The couple was just trying to start trouble. They singled this guy out to create a controversy with the express intent to take it into the legal system.
The couple did not approach the bakery because they were in love and wanted the perfect cake. If they were trying to get a custom suit and the company was too busy to meet their deadline or too expensive they probably wouldn't wait or save up. They would take their business somewhere else. There's a lot of calling around and plans that can't always be made. That is normal and understandable. The "couple" ...and I put it in quotes because I'm wary on their motives...they sought this guy out on purpose for his religious beliefs and asked for a custom guy wedding cake. He said he couldn't but offered anything else in his store. It's not that he wouldn't sell them food because they were gay, he didn't want to do a custom cake for them. And turned down the money. He also doesn't do erotic cakes, or like Halloween. ..things he doesn't feel comfortable with that affect his beliefs. He has that right. You can't force a gay Baker to make a cake of a Muslim extremist throwing a gay off the wedding cake and have strawberry drizzle all over the bottom...to that person and probably anyone, that'd be F'd up. You shouldn't be able to force someone to do your will under the guise of a hate crime. I think the couple are despicable and kind of ruin what marriage is. This had nothing to do with two people in love and everything to do with ruining someone's life and forcing your lifestyle on others. And there are many gays upset with this kind of behavior because of the negative light it shines on them. But not the one's still trapped in the group mentality that act only as they're told.
Oceania Times evidence is out their for the baker, in which he stated that he would sell them anything in his store but did not feel comfortable making the custom cake. The same interview he talks of the other types of cakes he's refused due to his beliefs, such as dirty sex cakes. Then there are close bakeries nearby from what I've heard that would custom order a cake. Which would then lead you to believe when all said and done, why solely go after this man? So for their own moral purpose only they can say, but to me the evidence seems clear. Now his claims could be untrue or theirs. If he did in fact say he couldn't make anything or no items they aren't welcome than that is totally wrong. But he is a custom designer for the cakes and if something makes him uncomfortable he should not be forced to do it even though a prospective client may desire it. But their seem to be many narratives so it's hard to truly find the truth. Maybe they didn't seek out the baker?!? But I feel that this shock and horror narrative was a little much.
There are a number of problems with how the Supreme Court handled the Masterpiece case. First, Kennedy's majority opinion irresponsibly characterized the Colorado Human Rights Commission as anti-religious after one commissioner made one statement CORRECTLY pointing out that people - - not all, but some - - have invoked religion to justify odious acts throughout human history, including slavery and the Holocaust. Sorry, that is just a historical fact. It doesn't imply that religious beliefs are exclusively used to justify odious acts (see, e.g., anti-slavery abolitionists, the black civil rights movement, etc.) or that all religious people are hateful; it merely points out that religious beliefs alone aren't enough to exempt a person from laws that govern everybody else. The statement in no way suggests that commissioner who made it had a "bias" against all people with religious beliefs, much less that the entire Commission was biased when it ruled against the baker. This kind of a distorted reading of what the Colorado Human Rights Commission did beggars belief, and, as much as Kennedy (and Roberts, Alito, Kagan and Breyer) obviously wanted to punt on the larger constitutional issues implicated by the case, this kind of an absurd straw-man argument was beneath the dignity of the Court. Having said that, it was pathetic how Justice Kennedy turned around the next week and decided that a barrage of xenophobic retweets and anti-Muslim statements (e.g., "Islam hates us," "[I want a] total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," etc.) suddenly didn't matter for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of a facially-neutral Executive Order that was nevertheless perfectly consistent with something one would expect from a President unconstitutionally motivated by prejudice against Muslims. The Court's hypocrisy in how it bent over backwards to accommodate one homophobic Christian in the Masterpiece case yet flippantly dismiss the plight of thousands of Muslim immigrants, refugees and relatives in Trump v. Hawaii was stunning and disgraceful.
With all due respect, I don’t think the baker’s intention was to harm this couple. They have every right to feel offended but there was no discriminatory language other than a rejection based on religious beliefs. All he did was decline. It’s his shop, his business, he can declines clients. Can we understand it? No, but honestly the couple could’ve found a better cake shop. And before you come at me, I’m a queer woman. And honestly I think no one got hurt over a cake.
I feel so bad for the gay couple make a rainbow cake and send it to their house to show them does they have the I support them and hope that the Civil Right Act include sexual orientation
The couple was just trying to start trouble. They singled this guy out to create a controversy with the express intent to take it into the legal system.
Yep, true.
The couple did not approach the bakery because they were in love and wanted the perfect cake. If they were trying to get a custom suit and the company was too busy to meet their deadline or too expensive they probably wouldn't wait or save up. They would take their business somewhere else. There's a lot of calling around and plans that can't always be made. That is normal and understandable.
The "couple" ...and I put it in quotes because I'm wary on their motives...they sought this guy out on purpose for his religious beliefs and asked for a custom guy wedding cake. He said he couldn't but offered anything else in his store. It's not that he wouldn't sell them food because they were gay, he didn't want to do a custom cake for them. And turned down the money. He also doesn't do erotic cakes, or like Halloween. ..things he doesn't feel comfortable with that affect his beliefs.
He has that right. You can't force a gay Baker to make a cake of a Muslim extremist throwing a gay off the wedding cake and have strawberry drizzle all over the bottom...to that person and probably anyone, that'd be F'd up. You shouldn't be able to force someone to do your will under the guise of a hate crime.
I think the couple are despicable and kind of ruin what marriage is. This had nothing to do with two people in love and everything to do with ruining someone's life and forcing your lifestyle on others. And there are many gays upset with this kind of behavior because of the negative light it shines on them. But not the one's still trapped in the group mentality that act only as they're told.
bakerfresh I'm a Christian but I hope someone burns that bakers store down.
vice2vursa ...why?
bakerfresh Because I think that bakers a dick.
Oceania Times evidence is out their for the baker, in which he stated that he would sell them anything in his store but did not feel comfortable making the custom cake. The same interview he talks of the other types of cakes he's refused due to his beliefs, such as dirty sex cakes. Then there are close bakeries nearby from what I've heard that would custom order a cake. Which would then lead you to believe when all said and done, why solely go after this man?
So for their own moral purpose only they can say, but to me the evidence seems clear.
Now his claims could be untrue or theirs. If he did in fact say he couldn't make anything or no items they aren't welcome than that is totally wrong. But he is a custom designer for the cakes and if something makes him uncomfortable he should not be forced to do it even though a prospective client may desire it. But their seem to be many narratives so it's hard to truly find the truth.
Maybe they didn't seek out the baker?!? But I feel that this shock and horror narrative was a little much.
I'm not sure if the interview was Fox or some other outlet, but I'm sure that's easy to look up...I can link that if you really want it.
This video reeks of bias.
i would never bake that cake i guess that,s why PHAROAH cut off the head of his baker
There are a number of problems with how the Supreme Court handled the Masterpiece case. First, Kennedy's majority opinion irresponsibly characterized the Colorado Human Rights Commission as anti-religious after one commissioner made one statement CORRECTLY pointing out that people - - not all, but some - - have invoked religion to justify odious acts throughout human history, including slavery and the Holocaust. Sorry, that is just a historical fact. It doesn't imply that religious beliefs are exclusively used to justify odious acts (see, e.g., anti-slavery abolitionists, the black civil rights movement, etc.) or that all religious people are hateful; it merely points out that religious beliefs alone aren't enough to exempt a person from laws that govern everybody else. The statement in no way suggests that commissioner who made it had a "bias" against all people with religious beliefs, much less that the entire Commission was biased when it ruled against the baker. This kind of a distorted reading of what the Colorado Human Rights Commission did beggars belief, and, as much as Kennedy (and Roberts, Alito, Kagan and Breyer) obviously wanted to punt on the larger constitutional issues implicated by the case, this kind of an absurd straw-man argument was beneath the dignity of the Court. Having said that, it was pathetic how Justice Kennedy turned around the next week and decided that a barrage of xenophobic retweets and anti-Muslim statements (e.g., "Islam hates us," "[I want a] total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States," etc.) suddenly didn't matter for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of a facially-neutral Executive Order that was nevertheless perfectly consistent with something one would expect from a President unconstitutionally motivated by prejudice against Muslims. The Court's hypocrisy in how it bent over backwards to accommodate one homophobic Christian in the Masterpiece case yet flippantly dismiss the plight of thousands of Muslim immigrants, refugees and relatives in Trump v. Hawaii was stunning and disgraceful.
THE court should be defunded
It should have been unlawful, unless you're also willing to allow a bakery to refuse a black couple, then you must regard it as unlawful.
With all due respect, I don’t think the baker’s intention was to harm this couple. They have every right to feel offended but there was no discriminatory language other than a rejection based on religious beliefs. All he did was decline. It’s his shop, his business, he can declines clients. Can we understand it? No, but honestly the couple could’ve found a better cake shop. And before you come at me, I’m a queer woman. And honestly I think no one got hurt over a cake.
@@96Jazangel Them what about equal protection clause? Dpes it allow discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity?
I feel so bad for the gay couple make a rainbow cake and send it to their house to show them does they have the I support them and hope that the Civil Right Act include sexual orientation
Yes it should over the passage of time. But that's not the real solution.