valid comparison again, because dangerous propaganda this is not. :laugh:

Again this cake situation isn't about declaring them to be good people or morally justified or that they shouldn't face a boycott or whatever... It's just about making sure that no one is FORCED into anything :shrug:. I can see the point in legislation against this sort of discrimination when it's a larger company or chain... But a small business like an independent shop or soul trader, really their business should be "their business".

The only other effects are 1) hurting / offending the couple, but then I say again, better that they know what to think of that person...

And 2) costing themselves customers for a stupid bigoted reason. But if they want to do that then :shrug:

I don't agree. I think it's upholding law, which is if you wish to run a business you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, sexuality, race, colour, creed etc. Like, if one of these men applied for a job at the bakery and were refused for being gay, that would be discriminatory and against the law.

Not the company being "forced" to do anything other than to follow the law.

[Maru]

Oh dear, what a bummer.

:laugh:

[arista]

So the US Supreme Court supports bigotry. Good to know.


Its not in Every State
in USA
Just a few.

[GoldHeart]

To be fair, in this case it's been made clear that it's not about them "refusing service to gay people" and they've stated that they would have no problem making a birthday cake (or any other cake) for gay people, it's specifically because it's a wedding case.

Do we even know if they're actually against gay relationships in general? Or are they fine with homosexual relationships but their objection is based on the whole "sanctity of marriage" thing? But then like I said; if it's the latter, they would refuse to make wedding cakes for previously divorced people too... presumably...

:clap1: As i've already said in this topic Christians are an easy target when it comes to political debates like this and different views .

The guy in the bakery still offered to bake them another type of cake , so if the couple are so persistent to go with this particular baker then why not just accept another type of cake but just use it as a wedding cake? just don't have the writing "happy birthday" on the cake . Infact birthday cakes can even say "congratulations" on it but that's besides the point .

Or like i said they could just take their business elsewhere but noo it's more fun to take the baker to court and shame him and kick up a petty fuss about it :bored: :facepalm:

[Maru]

http://wtag.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/happy-birthday-jesus-cake-happy-birthday-jesus-adventures-with-teresa-amazing.jpg

He looks like some hippy that lives in a forest. Look at the little trees surrounding the edge of the cake... it has a Robin Hood, 60's-era pot smoker vibe.

[Marsh.]

:clap1: As i've already said in this topic Christians are an easy target when it comes to political debates like this and different views .

The guy in the bakery still offered to bake them another type of cake , so if the couple are so persistent to go with this particular baker then why not just accept another type of cake but just use it as a wedding cake? just don't have the writing "happy birthday" on the cake . Infact birthday cakes can even say "congratulations" on it but that's besides the point .

Or like i said they could just take their business elsewhere but noo it's more fun to take the baker to court and shame him and kick up a petty fuss about it :bored: :facepalm:

They kicked up a fuss about having "happy birthday" written on it?

[GoldHeart]

They kicked up a fuss about having "happy birthday" written on it?

Did you read what i just said ?:bored: , birthday cakes don't have to say "happy birthday" . What about a plain cake that somebody makes and passes as a birthday cake for a family member or dear friend . You can decorate a cake whichever way you want .

I 'm guessing the difference is a birthday cake is usually butter cream or chocolate, whereas traditionally wedding cakes are made of fruit and maybe even a bit of alcohol . But these days people have all kinds of wedding cakes & birthday cakes.

So the point i'm making is if they were so persistent to go with this baker even though they were offended then why not just accept the birthday cake option minus the birthday message on the cake :shrug:. But if you're that upset and offended why not take business elsewhere that's what i don't understand :facepalm:.

And i bet if it was a jewish or muslim bakery they would just accept their beliefs and be on their way somewhere else :suspect: .

I think somebody even mentioned when religious people don't serve ham and pork , you going to demand they make you a pork sandwich :facepalm: or just go somewhere else like a normal person ?.

[Marsh.]

Did you read what i just said ?:bored: , birthday cakes don't have to say "happy birthday" . What about a plain cake that somebody makes and passes as a birthday cake for a family member or dear friend . You can decorate a cake whichever way you want .

I 'm guessing the difference is a birthday cake is usually butter cream or chocolate, whereas traditionally wedding cakes are made of fruit and maybe even a bit of alcohol . But these days people have all kinds of wedding cakes & birthday cakes.

So the point i'm making is if they were so persistent to go with this baker even though they were offended then why not just accept the birthday cake option minus the birthday message on the cake :shrug:. But if you're that upset and offended why not take business elsewhere that's what i don't understand :facepalm:.

And i bet if it was a jewish or muslim bakery they would just accept their beliefs and be on their way somewhere else :suspect: .

I think somebody even mentioned when religious people don't serve ham and pork , you going to demand they make you a pork sandwich :facepalm: or just go somewhere else like a normal person ?.

If they could decorate/make a cake of their own they wouldn't have gone to a bakery? People go to these places to pay for people's expertise.

Yeah, people who don't serve ham or pork is not a valid comparison.
You wouldn't go to them for meats if they did not sell them, just as you wouldn't go to an ice cream parlour for DIY supplies. That's neither here nor there. This man refused the service that they DO OFFER on the basis of the sexuality of the couple. That is discrimination no matter how many invalid comparisons you make.

[GoldHeart]

If they could decorate/make a cake of their own they wouldn't have gone to a bakery? People go to these places to pay for people's expertise.

Yeah, people who don't serve ham or pork is not a valid comparison.
You wouldn't go to them for meats if they did not sell them, just as you wouldn't go to an ice cream parlour for DIY supplies. That's neither here nor there. This man refused the service that they DO OFFER on the basis of the sexuality of the couple. That is discrimination no matter how many invalid comparisons you make.

One again you're not listening to what i said :facepalm: , i never said the gay couple should "make their own cake and decorate it " . I'm merely saying a birthday cake doesn't have to have "Happy birthday" written on it (wow this is hard work) You can have a birthday cake that says congratulations or just a plain cake or one with just balloons decorated on .

It's usually the mixture that defines a birthday cake and the fact that it's 1 cake as usually a wedding cake consists of tiers and several cakes .But in this modern world all kinds of cakes have different mixtures and ingredients.

Like i said the couple could of gone elsewhere or accepted an alternative cake option :idc: .

[Marsh.]

One again you're not listening to what i said :facepalm: , i never said the gay couple should "make their own cake and decorate it " . I'm merely saying a birthday cake doesn't have to have "Happy birthday" written on it (wow this is hard work) You can have a birthday cake that says congratulations or just a plain cake or one with just balloons decorated on .

It's usually the mixture that defines a birthday cake and the fact that it's 1 cake as usually a wedding cake consists of tiers and several cakes .But in this modern world all kinds of cakes have different mixtures and ingredients.

Like i said the couple could of gone elsewhere or accepted an alternative cake option :idc: .

I never said that's what you said, THAT'S WHAT I SAID, hence it appearing in MY post.

People go to bakeries for special occasion cakes because they might want something a bit more than a plain cake, especially for a wedding. Because they want personalised detail on that makes it unique. That tends to be the whole point, otherwise you could buy generic birthday/wedding/balloon whatever cakes from a supermarket.

Yes, they could go anywhere else and try alternative options. BUT the issue isn't solely about them getting the cake they want/need (I'm sure, in the end, they got the cake they wanted elsewhere?), but about being discriminated against by a business for their sexuality, which in 2018 is not acceptable.

[user104658]

"We would like a cake please"
"Is it a wedding cake u look like gays :suspect: "
"No, it is a birthday cake"
"Oh... that's OK then. What would you like."
"We would like it to have three tiers please."
"Three tiers... OK. What about icing?"
"Just white icing please all over."
"Just... just white icing you say... :suspect:... OK what about writing?"
"No writing on our birthday cake thanks."
"Decorations?"
"We would like two small figurines of men in tuxedos on the top of the cake please."
"EY! Wait a damn minute, what is this?? I said no wedding cakes!"
"No no no! It's a birthday cake. For twins. Can you have them holding hands please?"


:hehe:

[GoldHeart]

I never said that's what you said, THAT'S WHAT I SAID, hence it appearing in MY post.

People go to bakeries for special occasion cakes because they might want something a bit more than a plain cake, especially for a wedding. Because they want personalised detail on that makes it unique. That tends to be the whole point, otherwise you could buy generic birthday/wedding/balloon whatever cakes from a supermarket.

Yes, they could go anywhere else and try alternative options. BUT the issue isn't solely about them getting the cake they want/need (I'm sure, in the end, they got the cake they wanted elsewhere?), but about being discriminated against by a business for their sexuality, which in 2018 is not acceptable.


I Doubt they'd feel the same way though if it was another religious bakery refusing to make a wedding cake (ie muslim or jewish) :sleep: . I've seen it time after time same overreaction for particular religion and the same people who are upset turn a blind eye to other relgiions with either the same views or even stricter views smh .

I've even been around people that have contradicted themselves when it comes to accepting religious beliefs , i've heard people berate the bible and slag off christian beliefs and in the same breath they respect islam beleivers hmm... :facepalm: . surely all religions should be respected ?

We're not all going to have the same views but i can't stand the hypocrisy .

I don't know the ins and outs of what a birthday cake would entail that this baker would make ? , but i don't like the idea of someone being pushed into a corner forced into something he doesn't want to do :nono: .

And do we even know if the supreme judge is religious aswell or not? he could even be atheist for all we know ? but that's besides the point.

[Marsh.]

"We would like a cake please"
"Is it a wedding cake u look like gays :suspect: "
"No, it is a birthday cake"
"Oh... that's OK then. What would you like."
"We would like it to have three tiers please."
"Three tiers... OK. What about icing?"
"Just white icing please all over."
"Just... just white icing you say... :suspect:... OK what about writing?"
"No writing on our birthday cake thanks."
"Decorations?"
"We would like two small figurines of men in tuxedos on the top of the cake please."
"EY! Wait a damn minute, what is this?? I said no wedding cakes!"
"No no no! It's a birthday cake. For twins. Can you have them holding hands please?"


:hehe:

:joker::joker::joker::joker:

[Marsh.]

[/B]


I Doubt they'd feel the same way though if it was another religious bakery refusing to make a wedding cake (ie muslim or jewish) :sleep: . I've seen it time after time same overreaction for particular religion and the same people who are upset turn a blind eye to other relgiions with either the same views or even stricter views smh .

I've even been around people that have contradicted themselves when it comes to accepting religious beliefs , i've heard people berate the bible and slag off christian beliefs and in the same breath they respect islam beleivers hmm... :facepalm: . surely all religions should be respected ?

We're not all going to have the same views but i can't stand the hypocrisy .

I don't know the ins and outs of what a birthday cake would entail that this baker would make ? , but i don't like the idea of someone being pushed into a corner forced into something he doesn't want to do :nono: .

And do we even know if the supreme judge is religious aswell or not? he could even be atheist for all we know ? but that's besides the point.

So these men don't mind homophobic discrimination from anyone but Christians?

Ok.

"Pushed into a corner and forced to do something they don't wanna do". Let's go back to what we're talking about "A baker being asked by a paying customer for a cake". Hardly being dragged to Syria to fight in a war.

[GoldHeart]

So these men don't mind homophobic discrimination from anyone but Christians?

Ok.

I didn't say that but they wouldn't take them to court over it i bet :bored:

[Marsh.]

I didn't say that but they wouldn't take them to court over it i bet :bored:

Well, if you're just going to make things up and argue about things that haven't actually happened because of your own conspiracy theories we'll just stop there.

[GoldHeart]

"We would like a cake please"
"Is it a wedding cake u look like gays :suspect: "
"No, it is a birthday cake"
"Oh... that's OK then. What would you like."
"We would like it to have three tiers please."
"Three tiers... OK. What about icing?"
"Just white icing please all over."
"Just... just white icing you say... :suspect:... OK what about writing?"
"No writing on our birthday cake thanks."
"Decorations?"
"We would like two small figurines of men in tuxedos on the top of the cake please."
"EY! Wait a damn minute, what is this?? I said no wedding cakes!"
"No no no! It's a birthday cake. For twins. Can you have them holding hands please?"


:hehe:

Very funny :rolleyes: . A birthday cake wouldn't have tiers or figurines lol .

I was just saying some weddings have extra stand alone cakes with other messages and decorations ie baloons or congratulations writted on .
A birthday cake doesn't have to be a traditional HAPPY BIRTHDAY one .


https://s15.postimg.cc/b06n6gt8b/a89518f7110b3d1163637ba6b4b59406.jpg (https://postimages.org/)


https://s15.postimg.cc/5orqlruaz/9f9f6b90b946e5bbe35a23d3c2782086.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Marsh.]

Again, the issue is not the cake, it's the discrimination.

[Maru]

"We would like a cake please"
"Is it a wedding cake u look like gays :suspect: "
"No, it is a birthday cake"
"Oh... that's OK then. What would you like."
"We would like it to have three tiers please."
"Three tiers... OK. What about icing?"
"Just white icing please all over."
"Just... just white icing you say... :suspect:... OK what about writing?"
"No writing on our birthday cake thanks."
"Decorations?"
"We would like two small figurines of men in tuxedos on the top of the cake please."
"EY! Wait a damn minute, what is this?? I said no wedding cakes!"
"No no no! It's a birthday cake. For twins. Can you have them holding hands please?"


:hehe:

https://media.giphy.com/media/8fen5LSZcHQ5O/giphy.gif

Also TS...

https://i.imgur.com/QeOemXJ.png

[GoldHeart]

Again, the issue is not the cake, it's the discrimination.


Actually the issue is the cake aswell as they insist on a special cake and won't accept other alternatives.

Discrimination happens to all kinds of people , but the baker still gave them another option of cake . It's not like he completely shunned them and refused to serve them .

Like other people have said it's not like it's a huge chain or big supermarket shop. It's a small bakery isn't it? .

[Marsh.]

Actually the issue is the cake aswell as they insist on a special cake and won't accept other alternatives.

Discrimination happens to all kinds of people , but the baker still gave them another option of cake . It's not like he completely shunned them and refused to serve them .

Like other people have said it's not like it's a huge chain or big supermarket shop. It's a small bakery isn't it? .

It's a small bakery so they have a right to discrimination?

Nah, don't work like that.

[user104658]

Also TS...

https://i.imgur.com/QeOemXJ.png

:omgno:

...

https://www.imageupload.co.uk/images/2018/06/05/cherry.jpg

[GoldHeart]

It's a small bakery so they have a right to discrimination?

Nah, don't work like that.

What if there was a bakery that only offered birthday cakes would that be discrimination to other events ? . Or what if there was a bakery that didn't do bar mitzvah celebration cakes? is that offensive to jewish people? .

It's not as simple as to just say "oh it's discrimination" , is that the answer to everything when you don't get what you want? go to court ? i don't agree with that :bored: .

[Marsh.]

What if there was a bakery that only offered birthday cakes would that be discrimination to other events ? . Or what if there was a bakery that didn't do bar mitzvah celebration cakes? is that offensive to jewish people? .

It's not as simple as to just say "oh it's discrimination" , is that the answer to everything when you don't get what you want? go to court ? i don't agree with that :bored: .

That's not what happened? So, again, you're debating something no one else is.

The bakery doesn't "only offer birthday cakes" he declined to make a cake for a wedding because they are gay. That's what actually happened. Discrimination, no matter what silly diversionary arguments you make.

[GoldHeart]

That's not what happened? So, again, you're debating something no one else is.

You're not addressing what i just said . If you don't get what you want or if somebody has offended you ? is the answer to always go to court? no matter how petty it is ?

[Marsh.]

You're not addressing what i just said . If you don't get what you want or if somebody has offended you ? is the answer to always go to court? no matter how petty it is ?

No. Because, again, that's not what happened here and is not what's being discussed.

They didn't rock up to an ice cream shop and ask for a pork sandwich.
They didn't rock up to a "Birthday Cake Bakery" and ask for a wedding cake.
They turned up at a bakery that bakes cakes for weddings and other occasions and were declined what they asked for on the basis that they are a same sex couple. (ie. discrimination).

That's what happened.

So, go off on a tangent with stories and examples that mock them, but the facts don't change.

[GoldHeart]

No. Because, again, that's not what happened here and is not what's being discussed.

They didn't rock up to an ice cream shop and ask for a pork sandwich.
They didn't rock up to a "Birthday Cake Bakery" and ask for a wedding cake.
They turned up at a bakery that bakes cakes for weddings and other occasions and were declined what they asked for on the basis that they are a same sex couple. (ie. discrimination).

That's what happened.

So, go off on a tangent with stories and examples that mock them, but the facts don't change.

I never mocked anyone , i'm just giving my opinion :nono: .

There was a story about a bakery in indonesia who refused to write "merry Christmas" on a cake for a customer due to religious beliefs is that discrimination? .

[Marsh.]

I never mocked anyone , i'm just giving my opinion :nono: .

There was a story about a bakery in indonesia who refused to write "merry Christmas" on a cake for a customer due to religious beliefs is that discrimination? .

You are.

"What if there was a bakery that only offered birthday cakes would that be discrimination to other events ? . Or what if there was a bakery that didn't do bar mitzvah celebration cakes? is that offensive to jewish people?"

This is not a comparison but a complete exaggeration and mocking of the facts.
This didn't happen.

As for the Indonesian bakery, I don't know, I haven't heard/read that story.

[GoldHeart]

You are.

"What if there was a bakery that only offered birthday cakes would that be discrimination to other events ? . Or what if there was a bakery that didn't do bar mitzvah celebration cakes? is that offensive to jewish people?"

This is not a comparison but a complete exaggeration and mocking of the facts.
This didn't happen.

As for the Indonesian bakery, I don't know, I haven't heard/read that story.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-bakery-refuses-to-write-merry-christmas-on-cake-triggering-religious-row

[Marsh.]

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-bakery-refuses-to-write-merry-christmas-on-cake-triggering-religious-row

That's discrimination too.

Refusing to serve someone on the basis of their colour, race, sexuality, gender, creed etc is discrimination.

So, mocking with "You wouldn't go into a book shop and ask for a wedding cake" type facetiousness is pointless.

If they were refusing actual offensive/hateful/criminal material then that would be one thing. They're not. They're applying religious discrimination, just as the US bakery were discriminatory on the basis of sexuality.

It would be like a bakery over here turning away a Jewish family for a bar mitzvah cake on the grounds they are Christian. It's completely ridiculous.

[Maru]

If only religious folk would just get rid of their petty beliefs... seems to be the logic of some of those some who disagree with this position... but that is not seeing the bigger picture.

If for example a group went to a company and asked them to make a cake or an ad campaign for a KKK chapter or for an Anti-gay organization... I would understand completely if those folk refuse such a request on principled grounds. I mean when we talk about hate speech laws, aren't we really discussing discriminating what is and isn't hate speech?... Discrimination is not always bad thing. Sometimes it is just common sense... many companies would refuse this request, and I would refuse this request, absolutely...

It doesn't feel good for the individual when the loudest message they hear from their environment is to "just get over" their life-long culture (and value) structures... but this is what politics now often ask of voters. Pick a side or find yourself standing alone... because we won't protect you if you stray from our political platform...

For me, it's not so simple to just eliminate all discrimination in commercial services. When it involves individuals, we informing them that they must lay down and allow others to impose rules on how they practice their individual customs... this is why intellectual diversity is such a red herring now... because to employ such a heavy hand on custom, is not only authoritative, but eventually eliminates all individual discredition ...

What's worse it's not even enough to say to those who are religious or declining on principled grounds, that they just disagree... but they also tend to declare that the other side has entered a moral danger zone and must be "handled" at all costs... but this is a heavy-handed and contradictory stance to take when we are supposed to be the society that considers individual rights to be the forefront of our government's structure...

Anyway... we have to make room for individuals to live according to their culture and belief structures, with reason, in order to truly exist as a diverse society...

Perhaps the middle ground here is that businesses that have this policy in place company-wide, must alsodeclare their small/big business as an entity with religious status (i.e. Christian)... and I think this is fair, as it would make it fairly transparent to patrons what requests would likely be unreasonable in that capacity.

It would also eliminate the chance of reckless discriminatory practices from arbitrarily being enforced... since they would need legal status in order to "enforce" such a company policy.

In the US, we have something like this for gun laws... there is a sign that the business must put up, it is specific penal code... one is they cannot enter with an open-carry weapon.. the other is they cannot enter those premises with any weapon period... if that sign is disregarded, that violation is considered automatically a felony... (which would bar them from owning at all)

[Marsh.]

If only religious folk would just get rid of their petty beliefs...

I doubt writing words on a cake for a customer would interfere with anyone's political or religious beliefs.

[GoldHeart]

That's discrimination too.

Refusing to serve someone on the basis of their colour, race, sexuality, gender, creed etc is discrimination.

So, mocking with "You wouldn't go into a book shop and ask for a wedding cake" type facetiousness is pointless.

If they were refusing actual offensive/hateful/criminal material then that would be one thing. They're not. They're applying religious discrimination, just as the US bakery were discriminatory on the basis of sexuality.

It would be like a bakery over here turning away a Jewish family for a bar mitzvah cake on the grounds they are Christian. It's completely ridiculous.

But I've just shown you that article based on difference in religion views and beliefs and they don't do Christmas cakes .

And there will be places that don't do bar mitzvah cakes , not every place is going to give you what you want but they'll always be other places that do.

I just think people scream "discrimination" too much these days and it's not always as clear cut as that .

By all means if abuse and hate is there then fair enough,but these bakeries in Indonesia & America both seem polite & apologetic.

[Marsh.]

For me, it's not so simple to just eliminate all discrimination in commercial services. When it involves individuals, we informing them that they must lay down and allow others to impose rules on how they practice their individual customs... this is why intellectual diversity is such a red herring now... because to employ such a heavy hand on custom, is not only authoritative, but eventually eliminates all individual discredition ...

Nah, if you want to set up a business dealing with the public, then said business should not be discriminatory. Just like we have employment law to protect employee's.

[Oliver_W]

One of the new Will & Grace episodes was similar to this, the cake shop owners didn't wanna make a MAGA cake, so Grace bullied them into doing it. Their first attempt they defaced it to say IMAGAY haha

[Maru]

I doubt writing words on a cake for a customer would interfere with anyone's political or religious beliefs.

Don't say that to my Catholic grandmother :laugh:... it's not enough for some to just believe in name and spirit only... though that is how many people practice now with how increasingly secular our respective societies have become...

[Marsh.]

But I've just shown you that article based on difference in religion views and beliefs and they don't do Christmas cakes .

So?

It wasn't so much that they don't "do Christmas cakes" they do cakes and also put customised writing on the cakes. They refused to write the words "Merry Christmas" because they are not Christian... or something. Incredibly petty, but also discriminatory. Writing that on a cake does not interfere with their own religion or their own right to believe whatever they want. When you're wanting to run a business, you follow the law.


And there will be places that don't do bar mitzvah cakes , not every place is going to give you what you want but they'll always be other places that do.

That doesn't make any sense. If a bakery does cakes... it does cakes.

There is no difference between a bar mitzvah cake and a birthday cake or a Christmas cake, other than maybe the decoration.

If I went into a shop and asked for a 12 tier cake and they told me oh, actually we only bake cupcakes that's fair enough but to be told "Oh, yes we can write whatever message you want on your cake, but I'm not writing Congratulations Bob & Gary because that's gay" that's discriminatory.

I just think people scream "discrimination" too much these days and it's not always as clear cut as that .

By all means if abuse and hate is there then fair enough,but these bakeries in Indonesia & America both seem polite & apologetic.

Whether you think it's screamed too much or not has no bearing on whether something is discriminatory or not.

It's like saying "Oh bloody hell I'm sick of hearing of abuse and sexism in the workplace, people are complaining about it far too much". Maybe look at the cause being the actual sexism and abuse in the workplace, rather than the people speaking up about it.

If someone told a black guy "I'm ever so sorry but we don't allow black men on the premises of our shop. Could you please leave. Thank you ever so much. Have a nice day!" would we say oh that's not racism, they were apologetic and nice and polite. :) Ummm, no.

[Maru]

One of the new Will & Grace episodes was similar to this, the cake shop owners didn't wanna make a MAGA cake, so Grace bullied them into doing it. Their first attempt they defaced it to say IMAGAY haha

Yeah... kind of like how Robert De Niro banned Trump from his restaurants... which I don't disagree with, it's his business to ban whoever...

Robert De Niro says he has barred Trump from all locations of his swanky restaurant chain that's beloved by the rich and famous
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-banned-from-nobu-robert-de-niro-says-2018-5

[Marsh.]

In fact that Indonesian company is pathetic.

Their religious beliefs prevent them from writing "Merry Christmas" on a cake but if you so wish you can have Merry Christmas added to a greetings card on our website. :laugh2:

[GoldHeart]

So?

It wasn't so much that they don't "do Christmas cakes" they do cakes and also put customised writing on the cakes. They refused to write the words "Merry Christmas" because they are not Christian... or something. Incredibly petty, but also discriminatory. Writing that on a cake does not interfere with their own religion or their own right to believe whatever they want. When you're wanting to run a business, you follow the law.



That doesn't make any sense. If a bakery does cakes... it does cakes.

There is no difference between a bar mitzvah cake and a birthday cake or a Christmas cake, other than maybe the decoration.

If I went into a shop and asked for a 12 tier cake and they told me oh, actually we only bake cupcakes that's fair enough but to be told "Oh, yes we can write whatever message you want on your cake, but I'm not writing Congratulations Bob & Gary because that's gay" that's discriminatory.



Whether you think it's screamed too much or not has no bearing on whether something is discriminatory or not.

It's like saying "Oh bloody hell I'm sick of hearing of abuse and sexism in the workplace, people are complaining about it far too much". Maybe look at the cause being the actual sexism and abuse in the workplace, rather than the people speaking up about it.

If someone told a black guy "I'm ever so sorry but we don't allow black men on the premises of our shop. Could you please leave. Thank you ever so much. Have a nice day!" would we say oh that's not racism, they were apologetic and nice and polite. :) Ummm, no.

Once again you take it to the extreme level :bored::facepalm:, I don't see anything about the American bakery not allowing gay people on the premises and they didn't refuse all service all together.

Niether did the Indonesia bakery . Nobody was kicked out of these shops unfairly . They just didn't do a particular cake for them :nono:.

[Marsh.]

Once again you take it to the extreme level :bored::facepalm:, I don't see anything about the American bakery not allowing gay people on the premises and they didn't refuse all service all together.


I never said you or they did. Read it again. I was responding directly to your comment that no discrimination occurred because they were "polite and apologetic" which is actually laughable.

Niether did the Indonesia bakery . Nobody was kicked out of these shops unfairly . They just didn't do a particular cake for them :nono:.

I never said they did. Re-read what I said and what it was in response to.

I have no idea what religion this Indonesian bakery follow who are forbidden from writing Merry Christmas on a cake but can print it on cards. Whatever religion it is must take their icing very seriously.

[Maru]

Interesting article on the Justice's words... may have to look into this in more detail later on as I'm not really following news much right now...

Source: https://www.dailywire.com/news/31556/gottry-tolerance-respect-two-separate-concepts-daily-wire

GOTTRY: Tolerance And Respect Are Two Separate Concepts
https://i.imgur.com/LCnX4dF.jpg

Well, that celebration was short-lived.

On June 4, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While the ink was still drying on the decision, some pundits and advocates lined up to declare that the 7-2 victory for Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop is little more than a guidebook for a future defeat.

The thrust of the argument goes like this:


Justice Anthony Kennedy was primarily concerned with the “clear and impermissible hostility” that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated toward Jack and his beliefs.

Justice Kennedy was also adamant that “purveyors of goods and services” should not be allowed to act in such a way as to “impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”

Therefore, if government entities simply say it with a smile next time, they will be allowed to strip Jack and others of their First Amendment freedoms.

That sounds awful. It does not, however, sound accurate.

The Supreme Court’s concern is not simply that the government replaces hostility with respect. Justice Kennedy indicated during oral arguments that more than mere respect is required. He specifically stated that “the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs” (emphasis mine).

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy echoed this refrain, stating that “the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs” (emphasis mine).

The court addressed the commission’s outright hostility toward Jack because it was unavoidable. As Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, that hostility was an assault on “the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.” This hostility alone required the court to set aside the commission’s order.

But the court’s order fails to fully answer the question of what tolerance requires.

And to the extent that the opinion provides some guideposts for that determination in future contexts, it does not forecast a defeat for First Amendment freedoms. To the contrary, the boundary lines that have been sketched out leave ample space for a two-way street of tolerance.

Let’s consider what Justice Kennedy actually said in the majority opinion.

The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the … rights and dignity of gay persons…. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment…. (Opinion, at 1-2)

By acknowledging the need for a reconciliation, Justice Kennedy acknowledges there is room for reconciliation. Constitutionally guaranteed rights can coexist with socially valued principles of nondiscrimination. The trick is simply to find the proper balance.

Now, what balance may be found? The opinion suggests a way:

Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth…. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. (Opinion, at 9)

Here the opinion says that LGBT persons and same-sex couples should be afforded freedom “on terms equal to others.” This includes those with “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage.” Kennedy confirms as much when he condemns the commission for “implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.”

He is essentially validating his remarks during oral arguments. First, “tolerance is essential in a free society.” And second, “tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.” This might be the most pointed rebuttal to those naysayers who claim Justice Kennedy is inviting future conscience cases to be resolved by a more respectful infringement on First Amendment rights. After all, can you really label a society as “mutually tolerant” if it declares “decent and honorable religious” beliefs—language the Supreme Court used in Obergefell—wholly unwelcome in the marketplace?

But the question remains, how can a creative professional like Jack peacefully live and work consistent with his beliefs without violating the parameters that the majority opinion identifies? The opinion provides the framework for an answer, buried in the background section: “the ALJ [administrative law judge] determined that Phillips’ actions constituted prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not simply opposition to same-sex marriage as Phillips contended.”

While the ALJ reached the wrong conclusion, the Supreme Court highlighted a distinction key to reconciliation: namely, there is a difference between opposing an idea or an event and opposing an individual. And this is a principle that Jack Phillips has proclaimed since the case’s inception—he serves all people but cannot celebrate all events or express all messages.

Jack’s conviction not to celebrate messages or events contrary to his faith does not amount to discrimination against a person or class of persons. And no one should be bullied or banished from the marketplace for peacefully living out the belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

In a tolerant society, we should expect creative professionals to serve all people. But in a tolerant society, we should also protect their freedom to decline to celebrate events or express messages that conflict with their conscience.

It’s true, the Supreme Court’s decision does not tell us everything that tolerance requires. But it left itself ample room, in future cases, to protect the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.

[Vicky.]

I don't know enough about this case to comment really, but the one in NI..I find very interesting as same sex marriage was not (IS not?) legal there when the whole thing kicked off. So the baker was refusing to bake a message that was supporting something that was not legal, basically. However at the same time, its not legal to discriminate against gay people. So to me, this is a huge conflict of laws? Maybe should just push through same sex marriage really :idc:

I am not sure what my opinion is on refusing to put certain messages on cakes. On the one hand, you are there to fulfill the customers request. On the other hand, customers can go elsewhere if you do not wish to serve exactly what they want. I do not see what the issue is in putting a message on that you disagree with BUT I also cannot see anyone objecting if (for example) a Muslim bakery refused to bake a cake that said something about how much the buyer loves pork. Or even, a bakery owned by anyone of a different religion to Christianity refused to bake a same sex marriage cake (and especially if same sex marriage was not legal where the bakery actually was)

Sex is a protected characteristic right, but if I went and asked for a cake that said that women are better than men or vice versa, and the bakery refused..said they would make a cake but not with that message on..it would be annoying but I can't see that its breaking the law? And people would think I was a bit of a twat if I tried to get them done for that. IF however, they completely refused to serve me because I am a woman, that would be wrong in my eyes. I still would not take them to court, as whats the point, but I am sure most would support me if I did take it further than just muttering 'arseholes' and stropping out.

In short, I am kind of conflicted on it all.