Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

Willtell
reply to post by beezzer

 

That’s right, they did, but when this happens the state has a responsibility to judge the rights of the gay couple against the rights of the baker’s responsibility to society and the couple.

The baker can appeal and go to a higher court

Remember what I said, it’s not a black and white easy thing to determine.

I guess my question would be - Would the baker refuse normal service to the couple or are they only objecting on the grounds that they don't believe in gay marriage?

In my opinion, the former is discriminating against the person, the second is objecting to a religiously/morally objectionable practice. For most Christians, marriage is between a man and a woman, and endorsing anything else in any way is really uncomfortable. I don't even like endorsing civil union, but I do it out of tolerance and legal equality.

Being asked to make a cake for or perform a service at such a ceremony would be very uncomfortable and distressing for me, not because of the people there and who they are, but because of the moral implications. And I think it is unfair to ask people to put themselves in that kind of position and expect the state to compel them to do it. There are many others in a free market society that will gladly do that very same service for you.

I do not go down the street and expect Muslims to sell me bacon or pork. I do not ask Jewish shop keepers to sell me Christian goods. I am not going to ask a Buddhist monk to perform a Christian ceremony for me. I also wouldn't expect people running a gay matchmaking service to find me a straight boyfriend. There are just things you don't do because you respect the differences of others.

Fantastic decision, glad they've seen sense and are forcing this bakery to abide by the law.

beezzer

Willtell
reply to post by beezzer

 

The problem with that hypothetical is that a practicing Muslim wouldn’t serve pork at all, he wouldn’t have it in the shop, and a non practicing Muslim would certainly serve it.

The baker made wedding cakes.
If he didn’t make wedding cakes then those people had no complaint.

I would request that they serve it.

Caterers don't serve food that they have on hand. They ask for a menu, and purchase food for the catered event.

I want a roasted pig served by an Islamic caterer.

If they don't comply, the state will then punish them, correct?

No, this is not correct and frankly completely nonsensical. There is no obligation for a business owner to provide any product and in fact this has nothing to do with the types of cakes he makes and everything to do with the customers he is choosing to serve. Nobody can force him to make a wedding cake with two brides or two grooms on the top for instance or a big rainbow cake with penis candles.

If this was a brake shop that was refusing to do business with black people, would anyone in this day and age have the gall to support it? No. This situation strikes a nerve with the religious right because it's a cake shop selling wedding cakes and they don't feel gay people should be allowed to get married. End of story.

starfoxxx

KingIcarus
Hold on, are you telling me you can be kicked out of a cab for having a seeing eye / guide dog in the US?

Damn, that's messed up.

YES, if the cabby (mostly muslims) who see Dogs as disease and death/unclean.
they can kick you out of the cab with your medical dog..

I get the stories and post them..

That's utterly dreadful! I'm genuinely shocked.

In the UK, guide dogs are legally permitted anywhere their owner is. It's a very serious matter indeed to refuse such an animal and it's owner. Similarly, it's illegal for business premises to be inaccessible by wheelchair. In practical terms that just means having a ramp you can bring out as and when though.

There's a lot that the UK and US can learn from each other, but I really hope our American friends can sort out the Guide Dog issue!

reply to post by ketsuko


The baker, who I think has legitimate concerns, is worrying about whether he will break the commandment he perceives is from God that one shouldn’t encourage something that is to them negative—the gay lifestyle.

I think the Gays should have understanding for believers to a degree but I also think they should nevertheless fight for their rights but should have empathy for sincere belief.

People have legitimate religious beliefs that certain lifestyles are anathema to their belief system.

We can’t just dismiss that and of course we can’t just dismiss the Gay peoples rights.


THIS IS NOT AN EASY CASE!

crazyewok
This is the thing. Being Gay is a Alternative life style.

One has the right to pursue it if they want.

But being Alternative they should not expect everyone to support and go along with it, tolerrate it yes, not interfere yes but forceing everyone to accept it? No.

There are probably some alternative things about my life style, I dont expect everyone to bend over to support it or accept it just keep out my way and Il keep out theres.

edit on 7-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

geez, crazyewok, I didn't know you were a geneticist...are people still using "alternative life style" for gays?...I thought that myth was dispelled back in the 80's.
however, I did get a laugh about your own lifestyle when you said that you didn't expect everyone to..."bend over to support or except it"

Willtell
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

This is entirely false.

Muslims in many cases have lost their jobs, such as cab drivers because they won’t drive you around with liquor in your possession.

www.mprnews.org...

NO IT IS NOT..
Blind man says cabbies refuse to give him rides because of guide dog
[EX]Simmonds said he has been told that some cab drivers have refused to pick him up with his dog because of their religious beliefs.

www.cbc.ca...
This guy is legally able to refuse them service..

"Passengers with service animals face high rates of refusal (more than 50 per cent) when requesting a taxicab," according to a report prepared by the city.

www.cbc.ca...

When the Doud’s approached a second cab driver he said he couldn’t take them home, because it was against his religion to transport dogs. www.mynews4.com...

Only a touch of what is going on...

reply to post by starfoxxx


You may be right. I know nothing about guard dogs.

I was referring to your statement that Muslims are getting a free ride.

reply to post by crazyewok


Are they being kinda uppity?

Yeah - nobody likes that

Shame on them for making a point out of being discriminated against. People would like them so much more if they just kept quiet and minded their own business

Who makes a fuss over cake?

Personally, I think this entire this is just plain wrong. Growing up, I recall seeing tons of signs in businesses stating "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, at any time, for any reason." Now, normally businesses don't utilize that, because they want everyone's money, but I still feel that they have this right.

Forcing someone to do something against their will is just plain wrong, I'm sorry. It's his religious belief. Silly as it is, it's serious to him. So forcing him to do something he's very morally against is just flat out wrong. Here's what I believe should have happened.

The couple should've left, and complained about what happened to them. They have full rights to do so. Let people know this baker is homophobic. Let people decide if they want him catering their cake needs. I can honestly say that my g/f and I do have plans to get married(we also live in CO). When that time comes, because I believe in equality, and don't agree with that particular bakers beliefs, they wouldn't get my money. I know a lot of people would refuse to give him business for those beliefs, why?? Because it's their beliefs. That's how I feel it should've been. But to now force him to bake cakes against his belief is just wrong.

Now, as a business-minded individual, I agree with what many people said when this whole thing started. Business is business, and he should just be taking money, and making cakes. Really shouldn't be putting your beliefs into it. If anything else, making cakes for gay couples might actually increase profits, because of good word being sent out there. But, I understand if people do stand by their beliefs.

This whole situation just opened a door that should've remained locked. So let's say a black man owns a bakery in any random city. Now say a group of white supremists come in, and ask him to bake them a white pride cake, for their next white pride rally. Shouldn't this baker have the right to refuse their service?? What if they ask for an icing picture depicting a white man standing ontop of a black man? Should this baker be forced to make this cake, even though it's personally offensive to him?? I personally believe no, but with this PC civil liberties crap going on, they could have him forced to make it.

So now let's say the baker is hindu. Some people come in, and ask for a cake made of red velvet, in the shape of a cow. They want to make the cake look like they're butchering a cow when they cut it. Should this baker be allowed to refuse their service, because it's against his beliefs?? Once again, I personally believe so.

I completely understand why the couple was upset, and I understand why a lot of people say the business should not be discriminatory. But in this case, I can't help but feel the couple was wrong. At what point is it fair to say someone's beliefs is more important than anothers?? This isn't a life or death situation. It's not like they were doctors refusing to help them because of their sexuality. This is a cake maker. There are a TON of cake makers out there. All they had to do is find one that's not homophobic, then let word of mouth spread to everyone around, and let the people decide of that one baker is worth giving money to.

Hubby and I were just discussing this case...is it possible we are looking at this in the wrong context? What I mean is, the cake maker is in CO. The couple got married in Mass. Now WHY would anyone do this? Is it possible this couple already KNEW they would be denied and attempted to exploit this situation? Could it be that the judge saw through this façade and rather than monetary compensation, kind of saved the bakeries behind with just awarding the making of said cake? Maybe the judge is a bit smarter than we think?

jimmyx
geez, crazyewok, I didn't know you were a geneticist...

Actually now you mention it.....I did do a Advanced genetics Module back at university.

jimmyx
are people still using "alternative life style" for gays?...I thought that myth was dispelled back in the 80's.

What myth?

Last time I checked gays are a minority therefore its not a mainstream life style, hence a alternative lifestyle.

They have a right to practice it, just not not expect everybody to want to involve themselfs in it.

Willtell
reply to post by starfoxxx

 

You may be right. I know nothing about guard dogs.

I was referring to your statement that Muslims are getting a free ride.

Not even guard dogs, legally given medical dogs..
Disabled people have cards and special marking for their
guide/medical/ dogs..
The cab drivers are REFUSING to give them service
despite the law. Only recourse is to sue..
Like a person with that kind of disability and
needs a sight dog has the money/time/ and where withall
to even try to fit it themselves.. It is a sad thing
Many cases they HAVE been getting away with it..

Willtell
reply to post by ketsuko

 

The baker, who I think has legitimate concerns, is worrying about whether he will break the commandment he perceives is from God that one shouldn’t encourage something that is to them negative—the gay lifestyle.

I think the Gays should have understanding for believers to a degree but I also think they should nevertheless fight for their rights but should have empathy for sincere belief.

People have legitimate religious beliefs that certain lifestyles are anathema to their belief system.

We can’t just dismiss that and of course we can’t just dismiss the Gay peoples rights.


THIS IS NOT AN EASY CASE!

The other case going on is a flower shop owner in Washington who served her customer for a long time ... until she refused to serve the gay wedding at which point they sued.

She was perfectly content to do normal business with, knew they were gay all the time, but she drew the line at participating in the ceremony.

Is this case the same? Or did these customers just walk in off the street seeking someone to bake their cake and get refused in which case the discrimination is he said/she said. There is no way to tell if the baker is discriminating against it all or just the wedding.

Don't turn this into a witch hunt because there is no way to read a person's mind or heart one way or the other.

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha

 

When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs.

PFFT

Providing a cake for a gay couple getting married isn't against their religious beliefs, it's against their personal sexual prejudices. As much as I wish it were so, personal sexual prejudices aren't religious practices no matter how many times you yell out his name.

Jesus said, love one another. Jesus said As you do to the least you do unto me. Jesus said LOVE your neighbor.

" A NEW COVENANT I give unto you" - If they are Christian then THOSE words by Christ are the base of their beliefs not old covenant Leviticus. In the command to love another, Christians are asked by their godhead to start giving up THEIR lives so others might live. THAT is the crux of the cross baby. Don't like that ? Don't call yourself a Christian at all as far as I am concerned.

This gay couple in no way infringed upon the practices of the store owners Christian religion in requesting their right to buy a cake in fact they aided them to a deeper practice their religion because if someone was seriously worried about them going to 'hell for being gay' then the ONLY Christian response to believing something like that is to PRAY for them.


The rest? Its bs religio-poltical hypocrisy in action' imo.

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by crazyewok

 

Are they being kinda uppity?

Yeah - nobody likes that

Shame on them for making a point out of being discriminated against. People would like them so much more if they just kept quiet and minded their own business

Who makes a fuss over cake?

What? Holy s---. "Uppity?" Is that anything like those "uppity negroes" who didn't want to be treated like second class citizens? Would the white majority have liked them better if they just shut up and accepted discrimination? I mean who makes a fuss about where you sit on the bus, right?

crazyewok

jimmyx
geez, crazyewok, I didn't know you were a geneticist...

Actually now you mention it.....I did do a Advanced genetics Module back at university.

jimmyx
are people still using "alternative life style" for gays?...I thought that myth was dispelled back in the 80's.

What myth?

Last time I checked gays are a minority therefore its not a mainstream life style, hence a alternative lifestyle.

They have a right to practice it, just not not expect everybody to want to involve themselfs in it.

Who taught it? Professor Josef Mengele?

reply to post by theantediluvian


I just starred your post - for being properly incensed

:-)

Sarcasm my friend - that was sarcasm

There have been some seriously hateful comments made in this thread - already

Some of them don't even make sense

Glad some people get it

Let me turn this around for those who are for this.

When would any of you, defend the religious rights of someone?

What would it take for any of you to defend the religious rights of a person?

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by theantediluvian

 

I just starred your post - for being properly incensed

:-)

Sarcasm my friend - that was sarcasm

There have been some seriously hateful comments made in this thread - already

Some of them don't even make sense

Glad some people get it

Lol, sorry. The problem is you were so spot on that it was too believable