Christian Complaint that Baker Refuses to Decorate Cake with Anti-Gay Message

a reply to: Grimpachi

I believe the difference is that this baker DID offer this before. They appeared to be ok with making A message, just not THAT message. It was a service they offered, but refused this individual.

As I said, I have no problem with this baker, I also don't with the other. The original baker did not refuse service to gays, they refused to make a gay wedding cake (content). If they refused to serve all caked to all gays, I would be right there with you. That's not what happened.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well then maybe all gay friendly bakers should by law
have a sign in their windows that say:

''JE SUIS GAY BAKERY'', IF NOT GO AWAY.

Maybe that would end all the nonsense to this ridiculous
childish ongoing rant america wide by people who think
they deserve special treatment. bah!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The original baker did not refuse service to gays, they refused to make a gay wedding cake (content).

You seem to be misinformed.

The original baker refused to make a wedding cake. They did not refuse content they simply refused to make a wedding cake.

Content had nothing to do with it. They didn't ask for anything different from any other wedding cake offered to the public.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating

In my country it's against the law to insult people. Discrimination with the law as your guide is actually mostly seen as correct and ethical behaviour.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The original baker did not refuse service to gays, they refused to make a gay wedding cake (content).

You seem to be misinformed.

The original baker refused to make a wedding cake. They did not refuse content they simply refused to make a wedding cake.

Content had nothing to do with it. They didn't ask for anything different from any other wedding cake offered to the public.

Is it not the "content" that differentiates a wedding cake from a normal cake?

As to the rest, the person asked for writing, something they offer the public, but refused this man. This man asked for nothing different than what they had done for others, and he was refused.

a reply to: awareness10

Or someone should be able to choose not to violate moral beliefs. Selling a cake, or a wedding cake. One has religious significance, one does not.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
But the baker is still discriminating

In my country it's against the law to insult people. Discrimination with the law as your guide is actually mostly seen as correct and ethical behaviour.

Depending on what the message was, I agree. If it was not "religious" and merely insulting, then it should not be protected. If it's a Bible quote, then it should be.

My opinion is that this is all nonsense and both bakers should be able to refuse.

It all boils down to this: Either we all have the right to choose who we do business with, for any reason we want, or we don't. It's that simple.

There is no such thing as religious rights, and there is no such thing as gay rights. There is only rights, and if we don't all have them, then it isn't a right. Either we all have to serve, anyone and everyone who walks in the door, which is absurd, or we don't.

I am glad I am a private contractor, I can turn down any job I want.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The original baker did not refuse service to gays, they refused to make a gay wedding cake (content).

You seem to be misinformed.

The original baker refused to make a wedding cake. They did not refuse content they simply refused to make a wedding cake.

Content had nothing to do with it. They didn't ask for anything different from any other wedding cake offered to the public.

Is it not the "content" that differentiates a wedding cake from a normal cake?

As to the rest, the person asked for writing, something they offer the public, but refused this man. This man asked for nothing different than what they had done for others, and he was refused.

What is your deal with the double speak? You just got finished saying this about content.

The original baker did not refuse service to gays, they refused to make a gay wedding cake (content).

I address that then you turn around and claim it isn't about content. Make up your mind on what you are trying to argue.

BTW the writing would be content. If you have ever had a cake made writing is extra so obviously no charge if there is no writing.

I don't get how you can be so thick on this.

Tell you what why don't you quote the law you think applies because it isn't an anti discrimination law.

My thought is you can't quote a law that applies because none do.

Just thought I'd share a laugh. I was on another site that linked to this story. Their headline was "Denver bakery hit with religious discrimination complaint for refusing to make anti-fruitcake"

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: Annee

I am not an authoritarian. I am an absolute Libertarian and may as well just be an anarchist.

There is no excuse for government force in private matters.

No one should be forced to labor in a manner that they disagree with. Even if that means not serving a specific group because of a prejudice.

You don't need to know what I think of Libertarians.

So, let's move on.

I doubt it could be any better than my feelings regarding authoritarians.

We are diametrically opposed to one another.

Surely a business has a right to refuse to do something that would bring it's reputation into disrepute? Can they legally be forced to do something that would damage their reputation such as writing hate messages on a cake?

In my opinion, the government is pretty much dictating what we can and cannot do.....isn't there a term for that? Other than that, the baker is right in not putting hateful words on a cake. It's a tit for tat situation anyway.
For me the real issue is government intrusion in every day affairs of our lives. It is totalitarian and people want that when it supports their ideas and don't want it when it doesn't support their ideas.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
In my opinion, the government is pretty much dictating what we can and cannot do.....

The government pretty much dictates what we can and cannot do by means of laws. We can't kill people, steal others' property, beat people up, discriminate against groups, etc. That's part of what a government does - create laws that make it possible for a group of people to live together in relative peace.

I agree that the government goes too far sometimes.

For me the real issue is government intrusion in every day affairs of our lives. It is totalitarian and people want that when it supports their ideas and don't want it when it doesn't support their ideas.

I don't like government intrusion unless there's a "victim" to a crime: someone to protect. I wish we didn't need discrimination laws, but these laws have come out of necessity and if we abolished them, we'd go back to segregated restaurants, drinking fountains, schools, and businesses. That's how it was BEFORE the laws, There's no reason to believe that we're beyond the need for them... Yet.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
Surely a business has a right to refuse to do something that would bring it's reputation into disrepute? Can they legally be forced to do something that would damage their reputation such as writing hate messages on a cake?

YES!

Finally somebody is catching on!!!!

There are NO laws to force a business to create any type of custom content or message, or produce any specific type of custom product.

This case has ZERO to do with discrimination.

Zero.

If the baker made cakes that said, "I hate Jews" and the customer came in and wanted a cake that said, "I hate gays," the baker is under ZERO obligation to produce that cake.

Otherwise Catholic Churches would be required to teach from the Quran if a Muslim showed up and demanded it.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Finally somebody is catching on!!!!

There are NO laws to force a business to create any type of custom content or message, or produce any specific type of custom product.

No one is "catching on". We already know this. The only reason we've accented the fact that the baker doesn't print derogatory messages for ANY customers, is that it makes her non-discrimination perfectly clear. If she iced a cake with "Religious Bigots Suck" and then refused to ice a cake with "God Hates F**s", there COULD be more strength to a case brought against her, claiming that she refused, based on religious grounds, depending on how it was viewed in a court of law.

You're right. There are no laws that force a business to create custom content or messages. But the fact that she refuses derogatory messages across the board, makes her non-discrimination case very strong.

Something I didn't read before in other stories. The baker says she believes this is retaliation for her speaking out against the other Colorado bakery that was accused of discrimination to a news outlet.

source

She says this toward the end of the article. The previous case was Masterpiece Cakeshop who was found to have discriminated against gays and ordered by the courts that he must do business with gay people. As I have said in other threads, I know people involved in this other case, and it was a clear case of the owner agreeing to make their cake and then backing out of the deal, after money changed hands, when he found out the cake would be used in a gay wedding.

If it is true that this is retaliation for her opinion on the other case, this just makes it all the more screwed up. I hope we find out who it is that started this mess so we can find out his true motivations. I would not doubt in the least bit that it is someone linked to the other bakery directly. That crowd was very vindictive against anyone who spoke up against them. A friend on facebook posted about the story and then his family started to receive messages like "did you know your son is a fag lover".

originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
Something I didn't read before in other stories. The baker says she believes this is retaliation for her speaking out against the other Colorado bakery that was accused of discrimination to a news outlet.

If it is true that this is retaliation for her opinion on the other case, this just makes it all the more screwed up. I hope we find out who it is that started this mess so we can find out his true motivations. I would not doubt in the least bit that it is someone linked to the other bakery directly. That crowd was very vindictive against anyone who spoke up against them. A friend on facebook posted about the story and then his family started to receive messages like "did you know your son is a fag lover".

This would be no different than two gays trolling Christian bakeries looking for a denial and then filing a lawsuit so they can get their "wedding" paid for.

This guy is just showing the total absurdity of what the gay community is doing. I say more power to him to show how gays are inclusive only when it suits there needs. Most of the time gays are discriminatory and bigoted trolls and they will do anything for attention.

originally posted by: angrypsycho1977
Something I didn't read before in other stories. The baker says she believes this is retaliation for her speaking out against the other Colorado bakery that was accused of discrimination to a news outlet.

In everything I've read, she made a "pro-equality" statement, not an actual statement against Masterpiece Bakery. But I agree. If he's retaliating (which he seems to be) it's really childish.

originally posted by: truckdriver42
I say more power to him to show how gays are inclusive only when it suits there needs. Most of the time gays are discriminatory and bigoted trolls and they will do anything for attention.

The baker who refused is not gay.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Like I just said, you enjoy totalitarian control when it suits you. What's new? I understand full well that the govt tells us not to murder people, but the law also tells us we can murder unborn babies, sooooooo I think you need to revisit your thinking on what our laws are doing and what the motive is behind it. It's not ok to murder someone on the street but it is ok to murder a baby in the womb.....
So please do not patronize me on the meaning of the law,