User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 14881
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:49 am

seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.

You could ABSOLUTELY tell a Christian, however, “I don’t bake religious cakes, sorry. I’ll gladly make you anything else you may want, but I’m not comfortable with making a cake in the shape of a cross that says ‘HE IS RISEN.’”

And if that Christian specifically sought you out only after driving past literally dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly done whatever he wanted and didn’t give two shits about what he wanted the cake to say, I’d call that Christian out for being an asshole just like I’d call out these gay men who did the same thing and were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
seb146
Posts: 18031
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:53 am

EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6601
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:34 am

EA CO AS wrote:
No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.

You could ABSOLUTELY tell a Christian, however, “I don’t bake religious cakes, sorry. I’ll gladly make you anything else you may want, but I’m not comfortable with making a cake in the shape of a cross that says ‘HE IS RISEN.’”

And if that Christian specifically sought you out only after driving past literally dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly done whatever he wanted and didn’t give two shits about what he wanted the cake to say, I’d call that Christian out for being an asshole just like I’d call out these gay men who did the same thing and were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.

I get where you're coming from and I agree with it. The problem is that the line is so blurred that saying "I'm not comfortable baking a gay wedding cake but feel free to pick any other baked good" will turn into "I don't serve gays; get out of the store".

Fact of the matter is that the SCOTUS still left the issue hanging in the air. While it didn't say a store can discriminate, it didn't say it can't either. Who wins?
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:20 pm

seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


No, he was arguing that his beliefs are protected by the Constitution. That's what the whole issue is about. This case is one step in the direction of protecting religious minority opinions. This is what this whole thing is going to turn into.
Stay curious
 
slider
Posts: 7054
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:49 pm

jetero wrote:
OA412 wrote:
slider wrote:
Awww, feelings were hurt? Well, certainly that's legally actionable in the snowflake century.

Give me a break.

Yeah, we've all been hurt. That's part of life. You deal with it. Not everyone agrees with you, holds your same beliefs. So associate with those who do. Litigating isn't going to change hearts.

And no, there are NOT only two sides to this. But I'm glad you can think of things in such neat linear and binary ways. Your world must be so tidy. Real life exists in a lot of shades of gray.

Those damn liberal snowflakes and their discrimination claims: http://kdvr.com/2015/01/20/man-who-requ ... -educator/


Such antisocial behavior.


I know! Seb146 is out of control, hehe... ;)

Anyone who disagrees with him is branded an evangelical zealot. Good to know he's been reading his Alinsky.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:18 pm

CCGPV wrote:
seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


No, he was arguing that his beliefs are protected by the Constitution. That's what the whole issue is about. This case is one step in the direction of protecting religious minority opinions. This is what this whole thing is going to turn into.


Imho it goes wider as nothing in the process of making a cake is in conflict with the baker´s religion. Same ingredients, same work, same groom figures not even an offensive form for the cake. The only thing the baker did disagree with was on how the customer planed to use the cake. And that is imho none of his business. It is not as if somebody asked a Muslim baker to make him a bacon pie.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6601
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
Imho it goes wider as nothing in the process of making a cake is in conflict with the baker´s religion. Same ingredients, same work, same groom figures not even an offensive form for the cake. The only thing the baker did disagree with was on how the customer planed to use the cake. And that is imho none of his business. It is not as if somebody asked a Muslim baker to make him a bacon pie.

Because baking a cake for a gay wedding makes him an accomplice of a gay wedding. You know...in the same way that a gun shop selling a gun to someone who later commits crimes is also an accomplice of the crime...
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:57 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seb146 wrote:

Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


No, he was arguing that his beliefs are protected by the Constitution. That's what the whole issue is about. This case is one step in the direction of protecting religious minority opinions. This is what this whole thing is going to turn into.


Imho it goes wider as nothing in the process of making a cake is in conflict with the baker´s religion. Same ingredients, same work, same groom figures not even an offensive form for the cake. The only thing the baker did disagree with was on how the customer planed to use the cake. And that is imho none of his business. It is not as if somebody asked a Muslim baker to make him a bacon pie.


Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all. Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

Those are extreme examples but its the same application of theory.
Stay curious
 
User avatar
Dieuwer
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 3:42 pm

The Arizona Gay-Calligraphy Case

An Arizona appeals court ruled Thursday that a Phoenix-based calligraphy business cannot refuse service to same-sex couples, upholding the city's anti-discrimination ordinance as constitutional.


"This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech," the court wrote. "Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in 'a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations,' " the ruling states.


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/391242 ... ng-supreme
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:10 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.


I’m sorry what? Someone obviously doesn’t know the facts of the case.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:40 pm

CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

No, he was arguing that his beliefs are protected by the Constitution. That's what the whole issue is about. This case is one step in the direction of protecting religious minority opinions. This is what this whole thing is going to turn into.


Imho it goes wider as nothing in the process of making a cake is in conflict with the baker´s religion. Same ingredients, same work, same groom figures not even an offensive form for the cake. The only thing the baker did disagree with was on how the customer planed to use the cake. And that is imho none of his business. It is not as if somebody asked a Muslim baker to make him a bacon pie.


Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all. Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

Those are extreme examples but its the same application of theory.


Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 14881
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:58 pm

seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


It’s fine if you believe the government has the right to force bakers to create custom cakes for anyone that asks. But if you do, then you clearly also believe the government has the right to force pupils to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And prosecute you if you cover the motto on your license plate. And force you to self-incriminate under oath. And enforce national school dress codes. And force your charity to accept donations from Nazis. These are all examples of compelled speech, where the government has thankfully sided with our Constitutional Framers. As proud as I am of the diverse group of friends I keep both on and offline, the hypocrisy of those applauding NFL players that take a knee while simultaneously insisting artists embrace any and all messages they are asked to create is really beginning to get to me.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:02 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


It’s fine if you believe the government has the right to force bakers to create custom cakes for anyone that asks. But if you do, then you clearly also believe the government has the right to force pupils to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And prosecute you if you cover the motto on your license plate. And force you to self-incriminate under oath. And enforce national school dress codes. And force your charity to accept donations from Nazis. These are all examples of compelled speech, where the government has thankfully sided with our Constitutional Framers. As proud as I am of the diverse group of friends I keep both on and offline, the hypocrisy of those applauding NFL players that take a knee while simultaneously insisting artists embrace any and all messages they are asked to create is really beginning to get to me.


Well someone really isn’t lacking for perspective.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:37 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


It’s fine if you believe the government has the right to force bakers to create custom cakes for anyone that asks. But if you do, then you clearly also believe the government has the right to force pupils to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And prosecute you if you cover the motto on your license plate. And force you to self-incriminate under oath. And enforce national school dress codes. And force your charity to accept donations from Nazis. These are all examples of compelled speech, where the government has thankfully sided with our Constitutional Framers. As proud as I am of the diverse group of friends I keep both on and offline, the hypocrisy of those applauding NFL players that take a knee while simultaneously insisting artists embrace any and all messages they are asked to create is really beginning to get to me.


So writing a text that is ordered by the customer on a standard product is art? What next, no more printed invitations for gay weddings as it is art to print the template with Peter and Dave instead of Peter and Anne?

So better never marry a girl named August or Dana. You will have to bring her or at least her id to the baker, print shop, the guy who engraves the ring,...
Last edited by seahawk on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
seb146
Posts: 18031
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:39 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.


Because, as the baker said, HIS BELIEFS ARE HIGHER than that of the Constitution. He (and, by extension, you) believe that evangelicals are more important and above the Constitution because of the Bible.

THE BIBLE IS NOT AMERICAN LAW!!!!

You evangelicals do not understand that. But, as long as you get to choose judges who side with you, that is what you will believe. You have doomed this republic to failure. Because your beliefs are more important than the freedom of the general population.


It’s fine if you believe the government has the right to force bakers to create custom cakes for anyone that asks. But if you do, then you clearly also believe the government has the right to force pupils to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. And prosecute you if you cover the motto on your license plate. And force you to self-incriminate under oath. And enforce national school dress codes. And force your charity to accept donations from Nazis. These are all examples of compelled speech, where the government has thankfully sided with our Constitutional Framers. As proud as I am of the diverse group of friends I keep both on and offline, the hypocrisy of those applauding NFL players that take a knee while simultaneously insisting artists embrace any and all messages they are asked to create is really beginning to get to me.


Forced patriotism is completely different than forcing your religious views on others.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 6601
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:05 pm

CCGPV wrote:
Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all.

Impossible to do as a devout Muslim will not touch bacon in the first place (which is odd, considering that Christians are such Bible thumpers that they too should abide by the no-pork touching rule) and odds are they'll run a shop serving food that meets Halal standards (and if not, they'll attempt to find ways to avoid coming into contact with pork), just like a Jew will do with Kosher.


CCGPV wrote:
Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

The artist doesn't have an offering of what they'll paint. They don't have a catalogue of topics to paint about. Therefore, an artist is free to refuse a commission because the work is not automated; it's personal. That being said, if I commissioned a painting form you, it's not of your business where or what I use it for.

The only artistic part of a cake is the decoration, which is unique for every occasion (unless they have a template that is churned out by printer or lesser hands). A store could bake the cake but not decorate it.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:39 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
The Arizona Gay-Calligraphy Case

An Arizona appeals court ruled Thursday that a Phoenix-based calligraphy business cannot refuse service to same-sex couples, upholding the city's anti-discrimination ordinance as constitutional.


"This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech," the court wrote. "Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in 'a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations,' " the ruling states.


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/391242 ... ng-supreme



Interesting, this applies more directly to what is being said here about "speech" and whether it is forced or not. I for one do not believe that this is a case of forced speech as all of your "speech on product" is forced since it is not your words, it is someone elses. All the speech is forced in this type of "art". All of it. Whether it says "Bob and Jane" or "Amy and Cindy" or "Congratulation on completing your sentence" you are doing exactly the same amount of effort as writing anything else. And you are in no way being required to identify with the item being produced or confirming the statement being placed upon it, the product.

I will say though that the case does mean that anyone could be taken to court for refusing to make something that is the "art", a sign maker, a t-shirt printer, a window painter... gay, straight or otherwise is required to perform their task without reservation of who it is for or what it is saying. Of course the normal "I do not have any availability" is still an option.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:58 pm

Tugger wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
The Arizona Gay-Calligraphy Case

An Arizona appeals court ruled Thursday that a Phoenix-based calligraphy business cannot refuse service to same-sex couples, upholding the city's anti-discrimination ordinance as constitutional.


"This conduct, even though it may incidentally impact speech, is not speech," the court wrote. "Further, allowing a vendor who provides goods and services for marriages and weddings to refuse similar services for gay persons would result in 'a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations,' " the ruling states.


http://thehill.com/homenews/news/391242 ... ng-supreme



Interesting, this applies more directly to what is being said here about "speech" and whether it is forced or not. I for one do not believe that this is a case of forced speech as all of your "speech on product" is forced since it is not your words, it is someone elses. All the speech is forced in this type of "art". All of it. Whether it says "Bob and Jane" or "Amy and Cindy" or "Congratulation on completing your sentence" you are doing exactly the same amount of effort as writing anything else. And you are in no way being required to identify with the item being produced or confirming the statement being placed upon it, the product.

I will say though that the case does mean that anyone could be taken to court for refusing to make something that is the "art", a sign maker, a t-shirt printer, a window painter... gay, straight or otherwise is required to perform their task without reservation of who it is for or what it is saying. Of course the normal "I do not have any availability" is still an option.

Tugg


The other aspect of these cases that give neither the caker or the righter (that's the term I'll make up for this one) much of a leg to stand on is, without doubt, this is probably the first time ever they refused their services to others, presumably based entirely on their religion's view on marriage. It is also without doubt that they did not take steps, with any other of their customers, to go through any sort of religious "vetting process" to determine whether their marriages, celebrations, etc. met other religious tests, i.e., they didn't apply the same standard to others.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:17 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
Impossible to do as a devout Muslim will not touch bacon in the first place (which is odd, considering that Christians are such Bible thumpers that they too should abide by the no-pork touching rule) and odds are they'll run a shop serving food that meets Halal standards (and if not, they'll attempt to find ways to avoid coming into contact with pork), just like a Jew will do with Kosher.


I believe that the standard is the employer has to make "reasonable accommodation," but if you're running, say, a breakfast restaurant, chances are such accommodation can't be made and the employee must find employment elsewhere.

In the case of the caker, presumably he could be held to a similar standard and have someone else in the cakery who didn't share his views on God and frosting to decorate the cake.

einsteinboricua wrote:
The artist doesn't have an offering of what they'll paint. They don't have a catalogue of topics to paint about. Therefore, an artist is free to refuse a commission because the work is not automated; it's personal. That being said, if I commissioned a painting form you, it's not of your business where or what I use it for.

The only artistic part of a cake is the decoration, which is unique for every occasion (unless they have a template that is churned out by printer or lesser hands). A store could bake the cake but not decorate it.


Unless the caker is some sort of Rembrandt making original designs for every cake, the only unique "decoration" is the message on a design picked out from a catalog, although I'm sure there are plenty of instances in which even that isn't "unique," e.g., "Congratulations!"

If this case, or some derivative of the case, comes in front of the Supreme Court again, and the CCHR or its equivalent applied its standards consistently and "without discrimination," I honestly doubt the caker would win.

Again, unless the caker is able to apply a consistent standard for other customers with regard to meeting religious tests for marriage (or other activities), I don't think he has a leg to stand on.
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:03 pm

EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.

You could ABSOLUTELY tell a Christian, however, “I don’t bake religious cakes, sorry. I’ll gladly make you anything else you may want, but I’m not comfortable with making a cake in the shape of a cross that says ‘HE IS RISEN.’”

And if that Christian specifically sought you out only after driving past literally dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly done whatever he wanted and didn’t give two shits about what he wanted the cake to say, I’d call that Christian out for being an asshole just like I’d call out these gay men who did the same thing and were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.


Bang on the money.

This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement and left them looking as petty as the religious types.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 8276
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:24 pm

Freakysh wrote:
backfired for the gay movement and left them looking as petty as the religious types.

It certainly didn't "backfire". The commission should not judge religion, just the person/business/task at hand (just as the "religion", the person's interpretation of their religion, should not judge the lifestyle or sexuality of the person their product is being provided for). Sadly, ultimately, this subject will be revisited by the courts, supreme and otherwise.

Again, all speech of this type is forced as the cake maker is making it to the customers specifications, not their own. If they want to do that then only offer that.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:45 pm

Freakysh wrote:
This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement


Yet someone else who hasn’t bothered with the facts of the case.

You and others seem to be stating that this couple went out of their way to force this particular to faker to cake them a cake.

They went to pick out a cake at a highly regarded Denver caker. They were refused by caker in front of other customers. It was not any sort of targeted move against the religious nut caker. Their decision to file a complaint with the CCHR is entirely understandable.
 
seb146
Posts: 18031
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:52 pm

Freakysh wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
seb146 wrote:
So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.


No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.

You could ABSOLUTELY tell a Christian, however, “I don’t bake religious cakes, sorry. I’ll gladly make you anything else you may want, but I’m not comfortable with making a cake in the shape of a cross that says ‘HE IS RISEN.’”

And if that Christian specifically sought you out only after driving past literally dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly done whatever he wanted and didn’t give two shits about what he wanted the cake to say, I’d call that Christian out for being an asshole just like I’d call out these gay men who did the same thing and were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.


Bang on the money.

This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement and left them looking as petty as the religious types.


Customers: We want you to bake a wedding cake. How much do you charge?
Bakers; Because of my religious beliefs, I will not bake you a cake.

How is that gays looking petty? How is that backfiring for the gay movement? We are simply a passing fancy now? We are people, you know.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:05 pm

seb146 wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:

No, you can’t say, “You’re a Christian so I won’t serve you,” just as this baker didn’t say, “You’re gay, so I won’t serve you.” He refused to create a cake specifically for a gay wedding, but offered to make any other baked goods or cakes the men wanted - just not a cake decorated for a gay wedding.

You could ABSOLUTELY tell a Christian, however, “I don’t bake religious cakes, sorry. I’ll gladly make you anything else you may want, but I’m not comfortable with making a cake in the shape of a cross that says ‘HE IS RISEN.’”

And if that Christian specifically sought you out only after driving past literally dozens of other bakeries that would have gladly done whatever he wanted and didn’t give two shits about what he wanted the cake to say, I’d call that Christian out for being an asshole just like I’d call out these gay men who did the same thing and were clearly more interested in making a point than having a cake made.


Bang on the money.

This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement and left them looking as petty as the religious types.


Customers: We want you to bake a wedding cake. How much do you charge?
Bakers; Because of my religious beliefs, I will not bake you a cake.

How is that gays looking petty? How is that backfiring for the gay movement? We are simply a passing fancy now? We are people, you know.


I mean they go to a well known caker, who literally tells them “I won’t bake you a cake because of my religious beliefs but you’re welcome to buy anything else you want from the store” in front of other customers. What should they have said? “Thanks a bunch, Jack, for the opportunity to buy a dozen snickerdoodles”?

Honestly I wish they would’ve told him, “You’re a adult male and a baker ... oh honey we thought you were one of us.”
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:44 pm

jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement


Yet someone else who hasn’t bothered with the facts of the case.

You and others seem to be stating that this couple went out of their way to force this particular to faker to cake them a cake.

They went to pick out a cake at a highly regarded Denver caker. They were refused by caker in front of other customers. It was not any sort of targeted move against the religious nut caker. Their decision to file a complaint with the CCHR is entirely understandable.


Where did I say they went out their way?

They came across an idiot and should have laughed at him and walked out taking their business elsewhere.

Instead they decided the best action was to take him to court for attention seeking purposes.

I come across idiots all the time, doesn't mean I want to make a big deal of everything. You have choices to take your business elsewhere.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Fri Jun 08, 2018 11:48 pm

Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
This was an attention seeking act that backfired for the gay movement


Yet someone else who hasn’t bothered with the facts of the case.

You and others seem to be stating that this couple went out of their way to force this particular to faker to cake them a cake.

They went to pick out a cake at a highly regarded Denver caker. They were refused by caker in front of other customers. It was not any sort of targeted move against the religious nut caker. Their decision to file a complaint with the CCHR is entirely understandable.


Where did I say they went out their way?

They came across an idiot and should have laughed at him and walked out taking their business elsewhere.

Instead they decided the best action was to take him to court for attention seeking purposes.

I come across idiots all the time, doesn't mean I want to make a big deal of everything. You have choices to take your business elsewhere.


OK, not out of their way but rather attention seeking. On what basis would you say they were attention seeking, other than as you have explained, which pretty much seems to be not handling the situation exactly as Freakysh would?
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:57 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all.

Impossible to do as a devout Muslim will not touch bacon in the first place (which is odd, considering that Christians are such Bible thumpers that they too should abide by the no-pork touching rule) and odds are they'll run a shop serving food that meets Halal standards (and if not, they'll attempt to find ways to avoid coming into contact with pork), just like a Jew will do with Kosher.


CCGPV wrote:
Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

The artist doesn't have an offering of what they'll paint. They don't have a catalogue of topics to paint about. Therefore, an artist is free to refuse a commission because the work is not automated; it's personal. That being said, if I commissioned a painting form you, it's not of your business where or what I use it for.

The only artistic part of a cake is the decoration, which is unique for every occasion (unless they have a template that is churned out by printer or lesser hands). A store could bake the cake but not decorate it.


Everyone is missing the basic point. Its not the history behind what is being asked, its the ACT of doing it. Its his speech (action of making the cake).
Stay curious
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:01 am

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Imho it goes wider as nothing in the process of making a cake is in conflict with the baker´s religion. Same ingredients, same work, same groom figures not even an offensive form for the cake. The only thing the baker did disagree with was on how the customer planed to use the cake. And that is imho none of his business. It is not as if somebody asked a Muslim baker to make him a bacon pie.


Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all. Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

Those are extreme examples but its the same application of theory.


Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.


That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...
Stay curious
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8049
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:51 am

"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:57 am

727LOVER wrote:


What a productive member of society.

Plenty of people were arguing that this is somehow OK.

It’s well to remember, however, that the Supreme Court verdict did not address this (although it seems a good number of you think it did).
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8049
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:30 am

jetero wrote:
727LOVER wrote:


What a productive member of society.

Plenty of people were arguing that this is somehow OK.

It’s well to remember, however, that the Supreme Court verdict did not address this (although it seems a good number of you think it did).


I know....I mean...how's he going to know?

ME: How much is this hammer?
HIM: $6
ME: I'll take it.
he rings me up...I pay...he gives me receipt.....as I walk out the door, I turn around and blow him a kiss...THANX, SWEETIE
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:39 am

727LOVER wrote:
jetero wrote:
727LOVER wrote:


What a productive member of society.

Plenty of people were arguing that this is somehow OK.

It’s well to remember, however, that the Supreme Court verdict did not address this (although it seems a good number of you think it did).


I know....I mean...how's he going to know?

ME: How much is this hammer?
HIM: $6
ME: I'll take it.
he rings me up...I pay...he gives me receipt.....as I walk out the door, I turn around and blow him a kiss...THANX, SWEETIE


Don’t forget to add what he thinks you intend to do with it.

I agree it’s futile to attempt to legislate behavior, especially when it comes to ass-holery and general buffoonery. But the government does have a role in at least setting some minimum standard for social norms. This guy seems to think his “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” enable him to deny service to gay people. But he will never be able to reasonably defend that the latter position is, indeed, a expression of his religious beliefs because he’ll never be able to say how else his religious beliefs affect who he serves and doesn’t. In other words, his religion, as expressed, is simply anti-gay.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:32 am

CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all. Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

Those are extreme examples but its the same application of theory.


Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.


That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...


Bacon would not be a common ingredient for a Muslim baker and all his other offerings would be free of it. So it would not be a common ingredient for him. If I order a platform at a Jewish carpenter, it is non of his business what I do with it.
 
seb146
Posts: 18031
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:58 am

CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

Why would it be any different to ask a devout Muslim baker or cook to use bacon? Its just an ingredient after all. Would it be different to commission a Jewish artist to paint your KKK mural for your rally? Its just paint after all.

Those are extreme examples but its the same application of theory.


Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.


That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...


It sounds like you support people being denied goods and services based on religion. Which religion, may I ask? Christian Scientists use prayer to heal; they refuse blood transfusions and organ transplants. Does that mean a Christian Scientist in the medical field can only prescribe thoughts and prayers to a gunshot victim on an ER table? Jehovah's Witness do not believe in celebrating holidays so they can deny service to someone ordering a birthday cake.

Your example of Jewish carpenters is silly, BTW. They would know if they are building a platform for anti-Semitic speech. Also, your comparison to bacon and gay weddings is silly. Adventists are Christian but do not eat unclean meat: bacon, crab, catfish, etc. Yet, they love and accept LGBTQ people.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:10 am

It’s great how people keep on bringing Nazis into this but for the umpteenth time this is a question of public accommodation. Political views are not addressed by such legislation, nor have they ever been. People seem to have a flair for the ridiculous and have a complete lack of perspective, why stop at Nazi? While we’re on these ridiculous hypotheticals, how about a sign maker who owns a store called “Smith’s Signs” being asked to make a sign, “Smith’s Signs ... Where Incest Still Lives On. Smith’s Signs Asks, Why Don’t You F*ck Your Sister Today? The Guy Who Wrote This Sign Does It Every Day.”

It seems to be fun to think about these things with zero sense of perspective and instead deafault to the domino theory of the world, as an idiot (supposedly a polisci major ... well done) on here said, “When will it end?” I’d love to know what “it” is—evidently it means whipping out some highly caloric frosting (I.e., lard with sugar) and writing “Congrats Adam and Steve.” And poor poor Jack feels like he can’t do that because he goes to church and seems to be unnaturally obsessed with gay marriage.

Blech or whatever the OP’s name is (very obviously a Euro Catholic but somehow obsessed with wedding cakes) thinks that the poor caker has been unfairly harassed to no end. How can you harass a caker by asking him to make you a cake?! Flighty thinks it’s “compelled speech.” (I know you didn’t learn that concept in civics class, Flighty. If you don’t like gays, just come out and say as such.) EA CO AS thinks the same and also feels whiningly oppressed because his personal view is that people of the same sex shouldn’t be able to get married. (Hell, he worked for EA so he’s been doing this for 30 years, I’m sure he’s had a multitude of gay coworkers, and I highly doubt he would treat them as Jackie “This Cake Is My Personal Stamp of Approval For Your Marriage” did.) Plenty of people seem to think that this case is yet another sign of the end of times, a true “assault” on “freedom of speech” or “freedom of religion.” It’d be much easier if you just took the TN’s guy approach and said you don’t approve of gay people because, at the end of the day, that’s all it comes down to.

(BTW we gays love to be compared with Nazis when it comes to being able to purchase a wedding cake, let me tell you that. This thread will not age well.)
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:52 am

jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:

Yet someone else who hasn’t bothered with the facts of the case.

You and others seem to be stating that this couple went out of their way to force this particular to faker to cake them a cake.

They went to pick out a cake at a highly regarded Denver caker. They were refused by caker in front of other customers. It was not any sort of targeted move against the religious nut caker. Their decision to file a complaint with the CCHR is entirely understandable.


Where did I say they went out their way?

They came across an idiot and should have laughed at him and walked out taking their business elsewhere.

Instead they decided the best action was to take him to court for attention seeking purposes.

I come across idiots all the time, doesn't mean I want to make a big deal of everything. You have choices to take your business elsewhere.


OK, not out of their way but rather attention seeking. On what basis would you say they were attention seeking, other than as you have explained, which pretty much seems to be not handling the situation exactly as Freakysh would?


Taking it to court is ridiculous.

Say I walk into a baker and she is a pink haired libtard. I say, hello kind lady, I would like you to make me a "Trump is the greatest president" cake.

The libtard refuses to make the cake because #notmypresident

As if I'm going to take her to court because of it, get real. I'll walk out, tell her she is a moron and I'm recommending all my Republican redneck friends to never shop here again.

The Baker was a moron for not making the wedding cake, the gays were morons for taking it to the supreme Court. I can only think this is an American thing, you guys love being the centre of attention.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:57 pm

seb146 wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.


That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...


It sounds like you support people being denied goods and services based on religion. Which religion, may I ask? Christian Scientists use prayer to heal; they refuse blood transfusions and organ transplants. Does that mean a Christian Scientist in the medical field can only prescribe thoughts and prayers to a gunshot victim on an ER table? Jehovah's Witness do not believe in celebrating holidays so they can deny service to someone ordering a birthday cake.

Your example of Jewish carpenters is silly, BTW. They would know if they are building a platform for anti-Semitic speech. Also, your comparison to bacon and gay weddings is silly. Adventists are Christian but do not eat unclean meat: bacon, crab, catfish, etc. Yet, they love and accept LGBTQ people.
.

Any religion. Doesn't matter. Its not about religion or LGBT rights. Its about freedom of choice period.

Why is the Jewish example silly? Doesn't it apply to the baker too? "He would know his cake is for a gay wedding."

Any person should be able to do whatever they want to do in their own business (and in life). If a Christian scientist is working as an independent physician and they want to not do certain procedures they should be allowed to not do them. Same as some idiots believe in holistic medicine- they refuse to treat illness with things that work because of their beliefs. People CHOOSE to go to those doctors knowing what they're getting. If they are working FOR a medical group or hospital and those employers require those tasks to be done then they must decide if they want to do that before being employed. Its fairly straight forward. The individual should always be free to make their own choices in their own life. Its not about discriminating against gay people. It applies to anything.

If I'm a builder and someone comes in with a terrible looking building I can say no because I think its ugly and I don't want my name attached to it. If I'm a plastic surgeon and someone comes in wanting an outlandish procedure and I think they don't need it I can say no because I think they are crazy. If I'm a banker and someone comes in and they look ragged I don't have to give them a loan. There are a million examples. Free choice is what it comes down to.

Clearly the baker is a religious idiot but it should be his right to be a religious idiot. I'm (and other arguing for this) don't care about the LGBT issue..its the larger issue of personal choice.
Stay curious
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:02 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Not hard to understand is it? The muslim baker or cook would have to use ingredients he does not normally use. He would have to be extra careful that none of those ingredients comes into contact with his other products and he would be unable to season the product without having to brake his own religious rules.

The couple asked for a standard product. Would they have asked for a cake to celebrate the shop opening of heterosexual Tim and Paul´s Groom suits shop, he would have made the exact same cake.


That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...


Bacon would not be a common ingredient for a Muslim baker and all his other offerings would be free of it. So it would not be a common ingredient for him. If I order a platform at a Jewish carpenter, it is non of his business what I do with it.


So it comes down to being compelled to work. You believe people should be forced to do things and I think people should be free to choose. That's just opposing viewpoints and that's fine. I just disagree with you.
Stay curious
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7372
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:16 pm

CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

That's the exact same example I gave. Using common ingredients or artistic abilities has to be applied to all bakers and cooks then regardless of religious beliefs in your example. "We don't serve bacon due to our religion" is the same as "we don't serve gay weddings." It doesn't SOUND the same but it is the same application of speech in this regard.

What about the Jewish example I gave? Should they be compelled to use their standard artistic and carpentry talent to build or erect a anti-semite platform for a rally? They're not doing anything different than any other job...


Bacon would not be a common ingredient for a Muslim baker and all his other offerings would be free of it. So it would not be a common ingredient for him. If I order a platform at a Jewish carpenter, it is non of his business what I do with it.


So it comes down to being compelled to work. You believe people should be forced to do things and I think people should be free to choose. That's just opposing viewpoints and that's fine. I just disagree with you.


No it comes to not discriminating against customers. All examples you listed are about the services offered. Or in case of the baker, if he would have said "I can make you a cake, but I will not put two groom figures on it" , that is his choice. Refusing to make a cake because it will be used at a gay wedding is discrimination.
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:21 pm

seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:

Bacon would not be a common ingredient for a Muslim baker and all his other offerings would be free of it. So it would not be a common ingredient for him. If I order a platform at a Jewish carpenter, it is non of his business what I do with it.


So it comes down to being compelled to work. You believe people should be forced to do things and I think people should be free to choose. That's just opposing viewpoints and that's fine. I just disagree with you.


No it comes to not discriminating against customers. All examples you listed are about the services offered. Or in case of the baker, if he would have said "I can make you a cake, but I will not put two groom figures on it" , that is his choice. Refusing to make a cake because it will be used at a gay wedding is discrimination.


Yeah it absolutely is discrimination. You should be able to discriminate if you want to. So are all the other examples I gave. Being a slob isn't a protected class yet but its legal to deny service to an unkempt person. Neither is being a mentally ill person seeking plastic surgery. Legal to deny service to them. Same with allergies. Its legal to turn them away from your restaurant because you don't want to accommodate their medical condition.

Like I said it should be an individuals choice to do what they want to do. I don't agree with compelling someone to do something they don't want to do.
Stay curious
 
seb146
Posts: 18031
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:59 pm

CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
CCGPV wrote:

So it comes down to being compelled to work. You believe people should be forced to do things and I think people should be free to choose. That's just opposing viewpoints and that's fine. I just disagree with you.


No it comes to not discriminating against customers. All examples you listed are about the services offered. Or in case of the baker, if he would have said "I can make you a cake, but I will not put two groom figures on it" , that is his choice. Refusing to make a cake because it will be used at a gay wedding is discrimination.


Yeah it absolutely is discrimination. You should be able to discriminate if you want to. So are all the other examples I gave. Being a slob isn't a protected class yet but its legal to deny service to an unkempt person. Neither is being a mentally ill person seeking plastic surgery. Legal to deny service to them. Same with allergies. Its legal to turn them away from your restaurant because you don't want to accommodate their medical condition.

Like I said it should be an individuals choice to do what they want to do. I don't agree with compelling someone to do something they don't want to do.


Where do you live and work that you have never had to deal with dirty people?

Also, when someone cites their religion as basis for refusing service, that is religious discrimination.

I would love to see you simply turn away customers for whatever reason. "I don't like twill" or "your hair is too short" or "you have not bathed in the last hour" or whatever. Let's see how far that gets you in the community.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:13 pm

seb146 wrote:
CCGPV wrote:
seahawk wrote:

No it comes to not discriminating against customers. All examples you listed are about the services offered. Or in case of the baker, if he would have said "I can make you a cake, but I will not put two groom figures on it" , that is his choice. Refusing to make a cake because it will be used at a gay wedding is discrimination.


Yeah it absolutely is discrimination. You should be able to discriminate if you want to. So are all the other examples I gave. Being a slob isn't a protected class yet but its legal to deny service to an unkempt person. Neither is being a mentally ill person seeking plastic surgery. Legal to deny service to them. Same with allergies. Its legal to turn them away from your restaurant because you don't want to accommodate their medical condition.

Like I said it should be an individuals choice to do what they want to do. I don't agree with compelling someone to do something they don't want to do.


Where do you live and work that you have never had to deal with dirty people?

Also, when someone cites their religion as basis for refusing service, that is religious discrimination.

I would love to see you simply turn away customers for whatever reason. "I don't like twill" or "your hair is too short" or "you have not bathed in the last hour" or whatever. Let's see how far that gets you in the community.


You're assuming I would discriminate. I would not. I'd welcome almost anyone into my business. I'm defending the bigger picture here. A business owner should be able to be a complete tool if they want. The community then has the right to not use that business.

And I have dealt with dirty or unpleasant people in jobs past. You just don't return calls, you charge exorbitant rates for that individual, or you straight up deny service. All completely legal and standard practice in virtually all manor of jobs. Why should I ruin the experience for other customers or deal with someone I don't like in my own business?
Stay curious
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:26 am

Think you guys have gone off on a tangent.

This wasn't a case of I won't serve you because you are gay. This was a case of I won't serve you a particular request because it goes against my beliefs.

Some people don't agree with homosexuality, get over it.

I get hit with I'm a privileged white male, I laugh as id like to see what they say if I showed them where I grew up.

Shit happens. Not everyone in life will like you. There are idiots out there.

Get over yourselves. Save your energy for real gay issues.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:45 am

Freakysh wrote:
Get over yourselves. Save your energy for real gay issues.


The Supreme Court case was brought by the caker, not the gays who “need to get over themselves.”

But I know I’m wasting my breath.
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:50 am

jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
Get over yourselves. Save your energy for real gay issues.


The Supreme Court case was brought by the caker, not the gays who “need to get over themselves.”

But I know I’m wasting my breath.


In defence of being brought to the local courts due to the escalation from the gay couple.

It is me that is wasting my breath, you'll never recognise that you're over the top.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:58 am

Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
Get over yourselves. Save your energy for real gay issues.


The Supreme Court case was brought by the caker, not the gays who “need to get over themselves.”

But I know I’m wasting my breath.


In defence of being brought to the local courts due to the escalation from the gay couple.

It is me that is wasting my breath, you'll never recognise that you're over the top.


Er no, not the local courts. But that’s OK. You’ve obviously got it all figured out in your head, and there’s no talking to the obstinately vacuous.

Here’s a recommendation—why not try getting over yourself?
 
CCGPV
Posts: 1292
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:18 pm

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:04 am

Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
Get over yourselves. Save your energy for real gay issues.


The Supreme Court case was brought by the caker, not the gays who “need to get over themselves.”

But I know I’m wasting my breath.


In defence of being brought to the local courts due to the escalation from the gay couple.

It is me that is wasting my breath, you'll never recognise that you're over the top.


Its unfortunate because most people blindly support anything as long as its in the name of diversity or "equality" even though it has damaging implications on so many other aspects of society and individual freedom. I don't get why people keep giving up their individual rights to the government.
Stay curious
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:12 am

jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:

The Supreme Court case was brought by the caker, not the gays who “need to get over themselves.”

But I know I’m wasting my breath.


In defence of being brought to the local courts due to the escalation from the gay couple.

It is me that is wasting my breath, you'll never recognise that you're over the top.


Er no, not the local courts. But that’s OK. You’ve obviously got it all figured out in your head, and there’s no talking to the obstinately vacuous.

Here’s a recommendation—why not try getting over yourself?


Ok, whatever you call the Colorado court the case was originally raised with Mr pedantic.

Here's another recommendation.

The gay couple walks in and asks for a gay wedding cake.

The cake maker says no, I don't believe in gay marriage, I won't do it.

The gay couple walks out.

The next day, the gay couple has some hetero couple friends go in and ask for a wedding cake in the same design the gay couple wanted, sans the male/male figures. The get the couple to request an extra set of male/female figurines, cause you know, they want their day to be perfect and want them just in case one of the ones on the cake breaks. No problem.

Get the cake, replace the female figurine with the extra male purchased and have your wedding.

Take lots of photos of the happy couple in front of the wedding cake.

Plaster your Facebook account with these photos saying "A big thanks to masterpiece cake makers for help make our day perfect and supporting gay marriage!"

Get all your friends to spread the Facebook thanks.

Instead you've had your asses handed to you and all you can do is have a cry about it.

Stop being so emotional (I know that's hard being gay) and get a bit creative. Help yourselves.
 
jetero
Posts: 4094
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:58 am

Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:

In defence of being brought to the local courts due to the escalation from the gay couple.

It is me that is wasting my breath, you'll never recognise that you're over the top.


Er no, not the local courts. But that’s OK. You’ve obviously got it all figured out in your head, and there’s no talking to the obstinately vacuous.

Here’s a recommendation—why not try getting over yourself?


Ok, whatever you call the Colorado court the case was originally raised with Mr pedantic.

Here's another recommendation.

The gay couple walks in and asks for a gay wedding cake.

The cake maker says no, I don't believe in gay marriage, I won't do it.

The gay couple walks out.

The next day, the gay couple has some hetero couple friends go in and ask for a wedding cake in the same design the gay couple wanted, sans the male/male figures. The get the couple to request an extra set of male/female figurines, cause you know, they want their day to be perfect and want them just in case one of the ones on the cake breaks. No problem.

Get the cake, replace the female figurine with the extra male purchased and have your wedding.

Take lots of photos of the happy couple in front of the wedding cake.

Plaster your Facebook account with these photos saying "A big thanks to masterpiece cake makers for help make our day perfect and supporting gay marriage!"

Get all your friends to spread the Facebook thanks.

Instead you've had your asses handed to you and all you can do is have a cry about it.

Stop being so emotional (I know that's hard being gay) and get a bit creative. Help yourselves.


I don’t understand why you think you are the first person to think of any of the above, nor do I know why you feel the need to lecture me on what I would do and then proceed to condescend by telling me, and other people like me, to “help ourselves.” The remedy you describe is pretty close to what I would’ve done in the situation.

But that’s not the point. Your legal standard seems to be WWFD. If you’re so damned cynical I’d love to know why you seem to be so concerned about the caker case.
 
Freakysh
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 am

Re: Supreme Court Rules on the Colorado Cake Case

Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:06 am

jetero wrote:
Freakysh wrote:
jetero wrote:

Er no, not the local courts. But that’s OK. You’ve obviously got it all figured out in your head, and there’s no talking to the obstinately vacuous.

Here’s a recommendation—why not try getting over yourself?


Ok, whatever you call the Colorado court the case was originally raised with Mr pedantic.

Here's another recommendation.

The gay couple walks in and asks for a gay wedding cake.

The cake maker says no, I don't believe in gay marriage, I won't do it.

The gay couple walks out.

The next day, the gay couple has some hetero couple friends go in and ask for a wedding cake in the same design the gay couple wanted, sans the male/male figures. The get the couple to request an extra set of male/female figurines, cause you know, they want their day to be perfect and want them just in case one of the ones on the cake breaks. No problem.

Get the cake, replace the female figurine with the extra male purchased and have your wedding.

Take lots of photos of the happy couple in front of the wedding cake.

Plaster your Facebook account with these photos saying "A big thanks to masterpiece cake makers for help make our day perfect and supporting gay marriage!"

Get all your friends to spread the Facebook thanks.

Instead you've had your asses handed to you and all you can do is have a cry about it.

Stop being so emotional (I know that's hard being gay) and get a bit creative. Help yourselves.


I don’t understand why you think you are the first person to think of any of the above, nor do I know why you feel the need to lecture me on what I would do and then proceed to condescend by telling me, and other people like me, to “help ourselves.” The remedy you describe is pretty close to what I would’ve done in the situation.

But that’s not the point. Your legal standard seems to be WWFD. If you’re so damned cynical I’d love to know why you seem to be so concerned about the caker case.


I haven't claimed I'm the first person to think of it sweetheart, I don't know where you got that idea.

I like to point out absurdities. I know it hurts to hear it, but it needs to be said. It's called tough love. I'm on your side honey.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FAST Enterprise [Crawler], NIKV69, prebennorholm and 49 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos