im all pro gay wedding, they can do with their lives whatever the want, but the cakeshop owner is in his right to refuse to make a cake if he dont want to.
Thank you. Personally, I'd be pro polygamy and incest weddings as well for the sake of freedom but I completely understand if people refuse to partake in their wedding ceremonies.
@@goldengalsclazy So if the cake shop owner didn’t want to bake a cake for a wedding that was between a white person and a person of color, is that alright, because it was against their beliefs?
Muly problem qoth this is is that thus opens the floodgates for religon to claim that becaise of x belief they don't serve gays or any group of person they don't like/want to exist. Imagine of the couple was straight and the baker said because of my religous beliefs i can't bake a cake for stroaght couples would that fly?
@@KarstenOkk I'm really tired of the LGBT using black people as a comparison. being born with melanin that's not against anyone's religion. 🙄 Feels like a lot of the LGBT community are silent when it comes to standing up for our rights, but always want to use us to prove their points. It's disgusting.
FrmSyriaWithLuv That’s what I’m saying. Always trynna bring black ppl into it. And in addition, it’s not like they refuse to serve those in the LGBTQ community, they just don’t want to play a part in wedding bcuz it’s against their beliefs.
You forgot to mention that Phillips had offered them a list of people who would do it, and offered them other foods. This also happened before gay marriage was legal in Colorado.
Whether Colorado recognized same-sex marriage at the time or not had no bearing on Public Accommodation Law. The issue is that the gay couple went looking for a lawsuit, not a wedding cake. Jack Philips didn't violate Public Accommodation; he offered to sell them any cake which was already prepared, on display and ready for cash-and-carry sale. The gay couple then moved the goalpost by asking Philips to design a rainbow-themed "gay cake" from scratch and his refusal to do so was within his rights. It was a False-Rainbow-Flag operation, LOL. This may shock you, so take a seat.....I think the gay couple should be counter-sued and I'm a Liberal Democrat. If you're still reading this, I'm assuming the smelling salts have brought you back from your fainting spell, LOL. The gay couple was also 2 states away from their hometown. Nobody travels two states and some change with a wedding cake. It will be stale by the big day and all the driving would collapse it. On this Liberals and Conservatives will agree: No. Body. Buys. A. Wedding. Cake. Two. States. From. Home. Your comment is 3 years old, so since then you know Jack Philips prevailed in the Supreme Court with the first two Trump appointees, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but before the confirmation of Justice Barrett. What you MAY NOT have heard, however, is that the same SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal of the Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii who canceled a lesbian couple's honeymoon suite reservation. Like the Colorado case, the respective State S/C ruled that the Christians violated Public Accommodation Law. UNLIKE Colorado, SCOTUS saw no merit to their appeal. The couple had arrived from the US Mainland exhausted from all the hassle of air-travel and ready to check in and instead had to find a new hotel at the last minute. The B&B should be sued out of existence. I don't care what the arrogant bastards read in a book that says the planet is only 6,000 years old, you don't ruin somebody's honeymoon. Sounds like a couple of dykes own a hotel in Hawaii now.
Public Accommodation laws. As a business you sign an agreement to follow all federal, state, local and insurance laws. Jack lives in a state that has an anti discrimination law based on sexual orientation.
It's funny you say "tolerance and respect" when the baker could've shown some tolerance and respect. No one is asking him to marry a guy or even to be a part of the wedding, he is just making a cake.
@Sarmad Qureshi he is just making a cake no one was asking to write anything about gay marriage or any sort of gay art on the cake. He is just being a bigot that's all there is to it and if you disagree maybe you need to take a look at yourself and realize you may be one too.
This couple bragged about this unethical decision as a matter of fact. Their intent was to destroy this Christian man and business. Oddly "papers" published in academia that promote the LGBT ethos or ideology state emphatically and repeatedly that "Christians have an agenda against us". I often respond with, "What? To stab you with Carrots" and even at times add, "Christians are some of the most spineless complacent individuals and institution I have ever encountered". In all my years in ministry or my many years involved with/in church of various denominations I have never once heard a pastor address or discuss the LGBT movement or beliefs. We understand that we have not right to judge hearts, motives or intent. It is a "two way street". Or should be. If we; those who choose freely to adhere to "Traditional Family Values" Do not rise up in unity and in light, it will soon be against the law to profess a Christian ethos.
It was a ruling made on very narrow grounds. At best, it said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted unequally towards the baker. While conservatives (especially American Evangelical Christians) treat this as a victory, it didn't address whether individuals have the right to decline services to LGBT individuals based on their religious convictions.
Jesus said the world will hate Christians because they follow christ. The Bible condemns homosexuality and same-sex marriage because marriage is a holy Union between a man and a woman.
Armand Rodriguez,,,,,, THEY WILL NOT CHALLENGE MUSLIMS WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!! TO HONEST?,,,, OBAMA PLANNED THIS ATTACK & PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BECAUSE HE HIMSELF IS AN ISLAMIC MUSLIM!?! THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT OBUMMER WAS SETTING THEM UP FOR?! HE PRETENDED TO CARE ABOUT THE NEEDS & WANTS OF LGBTQ COMMUNITY, BLACK PEOPLE, DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS AND ANY OTHER RELIGIONS THAT AREN'T CHRISTIANS!?! HE WAS SETTING UP THESE CHRISTIAN OWNED BUSINESSES JUST TO CAUSE CHAOS AND CONFLICTS W/THOSE WHO ARE FAITHFUL IN THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH!?!
No because the shop didn’t display the owners religious beliefs. There was a sign on the door that said they have to serve and not serve whoever they choose but he must have said, “it goes against my beliefs.” But they had no idea his region before the fact
Craig and Mullins traveled two states from their hometown and targeted a business they knew in advance to be Christian-owned.They wanted a lawsuit, not a cake; theywere running a scam and THIS Liberal Democrat believes Mr. Philips has grounds to counter-sue them. They Such stunts are counterproductive to progressive/LGBTQ interests. Philips told them they were welcome to purchase any available cake in the store, cash-and-carry. In doing so, Mr. Philips satisfied the LETTER of the Public Accommodation Law. Maybe not the more arguable SPIRIT of the Law, but he had the right to draw the line at designing a "gay cake". THIS is the reason he prevailed in the Supreme Court, NOT because of "Religious Freedom Restoration".
Since no one had a video camera running or a telephone recorder those are his claims only. You've shown the kind of respect that your kind has when you make statements about my assumed national origin.
John Sterling he treated them with respect. In America all businesses have a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason we can do this. This is what makes America great. Just as the couple believes in what they believe in which that's how they feel they're allowed to feel that way isn't the baker allowed to feel his way as well? I mean look at any service industry they're allowed to refuse service to anyone. When we start taking this away America will slip and fall apart. Because then you're giving people who were able to make a living as big or small as they can to just accept anything and then you don't think that America's going to slowly slip away because when people have to give up their rights and beliefs what is coming next in the service industry? If you want everyone to be the same all the time go to a socialist country where everyone is the same all the time! In this country will allowed to make a living and open businesses.
It's a shame that people are forcing America the free businesses to serve anyone. Does that mean if someone decides to for instance wear masks over their head and that could be considered threatening we have to serve them at a jewelry store? After all it it's a business in the free America. Every business in America has a right to refuse service.
sciencetrumpsfaith let me ask you this, say a gay couple that's married that are not bigots owns a cake shop in walks a white supremacist that brags about being racist and once a cake that represents they're racist beliefs. Is it okay for the gay couple business owners to say no? Your answer to this will determine whether or not you sir are a moron. When do we say no when is enough enough this is America business owners have a right to say no they have a right for their business to either flourish or fail. If we're all the same it's communism.
This is actually a HUGE ruling. This story shines the light on how Liberals think. That you have to accept them or you are going to be sorry. The Supreme Court said that the Colorado Court acted hostile towards the baker. The Colorado Court acted with a bias towards the baker (hard to comprehend the Colorado Court had to be reprimanded like this). The gay couple could have been adult and realistic about it and just gone to another baker, BUT NO!!! They had to act hostile and sue the baker, and all the way to the Supreme Court... Such a vindictive act. The gay couple was so offended that they were going to make this simple baker "pay" for not accepting them for being gay that they decided to punish the baker for essentially having his own counter beliefs. This gay couple didn't care if the baker was offended. The Supreme Court stated that the gay couple needs to be tolerant of the bakers views and opinions and his religious beliefs as well. That tolerance is a two way street, Kapish??!!! The gay couple expected and demanded their opinions and beliefs to be accepted, respected, and tolerated yet they would not accept, respect, and tolerate the bakers religious beliefs. This is why people can't and don't want to get along with those with such extreme beliefs and behavior. Everyone needs to tolerate others even if the other person is a jerk, nasty, or wrong. True adults don't act so poorly which shows you, those that do, are not adult regardless of their age.
If you don’t celebrate me for my social identity, which is entirely hinged upon my sexual orientation, I will completely come apart at the seams and cease to function in a normal human capacity. -Liberals circa 2021
@@Dockernan1977 a person's identity shouldn't be based on their sexuality 🤨 those people are usually over sexed, possibly sex addiction, and it becomes a problem for them. Why would anyone feel the need to wear their sexuality on the chest like a badge, billboard, or bumper sticker? (unless I'm misunderstanding you) Everyone else is thinking, "do you really need that much attention? and why? issues... 🤔" and "keep it to yourself" 😬
I realize you wrote this response 4 years ago but I must write you and tell you I believe your comment to be brilliant. I know for a fact this gay couple targeted this Baker *Because* he was Christian. I was curious and did some deep digging. This couple bragged about this unethical decision as a matter of fact. Their intent was to destroy this Christian man and business. Oddly "papers" published in academia that promote the LGBT ethos or ideology state emphatically and repeatedly that "Christians have an agenda against us". I often respond with, "What? To stab you with Carrots" and even at times add, "Christians are some of the most spineless complacent individuals and institution I have ever encountered". In all my years in ministry or my many years involved with/in church of various denominations I have never once heard a pastor address or discuss the LGBT movement or beliefs. We understand that we have not right to judge hearts, motives or intent. It is a "two way street". Or should be. If we; those who choose freely to adhere to "Traditional Family Values" Do not rise up in unity and in light, it will soon be against the law to profess a Christian ethos. I Have a deep abiding passion for Ancient history, Current events and the Bible prophecy written through the Oracles in regards to this hour or generation and it's accuracy via empirical data (Archeological findings and historical records). The thing is Prophecy is not as predictive as many believe. It is instead based on probability. We as a species are not that difficult to predict. Often the writer records the worst case scenario that could (with a high probability) occur if individuals, families, communities and nations (esp leaders) do not step up in light and truth and take a stand. Written prophecy (Think Isiah or Ezekiel) is then followed by the ongoing promise or true narrative of the Bible; to restore Earth to it's intended purpose after the corrupt laws of men fail. Free will must play out. Think of this planet as a petri-dish. Insatiable thirst for power, vanity and greed must run it's course along with the immorality & compromise on ethics that promotes it - In contrast to God's good common sense laws and commandments. For the genuine heart-beat of the Bible and the laws of God are the Restoration of this Earth and the resurrection of it's people for a second attempt at life w/i a Government of Peace, Justice and Righteousness. This way while living on the other side we can easily see and know the difference. May the God of Eternity wrap you & your loved ones in a veil of protection & lead you in Righteousness always. Stay Safe. Stay Free. *꧁•♥ Believe♥🕊꧂•*
@@Ltlbrthr12 I am no bible thumper but instead a self proclaimed scholar. Faith is not blind but built upon our beliefs; those beliefs are based on empirical data or the reliability of a truth. I do not want to insult you or your beliefs. I hope I did not. I see this world sinking deeply into utter corruption just as the prophets warned. Inside me there rises this need to warn others. Not to "Invite Jesus into my (their) hearts", _that idea is not even w/i the scriptures,_ or to be "Saved", but instead to be prepared for what is coming. However "Christians" receive a bad rap and in 90% of the cases warranted as *Very* few of those who eagerly profess God or the Christ abide in God's laws esp the "Law of Love". A lot of this is to no fault of their own seeing that a good 75% of what pastors teach is wrong man-made doctrine. Also Pastors teaching falsehoods is emphatically and repeatedly recorded (for this hour)as a warning for our sake. In the end it is always between the Creator and the Creation. One must find God independent of what is taught in the average church. It is exclusively a personal journey. I pray that you continue to seek truth and I can't help but desire you seek God too and find Him. I would like to leave you with this warning from the prophet Jeremiah who witnessed, plague, famine and the total annihilation of Judah over the course of 10 yrs. (Babylon assaulted Judah on 3 separate occasions or phases just as warned). Because we as species follow patterns what transpired in Judah is transpiring today but not limited to the Levant but instead Globally. _"They (Our Government Leaders of Today) have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is No peace. Were they ashamed because of the abominations they have committed? They were not ashamed at all, Nor did they know even how to blush. Therefore they will fall among those who fall; At the appointed time that I punish them, They will collapse says the LORD."_
This is not a civil rights case. In America businesses can choose to serve whomever they wish, for whatever reason. Businesses can flourish or fail in America because of this. If we take away this basic right for America and everyone must be treated the same then it becomes a dictatorship.
TheGamingVillas how upset would you be if he happily baked cakes for white supremacist that want a cake depicting two gay black men being lynched? People this is not a dictatorship be careful what you fight for and want because you might not like the Fallout.
TheGamingVillas this really needs to be said and focused on but obviously the media would never cover this. Liberals want everyone happy but in life everyone cannot be happy. But anybody can be turned away from any business for any reason. Brace yourself, Grace yourself all these freedoms you're fighting for so many people are so short-sighted they don't realize you're going to hand over the same freedoms to white supremacist that are anti-gay and anti black and anti-hispanic ET C and then you're going to fight that they shouldn't have their freedoms. Don't be so short-sighted that you're unable to see what will happen. And I'm no hater I think everyone should be treated equally. In America though, businesses are run by private citizens. Go visit another nation that doesn't allow these freedoms and then check back with us. Get yourself a little bit of an education outside of whatever Arena you're drawing from. I honestly mean this from the bottom of my heart.
Not quite. The cake maker said you can buy any cake you want in my shop. And the cake maker thus did not care if they take that cake to some event. So no problem with buying a cake, and no problem with the event. The issue is forcing someone to commit an act of free expression that goes against their beliefs. You can't force someone to write or create something they don't want to based on their beliefs. With public Access laws, then this right of belief is NOT higher then the public access laws. (you can't refuse to service people based on whatever - skin color, religion etc.). That shop has offered cakes of the type they offer to everyone. The problem is what you put on the cake then becomes a issue of free expression - and you can't force people to commit and create things that they don't want to. The cake shop is perfectly happy to provide any cake they have, but that does not mean customers have the right to force that shop to create things they don't want to - especially when it violates their own rights or beliefs in regards to free expression, religion or for whatever reason. So a Jewish cake shop might not want to serve someone, but the law says that they MUST. So yes, they must provide any cake that one would reasonable expect that you can buy at that shop say for the last 30+ years. However, if someone comes and asks them, compels them, forces them to create a cake with a swastika on it, then that not a issue of their service, but a right of beliefs in terms of free expression - and you can't force that. You can't force someone to go out and speak and say things they don't want to. You can't force someone to go out and hold sign (or create that sign). While it is true that the law does force "public" business to serve people, even when they don't want to, that not a choice they have with current laws. However this lack of refusal of service is not higher nor something that can be used to force people to create things they don't want to when it involves expression. The cake maker will win this case. I bet 8-1, or 8-0 vote here in favor of the cake maker.
Albertkallal I'm with you having learned that the owner was willing to sell them whatever they wanted less his decoration of it. I didn't have the full story when I commented. It should be a pretty clean sweep in his favor on the free speech grounds where it lies. I appreciate the response.
jfsfrnd The law mentions "...sincerely held religious beliefs..." Not sure how those are determined. But on the free speech front- I'm an independent speech writer who writes speeches for Hillary Clinton. Someone comes in and demands that I write a speech for Donald Trump. Do I have to write it?
100% in favor of the cake shop. You can't be forced to use artistic expression, celebrate or participate in an event, or send a message you disagree with. This is way beyond the scope of original public accommodations. This is compelled speech and wrong.
How is this case ripe for "speech" or "compelled speech" when Masterpiece told the couple it did not make wedding cakes of gays before it knew and still does not know what decorations (if any) were requested for the cake?
That's exactly the point the courts addressed in the rulings against the baker (which very few people seem to have read) The reason the couple won is because they didn't ask for any type of "speech" (i.e., an expressive, "message"-centered design on the cake) that they tried to "compel" the bakery to "say". If they had done that the case would have gone the other way.
Our Constitution protects all citizens the inalienable right to engage in commerce. Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion to all people. The case is against Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. is the business in question. Businesses do not have religious beliefs. The argument you are now making is the same argument that was made by Piggie Park and Ollie's BBQ (when they refused to serve blacks in their restuarants), and Bob Jones University (when it refused to have blacks in dorms). The Court cannot side with Masterpiece without overruling its previous rulings in those cases (and allowing those businesses to discriminate as well)--- perhaps that is the motive of the supporters of Masterpiece. The owner of Masterpiece has stated in his deposition that the business refused to provide a product that he provides to all others based on the orientation of the customers.
@ John. Not a liar and I know quite a bit about the case. That is what frightens you. You can not argue the facts or the law ofd the case, therefore you resort to ad hominem attack. Typical of the poorly educated sheeple.
For some businesses, service involves a consultation. Hearing and denying the customer’s request should not be labeled as discriminatory, whereas refusing to consult with a certain people group in a fair manner should indeed be recognized as discrimination. In a free country, bakeries are never forced to make any cake. Luckily for the customer, if for some reason one baker refuses to bake something, there are several different bakeries competing for business.
Yes and when pickets show up in front of a bigots store that helps even more. He denied them service outright by saying company policy says he doesn't make wedding cakes for same sex weddings. He has lost every appeal of the administrative law judge so far but there must be a reason the Justices decided to hear this case. From what I read there are at least 50 similar cases involving bakers.
Hurley was a case of a cultural event in this case a parade. The parade organizers were a bunch of bigots. You are clearly a national chauvinist. The parade committee has now voluntarily allowed a gay contingent. So a change of attitudes against your type of thinking has clearly prevailed. The final ruling in Hurley after lots of court wrangling, marching and smoke bombs was that parade organizers could choose who and what they wanted to say in their parade. By recognizing this right parades and marchers can clearly rely on the law to keep out provocateurs during demonstrations and marches. This is a case of a private business offering products to the public that claims it would be misrepresenting itself by supplying a cake for a gay wedding. He has lost every appeal so far because the courts can not see how they can give him a win without opening a gaping religious exemption hole in public accommodation laws.
Kim O'Brien in response to your first comment, I do not necessarily argue that the court should rule in favor of the cakeshop in this case; I realize that having a "Heterosexuals Only" sign or company policy is discriminatory. My point is that if a consultant decides not to accept a project, even if the refusal is somehow offensive or coincides with a certain set of morals, the freedom of the consultant must be respected. This is different from having a company policy because some artists in the cakeshop may be willing to take on the project. Hopefully the court decision reflects a desire to protect the business owner as well as the customer.
The court doesn't like to make new law and be accused of legislating from the bench or set up a situation where more lower court rulings will be overturned. I don't know what type of consultant you are so I can't comment on your profession. It's not easy to define art so they might set up a test for what art is or what art isn't and then send it back to the lower courts for a decision. Copy cats are not considered art. So if you just go ask a painter to make a copy of a Rembrandt that's not art. A change of lettering such as ie Kim to Jim isn't art either but a new font style is. If you don't make special cakes for halloween you should have to make them either. Of course I could ask for a cake that has Happy Halloween on it and then claim religious discrimination as a Satanist if you sell cakes with lettering added like Wal Mart. You could of course not keep orange frosting in stock. Let's say he has plastic figurines for the cake that he purchases from third parties. If they're one piece he can't be expected to keep gay figurines in stock or order them. If he has two piece ones than changing from one of each sex to one of both sex seems do able without requiring new artistic expression or a special order from a third party.
Are there several other bakers? Where? Same argument about serving minorities. There were plenty of sandwich shops (in other states) that were willing to serve them.
LOL Luckily the justices of the Supreme Court are aware of it is well - including the fact that the Court stated that the religious defenses raised were "patently frivolous" in footnote 5 thereof. They're also aware of the Rumsfeld v. FAIR, in which they ruled that an anti-discrimination law governs conduct - not speech - and doesn't require anyone to say anything (which is also be alleged in this case).
John--- When you cannot form an argument you repeat yourself. It is exactly like Piggie Park. Maurice did not refuse to serve blacks, Maurice refused serve the "event" of blacks and whites in a restaurant. You are repeating yourself. As I have stated: If you remove race from an interracial marriage, you do not have an interracial marriage. If you remove sexual orientation, you do not have a same-sex wedding. Two heterosexual males could not consummate a same-sex wedding. You are incapable of logic.
The baker is right. If I'm a super Christian, Muslim, etc and see a cake with a rainbow flag sitting on the counter I have the right to walk out and not do business with that company based on support for groups I don't agree with. So why does he have to suffer to support ideas he doesn't rock with or want his business to rock with
@@ciudadana4562 If you open that door then that means a neo-nazi gets to rock all his gear at a hospital. Do you want to walk in a hospital a d see someone with an I❤Fuher shirt on casually talking to patients? Leave your politics at home.
Piss Christ is Art but a Wedding Cake is not? A frequently offered critique regarding this case is the notion that the baker does not have a 1st Amendment right to "control" his speech by not making the cake. There's nothing artistic about making a cake. The Supreme Court has recognized that there is the common literal speech (assembly, petition, press) as well as expressive speech. This is a more interpretive/symbolic form of speech, such as burning a flag, taking a knee or designing architecture. So if tax payer dollars can be used to subsidize the creation and display of a crucifix in a jar of urine not protected by 1A rights of the Creator, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a wedding cake is not an artistic endeavor.
Piss art was a photograph. Although some Congressmen complained of its cost no court case was ever filed. So without a case no decision was ever made about it being art. The cake baker claim is that he is being forced into creating a message he doesn't agree with by creating a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Under his theory than any printer doing a public business could refuse to print what every he didn't like. Like gay wedding invitations and copies of any kind of printed pages.
Kim O'Brien that's the point exactly. If a Arabic Imam comes into a printer and demands flyers that question the holocaust or are anti-gay wedding is the printer required to print them because Arabs & Imams score higher on the progressive stack? Either you stand private businesses retaining the right to refuse service or you are saying, you are free to run your business so long as I agree with how you run it.
Old ideas die of their own accord that's why Mien Kampf is not a dangerous book but it's not the same for the NAZI's who burned books and crushed all dissent in the Universities. The cake buyers asked only to buy a wedding cake. He said his business policy prevented him from making a cake for a same sex wedding. Private business does not have the right to do whatever it wants. That's a well established fact where you like it or not. Public accommodations laws were passed after the civil rights struggles in the 1960's.
I don't agree with holocaust deniers or anti gay propaganda. However refusing to print their trash only gives them a reason to claim they're for free speech and also allows them to pretend to be victims.
Thanks John, I appreciate that you recognize the arguments, I don't see it as a waste of time, I don't mind making the arguments all the same, as much for the person I disagree with as for the other readers to help arm & educate them and share arguments they might not have thought about.
+David the couple never brung the case anywhere, they simply laid a complaint with the colorado civil right commission, which customers are actually legally required too if their rights according to law are broken. - The civil rights commission chose to sue (Succesfully) and defended against an appeal by the bakery (Not Jack Philips as a person as he is not appliceable in that sense, as he is speaking out of business action). The law however is clear, A bakery is not a religious institution.- Which is exactly why Phillips lost twice already.
+Albertkallal Considdering an accommodation is not a religious entity, except if there is reasonable doubt the product would be used for illegal activities (Including proveable motive of discrimination against the owner!), no, the jewish baker could not deny that request. If they'd walk into a random bakery ordering such a cake without signal of illegal activities around the use of the cake and the cake shop owner happens to be Jewish, the bakery will have to provide that cake. - For the simple fact that a bakery is not a religious institution.
All ought to be concerned when the government compels individuals to go against their conscience. Let the baker have his rights. Let the public vote with their dollars.
The Person indeed has his rights to religious freedom and conscience. A company however can specifically not be a religious entity. So let me ask you how this company on religious basis denied a customer because they are gay? - They can't. There is a reason the bakery (Not the baker!) lost the original case and the appeal.
I think your period is a misdirection. Question here is scanned the state compel a person who does not believe in same-sex marriage to provide a service. Real people -irregardless of a "company" bake cakes. Buy your argument, the Nazi state killed Jews. No actual people really participated in the killing of the Jews.
"Question here is scanned the state compel a person who does not believe in same-sex marriage to provide a service." Whether one believes in same sex marriage is not relevant. - Marriage is a union set in law, not faith. "Real people -irregardless of a "company" bake cakes. " Correct, Workers can deny to do work in this case and have a right to (But can be fired for not doing their job) A store owner however has to make his company policy according to law. If he doesn't he is breaking the law and is liable to be shut down by a court case or inspection without prior notice. This basically leaves two options. The store owner acted like this as as worker, but to rectify that his Company Policy would have to break the law. The store owner acted as store owner and by that acting as word of the company, the company that has to follow public accommodation law. This person happens to fill in both roles at once, but in either case denial of service fails basause a company can't do that.
There are laws higher than the laws of Colorado. The Founding Fathers brought this notion into the fabric of our nation. Compelling a baker to go against his conscience is odious. Justice Kennedy said well, "It appears that the State of Colorado has not been very tolerant of Mr. Phillips' belief." In America, we recognize certain rights that the government shall not trample on. In this limited instance of serving a same sex marriage, the state has overstepped its bounds.
Christians aren't free to change what God has told them to believe. This couple maliciously targeted the bakeshop knowing that the Christian owner would not be able to fulfil their request. A business that is a private enterprise SHOULD NEVER be compelled to serve someone they do not want to. Remember the signs saying 'We reserve the right to refuse service' in restaurants? What has happened to the individual's liberty to live his life as he believes without interference from the State? Laws that are ambiguous should not be made or should contain a conscience clause.
You're clearly not familiar with anti-discrimination law in re: public accommodations (i.e., businesses open to the public). They've existed in some states in 1865. They were ruled constitutional over 50 years ago - see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).
ahahahhahahahah boo fucking hoo. DADT DOMA Prop 8 , directly attacked us. get use to it. lf you are not an american then it is none of your business bitch
Annabelle: Do you enjoy committing FALSE WITNESS? I hope you't not a Christian because you've committed a grievous sin. (A) The gay couple did not maliciously target this bakery - knowing that it wouldn't make the cake. It's in the record for this case that the gay couple had never been to bakery before and only went there because their event planner recommended Masterpiece Cakeshop, as she sent all of her customers to that bakery. (B) The law is not ambiguous. Here it is: (1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public.... (2)(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation,,, See: law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601 This baker admitted that his bakery operated as a "place of public accommodation" - so that's a no-brainer. And, it's not "full and equal" service to deny a customer an item that the bakery VOLUNTARILY put on its menu (customized wedding cakes) because of the customer's sexual orientation. CASE CLOSED. PS: This baker's attorneys, the Alliance Defending Freedom (an anti-gay hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which puts it on par with the KKK), have been bringing these anti-gay business cases all over the country for 10 years now - and have lost every single case. There's been massive speculation as to why the US Supreme Court even agreed to hear this case in the first place, since, back in 2014, it refused to hear the case about a wedding photographer who was found guilty of violating New Mexico's anti-discrimination law for doing the same thing and ADF made the same exact arguments as in this case. See: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-review-new-mexico-gay-commitment-ceremony-photo-case/2014/04/07/f9246cb2-bc3a-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html
What language is that, Randolph?! Do not know to what you're referring. I am British and I stick by what I said, despite any Yankee opinions!! People's freedom is everyone's business - we should never stand by and ignore people who may need our help or benefit from our support. Grow up.
That's right he offered the sale of custom wedding cakes to the public. Refusing to make one because they're gay is a violation of public accommodation law. It's the same as a motel owner refusing them a room because they are gay. He is not an artist but a master cake baker. The didn't ask for art but a wedding cake. He refused outright and only later did he offer a nondescript cake. So he might as well said you can ride the bus but you'll need to ride in the back.
It is under Colorado law but this case is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court right now. They will have a decision by June and that decision will become law in all 50 states. If the Us Supreme Court votes in favor of Jack Phillips these Colorado decisions will mean nothing to this baker.
During the oral argument, Kagan's, Sotomayor's and Breyer's purpose is only to use up as much of the attorney's time as possible so she can't give her argument which they can't defeat. Search Masterpiece caskshop
Ken - oral arguments are more of a dog and pony show. The justices and their many clerks read the briefs and other materials (such as the Joint Appendix and the amicus briefs). Do you really think that 15 minutes of oral argument is going to provide any additional enlightenment that hasn't already been put into the documents? Frankly, the limited time given is a bit ridiculous - they should at least give them more time so it's not so rushed. The bakery's attorneys could have requested that the Dept. of Justice not be allowed to join in on the oral argument in order to give her more time - but decided it was not in their best interest.
Frankly, certain important issues weren't discussed in oral arguments - and were barely mentioned in the briefs at all - so they most likely will not be addressed at all. Like, do corporations have religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment? The law applies to the business, in this case, a corporation, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that they did under an interpretation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (in Hobby Lobby) - by relying on the exact language in the statute; but such act was ruled unconstitutional with respect to the state law (like Colorado's in question)? This bakery was a corporation with 2 shareholders - Jack Phillips and his wife. What if they don't share the same religious beliefs? She never got involved in this litigation, never was interviewed by authorities or provided an affidavit. And, this question that SCOTUS didn't bother to address at all in Hobby Lobby - if a corporation presents itself as having the religious beliefs of the owner(s) of such corporation, is that sufficient evidence to "pierce the corporate veil" in litigation and bankruptcy cases? And, since the bakery's attorneys and the DOJ seem to be in agreement that religious excuses could not be used to discriminate based on race - but could be used for all of the other categories covered by anti-discrimination law, wouldn't that pose Establishment Clause issues? They want the government to favor this baker's religious beliefs against same sex marriage over those of a baker who has religious beliefs against inter-racial marriage. Also, I would've loved for one of them to ask him if it violated his religious beliefs to have assigned the task to his employees (6 of whom he fired when he elected to obey the law by removing wedding cakes from his corporation's menu)? As the argument being presented was all about HIM as "cake artist" being forced to make a cake, etc.
From what I have read and heard, this case will be about religious vs sexual freedom of expression and/or what are “public accommodations”. But in reality it is just a crapshoot.
Masterpiece Cakeshop was completely within their rights to deny service to that couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to loose their business to other competitors who are open to baking for gay couples and Cakeshop also has the right to go bankrupt, however Government has no right to force a private business to trade with someone they do not wish to trade with. Example: Should the Government force a black man or woman who own a bakery to bake cakes for a white person who want a cake of a white man lynching a black man? Or force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with Swastikas on it? This would be a violation of the bakers freedom and if this case is voted in favor of the couple, Americans should protest.
I respectfully disagree with you. Just because something is written into law, does not make it a constitutional law. Case and point, Welfare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security ect. or legislation such as Obama Care. These are all technically written into law but that does not make it constitutional.
By not "unconstitutional", I mean that they don't *violate* the constitution. The courts have the power of judicial review, an ability to determine whether or not a law is constitutional or not. Unless you can provide the sections of the constitution that CADA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. violate, they are all completely constitutional. And as I said, since CADA doesn't violate the constitution (I'm simply taking the position of the courts currently, btw.), it's the jobs of the legislature to repeal it.
Except what you advocate for is completely the opposite of how civil-rights laws work and how courts enforce them. The government DOES have the right to "force a private business to trade with someone they do not wish to trade to." Why do you think we have civil-rights laws? Because millions of business owners WERE discriminating against women, Blacks, couples with interracial marriages, the disabled, etc., AND they justified what they did BECAUSE OF THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Also, Jack no more should be expected to created a cake that he does not otherwise provide, than a Muslim operated Mexican taco restaurant should be made to make "pork" tacos that it otherwise does not provide.
Poor analogy. If a taco restaurant doesn't sell pork tacos to any customer, such item is not on the menu and is sold to no customer. This baker voluntarily placed "wedding cakes" on his menu - and is only willing to sell the to heterosexuals - but not homosexuals.
+vreed lak72 - Please read once more. In the analogy the baker sells cakes, not just any cake; the restaurant sells tacos, not just any taco. Both for religious reasons. Thank you.
+Jerry Krause: Read it. If the Muslim-owned restaurant elected to not put pork tacos on the menu (due to religious reasons or matters of taste or whatever), then such an item is not on the menu and is sold to no customer. If a black person came into the restaurant and asked for a pork taco and the restaurant refused, there would be no illegal discrimination based on the customer's race - the refusal of service was based on the fact that such item isn't on the menu (not because the customer was black). This is no different than going into a shoe store and asking for a cake - the establishment will tell you "NO" because the item isn't on the menu. Likewise, this bakery has publicly stated that it doesn't use alcohol in any of their products. If the gay customers came in wanting a rum-soaked baba, the bakery could refuse - the cake requested isn't on the menu and wouldn't be made/sold for any other customer. The same applies to any design or specific messages - if the gay customers had been given a chance to describe what they wanted and they had asked for a cake that read "Hooray for gay marriage" on it, the baker could refuse if he wouldn't make such a cake for any other customer. This bakery VOLUNTARILY put "wedding cakes" for sale on its menu - the government didn't force the baker to do that. The gay customers wanted a "wedding cake" (an item that was on the menu); the baker refused because they were a same sex couple and it was ruled (as it has been repeated ruled in ALL of these kind of cases that for the past 10 years) that refusal for such a reason is discrimination based on sexual orientation. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OR INGREDIENTS - and the baker didn't claim that the refusal of service was based on a disagreement over those items. If this baker has religious objections to obeying the law, he's free to remove "wedding cakes" from the menu and sell such item to no customer. That's the avenue he's currently pursuing during the appeal.
+vreed lak72 - Okay, you are slightly moving a different direction with your argument and would seem to make a case, if not for a few missing facts. The entire discussion between Jack and the gay couple lasted no more than 20 seconds. It is as if the couple came into the bakery just long enough to hear a “no” and then rushed out. They did not allow enough time for further elaboration. This case is about First Amendment rights being violated in requiring Jack to “express a view” through his cakes, which is counter to his religious beliefs. Similarly, he previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce. Thank you.
+Jerry Krause: Yes, you have the fact pattern correct. They came in to buy a "wedding cake", an item that the bakery voluntarily put on its menu and advertised for sale to the public, and were told "NO" right after the baker learned that the wedding cake was for the 2 male customers and the baker informed that that the bakery doesn't do "same sex weddings". So, they left. Why would they stay there? They were just told that the item they were seeking to purchase was not going to be sold to them. If you were denied service because of your race, religion, etc., would you hang out in the bakery? Would you humiliate yourself and beg him to listen to your ideas about what kind of cake you wanted? PS: The mother of one of them (who also went to the bakery with them but was not at the table) did call the baker the following day to talk to the baker and their discussion is part of the record - he was not going to change his mind. Re: the other cakes that he refused to make, THOSE ARE BASED ON DESIGN DISAGREEMENTS. He doesn't make Halloween-themed cakes or giant penis cakes for ANY customer. If the gay customers wanted a wedding cake with a witch on it, he could refuse. As for the divorce cake, the customer wanted a "half a wedding cake"; that customer, upon being refused, didn't file a complaint with Colorado; that would have been an interesting case because "marital status" is a protected category under Colorado law as well - so was the refusal based on the fact that the customer was divorced (illegal) or was it based on the "half of a wedding cake" design and the bakery would make/sell such a cake to any other customer. Yes, that is his argument - a 1st Amendment claim that his bakery making/selling a wedding cake to a gay customer is tantamount to him expressing a positive view of same sex marriage (which is against his religious beliefs). It's a BS argument. (1) Freedom of religion: A restaurant owner tried 50 years ago to use his Baptist religious beliefs against the integration of the races as an excuse to violate anti-discrimination law and refused to let black customers eat in his restaurant. The US Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling against him and even called his defense "patently frivolous". See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) (2) Compelled Speech: The US Supreme Court has already ruled that an anti-discrimination law doesn't compel speech at all - it governs conduct. See Rumsfeld v. FAIR. The law doesn't require this baker to say that he approves of same sex marriage - it only requires his bakery to provide "full and equal" service. He's free to tell anyone (including these gay customers) what he thinks about same sex marriage, homosexuality or any other topic he so desires; he's free to post them in his store and on the website. It would be a very different case if there had been a discussion about the design of the cake and the gay customers wanted a explicit message written on the cake and the baker refused on those grounds. The baker would have a fantastic "compelled speech" case and would win if Colorado told him that he had would have to bake cakes that contain explicit messages that he disagrees with. Colorado told him no such thing - and that State has ruled in favor of other bakeries who refused service on grounds that the customer requested explicit derogatory messages on their cakes. As the law governs conduct - not speech (it's a far cry from other "compelled speech" cases like requiring public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance), it requires a different analysis. All conduct is expressive, but it would be anarchy to let everyone use the excuse that obeying a law (from paying taxes to obeying traffic signs) is sending a message (such as approval of the law) that he disagrees with. But, certainly, some conduct can be expressive enough to warrant 1st Amendment free speech protections - kneeling in silent prayer in public, burning a flag, marching in a parade. The Supreme Court (in Texas v. Johnson (1989), a case about flag burning), ruled that in deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court is to ask whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." This baker can't meet the Johnson test. There is no great likelihood that the viewers of the cake (or its manufacture or sale) would interpret that to mean that baker supports any customer's marriage. Most of the viewers (the wedding guests, catering staff) won't even know the identity of the bakery (never mind the name of the owner or the employees who actually made the cake). There's no history of people going to bakeries to purchase wedding cakes thinking that they are also obtaining the religious or personal approval of the owner of the bakery. Other than comprehending, with respect to the bakery, that a commercial transaction had taken place, the only other possible message that would be received (as the Supreme Court stated in Rumsfeld v. FAIR) is that the baker is obeying the law in order to not be punished.
So when he design a cake that doesn't require an ounce of expression on his part? The real question is if art is a form of expression. If so, then I would do the exact thing that he did. If he was a hair stylist, I would agree with the courts. If he was a lawyer, I would agree with the courts. Serving a professed homosexual as either of the two would not violate the Bible principles. However, why would be agree to craft something he does not agree with for the sake of earning a couple extra dollars? Shame on him for having values and defending them?
It is Masterpiece Cakeshop that has been in court not Jack Phillips personally. The court need only rule that the Colorado law is valid and then the cake shop must provide wedding cake service to same sex couples. Phillips will then have at least six options. 1. Sell the cake shop. 2. Close the cake shop. 3. Keep the shop open but not make or serve wedding or anniversary cakes. 4. Have an outside contractor make same sex wedding and anniversary cakes. 5. Have an employee make same sex wedding and anniversary cakes. 6. Decide to make the same sex wedding and anniversary cakes after all.
Kim O'Brien: He could also change his business license from public accommodation to a privatized business, and serve whoever he wants. I don't understand why this case was ever accepted by the high court, when this option was ALWAYS available to him. If he had/has a problem with the public accommodation laws, even after he'd signed his license, agreeing to uphold the laws governing public accommodations, then the obvious solution should have been to change the type of license for the business from the start. Business license's are contracts between a business owner, the business itself, and the state in which the business is located. They get renewed every year. By refusing service in this case, he violated his contract with the state.
Right but it's more than just changing the type of license. It has to actually be private meaning no accepting just off the street walk ins or open online orders. You can't publicly advertise a service and then say no violating public accommodation law. You could only take orders for wedding cakes from churches that do not perform gay marriages to do otherwise would have its own consequences. His business is open now he just doesn't make any wedding cakes at all. They couple said they saw his cakes advertised on line and that is why they chose to go there.
This case is not about expression. Freedoms of religion, speech, and expression have never trumped the government's compelling interest in ensuring that "unpopular groups," including women and Blacks and the disabled and [as Colorado law specifies] gays, are not excluded from commerce and are not humiliated and isolated because a business owner refused to serve them (or refused to hire or promote them, etc.). This is why the "just go to another bakery" response is no solution at all. Going to another bakery means the discriminated-against person has already been publicly humiliated. Preventing that from happening is part of the government's compelling interest in regulating businesses.
People don't see that. They don't see what we see as Christians. They dont like God's word nor do they want any part of it and they dont understand what that means to us and our Salvation. If we do this its like us telling them its okay to sin and how serious that would be for us and them. But they dont see it that way and if they did they would leave us alone and probably wouldn't be gay at all. But still they dont so that is why they cry
What is wrong with this sentence: "Masterpiece Cakeshop argues that requiring it to design and bake a cake for the gay wedding ... "? 1) There's no such thing as a "gay wedding." There's no such thing as a "gay-wedding cake." There are weddings. There are wedding cakes. Gay people get married exactly the same as straight people do. Same requirements (consenting adults, not closely related, etc.), same documents to complete and sign, same fee paid, same need for an officiant who must complete the marriage license and return it to be recorded. Straight couples buy wedding cakes. Gay couples buy wedding cakes. They differ between each other in the same way straight married couples' do: personality of the couple, cost, etc. 2) Jack Phillips, the baker, refused any and all cakes to the gay couple (actually, he previously had denied wedding cakes/cupcake to six gay couples). He refused to design and bake a wedding cake for the gay couple. He refused to sell them a nondescript or already-designed cake if it would be used for their wedding.
Sorry you are Wrong on your point number 1 www.dictionary.com/browse/gay--marriage (broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times. See Word Story at the current entry. Also called opposite-sex marriage.the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.See also traditional marriage(def 2). this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage. Ecclesiastes 8:11 “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
Job 21:11-15 - They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave. Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways. What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him? Job 35:3 “For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?” Malachi 3:14 “Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?” Psalms 12:4 “Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?” Bless you
Look I’m for the support of LGBT rights much of the time. But this is not the way to do it. Let me posit a question to anyone who would be on the couple’s side of the argument. If the government has the power to force a conservative Christian baker to compromise his beliefs to suit the needs of another party, wouldn’t that also give the government power to force a gay man to compromise his beliefs (say, being forced to divorce his husband) based solely on the complaints of another party? This is not an easy issue for me but if you can’t buy a cake from a bakery, go to another bakery. Forcing others to ascribe to your viewpoint does not solve problems either side of this argument is facing. Think about it.
He offered to sell custom wedding cakes to the public. He didn't have up a sign saying no wedding cakes will be made for gays. If he did I am sure he would be picketed. In fact he did complain about being picketed after the incident in one of the video's he made. The business is incorporated so he is not a single proprietor either. He had about ten employees so do you think that he made every cake himself and were all his employees ascribing to the same view as his? Should he be able to hire only straights who agree with him?
That would depend. Were his employees forbidden to provide services (It's not specified, or is it?)? Or could only he specifically make the cakes (don't believe making a custom cake is easy. I know from experience it's harder than you would think)? Also, him hiring gay or straight employees is not the issue here, its him serving a gay couple. Also this is a private business, not a federal position, ergo he is technically allowed to serve whoever he wants. Theoretically, if YOU were the owner of a bake shop, would you serve a couple who was celebrating their child's birthday (but the child's name was Adolph Hitler)? Or would you politely refuse them service (assuming you are against Hitler)?
Kim O'Brien Why are judging this man? Why are you basing your disgust towards him on this one encounter/event? Don’t you dare try to portray him as some completely evil klansman. Very rarely is anything truly evil. Maybe this guy has his dispositions against gays but he’s not burning crosses or overtly threatening them. He’s simply refusing to serve based on personal beliefs he is allowed to express. The only people making a big deal about this from my perspective is the gay couple who can’t seem to go to another baker.
John Sterling Now now now. Name calling, disgust and anger are enemies of rational thought. Cannibal Left may sound fun to say but doesn’t really do anything besides divide us further. It is the duty of the rational to remain calm and not lose tempers (though I will admit this Kim does not seem to understand fully what she’s on about).
What if you went to a restaurant and asked for a seat and dinner and then were told well we don't like you go elsewhere for your dinner or we have a back room for your kind of customer.
Actually yes, so long as you aren't in California. The federal government does not consider political views a protected class and the only state with a law prohibiting discrimination based on political views is California. That said, modern Trumpism is more religion than political movement at this point, so... >_
Allowing businesses to discriminate may place unnecessary burden to those who are discriminated. When a citizen is denied accommodation in an establishment and is forced to look for other establishments where he will be served then that citizen is unwillingly losing valuable time and money. That's financial harm. When denied public accommodation, they are forced to look for other establishments that will offer them the services they seek. In rural areas, this may mean travelling to far places which certainly costs more time and money. When individuals are unwillingly losing valuable time and money just to look for establishments where they will be not denied service because of their marginalized status then the government has the duty to step in and stop this from happening. In addition, Businesses do not operate completely off the grid. They use, rely on, benefit from taxpayer-funded resources (i.e. public roads, public utilities, police, fire fighters). And since homosexuals and same sex couples are also taxpayers, that means the resources businesses use are reliant on those who business owners wish to discriminate against. It is unfair to deny services or goods to people without whose taxes businesses could not operate.
Pretty clear the baker did something illegal here, that’s not a question. Now whether the anti discrimination law is constitutional is the question. I’d argue it’s constitutional, as the same “religious freedom” argument was made for anti-interracial marriage, Jim Crow, and even slavery.
You have a right to practice your religion. You don’t have a right to practice your religion on someone else. this christian, like every other christian involved in this case is ignoring one little, important nagging point. Bigotry against LGBTQ is not in any way a part of Jesus teachings. Using your “religious beliefs” as an excuse for intolerance and bigotry might seem righteous, but it is really an insult to everything Jesus teaches. There is something very wrong with taking away spreading the gospel by example, and instead using your faith as a weapon of example against others. This man may have emboldened many of those who are already christians, but has certainly embarrassed many more, and driven off those who would otherwise find comfort and understanding in this man’s so-called christianity.
They don't see what that means to us. And they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be crying. When someone is a follower of Christ we are supposed to follow his laws and condoning things that would be against him not only gets us in trouble but helps them feel at ease with what they are doing. The man was sticking up for his belief as i would and many others who believe that marriage is a sacred right. That will never change not even when jesus comes back. His word is law and we follow. And if they choose not to that is them and they should just move on
Its a cake a frenchtoast cake u could simply go elswhere unles u are saying he was the only wedding cake creator in colorado... just go somewhere else...i would have tilted against the baker if he was hostile about it he said he was willing to sell them any other thing ...he wasnt trying to hurt them he just had a limit.. if it was a resturant who was owned by a muslim ,,if they had come asking for a cake celebrating gay marriage as asked for bacon ...should the muslim be forced to do against one of the tennents of islam...absolutly not. I think the two gay guys knew exactly who he was knew he was a christian and wanted to have him canceled or closed down to loose his source of living over a wedding cake nobody even remembers a week after the wedding....jordan peterson was right tyranny has dawned a new face it is wokeism ....
I support the right of the baker to not participate however there should be a law mandating you to place a large sign on the door of your business stating who and under what circumstances you will not serve someone. No hidden discrimination. No cowardice. Tell the truth and allow all customers to vote with their dollars at all times. I personally would not patronize a business who discriminates base on race or orientation or event and I'm a white hetero male. Be brave, state your veiws plainly for all to see and react to. How about the death of a gay partner, the death of a same sex couples child. I want 95% of your business but want to leave you high and dry when it suits my sensibility. BS
that would still be unconstitutional. You cannot deny service to someone solely based on their identity if it is a protected class, like race or gender. If he would make a certain custom cake for a hetero couple, he must make it for the same-sex couple.
What you're proposing is a horrible idea and is why the federal Civil Rights Act and the CCRA explicitly prohibit signage and printed material declaring a business owner's right to discriminate. Because Christians in the past used to have Bible-based pamphlets and signage saying that God put the races on different continents and meant them to be separate so God didn't want Black people served there. Or couples who are interracially married. Or Hispanics. Or the disabled. And so on. This has been fully litigated, REPEATEDLY, and is why Phillips cannot put up a sign declaring his religious beliefs and justification to not make wedding cakes for gay couples. Immoral and illegal.
So if the baker didn't "believe" in interracial marriage because of his religion would that be ok. No. Open and shut case. You provide a public service, you serve the public.
Why the heck is the government getting involved in this? The Constitution did not grant these powers to the government. 13th actually prohibits the government from forcing someone to do something against their will. Open and shut case.
Johnus Smittinis you see how African American children needed to be escorted to school by the military back in the 60's. When people can't learn to respect people's civil rights, the government often has to step in to ensure these people recieve said rights. The civil rights act ensures that one cannot discriminate. This baker could have just as easily said their religion doesn't believe in interfaith marriages of interracial marriages or someone's second marriage. You must serve the public. That is the contract they signed when they decided to open up a business.
You can't force the man to do it if they want a gay marriage story let's hear about a gay divorce that at least would be interesting who would get what
Colorado Civil Rights Commission claim that as part of a commercial activity, no one really thinks that the cake expresses the bakers own views, rather it expresses the views of the customer. If true, the Customer must prove no selection bias towards artistic ability or aesthetic qualities of baker based on past work/portfolio, that the decision is purely technical proficiency and economic value. Moreover, would anyone actually believe that the works of Renaissance artists Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Donatello, et al. had nothing to do with the individual views and interpretations of the artist and only to do with those that commissioned the works? TMNT notwithstanding, the ones that commissioned the works should be the household names, not artists, after all it was their views that were most important.
Blue Splat if it involves anything more than rote performance of a technical, assembly line task (entering specs, pushing buttons, etc) and requires the artistic or asthetic efforts of the proprietor, than it is a matter of mutual satisfaction. Its the difference between a plain sheet cake from Walmart Bakery (industrial product) and Cake Boss (artistic product).
but in those cases, the artiest agreed to make or create the painting by who is paying. You can not hire or force a painter to create a work of art that they do not want to create! Now if you agree to create the painting and you back out, then your breaking the contract. However forcing someone to create something that they wish not to create is the issue here. Laws were created that are specific to pubic "common" places in which the public is allowed. This thus means you are required to provide service to anyone not breaking your business rules.That business does not offer that kind of cake the customer wants - and they never have. The ACLU is trying to say that what goes on the cake is part of the basic service. But that service involves artistic values, or values of free expression. You can't force someone to hold a sign or make a sign they don't want to. However, you as a general rule can't force someone to come and pave your driveway - they might not like the area, might not like the materials you request - you have this free right to refuse such type of work if you wish. No one can force you to work or commit acts you don't want to. However, the public common laws are placed higher then this right of refusal. So you can't refuse to offer cakes you have, but forcing someone to CREATE a cake they don't want to create is a very different matter. So with this "common" area, or so called public access laws, then some rights were trampled on. However, those public access rights do not mean that you can compel staff to do things, or commit acts that go against their own beliefs and what is offered beyond their basic service. The cake maker will win this case hands down.
jfsfrnd if your logic is correct, then I could go to a well known liberal PR firm and hire a former Obama speech writer and force them to write pro-Trump speeches or force Meryl Streep to act in a pro-Trump movie.
jfsfrnd if it is a matter of public accomodation then it is 100% equal access for public and all must be equally accomodated. that is what public accomodation means. Essentially, there is no right of association/disassociation. If it you are suggesting that only those specifically identified by CADA then you are saying certain discrimination is legal, but the idea that certain discrimination based on protected vs unprotected classes, violates the 14A and violates the very basis of public accomodation laws. By definition, a public accomodation law serves the entire public and doesn't allow ANY discrimination, viewpoint or otherwise. So in my example a liberal PR Firm/Movie Studio must, as a public accomodation, produce material they are ideologically opposed to. Just as a liberal baker would have to bake a anti-gay wedding cake for Milo, even though message was "homophobic" the customer is gay.
Hurley doesn't apply because that was a ruling concerning the right to assemble (a parade) and control your speech. In the case the baker is not being asked to participate in the wedding nor is he required to put his bakery name on the cake, deliver the cake or even make the cake. The state asked that he either have a different employee make the cake or contract out the cake. He refused to do either. So if anything it's more of a case where a bakery demands the right to close their ears when ever the feel like it (religion dictates) and still remain in business?
What is this twisted point of view that he is participating or speaking at the wedding? Did they make him bake a cake that says "gay marriage is awesome!"? He didn't even let them tell him what they wanted. The customers are gay and want a cake for their wedding. A service he provides for straight people, but denies to gay people. Also, the other twisted narrative that he doesn't serve the "gay wedding" ceremony doesn't sound so good for him either, because who are the people asking for "gay wedding cakes"? Gay people, more proof he broke the law. I loved how during the oral arguments Breyer suggested they can't go through all food items and determine which ones are "artistic speech" and which ones are not. The case is basically a waste of time. So they either allow everyone to use "religion" as a gapping hole to every anti-discrimination law or just have people obey the law as it is written. There's nothing in Colorado's anti-discrimination law saying he can't practice his religion. I don't know why it was so hard for the baker to just be a nice person and make the cake. Everyone saying they should have gone somewhere else (which they did) simply say it because they believe gay people are beneath everyone else. You wouldn't want what happened to them to happen to you for something as natural as falling in love.
Actually he did offer anything they have for sell. The idea that food is expression, and we have categorize food as expression or not is beyond silly. And regardless EVEN if food was some kind of expression, the law is simple: The shop due to “pubic common” can’t refuse to sell anything they have to offer. So even if food was deemed expression, anything they have to offer to the public MUST be sold - regardless of that food being deemed expressive. However you can’t in this case force them to sell food they don’t have or don’t want to sell. You can ONLY force them to serve everyone regardless, but that is limited to what they have for sale. However the instant you introduce writing and other acts of free expression, then you can’t force someone to create or write or commit an act of expression that they don’t like. While the shop keeper might not want to sell a cake - he does not have that choice under that state laws. So those customers must be served, and they can buy any item that shop has to offer. So those chocolate covered strawberry might be considered something that promotes pre-marital sex, but if you have them for sell, then you EVEN must sell them to a couple that wants a hot night of passionate sex and they are not married! However, what the law and state can’t do is force people to create things that are acts of expression. The food is not the act of expression (and if it is, it don’t really matter). However WHAT you write on the cake most certainly is! So while some people might consider some foods acts of expression, it is WHEN you force someone to create something they don’t want to is the issue here. - and this is why the Cake maker will win this case hands down.
Its not that easy that way either do they also allow printers for hire to decide what wedding invitations to print? How about going to Wal mart and buying a cake that says Happy Anniversary Bill and Bob. They don't customize until the last minute. Can I have a Bill and Bob Cake? What if Bob is actually Roberta? How about an order posted at all bakeries saying we do discriminate against gay cake buyers.
Yes, they most certainly do allow printers to refuse work. If the printer finds what they been ask to print offensive, or goes against their policy, then yes, they most certainly can and do refuse such work. In fact any newspaper will also refuse to print any ad they don't like, or that goes against their views or policy.They thus do not have to print propaganda or anything else they don't want to print. And what about that Wal Mart example? They will sell any customer a cake, but they most certainly will refuse to print, or write on the cake something they find offensive, or that goes against their policy. I not sure what or why the issue of last minute, or first minute would effect anything in this regards? Now if they already paid, and their is a contract in which you agreed to write whatever on that cake, then no, they can't refuse to write what you ask, since you have a binding contract. In this case, the baker fully stated that you can buy any cake or any product we sell, but we not going to write what you want on that cake - They still retain that right since it is an act of expression on the owners part. As I stated, if the baker refused to sell a cake, then he would lose this case. The baker did not refuse to sell the cake. In fact he made it clear they can buy anything they want in the shop they sell. However, forcing someone to create something they don't want is a very different matter. So the issue centers on forcing the cake maker to create something they don't want to create. The issue is not serving the customer, the issue is forcing people to create something they don't want to make.
As for the order or sign? Well, you have to define what you mean by discriminate. The baker also has rights of discriminate too! You can force some one to date or go out with someone they don't want to. You can't force someone to commit an act that goes against their religion or any other reason. If you forcing someone to commit an act or do some act they don't want to, then you discriminating and infringing upon the person rights and freedom of expression. You can no more force religion on someone then you can force some gender or force someone to marry someone else. You can argue that someone who does not want to marry you is discriminating against you (and they are - this is in fact discrimination!). However if that person does not want to marry you, then you can't force them to. As I stated, in a "common" public area, this right of refusal of "service" has been taken away from people. So the baker can't refuse to sell a cake, but forcing him to create things against his will is an act of discrimination against that baker rights and is taking away his rights of free expression.
@Eric Yes, he most certainly did let them tell him what he wanted. He flat out stated they can buy anything in his shop they want. So yes, he most certainly did offer to bake a cake for them. He was most happy to bake a cake for them and sell it to them. What he refused is what he going to write on the cake - that's still his choice unless you think that someone can be forced to write a sign, write a book, or make a movie they don't want to make. The idea that the baker has no rights and is not being discriminated against for his lifestyle is being missed here. The baker can no more force that couple to behave in a certain way then they can force him to behave in a certain way. How is that going to work? So someone can go around and tell some couple to write a book or make a sign they don't want to? You can't force acts on people to do something that they don't want to do. Now some exceptions in law exist, and the public "common area" law is one such law. You have to serve people (even if you don't want to). But customers THEN can't force you to sell lobsters if you are a pizza joint. They are only obliged to sell the products they sell. They sell cakes, but not the kind the customer wants. As long as the public business is willing to sell their product to someone and everyone, then they are not breaking the law. The baker was most happy to provide the customers with what they make, and have been making for years. however customers can't infringe upon the bakers right of free choice to force him to make things that he don't want to make.
Romans Chapter 1 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Bless you All glory to 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤔𐤏𐤟𐤌𐤔𐤉𐤇 𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄 𐤀𐤕 𐤀𐤌𐤍
Well, I just hope some day if this discriminator gets sick and needs to be operated on to save his own life by the only Surgeon who can save it, I just hope the excellent Physician who can save his life is gay, and this Surgeon denies to operate him on because this man discriminates.
A bakery has the right to deny service IF it is a privately owned business otherwise legally they do not. Also you can hide behind freedom of speech all you want but the law and the constitution does NOT classify discrimination under freedom of speech. You're just a bigot.
@@buttermepancake3613 dude your have missed the point first of the couple actually called around and till they found someone that denied them. this was planned. secondly the baker was willing to sell them a cake. the only thing he refused to do is sell them a CUSTOM wedding cake. you cant not force and artist to make art you are literally infringing on there rights. you do not have the rights to force someone to work.
Burton Matterhorn I actually agree it's discrimination, but should be protected by the 1st amendment... If, depending in the conclusion of the case, a Neo-nazi could walk into a Jewish bakery and say "make a cake for my neo-Nazi meeting" and the Jewish owners hands would be legally tied... This is why this case is so monumental... If they have a problem with being denyed service they can go else where.... It's really quit simple.
im all pro gay wedding, they can do with their lives whatever the want, but the cakeshop owner is in his right to refuse to make a cake if he dont want to.
exactly! if he doesn't want to sell a cake b/c he disagrees w/the customer's own beliefs, then he should have the right to refuse business service.
And a brilliant gay Surgeon is in his right not to save this bigot's life if it ever gets in danger.
Ciudadana uh u dragged it
Thank you. Personally, I'd be pro polygamy and incest weddings as well for the sake of freedom but I completely understand if people refuse to partake in their wedding ceremonies.
@@goldengalsclazy So if the cake shop owner didn’t want to bake a cake for a wedding that was between a white person and a person of color, is that alright, because it was against their beliefs?
I side with the bakery
Muly problem qoth this is is that thus opens the floodgates for religon to claim that becaise of x belief they don't serve gays or any group of person they don't like/want to exist. Imagine of the couple was straight and the baker said because of my religous beliefs i can't bake a cake for stroaght couples would that fly?
yeah, Jack Philips did nothing wrong he stood up for what he believed in
Why didn't they just look for a bakery that would do it.
"Why didn't these black people just sit in a diner that would serve them?"
@@KarstenOkk I'm really tired of the LGBT using black people as a comparison. being born with melanin that's not against anyone's religion. 🙄 Feels like a lot of the LGBT community are silent when it comes to standing up for our rights, but always want to use us to prove their points. It's disgusting.
EXACTLYTYY
Daniel Kintigh that doesn’t make sense. So they called around and no other bakery was available?? They just wanna start ahmn
FrmSyriaWithLuv That’s what I’m saying. Always trynna bring black ppl into it. And in addition, it’s not like they refuse to serve those in the LGBTQ community, they just don’t want to play a part in wedding bcuz it’s against their beliefs.
You forgot to mention that Phillips had offered them a list of people who would do it, and offered them other foods. This also happened before gay marriage was legal in Colorado.
The couple planned to marry in Massachusetts, where it was legal.
This does not affect the judgment of the court though
Whether Colorado recognized same-sex marriage at the time or not had no bearing on Public Accommodation Law. The issue is that the gay couple went looking for a lawsuit, not a wedding cake. Jack Philips didn't violate Public Accommodation; he offered to sell them any cake which was already prepared, on display and ready for cash-and-carry sale. The gay couple then moved the goalpost by asking Philips to design a rainbow-themed "gay cake" from scratch and his refusal to do so was within his rights.
It was a False-Rainbow-Flag operation, LOL. This may shock you, so take a seat.....I think the gay couple should be counter-sued and I'm a Liberal Democrat.
If you're still reading this, I'm assuming the smelling salts have brought you back from your fainting spell, LOL. The gay couple was also 2 states away from their hometown. Nobody travels two states and some change with a wedding cake. It will be stale by the big day and all the driving would collapse it.
On this Liberals and Conservatives will agree: No. Body. Buys. A. Wedding. Cake. Two. States. From. Home.
Your comment is 3 years old, so since then you know Jack Philips prevailed in the Supreme Court with the first two Trump appointees, Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, but before the confirmation of Justice Barrett. What you MAY NOT have heard, however, is that the same SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal of the Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in Hawaii who canceled a lesbian couple's honeymoon suite reservation.
Like the Colorado case, the respective State S/C ruled that the Christians violated Public Accommodation Law. UNLIKE Colorado, SCOTUS saw no merit to their appeal. The couple had arrived from the US Mainland exhausted from all the hassle of air-travel and ready to check in and instead had to find a new hotel at the last minute. The B&B should be sued out of existence. I don't care what the arrogant bastards read in a book that says the planet is only 6,000 years old, you don't ruin somebody's honeymoon. Sounds like a couple of dykes own a hotel in Hawaii now.
@Nick4578 Grow up.
If you own a business why does the government have any say on to whom you can sell your product/service to.
Public Accommodation laws. As a business you sign an agreement to follow all federal, state, local and insurance laws. Jack lives in a state that has an anti discrimination law based on sexual orientation.
Come on! There are tons of bakers... Why forcing a person to do your cake? Show some tolerance and respect!
Thank youuuuu
It's funny you say "tolerance and respect" when the baker could've shown some tolerance and respect. No one is asking him to marry a guy or even to be a part of the wedding, he is just making a cake.
@Sarmad Qureshi he is just making a cake no one was asking to write anything about gay marriage or any sort of gay art on the cake. He is just being a bigot that's all there is to it and if you disagree maybe you need to take a look at yourself and realize you may be one too.
Right on point. This case will shape our country's future.
Except then the Supreme Court surprised everyone and didn't rule on that issue, lol
Paul Brenner bahahaaj that’s completely did not happen hahaah
@@ChristophProbst - Yes, but in every case you will find the pro-LGBT side being hostile towards religious beliefs, which we saw here.
This couple bragged about this unethical decision as a matter of fact. Their intent was to destroy this Christian man and business. Oddly "papers" published in academia that promote the LGBT ethos or ideology state emphatically and repeatedly that "Christians have an agenda against us". I often respond with, "What? To stab you with Carrots" and even at times add, "Christians are some of the most spineless complacent individuals and institution I have ever encountered". In all my years in ministry or my many years involved with/in church of various denominations I have never once heard a pastor address or discuss the LGBT movement or beliefs. We understand that we have not right to judge hearts, motives or intent. It is a "two way street". Or should be.
If we; those who choose freely to adhere to "Traditional Family Values" Do not rise up in unity and in light, it will soon be against the law to profess a Christian ethos.
It was a ruling made on very narrow grounds. At best, it said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted unequally towards the baker. While conservatives (especially American Evangelical Christians) treat this as a victory, it didn't address whether individuals have the right to decline services to LGBT individuals based on their religious convictions.
Spot on. Well said.
Jesus said the world will hate Christians because they follow christ. The Bible condemns homosexuality and same-sex marriage because marriage is a holy Union between a man and a woman.
I look forward to watching a gay couple trying this with a Muslim baker.
th-cam.com/video/RgWIhYAtan4/w-d-xo.html Steven Crowder went to a Muslim bakery and asked to bake a cake for Gay couple and they refused
Haha. Ya, whoever is more in the minority wins by default. Let's count up the gays and the Muslims
would you like your cake with the included stoning or pushing off a building?
Steven Crowder did it!
Armand Rodriguez,,,,,, THEY WILL NOT CHALLENGE MUSLIMS WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!! TO HONEST?,,,, OBAMA PLANNED THIS ATTACK & PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS BECAUSE HE HIMSELF IS AN ISLAMIC MUSLIM!?! THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT OBUMMER WAS SETTING THEM UP FOR?! HE PRETENDED TO CARE ABOUT THE NEEDS & WANTS OF LGBTQ COMMUNITY, BLACK PEOPLE, DEMOCRATIC LIBERALS AND ANY OTHER RELIGIONS THAT AREN'T CHRISTIANS!?! HE WAS SETTING UP THESE CHRISTIAN OWNED BUSINESSES JUST TO CAUSE CHAOS AND CONFLICTS W/THOSE WHO ARE FAITHFUL IN THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH!?!
I need a question answered please
did Craig and Mullins know that he wouldn't make their cake but asked anyway?
No because the shop didn’t display the owners religious beliefs. There was a sign on the door that said they have to serve and not serve whoever they choose but he must have said, “it goes against my beliefs.” But they had no idea his region before the fact
Craig and Mullins traveled two states from their hometown and targeted a business they knew in advance to be Christian-owned.They wanted a lawsuit, not a cake; theywere running a scam and THIS Liberal Democrat believes Mr. Philips has grounds to counter-sue them.
They Such stunts are counterproductive to progressive/LGBTQ interests.
Philips told them they were welcome to purchase any available cake in the store, cash-and-carry. In doing so, Mr. Philips satisfied the LETTER of the Public Accommodation Law. Maybe not the more arguable SPIRIT of the Law, but he had the right to draw the line at designing a "gay cake". THIS is the reason he prevailed in the Supreme Court, NOT because of "Religious Freedom Restoration".
No, they did not.
I side with the cake shop.
I side with the customers who only wished to treated with respect instead of bigotry disguised as religious freedom.
Since no one had a video camera running or a telephone recorder those are his claims only. You've shown the kind of respect that your kind has when you make statements about my assumed national origin.
John Sterling he treated them with respect. In America all businesses have a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason we can do this. This is what makes America great. Just as the couple believes in what they believe in which that's how they feel they're allowed to feel that way isn't the baker allowed to feel his way as well? I mean look at any service industry they're allowed to refuse service to anyone. When we start taking this away America will slip and fall apart. Because then you're giving people who were able to make a living as big or small as they can to just accept anything and then you don't think that America's going to slowly slip away because when people have to give up their rights and beliefs what is coming next in the service industry? If you want everyone to be the same all the time go to a socialist country where everyone is the same all the time! In this country will allowed to make a living and open businesses.
It's a shame that people are forcing America the free businesses to serve anyone. Does that mean if someone decides to for instance wear masks over their head and that could be considered threatening we have to serve them at a jewelry store? After all it it's a business in the free America. Every business in America has a right to refuse service.
sciencetrumpsfaith let me ask you this, say a gay couple that's married that are not bigots owns a cake shop in walks a white supremacist that brags about being racist and once a cake that represents they're racist beliefs. Is it okay for the gay couple business owners to say no? Your answer to this will determine whether or not you sir are a moron. When do we say no when is enough enough this is America business owners have a right to say no they have a right for their business to either flourish or fail. If we're all the same it's communism.
This is actually a HUGE ruling. This story shines the light on how Liberals think. That you have to accept them or you are going to be sorry. The Supreme Court said that the Colorado Court acted hostile towards the baker. The Colorado Court acted with a bias towards the baker (hard to comprehend the Colorado Court had to be reprimanded like this). The gay couple could have been adult and realistic about it and just gone to another baker, BUT NO!!! They had to act hostile and sue the baker, and all the way to the Supreme Court... Such a vindictive act. The gay couple was so offended that they were going to make this simple baker "pay" for not accepting them for being gay that they decided to punish the baker for essentially having his own counter beliefs. This gay couple didn't care if the baker was offended. The Supreme Court stated that the gay couple needs to be tolerant of the bakers views and opinions and his religious beliefs as well. That tolerance is a two way street, Kapish??!!! The gay couple expected and demanded their opinions and beliefs to be accepted, respected, and tolerated yet they would not accept, respect, and tolerate the bakers religious beliefs. This is why people can't and don't want to get along with those with such extreme beliefs and behavior. Everyone needs to tolerate others even if the other person is a jerk, nasty, or wrong. True adults don't act so poorly which shows you, those that do, are not adult regardless of their age.
If you don’t celebrate me for my social identity, which is entirely hinged upon my sexual orientation, I will completely come apart at the seams and cease to function in a normal human capacity.
-Liberals circa 2021
@@Dockernan1977 a person's identity shouldn't be based on their sexuality 🤨 those people are usually over sexed, possibly sex addiction, and it becomes a problem for them. Why would anyone feel the need to wear their sexuality on the chest like a badge, billboard, or bumper sticker? (unless I'm misunderstanding you) Everyone else is thinking, "do you really need that much attention? and why? issues... 🤔" and "keep it to yourself" 😬
I realize you wrote this response 4 years ago but I must write you and tell you I believe your comment to be brilliant.
I know for a fact this gay couple targeted this Baker *Because* he was Christian. I was curious and did some deep digging. This couple bragged about this unethical decision as a matter of fact. Their intent was to destroy this Christian man and business. Oddly "papers" published in academia that promote the LGBT ethos or ideology state emphatically and repeatedly that "Christians have an agenda against us". I often respond with, "What? To stab you with Carrots" and even at times add, "Christians are some of the most spineless complacent individuals and institution I have ever encountered". In all my years in ministry or my many years involved with/in church of various denominations I have never once heard a pastor address or discuss the LGBT movement or beliefs. We understand that we have not right to judge hearts, motives or intent. It is a "two way street". Or should be.
If we; those who choose freely to adhere to "Traditional Family Values" Do not rise up in unity and in light, it will soon be against the law to profess a Christian ethos.
I Have a deep abiding passion for Ancient history, Current events and the Bible prophecy written through the Oracles in regards to this hour or generation and it's accuracy via empirical data (Archeological findings and historical records). The thing is Prophecy is not as predictive as many believe. It is instead based on probability. We as a species are not that difficult to predict. Often the writer records the worst case scenario that could (with a high probability) occur if individuals, families, communities and nations (esp leaders) do not step up in light and truth and take a stand. Written prophecy (Think Isiah or Ezekiel) is then followed by the ongoing promise or true narrative of the Bible; to restore Earth to it's intended purpose after the corrupt laws of men fail. Free will must play out. Think of this planet as a petri-dish. Insatiable thirst for power, vanity and greed must run it's course along with the immorality & compromise on ethics that promotes it - In contrast to God's good common sense laws and commandments. For the genuine heart-beat of the Bible and the laws of God are the Restoration of this Earth and the resurrection of it's people for a second attempt at life w/i a Government of Peace, Justice and Righteousness. This way while living on the other side we can easily see and know the difference.
May the God of Eternity wrap you & your loved ones in a veil of protection & lead you in Righteousness always.
Stay Safe. Stay Free.
*꧁•♥ Believe♥🕊꧂•*
@@MarieElenaCambria1 Thank you
Good things to ALL 🤗
@@Ltlbrthr12 I am no bible thumper but instead a self proclaimed scholar. Faith is not blind but built upon our beliefs; those beliefs are based on empirical data or the reliability of a truth. I do not want to insult you or your beliefs. I hope I did not. I see this world sinking deeply into utter corruption just as the prophets warned. Inside me there rises this need to warn others. Not to "Invite Jesus into my (their) hearts", _that idea is not even w/i the scriptures,_ or to be "Saved", but instead to be prepared for what is coming. However "Christians" receive a bad rap and in 90% of the cases warranted as *Very* few of those who eagerly profess God or the Christ abide in God's laws esp the "Law of Love". A lot of this is to no fault of their own seeing that a good 75% of what pastors teach is wrong man-made doctrine. Also Pastors teaching falsehoods is emphatically and repeatedly recorded (for this hour)as a warning for our sake. In the end it is always between the Creator and the Creation. One must find God independent of what is taught in the average church. It is exclusively a personal journey.
I pray that you continue to seek truth and I can't help but desire you seek God too and find Him.
I would like to leave you with this warning from the prophet Jeremiah who witnessed, plague, famine and the total annihilation of Judah over the course of 10 yrs. (Babylon assaulted Judah on 3 separate occasions or phases just as warned). Because we as species follow patterns what transpired in Judah is transpiring today but not limited to the Levant but instead Globally.
_"They (Our Government Leaders of Today) have healed the brokenness of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is No peace. Were they ashamed because of the abominations they have committed? They were not ashamed at all, Nor did they know even how to blush. Therefore they will fall among those who fall; At the appointed time that I punish them, They will collapse says the LORD."_
This is not a civil rights case. In America businesses can choose to serve whomever they wish, for whatever reason. Businesses can flourish or fail in America because of this. If we take away this basic right for America and everyone must be treated the same then it becomes a dictatorship.
They actually can't. You can't refuse service to a gay person for being gay anymore than you can refuse service of a black person for being black.
John Sterling yeah that's quite obviously discriminatory for being gay
TheGamingVillas how upset would you be if he happily baked cakes for white supremacist that want a cake depicting two gay black men being lynched? People this is not a dictatorship be careful what you fight for and want because you might not like the Fallout.
Rita Massey Krielaart I would be very upset that wouldn't mean I would stop him from making them
TheGamingVillas this really needs to be said and focused on but obviously the media would never cover this. Liberals want everyone happy but in life everyone cannot be happy. But anybody can be turned away from any business for any reason. Brace yourself, Grace yourself all these freedoms you're fighting for so many people are so short-sighted they don't realize you're going to hand over the same freedoms to white supremacist that are anti-gay and anti black and anti-hispanic ET C and then you're going to fight that they shouldn't have their freedoms. Don't be so short-sighted that you're unable to see what will happen. And I'm no hater I think everyone should be treated equally. In America though, businesses are run by private citizens. Go visit another nation that doesn't allow these freedoms and then check back with us. Get yourself a little bit of an education outside of whatever Arena you're drawing from. I honestly mean this from the bottom of my heart.
The baker is discriminating against an event, not people.
He's willing to serve gay customers, just not for the particular event.
He does weddings for straight people, but doesn't do them for gay people. Clear violation of the anti-discrimination law.
Not quite. The cake maker said you can buy any cake you want in my shop. And the cake maker thus did not care if they take that cake to some event. So no problem with buying a cake, and no problem with the event.
The issue is forcing someone to commit an act of free expression that goes against their beliefs. You can't force someone to write or create something they don't want to based on their beliefs. With public Access laws, then this right of belief is NOT higher then the public access laws. (you can't refuse to service people based on whatever - skin color, religion etc.).
That shop has offered cakes of the type they offer to everyone. The problem is what you put on the cake then becomes a issue of free expression - and you can't force people to commit and create things that they don't want to.
The cake shop is perfectly happy to provide any cake they have, but that does not mean customers have the right to force that shop to create things they don't want to - especially when it violates their own rights or beliefs in regards to free expression, religion or for whatever reason.
So a Jewish cake shop might not want to serve someone, but the law says that they MUST. So yes, they must provide any cake that one would reasonable expect that you can buy at that shop say for the last 30+ years.
However, if someone comes and asks them, compels them, forces them to create a cake with a swastika on it, then that not a issue of their service, but a right of beliefs in terms of free expression - and you can't force that. You can't force someone to go out and speak and say things they don't want to. You can't force someone to go out and hold sign (or create that sign).
While it is true that the law does force "public" business to serve people, even when they don't want to, that not a choice they have with current laws. However this lack of refusal of service is not higher nor something that can be used to force people to create things they don't want to when it involves expression.
The cake maker will win this case. I bet 8-1, or 8-0 vote here in favor of the cake maker.
Albertkallal I'm with you having learned that the owner was willing to sell them whatever they wanted less his decoration of it. I didn't have the full story when I commented. It should be a pretty clean sweep in his favor on the free speech grounds where it lies. I appreciate the response.
jfsfrnd Yes, he must be against marriage.
jfsfrnd The law mentions "...sincerely held religious beliefs..." Not sure how those are determined.
But on the free speech front-
I'm an independent speech writer who writes speeches for Hillary Clinton. Someone comes in and demands that I write a speech for Donald Trump. Do I have to write it?
Very well presented.
100% in favor of the cake shop. You can't be forced to use artistic expression, celebrate or participate in an event, or send a message you disagree with. This is way beyond the scope of original public accommodations. This is compelled speech and wrong.
No message or design was ever discussed.
How is this case ripe for "speech" or "compelled speech" when Masterpiece told the couple it did not make wedding cakes of gays before it knew and still does not know what decorations (if any) were requested for the cake?
That's exactly the point the courts addressed in the rulings against the baker (which very few people seem to have read) The reason the couple won is because they didn't ask for any type of "speech" (i.e., an expressive, "message"-centered design on the cake) that they tried to "compel" the bakery to "say". If they had done that the case would have gone the other way.
But shouldn’t a company be able to choose who it sells to?
@oot. If a business operates it must abide by all the laws, including anti-discrimination laws.
Our Constitution protects all citizens the inalienable right to engage in commerce. Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion to all people. The case is against Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. is the business in question. Businesses do not have religious beliefs.
The argument you are now making is the same argument that was made by Piggie Park and Ollie's BBQ (when they refused to serve blacks in their restuarants), and Bob Jones University (when it refused to have blacks in dorms). The Court cannot side with Masterpiece without overruling its previous rulings in those cases (and allowing those businesses to discriminate as well)--- perhaps that is the motive of the supporters of Masterpiece.
The owner of Masterpiece has stated in his deposition that the business refused to provide a product that he provides to all others based on the orientation of the customers.
@ John. Not a liar and I know quite a bit about the case. That is what frightens you. You can not argue the facts or the law ofd the case, therefore you resort to ad hominem attack. Typical of the poorly educated sheeple.
For some businesses, service involves a consultation. Hearing and denying the customer’s request should not be labeled as discriminatory, whereas refusing to consult with a certain people group in a fair manner should indeed be recognized as discrimination.
In a free country, bakeries are never forced to make any cake. Luckily for the customer, if for some reason one baker refuses to bake something, there are several different bakeries competing for business.
Yes and when pickets show up in front of a bigots store that helps even more. He denied them service outright by saying company policy says he doesn't make wedding cakes for same sex weddings. He has lost every appeal of the administrative law judge so far but there must be a reason the Justices decided to hear this case. From what I read there are at least 50 similar cases involving bakers.
Hurley was a case of a cultural event in this case a parade. The parade organizers were a bunch of bigots. You are clearly a national chauvinist. The parade committee has now voluntarily allowed a gay contingent. So a change of attitudes against your type of thinking has clearly prevailed.
The final ruling in Hurley after lots of court wrangling, marching and smoke bombs was that parade organizers could choose who and what they wanted to say in their parade. By recognizing this right parades and marchers can clearly rely on the law to keep out provocateurs during demonstrations and marches.
This is a case of a private business offering products to the public that claims it would be misrepresenting itself by supplying a cake for a gay wedding. He has lost every appeal so far because the courts can not see how they can give him a win without opening a gaping religious exemption hole in public accommodation laws.
Kim O'Brien in response to your first comment, I do not necessarily argue that the court should rule in favor of the cakeshop in this case; I realize that having a "Heterosexuals Only" sign or company policy is discriminatory. My point is that if a consultant decides not to accept a project, even if the refusal is somehow offensive or coincides with a certain set of morals, the freedom of the consultant must be respected. This is different from having a company policy because some artists in the cakeshop may be willing to take on the project. Hopefully the court decision reflects a desire to protect the business owner as well as the customer.
The court doesn't like to make new law and be accused of legislating from the bench or set up a situation where more lower court rulings will be overturned. I don't know what type of consultant you are so I can't comment on your profession. It's not easy to define art so they might set up a test for what art is or what art isn't and then send it back to the lower courts for a decision.
Copy cats are not considered art. So if you just go ask a painter to make a copy of a Rembrandt that's not art. A change of lettering such as ie Kim to Jim isn't art either but a new font style is. If you don't make special cakes for halloween you should have to make them either. Of course I could ask for a cake that has Happy Halloween on it and then claim religious discrimination as a Satanist if you sell cakes with lettering added like Wal Mart. You could of course not keep orange frosting in stock.
Let's say he has plastic figurines for the cake that he purchases from third parties. If they're one piece he can't be expected to keep gay figurines in stock or order them. If he has two piece ones than changing from one of each sex to one of both sex seems do able without requiring new artistic expression or a special order from a third party.
Are there several other bakers? Where? Same argument about serving minorities. There were plenty of sandwich shops (in other states) that were willing to serve them.
Can the law compel a BBQ sandwich maker to serve a customer in a way that would violate his sincerely held religious belief about serving minorities?
LOL You know about Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.
I do.
LOL Luckily the justices of the Supreme Court are aware of it is well - including the fact that the Court stated that the religious defenses raised were "patently frivolous" in footnote 5 thereof. They're also aware of the Rumsfeld v. FAIR, in which they ruled that an anti-discrimination law governs conduct - not speech - and doesn't require anyone to say anything (which is also be alleged in this case).
Agreed. obviously
John--- When you cannot form an argument you repeat yourself.
It is exactly like Piggie Park. Maurice did not refuse to serve blacks, Maurice refused serve the "event" of blacks and whites in a restaurant.
You are repeating yourself. As I have stated: If you remove race from an interracial marriage, you do not have an interracial marriage. If you remove sexual orientation, you do not have a same-sex wedding. Two heterosexual males could not consummate a same-sex wedding.
You are incapable of logic.
The baker is right. If I'm a super Christian, Muslim, etc and see a cake with a rainbow flag sitting on the counter I have the right to walk out and not do business with that company based on support for groups I don't agree with. So why does he have to suffer to support ideas he doesn't rock with or want his business to rock with
A brilliant gay Surgeon has the right not to save this bigot's life if it ever gets in danger. Same story!!!
@@ciudadana4562
If you open that door then that means a neo-nazi gets to rock all his gear at a hospital.
Do you want to walk in a hospital a d see someone with an I❤Fuher shirt on casually talking to patients?
Leave your politics at home.
@@ciudadana4562 They are not dying for a cake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And if that is the case God is in control.
Support you masterpiece!
By the time the dust settles Jack Phillips will have made more money not making cakes than making them.
ils en ont du temps pour aller en justice pour ca
Piss Christ is Art but a Wedding Cake is not?
A frequently offered critique regarding this case is the notion that the baker does not have a 1st Amendment right to "control" his speech by not making the cake. There's nothing artistic about making a cake. The Supreme Court has recognized that there is the common literal speech (assembly, petition, press) as well as expressive speech. This is a more interpretive/symbolic form of speech, such as burning a flag, taking a knee or designing architecture. So if tax payer dollars can be used to subsidize the creation and display of a crucifix in a jar of urine not protected by 1A rights of the Creator, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that a wedding cake is not an artistic endeavor.
Piss art was a photograph. Although some Congressmen complained of its cost no court case was ever filed. So without a case no decision was ever made about it being art. The cake baker claim is that he is being forced into creating a message he doesn't agree with by creating a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Under his theory than any printer doing a public business could refuse to print what every he didn't like. Like gay wedding invitations and copies of any kind of printed pages.
Kim O'Brien that's the point exactly. If a Arabic Imam comes into a printer and demands flyers that question the holocaust or are anti-gay wedding is the printer required to print them because Arabs & Imams score higher on the progressive stack?
Either you stand private businesses retaining the right to refuse service or you are saying, you are free to run your business so long as I agree with how you run it.
Old ideas die of their own accord that's why Mien Kampf is not a dangerous book but it's not the same for the NAZI's who burned books and crushed all dissent in the Universities. The cake buyers asked only to buy a wedding cake. He said his business policy prevented him from making a cake for a same sex wedding.
Private business does not have the right to do whatever it wants. That's a well established fact where you like it or not. Public accommodations laws were passed after the civil rights struggles in the 1960's.
I don't agree with holocaust deniers or anti gay propaganda. However refusing to print their trash only gives them a reason to claim they're for free speech and also allows them to pretend to be victims.
Thanks John, I appreciate that you recognize the arguments, I don't see it as a waste of time, I don't mind making the arguments all the same, as much for the person I disagree with as for the other readers to help arm & educate them and share arguments they might not have thought about.
i am wondering if the baker was a muslim, will the couple bring the case to the supreme court
Or it is a Jewish bakery, and someone comes in and asks them to create a swastika cake?
Just a recent history of berating them.
Probably
+David the couple never brung the case anywhere, they simply laid a complaint with the colorado civil right commission, which customers are actually legally required too if their rights according to law are broken. - The civil rights commission chose to sue (Succesfully) and defended against an appeal by the bakery (Not Jack Philips as a person as he is not appliceable in that sense, as he is speaking out of business action). The law however is clear, A bakery is not a religious institution.- Which is exactly why Phillips lost twice already.
+Albertkallal Considdering an accommodation is not a religious entity, except if there is reasonable doubt the product would be used for illegal activities (Including proveable motive of discrimination against the owner!), no, the jewish baker could not deny that request.
If they'd walk into a random bakery ordering such a cake without signal of illegal activities around the use of the cake and the cake shop owner happens to be Jewish, the bakery will have to provide that cake. - For the simple fact that a bakery is not a religious institution.
All ought to be concerned when the government compels individuals to go against their conscience.
Let the baker have his rights. Let the public vote with their dollars.
The Person indeed has his rights to religious freedom and conscience. A company however can specifically not be a religious entity. So let me ask you how this company on religious basis denied a customer because they are gay? - They can't. There is a reason the bakery (Not the baker!) lost the original case and the appeal.
I think your period is a misdirection. Question here is scanned the state compel a person who does not believe in same-sex marriage to provide a service. Real people -irregardless of a "company" bake cakes.
Buy your argument, the Nazi state killed Jews. No actual people really participated in the killing of the Jews.
"Question here is scanned the state compel a person who does not believe in same-sex marriage to provide a service."
Whether one believes in same sex marriage is not relevant. - Marriage is a union set in law, not faith.
"Real people -irregardless of a "company" bake cakes. "
Correct, Workers can deny to do work in this case and have a right to (But can be fired for not doing their job)
A store owner however has to make his company policy according to law. If he doesn't he is breaking the law and is liable to be shut down by a court case or inspection without prior notice. This basically leaves two options.
The store owner acted like this as as worker, but to rectify that his Company Policy would have to break the law.
The store owner acted as store owner and by that acting as word of the company, the company that has to follow public accommodation law. This person happens to fill in both roles at once, but in either case denial of service fails basause a company can't do that.
There are laws higher than the laws of Colorado. The Founding Fathers brought this notion into the fabric of our nation. Compelling a baker to go against his conscience is odious.
Justice Kennedy said well, "It appears that the State of Colorado has not been very tolerant of Mr. Phillips' belief."
In America, we recognize certain rights that the government shall not trample on. In this limited instance of serving a same sex marriage, the state has overstepped its bounds.
+BeFirm BeFair667
Please provide evidence for your claims and why what I said is wrong rather then just talking over me.
COVID 19 must've have stopped his business, he will probably now change his mind and sell cakes for whomever lol
Christians aren't free to change what God has told them to believe. This couple maliciously targeted the bakeshop knowing that the Christian owner would not be able to fulfil their request. A business that is a private enterprise SHOULD NEVER be compelled to serve someone they do not want to. Remember the signs saying 'We reserve the right to refuse service' in restaurants? What has happened to the individual's liberty to live his life as he believes without interference from the State? Laws that are ambiguous should not be made or should contain a conscience clause.
You're clearly not familiar with anti-discrimination law in re: public accommodations (i.e., businesses open to the public). They've existed in some states in 1865. They were ruled constitutional over 50 years ago - see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964).
I am not an American - you are clearly unaware!
ahahahhahahahah boo fucking hoo. DADT DOMA Prop 8 , directly attacked us. get use to it. lf you are not an american then it is none of your business bitch
Annabelle: Do you enjoy committing FALSE WITNESS? I hope you't not a Christian because you've committed a grievous sin.
(A) The gay couple did not maliciously target this bakery - knowing that it wouldn't make the cake. It's in the record for this case that the gay couple had never been to bakery before and only went there because their event planner recommended Masterpiece Cakeshop, as she sent all of her customers to that bakery.
(B) The law is not ambiguous. Here it is:
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public....
(2)(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation,,,
See: law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601
This baker admitted that his bakery operated as a "place of public accommodation" - so that's a no-brainer. And, it's not "full and equal" service to deny a customer an item that the bakery VOLUNTARILY put on its menu (customized wedding cakes) because of the customer's sexual orientation. CASE CLOSED. PS: This baker's attorneys, the Alliance Defending Freedom (an anti-gay hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which puts it on par with the KKK), have been bringing these anti-gay business cases all over the country for 10 years now - and have lost every single case.
There's been massive speculation as to why the US Supreme Court even agreed to hear this case in the first place, since, back in 2014, it refused to hear the case about a wedding photographer who was found guilty of violating New Mexico's anti-discrimination law for doing the same thing and ADF made the same exact arguments as in this case. See: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-review-new-mexico-gay-commitment-ceremony-photo-case/2014/04/07/f9246cb2-bc3a-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html
What language is that, Randolph?! Do not know to what you're referring. I am British and I stick by what I said, despite any Yankee opinions!! People's freedom is everyone's business - we should never stand by and ignore people who may need our help or benefit from our support. Grow up.
Private businesses are not public accomodations.
ButterCookie Under Colorado law, Masterpiece is a place of public accommodations.
That's right he offered the sale of custom wedding cakes to the public. Refusing to make one because they're gay is a violation of public accommodation law. It's the same as a motel owner refusing them a room because they are gay. He is not an artist but a master cake baker. The didn't ask for art but a wedding cake. He refused outright and only later did he offer a nondescript cake. So he might as well said you can ride the bus but you'll need to ride in the back.
It is under Colorado law but this case is being reviewed by the US Supreme Court right now. They will have a decision by June and that decision will become law in all 50 states. If the Us Supreme Court votes in favor of Jack Phillips these Colorado decisions will mean nothing to this baker.
+Thatsswell2012 That doesn't mean they are not public accommodations right now.
+jfsfrnd, Why not? It's already happened in California. www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-bakersfield-baker-20180207-story.html
During the oral argument, Kagan's, Sotomayor's and Breyer's purpose is only to use up as much of the attorney's time as possible so she can't give her argument which they can't defeat. Search Masterpiece caskshop
Ken - oral arguments are more of a dog and pony show. The justices and their many clerks read the briefs and other materials (such as the Joint Appendix and the amicus briefs). Do you really think that 15 minutes of oral argument is going to provide any additional enlightenment that hasn't already been put into the documents?
Frankly, the limited time given is a bit ridiculous - they should at least give them more time so it's not so rushed. The bakery's attorneys could have requested that the Dept. of Justice not be allowed to join in on the oral argument in order to give her more time - but decided it was not in their best interest.
You are correct they use oral arguments to create sound bites to use during their conference talks. Justice Scalia did it the best.
Frankly, certain important issues weren't discussed in oral arguments - and were barely mentioned in the briefs at all - so they most likely will not be addressed at all.
Like, do corporations have religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment? The law applies to the business, in this case, a corporation, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. The Supreme Court ruled that they did under an interpretation of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (in Hobby Lobby) - by relying on the exact language in the statute; but such act was ruled unconstitutional with respect to the state law (like Colorado's in question)?
This bakery was a corporation with 2 shareholders - Jack Phillips and his wife. What if they don't share the same religious beliefs? She never got involved in this litigation, never was interviewed by authorities or provided an affidavit.
And, this question that SCOTUS didn't bother to address at all in Hobby Lobby - if a corporation presents itself as having the religious beliefs of the owner(s) of such corporation, is that sufficient evidence to "pierce the corporate veil" in litigation and bankruptcy cases?
And, since the bakery's attorneys and the DOJ seem to be in agreement that religious excuses could not be used to discriminate based on race - but could be used for all of the other categories covered by anti-discrimination law, wouldn't that pose Establishment Clause issues? They want the government to favor this baker's religious beliefs against same sex marriage over those of a baker who has religious beliefs against inter-racial marriage.
Also, I would've loved for one of them to ask him if it violated his religious beliefs to have assigned the task to his employees (6 of whom he fired when he elected to obey the law by removing wedding cakes from his corporation's menu)? As the argument being presented was all about HIM as "cake artist" being forced to make a cake, etc.
From what I have read and heard, this case will be about religious vs sexual freedom of expression and/or what are “public accommodations”. But in reality it is just a crapshoot.
Masterpiece Cakeshop was completely within their rights to deny service to that couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop has the right to loose their business to other competitors who are open to baking for gay couples and Cakeshop also has the right to go bankrupt, however Government has no right to force a private business to trade with someone they do not wish to trade with.
Example: Should the Government force a black man or woman who own a bakery to bake cakes for a white person who want a cake of a white man lynching a black man?
Or force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with Swastikas on it?
This would be a violation of the bakers freedom and if this case is voted in favor of the couple, Americans should protest.
Well, it isn't. You could try and repeal the law through the legislature, but it isn't unconstitutional.
I respectfully disagree with you. Just because something is written into law, does not make it a constitutional law. Case and point, Welfare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security ect. or legislation such as Obama Care. These are all technically written into law but that does not make it constitutional.
By not "unconstitutional", I mean that they don't *violate* the constitution.
The courts have the power of judicial review, an ability to determine whether or not a law is constitutional or not.
Unless you can provide the sections of the constitution that CADA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. violate, they are all completely constitutional.
And as I said, since CADA doesn't violate the constitution (I'm simply taking the position of the courts currently, btw.), it's the jobs of the legislature to repeal it.
Except what you advocate for is completely the opposite of how civil-rights laws work and how courts enforce them.
The government DOES have the right to "force a private business to trade with someone they do not wish to trade to." Why do you think we have civil-rights laws? Because millions of business owners WERE discriminating against women, Blacks, couples with interracial marriages, the disabled, etc., AND they justified what they did BECAUSE OF THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
Also, Jack no more should be expected to created a cake that he does not otherwise provide, than a Muslim operated Mexican taco restaurant should be made to make "pork" tacos that it otherwise does not provide.
Poor analogy. If a taco restaurant doesn't sell pork tacos to any customer, such item is not on the menu and is sold to no customer. This baker voluntarily placed "wedding cakes" on his menu - and is only willing to sell the to heterosexuals - but not homosexuals.
+vreed lak72 - Please read once more. In the analogy the baker sells cakes, not just any cake; the restaurant sells tacos, not just any taco. Both for religious reasons. Thank you.
+Jerry Krause: Read it. If the Muslim-owned restaurant elected to not put pork tacos on the menu (due to religious reasons or matters of taste or whatever), then such an item is not on the menu and is sold to no customer. If a black person came into the restaurant and asked for a pork taco and the restaurant refused, there would be no illegal discrimination based on the customer's race - the refusal of service was based on the fact that such item isn't on the menu (not because the customer was black). This is no different than going into a shoe store and asking for a cake - the establishment will tell you "NO" because the item isn't on the menu.
Likewise, this bakery has publicly stated that it doesn't use alcohol in any of their products. If the gay customers came in wanting a rum-soaked baba, the bakery could refuse - the cake requested isn't on the menu and wouldn't be made/sold for any other customer. The same applies to any design or specific messages - if the gay customers had been given a chance to describe what they wanted and they had asked for a cake that read "Hooray for gay marriage" on it, the baker could refuse if he wouldn't make such a cake for any other customer.
This bakery VOLUNTARILY put "wedding cakes" for sale on its menu - the government didn't force the baker to do that. The gay customers wanted a "wedding cake" (an item that was on the menu); the baker refused because they were a same sex couple and it was ruled (as it has been repeated ruled in ALL of these kind of cases that for the past 10 years) that refusal for such a reason is discrimination based on sexual orientation. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF THE DESIGN OR INGREDIENTS - and the baker didn't claim that the refusal of service was based on a disagreement over those items.
If this baker has religious objections to obeying the law, he's free to remove "wedding cakes" from the menu and sell such item to no customer. That's the avenue he's currently pursuing during the appeal.
+vreed lak72 - Okay, you are slightly moving a different direction with your argument and would seem to make a case, if not for a few missing facts.
The entire discussion between Jack and the gay couple lasted no more than 20 seconds. It is as if the couple came into the bakery just long enough to hear a “no” and then rushed out. They did not allow enough time for further elaboration.
This case is about First Amendment rights being violated in requiring Jack to “express a view” through his cakes, which is counter to his religious beliefs. Similarly, he previously turned down requests to create Halloween-themed cakes, lewd bachelor-party cakes, and a cake celebrating a divorce. Thank you.
+Jerry Krause: Yes, you have the fact pattern correct. They came in to buy a "wedding cake", an item that the bakery voluntarily put on its menu and advertised for sale to the public, and were told "NO" right after the baker learned that the wedding cake was for the 2 male customers and the baker informed that that the bakery doesn't do "same sex weddings". So, they left. Why would they stay there? They were just told that the item they were seeking to purchase was not going to be sold to them.
If you were denied service because of your race, religion, etc., would you hang out in the bakery? Would you humiliate yourself and beg him to listen to your ideas about what kind of cake you wanted? PS: The mother of one of them (who also went to the bakery with them but was not at the table) did call the baker the following day to talk to the baker and their discussion is part of the record - he was not going to change his mind.
Re: the other cakes that he refused to make, THOSE ARE BASED ON DESIGN DISAGREEMENTS. He doesn't make Halloween-themed cakes or giant penis cakes for ANY customer. If the gay customers wanted a wedding cake with a witch on it, he could refuse. As for the divorce cake, the customer wanted a "half a wedding cake"; that customer, upon being refused, didn't file a complaint with Colorado; that would have been an interesting case because "marital status" is a protected category under Colorado law as well - so was the refusal based on the fact that the customer was divorced (illegal) or was it based on the "half of a wedding cake" design and the bakery would make/sell such a cake to any other customer.
Yes, that is his argument - a 1st Amendment claim that his bakery making/selling a wedding cake to a gay customer is tantamount to him expressing a positive view of same sex marriage (which is against his religious beliefs). It's a BS argument.
(1) Freedom of religion: A restaurant owner tried 50 years ago to use his Baptist religious beliefs against the integration of the races as an excuse to violate anti-discrimination law and refused to let black customers eat in his restaurant. The US Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling against him and even called his defense "patently frivolous". See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968)
(2) Compelled Speech: The US Supreme Court has already ruled that an anti-discrimination law doesn't compel speech at all - it governs conduct. See Rumsfeld v. FAIR. The law doesn't require this baker to say that he approves of same sex marriage - it only requires his bakery to provide "full and equal" service. He's free to tell anyone (including these gay customers) what he thinks about same sex marriage, homosexuality or any other topic he so desires; he's free to post them in his store and on the website.
It would be a very different case if there had been a discussion about the design of the cake and the gay customers wanted a explicit message written on the cake and the baker refused on those grounds. The baker would have a fantastic "compelled speech" case and would win if Colorado told him that he had would have to bake cakes that contain explicit messages that he disagrees with. Colorado told him no such thing - and that State has ruled in favor of other bakeries who refused service on grounds that the customer requested explicit derogatory messages on their cakes.
As the law governs conduct - not speech (it's a far cry from other "compelled speech" cases like requiring public school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance), it requires a different analysis.
All conduct is expressive, but it would be anarchy to let everyone use the excuse that obeying a law (from paying taxes to obeying traffic signs) is sending a message (such as approval of the law) that he disagrees with. But, certainly, some conduct can be expressive enough to warrant 1st Amendment free speech protections - kneeling in silent prayer in public, burning a flag, marching in a parade.
The Supreme Court (in Texas v. Johnson (1989), a case about flag burning), ruled that in deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court is to ask whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."
This baker can't meet the Johnson test. There is no great likelihood that the viewers of the cake (or its manufacture or sale) would interpret that to mean that baker supports any customer's marriage. Most of the viewers (the wedding guests, catering staff) won't even know the identity of the bakery (never mind the name of the owner or the employees who actually made the cake). There's no history of people going to bakeries to purchase wedding cakes thinking that they are also obtaining the religious or personal approval of the owner of the bakery. Other than comprehending, with respect to the bakery, that a commercial transaction had taken place, the only other possible message that would be received (as the Supreme Court stated in Rumsfeld v. FAIR) is that the baker is obeying the law in order to not be punished.
So when he design a cake that doesn't require an ounce of expression on his part? The real question is if art is a form of expression. If so, then I would do the exact thing that he did.
If he was a hair stylist, I would agree with the courts. If he was a lawyer, I would agree with the courts. Serving a professed homosexual as either of the two would not violate the Bible principles. However, why would be agree to craft something he does not agree with for the sake of earning a couple extra dollars? Shame on him for having values and defending them?
It is Masterpiece Cakeshop that has been in court not Jack Phillips personally. The court need only rule that the Colorado law is valid and then the cake shop must provide wedding cake service to same sex couples. Phillips will then have at least six options.
1. Sell the cake shop.
2. Close the cake shop.
3. Keep the shop open but not make or serve wedding or anniversary cakes.
4. Have an outside contractor make same sex wedding and anniversary cakes.
5. Have an employee make same sex wedding and anniversary cakes.
6. Decide to make the same sex wedding and anniversary cakes after all.
Kim O'Brien: He could also change his business license from public accommodation to a privatized business, and serve whoever he wants. I don't understand why this case was ever accepted by the high court, when this option was ALWAYS available to him. If he had/has a problem with the public accommodation laws, even after he'd signed his license, agreeing to uphold the laws governing public accommodations, then the obvious solution should have been to change the type of license for the business from the start. Business license's are contracts between a business owner, the business itself, and the state in which the business is located. They get renewed every year. By refusing service in this case, he violated his contract with the state.
Right but it's more than just changing the type of license. It has to actually be private meaning no accepting just off the street walk ins or open online orders. You can't publicly advertise a service and then say no violating public accommodation law. You could only take orders for wedding cakes from churches that do not perform gay marriages to do otherwise would have its own consequences. His business is open now he just doesn't make any wedding cakes at all. They couple said they saw his cakes advertised on line and that is why they chose to go there.
This case is not about expression. Freedoms of religion, speech, and expression have never trumped the government's compelling interest in ensuring that "unpopular groups," including women and Blacks and the disabled and [as Colorado law specifies] gays, are not excluded from commerce and are not humiliated and isolated because a business owner refused to serve them (or refused to hire or promote them, etc.).
This is why the "just go to another bakery" response is no solution at all. Going to another bakery means the discriminated-against person has already been publicly humiliated. Preventing that from happening is part of the government's compelling interest in regulating businesses.
People don't see that. They don't see what we see as Christians. They dont like God's word nor do they want any part of it and they dont understand what that means to us and our Salvation. If we do this its like us telling them its okay to sin and how serious that would be for us and them. But they dont see it that way and if they did they would leave us alone and probably wouldn't be gay at all. But still they dont so that is why they cry
What is wrong with this sentence: "Masterpiece Cakeshop argues that requiring it to design and bake a cake for the gay wedding ... "?
1) There's no such thing as a "gay wedding." There's no such thing as a "gay-wedding cake." There are weddings. There are wedding cakes.
Gay people get married exactly the same as straight people do. Same requirements (consenting adults, not closely related, etc.), same documents to complete and sign, same fee paid, same need for an officiant who must complete the marriage license and return it to be recorded.
Straight couples buy wedding cakes. Gay couples buy wedding cakes. They differ between each other in the same way straight married couples' do: personality of the couple, cost, etc.
2) Jack Phillips, the baker, refused any and all cakes to the gay couple (actually, he previously had denied wedding cakes/cupcake to six gay couples). He refused to design and bake a wedding cake for the gay couple. He refused to sell them a nondescript or already-designed cake if it would be used for their wedding.
Sorry you are Wrong on your point number 1
www.dictionary.com/browse/gay--marriage
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.
See Word Story at the current entry.
Also called opposite-sex marriage.the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.See also traditional marriage(def 2).
this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender,
as in same-sex marriage;
gay marriage.
Ecclesiastes 8:11
“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.”
Job 21:11-15 - They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance.
They take the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of the organ.
They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave.
Therefore they say unto God, Depart from us; for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.
What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have, if we pray unto him?
Job 35:3
“For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? and, What profit shall I have, if I be cleansed from my sin?”
Malachi 3:14
“Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts?”
Psalms 12:4
“Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?”
Bless you
Nice homofascist remarks
The cake shop baker won no
Look I’m for the support of LGBT rights much of the time. But this is not the way to do it. Let me posit a question to anyone who would be on the couple’s side of the argument. If the government has the power to force a conservative Christian baker to compromise his beliefs to suit the needs of another party, wouldn’t that also give the government power to force a gay man to compromise his beliefs (say, being forced to divorce his husband) based solely on the complaints of another party? This is not an easy issue for me but if you can’t buy a cake from a bakery, go to another bakery. Forcing others to ascribe to your viewpoint does not solve problems either side of this argument is facing. Think about it.
He offered to sell custom wedding cakes to the public. He didn't have up a sign saying no wedding cakes will be made for gays. If he did I am sure he would be picketed. In fact he did complain about being picketed after the incident in one of the video's he made. The business is incorporated so he is not a single proprietor either. He had about ten employees so do you think that he made every cake himself and were all his employees ascribing to the same view as his? Should he be able to hire only straights who agree with him?
That would depend. Were his employees forbidden to provide services (It's not specified, or is it?)? Or could only he specifically make the cakes (don't believe making a custom cake is easy. I know from experience it's harder than you would think)? Also, him hiring gay or straight employees is not the issue here, its him serving a gay couple. Also this is a private business, not a federal position, ergo he is technically allowed to serve whoever he wants. Theoretically, if YOU were the owner of a bake shop, would you serve a couple who was celebrating their child's birthday (but the child's name was Adolph Hitler)? Or would you politely refuse them service (assuming you are against Hitler)?
Kim O'Brien
Why are judging this man? Why are you basing your disgust towards him on this one encounter/event? Don’t you dare try to portray him as some completely evil klansman. Very rarely is anything truly evil. Maybe this guy has his dispositions against gays but he’s not burning crosses or overtly threatening them. He’s simply refusing to serve based on personal beliefs he is allowed to express. The only people making a big deal about this from my perspective is the gay couple who can’t seem to go to another baker.
John Sterling
Now now now. Name calling, disgust and anger are enemies of rational thought. Cannibal Left may sound fun to say but doesn’t really do anything besides divide us further. It is the duty of the rational to remain calm and not lose tempers (though I will admit this Kim does not seem to understand fully what she’s on about).
What if you went to a restaurant and asked for a seat and dinner and then were told well we don't like you go elsewhere for your dinner or we have a back room for your kind of customer.
So can I refuse to serve Trump supporters in my bakery???
Actually yes, so long as you aren't in California. The federal government does not consider political views a protected class and the only state with a law prohibiting discrimination based on political views is California. That said, modern Trumpism is more religion than political movement at this point, so... >_
this case is surprisingly complicated. I agree with the baker tho
Allowing businesses to discriminate may place unnecessary burden to those who are discriminated. When a citizen is denied accommodation in an establishment and is forced to look for other establishments where he will be served then that citizen is unwillingly losing valuable time and money. That's financial harm. When denied public accommodation, they are forced to look for other establishments that will offer them the services they seek. In rural areas, this may mean travelling to far places which certainly costs more time and money. When individuals are unwillingly losing valuable time and money just to look for establishments where they will be not denied service because of their marginalized status then the government has the duty to step in and stop this from happening. In addition, Businesses do not operate completely off the grid. They use, rely on, benefit from taxpayer-funded resources (i.e. public roads, public utilities, police, fire fighters). And since homosexuals and same sex couples are also taxpayers, that means the resources businesses use are reliant on those who business owners wish to discriminate against. It is unfair to deny services or goods to people without whose taxes businesses could not operate.
I am so glad the baker won.
He didn't win the right to discriminate against gays, though, and that was the intent of the lawsuit.
@@Dr_JSH he didnt tell them he wouldn't serve them. He said he wouldn't make a wedding cake.
Pretty clear the baker did something illegal here, that’s not a question.
Now whether the anti discrimination law is constitutional is the question. I’d argue it’s constitutional, as the same “religious freedom” argument was made for anti-interracial marriage, Jim Crow, and even slavery.
You have a right to practice your religion. You don’t have a right to practice your religion on someone else. this christian, like every other christian involved in this case is ignoring one little, important nagging point. Bigotry against LGBTQ is not in any way a part of Jesus teachings. Using your “religious beliefs” as an excuse for intolerance and bigotry might seem righteous, but it is really an insult to everything Jesus teaches. There is something very wrong with taking away spreading the gospel by example, and instead using your faith as a weapon of example against others. This man may have emboldened many of those who are already christians, but has certainly embarrassed many more, and driven off those who would otherwise find comfort and understanding in this man’s so-called christianity.
Jesus was talking about divorce, not about being gay. try again.
Jesus was talking about divorce, not homosexuality. Try again.
bugnutsrunnels Thank You!!!👏👏
They don't see what that means to us. And they don't care. If they did they wouldn't be crying. When someone is a follower of Christ we are supposed to follow his laws and condoning things that would be against him not only gets us in trouble but helps them feel at ease with what they are doing. The man was sticking up for his belief as i would and many others who believe that marriage is a sacred right. That will never change not even when jesus comes back. His word is law and we follow. And if they choose not to that is them and they should just move on
Civil rights are to religious fundamentalists what daylight is to a vampire.
To Christians weddings is a religious activity & making a cake would make him a willing participant.
Thank you! Someone else said it
Its a cake a frenchtoast cake u could simply go elswhere unles u are saying he was the only wedding cake creator in colorado... just go somewhere else...i would have tilted against the baker if he was hostile about it he said he was willing to sell them any other thing ...he wasnt trying to hurt them he just had a limit.. if it was a resturant who was owned by a muslim ,,if they had come asking for a cake celebrating gay marriage as asked for bacon ...should the muslim be forced to do against one of the tennents of islam...absolutly not. I think the two gay guys knew exactly who he was knew he was a christian and wanted to have him canceled or closed down to loose his source of living over a wedding cake nobody even remembers a week after the wedding....jordan peterson was right tyranny has dawned a new face it is wokeism ....
A private business has the right to deny service. Get over it.
Wrong. We have civil-rights laws BECAUSE Christians business owners WERE using THE BIBLE to justify their discrimination. Same as today.
I support the right of the baker to not participate however there should be a law mandating you to place a large sign on the door of your business stating who and under what circumstances you will not serve someone. No hidden discrimination. No cowardice. Tell the truth and allow all customers to vote with their dollars at all times. I personally would not patronize a business who discriminates base on race or orientation or event and I'm a white hetero male. Be brave, state your veiws plainly for all to see and react to. How about the death of a gay partner, the death of a same sex couples child. I want 95% of your business but want to leave you high and dry when it suits my sensibility. BS
that would still be unconstitutional. You cannot deny service to someone solely based on their identity if it is a protected class, like race or gender. If he would make a certain custom cake for a hetero couple, he must make it for the same-sex couple.
What you're proposing is a horrible idea and is why the federal Civil Rights Act and the CCRA explicitly prohibit signage and printed material declaring a business owner's right to discriminate. Because Christians in the past used to have Bible-based pamphlets and signage saying that God put the races on different continents and meant them to be separate so God didn't want Black people served there. Or couples who are interracially married. Or Hispanics. Or the disabled. And so on.
This has been fully litigated, REPEATEDLY, and is why Phillips cannot put up a sign declaring his religious beliefs and justification to not make wedding cakes for gay couples.
Immoral and illegal.
So if the baker didn't "believe" in interracial marriage because of his religion would that be ok. No. Open and shut case. You provide a public service, you serve the public.
Why the heck is the government getting involved in this? The Constitution did not grant these powers to the government. 13th actually prohibits the government from forcing someone to do something against their will. Open and shut case.
Johnus Smittinis you see how African American children needed to be escorted to school by the military back in the 60's. When people can't learn to respect people's civil rights, the government often has to step in to ensure these people recieve said rights. The civil rights act ensures that one cannot discriminate. This baker could have just as easily said their religion doesn't believe in interfaith marriages of interracial marriages or someone's second marriage. You must serve the public. That is the contract they signed when they decided to open up a business.
Alex Sterling doesn't seem like very many people are respecting his rights..
tyler coffey when did I say that? This isn't personal or anecdotal. It's the law.
Not the same argument.
Compelled labor is illegal, regardless of the type the labor.
You can't force the man to do it if they want a gay marriage story let's hear about a gay divorce that at least would be interesting who would get what
Colorado Civil Rights Commission claim that as part of a commercial activity, no one really thinks that the cake expresses the bakers own views, rather it expresses the views of the customer. If true, the Customer must prove no selection bias towards artistic ability or aesthetic qualities of baker based on past work/portfolio, that the decision is purely technical proficiency and economic value. Moreover, would anyone actually believe that the works of Renaissance artists Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Botticelli, Donatello, et al. had nothing to do with the individual views and interpretations of the artist and only to do with those that commissioned the works? TMNT notwithstanding, the ones that commissioned the works should be the household names, not artists, after all it was their views that were most important.
Really?
So anything with the word "custom" is not to satisfy the consumer, but the industrialist?
Blue Splat if it involves anything more than rote performance of a technical, assembly line task (entering specs, pushing buttons, etc) and requires the artistic or asthetic efforts of the proprietor, than it is a matter of mutual satisfaction. Its the difference between a plain sheet cake from Walmart Bakery (industrial product) and Cake Boss (artistic product).
but in those cases, the artiest agreed to make or create the painting by who is paying. You can not hire or force a painter to create a work of art that they do not want to create!
Now if you agree to create the painting and you back out, then your breaking the contract. However forcing someone to create something that they wish not to create is the issue here.
Laws were created that are specific to pubic "common" places in which the public is allowed. This thus means you are required to provide service to anyone not breaking your business rules.That business does not offer that kind of cake the customer wants - and they never have.
The ACLU is trying to say that what goes on the cake is part of the basic service. But that service involves artistic values, or values of free expression. You can't force someone to hold a sign or make a sign they don't want to.
However, you as a general rule can't force someone to come and pave your driveway - they might not like the area, might not like the materials you request - you have this free right to refuse such type of work if you wish. No one can force you to work or commit acts you don't want to. However, the public common laws are placed higher then this right of refusal. So you can't refuse to offer cakes you have, but forcing someone to CREATE a cake they don't want to create is a very different matter.
So with this "common" area, or so called public access laws, then some rights were trampled on. However, those public access rights do not mean that you can compel staff to do things, or commit acts that go against their own beliefs and what is offered beyond their basic service.
The cake maker will win this case hands down.
jfsfrnd if your logic is correct, then I could go to a well known liberal PR firm and hire a former Obama speech writer and force them to write pro-Trump speeches or force Meryl Streep to act in a pro-Trump movie.
jfsfrnd if it is a matter of public accomodation then it is 100% equal access for public and all must be equally accomodated. that is what public accomodation means. Essentially, there is no right of association/disassociation. If it you are suggesting that only those specifically identified by CADA then you are saying certain discrimination is legal, but the idea that certain discrimination based on protected vs unprotected classes, violates the 14A and violates the very basis of public accomodation laws.
By definition, a public accomodation law serves the entire public and doesn't allow ANY discrimination, viewpoint or otherwise. So in my example a liberal PR Firm/Movie Studio must, as a public accomodation, produce material they are ideologically opposed to. Just as a liberal baker would have to bake a anti-gay wedding cake for Milo, even though message was "homophobic" the customer is gay.
kennedy will say " BAKE THE CAKE "....5-4 liberal victory
Kennedy will say, "Uphold individual freedom against government compulsion" and vote 5-4 for the Founders' version of America.
Hurley doesn't apply because that was a ruling concerning the right to assemble (a parade) and control your speech. In the case the baker is not being asked to participate in the wedding nor is he required to put his bakery name on the cake, deliver the cake or even make the cake. The state asked that he either have a different employee make the cake or contract out the cake. He refused to do either. So if anything it's more of a case where a bakery demands the right to close their ears when ever the feel like it (religion dictates) and still remain in business?
Im laughing so hard now reading your comment. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
What if I wanted a black owned bakery to make a cake depicting a Klan hanging a black man. Bet that would not go all the way to the Supreme Court.
What is this twisted point of view that he is participating or speaking at the wedding? Did they make him bake a cake that says "gay marriage is awesome!"? He didn't even let them tell him what they wanted. The customers are gay and want a cake for their wedding. A service he provides for straight people, but denies to gay people. Also, the other twisted narrative that he doesn't serve the "gay wedding" ceremony doesn't sound so good for him either, because who are the people asking for "gay wedding cakes"? Gay people, more proof he broke the law.
I loved how during the oral arguments Breyer suggested they can't go through all food items and determine which ones are "artistic speech" and which ones are not. The case is basically a waste of time. So they either allow everyone to use "religion" as a gapping hole to every anti-discrimination law or just have people obey the law as it is written. There's nothing in Colorado's anti-discrimination law saying he can't practice his religion. I don't know why it was so hard for the baker to just be a nice person and make the cake.
Everyone saying they should have gone somewhere else (which they did) simply say it because they believe gay people are beneath everyone else. You wouldn't want what happened to them to happen to you for something as natural as falling in love.
Actually he did offer anything they have for sell.
The idea that food is expression, and we have categorize food as expression or not is beyond silly.
And regardless EVEN if food was some kind of expression, the law is simple: The shop due to “pubic common” can’t refuse to sell anything they have to offer. So even if food was deemed expression, anything they have to offer to the public MUST be sold - regardless of that food being deemed expressive.
However you can’t in this case force them to sell food they don’t have or don’t want to sell. You can ONLY force them to serve everyone regardless, but that is limited to what they have for sale.
However the instant you introduce writing and other acts of free expression, then you can’t force someone to create or write or commit an act of expression that they don’t like. While the shop keeper might not want to sell a cake - he does not have that choice under that state laws.
So those customers must be served, and they can buy any item that shop has to offer. So those chocolate covered strawberry might be considered something that promotes pre-marital sex, but if you have them for sell, then you EVEN must sell them to a couple that wants a hot night of passionate sex and they are not married!
However, what the law and state can’t do is force people to create things that are acts of expression. The food is not the act of expression (and if it is, it don’t really matter).
However WHAT you write on the cake most certainly is! So while some people might consider some foods acts of expression, it is WHEN you force someone to create something they don’t want to is the issue here.
- and this is why the Cake maker will win this case hands down.
Its not that easy that way either do they also allow printers for hire to decide what wedding invitations to print? How about going to Wal mart and buying a cake that says Happy Anniversary Bill and Bob. They don't customize until the last minute. Can I have a Bill and Bob Cake? What if Bob is actually Roberta? How about an order posted at all bakeries saying we do discriminate against gay cake buyers.
Yes, they most certainly do allow printers to refuse work. If the printer finds what they been ask to print offensive, or goes against their policy, then yes, they most certainly can and do refuse such work. In fact any newspaper will also refuse to print any ad they don't like, or that goes against their views or policy.They thus do not have to print propaganda or anything else they don't want to print.
And what about that Wal Mart example? They will sell any customer a cake, but they most certainly will refuse to print, or write on the cake something they find offensive, or that goes against their policy.
I not sure what or why the issue of last minute, or first minute would effect anything in this regards? Now if they already paid, and their is a contract in which you agreed to write whatever on that cake, then no, they can't refuse to write what you ask, since you have a binding contract.
In this case, the baker fully stated that you can buy any cake or any product we sell, but we not going to write what you want on that cake - They still retain that right since it is an act of expression on the owners part. As I stated, if the baker refused to sell a cake, then he would lose this case. The baker did not refuse to sell the cake. In fact he made it clear they can buy anything they want in the shop they sell. However, forcing someone to create something they don't want is a very different matter. So the issue centers on forcing the cake maker to create something they don't want to create. The issue is not serving the customer, the issue is forcing people to create something they don't want to make.
As for the order or sign? Well, you have to define what you mean by discriminate. The baker also has rights of discriminate too! You can force some one to date or go out with someone they don't want to. You can't force someone to commit an act that goes against their religion or any other reason. If you forcing someone to commit an act or do some act they don't want to, then you discriminating and infringing upon the person rights and freedom of expression. You can no more force religion on someone then you can force some gender or force someone to marry someone else. You can argue that someone who does not want to marry you is discriminating against you (and they are - this is in fact discrimination!).
However if that person does not want to marry you, then you can't force them to. As I stated, in a "common" public area, this right of refusal of "service" has been taken away from people. So the baker can't refuse to sell a cake, but forcing him to create things against his will is an act of discrimination against that baker rights and is taking away his rights of free expression.
@Eric
Yes, he most certainly did let them tell him what he wanted. He flat out stated they can buy anything in his shop they want. So yes, he most certainly did offer to bake a cake for them. He was most happy to bake a cake for them and sell it to them.
What he refused is what he going to write on the cake - that's still his choice unless you think that someone can be forced to write a sign, write a book, or make a movie they don't want to make.
The idea that the baker has no rights and is not being discriminated against for his lifestyle is being missed here.
The baker can no more force that couple to behave in a certain way then they can force him to behave in a certain way. How is that going to work? So someone can go around and tell some couple to write a book or make a sign they don't want to? You can't force acts on people to do something that they don't want to do. Now some exceptions in law exist, and the public "common area" law is one such law. You have to serve people (even if you don't want to). But customers THEN can't force you to sell lobsters if you are a pizza joint. They are only obliged to sell the products they sell.
They sell cakes, but not the kind the customer wants. As long as the public business is willing to sell their product to someone and everyone, then they are not breaking the law.
The baker was most happy to provide the customers with what they make, and have been making for years. however customers can't infringe upon the bakers right of free choice to force him to make things that he don't want to make.
Romans
Chapter 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Bless you
All glory to
𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤔𐤏𐤟𐤌𐤔𐤉𐤇
𐤉𐤄𐤅𐤄
𐤀𐤕
𐤀𐤌𐤍
I just thought you would transcribe the whole Bible lol. Kinda boring!!!
That little rant has nothing to do with our laws.
Well, I just hope some day if this discriminator gets sick and needs to be operated on to save his own life by the only Surgeon who can save it, I just hope the excellent Physician who can save his life is gay, and this Surgeon denies to operate him on because this man discriminates.
I’m gay and I agree with the SCOTUS resolution.
A bakery has the right to deny service IF it is a privately owned business otherwise legally they do not. Also you can hide behind freedom of speech all you want but the law and the constitution does NOT classify discrimination under freedom of speech. You're just a bigot.
You lost me when you said "you're just a bigot".
@@zfloyd1627 because at that point that's all you are
@@buttermepancake3613 dude your have missed the point first of the couple actually called around and till they found someone that denied them. this was planned. secondly the baker was willing to sell them a cake. the only thing he refused to do is sell them a CUSTOM wedding cake. you cant not force and artist to make art you are literally infringing on there rights. you do not have the rights to force someone to work.
It's discrimination, face it.
Discrimination is constitutional, and isn't necessarily bad.
+Johnus Smittinis so you agree it's discrimination?
Burton Matterhorn I actually agree it's discrimination, but should be protected by the 1st amendment... If, depending in the conclusion of the case, a Neo-nazi could walk into a Jewish bakery and say "make a cake for my neo-Nazi meeting" and the Jewish owners hands would be legally tied... This is why this case is so monumental... If they have a problem with being denyed service they can go else where.... It's really quit simple.
jfsfrnd But they are...
jfsfrnd Due to the nature of the business theu would be in Colorado... And if this case getd passed on a federal level they will be....