You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

This is a great ruling.
The market can now decide.
If people don't like the fact that the baker will not bake a cake for gay weddings, then they can protest by not giving the bakery their business. If the bakery suffers no backlash in terms of business, then guess what. Nobody cares about this issue.

The problem is the gay army that comes for you if you don't bend the knee.

This is a win for all people, even gays.

FREE ASSOCIATION!

Never mind.

I give up on this one.

Crazy world.

a reply to: UKTruth

The baker didn't win. He still can't discriminate. That's the confusion about the ruling.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

In actuality, it appears the baker refused to make the cake before any design or decoration was discussed.

mobile.nytimes.com...

In reality it also appears that this issue occurred before gay marriage was even legal in Colorado, too.

Of course, let's leave aside the argument that if you are opposed to the concept of gay marriage on religious grounds, how you decorate the cake is immaterial. It's personal participation in the celebration of something your beliefs view as sacrilege that is the objectionable part.

a reply to: RowanBean


You know. Dem gayer boys, the nance boys. You know! Those gay yuppie folk.
^
if you read it in a very southern back woods country accent, it sounds better.

a reply to: ketsuko

So do you think the baker needs to make sure a couple isn't planning an open marriage with multiple sex partners before he agrees to bake the wedding cake for them? After all, I would think that might be a wee bit objectionable.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's personal participation in the celebration of something your beliefs view as sacrilege that is the objectionable part.

not if i am an indentured servant then such is being forced upon me beyond my own will

the usa if you don't love it then leave it....not so fast... what do you mean i owe the feds over 100,000$ for national debt and i can not leave without the usa allowing me to do so.

Will the baker be consistent with his Biblical beliefs?

10 Situations Where Christian Bakers Should Refuse to Bake Wedding Cakes

I don't know why this is such a huge issue, since a private business is a private business. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms does not apply, nor do many other obligations that the government is bound by -- a private business is not. As long as they are upfront about it.

Basically, it should come down to this -- Personal Beliefs or Money. If you open up a business on the main street in your town, it is open to EVERYONE, that's what business is. However, if the owner feels very strongly about their personal beliefs, more than they care for money, they should be able to run their business that way. Put it on the door and let the public decide who comes in and who does not.

I think the issue here is that some people think the owner should be able to have all the money and all the personal beliefs too -- no. You open a business, it's open to everyone. You want your beliefs to dictate who you serve -- absolutely, you have every right to. But it will affect money, because the public also have every right to know whether they are served on not before they even enter.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

In actuality, it appears the baker refused to make the cake before any design or decoration was discussed.

mobile.nytimes.com...

Right. OK. I might have it mixed up with another case. I know there were pictures of a specific cake.

But, YES! He rejected them just because they are gay.

That is NOT support for Creative Design.

originally posted by: Tempter
The problem is the gay army that comes for you if you don't bend the knee.

This is a win for all people, even gays.

FREE ASSOCIATION!

Take the knee? Where in the Bible does it say you can discriminate? You don't need to answer that, because it doesn't.

Where does it say you can pick and choose which sins you like or dislike? It doesn't.

So if he sells to some sinners and not others, it's not religious, because his text doesn't say anything about that.... It's a personal choice, and it is discrimination.

Again, I don't necessarily care, because no one needs cake... But let's call it what it is.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

So do you think the baker needs to make sure a couple isn't planning an open marriage with multiple sex partners before he agrees to bake the wedding cake for them? After all, I would think that might be a wee bit objectionable.

Thats the idiocy here.

I can walk in and purchase a wedding cake, complete with specifications of color, composition, and general size/shape. I can complete this purchase without ever once mentioning my preferred method of having sex. And in so doing, remove any possibility of someone taking issue with my preference and denying service.

It seems pretty simple. Used to be people didn't feel the need to share every facet of their life. Today...you can be sure you will get more than you want to hear when having even the most superficial conversations.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: UKTruth

The baker didn't win. He still can't discriminate. That's the confusion about the ruling.

i think he can indeed not bake the cake again and you are short siding the ruling

the defense for the buyer was hostile toward christians

nothing except a different defense would change that

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Annee

In actuality, it appears the baker refused to make the cake before any design or decoration was discussed.

mobile.nytimes.com...

In reality it also appears that this issue occurred before gay marriage was even legal in Colorado, too.

Of course, let's leave aside the argument that if you are opposed to the concept of gay marriage on religious grounds, how you decorate the cake is immaterial. It's personal participation in the celebration of something your beliefs view as sacrilege that is the objectionable part.

I do not agree that opposition to a gay marriage is enough for a baker to discriminate by religious belief.

I do agree that the baker not be required to make reference to it being a gay marriage in Creative Design.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

So do you think the baker needs to make sure a couple isn't planning an open marriage with multiple sex partners before he agrees to bake the wedding cake for them? After all, I would think that might be a wee bit objectionable.

Thats the idiocy here.

I can walk in and purchase a wedding cake, complete with specifications of color, composition, and general size/shape. I can complete this purchase without ever once mentioning my preferred method of having sex. And in so doing, remove any possibility of someone taking issue with my preference and denying service.

It seems pretty simple. Used to be people didn't feel the need to share every facet of their life. Today...you can be sure you will get more than you want to hear when having even the most superficial conversations.

To some degree, this is the problem with the gay community. The desire to tell everyone what they like in the bedroom. A lot of us just don't give a d*amn what someone does in the bedroom. To be frank, if so many gay folks weren't sashaying and twirling advertising to the world if they are a top or bottom, no one would care for the most part.

Imagine if a bunch of guys got together and used twin peaks as a symbol to tell the world, we like tig bitties. I mean why is it necessary to advertise one's sexual preference to the public?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

So do you think the baker needs to make sure a couple isn't planning an open marriage with multiple sex partners before he agrees to bake the wedding cake for them? After all, I would think that might be a wee bit objectionable.

Is this the guy who did dog weddings?

Is he the one who did a divorce cake?

To those who suggested that business owners should be able to put up signs telling them who they only serve to, we should not forget the history.




And yes yes yes I know! Godwin's law strikes again!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's kind of hard to hide it when you walk in with your betrothed to discuss a wedding cake. Its not uncommon at all for both people to be involved in the decision.

a reply to: howtonhawky

i think he can indeed not bake the cake again and you are short siding the ruling

Show me where they said that.