If our biggoted Supreme Court sides with mr. phillips I think they should force mr. phillips to include the following on his business' signage:
"We Discriminate Against Same Sex Couples Here. Please Plan Accordingly".
It is cruel not to warn same sex couple like Charlie Craig and David Mullins that Masterpiece Cakeshop is owned by a biggot.
I'm sure if Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig had seen a warning of biggotry and hate on the sign they would never have set foot in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
So yeah, if you want to promote hate and biggotry in your store called Masterpiece Cakeshop that's fine mr. phillips just be man enough to warn modern evolved human beings not to set foot in that shop of hate.
I mean be fair.
"We Discriminate Against Same Sex Couples Here. Please Plan Accordingly".
It is cruel not to warn same sex couple like Charlie Craig and David Mullins that Masterpiece Cakeshop is owned by a biggot.
I'm sure if Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig had seen a warning of biggotry and hate on the sign they would never have set foot in Masterpiece Cakeshop.
So yeah, if you want to promote hate and biggotry in your store called Masterpiece Cakeshop that's fine mr. phillips just be man enough to warn modern evolved human beings not to set foot in that shop of hate.
I mean be fair.
5
We know how the Supreme Court's Three Stooges will vote. They will be throwing pies at the married couple.
3
"Judge Not, Lest Ye Be Judged".
Phillips' Bible must be missing that little tid bit.
Phillips' Bible must be missing that little tid bit.
8
If he wins, I will open a business and refuse to serve fundamentalist Christians on the grounds that they offend my deeply held spiritual belief that we should love everyone (irony intended).
29
So, after the so called conservatives on the court, armed with their bogus "Originalist" dogma, find in favor of the bigot and the "Commander-in-Tweet" belts one out in support of "Religious Liberty", whatever ever that is, we will have witnessed yet another example of a perverse form of christian sharia. This is what religious liberty equates to in America.
The self styled cake artist would be happy to sell these guys a cake just not a wedding cake.
Given the logic employed by the court, if the couple were to go to a diner and the owner told them they could get plain pancakes but not the banana/walnut pancakes because it violated his religious beliefs and the courts found in favor of the couple the owner should be able to appeal and get a Supreme Court hearing.
This is more suited for an episode of The People's Court than the Supreme Court. judge Wapner was an intellectual giant compared to Gorsuch and company.
The self styled cake artist would be happy to sell these guys a cake just not a wedding cake.
Given the logic employed by the court, if the couple were to go to a diner and the owner told them they could get plain pancakes but not the banana/walnut pancakes because it violated his religious beliefs and the courts found in favor of the couple the owner should be able to appeal and get a Supreme Court hearing.
This is more suited for an episode of The People's Court than the Supreme Court. judge Wapner was an intellectual giant compared to Gorsuch and company.
4
Will this human race ever awaken to the truth? We are all the SAME! The differences we see with our ridiculous and judgmental eyes is but a veil.
I love this quote; "It does not matter what you call me. What matters is what I answer to."
We are all Human Beings.
I love this quote; "It does not matter what you call me. What matters is what I answer to."
We are all Human Beings.
4
The scariest of all is if trump gets to pick the next SCOTUS justice (before he's impeached).
Term limits for the justices before they turn America into zombie land.
Term limits for the justices before they turn America into zombie land.
4
Can a gay baker be forced by law to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church? Can a black baker be forced to bake a cake for the local Grand Wizard of the KKK? What about a baker who was sexually assaulted as a child having to bake a cake for a local NAMBLA chapter? What about an atheist baker being forced to bake a cake for a religious group she finds hateful? That is the only problem with some of the reasonings here. He was willing to bake them a cake; what he refused was to decorate it with a message he perceived to conflict with his religious beliefs. It's not just a case of a simple bigot as people here have posted. The Court's decision will affect more than these provincial concerns. Are we going to have the state FORCE YOU to provide a non-essential service against your will?
16
"My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of thee Icing."
15
Issues like this strengthen my belief that I am on the right track when decided to abandon all religious beliefs decades ago. An education and career in engineering and physics certainly fortified ny belief that we live in a natural world governed by natural laws. The bloody history of religious wars were also influential. Thanks, but I will continue have my own opinions on such matters based on an examination of the issues.
I don't need ancient fairy tales for guidance. It might be different if there was any exigence that's support supernatural events. This doesn't mean Tharp religion is always in error, but religion has been wrong many times. Of the religions, fundamentalism is totally evil. We have the responsibility to question everything.
I don't need ancient fairy tales for guidance. It might be different if there was any exigence that's support supernatural events. This doesn't mean Tharp religion is always in error, but religion has been wrong many times. Of the religions, fundamentalism is totally evil. We have the responsibility to question everything.
6
in the us it's not the baker's right to decide who will but his product or what they will do with it. seems to me if it's legal for gays to marry it's not his decision to serve them or not.
4
Does he have to do erotic cakes or risk getting sued also? What if a baker refused to depict a scene he or she considered misogynistic or obscene, even though the act depicted was perfectly legal? Can a customer demand that a baker make any kind of cake, and if he or she doesn't, it's off to court we go?
9
Liberals are all in a lather about immigrants and refugees being banned from six Muslim nations by the Supreme Court.
I wonder what's going to happen if the Supreme Court decides that the Colorado baker's first amendment rights were violated when he refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple on the occasion of their wedding? How many days of gay rage will we suffer through?
I wonder what's going to happen if the Supreme Court decides that the Colorado baker's first amendment rights were violated when he refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple on the occasion of their wedding? How many days of gay rage will we suffer through?
5
Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
6
So does this baker dude make cakes for couples that have been divorced?
Would he bake a cake for some rich investor who bilked his clients and got away with it?
Would he bake a cake for a hetero couple who spent months sleeping together before they were married?
Would he bake a cake for 45 who's a serial liar?
Would he bake a cake for McConnell who's going to kill millions of poor folks by taking away their health insurance?
Will he bake a cake for an atheist couple?
Will he bake a cake for someone who said G...D...?
Let's see: Thou shalt not steal, shalt not kill, shalt not bare false witness, shalt not commit adultery, shalt not take the Lord's name in vain and Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
Wait--being a homosexual's not in there.
Would he bake a cake for some rich investor who bilked his clients and got away with it?
Would he bake a cake for a hetero couple who spent months sleeping together before they were married?
Would he bake a cake for 45 who's a serial liar?
Would he bake a cake for McConnell who's going to kill millions of poor folks by taking away their health insurance?
Will he bake a cake for an atheist couple?
Will he bake a cake for someone who said G...D...?
Let's see: Thou shalt not steal, shalt not kill, shalt not bare false witness, shalt not commit adultery, shalt not take the Lord's name in vain and Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
Wait--being a homosexual's not in there.
13
In the first ten comments, I've read three comparisons to either nazi, or kkk groups intent on ordering wedding cakes. Set aside for a moment the ridiculousness of that image, and consider whether we might do better than suggesting a link between a couple in love, and a group that used to (and certainly would still like to) seek out and murder same sex couples.
Faithful from all religions would do well to consider whether something so silly is worthy of such hurtful rhetoric, and whether the comparison doesn't do more to illuminate similarities in their own views, and the views of those same hate groups.
Faithful from all religions would do well to consider whether something so silly is worthy of such hurtful rhetoric, and whether the comparison doesn't do more to illuminate similarities in their own views, and the views of those same hate groups.
17
If he does not want to bake cakes for the public he should take his business private. This is not about principle. This is about his desire to have access to a large public group of consumers when he wants it and the right to discriminate when he does not.
Dare I say it.. he wants to have his cake and eat it too...
That's right, I'm here all week...
Dare I say it.. he wants to have his cake and eat it too...
That's right, I'm here all week...
11
I wonder if he makes cakes for liars celebrating birthdays, or adulterers celebrating 25th anniversaries? It always amazes me how selectively "Christians" read, and avoid reading the bible . . .
7
God help the soup Nazi from Seinfeld if a gay couple walks in and looks the wrong way when they order their soup.
1
Sorry, this is just another "Christian" trying to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible that reinforces their prejudices.
9
Why don't I get to discriminate against people I don't approve of just because I'm not religious?
9
Why should a business owner get to make a judgment about how his product is used? If a gay couple wanted a cake for any other purpose than a wedding, wouldn't Phillips also be able to conjure up another excuse that did not meet with his so called religious beliefs? This Catholic exception has nothing at all to do with an individual's right to their religious beliefs. It's disguised discrimination. If Catholics so urgently want to evangelize to the world, let them impose their religious judgment and objections as freely as they choose. Their true colors are apparent. If not this judgment against you, there will be another.
3
If a positive paternity test is not required by the issuer of the birth certificate, how is this establishing biological parenthood? I don't understand justice Gorsuch's reasoning.
3
.
Let's see if the American religious-right remains as enthusiastic about "religious objections" when a Muslim restaurant owner, for example, refuses to seat Christians.
.
Let's see if the American religious-right remains as enthusiastic about "religious objections" when a Muslim restaurant owner, for example, refuses to seat Christians.
.
8
Would Mr. Phillips create an artistic Masterpiece for a break-fast after Yom Kippur or Ramadan?
Would he create a sub-masterpiece for the same occasions?
Would he create a sub-masterpiece for the same occasions?
3
What's next? Second marriages after divorce: no cake. Pregnant before getting married: no cake. Catholic and Protestant: no cake. Buddhist and Evangelical: no cake. Married by a judge: no cake. Wedding dress with mixed linen and wool: no cake.
8
Nobody should be able to discriminate against anyone.
2
Let them eat cake...
2
Oh, this poor man, persecuted for his Christian religion. What a martyr! Back in the "good old days," some white Southern Christians believed that "mixing the races" was against their religion and inter-racial marriage was actually against the law. Today, divorce is legal but remains a violation of sacred vows "until death do us part" and Christian marriage is considered a covenant with God. So will this Christian baker also refuse to sell wedding cakes to divorced heterosexuals re-marrying? Will he make all heterosexual couples take an oath on the Bible that they have not fornicated before marriage? If so, then he has genuine Christian convictions and treats all sins equally. If not, they he is just a bigot.
4
If we allow a business to discriminate based on its religious beliefs, how do we know that they hold those religious beliefs and are not discriminating for some other reason? Shouldn't they have to pass some test to show that they really are religious and not just prejudiced? Who administers the test?
7
My brother in law is gay and is helping me with me and my fiancé's wedding planning. That being said I still agree with the baker. Not because I agree with his beliefs, but I don't feel it is a compelling state interest to "compel" artisans and people who craft to make art they don't want to in order to achieve equality among citizens in the private sector. With contract law, using specific performance or injunctions to compel people to perform their duties under a contract is rarely relied upon, because you can't expect people to do a good job when they are being court ordered to and more important, forcing someone to work against their will is in violation of the 13th amendment (laws against slavery). While many can make the argument that refusing service will start a precedent with doctors or police officers or even waiters and waitresses refusing to serve, none of the people in these professions own businesses and many are government employees who do not have the liberty to refuse service at all, much less create art from scratch. An artist should retain the ability to pick and choose the projects he undertakes, otherwise we are saying we can compel them to do something they don't want to. Can we compel Miley Cyrus or Lil Yachty to make a song about us? No. Further, if an artistic business has built a business model targeting a specific group, like Muslim or Christian or even cakes for quinceañeras, can we compel their service if it is not part of their business model?
4
The Gorsuch dissent, "The statute in question establishes a set of rules designed to ensure that the biological parents of a child are listed on the child’s birth certificate,” can be discounted simply by looking at Arkansas adoption law. It provides for the issuance of a new birth certificate listing the adoptive parents and eliminating the biological parents on the document.
3
A key factor supporting this form of discrimination is that the bakery service, and in particular wedding photography services, provide a celebratory aspect to customers. 99.9% percent of product and service transaction lack this; the matter of sexual orientation never arises, nor should it. Why involve a person who has religious concerns regarding homosexuality into the celebration of gay marriage?
3
The First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is "establishment of religion"? Is that enumerating the beliefs of religion?
That would be "establishment", and that is prohibited, expressly.
What is the free exercise of religion? Again, that is enumerating what constitutes "religion" per se - that is "religion" as "religion".
This is a sticky point, "establishment" as well as "exercise".
Where do your "religious beliefs" meet up with damage to another through your acts that are based on your "religious beliefs"?
We have seen concrete examples where the First Amendment is not absolute, such as when your speech results in damage to others. That is a precedent.
Therefore, "exercise of religion", is likewise not absolute, as your "exercise" could result in damage to others.
Here is an interesting point: a plaintiff could sue someone who acted following his religious beliefs and whose actions resulted in real measurable damage to the plaintiff. The defendant could cite the First Amendment as a defense, but that tort still remains, the real damage.
I'm not going to postulate all sorts of possible things but only generalities.
Courts will hear arguments to arrive at rulings.
There will be a second case.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What is "establishment of religion"? Is that enumerating the beliefs of religion?
That would be "establishment", and that is prohibited, expressly.
What is the free exercise of religion? Again, that is enumerating what constitutes "religion" per se - that is "religion" as "religion".
This is a sticky point, "establishment" as well as "exercise".
Where do your "religious beliefs" meet up with damage to another through your acts that are based on your "religious beliefs"?
We have seen concrete examples where the First Amendment is not absolute, such as when your speech results in damage to others. That is a precedent.
Therefore, "exercise of religion", is likewise not absolute, as your "exercise" could result in damage to others.
Here is an interesting point: a plaintiff could sue someone who acted following his religious beliefs and whose actions resulted in real measurable damage to the plaintiff. The defendant could cite the First Amendment as a defense, but that tort still remains, the real damage.
I'm not going to postulate all sorts of possible things but only generalities.
Courts will hear arguments to arrive at rulings.
There will be a second case.
1
This one seems tricky but its not. Yes, a cake is a small thing and the baker should be free to bake cakes for whomever he wants. No one should be forced to work for someone they don't wish to work for. However, if he is all about complying with the laws of God, he should remember that among the first of those laws is to "do unto others as you would have done unto you." Truth is not partly true, nor is it true only some of the time.
2
I can remember when businesses had signs on their doors stating that they had the right to refuse service to ANYONE. No reason had to be given.
1
I don't think I would ask a Muslim baker or a Jewish baker to make me a cake for a Christian wedding. If I did, I would have to have a very good reason before I would ask and I would try to be diplomatic and charitable about it. In the end, if the answer were still no, I figure I would have to accept it. If the baker doesn't agree to do it, how does the law make this any better?
To be refused service to buy pastries on display on the front counter is almost surely discrimination. However, a wedding cake is a special production and generally an artistic endeavor. An artist can turn down a commission for a piece of art that he/she doesn't agree to with. Using the law to force the artist to accept the commission is sort of like putting a gun to an artist's head. The baker could have been more gracious, that's true, but it just makes no sense to me to force an artist to do something the artist is unwilling to do. Moreover, why would anyone force an artist to do that?
At any rate, age discrimination goes one with statements like "you're overqualified" or just they ignore resumes with extensive experience. There are plenty of "legal" ways to discriminate. If the court sides against the baker, then bakers will find some other way to say no; e.g., too busy, have an important engagement. With the exception of a few people in a brief window of time, I doubt that anti-discrimination laws have really helped most people all that much.
To be refused service to buy pastries on display on the front counter is almost surely discrimination. However, a wedding cake is a special production and generally an artistic endeavor. An artist can turn down a commission for a piece of art that he/she doesn't agree to with. Using the law to force the artist to accept the commission is sort of like putting a gun to an artist's head. The baker could have been more gracious, that's true, but it just makes no sense to me to force an artist to do something the artist is unwilling to do. Moreover, why would anyone force an artist to do that?
At any rate, age discrimination goes one with statements like "you're overqualified" or just they ignore resumes with extensive experience. There are plenty of "legal" ways to discriminate. If the court sides against the baker, then bakers will find some other way to say no; e.g., too busy, have an important engagement. With the exception of a few people in a brief window of time, I doubt that anti-discrimination laws have really helped most people all that much.
5
Are we really still debating this?
Is this really 2017?
Reason 7,302 I'm glad I live in NYC.
Bought my gay friends a wedding cake at Magnolia bakery saying:
"Congratulations Jeff and Tim"
To celebrate their beautiful respect for each other and I would say their marriage is more dignified than about 99% of male-female ones I know.
Is this really 2017?
Reason 7,302 I'm glad I live in NYC.
Bought my gay friends a wedding cake at Magnolia bakery saying:
"Congratulations Jeff and Tim"
To celebrate their beautiful respect for each other and I would say their marriage is more dignified than about 99% of male-female ones I know.
3
Three aspects of this issue bother me in what is to limit the scale of the discrimination:
1) Who is to decide what is a legitimate religious belief?
2) What is a small business?
3) Where does this ability to refuse business stop?
The examples are endless - Could a Christian Scientist pharmacist (unlikely, but not impossible) refuse to sell insulin to a diabetic because his belief is that people should pray to be cured? Could a grocer who believes large families are an abomination refuse to sell food to a family with a passel of kids. If a butcher believes that pets are in league with the devil could she refuse to sell meat to a known cat owner.
1) Who is to decide what is a legitimate religious belief?
2) What is a small business?
3) Where does this ability to refuse business stop?
The examples are endless - Could a Christian Scientist pharmacist (unlikely, but not impossible) refuse to sell insulin to a diabetic because his belief is that people should pray to be cured? Could a grocer who believes large families are an abomination refuse to sell food to a family with a passel of kids. If a butcher believes that pets are in league with the devil could she refuse to sell meat to a known cat owner.
1
Wonder if the attorneys who brought this case to THIS Supreme Court really thought this one though. On a purely common-sense level, the appropriate remedy for narrow-minded homophobes is to boycott them, not reward them by patronizing their businesses. On a much broader level, the ramifications of this case are really lose-lose. We can all see the ramifications if the baker wins -- bigotry is enabled. But what if the couple wins? Are sign-makers obligated to produce signs bearing swastikas? Are attorneys in private practice obligated to accept clients accused of burning mosques?
3
The stench of discrimination in this case arises from the baker's haphazard application of what he finds offensive. If he truly was devoutly religious, he would also consistently deny services to anyone that was divorced, etc. Then he might get more sympathy. Add to this that baking a cake no more condones marriage than making a gun condones murder.
4
Under Mr. Phillips's reasoning, a devout Muslim cab driver could refuse to pick up a passenger that was carrying a bottle of alcohol (perhaps a gift bottle or from an airport duty free shop), an Orthodox Jew driver could refuse to serve a single woman, a conservative judge could refuse to officiate the wedding of a gay or lesbian couple that came to his/her courtroom. Where does it end?
2
A point on this case that everyone seems to be missing: According to the original judge's decision, the baker "was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage."
So the comments making comparisons to the Confederate flag or other symbols that some groups find offensive are just off-base. The baker objected to the act of making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, not to anything they asked him to put on the cake.
So the comments making comparisons to the Confederate flag or other symbols that some groups find offensive are just off-base. The baker objected to the act of making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, not to anything they asked him to put on the cake.
15
The baker did not refuse to serve the couple. Stop spreading fake news, nyt. He only refused this particular design of a cake. That's not discrimination. The law requires that he serves anyone, not that he must say or design anything. I can't believe so many top comments missed this point. I'm against discrimination but none occured here.
3
Let's imagine a Jewish florist is asked to make centerpieces with a statue of Hitler in each one. The florist's talents will be used to glorify Adolf Hitler. Understandably, the Jewish florist is deeply offended and refuses. Are you going to force this florist to make the centerpieces?
4
Would Jesus bake a gay cake???? Yes, and HE would attend the wedding.
7
Bah, his cakes don't look that nice anyways.
2
who wants to eat this bitter baker's cake anyway?
3
As expected, Neil M. Gorsuch is Antonin Scalia on steroids.
4
The law allows me to refuse to serve fat people. Ugly people. Stupid people. Short people. Left handed folks. Right handed folks. Lawyers. Politicians. Podiatrists. But, you say, it should prohibit me from refusing to serve gay people. Because they should be a protected class more sacrosanct than lawyers and politicians. And accountants and people with tattoos.
Why? What makes you so special?
If I want a cake that says something derogatory about a race or a group of people should I be able to demand it under threat of loss of someone's business license?
I have been refused service more than once because I am. It gay. Gay clubs are notoriously exclusive. Same with bed and breakfast inns in Provincetown MA.
I worked at a company in Boston with a large group of gay people in one department and they would only hire other gay people.
Why? What makes you so special?
If I want a cake that says something derogatory about a race or a group of people should I be able to demand it under threat of loss of someone's business license?
I have been refused service more than once because I am. It gay. Gay clubs are notoriously exclusive. Same with bed and breakfast inns in Provincetown MA.
I worked at a company in Boston with a large group of gay people in one department and they would only hire other gay people.
3
I'm a lesbian, and I don't need cake. What I need is for the Voting Rights Act to be fully restored; for trans people to be able to pee in peace; for my black and Muslim neighbors to be able to walk down the street or drive to the store and come back safely.
I hear the "slippery slope" argument, but it doesn't convince me.
Let's take a common-sense approach: let private service businesses with fewer than five employees pick their customers.
Lord knows I don't want to have to serve them either.
I hear the "slippery slope" argument, but it doesn't convince me.
Let's take a common-sense approach: let private service businesses with fewer than five employees pick their customers.
Lord knows I don't want to have to serve them either.
17
Hey Justice Thomas, would this Baker bake a cake for you and your Wife?
13
Yes, his lawyer said he supports anti-racism efforts, so it's a good bet he'd bake a cake for a mixed-race marriage, which of course is a completely different kettle of fish than same-sex marriages.
2
Probably, because the baker says his religion prohibits racism.
1
So, all the people arguing that the baker is wrong in his beliefs, what would you do if someone from the KKK stopped by your bakery and asked you to bake a cake for an upcoming induction ceremony. Would you fulfill the request? If not, why is this particular baker wrong in refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding that he does not believe in?
11
Because he's a public business, just like a doctor can't refuse to
Treat someone whose beliefs/lifestyle do not align with
theirs.
Treat someone whose beliefs/lifestyle do not align with
theirs.
2
Not sure about this one either... A bakery is a private business, not a public / municipal service and it seems to me he can bake / not bakes cakes for whoever he wants/ doesn't want to Its not like the marriage clerk in KY who refused to issue a marriage license a few years back. My adult son is transgendered; I understand the feeling of injustice here -- but it seems to me that this baker can bake or not bake a cake as he sees fit.
1
Seriously? You're comparing gay couples to the KKK?
Here's the difference: one is a hate group and one is a protected class.
Here's the difference: one is a hate group and one is a protected class.
1
This is a tricky situation, because it's one of conflicting rights.
But first, let's clear up one misunderstanding: unlike the way the Colorado baker's case and a few others are presented, in most of these cases, it is NOT that the bakers, florists, photographers refuse to serve gay customers at all.
No - they are declining to provide specific services that would be contrary to their religious beliefs. For example, the baker refused to create a cake that would be inscribed with a message celebrating a gay wedding. He didn't refuse to sell any cake at all to the customers.
My question to the baker and to some other religious objectors would be: do you similarly refuse to bake and inscribe cakes for couples who've been married and divorced several times? Or who are known to be adulterers or promiscuous, or cheat their employees, are cruel or hateful or thieves or are known to commit any other acts or live in ways that the Bible identifies as gravely sinful? Or - are you singling out gay people?
On the other hand, should a kosher bakery be compelled to bake a cake with a swastika and Nazi message? Does a Christian florist have to create floral arrangements for a Satanic festival?
And what if someone claims a religious belief in segregation - as was the case not so long ago? Or what if a pharmacy refuses to fill a prescription for STD meds - because he or she believes the patient "deserves" to "suffer for their sins"?
Where do we draw the lines?
But first, let's clear up one misunderstanding: unlike the way the Colorado baker's case and a few others are presented, in most of these cases, it is NOT that the bakers, florists, photographers refuse to serve gay customers at all.
No - they are declining to provide specific services that would be contrary to their religious beliefs. For example, the baker refused to create a cake that would be inscribed with a message celebrating a gay wedding. He didn't refuse to sell any cake at all to the customers.
My question to the baker and to some other religious objectors would be: do you similarly refuse to bake and inscribe cakes for couples who've been married and divorced several times? Or who are known to be adulterers or promiscuous, or cheat their employees, are cruel or hateful or thieves or are known to commit any other acts or live in ways that the Bible identifies as gravely sinful? Or - are you singling out gay people?
On the other hand, should a kosher bakery be compelled to bake a cake with a swastika and Nazi message? Does a Christian florist have to create floral arrangements for a Satanic festival?
And what if someone claims a religious belief in segregation - as was the case not so long ago? Or what if a pharmacy refuses to fill a prescription for STD meds - because he or she believes the patient "deserves" to "suffer for their sins"?
Where do we draw the lines?
23
We don't. I worked as a cashier for 8 years and don't believe
In smoking, eating candy and many other products which I
find harmful. I could not refuse, by nature of my job, to
ring up these items.
In my own home, however, I do not serve or buy those items.
That's the difference.
In smoking, eating candy and many other products which I
find harmful. I could not refuse, by nature of my job, to
ring up these items.
In my own home, however, I do not serve or buy those items.
That's the difference.
5
As an athiest professor, may I delete evangelical, Jewish, and Hindu students from my class? That would really cut down on the grading load.
13
What if the business was a bank? What if the business was a driving school? What if the business was a heating company called during the middle of winter and a gay couple's furnace failed? What if it was a home nursing company when the couple is in old age?
Think, people, think. The cake angle is a distraction here.
Think, people, think. The cake angle is a distraction here.
40
No, the "cake angle" is not a distraction; it's a central point. Unlike banks, heating companies, and medical service suppliers, wedding cake providers are completely disposable. They are not essential to anyone's life, health, or welfare. Just find another baker, for heaven's sake.
Unlike some other commenters, I think it's great that many here recognize that this isn't a simple, one-sided issue, and that the rights of private business owners as well as those of potential customers must be considered.
Unlike some other commenters, I think it's great that many here recognize that this isn't a simple, one-sided issue, and that the rights of private business owners as well as those of potential customers must be considered.
5
Can you imagine the following legal decision: the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment trumps the Freedom of Religion Clause of the First Amendment?
A consequence could be that a gay couple could force a rabbi to marry them even though it says in the Torah (Leviticus 20:13) that the punishment for men sleeping with each other is death. And it is a sin to be complicit and enable others to sin.
Please answer me: how can you force a rabbi to sin and violate his religion?
A consequence could be that a gay couple could force a rabbi to marry them even though it says in the Torah (Leviticus 20:13) that the punishment for men sleeping with each other is death. And it is a sin to be complicit and enable others to sin.
Please answer me: how can you force a rabbi to sin and violate his religion?
7
He/she isn't condoning the marriage, just performing the ceremony, similar to how a doctor treats someone
Whose beliefs or lifestyle does not align with theirs.
Whose beliefs or lifestyle does not align with theirs.
If the good Christians of the South not insisted that slavery and oppression was an exercise of their religion freedom.we wouldn't have needed the 14tg Amendment.
2
To all of you who would argue that in this country it's okay to provide a service to a group you approve of and refuse it to one you don't: put yourself in the following situations. 1) Your finances are all in order and you make a bid on your dream house, but the seller won't sell to you because your wife is Asian and he doesn't trust slant-eyed people. 2) You call a cop because there's a man with a gun downstairs in your house, but the cop's Jewish, and when he finds out you're a Christian he refuses to enter your house because he is angry over how Christians treated Jews for centuries. 3) You go to the emergency room with your unconscious child, but the doctor's gay and when he finds out you're a Republican he refuses to treat you and tells you there are plenty of other hospitals for people like you, so you should get back in your car. Come on, folks. The guy can't sell cakes to straight people (with their 50% divorce rate -- how's that for biblically appropriate?) and tell gay people -- who have the Supreme Court's backing for their right to marry -- that they need to shop elsewhere. The gay couple's taxes, remember, help pay for the roads that bring the flour and sugar to his shop.
28
Those examples are ludicrous. The baker can choose not to participate in what he disagrees with religiously; he's backed by the first amendment.
He's not denying them a cake, he's just against writing on the cake or decorating it with anything that he thinks approves of gay marriage. That's his freedom, a right.
You can't discriminate on race, however, and that real estate owner would have a rough day in court - not Supreme Court, like our baker, mind you.
He's not denying them a cake, he's just against writing on the cake or decorating it with anything that he thinks approves of gay marriage. That's his freedom, a right.
You can't discriminate on race, however, and that real estate owner would have a rough day in court - not Supreme Court, like our baker, mind you.
2
Let's just ban wedding cakes.
16
It might be worth considering how many of us would refuse to bake a cake for Donald Trump's birthday and whether it would be lawful to say no. You might be able to claim that because his actions were ungodly, baking him a cake would be against your religion, but if the case were to be decided favorably, you would have to bake the cake. Oh, snap!
8
That's okay. He could just get his cake copied from Obama...like he did for the inauguration. Then no one would know it was him! Sneaky!
But seriously, where does this end? The artful cake is pure subterfuge. What if it the decision to offer services were at a hospital or hospice for pain management by an a anesthesiologist? Could it delay surgery or or cause death? What if it was your doctor who refused treatment for cancer because he thought you deserved it? Your mechanic who refused to fix your brakes because he thought you deserved to die? Or a public service employee who refused to issue a permit, housing, driving, business or otherwise?
Oh wait, they're already allowed to do that with marriage licenses...and mostly without consequence.
This is a super slippery slope my friends. Let's hope you never end up on the receiving end of your cleverly devised and disguised discrimination.
But seriously, where does this end? The artful cake is pure subterfuge. What if it the decision to offer services were at a hospital or hospice for pain management by an a anesthesiologist? Could it delay surgery or or cause death? What if it was your doctor who refused treatment for cancer because he thought you deserved it? Your mechanic who refused to fix your brakes because he thought you deserved to die? Or a public service employee who refused to issue a permit, housing, driving, business or otherwise?
Oh wait, they're already allowed to do that with marriage licenses...and mostly without consequence.
This is a super slippery slope my friends. Let's hope you never end up on the receiving end of your cleverly devised and disguised discrimination.
3
Would Mike Pence allow his wife to dine alone with Donald Trump?
1
I believe that he, as the owner of a private business that doesn't receive any federal or state tax dollars, has the right to refuse to serve whoever he refuses to serve within certain limits. For example, if he refused to serve a Muslim or an African-American couple wanting to get married simply because they're Muslim or African-American, that's obviously wrong. But in this case, if he politely told the gay couple that their union went against his religious beliefs, and as such he does not wish to take their business, then I think he has every right to do so. I don't have the details, but assuming he was polite and professional about it, I don't think he's being a bigot or whatever; it's more of "I understand and respect your sexual orientation and union, but I reserve the right to disagree with it because of my religious beliefs, and as such I wish to exercise my right to refuse service to you." Yes, same-sex couples should be entitled to the same rights as human beings, but others, not just business owners, should also be entitled to their opinion to politely disagree with with the idea of same-sex unions. Forcing people to accept your stand or orientation does nothing to help your cause, it only alienates them further and brings rise to all the "special snowflake" insults, etc. In their quest to have their own rights recognized and respected, they have trampled over the rights of those who disagree with them.
17
You can say that so politely and kindly, and everyone who has a disagreement should...or you can throw a giant Jesus Fish/IXOYE on your door and be done with it. Then you'll only get the devout business you want and all your customers will agree with you.
1
So I assume he will not sell cakes to people who have been divorced. That should also go against his faith. Right?
I would disagree. This is a cake shop set up to sell cakes to the public. As such, no, you do not get to pick and choose who gets service and who doesn't. If they have the money you should have to provide the service. Otherwise we are back to African-American citizens being denied service, based on skin color, for some. specific religious reasons. Before you say there can be no religious reasons to deny based on skin color, remember that the Southern Baptist Church was able to use the Bible to justify slavery. Thank goodness the church has moved past that. My point is that anything can be used on a religious ground to discriminate against anyone.
2
Re religion, morality, and who’s infringing on whom:
I believe the Golden Rule means respecting other people’s personal boundaries, boundaries-respecting beliefs, belongings, bodies, bedrooms, lawful activities, privacy, freedoms, rights, and equality, as I would have others respect my own.
Even if I were to oppose a same-sex couple’s marriage, the question of whether to prepare their wedding cake (or sell them flowers, or cater their reception, or rent them a home, or sign their marriage license) would answer itself, since I would realize they are my rightful public customers, not my wrongful private business. And since they are my equals, and their beliefs and values are their own, it would be creepily self-indulgent for me to dwell upon their private lives; it would be grossly inappropriate for me to stick my nose into their personal activities; it would be self-righteously narcissistic for me to presume to judge them; and it would be downright immoral of me to attempt to hold them to my own personally chosen moral principles, or to deny them what I offer my other customers. And to do all this just because they don’t follow my faith? How presumptuous, elitist, and subordinating I would be! My morality binds me, not them.
In other words, I see the so-called “religious freedom” issue as a matter of trespass — not of faith.
I believe the Golden Rule means respecting other people’s personal boundaries, boundaries-respecting beliefs, belongings, bodies, bedrooms, lawful activities, privacy, freedoms, rights, and equality, as I would have others respect my own.
Even if I were to oppose a same-sex couple’s marriage, the question of whether to prepare their wedding cake (or sell them flowers, or cater their reception, or rent them a home, or sign their marriage license) would answer itself, since I would realize they are my rightful public customers, not my wrongful private business. And since they are my equals, and their beliefs and values are their own, it would be creepily self-indulgent for me to dwell upon their private lives; it would be grossly inappropriate for me to stick my nose into their personal activities; it would be self-righteously narcissistic for me to presume to judge them; and it would be downright immoral of me to attempt to hold them to my own personally chosen moral principles, or to deny them what I offer my other customers. And to do all this just because they don’t follow my faith? How presumptuous, elitist, and subordinating I would be! My morality binds me, not them.
In other words, I see the so-called “religious freedom” issue as a matter of trespass — not of faith.
20
If you cannot serve all humans , while being in the service industry and disregard their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender etc, then you should not be in the service industry. And maybe re-read your bible, Jesus would be a good example for you.
What's next, can a doctor refuse service to those that he religiously disagrees with, a Pharmacist refuse medication, on and on, I realize it is a cake, but it opens doors to all kinds of discrimination, that takes us backwards not forward in this world. If he wants to ban those that he disagrees with maybe he should find a different line of work where he doesn't have to deal with those he disagrees with. Good luck with that.
What's next, can a doctor refuse service to those that he religiously disagrees with, a Pharmacist refuse medication, on and on, I realize it is a cake, but it opens doors to all kinds of discrimination, that takes us backwards not forward in this world. If he wants to ban those that he disagrees with maybe he should find a different line of work where he doesn't have to deal with those he disagrees with. Good luck with that.
20
Why not make up lists of people who refuse to do business with gay people and people who welcome business from gay people. Those of us who are either gay or gay friendly will be happy to do business with people who are friendly toward us rather than people who hate us. Those who hate gays, Muslims, Jews and people of colour are welcome to do business in their own little communities. I think most of us will do business with the more inclusive list.
5
@Christopher Hobe Morrison
You sound as though you are a reasonable person. But "lists of people who refuse to do business with gay people and people who welcome business from gay people" is a relic of segregation and discrimination. It takes us back to the days when African Americans and other minorities had their own special travel guides -- lists of places that would not rent a hotel room for the night, or serve them at their restaurants. And the flip side of the coin is even uglier -- signs outside of public accomodations boldly announcing, "No ____ or _____ allowed"
The Baker and the Hobby Lobby folks and all their ilk can piously plead their deep religious beliefs to support their discriminatory practices -- but that doesn't make them right.
We are dangerously close to losing many of our freedoms if we succumb to these specious pleas to honor the religious freedom of this or that group. Religious freedom consists of the right to practice your religion -- not to impose it on others, nor to use it as an excuse to discriminate against others.
This is the year 2017! Are we really ready to forget that our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state?
You sound as though you are a reasonable person. But "lists of people who refuse to do business with gay people and people who welcome business from gay people" is a relic of segregation and discrimination. It takes us back to the days when African Americans and other minorities had their own special travel guides -- lists of places that would not rent a hotel room for the night, or serve them at their restaurants. And the flip side of the coin is even uglier -- signs outside of public accomodations boldly announcing, "No ____ or _____ allowed"
The Baker and the Hobby Lobby folks and all their ilk can piously plead their deep religious beliefs to support their discriminatory practices -- but that doesn't make them right.
We are dangerously close to losing many of our freedoms if we succumb to these specious pleas to honor the religious freedom of this or that group. Religious freedom consists of the right to practice your religion -- not to impose it on others, nor to use it as an excuse to discriminate against others.
This is the year 2017! Are we really ready to forget that our country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state?
1
Justice Gorsuch, be brief. Your wordy dissent regarding the Arkansas birth certificate presents a poor understanding of the constitution. Denying same-sex partners designation on a birth certificate does "offend"--interesting word choice--the constitution. Guardians and step-parents can be listed if present. So, biology is a convenient rationale in this case. Unequal treatment.
9
Any business with a valid license that is open to the public should be required to deliver their product. If the business practices exclusion of patrons and they are unable to accommodate all customers, their business license should receive equal exclusion. I doubt if the bakery has a religious tax exemption. Religious beliefs has no place in a retail environment.
15
The lunch counter sit-ins began in 1960.
At lunch counters, protesters—mostly students—occupied seats on the principle "sit until served."
By the end of 1961, Woolworth's and other chain stores had desegregated their lunch counters.
However, not all store owners gave in. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban racial segregation "by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public."
This isn't about a cake just like the lunch counter sit-ins were not about lunch. It is about human decency and equality.
When you run a licensed business open to the public, you have to follow the law.
The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v Smith (1990) that an individual's obligation to obey the law is not based on whether one's religious views happen to be in agreement with the law.
If a cake celebrating marriage is not offensive for opposite sex couples, it is objectively not offensive for same sex couples. They both celebrate committed love and faithfulness. Comparisons to hate groups are not apt.
At lunch counters, protesters—mostly students—occupied seats on the principle "sit until served."
By the end of 1961, Woolworth's and other chain stores had desegregated their lunch counters.
However, not all store owners gave in. It took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban racial segregation "by businesses offering food, lodging, gasoline, or entertainment to the public."
This isn't about a cake just like the lunch counter sit-ins were not about lunch. It is about human decency and equality.
When you run a licensed business open to the public, you have to follow the law.
The Supreme Court ruled in Employment Division v Smith (1990) that an individual's obligation to obey the law is not based on whether one's religious views happen to be in agreement with the law.
If a cake celebrating marriage is not offensive for opposite sex couples, it is objectively not offensive for same sex couples. They both celebrate committed love and faithfulness. Comparisons to hate groups are not apt.
22
Nobody is bringing up the difference between a "Contractual Business" and one "Offering Goods For Sale" in as tore open to the public for business.
I'm thinking if the Baker decided to not enter into a contractual agreement to make the cake he would have legal ground. Individual and Corporate parties refuse contactual agreements all the time without having to disclose specific reasons (perhaps even being a myriad of reasons).
A store open to the public is operating on a whole different set of rules under the law.
I'm thinking if the Baker decided to not enter into a contractual agreement to make the cake he would have legal ground. Individual and Corporate parties refuse contactual agreements all the time without having to disclose specific reasons (perhaps even being a myriad of reasons).
A store open to the public is operating on a whole different set of rules under the law.
11
In this era of specialization (think doctors, particularly) if someone were to specialize in arranging gay weddings, would they equally be open to law suits from straights? I could easily see someone trying to create a niche business like that to capitalize on a new trend. So is the curriculum at business school going to have to change now to make clear what businesses can't? So much for free enterprise.
5
If a business that chooses to hold themselves out as specializing in same-sex marriages refuses to plan a marriage for a straight couple they would be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, which would be discriminatory under the Colorado state law. But if the business advertises that they specialize in planning same-sex marriages, they are merely saying that that is the business they prefer, not discriminating.
If you can't understand that distinction, then you are missing something. Your example is merely a straw man.
If you can't understand that distinction, then you are missing something. Your example is merely a straw man.
17
It's the event to which he objects, not the people. If the gay couple's parents or heterosexual friends requested that he bake the cake for the wedding, he would still refuse. He already sold other items to gay customers without complaint. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission seems to have placed an unduly harsh burden on the business owner when there are many other resources for the couple's business.
8
Great, so this holier than thou "business man" should also make sure that he asks customers if the are marrying for the first time. If either party is divorced that will also go against his beliefs and cake should not be baked.
7
Halloween? He wont make a Halloween cake either? This is a nothing holiday, and if he somehow believes in ghosts and spooks and witches, he's got a real problem. Or the religion he professes to follow does. Children's games.
14
Hallowe'en and especially the following All Souls Day are important religious holidays.
This article is misleading. The baker did not refuse to serve the couple. He refused to make this particular design on the cake. That's not discrimination. Now neo-nazis can also claim discrimination if a bakery refuses to put swastika on their cake?
19
But he would make a rainbow birthday cake. So it's not the design; it's who it's for.
11
He also apparently, won't make cakes with "Halloween" themed cakes. Probably he prefers to make cakes only with Jesus on them.
1
No one is a Christian by birth. So, what exactly is this case about?
7
A cake. The Supreme Court of the United States is hearing a case about a cake.
I am fine with gay marriage and also fine with a cake maker not making a cake because of religion. I think most gays really don't care about about the cake maker stand too. Gays rights have expanded tremendously and fast. Let's not make things bitter because of a cake.
Lot of interesting comments that small business owners should be able to pick and choose their customers consistent with their religious beliefs. We have been down this path before......people have used religion in the past to validate anti-Semitism and racial bigotry. The equal protection clause of the Constitution applies to small businesses as well as large corporations. Sometimes Congress will pass laws that create exceptions for smaller businesses, but the Equal Protection Clause has no such exceptions.
19
The answer might be for Christians to follow the words of Jesus instead of the words of Christians.
1
I have a relative who finds ways to discourage African Americans from shopping at his store. They're subtle behaviors, designed to make them feel unwelcome. Nothing so direct as refusing to sell something to them. I find this completely uncivil. To hide any kind of discrimination behind religion cheapens the religion and dishonors everybody involved, business owner and community of customers alike.
29
You should expose him. He deserves to go out of business.
A small business person that wants to screen his customers, won't do very well.
8
The cake baker depends on all sorts of federal and state and local tax payer funded programs to succeed in his business. Police protection, fire protection, highways: to transport cake ingredients, to allow employees to get to work and to allow customers to drive over to pay for get their cakes. In short he is providing a service to the public, a public which in return helps pay for the infrastructure that supports his business. He has no business discriminating against gays or anyone else based on the tenets of his religion. Shame on him and his sanctimonious hypocrisy.
33
That cakes are trivial or that someone can go somewhere else for service is meaningless; they are red herrings. Many of our most important civil rights cases arose out of "trivial" facts. The Southern Baptist religion was founded on the principle that the Bible confirms white superiority and segregation of the races. Those "Christian" beliefs held sway over large portions of the South and elsewhere during the 1950's-1980's. Indeed, white supremacists still cling to those antiquated faith-based beliefs. In the 1960's, small mom & pop restaurants, innkeepers, florists, etc. refused to do business with African-Americans based on those faith-based beliefs. That a black person could eat at a different restaurant or buy flowers at other places did not mitigate the assault on their Constitutional right to equal treatment under the law. It is absolutely no different with gays; indeed, there exists no intellectually honest way to distinguish them. So what if a gay person can go elsewhere to buy a cake or flowers? They have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. One can hold whatever beliefs they want; but those beliefs stop at the doors of commerce. Once a faith-holder voluntarily injects him or her self into the stream of commerce, they must treat all customers equally under the law. Otherwise, we are on a slippery slope heading back to the days of the segregated lunch counter.
Let's remember the KKK also claims a religious basis for its beliefs. Bob Jones University claims a religious basis for its views on interracial marriage. Father Coughlin claimed a religious basis for his virulent anti-semitism.
The slope is very slippery, and wide enough to be abused by many people whose intent is only to harm.
The slope is very slippery, and wide enough to be abused by many people whose intent is only to harm.
27
Obviously, the baker just needs to see a "pretty picture ".
Man, Woman, ring etc.
They must certainly be "normal".
There are always, and always have been, seemingly "normal" couples who are sexual deviants, hamster killers and the like.
They walk among us.
Oh and they eat cake too.
Just like the rest of us.
Somebody better tell the baker.
Man, Woman, ring etc.
They must certainly be "normal".
There are always, and always have been, seemingly "normal" couples who are sexual deviants, hamster killers and the like.
They walk among us.
Oh and they eat cake too.
Just like the rest of us.
Somebody better tell the baker.
16
Hamster killers. Funny! I'm adding that to my repertoire.
There's nothing religious about baking a cake. When you have a small business you rely on all of us taxpayers. We provide the police, fire fighters and paramedic services that protect you and your business. We pave the roads, maintain the sidewalks, remove the snow and provide municipal parking lots so people can easily get to your business. Just like us, you're part of the community. You may be thinking that you pay taxes too and maybe you do. But I'm sure you know that many small businesses fail and those that succeed may take several years to do so.
That doesn't mean that your small business can't have standards. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is certainly an acceptable standard. It's also okay to say that you won't decorate a cake with swastikas. But if a neo-nazi walks in and wants a cake decorated with flowers that says, "Happy Birthday" you should bake the cake.
That doesn't mean that your small business can't have standards. "No shoes, no shirt, no service" is certainly an acceptable standard. It's also okay to say that you won't decorate a cake with swastikas. But if a neo-nazi walks in and wants a cake decorated with flowers that says, "Happy Birthday" you should bake the cake.
22
While I support gay marriage and the LQTBQ community fully and completely, I think the baker was in the right in this case. He didn't refuse to bake the cake because he hates gay people, or because he is 'Homophobic', he said it was because it was against his religion, which is also why he doesn't use alcohol in his baking, or make Halloween or adult themed confections.
If someone came in a requested a Halloween cake, or an adult themed cake for a Bachelor/Bachelorette party, and he said no due to his religious beliefs, there would be no argument.
If someone came in a requested a Halloween cake, or an adult themed cake for a Bachelor/Bachelorette party, and he said no due to his religious beliefs, there would be no argument.
34
Ah, but the issue here is different. This is similar to him offering a Halloween cake to one family and not to another. These people weren't asking for anything other than a wedding cake, which he makes for dozens of other people. There is nothing about a rainbow on a wedding cake that is against his religion. If a straight couple had asked for it there would have been no problem. So it's not the decoration, it's his judgment of the people for whom he's making the cake. Nothing about the cake itself was against his religion.
25
Exactly. I could have gone to that store and requested a rainbow on a cake, stating that I wanted a symbol of God's Old Testament promise to Noah after the flood. I bet he would have made that cake.
3
Does he similarly refuse to bake a cake for a couple where one or the other got divorced as a result of, say, adultery.
3
Everyone likes to believe they would have sided with the Blacks who demanded to be served at the Woolworths lunch counter. The comments here show who really would and who would not have. And for those who object to comparison with the African-American struggle, it's not a competition for which group was treated the worst. Hispanics and women may not have been subjected to as much abuse but they too deserve to be seated.
13
Where does it say, in ANY religious text, "Thou shalt not make sweet confections for people you feel are ungodly"? Does any religious text tell people to be rude and judgemental to those who are different?
27
The right to choose, as an individual, without government interference. Hmm, where have I heard that before? If his guy wants to forgo business to stay consistent in his beliefs, then he has every right without governmental intrusion. The key here is that it is his own small business that does not take government money. A pharmacist who owns and runs a pharmacy may choose not to stock and sell birth control. However, if that same pharmacist were to go to work for a pharmacy that did stock and sell birth control, then he would be obligated to dispense it since he has no standing to interfere in the functioning of another business based on personal religious belief. Just don't work there.
8
When you enter the marketplace you open your doors to the public. Not to just the public you like. Not to just the public who agrees with you. Not to just the public that looks like you. The Public.
Doing business in the public marketplace means everyone's money is the same color and the only thing barring a transaction is the individual's behavior during the transaction. Not whether they kick their dog at home. Not whether they slap their wife around. And not who they sleep with.
This attempt to proclaim "religious liberty" is thinly disguised discrimination. It may work as a smokescreen on a few, but I think most of us know what's going on around here. It's just another round of "We don't serve your kind around here."
Doing business in the public marketplace means everyone's money is the same color and the only thing barring a transaction is the individual's behavior during the transaction. Not whether they kick their dog at home. Not whether they slap their wife around. And not who they sleep with.
This attempt to proclaim "religious liberty" is thinly disguised discrimination. It may work as a smokescreen on a few, but I think most of us know what's going on around here. It's just another round of "We don't serve your kind around here."
24
I see your point, and personally agree with it. I'm trying to accommodate the person with a small to micro business, and use specific examples. What if it was a jewish baker and the local Nazi Party needed a cake with a Nazi symbol on it? Could the jewish baker object?
1
It's disappointing that this is even being debated in the NYT. I am disappointed that the sophisticated readers of the Times don't uniformly see it.
It's really simple. NO ONE IS FORCING THE BAKER TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN- he is merely being asked to perform the service he advertises for ALL people without discrimination.
Religious beliefs are just that--beliefs. They are HIS beliefs and he has no right to force them on other people. There is nothing offensive about marriage--it's not hate language as some people have tried to equate. It's a legally protected right and it's the law of the land. Therefore, whatever this man believes, it is irrelevant. Covering bigotry with "religious belief" doesn't eradicate the fact it is bigotry.
It's really simple. NO ONE IS FORCING THE BAKER TO MARRY ANOTHER MAN- he is merely being asked to perform the service he advertises for ALL people without discrimination.
Religious beliefs are just that--beliefs. They are HIS beliefs and he has no right to force them on other people. There is nothing offensive about marriage--it's not hate language as some people have tried to equate. It's a legally protected right and it's the law of the land. Therefore, whatever this man believes, it is irrelevant. Covering bigotry with "religious belief" doesn't eradicate the fact it is bigotry.
29
The baker is saying that he DOESN'T provide the service of making any and all cakes that would-be patrons request. As an artist, he is agreeing to commissioned work, in effect. Artists can refuse requests for any reason. The baker is going to win this case on that basis alone.
4
Gwe: "It's really simple."
Evidently you haven't read any of the court filings or decisions in this case. See the ACLU's web site:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece...
Gwe: "... he has no right to force them on other people."
Refusing to provide service is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. Indeed, you have it backwards -- the State of Colorado is FORCING the baker to provide service.
Evidently you haven't read any of the court filings or decisions in this case. See the ACLU's web site:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece...
Gwe: "... he has no right to force them on other people."
Refusing to provide service is not "forcing" anyone to do anything. Indeed, you have it backwards -- the State of Colorado is FORCING the baker to provide service.
1
I wonder if he makes cakes for straight people who had been divorced.
27
Or for the college graduations of young people who have had premarital sex.
1
Would the baker have the right to refuse to make a parve cake for a Hasidic Jewish couple if his Christian sect taught that the Jews killed the Christ? Would be have the right to refuse to make a halal cake for an observant Muslim couple if his sect held that Muslims are apostates? Would he have the right to refuse a mixed-race heterosexual couple if his religion proscribed such unions? Why pretend to offer a service open to the 'public' if ones' religion decrees that certain people are not proper members of that 'public'?
19
Would a Jewish baker have the right to refuse to make a cake with bacon for a Christian? I think so. It's not about who is being refused service, it's about the product itself.
What would Jesus do?
16
Jesus would say Don't Get Married!
3
Adam & Steve, not Adam & Eve!!
Its not a wedding cake. Its a party cake. It is served at the party after the wedding ceremony. Its a party cake. LIke a birthday cake. Or a graduation cake. Retirement-party cake.
What these bigots cannot abide is the fact that there are people who are happy about something that they find upsetting.
What these bigots cannot abide is the fact that there are people who are happy about something that they find upsetting.
33
One thing I do know: Robert Mapplethorpe is spinning in his grave, and laughing the entire time.
4
Jesus, claiming his right to religious freedom, refused to sit with prostitutes, lepers and tax collectors today.... (Oh! You mean that's not how it went?)
28
Once again, the person baking the cake does not understand his own religion. There is no indictment in the bible to not perform a service for homosexuals. None. In fact that pesky Christ had the habit of doing everything he could for everyone. Where's the scene in which Christ takes a survey before distributing the loaves and fishes? Where? This is the tiresome and recurring problem with bigoted theocrats claiming to be Christians: they don't even understand the very stories they purportedly base their belief system on.
The baker is baking cakes for fornicators, people who dishonor their parents, people who lie, people who covet everything from their neighbor's wife to his or her goods. The argument that he is "participating" in anything is fallacious. All he's doing is performing the service of baking a cake. Once the cake - any cake - leaves his shop, who's to say how it is used or at what kind of function?
The baker is baking cakes for fornicators, people who dishonor their parents, people who lie, people who covet everything from their neighbor's wife to his or her goods. The argument that he is "participating" in anything is fallacious. All he's doing is performing the service of baking a cake. Once the cake - any cake - leaves his shop, who's to say how it is used or at what kind of function?
43
if a muslim cab driver refuses to take you to a bbq joint is that ok or a pharmacy owned by a sciencetoligist refuse to give you prozac is that ok ?
23
Scientologists believe all pain comes from "engrams" that can only be cured through expensive "processing." A Scientologist would have no reason to visit a pharmacy if they had convinced themselves that their "engrams" were being addressed through "processing."
The modern day equivalent of "telling African-American customers to eat at another restaurant" would simply be "telling gay or lesbian people to eat at another restaurant." This is fundamentally different from refusing to bake a wedding cake which plays a central role in the wedding celebration and ceremonies. To force this man into making a cake for this wedding is to force him to play an active and direct role in support of something he believes to be wrong.
To refuse someone service at a business because they are gay is not acceptable, but that is not the case here. Had there been a gay client asking for a birthday cake, Mr. Phillips should not be allowed to turn him away simply "because he is gay." But to politely refuse to actively participate in a ceremony that is not consistent with his beliefs is an entirely different story, and is clearly a violation of religious freedoms.
To refuse someone service at a business because they are gay is not acceptable, but that is not the case here. Had there been a gay client asking for a birthday cake, Mr. Phillips should not be allowed to turn him away simply "because he is gay." But to politely refuse to actively participate in a ceremony that is not consistent with his beliefs is an entirely different story, and is clearly a violation of religious freedoms.
4
Where do you get some idea he is participating in the ceremony? Was he invited to it? Must he serve the couple after the wedding? He's making a cake.
He makes hundreds of cakes. Does he know what lascivious might be done around, and with, that cake after it leaves his premises, even by that lovely-looking straight couple that ordered it? No. It is absurd to think that baking and decorating a food product is somehow participating in anything other than baking and decorating a food product.
I am amazed that this is even brought up as an argument.
He makes hundreds of cakes. Does he know what lascivious might be done around, and with, that cake after it leaves his premises, even by that lovely-looking straight couple that ordered it? No. It is absurd to think that baking and decorating a food product is somehow participating in anything other than baking and decorating a food product.
I am amazed that this is even brought up as an argument.
4
Except that no one serves cake at the WEDDING CEREMONY. It's for the party afterward. Bigotry is so tiresome and yet so prevalent.
So you believe it would be okay if it were an interracial marriage? Or two straight Jews? He is not being asked to participate in anything. The last time I went to a wedding, the cake wasn't used in the ceremony and certainly wasn't brought to an altar by its baker. Your argument is ridiculous.
I am uncertain where this sort of discrimination would stop. Suppose a christian baker refused to sell a cake to someone who was jewish or muslim on the grounds that it was against his or her christian faith? Could that baker be sued on the basis of religious discrimination, or would the baker be protected on the grounds of religious freedom? This sure seems like religious conservatives are looking for a Constitutional right to discriminate, and I am certain they'd sue if someone discriminated against one of them on the basis of religion.
12
Could someone, running a business open to the public, refuse to make a cake for a mixed-race marriage, on grounds that their religion forbids such marriages? I seriously doubt it. Business with licenses to serve the public take advantage of government regulations -- health inspections, parking regulations, fire inspections, and on and on. In return, they must serve all comers. Period.
9
It seems the heart of the matter regarding who is listed as the father on the birth certificate is reduced to what the line on the birth certificate is designed to represent; the legal father, or the biological father.
In Arkansas today, if a woman in a marriage has an extra-marital affair with a second man, whose name goes on the birth certificate; the biological father or the legal, married father? What is the intent of that “father” entry?
Same-sex couples should follow that same intent as heterosexual couple do today. (I don’t know what Arkansas law requires on that line.)
In Arkansas today, if a woman in a marriage has an extra-marital affair with a second man, whose name goes on the birth certificate; the biological father or the legal, married father? What is the intent of that “father” entry?
Same-sex couples should follow that same intent as heterosexual couple do today. (I don’t know what Arkansas law requires on that line.)
2
The reaction by Masterpiece Bakery indicates that the gay community might want to utilize its own bakers as well as the open-minded, non-gay bakers.
The gay couple who brought the suit against the Masterpiece Bakery might not have been discreet, might have wanted an ornament with same-sex figurines. Discretion is the key, though the cake artist at Masterpiece Bakery seems a bit nosy and stingy. I'm assuming that his leftover cakes don't go to charity because he can't control who would enjoy them. Yes, his cakes are his product, but they're not his children. Surely, there must be a bible verse that says to feed the hungry without discrimination.
The gay couple who brought the suit against the Masterpiece Bakery might not have been discreet, might have wanted an ornament with same-sex figurines. Discretion is the key, though the cake artist at Masterpiece Bakery seems a bit nosy and stingy. I'm assuming that his leftover cakes don't go to charity because he can't control who would enjoy them. Yes, his cakes are his product, but they're not his children. Surely, there must be a bible verse that says to feed the hungry without discrimination.
4
I don't understand why the customer has to be discreet in order not to offend the religious sensibilities of the vendor. Should chew people vote on their second marriage make sure not to mention it to the wedding cake maker?
Odd - his religion teaches him that homosexuality is a sin, yet he says he will create other items for gays and lesbians, just not a wedding cake. That doesn't really square his beliefs. His work is art and beautiful creations and I suspect bring great joy to what itself is a joyous occasion. A shame he would not share that with all that would welcome, appreciate and pay for his artistry.
6
George: "... his religion teaches him that homosexuality is a sin ..."
The article never uses the words "teach" or "sin", so where did you get that factoid?
The article never uses the words "teach" or "sin", so where did you get that factoid?
Lotta comments here mistakingly equating a personal or political viewpoint with discrimination against a class of people. Can the baker be forced to bake a KKK or confederate flag cake? Of course not. The question is whether he is allowed to can bake that cake for one group but not another.
5
Sandra - the KKK or the Confederate flag are not protected by civil rights laws. Most states have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sex, religion, national origin, skin color. Colorado has laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
3
How is a rainbow on a wedding cake the equivalent to a KKK symbol? Didn't God set the rainbow in the sky as a promise?
If a straight couple comes in and orders a wedding cake with a rainbow on it he'll make it. If a gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake with a rainbow on it he won't. How is that not discrimination against a class of people? Same cake.
If a straight couple comes in and orders a wedding cake with a rainbow on it he'll make it. If a gay couple comes in and orders a wedding cake with a rainbow on it he won't. How is that not discrimination against a class of people? Same cake.
1
The following questions are posed for consideration:
What if the gay couple buys a cake from the baker and does not request it be custom decorated and then serves it at the wedding reception? "Credits" the source in the program and on social media? Adds their own decorations thus altering the so called work of art? Is alteration permitted? Or is this "art" proprietary?
What if the purchaser does not reveal the intended use of the beautiful cake? Or actively hides the intended use? And the "credits " the source of the cake in a "gay" setting? Can a provider of a service require a contract limiting where and how the product can be used? Would this contract be enforceable?
What if the gay couple orders pie or ice cream sandwiches- plain or decorated- from the baker and serves it at the reception? Is there a difference between the ceremony and the reception?
I'm eagerly awaiting the public comments and oral arguments next year.
What if the gay couple buys a cake from the baker and does not request it be custom decorated and then serves it at the wedding reception? "Credits" the source in the program and on social media? Adds their own decorations thus altering the so called work of art? Is alteration permitted? Or is this "art" proprietary?
What if the purchaser does not reveal the intended use of the beautiful cake? Or actively hides the intended use? And the "credits " the source of the cake in a "gay" setting? Can a provider of a service require a contract limiting where and how the product can be used? Would this contract be enforceable?
What if the gay couple orders pie or ice cream sandwiches- plain or decorated- from the baker and serves it at the reception? Is there a difference between the ceremony and the reception?
I'm eagerly awaiting the public comments and oral arguments next year.
4
I'm just curious. Does the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. refuse rooms to same-sex couples? Would it be legal if they did not? Is there a honeymoon suite? How does that work?
4
Why is a cake being ordered (and refused service) in Colorado for a wedding in Massachusetts?
Does the baker need to be ordered to make their cake?
This seems like a very middle-class bride-zilla type problem.
Was all that noise over marriage equality just asking for permission to demand, "MY SPECIAL DAY!"?
This is a problem of entitlement and the GBLT's regression slide into comfortable middle-class morality.
Was this executed to get a test case in the works?
This whole thing smacks of a set-up.
Does the baker need to be ordered to make their cake?
This seems like a very middle-class bride-zilla type problem.
Was all that noise over marriage equality just asking for permission to demand, "MY SPECIAL DAY!"?
This is a problem of entitlement and the GBLT's regression slide into comfortable middle-class morality.
Was this executed to get a test case in the works?
This whole thing smacks of a set-up.
11
Tony: "Why is a cake being ordered ... in Colorado for a wedding in Massachusetts?"
The reception was to be held in CO after the wedding in MA, so the couple ordered the cake in CO. The Times failed to make that clear ...
The reception was to be held in CO after the wedding in MA, so the couple ordered the cake in CO. The Times failed to make that clear ...
4
The ceremony was in Massachusetts because same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado in 2012, it's not that deep.
For whatever reason they are getting married in one state and having a reception in the other. This Is Not Unusual anymore. They live in Colorado. Technically, this was a reception cake not a wedding cake
2
I don't understand why anyone would find this acceptable. Substitute the word 'black' for gay in these situations and then watch what happens. Discrimination towards anyone is unacceptable in our society. Is it still 1950 in America? How sad.
20
Remove the words same-sex and replace with interracial couple, black couple, hispanic. asian couple, jewish or muslim. Everyone would be in an uproar for how dare they discriminiate against a couple because of the color, or religion. If you are in business you can not choose and pick who you want to serve that is discrimination. Should we go back to separate but equal where blacks can't sit at the counter or ride in the back of the bus? Or out law interracial marriage for it upsets people based on religion?
This man is wrong for he discrimintated against a same sex couple, just as bad if he refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple.
I was taught in my religion that we are all chidlren of God and we are our brothers keeper. This man's religion teaches hate and discrimination and should not be given the right to discriminate by using his religion as an excuse.
Our U.S.Consitituion states SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, so you cannot use your religion to condone discrimination and ask our govenment to condone it.
This man is wrong for he discrimintated against a same sex couple, just as bad if he refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple.
I was taught in my religion that we are all chidlren of God and we are our brothers keeper. This man's religion teaches hate and discrimination and should not be given the right to discriminate by using his religion as an excuse.
Our U.S.Consitituion states SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, so you cannot use your religion to condone discrimination and ask our govenment to condone it.
10
Our constitution states Separation of Church and State?
You might want to have a look at that constitution again.
You might want to have a look at that constitution again.
1
First Amendment. The wording is slightly different but the intent is the same: separation of church and state.
Are you really comparing the black experience in Jim Crow America to a gay couple having to find someone else to make their party cake?
The NY Times reporting on this and many of the comments are disingenuous in narrowly drawing this case as exclusively about "a cake". The baker was ordered to "reeducate" his staff and himself on gay issues, ordered to bake cakes for any and all gay weddings despite his claim of sincerely held religious beliefs and made to report each and every quarter to the Colorado state agency on who/what/when requests were made of the baker and his staff for gay wedding cakes.
Now if that isn't a ghastly and Orwellian turn of events, I confess I don't know what is.
Now if that isn't a ghastly and Orwellian turn of events, I confess I don't know what is.
11
Texas removing science from their textbooks is.
9
He broke a law. If he had broken employment law and was required to report quarterly on his progress in keeping proper records and paying his employees what was due to them would you consider that Orwellian?
1
Sounds like the appropriate remedy for a bigot. I suppose you are one of the people who thought the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act by removing the similar monitoring of the localities involved behavior was perfectly fine then?
Bigotry comes from ignorance, education is the solution. :Learning how your harmful behavior hurts your victims seems a proper use of authority to me as does the monitoring.
Bigotry comes from ignorance, education is the solution. :Learning how your harmful behavior hurts your victims seems a proper use of authority to me as does the monitoring.
2
Leviticus 19-20: “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean.
I guess I'll soon be able to keep women out of my restaurant and Trump can keep them off his golf courses and his Cabinet.
I guess I'll soon be able to keep women out of my restaurant and Trump can keep them off his golf courses and his Cabinet.
22
Steve: "... a woman has her menstrual period ..."
As a practical matter, how would you know if a woman is menstruating unless she told you?
As a practical matter, how would you know if a woman is menstruating unless she told you?
So-called "religious liberty" legislation and rulings establish a privileged class of Americans - religious people - who get to disobey laws they don't like, via a conversation-ending "because God (or my priest) (or my rabbi) (or my imam) says so." This recourse is completely unavailable to atheists, or for that matter to any Americans who don't adhere to one of the recognized religions. It therefore privileges religion over non-religion, and recognized religions over bodies of supernatural belief that someone came up with earlier that day. Lots of people might have lots of reasons for discriminating against LGBT Americans. Why should someone be allowed to discriminate because he believes Christianity, Judaism or Islam requires it, when a different someone isn't allowed to discriminate because he just doesn't like gay people, or who's been bitter ever since his wife left him for another woman, or who's simply a jerk? All these (garbage) reasons for discriminating may be just as deeply held as a theist's belief in the inviolability of whatever medieval or Iron Age practices his parents taught him.
14
This is not about religious freedom. This is about religious bigotry, pure and simple
16
Can an unwed woman be refused medical treatment?
Can a unfaithful married person be refused employment?
Can children bored out of wedlock or in second "marriages" be refused education?
.....................................................................................Etc.
Can a unfaithful married person be refused employment?
Can children bored out of wedlock or in second "marriages" be refused education?
.....................................................................................Etc.
12
No, yes, and no. Those are the laws. look it up kiddo.
This is not about the religious freedom of the baker. The baker already has the freedom to worship whatever way he wants. Gay people aren't stopping him from going to Church. Neither are they refusing to serve him because he believes his religion forbids homosexual relations. So why should he be allowed to discriminate against them? And then whats stopping him from discriminating against Hispanics, Jews or disabled people for that matter?
12
The real story here has little to do with the inane "culture wars." Instead, this is a parable about a once-proud nation gone lawyer-mad. The ghosts of Valley Forge, Gettysburg, and Normandy would view lawsuits over gay wedding cakes and the transgender bathroom panic with absolute contempt. As Beijing overtakes us, the Chinese must be thinking "those foolish Americans have become so fat they can't even breathe."
3
Ms. Troglodite, I am not sure whether they would be more upset about the lawsuits, or more upset about the fact that so many so-called patriots are so deeply involved in other peoples' sex lives. I would have thought they would have expected us to have made more progress by now.
4
I would have told him it was for me and my bride and then picked up a couple of little plastic grooms at Walmart. But, I once walked into an unfamiliar bar which was clearly a lesbian bar and it was clear my male presence was unwanted. Ok, I left, and have no problem with that. I think that if people want to hang out with birds of a feather and exclude others, fine. Go for it. Have your own club. Doesn't everyone feel like that sometimes? Why is it necessary to jump down some guy's throat because he doesn't want to put two grooms on your wedding cake?
23
You are making a false equivalence. Other customers at the lesbian bar might have looked at you askance. The owners did not eject you. Nor did the employees refuse to serve you a drink.
12
As a member of the hetero-normative society, you have many choices for comfortable places. While you may feel you are unwelcome in a lesbian bar, I'm
pretty sure, no matter how out of place you may look and feel--no one would refuse to serve you. It is even more unlikely that your life would be in danger. This is shockingly untrue for many gays in this country.
Yes, people like to hang with their own. This isn't the issue--the issue is when public businesses refuse to serve those they are fundamentally dislike.
pretty sure, no matter how out of place you may look and feel--no one would refuse to serve you. It is even more unlikely that your life would be in danger. This is shockingly untrue for many gays in this country.
Yes, people like to hang with their own. This isn't the issue--the issue is when public businesses refuse to serve those they are fundamentally dislike.
3
Because left wing nuts are no different than right wing nuts in wanting to tell people how they should live their lives. There are authoritarians on both sides of the isle.
1
This should have never gotten this far; at some level it is very embarrassing that we are having a melt-down over a wedding cake. There are more important issues SCOTUS needs to address. This indicative of a real crisis when our society is trying to make dessert an “either-or” decision. It's even a bigger problem for Democrats across the country to try to defend it. It plays perfectly into the narrative that liberals are pompous fanatics. And at a certain level they are; they continue to alienate voters & are unwilling to compromise. I have working class friends who live in the swing states HRC lost in 2016. To them, the far left is trigger warnings, safe spaces, vile college protests & obnoxious academics who posture as their will on earth. They despise & hate these people to their very core...they always have & always will. Now we we have to add gay cakes to the list. Strategically & tactically this is a terrible mistake for the LBGTQ community to fight this hard, on this...right now. It's over-kill. The baker should have been given a small fine & everyone could have moved on. The couple got their cake from another baker....good for them. Life goes on...we shouldn't be literally making a Federal case out of this...cakes should not be on anyone's top ten list of problems we need to solve. I promise you down the road this is going to back-fire big time. To me, a moderate Democrat, this proves how totally out of touch the DNC is with the voters we are trying to court.
8
I understand your thinking Ed but I think you and many others miss the point. The couple sued because they experienced discrimination for who they were. It's not about a cake.
They are NOT looking at this from a "let's-get-Democrats-elected" standpoint. Rather, this is PERSONAL, and they feel they must take a stand.
Perhaps you have never experienced this type of treatment?
People can no more control who they are attracted to than they can control the color of their skin at birth. Any community college course in human sexuality will demonstrate this, but then, so-called Christians probably don't like those classes.
So we should trivialize the issues facing the LGBTQ community in order to "court" ignorant bigoted Trump voters?
Wouldn't it be more effective for Dems to create jobs and training for them instead, and bring them along into the 21st century regarding their fellow human beings?
They are NOT looking at this from a "let's-get-Democrats-elected" standpoint. Rather, this is PERSONAL, and they feel they must take a stand.
Perhaps you have never experienced this type of treatment?
People can no more control who they are attracted to than they can control the color of their skin at birth. Any community college course in human sexuality will demonstrate this, but then, so-called Christians probably don't like those classes.
So we should trivialize the issues facing the LGBTQ community in order to "court" ignorant bigoted Trump voters?
Wouldn't it be more effective for Dems to create jobs and training for them instead, and bring them along into the 21st century regarding their fellow human beings?
2
And this proves exactly how out of touch moderate Democrats are with those of us who are minorities. If a black couple were refused a meal at a restaurant, you'd never want to just get on with it. It's more than a cake, believe me.
9
I am not trivializing the issues facing the LGBTQ community....my niece is gay ...I believe I'm well aware of them. There are certainly more important issues facing this community. I understand that they were personally offended and that's unfortunate. Im simply saying this particular issue should not be before the Supreme Court. The baker calls himself“cake artist” who will “not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching.” he has refused to make cakes to celebrate Halloween or create baked goods that have an “anti-American or anti-family themes” or carry profane messages. Obviously, he is a tad quirky....my advice don't shop here. ....there are many other options. This is not a Federal or National issue....a small fine and let's move on. I agree with you 100 percent Dems should be focused on creating jobs and training for all working class voters. Anything that distracts from that powerful idea blurs our message. We need to really focus on what's important if we expect to win the elections we need to in the future.
1
If Mr. Phillips can refuse to make cakes for LGBTQ couples, then does that mean we are entitled to refuse shelter to bigots/ Republicans/ right-wing radio listeners/ fundamentalist Christians in our family's rental properties? I'm sure we can find a religious exemption somewhere.
12
The "Mrs. Murphy" exception was written into Federal fair housing law to allow precisely that refusal for small landlords.
1
You are right there are exceptions but they only apply IF the landlord is dwelling in the same apartment or if they live in a apartment within a building with 4 or fewer rental units. So it's not for landlords with merely small buildings, they have to live there. Similar exemptions apply for roommates: i.e. a woman advertising a shared apartment can say they don't want a male roommate but we as landlords cannot refuse to rent to males.
2
Another point. (This man's position is so wrong on so many levels)
He reserves the right to deny service to citizens - the public he is "open to" who pay taxes and help pay for the roads and parking spaces and ticket patrols of those spaces outside his business, for the fire department that comes if his ovens catch fire, for the police that respond if he has a guy with a gun to his head, for the city government that promotes the town and business and tourism, and the citizens that pay local sales taxes and property taxes that keep his town and schools going and population vital so they can buy his product - no exception for these responsibilities for same sex employees and property owners.
But he just singles them out for lesser services.
Equal responsibilities, but lesser rights. Stand before your maker and explain that one - the shunned were some of Jesus's favorite people - the only ones he hated were the rich money changers in the temple - who lead to his death as I recall.
But I'm no Biblical scholar like Jack and don't pretend to know what Jesus would want. I think love and acceptance were big in his New Testament vocabulary.
He reserves the right to deny service to citizens - the public he is "open to" who pay taxes and help pay for the roads and parking spaces and ticket patrols of those spaces outside his business, for the fire department that comes if his ovens catch fire, for the police that respond if he has a guy with a gun to his head, for the city government that promotes the town and business and tourism, and the citizens that pay local sales taxes and property taxes that keep his town and schools going and population vital so they can buy his product - no exception for these responsibilities for same sex employees and property owners.
But he just singles them out for lesser services.
Equal responsibilities, but lesser rights. Stand before your maker and explain that one - the shunned were some of Jesus's favorite people - the only ones he hated were the rich money changers in the temple - who lead to his death as I recall.
But I'm no Biblical scholar like Jack and don't pretend to know what Jesus would want. I think love and acceptance were big in his New Testament vocabulary.
15
This is clearly an equal protection issue, plain and simple.
"Religious" bigots have always used their "faith" and mythical "scripture" to justify slavery, interracial relationships and marriages, racial integration of public institutions and the list goes on. Now it's Queer folks turn to face the lash of the conservative radical religious-right. Anita Bryant was wrong, Jerry Falwell was wrong and the artisinal cake maker is wrong.
Should we roll back all discrimination laws and policies in this country? Who are the real "protected class"?
The ever broadening Authoritarian bent of this administration, trickling down to state legislatures across the country open the door for this kind of rhetoric, and also give violent extremists a voice, quietly sanctioned by their suit and tie clad leaders.
Cherry-picking from their scripture as to what is prohibited "in God's eyes" and what to churn into a culture war in this country to highlight their animosity toward a segment of society reminds me of the selective enforcement of archaic sodomy and solicitation laws, now deemed unconstitutional.
Those merely voting to protect their wealth are complicit in the growth of this and all the other tentacles that accompany the current presidential administration- the wave of nationalism, white supremacy, and radical christian terrorism, not to mention the demonization of the press and academia. Anyone who stands quiet and watches these events unfold should hang their head in shame.
"Religious" bigots have always used their "faith" and mythical "scripture" to justify slavery, interracial relationships and marriages, racial integration of public institutions and the list goes on. Now it's Queer folks turn to face the lash of the conservative radical religious-right. Anita Bryant was wrong, Jerry Falwell was wrong and the artisinal cake maker is wrong.
Should we roll back all discrimination laws and policies in this country? Who are the real "protected class"?
The ever broadening Authoritarian bent of this administration, trickling down to state legislatures across the country open the door for this kind of rhetoric, and also give violent extremists a voice, quietly sanctioned by their suit and tie clad leaders.
Cherry-picking from their scripture as to what is prohibited "in God's eyes" and what to churn into a culture war in this country to highlight their animosity toward a segment of society reminds me of the selective enforcement of archaic sodomy and solicitation laws, now deemed unconstitutional.
Those merely voting to protect their wealth are complicit in the growth of this and all the other tentacles that accompany the current presidential administration- the wave of nationalism, white supremacy, and radical christian terrorism, not to mention the demonization of the press and academia. Anyone who stands quiet and watches these events unfold should hang their head in shame.
21
Not "always" in the sense of how these arguments seem to get so much traction for the last few decades. The legal use of "faith" came to be during the reagan admin. It started working after he had appointed enough judges to rule in the predetermined ways they do. I remember the report I forget the details but the tilt began when one of his judges said from the bench something like "I don't need to know the facts I know better."
Exactly. Discrimination is discrimination. The law is clear - a business can't refuse to serve a customer because of their race or religion, even though there are religions in this country that believe Americans of African descent are evil.
There are two sides of the coin Separation of Church and State.
Religious freedom gives a church the right to not marry same sex couples, just as the Catholic Church denies baptism to spouses of divorced members of the Church.
The flip side of the coin guarantees that our country is ruled by We the People using the Constitution as our litmus test of right and wrong, and not ruled by religious doctrine that does not come under public scrutiny or democratic process.
We have to take back the definition of religious freedom from the rightwing in this country, starting by reversing the Hyde amendment.
Rather than exempting a private church owned hospital from performing abortions, they should be required to if the abortion is paid by Medicaid and Obamacare. A woman has the right to an abortion, a constitutional right. Start funding women's clinics that perform abortions and other healthcare services again, and women will have the choice of where to go, instead of a church related hospital.
That public funds cannot pay for a legitimate healthcare procedure that protected by the constitution calls, is giving religious organizations more political power than the Constitution of the US. That, is the opposite of religious freedom.
There are two sides of the coin Separation of Church and State.
Religious freedom gives a church the right to not marry same sex couples, just as the Catholic Church denies baptism to spouses of divorced members of the Church.
The flip side of the coin guarantees that our country is ruled by We the People using the Constitution as our litmus test of right and wrong, and not ruled by religious doctrine that does not come under public scrutiny or democratic process.
We have to take back the definition of religious freedom from the rightwing in this country, starting by reversing the Hyde amendment.
Rather than exempting a private church owned hospital from performing abortions, they should be required to if the abortion is paid by Medicaid and Obamacare. A woman has the right to an abortion, a constitutional right. Start funding women's clinics that perform abortions and other healthcare services again, and women will have the choice of where to go, instead of a church related hospital.
That public funds cannot pay for a legitimate healthcare procedure that protected by the constitution calls, is giving religious organizations more political power than the Constitution of the US. That, is the opposite of religious freedom.
2
This a case where I'm glad I don't sit on the Supreme Court. Should the black owner of a T-shirt shop be required to print a shirt with a confederate flag on it? Should a Jewish deli be required to sell pork to it's Christian clients? Should a Muslim Imam be required to perform a gay wedding? Where does it end. Heck, back in January, there was a big to-do because some of the Radio City Rockets didn't want to perform at Trump's inauguration. Whatever the court decides, I think the decision will have profound consequences.
35
None of those questions is even remotely related to this case.
1
Thank goodness for one sensible voice made public here.
Jewish delis don't stock pork. They don't sell it it to anyone. And non-kosher butchers don't sell kosher meat - to Jews or non-Jews. No one is suggesting that anyone be forced to sell (or serve) anything, only that if they do sell a product or service they not discriminate to whom they sell it or whom they serve.
1
That's doesn't seem to embody "Christian values"
9
In 1988 my girlfriend and I were looking for apartments. We were turned down for one because the landlord did not believe in couples "living in sin". We didn't make a federal case out of it, we simply found another place to live.
7
Your argument presents two problems. The first is that in some cases there may not be another place to "move along" to. What if a gay couple lives in a small town and there is only one bakery that makes wedding cakes--should they be forced to forgo a cake--or make one from a Betty Crocker box for their celebration? That hardly seems fair.
The second problem is related to a person or a couple choice for a product they'd like to purchase. What if the landlord in your town offered the only livable apartments in the town in which you wanted to live. How does one "move on?" if no other
Comparable apartments are available?
If a baker--or a landlord--chooses to make cakes--or offers apartments--for the public, then he or she cannot simply choose a portion of the public they'd prefer to serve. In my opinion, this is not only a bad business position, it is unconstitutional as well. If the baker wants to make cakes only for people they agree with whole heartedly, then perhaps they should stay home bake in their home kitchen instead.
The second problem is related to a person or a couple choice for a product they'd like to purchase. What if the landlord in your town offered the only livable apartments in the town in which you wanted to live. How does one "move on?" if no other
Comparable apartments are available?
If a baker--or a landlord--chooses to make cakes--or offers apartments--for the public, then he or she cannot simply choose a portion of the public they'd prefer to serve. In my opinion, this is not only a bad business position, it is unconstitutional as well. If the baker wants to make cakes only for people they agree with whole heartedly, then perhaps they should stay home bake in their home kitchen instead.
3
I was turned away from housing for being gay and didn't make a fuss. I feel like such an idiot, because now I realize I didn't make a fuss for every LGBTQ person out there by not standing up for myself.
1
You and your girlfriend, and those "living in sin", don't have legal standing as a protected class, so in no way are the two situations comparable.
The law of the land is what the supreme court says it is.
Hence, if the supreme court will allow a baker to refuse service to a gay couple, fine. I wouldn't dare question the Supreme Court's decision.
I hope and pray that the same court will require all businesses to make public - in bring blinking neon - their policy about whom they intend to serve, and to whom they intend to deny service. Intents of the service providers, like ingredients and calorie counts of products, deserve to be stated upfront.
I couldn't care less about their reasons; all I want is the ability to make an informed choice about where I spend my money.
Kalidan
Hence, if the supreme court will allow a baker to refuse service to a gay couple, fine. I wouldn't dare question the Supreme Court's decision.
I hope and pray that the same court will require all businesses to make public - in bring blinking neon - their policy about whom they intend to serve, and to whom they intend to deny service. Intents of the service providers, like ingredients and calorie counts of products, deserve to be stated upfront.
I couldn't care less about their reasons; all I want is the ability to make an informed choice about where I spend my money.
Kalidan
15
To label a corporation or business as "religious" is fundamentally profane.
Businesses exist to make money. They are non-human, legally-defined entities operating in public marketplaces. We create and terminate businesses (that's not murder) with a stroke of the pen. Our nation's founders did not grant documents of incorporation with the rights worship as they please.
If as a business owner, you don't want to participate in the public marketplace for religious reasons, then end your business activities.
Businesses exist to make money. They are non-human, legally-defined entities operating in public marketplaces. We create and terminate businesses (that's not murder) with a stroke of the pen. Our nation's founders did not grant documents of incorporation with the rights worship as they please.
If as a business owner, you don't want to participate in the public marketplace for religious reasons, then end your business activities.
27
I thought corporations were considered people now.
I wish we didn't have to see these sorts of cases go to the Supreme Court. I just want to see him (the baker) go out of business and be done with it. Then maybe when he's on an unemployment line he'll figure things out.
Why would anybody want a cake made by this guy now?
Why would anybody want a cake made by this guy now?
13
Opening up a new business: Art of the Cake. Only serving the LGBTQ community.
8
Those businesses already exist. Try booking a B&B in Provincetown MA if you're not gay.
This will be interesting, as the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way. A number of old religions consider homosexual behavior a sin. So is lying, not respecting the Sabbath, not respecting your parents, not respecting the name of God, or committing adultery on your spouse.
Just because it is a sin does not make it a crime.
This will be an interesting case. Note that the cakemaker is not refusing to bake cakes for LBGT people, he is refusing to put their message on the cake he is being paid to produce because it is at odds with his religious beliefs. Absent the message, he is happy to bake the cake. With the message, well, there are others who are happy to take the business.
At some point lawyers are going to have religious leaders read texts over two thousand years old, then read the two hundred and fifty year old Constitution, and then ask judges to justify using conventional social norms to turn overs thousands of years of doctrine.
Standing by.
Just because it is a sin does not make it a crime.
This will be an interesting case. Note that the cakemaker is not refusing to bake cakes for LBGT people, he is refusing to put their message on the cake he is being paid to produce because it is at odds with his religious beliefs. Absent the message, he is happy to bake the cake. With the message, well, there are others who are happy to take the business.
At some point lawyers are going to have religious leaders read texts over two thousand years old, then read the two hundred and fifty year old Constitution, and then ask judges to justify using conventional social norms to turn overs thousands of years of doctrine.
Standing by.
4
This baker could put a sign in his window, and a notice on all his advertising that his business is not a 'public' business, that he is not open to the public, and will not take commissions or orders from any who are not 'Christian'. Plenty of businesses operate this way, private schools being the first I can think of.
14
Sexual orientation is not a protected class, but Creed IS. I recommend to those seeking equality for this class that they should seek to legally establish sexual orientation as a Creed. Then you're good!!
2
Completely wrong on the law here. Sexual orientation IS a protected class. Creed is not. That is why the case is here. Many state courts have ruled that businesses can discriminate against someone because of his religion. Colorado specifically ruled that an Islamic bakery was allowed to NOT bake a cake for a customer who wanted to put anti-Quran verses on it.
5
Actually, Cary is right. Sexual orientation is not a protected class.
2
Personally I think that if the Court allows this man to refuse service it sets a horrible example of allowing people who truly do not fully understand their religious philosophies to grow spiritually. To many are making religion a shield against their ignorance and bias based on untruths taught throughout the ages by religions that that used mankind's fears as a way to brainwash them into foolish beliefs about God and the sages and mystics of the Holy Books.
If you have a business that serves the public, you have to serve all of them. You don't have to like gay people or be friends with them, but you have to serve them just like everyone else.
21
I think many of the commenters have missed this line of the article: "In a Supreme Court brief, Mr. Phillips’s lawyers said “he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.”
He's not refusing to serve gays and lesbians. He's refusing to make a gay wedding cake. It's the gay wedding, as an event he doesn't approve of, not the gay people per se. Everyone is saying he's refusing to serve gays and lesbians, but that's not quite what's happening here. He didn't want to participate in the wedding, an event he categorically opposes. As a lesbian, and an athiest, I wouldn't do business with the fellow, but I think it's important to note it's not that he's refusing to "serve" them, he's defining what types of events he wants to participate in.
He's not refusing to serve gays and lesbians. He's refusing to make a gay wedding cake. It's the gay wedding, as an event he doesn't approve of, not the gay people per se. Everyone is saying he's refusing to serve gays and lesbians, but that's not quite what's happening here. He didn't want to participate in the wedding, an event he categorically opposes. As a lesbian, and an athiest, I wouldn't do business with the fellow, but I think it's important to note it's not that he's refusing to "serve" them, he's defining what types of events he wants to participate in.
11
Spin and twist yourself into whatever knots you like it is still discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the men. The perversity of being willing to make anything but a cake used at a wedding only serves to prove the bigotry and discriminatory intent.
11
Dearest Jill,
What is a gay cake? The idea of labeling food as gay or straight only serves to illustrate the ridiculous nature of this entire debate.
Your defense of his actions lasts about three seconds when you consider the complexity of the issue and the singularly discriminatory nature of his objections. What if someone at a "straight" wedding is obese and consumes four pieces of wedding cake? Does this cake maker have the right to interrupt the reception and snatch his "artistic" creation from the celebration, based on his interpretation of scripture? From whom we purchase our baked goods for whatever celebratory reason may seem trivial but the implications regarding refusal of service by a business that serves the public, especially as they relate to basic constitutional rights, are broad and extend to the very nature of our Constitution and the core structure of our Republic.
Pete (Proud and Queer since birth) in Atlanta GA.
What is a gay cake? The idea of labeling food as gay or straight only serves to illustrate the ridiculous nature of this entire debate.
Your defense of his actions lasts about three seconds when you consider the complexity of the issue and the singularly discriminatory nature of his objections. What if someone at a "straight" wedding is obese and consumes four pieces of wedding cake? Does this cake maker have the right to interrupt the reception and snatch his "artistic" creation from the celebration, based on his interpretation of scripture? From whom we purchase our baked goods for whatever celebratory reason may seem trivial but the implications regarding refusal of service by a business that serves the public, especially as they relate to basic constitutional rights, are broad and extend to the very nature of our Constitution and the core structure of our Republic.
Pete (Proud and Queer since birth) in Atlanta GA.
3
"Participate" is not quite the right word. Also, he says he would make other cakes for gays and lesbians, but that is probably because in other cases he has no way to tell that they're gay.
Jesus Christ spoke of love and acceptance. Furthermore, Mr. Phillips claim that he is participating in this act of love by being hired to perform a service is ridiculous. He opened a business to trade his goods and services for money.
9
The baker is discriminating plain and simple. He and his religious peers who claim these views must be called out. We must come to see these views as discrimination. This is not just about cake. It is about our court standing up for a now protected minority. I'm sorry, Mr. Baker, but you cannot use your prejudiced religious views to discriminate. Not for much longer. For far too longer religion has been allowed to oppress minority groups. True, you can turn away people without shirts, shoes or even strollers but you cannot refuse to serve minority groups - ie based on their ethnic or sexual identity. It is not religion it is DISCRIMINATION. As was turning away African Americans customers.
11
You know what? When we all calm down, maybe we can see that these little piddly, storefront, shoestring-budget, indie businesses are TARGETED and BULLIED and BAITED. If you think that the plaintiffs here really are that worried about some stinky little cake or cardboard box pizza at a wedding, I'll sell you a bridge in Brooklyn. These little businesses are targeted. Some of these businesses have been fined up to $150,000, which is ridiculous given the probable financial bracket of these businesses. It's truly unjust and scary. I don't see how our courts can support such blatant bullying and baiting.
7
And some of these small businesses are goaded on and supported by right wing hate groups as well. Don't make it sound like they don't have someone backing their legal bills. Two can play at this game.
11
Mr. Leimweber,
These are known as "test cases". Without such cases these issues may never make their way to our higher courts to be interpreted by our esteemed judges. Discrimination by a public business provider against a singular segment of society must be challenged under the equal protection clause and must prevail or we shall all fall into the violet tribalistic nature that we see portrayed in other nations. I have no wish to live in a theocracy and I hope that you do not.
These are known as "test cases". Without such cases these issues may never make their way to our higher courts to be interpreted by our esteemed judges. Discrimination by a public business provider against a singular segment of society must be challenged under the equal protection clause and must prevail or we shall all fall into the violet tribalistic nature that we see portrayed in other nations. I have no wish to live in a theocracy and I hope that you do not.
3
In other words, it's important to TARGET, BAIT and BULLY such businesses. I think that's what you mean by saying that we need 'test cases.' That way we can smoke them out and crush them. I believe that' what you were saying, in so many words. You aren't disagreeing with me at all. You are just defending TARGETING, BAITING and BULLYING. That's all. You think it's necessary, and even good. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm annoyed by the smug lawyer who says that the couple should just go get a free "rainbow cake," No different than saying a black couple should go to a different restaurant to get chicken and watermelon. Let's admit it, this "cake artist" and his council are vile people.
15
Patrokoos, it is very different. If you do not have the intellectual acumen to distinguish between these, you're in the same boast as the baker
1
Counsel.
Why did the cognoscenti who read this newspaper who wouldn't sing for Donald Trump's inauguration, make a dress for his wife, or report the news get lionized as "resistance" but the butcher, the baker, and the picture taker who opposes homosexual marriage excoriated. Double standards aimed at advancing social approval rammed down America's throat by Tony Kennedy and four other unelected solons.
7
Legally, Trump -- or any person having a presidential inauguration -- is not similarly situated to gay consumers seeking public accommodations.
Furthermore, Trump has a bad reputation -- he very often either doesn’t pay the people he hires or he finds reasons to bully the people he hires out of their agreed-to fee, dramatically reducing it.
Furthermore, Trump has a bad reputation -- he very often either doesn’t pay the people he hires or he finds reasons to bully the people he hires out of their agreed-to fee, dramatically reducing it.
3
Not remotely comparable and anyone who would think so lacks basic judgment.
1
The baker is taking part in a ceremony with religious implications it is said.
Was the baker invited?
If the "Christians" don't believe that a wedding can take place between same sex couples how can there be a ceremony with religious implications? Since it's not a wedding in their eyes it's just a fancy party of people therefore the cake isn't being used for a wedding by definition.
Was the baker invited?
If the "Christians" don't believe that a wedding can take place between same sex couples how can there be a ceremony with religious implications? Since it's not a wedding in their eyes it's just a fancy party of people therefore the cake isn't being used for a wedding by definition.
2
Let's all refuse service to Christians. It would be economic suicide, but then so also seems the path of righteous consumption, dominion and environmental ignorance. Personally, I have precious little to lose and will now redouble my efforts to exclude and marginalize all the superstitious sheep who happen my way.
3
I started to salute that idea, then I remembered that some Christians are actually decent people. It will be hard to know the difference.
But Robin, that's exactly the point of discrimination. We aren't judging people as individuals or by what they do but rather as a class so I say to Tony, refuse away! and maybe a point will be made.
Myself personally, I think we should start a church with one of its tenets being that we won't serve bakers named Jack Philips from Colorado. Then we can all claim a religious exemption when we refuse to serve him.
Myself personally, I think we should start a church with one of its tenets being that we won't serve bakers named Jack Philips from Colorado. Then we can all claim a religious exemption when we refuse to serve him.
1
Businesses should not be free to discriminate. They are engaged in commerce under the auspices of state and federal regulation. To allow discrimination against Mullins and Cortman because they're gay and homosexuality offends Mr. Phillips' "Christian" views, would work then to validate discrimination against Jews, Muslims, unbelievers and various others of differing beliefs. It would also allow discrimination against people of color, as one cannot choose their sexual orientation anymore one than choose the race of their parents.
Mr. Phillips' brand of Christianity is one that Jesus Christ himself would not recognize. In fact, Christ likely drive the likes of those who judge in such ways right out of the temple - as he did.
Mr. Phillips' brand of Christianity is one that Jesus Christ himself would not recognize. In fact, Christ likely drive the likes of those who judge in such ways right out of the temple - as he did.
9
You do not have a legal right to be a baker unless you comply with all the laws and regulations including non-discrimination laws. If you can't comply with the law then get out of business. It's exactly the same as denying lodging or any service to African-Americans. You have a right to your deplorable views but you do not have right to put them into practice in the marketplace.
8
Businesses that wish to decline to serve gay couples for religious, or any reason should be required to prominently advertise this fact. I wonder how many such businesses would continue to insist on their 'religious freedom' once they realized how many straight people consequently chose not to give them their business.
Isn't baking a wedding cake, setting it up on site, participation in a ceremony? Then, it would seem coercive to require someone to perform against their conscience, no?
5
Baking a wedding cake is no more participating in a wedding ceremony as making a bed for a gay couple is participating in gay sex. As someone being paid, you are simply providing something for whomever had ordered it. How they choose to use it is never within the purview of the provider. Just ask a gun shop owner. That's why refusing to bake a cake on the grounds of how it is to be used is so absurd.
2
So would "a requirement" to marry a biracial couple. Should we strike down that law too? There is no right to discriminate in this country. Period.
2
No. It's just another vendor.
Aaah, wonderful America! Land of the free, home of . . . you can't do this, you can't do that, you must do this, you . . .
Where human beings are concerned, an ideal can only be realized in utopian fiction. Swedes, Danish, Dutch, Icelanders, Swedes, Swiss, Ecuadorians and Uruguayans have the genes to live in a peaceful community. Americans do not.
Although some individual Americans have large, generous, healthy hearts, as a country, idealism is impossible. As in confrontational American law -- two sides, each dedicated to destroy the other -- America believes there must be a winner and a loser. Pretty primitive, uh?
The case of the gay couple's wedding cake and the baker is simple: The (civilized) baker could have politely pled "discomfort" in going against his beliefs and fears. The (civilized) gay couple could have said, "Sure, no problem, we understand," and gone to another baker.
But no, the "American" morals play must go on, and all players, most lacking wisdom, think it's necessary.
Where human beings are concerned, an ideal can only be realized in utopian fiction. Swedes, Danish, Dutch, Icelanders, Swedes, Swiss, Ecuadorians and Uruguayans have the genes to live in a peaceful community. Americans do not.
Although some individual Americans have large, generous, healthy hearts, as a country, idealism is impossible. As in confrontational American law -- two sides, each dedicated to destroy the other -- America believes there must be a winner and a loser. Pretty primitive, uh?
The case of the gay couple's wedding cake and the baker is simple: The (civilized) baker could have politely pled "discomfort" in going against his beliefs and fears. The (civilized) gay couple could have said, "Sure, no problem, we understand," and gone to another baker.
But no, the "American" morals play must go on, and all players, most lacking wisdom, think it's necessary.
2
You do not understand America or the system. You are projecting your own character flaws onto an entire country and openly express bigotry of which you seem to be entirely unaware.
The solution you present is not civilized at all as you very well know, it is only an excuse to avoid having to open ones mind and change for the better.
The solution you present is not civilized at all as you very well know, it is only an excuse to avoid having to open ones mind and change for the better.
5
Yeah, and you're writing from South America, which itself has a long history of discrimination against people who are not White or of White backgrounds. At least we are trying to do something here in the US.
2
You have to be a pretty awful businessman if you go out of your way to refuse paying customers. If you are to proud and so hateful that you want to refuse paying customers to do business then that is up top them. Though they can have a much bigger backlash than they realize and that is up to the people if they want to support this business. I don't see how this does not get thrown out of court for just being a waste of everyone's time.
All "faithful people are buffet believers. This fact is the unifying human factor of all religion. This is true regardless of their being an authority that issues "correct" interpretations and enforces same or not.
That unifying fact about all religion is also the single greatest proof that religion is an invention of man as are the gods whom preside over the various faiths.
From the West Wing (look it up)
POTUS:Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you are here. I am interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here’s one that is really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions would you?
That unifying fact about all religion is also the single greatest proof that religion is an invention of man as are the gods whom preside over the various faiths.
From the West Wing (look it up)
POTUS:Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you are here. I am interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it OK to call the police? Here’s one that is really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions would you?
4
Amusing, but flawed in every way as far as the new covenant is concerned. Gentile believers were exempted from mosaic law. You are still free to discuss this with Jared Kushner (without disparaging that covenant, however).
The other universal fact about all Faiths is that the adherents assert that the dogma is direct from god and true for all of eternity even when it changes.
look it up, you don't seem to get the context and seem to be unfamiliar with either faith.
I have a solution. If you're in the business of selling cakes to the public, and a gay couple comes to you asking for a wedding cake and you don't want to make it for them, it is incumbent on YOU -- NOT THEM -- to find an alternative provider. You must charge them what your price would have been for the same complexity of design, and you must not let on that you used a subcontractor. But, you don't have to actually do the work yourself, unless you can't find anyone else to do it.
2
I am reminded of the sign at southern lunch counters: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." We'll see how this plays out, and it is a toughie.
5
Except that there is no "right" to reserve. Putting up a sign doesn't mean diddly.
1
Not really a "toughie." We own rental properties and we discriminate regularly.....based on income, credit checks, criminal history, smoking, etc. and it is allowed legally. Where we are not allowed to discriminate is based on the federal laws concerning protected classes...e.g. ethnicity, religion, disabled status, children, etc.
Similar rules apply to restaurants (and bakeries). They can throw you out or refuse service if you don't pay, come in naked, are disruptive, start a fistfight etc. Dashing and dining proponents, naked people, drunk customers, etc. are not a protected class but women, elderly folks, handicapped people, Asian-Americans, etc. are.
Most people don't seem to understand the federal law around businesses and discrimination.
Similar rules apply to restaurants (and bakeries). They can throw you out or refuse service if you don't pay, come in naked, are disruptive, start a fistfight etc. Dashing and dining proponents, naked people, drunk customers, etc. are not a protected class but women, elderly folks, handicapped people, Asian-Americans, etc. are.
Most people don't seem to understand the federal law around businesses and discrimination.
America should keep its eye on the ball- whoever is financing these religious war cases, including the religious school playground case and the hobby lobby case has it's eye on a bigger prize, the ultimate destruction one the all important separation of church and state.
11
Could he use mixed race marriages as a reason to not make a cake?
How about blacks in general? or Jews? (they don't follow the teachings of Christ)
I find his argument that he has to "retrain" his staff to make a homosexual wedding cake ridiculous. But there again, if he didn't want to make my cake I would just take my money and find someone who did. Why would I force someone to make me something I was going to eat? Think about it.....!!
How about blacks in general? or Jews? (they don't follow the teachings of Christ)
I find his argument that he has to "retrain" his staff to make a homosexual wedding cake ridiculous. But there again, if he didn't want to make my cake I would just take my money and find someone who did. Why would I force someone to make me something I was going to eat? Think about it.....!!
6
When the history of the decline of the US is written it will be widely appreciated that it was the proximal cause of the implacable intolerance and prejudices of the religious right which insists that its sensibilities be allowed to extend into the most personal spaces of our lives and throughout our commerce. The rank hypocrisy of this thinking is nothing more than the thinly veiled hatred of anyone different and the hysteria that the arithmetic of demographics cannot be resisted. The anger married to the ignorance of this type of thinking is what prevents us from facing actual real problems in the world---climate change, health care, job loss, inequality, resource depletion. The religious intolerance is simply a front for their prejudices, biases and intolerances. Do we really want pharmacists, police officers, crossing guards, cashiers, hotel clerks and all the rest serving their own idiosyncratic beliefs at the expense of others ? Are we ready for moral litmus tests prior to any commercial transactions ? Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose----your right to practice your religion stops in the secular world of commerce.
11
From my observations, you are not altogether wrong in your analysis. However, it is a more general problem than one of religion, unless you also include humanism, mefirstism, and, of course, AmericaFirstism as religions. When we all stand on our own rights, then we are all in danger. Sadly, many American Christians simply have a thin veneer of Christianity, and do not really care what Christ commanded us to do. If they did then they would currently be busy in mourning for their own sins. This would bring a true transformation in America, not this stupid struggle at the ballot box and in the courts.
1
Ironically, a Google search for the words of Jesus on homosexuality and same sex marriage turns up - nothing.
Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Nothing like it ever passed his lips.
Money changers were a different matter -and lead directly to his death.
What source is Jack tapped into? Give me the words from the "New Testament", from the man, that gives Jack the confidence to interpret the words of Jesus as being the inspiration for his refusal to make a cake for these two loving people. Surely you have a quote, a scripture from the man whose words are gospel to justify his Biblically based.
Can he not even bring any Bible based quotes or words from his Jesus to support his already unconstitutional argument?
Any Supreme Court Justice who votes in favor of a religious belief taking precedence over a Constitutional foundation does not have the legal or intellectual chops to hold the position.
Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Nothing like it ever passed his lips.
Money changers were a different matter -and lead directly to his death.
What source is Jack tapped into? Give me the words from the "New Testament", from the man, that gives Jack the confidence to interpret the words of Jesus as being the inspiration for his refusal to make a cake for these two loving people. Surely you have a quote, a scripture from the man whose words are gospel to justify his Biblically based.
Can he not even bring any Bible based quotes or words from his Jesus to support his already unconstitutional argument?
Any Supreme Court Justice who votes in favor of a religious belief taking precedence over a Constitutional foundation does not have the legal or intellectual chops to hold the position.
8
If Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, doesn't that imply that he didn't have any problem with how homosexuals were treated in the society in which he lived? If he had a problem with the status quo, he would have spoken up, just as he did in the case of the moneychangers. I think you just scored an own goal with that one.
1
How far does this go when you begin refusing service based on your religion? It seems that it opens Pandora's box. If you are in business to bake cakes, then bake cakes.
9
The issue to me is simple. Baking a cake is not a religious rite. It is baking a cake.
You should not be able to force a priest or a rabbi to perform a religious ceremony. Baking a cake is not one.
You should not be able to force a priest or a rabbi to perform a religious ceremony. Baking a cake is not one.
10
I am shocked and deeply saddened that the vast majority of the comments here show an absolute and almost willful ignorance of the Constitution, The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all of the body of laws and Supreme Court decisions upon which this country has based its life for almost 250 years.
Assertions such as, "we all discriminate in so many ways, everyone has done it. Why should we persecute this Christian man for upholding his religious liberty...why can't these homosexual people just be gracious and move on to the next baker". I really had to do a double-take. Or comments that suggest the government should stop meddling in the business transactions of its citizens. One can't read the NY Times for years and decades and still be that ignorant. I feel like I went to sleep and woke up in a Stepford type of place. Trump is in the White House, Fox News is the most popular cable TV channel and NY Times readers are arguing in favor of discrimination against a class of people based on 'religious liberty'. Have I lost my mind or has America lost its mind, soul and sense of humor all at the same time? The level of ignorance in America seems to have risen to such an extent that I fear for our future. Perhaps Mr. Liptak and his colleagues need to start some remedial instruction for their audience just to ensure that they have an audience 25 years from now.
Assertions such as, "we all discriminate in so many ways, everyone has done it. Why should we persecute this Christian man for upholding his religious liberty...why can't these homosexual people just be gracious and move on to the next baker". I really had to do a double-take. Or comments that suggest the government should stop meddling in the business transactions of its citizens. One can't read the NY Times for years and decades and still be that ignorant. I feel like I went to sleep and woke up in a Stepford type of place. Trump is in the White House, Fox News is the most popular cable TV channel and NY Times readers are arguing in favor of discrimination against a class of people based on 'religious liberty'. Have I lost my mind or has America lost its mind, soul and sense of humor all at the same time? The level of ignorance in America seems to have risen to such an extent that I fear for our future. Perhaps Mr. Liptak and his colleagues need to start some remedial instruction for their audience just to ensure that they have an audience 25 years from now.
10
The only thing that allows the suit against the cake maker is thew arcane, anachronistic, definition of a "public accommodation" to include "bakeries". The intention was that since bread was a major food item required by all so bakeries could be required to sell to all customers -- or some people would have no bread. A specialized private business is quite possibly exempt from the public accommodation clause. If he classed his business as "private food artist" he could no more be charged than any other artist who turns down a commission, which is what he did in the case in question -- he turned down an offered commission to create a cake. That certainly should be legal under all circumstances - for ANY reason.
4
I am a Hindu. I can give you eggplant parmesan, not veal parmesan. It is against my religion to serve beef, even though eating beef is legal. Get it?
6
No, I don't get it. You choose to not include beef on your menu which is your right to do. You aren't discriminating against anyone (nor is anyone discriminating against you).
The baker offers cakes and chooses to not serve one to a potential client because they are legally married in a way he believes is in contravention to his religious beliefs. He is discriminating.
How would react if you went to that bakery and ordered a cake to celebrate your legal marriage, but he did not approve of the way you were intimate with your spouse because it was "against his religion".
The baker offers cakes and chooses to not serve one to a potential client because they are legally married in a way he believes is in contravention to his religious beliefs. He is discriminating.
How would react if you went to that bakery and ordered a cake to celebrate your legal marriage, but he did not approve of the way you were intimate with your spouse because it was "against his religion".
1
No, you understand the law incorrectly. If you are a restaurant owner who only serves vegetarian dishes, that is fine as omnivores and carnivores are not a protected class (unlike ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation). Also, you are not discriminating against omnivores or carnivores as they can still come to your place and eat vegetarian. You are not discriminating based on a person.
To get back to the bakery analogy, if Phillips did not want to bake wedding cakes for LGBTQ folks, then he needs to stop baking wedding cakes, period. He can't bake cakes and only serve Christians, for example.
BTW, as a Hindu, you should understand that if the SC supports Phillips, it doesn't end there. Businesses could decide that they don't want to serve Hindus since it violates their religious beliefs. Would you be fine with that? What if you are in a rural area or you need a specialized service and the only business providing it decides not to serve Hindus? Religious beliefs are not hard to justify; one can start a church with any type of belief.
True story: back in medical school, my Jewish professor took care of a little girl with a severe chronic rare illness. Her father was a KKK member. The prof was one of the few disease experts in the whole US and didn't refuse to help her -- he was not that type of person -- but what if he had?
It's all fine until you find that your or your loved ones are the ones being discriminated against.
To get back to the bakery analogy, if Phillips did not want to bake wedding cakes for LGBTQ folks, then he needs to stop baking wedding cakes, period. He can't bake cakes and only serve Christians, for example.
BTW, as a Hindu, you should understand that if the SC supports Phillips, it doesn't end there. Businesses could decide that they don't want to serve Hindus since it violates their religious beliefs. Would you be fine with that? What if you are in a rural area or you need a specialized service and the only business providing it decides not to serve Hindus? Religious beliefs are not hard to justify; one can start a church with any type of belief.
True story: back in medical school, my Jewish professor took care of a little girl with a severe chronic rare illness. Her father was a KKK member. The prof was one of the few disease experts in the whole US and didn't refuse to help her -- he was not that type of person -- but what if he had?
It's all fine until you find that your or your loved ones are the ones being discriminated against.
3
Right, but if you served eggplant parmesan to everyone who walked in the door except a gay couple, that's discrimination.
The cake maker doesn't make Halloween cakes, because of his religion as well. He doesn't make them for some people but not others. The issue is whether a wedding cake communicates a religious message, or any kind of message.
The cake maker doesn't make Halloween cakes, because of his religion as well. He doesn't make them for some people but not others. The issue is whether a wedding cake communicates a religious message, or any kind of message.
I'm willing to bet that the wedding cake maker gets to lord it over the gay couple. When has this court ever been sympathetic to anybody trying to argue with "religious" principles?
ummmm, when it issued the gay marriage decision in Obergefell?
Businesses have a right to choose the products they sell, but not the customers they will sell those products to.
7
Then perhaps the question relates to whether a same-sex wedding cake can be a distinct product from the other type. I believe that the couple would have been free to buy a non-custom wedding cake from the baker. Anyway, a challenging case.
1
I was born and raised in the Catholic faith but all sin is equal under the eyes of god. Because of this I feel this mans argument is without merit. How do you know that a man marrying a woman might be his mistress? Adultery is a sin. Lust is a sin. This man is picking and choosing what sin his customers commit that he will not stand for and thus no customer is ACTUALLY creating a conflict in his faith.
Jesus christ said he without sin cast the first stone. You are a false prophet Cake guy; you do not follow the word of god or the spirit of his word.
Jesus christ said he without sin cast the first stone. You are a false prophet Cake guy; you do not follow the word of god or the spirit of his word.
11
Look at the title of this article.
I could not care less what the religious objections (by that I read Christian objections) to same sex marriage may or may not be.
Since when are people of a particular religious belief a "class" to be given special consideration under the laws of the land and the Constitution, other than to be left alone to pursue their varied beliefs in private, without the aide or intrusion of the government?
Since when does the government help one religious sect discriminate against people of other beliefs? Since when can people hide behind religious beliefs to break the law - commit crimes - use violence against their congregants - abuse children - burn crosses - blow up black churches or Muslim synagogues - assassinate political figures - or discriminate against race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age or sexual orientation?
Since when does the Constitution bow to the cross?
Not in my America. Not in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not in the bright shining country on the hill. Not where we are free FROM religion. Not where "open to the public" means just that.
I do not care what any religion objects to my doing. Getting blood transfusions or abortions. Teaching evolution or accurate history. Allowing access to the government by a free press. Loving and marrying whomever I desire. Using the bathroom that fits me.
I am an atheist. Where are my rights to get "believers" off my back.
I could not care less what the religious objections (by that I read Christian objections) to same sex marriage may or may not be.
Since when are people of a particular religious belief a "class" to be given special consideration under the laws of the land and the Constitution, other than to be left alone to pursue their varied beliefs in private, without the aide or intrusion of the government?
Since when does the government help one religious sect discriminate against people of other beliefs? Since when can people hide behind religious beliefs to break the law - commit crimes - use violence against their congregants - abuse children - burn crosses - blow up black churches or Muslim synagogues - assassinate political figures - or discriminate against race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age or sexual orientation?
Since when does the Constitution bow to the cross?
Not in my America. Not in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not in the bright shining country on the hill. Not where we are free FROM religion. Not where "open to the public" means just that.
I do not care what any religion objects to my doing. Getting blood transfusions or abortions. Teaching evolution or accurate history. Allowing access to the government by a free press. Loving and marrying whomever I desire. Using the bathroom that fits me.
I am an atheist. Where are my rights to get "believers" off my back.
20
Jesus said, "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." It's akin to turn the other cheek. This will translate to officiating his wedding.
With regard to the government, it must be divorced of all religion. Religion has always had a prestigious place in World History. However, it is divorced from government. (Jesus also said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”) Fair treatment for all is the answer.
With regard to the government, it must be divorced of all religion. Religion has always had a prestigious place in World History. However, it is divorced from government. (Jesus also said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”) Fair treatment for all is the answer.
1
The baker is pretty stupid he is in business to make money. And taking this stance he loses not only this customer but how many others as a result of his decision
On the other hand is isn't unusual for large special interest groups to find someone like this who can have standing to being a lawsuit to test he validity of a law. It costs millions to go to the United States Supreme Court so the question is who or what group is backing this case ?
On the other hand is isn't unusual for large special interest groups to find someone like this who can have standing to being a lawsuit to test he validity of a law. It costs millions to go to the United States Supreme Court so the question is who or what group is backing this case ?
2
These people were =looking= for a fight. But, no one has a legal obligation to bake you a cake. They can refuse to do so for any reason they please – or, for no reason at all – and you have not been "damaged," regardless. You simply have to go find someone else to bake that cake for you.
There is an important difference between refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and refusing to admit a black person into a restaurant: the color of a person's skin is intrinsic to that person and cannot be altered by that person. The choice to be gay is a choice. Every now and then, a professed lesbian, much to her surprise, falls head-over-heels in love with a man.
There is an important difference between refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and refusing to admit a black person into a restaurant: the color of a person's skin is intrinsic to that person and cannot be altered by that person. The choice to be gay is a choice. Every now and then, a professed lesbian, much to her surprise, falls head-over-heels in love with a man.
3
Ridiculous, ignorant and offensive. Being gay is NOT a choice. Haven't you gotten THAT news by now? It's an innate characteristic much like race as you point out. And the bigotry in reaction is also similar as much as you and others don't want to see the parallels.
4
The choice to be gay is NOT a choice. Ignorant comment.
2
So every day you could be gay, but you're choosing straight?
1
Cake is trivial, health care, food and medicine are not. If you hold yourself out to do business then you need to do that business. If the court tells a baker he can say "no i do not make cakes for gay weddings." Then lots of people can refuse service to gay people. Many white doctors did not treat black people 60 years ago. Do not want to serve gays? Do not get a business license!
70
Methinks Jack the baker doth protest too much.
8
In other words, the conservative mindset still thinks homosexuality is a choice, and simply cannot grasp homosexuality as the immutable characterisitic it is.
How thickly, sadly ironic that the very religious oppression the Founding
Fathers - products of the Enlightenment - sought to escape continues to haunt us.
The Roberts Court is about to be the new Fuller court. Let's hope it doesn't take 58 years for another Warren court to overturn such heinous hiding behind the skirt of religion.
Nauseating. Truly.
How thickly, sadly ironic that the very religious oppression the Founding
Fathers - products of the Enlightenment - sought to escape continues to haunt us.
The Roberts Court is about to be the new Fuller court. Let's hope it doesn't take 58 years for another Warren court to overturn such heinous hiding behind the skirt of religion.
Nauseating. Truly.
16
How come up until less than a generation ago homosexual dating ads. were characterized as "alternative lifestyles"?
2
Religious freedom is about the practice of religion and not a moral judgment on behavior. The Constitution allows the free exercise of religion. But making decisions along moral lines is not the exercise of religion. I think tax cheats are immoral. I still wouldn't refuse to serve Donald Trump cake if I were a baker. I might refuse to serve him if he'd stiffed me on payment.
13
Why are these test cases about cakes? As others have pointed out, if you can discriminate in a bakery, you can discriminate in other places too, with far more at stake than cake.
There was a similar case in Northern Ireland. Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs. I wonder if the US court will apply the same reasoning.
There was a similar case in Northern Ireland. Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs. I wonder if the US court will apply the same reasoning.
8
As an American of Jewish background who has experienced religious discrimination and whose family lost hundreds in the Holocaust, I can only argue for one of tbe prime principles and values of most religions--tolerance. If one looks closely at most religious bibles and ancillary texts, you can find reasons to discriminate against others who do not share your beliefs. What makes America unique, however, is its historic, Constitutional toletance embodied in the First Amendment. As much as this case seems frovolus, it will determine whether we can practice intolerance of others who do not share our beliefs in the public square.
9
This is a classic right wing wedge issue. This small business owner is serving the public, and as a public accommodation, is required to serve all of the public. Commentators who trivialize the service the baker refused to provide, the comparison to the civil rights movement should ask themselves how they would feel if they were refused service at the bakery, the food market, the car dealership, or any other commercial establishment that is owned by a bigot using "religious belief" as a cudgel.
7
I disagree with his decision to not serve to a gay couple for their wedding, but does he have a right to turn down business if he chooses not to do it? Would he have been better off just lying and saying that he didn't have time to sign a contract for their weddings? You have to respect his honesty at the very least.
Hopefully we reach a time when this is no longer an issue. Everyone deserves to be happy and live the life that they want to lives.
P.S. The cakes didn't look very good.
Hopefully we reach a time when this is no longer an issue. Everyone deserves to be happy and live the life that they want to lives.
P.S. The cakes didn't look very good.
5
Legally he has no right. Morally he has no right. According to his own religion he has no right. This is just some sad sack whom has allowed the GOP political religion machine convince him of things that are not true so they can trot out folks like him at opportune moments to perpetrate the social political crimes they love to perpetrate.
1
There is no religion that says you can't bake a cake for someone! A good Christian could bake a cake for a condemned murderer and call it an act of charity and forgiveness. As for Arkansas and our new legal genius on the Supreme Court (Gorsuch), there is no way of telling these days who the biological parent (mother or father) is of anybody. A Lesbian could very easily carry to term and give birth to her Lesbian spouse's biological child. Yo, Arkansas---Ever heard of in vitro?
9
So a cake celebrating Satanism would be OK with the Bible? What a ridiculous argument. Interesting that these stories never mention the complainants had been regular customers before without the slightest bit of discrimination against them. They as people were never refused any service. But a cake specifically designed to celebrate same sex marriage was not a service this establishment provided.
4
"[T]here is no way of telling these days who the biological parent (mother or father) is of anybody."
As to the question of who the biological parents are you are woefully wrong in your beliefs, Martin.
As to the question of who the biological parents are you are woefully wrong in your beliefs, Martin.
2
Gorsuch has dissented to the birth certificate case, based on his reading of the state law, as though that should trump the Court's clear 2015 decision that there should be no discrimination in birth certificates. When a married woman has a sperm donor, her husband appears on the birth certificate with no questions asked. Nothing could be clearer that Arkansas was attempting to harass this gay couple. Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas are trying to help the state harass American citizens. For shame!
7
The baker makes a good case for his own civil rights, in my opinion. It's not like he's refusing to serve the gays cheeseburgers on account of who they love. The baker is refusing to take part in a celebration that he doesn't wish to celebrate. That's his right.
As a gay person, I hate that this is going to the Supreme Court. I'm afraid the ruling will be a blow to civil rights in America, whichever way they rule.
As a gay person, I hate that this is going to the Supreme Court. I'm afraid the ruling will be a blow to civil rights in America, whichever way they rule.
11
He wasn't invited to the wedding. He is NOT taking part in the celebration! Further, you are not gay! "Refusing to serve the gays cheeseburgers"... serve THE gays. Quit masquerading as a gay person.
1
How is providing an article of food "taking part in a celebration"? He's not being invited to the wedding. He's baking a cake and decorating it. No one is asking him to give away one of the grooms.
How does any baker know what "kind of people" are eating his cakes on other occasions? Is it really his concern what kind of celebration is going on in the presence of his cake?
How does any baker know what "kind of people" are eating his cakes on other occasions? Is it really his concern what kind of celebration is going on in the presence of his cake?
3
"Cake artist" - what a fine argument! I love it when right-wingers appropriate what they see as left-wing discourse in order to argue their point (human rights, civil rights, diversity, safe space etc.). It lets me know who's on the right side of history.
Of course, now we have to re-evaluate many other artists in the public sphere, including the much maligned, much misunderstood "car artist" Volkswagen, whose ironic take on vehicle emissions reports still hasn't gained the recognition it deserves. On the other hand, I'm glad to see that "espionage artist" Chelsea Manning is finally being allowed to resume public life after seven years of enforced "retirement".
For details of artists living and working in your area, including recent public installations and exhibitions, visit https://www.bop.gov.
Of course, now we have to re-evaluate many other artists in the public sphere, including the much maligned, much misunderstood "car artist" Volkswagen, whose ironic take on vehicle emissions reports still hasn't gained the recognition it deserves. On the other hand, I'm glad to see that "espionage artist" Chelsea Manning is finally being allowed to resume public life after seven years of enforced "retirement".
For details of artists living and working in your area, including recent public installations and exhibitions, visit https://www.bop.gov.
3
I can't believe the Supreme Court is even taking up this case. If they rule in favor of the baker, are they ready to allow bakers to refuse service to non-white or interracial couples?
And they wonder why our young ones are staying away from their churches in droves.
15
Like another commenter, I'm an atheist who sides with the baker. It's a cake after all. There are plenty of tolerant, non-bigoted cake makers.
Don't we have bigger issues to deal with?
Don't we have bigger issues to deal with?
42
The actual events are, two men asked for a wedding cake. They were discriminated against. They filed a complaint and moved on with life. IDK the exact course of events but the authority who takes such complaints ruled in favor of the men. Mr Phillips has appealed and at some point this was taken to court. No one forced him to do anything and he is now trying to avoid the lawful consequences of his actions.
1
I can't agree. You could say religious beliefs say people of mixed heritage can't marry ... either by race or country. And then, those people would be dried services. Or what about the religious right that say a woman should be subserviant to a man, or women should always be in long sleeved and below the dresses, because that is their religious belief. No cake for women shorts?
They're not participating in the celebration. They're just decorating a cake.
They're not participating in the celebration. They're just decorating a cake.
This issue is important because of the legal precedent it could set.
If my family is traveling through a rural area and gets into a car accident, can we be denied care at the nearest emergency room (many are run by religious organizations) because of our sexuality? That could be a life or death situation.
What about more trivial matters - do gay families deserve equal treatment from landlords, employers, etc.? Wouldn't you feel it is unjust to be denied opportunities based on your sexuality just the same as if it were your sex or race?
For you this might not feel important. But for me, this conversation is not about cake at all.
If my family is traveling through a rural area and gets into a car accident, can we be denied care at the nearest emergency room (many are run by religious organizations) because of our sexuality? That could be a life or death situation.
What about more trivial matters - do gay families deserve equal treatment from landlords, employers, etc.? Wouldn't you feel it is unjust to be denied opportunities based on your sexuality just the same as if it were your sex or race?
For you this might not feel important. But for me, this conversation is not about cake at all.
Gorsuch is wrong. The decision did.clearly address the AK court decision. Just not the convoluted way he discussed it to use intellect and not clear law to arrive t his preconceived conclusion. Sort of a waste of a fine intellect.
4
The best way to fight this type of bigotry is to boycott businesses that treat gay couples like second class citizens. We will see how religious they are when their income starts to suffer.
12
If baking a cake is taking part of a same-sex marriage ceremony, what is selling a gun - have you participated in a murder or robbery. It seems hard to have it both ways.
18
If the customer was asking the gun store owner to custom design and make a gun specifically for his robbery or murder, then your analogy might have some merit.
If you knew the gun would be used in a murder or robbery, you would indeed be an accessory.
2
If the only way a gun could be used was for theft or murder you would be right.
Why don't people just let God worry about the "sinners," and just live and let live. Life is hard enough already.
21
I'm going to dissent from what appears to be the majority opinion amongst the comments I've read.
First, understand that I am a Christian that places a high value on the concept of separation of church and state. I believe that religious liberty can only thrive in an environment wherein all are allowed to exercise their free will (so long as they are not harming others). As a result, although I have many personal views that most would consider conservative, my politics tend to skew moderate to liberal.
That said, I'm going to side with the baker in this case. It would be one thing if this individual owned a brake shop or a grocery store. Were that the case, I would argue that he is clearly in the wrong and is guilty of discrimination - but that's not the situation that we have here.
This guy was specifically asked to lend his skills to an event (i.e. a wedding) that has inherent religious connotations. Would anyone argue that it is unfair for a Jewish baker to choose not to create a cake for a Muslim couple? And why would they ask in the first place?
The problem here is not one of discrimination. The problem is the direct result of a weird intertwining of religion and secular business that we have invited into our lives. As a society, we need to draw a clear line between the religious institution of marriage and the secular business of contractual couplings. As to how that would actually happen in practice, I haven't the first clue.
First, understand that I am a Christian that places a high value on the concept of separation of church and state. I believe that religious liberty can only thrive in an environment wherein all are allowed to exercise their free will (so long as they are not harming others). As a result, although I have many personal views that most would consider conservative, my politics tend to skew moderate to liberal.
That said, I'm going to side with the baker in this case. It would be one thing if this individual owned a brake shop or a grocery store. Were that the case, I would argue that he is clearly in the wrong and is guilty of discrimination - but that's not the situation that we have here.
This guy was specifically asked to lend his skills to an event (i.e. a wedding) that has inherent religious connotations. Would anyone argue that it is unfair for a Jewish baker to choose not to create a cake for a Muslim couple? And why would they ask in the first place?
The problem here is not one of discrimination. The problem is the direct result of a weird intertwining of religion and secular business that we have invited into our lives. As a society, we need to draw a clear line between the religious institution of marriage and the secular business of contractual couplings. As to how that would actually happen in practice, I haven't the first clue.
12
Marriage existed thousands of years before your sky God. How can you claim that marriage is an inherently "religious" institution? And whose religion would that be?
5
No one thinks about the religion of the baker or any person they do business with unless they are mentally damaged. There is no valid reason to even think about it let alone bring it up in an y interaction outside of a service or congregation related activity, and most of those don't require discussion of the faith.
Yes it would be wrong for a Jewish baker to refuse a Muslim couple, how is that even a question to you?
The fact is your religion should be a mystery to every single person outside your congregation period. There is no reason to bring up your faith at any time elsewhere as it is not involved in anything elsewhere. If you have to live each moment for god as the phonies who bring these cases insist then you belong in a convent or monastery as that is the appropriate place for such restrictive adherence to dogma. It gives you the freedom to do as you wish and avoid forcing yourself on others.
Yes it would be wrong for a Jewish baker to refuse a Muslim couple, how is that even a question to you?
The fact is your religion should be a mystery to every single person outside your congregation period. There is no reason to bring up your faith at any time elsewhere as it is not involved in anything elsewhere. If you have to live each moment for god as the phonies who bring these cases insist then you belong in a convent or monastery as that is the appropriate place for such restrictive adherence to dogma. It gives you the freedom to do as you wish and avoid forcing yourself on others.
Yes, I would argue that it is unfair for a Jewish baker to choose not to create a cake for a Muslim couple. What does creating a cake have to do with the beliefs of either the vendor or the customer? The Jewish baker is not being asked to convert to Islam. He's being asked to put together some flour, sugar, butter and frosting and have it either picked up or delivered to an event. He is not being asked to pass judgment on the beliefs, opinions or behavior of the people at the event.
Should Christian pizza makers refuse to deliver pizza to frat parties because the pizza is supporting sinful acts? I don't understand how such an absurd concept is being given any weight at all.
Honestly, this whole argument is truly bizarre to me. It seems like the USA has suddenly relocated to the Middle East where religion determines commerce. Somewhere in the last few years we seem to have lost track of who we are.
Should Christian pizza makers refuse to deliver pizza to frat parties because the pizza is supporting sinful acts? I don't understand how such an absurd concept is being given any weight at all.
Honestly, this whole argument is truly bizarre to me. It seems like the USA has suddenly relocated to the Middle East where religion determines commerce. Somewhere in the last few years we seem to have lost track of who we are.
2
So what if I own a Middle Eastern public restaurant and refuse service to any Christians because it is against my religion to serve infidels.
Or a public kosher restaurant who refuses service to anybody but Jews?
Or a gun control enthusiast who is a follower of the No Gun God Church of the Redeemer and owns a public restaurant where service is refused to any 2nd Amendment advocate or anyone bearing an "arm" or wearing a t-shirt or hat advocating guns, based on their religious beliefs.
Feelin' it? Religious beliefs over Constitutional rights? Is that what the Founding fathers had in mind?
Don't you think their words were about more freedom, not any right to impose your religious beliefs to restrict any freedoms on anyone else? Freedom of and FROM religion is pretty clear to me.
Or a public kosher restaurant who refuses service to anybody but Jews?
Or a gun control enthusiast who is a follower of the No Gun God Church of the Redeemer and owns a public restaurant where service is refused to any 2nd Amendment advocate or anyone bearing an "arm" or wearing a t-shirt or hat advocating guns, based on their religious beliefs.
Feelin' it? Religious beliefs over Constitutional rights? Is that what the Founding fathers had in mind?
Don't you think their words were about more freedom, not any right to impose your religious beliefs to restrict any freedoms on anyone else? Freedom of and FROM religion is pretty clear to me.
31
What if I am a Hindu and I refuse to cater your prime rib wedding?
3
Nancy, those are false equivalencies. The baker happily offered to serve the gay couple including offering to sell them anything his bakery produces with the exception of a custom wedding cake. There was no discrimination in service, so your analogies fail.
7
But he sells wedding cakes to everyone else. That is the problem -- he's discriminating based on people.
1
If the license to operate a business obliges him not to discriminate than he must not discriminate. Opening a business is a choice and there are many laws and regulations you are agreeing to abide by when applying and receiving a license to operate. Working in a bakery within a religious organization would make better sense- a closed system where he is protected from interacting with people with different beliefs. It's all about making choices at the right stage of the process. That didn't happen apparently and now he is being called on to fulfill what he agreed to by accepting the license. Time to change jobs.
25
They were regular satisfied customers until the cake! Doesn't anybody check facts anymore? Is the concept of differentiating between serving people your regular service vs s special purpose service that difficult to understand?
2
The longer I chased these elusive feelings with LGBT, the more out of reach they were. However, by applying this passage to my abstinence, I found that it described the magnificent new life made available to me by the LGBT anonymous. program. "It" truly does "get better" one day at a time. The warmth, the love and the joy so simply expressed in these words grow in breadth and depth each time I read it. abstinence is a gift that grows with time.
2
It is clearly evident from words that baker and his legal counsel have said that this is not an issue of serving the LGBT community. Some have brought the question of "What if he was a drugstore owner, a hospital president, etc." This baker has no qualms about serving gays. His lawyers said, "he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients".
This issue this baker had with the request from the gay couple is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of this article. The baker was "refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union". His cake, an item that is intended to showcase his business's capability, was to be used at a gay wedding to celebrate a union he considers sinful and abhorrent. I am confident he would have had no problem creating a birthday cake for either one of them. By him creating a cake for this wedding, onlookers would be justified in concluding he is OK with celebrating a gay marriage; an image he, of course, wants to avoid.
This, my friends, is the issue. Not simply serving gays.
Now for my opinion: A business owner should not be denied the right to avoid accepting business that casts what he considers a negative light on his business. Nor should he be denied the right to refuse to allow his goods or services to be used as a central or conspicuous part of proceedings that he considers sinful or abhorrent.
This issue this baker had with the request from the gay couple is clearly stated in the opening paragraph of this article. The baker was "refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union". His cake, an item that is intended to showcase his business's capability, was to be used at a gay wedding to celebrate a union he considers sinful and abhorrent. I am confident he would have had no problem creating a birthday cake for either one of them. By him creating a cake for this wedding, onlookers would be justified in concluding he is OK with celebrating a gay marriage; an image he, of course, wants to avoid.
This, my friends, is the issue. Not simply serving gays.
Now for my opinion: A business owner should not be denied the right to avoid accepting business that casts what he considers a negative light on his business. Nor should he be denied the right to refuse to allow his goods or services to be used as a central or conspicuous part of proceedings that he considers sinful or abhorrent.
13
Anyone who operates a public business MUST serve ALL the public.
You cannot pick and choose your customers.
What is next?
Serve only customers who agree with your bigoted views?
You cannot pick and choose your customers.
What is next?
Serve only customers who agree with your bigoted views?
16
He doesn't necessarily think gay unions are sinful or abhorrent. He may just dissent from the new definition of marriage as a gender-neutral union. Many religious religious faiths and secular cultures around the world teach that marriage is, in essence, by definition, fundamentally about, bringing together male and female to make and raise the next generation. According to these faiths and practices, two men or two women cannot make a marriage. Refusing to bake the cake isn't expressing disapproval of gay people necessarily; it's saying, "I can't agree that what is being celebrated is a marriage." That's why he has no problem serving gay people in general but doesn't want to participate in their weddings.
3
If you put this much effort into doing some good in your community instead of figuring out a way to agree with the baker, you might be surprised at what you accomplish.
1
just as a customer has the right to choose where he shops. the shopkeeper has a right to choose what he makes and sells. He cannot be forced to make something he does not want to make. What he makes is a voluntary service to the community-- it's not a requirement.
8
So, he doesn't charge anything for his goods and services? Voluntary service eh.
1
Maybe I'm a little too young to understand the civil rights movement in this country, and maybe I'm remembering events like lunch counter protests incorrectly, but if a restaurant owner can't refuse to serve people of their race, why can a baker refuse service to gays who are getting married? I can see because they come into the store and are being belligerent, or are indecisive, or disruptive, or lack shoes and a shirt, but because they are part of a group you have a problem with? God or no - get over it.
Should it really be up to the small business owner to choose whether to serve someone or not? Would we be having this argument if the baker had refused to serve an African American? How about a serving a woman? If the baker was a conservative Muslim, he might have a religious reason not to serve a woman. Will we entertain that kind of first amendment religious protection?
I do think Niel Gorsuch's argument is interesting, in that it is impossible for a female to be the biological father of a child, or a male to be the biological mother of a child, excluding transgender males and females.
I do think Niel Gorsuch's argument is interesting, in that it is impossible for a female to be the biological father of a child, or a male to be the biological mother of a child, excluding transgender males and females.
5
But he didn't refuse to serve them - he merely declined the opportunity to create a custom wedding cake for the couple's nuptials. If your false analogies were amended to reflect the actual circumstances such as a black baker declining to bake a cake with a KKK logo or message, I'd fully agree that the black baker has every right, indeed a moral imperative, to decline that business.
4
We all discriminate hundreds of times every day. This babysitter? This dress? This man was so gracious. Why would you want a cake from someone who
disagrees with your marriage? Go to the next baker who does. I so admire this man. He did the right thing. No more freedom of thought or opinion. No more grace. Now it's "my way or no way" instead of "oh, yes, we will go to the baker across the street, have a wonderful day". It's 'let's take them down'.
disagrees with your marriage? Go to the next baker who does. I so admire this man. He did the right thing. No more freedom of thought or opinion. No more grace. Now it's "my way or no way" instead of "oh, yes, we will go to the baker across the street, have a wonderful day". It's 'let's take them down'.
9
Missing the whole point lady, the whole point!
10
Freedom of thought and opinion does NOT trump the law!
1
Susanne, the Oxford Dictionary has two definitions for the word discriminate: "Recognize a distinction; differentiate" & "Make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age."
I don't know that we all make these decisions "hundreds of times a day." But sure, we all make every day distinctions. I'll select this babysitter because of his/her experience or because I know who he/she is. I'll buy a pair of black jeans rather than blue jeans because I do not own any black jeans.
However, the second definition to discriminate is based on prejudice. I don't decide to not get a specific babysitter because he/she is a certain color, race, gender, etc., nor do I decide not to purchase black jeans because the designer may be a heterosexual or homosexual. I certainly don't discriminate in this manner a "hundred times a day."
It’s not Jack Phillips who gets to judge people based on religion- this is supposed to be left to his Christian God.
I suppose you would say the same thing when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on the bus to a white person. Would this be your retort? "Now it's 'my way or no way' and ...It's 'let's take them down'." Both the bus and bakery scenarios equate to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of discrimination as the prejudice kind. There's no grace in being a bigot; it's a choice masked under the ruse of religion.
I don't know that we all make these decisions "hundreds of times a day." But sure, we all make every day distinctions. I'll select this babysitter because of his/her experience or because I know who he/she is. I'll buy a pair of black jeans rather than blue jeans because I do not own any black jeans.
However, the second definition to discriminate is based on prejudice. I don't decide to not get a specific babysitter because he/she is a certain color, race, gender, etc., nor do I decide not to purchase black jeans because the designer may be a heterosexual or homosexual. I certainly don't discriminate in this manner a "hundred times a day."
It’s not Jack Phillips who gets to judge people based on religion- this is supposed to be left to his Christian God.
I suppose you would say the same thing when Rosa Parks decided not to give up her seat on the bus to a white person. Would this be your retort? "Now it's 'my way or no way' and ...It's 'let's take them down'." Both the bus and bakery scenarios equate to the Oxford Dictionary's definition of discrimination as the prejudice kind. There's no grace in being a bigot; it's a choice masked under the ruse of religion.
2
If you have a business that's open to serve the general public, you must serve the general public. It's that simple. If this baker's religion is so important to him, how could he have missed the part where Jesus said “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
It's just another example of bigots twisting "religion" as an excuse to justify their hatred & circumvent the law.
It's just another example of bigots twisting "religion" as an excuse to justify their hatred & circumvent the law.
18
It is not for you to instruct another person as to what his own religious beliefs require of him. In fact, whether his conduct is based on religious beliefs, as opposed to nonreligious reasons or no reason at all, is irrelevant.
And if he doesn't serve everyone, that simply means that he wasn't open to serve the general public in the first place, so your first sentence is moot.
And if he doesn't serve everyone, that simply means that he wasn't open to serve the general public in the first place, so your first sentence is moot.
1
I am a vegetarian caterer. I do weddings. You want prime rib at your wedding. I am not your caterer. You are not my customer.
12
The couple did not ask the baker for prime rib, which is not his business. They asked for a cake, which is.
6
That is such a false equivalency. You don't do meat for anyone. Therefore refusing to serve meat to a specific person or group is not discriminatory. This baker, however, does wedding cakes. Not providing a service to a person or group, while providing that same service to another person or group, is the very definition of discrimination.
6
Thomas- but you're refusing to serve meat to ALL of your clients. A bigot would serve meat to white people but not blacks, to Christians but not Jews, to men but not women. Do you not see the difference? They are not asking him to make them a product that he doesn't already make. No one wants to force a vegetarian caterer to sell meat. No one wants to force a clothing shop to sell meat. No one wants to force a hairdresser to cater weddings. No one is forcing this baker to sell a product that he doesn't already make.
1
Ya know, whichever way they decide at this point in my life, I'm simply not going to allow it to bother me one way or the other. I'm so sick and tired of STILL needing to seek "acceptance" - no, not acceptance but rather the equal protections that should be afforded to ALL Americans without exception and have NOT protected homosexuals, that I am immune to the attempts to try to curtail the rights that are mine BY BIRTH and not by decision of the US Supreme Court, tarnished irrevocably thanks to overtly corrupt politics. The only way to live in peace in this world is to realize that each may choose their path but NOT impose it upon others or restrict those that choose a lifestyle not in harmony with the majority. Every living human being should be allowed to choose to live as they see fit so long as their choice doesn't affect anyone else. NO ONE may ask me why I am as I am or expect an explanation or defense of my lifestyle. It's clear as crystal that a business choosing not to serve someone because of a difference of beliefs is blatantly discriminatory. Hiding behind "sincere beliefs" is garbage. No one lives on their own private island. You're in business, you forfeit your right to pick and choose your clients based on bigoted criteria. CLEAR ENOUGH NOW?
24
They're not not serving SOMEONE they were not serving SOMETHING. The complaints had been regular satisfied non discriminated against customers before! Why is this something so hard to understand? If I walk into a Muslim baker's shop I would not ask or expect him to bake a cake with "Jesus is Lord" iced on top.
1
You might want to google what the ACTUAL protected classes are before making such a sweeping statement. You are simply wrong.
Even though a cake may seem trival, in 2015 Oregon law handled it this way after appeal.
Can fundamentalist Christians stop ?
"Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake"
Can fundamentalist Christians stop ?
"Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake"
8
If a Christian refuses to serve me, a gay man who was born that way, it's OK. But if a gay man refuses to serve a Christian, who is a christian by choice, it's not OK. Upsidedown logic.
24
I suspect that nearly everyone who would defend the right of a Christian to refuse to serve a gay man would also defend the right of a gay man to refuse to serve a Christian, in which case your premise would be incorrect.
3
He shouldn't be in the business of servicing people when he refuses to service a group of people. That's discrimination. Whatever his excuse may be, he's sending us back to pre-civil rights days when white owners refused to service colored people. By the way, it's silly that he said he also doesn't do halloween and adult theme cakes – refusing to make cakes for same sex couples is targeting people, not holidays and pornography.
15
How do you know he doesn't make, say, birthday cakes for persons in same-sex relationships? If he does, your claim that he is targeting people fails.
2
It doesn't matter if he makes birthday cakes for LGBTQ folks; he's still discriminating because he makes wedding cakes for everyone else EXCEPT LGBTQ folks.
I'm physician. What if I told you I treat everyone for high blood pressure but for diabetes, I will not treat women. That's more like what the baker is doing.
I'm physician. What if I told you I treat everyone for high blood pressure but for diabetes, I will not treat women. That's more like what the baker is doing.
2
The "cake artist" could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he had just told the couple that he wouldn't be able to fit them into his schedule. But no - in all his typically Christian self-righteousness, he had to let them know that God hates their marriage and so he couldn't make a cake for such sinful people.
Interestingly, he thought God was OK with selling them sticky buns or eclairs. No art involved in those? But how about cupcakes? I guess for Phillips, size matters.
It's really tough being a hypocrite - you know, where do you draw the line? At frosting? The number of layers? Who's going to eat the cake? It's also tough trying to explain that God told him not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Seriously? God actually cares about who gets a wedding cake? God reads the menu and checks off what Phillips can make for gays and what he can't?
Jesus denounced the self-righteous in no uncertain terms. Phillips should memorize the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, which Jesus aimed directly at "some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt." To such people, Jesus warned "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled."
Interestingly, he thought God was OK with selling them sticky buns or eclairs. No art involved in those? But how about cupcakes? I guess for Phillips, size matters.
It's really tough being a hypocrite - you know, where do you draw the line? At frosting? The number of layers? Who's going to eat the cake? It's also tough trying to explain that God told him not to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Seriously? God actually cares about who gets a wedding cake? God reads the menu and checks off what Phillips can make for gays and what he can't?
Jesus denounced the self-righteous in no uncertain terms. Phillips should memorize the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, which Jesus aimed directly at "some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt." To such people, Jesus warned "everyone who exalts himself will be humbled."
36
Does he ask if couples have had premarital sex, if they intend to have children, if they have been divorced; etc
31
Maybe he doesn't care about any of those things. To take just one example, there are millions of Jews who observe Yom Kippur but aren't particularly observant in any way the rest of the year. Would you presume to instruct them on which aspects of Judaism they should care about?
4
So would conservatives agree that a Muslim store owner could refuse to serve an unaccompanied woman, because it offended his sincerely held religious belief? Or would that be instituting Sharia law? Or could a Christian baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a couple entering a second or third marriage? Because, you know, violating those deeply held religious convictions. And (a little tangent here) if it is true that "by this shall all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love to one another" - John 13:35; then frankly Mr. Phillips looks pretty unchristian, so how can he have legal standing here?
15
Perhaps you should refer to the long standing motto seen posted in so many establishments: " we reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE." Turn this over at your own risk... I assure you that gay cake bakers will be forced to produce cakes with homophobic slurs on them...just because.
4
It's one thing to play the victim card in Federal court. Quite the opposite in the court of public opinion.
Keep it up and the blowback will set you back pre ERA.
Keep it up and the blowback will set you back pre ERA.
4
Set us back to the present, you mean. We're still living in pre-ERA because the ERA was never enacted.
6
If the blowback sets us back to pre-ERA, then the evangelicals are in trouble. The number of people regularly attending churches are diminishing. Big businesses are now avoiding localities that discriminate against equality (i.e. the economic fallout that North Carolina experienced after the "bathroom bill"). As I stated in a previous post that was selected by the Times, the power of the wallet is just as strong as the power of the vote. Remember, the biggest civil rights victories were won by Blacks when they boycotted businesses that supported segregation. The same will apply with businesses that support "religious freedom".
Martin is right. The ERA was never enacted and that is why women still have issues like equal pay for equal work. Get your history right.
So stealing Merritt's seat is really going to pay off for the conservatives.
12
Follow the money - this isn't about cake - it's about discrimination. You open a for-profit business in America, you abide by the rules. You want to discriminate against someone and hide behind "your religion," then open a gift store at your church. This cannot stand the smell test.
14
jsabinus's thought enlightened me. He says; the issue is equal protection for citizens. So I came up with an idea: For the interim solution on this issue; I propose a new law to mandate all the shop owners to publicly disclose his refusal to serve LGBTs. Let the society identify them so that the public can decide whether they would avoid those businesses. I would personally boycott Jack's cake shop though I am hetero sexual. I don't want a creation made by such a mean spirited cake maker. Who knows Jack may spit in the frosting?
14
I will support your proposed law. If one is going to discriminate, one should do so openly. To do otherwise is hypocrisy. I think it is mentioned over and over again in the New Testament that God does not like hypocrisy.
1
Soooooo, if I own a small business and don't want to serve an Evangelical because I am pro-choice, can I??????????????
28
Define "serve". I certainly agree that you should be free to refuse to bake a customized pro-life cake.
6
Yes, but don't open it in God's country. As my Dad always said: "If you want meet a bunch of really mean people, go to church!"
4
Someone ordered cake out
For the gays
I don't think that I can bake it
'Cause I'm filled so much with hatred
And I'll never have straight privilege again, AGAINNNNN.
For the gays
I don't think that I can bake it
'Cause I'm filled so much with hatred
And I'll never have straight privilege again, AGAINNNNN.
7
Richard Harris is rolling in his grave .
2
But we're talking about LOVE man!!! With all that is so wrong in this world today - how could you not support LOVE between two people, alive, in the here and now? How could you think that something written by people who have been dead for millennia could possible be more important than the people in front of you today?
A finding for Masterpiece Cakes by the SCOTUS will rip open an enormous Pandora's Box of troubles.
Right-wing evangelical Christians should be careful when considering thier wish list.
Right-wing evangelical Christians should be careful when considering thier wish list.
15
I have been to many weddings and never once has anyone asked "who made the wedding cake?" Not once. They are pretty, but since they are made well in advance to make them pretty, the cake is usually not outstandingly tasty, just usually darn bland.
Should a black baker be required to bake a confederate flag cake?
If not why should Mr Phillips be required to bake a cake he finds equally offensive?
If not why should Mr Phillips be required to bake a cake he finds equally offensive?
7
Can restaurants in the south refuse to serve people of color?
1
I think he could have gotten away with objecting to the design of a cake. He refused to bake a cake, period, because the couple is gay. At least that's what I believe was the case.
A wedding cake isn't a symbol of racism, hate speech etc. I'm not sure how you missed that.
1
Regardless of what happens, just want to say that Mr. Phillips makes very nice cakes.
3
I view this as an interdenominational fight since some Christian churches will marry same sex couples "In the eyes of God" and some won't have anything to do with it.
I wouldn't want to support an owner operated business that was offended by my existence and I sure wouldn't eat that cake. I wouldn't have the guy's mechanic doing my brake job either.
5
Many of the arguments made by Mr. Phillips make no sense.
Not doing Halloween cakes or using alcohol affect all his potential clients equally. He is not singling out a particular group or class of people.
Not doing racist or atheist cakes is a false choice comparing his refusal to create an in-demand product for a particular group to refusing to create a product that no one would want.
What's interesting is that Mr. Phillips is claiming first amendment rights. Saying, as an artist, that his is being forced to create something against his will.
As a wedding photographer, and a gay man, I think I can speak to this question.
When I do my personal work, I have control over my images. If the government tried limit what I could create or force me to create something against my will, I would be as upset as Mr. Phillips.
However, when couples hire me for a wedding, I do my best to apply my artistic skills to their wedding photos, but the clients are the boss and my job is to use my skills to make something they will cherish, even if it's not exactly fitting my artistic vision.
Once you are in the marketplace, your job is to please your client first, not to make art. If you can do both simultaneously, that's the best, but that doesn't always happen.
If you can't do that, then you shouldn't have a business that requires you to take on clients. Because eventually there will be a conflict with your artistic vision.
Not doing Halloween cakes or using alcohol affect all his potential clients equally. He is not singling out a particular group or class of people.
Not doing racist or atheist cakes is a false choice comparing his refusal to create an in-demand product for a particular group to refusing to create a product that no one would want.
What's interesting is that Mr. Phillips is claiming first amendment rights. Saying, as an artist, that his is being forced to create something against his will.
As a wedding photographer, and a gay man, I think I can speak to this question.
When I do my personal work, I have control over my images. If the government tried limit what I could create or force me to create something against my will, I would be as upset as Mr. Phillips.
However, when couples hire me for a wedding, I do my best to apply my artistic skills to their wedding photos, but the clients are the boss and my job is to use my skills to make something they will cherish, even if it's not exactly fitting my artistic vision.
Once you are in the marketplace, your job is to please your client first, not to make art. If you can do both simultaneously, that's the best, but that doesn't always happen.
If you can't do that, then you shouldn't have a business that requires you to take on clients. Because eventually there will be a conflict with your artistic vision.
10
An atheist cake is something that no one would want? I'd like to hear from some atheists on that point.
This is like saying that forcing companies to serve blacks or women is violating their constitutional rights. It's literally the exact same thing. What if businesses started going around saying that they would not serve black people because they are black or serve women because they are women? This is literally the exact same thing. I'm pretty sure the constitution guarantees that businesses cannot discriminate against blacks or against women.
9
You're simply wrong and state a false equivalence. Sexual orientation is not protected or even scientifically defined. It is NOTHING like race or gender no matter how much you wish it was. Supporters of gay rights should seek to establish sexual orientation as a "Creed" which IS a protected (albeit woefully vague) status.
2
Something that I am still unclear about is why would a couple getting married in Massachusetts try to get a baker in Colorado to bake their wedding cake? Does Masterpiece Cakes do something better or different than bakeries in Massachusetts?
3
dawacu-Something that I am still unclear about is why would a couple getting married in Massachusetts try to get a baker in Colorado to bake their wedding cake? Does Masterpiece Cakes do something better or different than bakeries in Massachusetts?"
Maybe they are having a reception in CO? My friend's son got married in HI but had a reception in MA for those who could not afford to attend his wedding in HI. My cousin got married in MI and had a reception for family members who couldn't attend in MA. Another friend married in PA and had a reception in MA for his Massachusetts family and friends. It's really not *that* uncommon.
Maybe they are having a reception in CO? My friend's son got married in HI but had a reception in MA for those who could not afford to attend his wedding in HI. My cousin got married in MI and had a reception for family members who couldn't attend in MA. Another friend married in PA and had a reception in MA for his Massachusetts family and friends. It's really not *that* uncommon.
2
The wedding was being held in Colorado. Shipping cakes across state lines is difficult and usually results in disaster. Best to get one baked near your venue. Mystery solved.
3
To be fair, if businesses dont have a right to refuse to sell to someone, then no boycotts will be allowed based on political views. So the groups (liberals) that are now coercing people to boycott businesses that participate in building the border wall must be stopped (or punished). They want businesses to stop selling their goods based on political views. They want businesses to stop selling because they are haters. And cities cant boycott travel to other cities that differ from their political views (liberals do this to North Carolina). And cities cant stop doing business with banks that fund projects that dont support the cities' political views (Seattle did this). Political correctness is a tyrant that thinks it is good.
7
A perfect example of the folly of identity politics. Brilliant!
4
Patrick-No one is forcing anyone to BUY his product!! He is being told he can't refuse to sell it based on discrimination. The government can't force me to vacation in NC or at the beach for that matter if I'm not an ocean person or ar a ski lodge if I don't like to ski. They can't force me to shop at Hobby Lobby because I don't support their bigotry or at War-Mart because I find the way they treat their hired help despicable. This is comparing apples to oranges. Are you truly that obtuse?
it's clear where cases like this lead: to the Supreme Court defining what a religion is. If adherents of a branch of the Christian "religion" can violate the civil rights of a person as guaranteed by the constitution, can't a poll worker who is an adherent of the religion of "white supremacy" deny a ballot to a black voter? Who decides what religions are valid?
4
A poll worker is a government agent, so that analogy fails. And I'm not sure why it even makes a difference whether someone's motivations are religious or not in the first place. Freedom of association and freedom of contract, not to mention the 13th Amendment's prohibition on involuntary servitude, guarantee the right to say no for any reason, or no reason at all.
1
Just curious, but how do those criticizing the baker view clothing designers refusing to dress the First Lady? Anyone? It certainly appears to be based on beliefs.
5
First Ladies aren't a special, protected class. See, some people apparently are now afforded more heaping portions civil rights and liberties than the rest of us. Their special, protected status allows them to ride roughshod over our rights of conscience, freedom of speech and religious expression, equal protection, due process, the list goes on and on.
2
Yeah, such a shame that Blacks, Hispanics woman and gays can no longer be discriminated against. If only we could go back to the good old days. Allows them to ride roughshod? No, it allows them to be treated equally.
2
No designer has refused to sell their clothes to the First Lady. She is free to buy them where and whenever she pleases. What designers have refused to do, based on a calculated business decision, is use her to promote their goods. This involves supplying garments with the quid pro quo that they will be favorably noticed, leading to increased sales. Similar to the way manufacturers provide clothing that gets noticed on the academy awards red carpet.
1
Wow - someone would sue for the right to give business to someone who they think discriminated against them? Why wouldn't they boycott and find another cake maker?
3
This is all impact litigation, people.
This mad baker was handpicked by conservative impact litigation groups to bring this case.
As for the couple, they filed a complaint. Then their case got picked up. There is no statutory provision barring a person from using a different baker if they decide to file a complaint.
This mad baker was handpicked by conservative impact litigation groups to bring this case.
As for the couple, they filed a complaint. Then their case got picked up. There is no statutory provision barring a person from using a different baker if they decide to file a complaint.
1
Ned- you liven Berkley and probably have several bakeries to choose from. What if you only had one and the owner refused to make a product for you because he doesn't like your eye color, the color of your skin or that you are obese? Where would you purchase your wedding cake if there was no one else available? There are vast swatches of the USA that are not like Berkley, or even Massachusetts. Sometimes there is very little choice available.
If this baker is performing as an artist or graphic designer when he makes custom cakes, seems to me he should be allowed to choose his clients. If I were a sculptor and I was asked to make a monument to the KKK or Hitler, I'd turn away the business.
On the other hand, if the baker doesn't allow gay people to shop in his store to buy cupcakes or whatever, that's different; he'd be discriminating against a class without a freedom of speech or expression of religion basis. Similarly, if I were a sculptor who also sold non-commissioned pieces in a shop, I should have to sell my work to whoever walks in the door, including neo-Nazis.
Maybe the gray area here is if the baker is asked to simply write "Happy Wedding, Bill and Bob" on a cake. In that case, it seems to me that this is a basic service that a bakery should provide to anyone, as opposed to creating a commissioned piece of art. But one could certainly see it either way.
On the other hand, if the baker doesn't allow gay people to shop in his store to buy cupcakes or whatever, that's different; he'd be discriminating against a class without a freedom of speech or expression of religion basis. Similarly, if I were a sculptor who also sold non-commissioned pieces in a shop, I should have to sell my work to whoever walks in the door, including neo-Nazis.
Maybe the gray area here is if the baker is asked to simply write "Happy Wedding, Bill and Bob" on a cake. In that case, it seems to me that this is a basic service that a bakery should provide to anyone, as opposed to creating a commissioned piece of art. But one could certainly see it either way.
3
Jacob-as is your right, you are not discriminating against anyone in particular but refusing to make a product you find repugnant for ANYONE. Do you fail to see the difference?
1
The lawyer seems to say that the fact that the baker doesn't make Halloween cakes is equivalent to him not making wedding cakes for gay couples, but I think this is a false equivalence. The baker doesn't make Halloween items for anyone. No one forces any business to provide a particular service. He does, however, make wedding cakes. If he wants to be open to the public, then he should be providing that service to anyone who comes to his business. If he doesn't want to provide cake toppers that include same sex couples that's fine too. If he's fine with giving up "lucrative business ", then maybe he should give up making wedding cakes altogether. Problem solved.
3
Some services in a business are not offered to some customers even though they demand for. I believe that is basically common sense.
4
No one is speaking to the larger question. Can an individual practitioner refuse his services to anyone he disagrees with on any basis? Perhaps a couple simple of examples might suffice. Can a lawyer refuse to write a will because he disagrees with the distribution of assets? Can a mechanic refuse to repair a car because he believes that putting this car back on the road is a danger to others? Simply because the objections are religious does it make them discriminatory? And if so, on what basis?
5
There are two issues here that seem to be conflated. If the bakery had a selection of cakes and the couple walked up, asked to purchase the one on the left, and were denied, it would be hard to argue that it was anything but a civil rights case. But if the couple asked for a distinct artistic creation with either words or meaningful symbolism its hard to argue that it's anything other than compelled speech under the color of law.
7
What if a known racist or white nationalist group comes to me wanting design-work -- even though the design-work is not offensive or doesn't allude to their "philosophy"? Yet, group may invite the public to an event (even though not stating anything that lets on to their purposes).
I, full well knowing their intentions, will want to refuse their request based on deeply held moral grounds.
Does that mean that, conversely, based on the prior decision that the bakery must serve the couple and make the cake, that I must, also, accept the work of a group I do not want to promote?
I, full well knowing their intentions, will want to refuse their request based on deeply held moral grounds.
Does that mean that, conversely, based on the prior decision that the bakery must serve the couple and make the cake, that I must, also, accept the work of a group I do not want to promote?
4
Nope, you need not do the work. Your potential customer's political affiliation is not an immutable characteristic. Therefore, he is not subject to protection from discrimination based on that characteristic.
This is con law 101. EXTREMELY simple concept.
This is con law 101. EXTREMELY simple concept.
2
After the Hobby Lobby case, I am pretty sure this will go the same way.
Brick by brick, destroying the country.
Brick by brick, destroying the country.
5
I'm guessing that Tax Dollars provide police, fire services etc to this small business owner. Likewise the roads and streets that are paved and maintained and help bring business to his establishment are paid for by Taxes from straight or gay citizens. Since he refuses to serve gay people, can gay folks withhold their taxes that benefit people like him that discriminate against them?
4
Visitors to your home travel over public roads. Can people who are not invited to your daughter's graduation party withhold their taxes?
This is an "Apples and Oranges" comparison or false equivalency.
My home isn't a business. My daughters graduation party isn't a business transaction.
My home isn't a business. My daughters graduation party isn't a business transaction.
1
Small businesses take it on the chin when it comes to taxes, street maintenance, and all the other services of a community in the form of taxes. If the owners live in the community, they pay in the form of residential taxes, too. It's the big businesses that get away with things, not the little ones.
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) is the supreme court ruling upholding federal legislation banning the discrimination against restaurant customers based upon race. Jack Phillips seeks to allow discrimination against gay people in the food service industry based upon religious beliefs.
However, the Bible provides multiple passages legitimizing slavery and racism, an argument previously exploited by slaveholders. But neither the legislature and subsequent court decision carved out an exemption for slavery based on Biblical passages. It would be illogical for the court to now join with Jack Phillips to cherry-pick certain Biblical passages for validation, but not others.
To rule in favor of Jack Phillips is to assert that a foreign law written in the Bronze Age has legal heirarchy over the American Constitution and contemporary American legislation. At that point a formal theocracy is in effect.
However, the Bible provides multiple passages legitimizing slavery and racism, an argument previously exploited by slaveholders. But neither the legislature and subsequent court decision carved out an exemption for slavery based on Biblical passages. It would be illogical for the court to now join with Jack Phillips to cherry-pick certain Biblical passages for validation, but not others.
To rule in favor of Jack Phillips is to assert that a foreign law written in the Bronze Age has legal heirarchy over the American Constitution and contemporary American legislation. At that point a formal theocracy is in effect.
8
Just can't believe this is a thing. It's a cake!
I don't get the baker who won't bake it, nor do I get the couple who insists he has to.
I don't get the baker who won't bake it, nor do I get the couple who insists he has to.
3
I can see both merit in both sides of this matter, but the law is the law.
What I find absolutely ridiculous is an award of $135,000 for emotional distress.
What I find absolutely ridiculous is an award of $135,000 for emotional distress.
4
The intent of such huge awards is to not merely punish such bakers, or force them to bake gay cakes -- but to drive them entirely out of business, and thus, terrify every other business owner and force them to host gay weddings, bake gay wedding cakes and otherwise utterly violate their moral beliefs.
What will happen when the child learns basic biology and wishes to find his or her other biological parent? Adoptees have the recognized right to access their birth certificates, which in the cases of same-sex parents will not contain such information. Will these adoptees be denied the opportunity (for medical or psychological reasons) for this discovery?
It's all well and good to say that love (and legalities) makes a family but this hasn't been enough reason to deny adoptees this information. What will happen to those with same-sex parents?
It's all well and good to say that love (and legalities) makes a family but this hasn't been enough reason to deny adoptees this information. What will happen to those with same-sex parents?
5
Well... if they used an anonymous donor, as stated the man will never be found. If you're speaking to general adoptees, I doubt a same-sex couple will go through the trouble of creating/adopting a child only to give it up for adoption to another couple later. So, the issue of adopted children would remain consistent: a sealed BC will have their biological parent(s) infromation, while the legal document for their childhood will state the legal guardians. Then, on their 18th birthday the legal document with the biological parents will be avilable... unless a different agreement was come to between the bio & adopting parent.
1
i have a small clientele. I am an atheist and will refuse to serve anyone who professes a belief in God. I don't want THEIR business.
8
The belief is not really the point. I doubt this baker would refuse to serve a gay person who walked in the door and asked for a birthday cake, or a loaf of bread. It is because the cake was specifically intended for a marriage ceremony that he did not want to provide it. So your example is not in the same category. But you could say that you would refuse to provide your product if it was going to be used in a religious ceremony. That would be analogous, and you would have every right to do that.
5
But nobody uses the term atheist anymore.
We prefer the more accurate term rationalist.
We prefer the more accurate term rationalist.
Employers, landlords and any number of other people with any power discriminate all the time in choosing one person over another, or in deciding to grant or withhold a benefit or an opportunity, using an endless number of subjective criteria. Is that wrong? Why are there no objections to these practices?
3
So we live in a pure meritocracy, where everyone is granted opportunities based upon a common and clearly evident scale of worth and ability. No discretion is given or taken by the powers that be in making the decision?
1
No, only if redlined on certain very specific criteria.
My family owns multiple rental properties and I have also been a renter. Landlords may discriminate based on many factors (e.g. no smoking, having the ability to pay the rent, criminal history, credit record) but there are certain classes of people who are protected (e.g. families with children, ethnic minorities, disabled people) by federal law. If it can be proven that you discriminated based on the latter factors (and I'm not saying it's easy), you can be subjected to prosecution by the state.
Up until the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, I, an Asian-American woman would not have been able to buy property in some areas near where I now own my place. In Los Angeles, one of my professors showed us his parents' original house deed, prohibiting Jews and Blacks from buying.
The same rules/ thinking behind why businesses need to serve customers without discrimination of special classes is what also drives housing law. So I would not be surprised if the SC rules in favor of Phillips, that you might start to see more housing discrimination.
More Below:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/housing-discrimination-complaints...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
Up until the Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, I, an Asian-American woman would not have been able to buy property in some areas near where I now own my place. In Los Angeles, one of my professors showed us his parents' original house deed, prohibiting Jews and Blacks from buying.
The same rules/ thinking behind why businesses need to serve customers without discrimination of special classes is what also drives housing law. So I would not be surprised if the SC rules in favor of Phillips, that you might start to see more housing discrimination.
More Below:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/housing-discrimination-complaints...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act
2
A person can choose who they choose to love/make love to. In that you have a choice does not equate to being black. Please... Don't try to make being gay/lesbian the same as being Black. You can choose not to love or make love to anyone. We can't choose not to be black, not that we would want to....
6
I don’t see anyone trying to make “being gay/lesbian the same as being Black,” but what they are referring to is the very real vicious treatment of both groups by those among us who utterly loathe their existence.
What I can’t understand is why some people choose to believe that a person can’t be born gay. I do understand that some Blacks are choosing to not, seemingly, be put in the same category as gays, but I think that choice is subjective, and not based on fact.
Likewise, there is the historical religious denouncement of women, so what do you choose if you’re a woman, but do not want to be regarded as, “a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil” a proclamation that comes to us courtesy of Tertulian, a Father of the Church? Can you choose not to be a woman?
What I can’t understand is why some people choose to believe that a person can’t be born gay. I do understand that some Blacks are choosing to not, seemingly, be put in the same category as gays, but I think that choice is subjective, and not based on fact.
Likewise, there is the historical religious denouncement of women, so what do you choose if you’re a woman, but do not want to be regarded as, “a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil” a proclamation that comes to us courtesy of Tertulian, a Father of the Church? Can you choose not to be a woman?
1
Are you seriously asking that question in today's America, Madcap1?
As a gay man, I don't like the idea of the government using its authority to bully others. Post a bad review on Yelp and move on.
I also do not have delusions about how babies are made, and a biology-based birth certificate regime is based on science, not belief.
I also do not have delusions about how babies are made, and a biology-based birth certificate regime is based on science, not belief.
11
You've missed the point on both counts. Its not about the cake. Its about an individual deciding who they wish to discriminate against. Would you support a muslim baker not wanting to bake a cake for a christian couple? they could under your interpretation. it opens the door for discrimination in all and every form of commerce.
And you missed the point in the article that states that under current law, a straight married couple automatically gets the husbands name on the birth certificate. They don't ask for a paternity test. So there is no biologic requirement. If there were, this wouldn't be an issue. Thats why this is discrimination. Seems Gorsuch missed that too.
And you missed the point in the article that states that under current law, a straight married couple automatically gets the husbands name on the birth certificate. They don't ask for a paternity test. So there is no biologic requirement. If there were, this wouldn't be an issue. Thats why this is discrimination. Seems Gorsuch missed that too.
3
"Would you support a muslim baker not wanting to bake a cake for a christian couple? "
I wholeheartedly support a Moslem baker refusing to create a customized cake with a cross stating "Jesus is Lord" on it. That is the equivalent scenario to Mr. Phillips' objections.
I wholeheartedly support a Moslem baker refusing to create a customized cake with a cross stating "Jesus is Lord" on it. That is the equivalent scenario to Mr. Phillips' objections.
34
I want another option, "I wholeheartedly support a Moslem baker refusing to create a customized cake with a cross stating "Jesus is Lord" on it. That is the equivalent scenario to Mr. Phillips' objections."
Still does not make it right or legal.
Still does not make it right or legal.
I am shocked by these comments which tend to run toward the idea that a business owner does not have to be responsible to the ideals of a democracy and can act with discriminatory intent based on professed religious beliefs. Instead of complaining that the gay couple should just find another baker, might we ask if the baker needs to find another business --- one that is in a country where the law of the land is discrimination against gays and lesbians?
31
The moral relativism argument does not work when it comes to an individual person and their individual beliefs. So when you use the term "professed" religious beliefs it sounds like you are calling the baker a liar. The Supreme Court will judge whether his beliefs are genuine. If they decide he's authentic then the question becomes whether he has the constitutional right to express those beliefs by not serving the couple. If the "law of the land" (to use your term) was so well defined in this situation, this case would not be heading to the Supreme Court.
4
When you say "we" who exactly do you mean? The state has no power to tell the baker to find another business. Thank goodness. He was exercising his right to freedom of religion. We do not restrict that right to Sunday when he is in the church.
2
Mr. Phillips-
As a good Christian, I hope you'll also deny service to divorcees, people who wear polyester, people who plant the wrong crops next to each other, adulterers, and wizards too. The Bible says.
As a good Christian, I hope you'll also deny service to divorcees, people who wear polyester, people who plant the wrong crops next to each other, adulterers, and wizards too. The Bible says.
38
And people with tattoos!
2
He didn't deny service to the gay couple he denied creating a cake with a certain message.
3
Don't forget the pro-choice crowd....
2
This is quite an interesting case. I am going to follow up on any news of this. What struck me is that this baker did not refuse to bake the couple a cake, but refused to bake a cake for a specific occasion, which he says he does not believe in. Now this baker runs a private business, and he says there are certain restrictions on the types of cakes he bakes. For e.g. he says he does not bake cakes with alcohol in them or cakes for celebrating Halloween. Now, should his discretion as a private businessman be held up as to who he chooses to serve or not or should his denial (in this case to bake a wedding cake) be seen in the larger context of discrimination?
4
If the baker only makes goods for those passing bilical muster, he would be out of business. Divorced, sex outside of marriage, using birth control,eating unclean food (including yeast leavened items),gluttony,wearing clothes meant for the opposite sex (women in pants) and working on the sabbath no service for you. The list could go on. Me thinks he is cherry picking the bible.
9
You didn't read the article. He won't bake certain cakes with certain messages on it. He doesn't make cakes for Halloween, doesn't make cakes with alcohol in it, etc. Would you force him to bake a cake celebrating Halloween?
4
The baker did not refuse to serve a gay couple. They could have purchased any pre-made cake in the store.
My personal beliefs are different from Mr. Phillips'. But, there are many things that people have a legal right to do that I would refuse to be involved in.
Is a baker free to refuse to decorate a cake with a swastika? What if someone came into a bakery asking for an elaborate design of a black man being lynched? Or a cake celebrating sexual violence?
Before anyone attacks me for conflating gay marriage with the Holocaust--that is not what I am doing. I am asking those who think this man must do anything asked of him by a customer--Do you have any moral boundaries that you would refuse to cross? Are there any people in this country who hold views that you would not be willing to use your creative talents to celebrate?
My personal beliefs are different from Mr. Phillips'. But, there are many things that people have a legal right to do that I would refuse to be involved in.
Is a baker free to refuse to decorate a cake with a swastika? What if someone came into a bakery asking for an elaborate design of a black man being lynched? Or a cake celebrating sexual violence?
Before anyone attacks me for conflating gay marriage with the Holocaust--that is not what I am doing. I am asking those who think this man must do anything asked of him by a customer--Do you have any moral boundaries that you would refuse to cross? Are there any people in this country who hold views that you would not be willing to use your creative talents to celebrate?
16
And yet you are indeed conflating something that is clearly morally neutral with several examples of evil and obvious harm. Being gay is natural and determined naturally. It is not an offensive political view, no matter how much certain people choose to hate it.
3
Or, what stance would those opposing the baker take if they refused to create a cake for the current White House, based on, say, the effects of the coming repeal of the ACA?
3
He can refuse to bake a cake with a swastika. He can't refuse to bake one for one group but bake one for a different group. That's where the discrimination part comes into play.
I too run a very small business and it would never occur to me to question the lifestyle choices or behavior or beliefs of any of our customers. I don't understand this baker at all. If only one young man came into his shop and ordered a cake to be delivered to a catering hall at a certain day and time, would he even think about the circumstances of that use? The buyer is doing nothing illegal. The baker is not invited to the wedding. If his door is open to "the public," then all his customers are entitled to the "equal protection of the laws." He is not judge and jury ... he's a baker. Cakes have no beliefs ... cakes have no religion, or sexual orientation. They just stand on a table looking pretty.
22
I wholly agree but find the creative part of the equation interesting. The customers weren't buying widgets or an off the shelf standard cake. There is an element of the baker's creativity involved. And if that does matter, how much creativity is necessary to be absolved of having to create. What about wedding photographers? Or wedding planners? How about if they were asked to re-create a phallic cake that a bakery in the Village used to sell?
5
How about cake decorated with swastikas, and topped with a frosting sculpture of Adolf Hitler? For the American Nazi Party celebration?
How about a cake with black caricatures, and topped with a decoration of a black man hanging from a noose -- to celebrate lynchings -- which was commissioned by the local branch of the KKK?
Can Jewish and/or black bakers be forced now to bake and decorate those cakes?
How about a cake with black caricatures, and topped with a decoration of a black man hanging from a noose -- to celebrate lynchings -- which was commissioned by the local branch of the KKK?
Can Jewish and/or black bakers be forced now to bake and decorate those cakes?
If the Supreme Court fails to extinguish this comical but flawed notion of "religious freedom", soon we will be required to prove party affiliation before ordering a cup of coffee.
Truly, there will be no end to the justifications used in denying services to ordinary citizens — it would be absolute bedlam.
I miss Obama.
Truly, there will be no end to the justifications used in denying services to ordinary citizens — it would be absolute bedlam.
I miss Obama.
22
It is undeniable that baking a wedding cake would go against his own perception of the Christian religion. Though, I am reminded when Jesus Himself eagerly dined with 'sinners' and looked down at those that thought they were too 'morally pure.'
Regardless, the law cannot allow every religious act to become acceptable, simply because it has religious intent. Remember, as well, that freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, but it must never impede the safety or rights of others. This might be taking it to the extreme, I am well aware, but imagine a case where extremist Muslims claim it is legal for the to kill homosexuals, because their Religion demands it. Even the Christian old testament... Treating women so poorly as men would in the Old Testament, and be glorified for it, is not acceptable by our modern law. Stoning an adulterer is not acceptable. And yes, for the Old Testament Christians, killing homosexuals is not acceptable.
There are two lines of thought in the modern Christian church. One follows the compassionate teaching of Jesus, and the other relies heavily upon the wrath-filled pales of the Old Testament. That one book, in different hands, can be used to bring hope or instill fear.
Let's not be the type of people that go around causing others to fear their neighbor.
Regardless, the law cannot allow every religious act to become acceptable, simply because it has religious intent. Remember, as well, that freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, but it must never impede the safety or rights of others. This might be taking it to the extreme, I am well aware, but imagine a case where extremist Muslims claim it is legal for the to kill homosexuals, because their Religion demands it. Even the Christian old testament... Treating women so poorly as men would in the Old Testament, and be glorified for it, is not acceptable by our modern law. Stoning an adulterer is not acceptable. And yes, for the Old Testament Christians, killing homosexuals is not acceptable.
There are two lines of thought in the modern Christian church. One follows the compassionate teaching of Jesus, and the other relies heavily upon the wrath-filled pales of the Old Testament. That one book, in different hands, can be used to bring hope or instill fear.
Let's not be the type of people that go around causing others to fear their neighbor.
6
I see this as a fairly simple issue. Your beliefs are your own and your welcome to hold them. Governmental units enact laws to protect people from discrimination where they see it occurring. Part of that protection involves regulating the market place so that no one is treated unfairly based on race, religion, gender, etc. A business owner enters the marketplace voluntarily and cannot exempt him/herself from the rules of the marketplace based on religious views and override government protections. A business owner has no absolute right to sell cakes (or whatever), so if he/she doesn't like the rules of the market, well then, get out of the market or work within government to change those rules. That said, and sadly, if this baker were in a jurisdiction without any protections for GLBTQ persons (a majority of states and many rural areas, e.g., North Carolina), he would be perfectly justified legally in his discrimination, which is also (IMHO) a breach of basic Christian hospitality. The Civil Rights Act needs amending to add sexual orientation to the basic list of protected classes.
11
In the United States we do not give the state that kind of power! Free exercise of religion outranks some pettifogging bureaucrat who want to tell the baker who he can and cannot serve. This is the the land of the free and home of the brave.
4
Would we be having this discussion if the couple were black? Doubt it.
Everyone who discriminates has a reason for it.
That's why the laws against discrimination exist.
Everyone who discriminates has a reason for it.
That's why the laws against discrimination exist.
16
What if the BAKER is black....and the customer a white racist, ordering a cake for the local KKK meeting....decorated with white hoods, and topped with a black man hanging from a noose?
Still OK with forcing the baker to comply? or is it OK to be prejudiced against white racists?
Still OK with forcing the baker to comply? or is it OK to be prejudiced against white racists?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...
What is so difficult to understand about that part of the First Amendment ?
We live in such a self-centered secular society we forget that there are some
people who live out the tenets of their religion at home, at their Church/Temple
and at work.
Were states to require that Public Schools have classes on Saturday, those
who view Saturday at their Sabbath would have a right to protest and refuse
to send their children to school.
We seem to refuse to make compromises anymore.
Do you really want a State Law that requires Jewish Bakers to make Cakes
celebrating in writing - Neo Nazis ?
An African American Barbecue to have to serve a Confederate States of
America celebration ?
It is not up to the State to tell a person and the private business he runs
what is moral and what is not moral in terms of his decisions on how to
live his life and run his business in terms of what products he will make
and what he will not make.
A business makes economic decisions every day.
Do well offer service during certain hours of the day, do we serve the whole
city/state/country/world ?
If you view this as the simple right of a baker to not make Cakes
causes/events he does not personally approve of - where is the problem ?
No one dies because a Cake is not baked.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...
What is so difficult to understand about that part of the First Amendment ?
We live in such a self-centered secular society we forget that there are some
people who live out the tenets of their religion at home, at their Church/Temple
and at work.
Were states to require that Public Schools have classes on Saturday, those
who view Saturday at their Sabbath would have a right to protest and refuse
to send their children to school.
We seem to refuse to make compromises anymore.
Do you really want a State Law that requires Jewish Bakers to make Cakes
celebrating in writing - Neo Nazis ?
An African American Barbecue to have to serve a Confederate States of
America celebration ?
It is not up to the State to tell a person and the private business he runs
what is moral and what is not moral in terms of his decisions on how to
live his life and run his business in terms of what products he will make
and what he will not make.
A business makes economic decisions every day.
Do well offer service during certain hours of the day, do we serve the whole
city/state/country/world ?
If you view this as the simple right of a baker to not make Cakes
causes/events he does not personally approve of - where is the problem ?
No one dies because a Cake is not baked.
10
As far as I know, the baker does not make NeoNazi cakse and Confederate cakes. The baker makes wedding cakes. He approves of wedding cakes. He does not approve of "certain types" of people that want to buy a type of cake he already makes.
2
Questions to consider. If religion in the US is considered as any type of spiritual belief couldn't this be turned around in a different way? What I mean is couldn't this lead to a gay run business denying to do business with a heterosexual customer? Couldn't the gay run business owner say their religious belief (doesn't have to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, just their religious belief) prevents them from doing business with heterosexuals? If the US Constitution upholds freedom of religion does that mean it only covers the big 3 or 4? Or would it cover a religion of 1 person, with a belief system made up entirely by that person only to suit them? Lawyers we need your help answering these questions.
1
That would be against the law the same way refusing service to black people is. The difference in your scenario from the bakers scenario is that the baker is refusing to make a certain cake he isn't refusing to serve the gay couple.
5
There is a recent article here about "how gay are gay bars".
In one case, a gay bar owner in Manhattan was refusing service to heterosexual women looking to stage "bachelorette" parties in his bar. This was before Obergefell, and the owner was very offended that these straight women could celebrate their weddings while gay couples were denied legal marriages -- so he refused them service.
Everyone in the lefty media wildly applauded this man for doing so!!!!
Lefties are HUGE huge hypocrites.
In one case, a gay bar owner in Manhattan was refusing service to heterosexual women looking to stage "bachelorette" parties in his bar. This was before Obergefell, and the owner was very offended that these straight women could celebrate their weddings while gay couples were denied legal marriages -- so he refused them service.
Everyone in the lefty media wildly applauded this man for doing so!!!!
Lefties are HUGE huge hypocrites.
Is there a group that plays the victim card better than Christians? How quickly would they cry "there's a war on Christians" if, for example, a Jewish bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a Christian couple. But they have no problem turning around and refusing to make a cake for a gay couple.
16
Religious bigotry similarly used to justify slavery, condemn mixed marriages, and rationalize segregation. Same old indefensible, 'our ways are superior to you and yours'.
13
Is there a legal difference between producing & selling a custom artistic work and selling commodities .... i.e. a gay themed wedding cake vs. a generic carrot cake? Is producing a custom cake a piece of art? What if an artist who sells custom paintings refuses to produce a nazi themed painting? What if a home decorator refuses a client who wants sexually explicit bedroom decor? This may be the crux of the issue regardless of whether the objection is religious based or not. If so, are we okay with that ... or is it not ok for any public business owner whose artistic talent is required to refuse any customer regardless of request?
42
Nazi beliefs and practices and sexual beliefs and practices are not protected discrimination categories under law. Your examples are irrelevant. The case in question involves a protected category, namely sexual orientation.
6
"This may be the crux of the issue regardless of whether the objection is religious based or not. If so, are we okay with that ... or is it not ok for any public business owner whose artistic talent is required to refuse any customer regardless of request?"
Not sure but under that assumption I guess it would be ok for a gay artist to refuse to produce a work for a heterosexual client.
Not sure but under that assumption I guess it would be ok for a gay artist to refuse to produce a work for a heterosexual client.
A wedding cake that expresses the union of a legally-married gay couple has nothing in common with a cake that promotes hate or pornography. There are well-established anti-hate mongering laws as well as laws that prohibit public pornography. If this baker cannot endorse a marriage of a gay couple. he should not be licensed to bake a cake for any couple. The whole point of the Civil Rights fight at lunch counters across the South was that if a restaurant is licensed by the state to serve the public, you cannot discriminate . Serve all or serve none.
3
My two wishes, Justice Kennedy retires ASAP so President Trump can put in a reliable Conservative jurist and to hear the lamentations of the LGBTQ community as SCOTUS rules in favor of the Baker, that is Best In Life.
7
but he doesn't object to homosexuals paying for the roads that brought him his ingredients to cook his cake. He doesn't object to the firefighters who protect his business, and after years and years of refining our codes, after the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire..He doesn't object to clean water or clean air, that homosexuals (!!!) help pay for..No if you want to have a business and use our roads and our firefighters, you cannot discriminate.
14
That argument is ridiculous. By that standard, you'd have to serve people who can't pay you, as they have paid taxes to pay for the roads too. And by that standard, you'd have to invite everyone over for a dinner party, as the roads leading to your house are paid for by everyone. No. Existing in public does not make you a public entity. Period.
3
no, that argument is ridiculous @Jon W. Money is money. Discrimination is discrimination - and the twain do not meet. How silly to say if they can't pay you you are discriminating... No, money is our common denoninator. To say you won't serve him,, despite the fact that you are using the roads he has paid for, because he is gay, is a non-sequite to his not being able to jpay money to your non-discriminatory business that exists in our plural society...
We all pay for roads. If you do't have money to pay for a cake, that is an entirely different matter!! Obvious!! Find a society that does not allow gays to pay for roads, and go live there, if that is your bottom line!.
We all pay for roads. If you do't have money to pay for a cake, that is an entirely different matter!! Obvious!! Find a society that does not allow gays to pay for roads, and go live there, if that is your bottom line!.
2
@jonW. not that is ridiculous. Money for barter is not the same as taxes for road repair. DuH!!!
Let's say a private drug manufacturer has a medicine on patent but won't give it to ... bakers, because his religion doesn't condone their lifestyle, mixing ingredients, using simple sugars, it's not acceptable. Is it okay to withhold it from bakers who come in to purchase the medicine? What about doctors in ER's, by law they have to treat everyone, but if it's okay for the bakers to be turned away for medicine than it should be okay for a doctor to turn them away as well since baker's products can be linked to a myriad of diseases and poor health and physicians could understandably be opposed to that type of lifestyle.
14
In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court did not accept that the 1st Amendment provided a blanket exemption for individuals to break the law:
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority:
"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....
To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
Employment Division v. Smith, 1990
Further, to single out an entire class of minority people for discrimination, while ignoring any other person who might offend the baker's sensibilities for religious reasons, is just plain bigotry cloaked in religion.
I imagine if the Supreme Court were to rule in the baker's favor, and Sharia law was imposed in various Muslim businesses and schools, the backers of the bills might be less enthusiastic.
This nation has suffered through enough discriminatory business practices since its founding and this is just the latest.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority:
"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....
To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
Employment Division v. Smith, 1990
Further, to single out an entire class of minority people for discrimination, while ignoring any other person who might offend the baker's sensibilities for religious reasons, is just plain bigotry cloaked in religion.
I imagine if the Supreme Court were to rule in the baker's favor, and Sharia law was imposed in various Muslim businesses and schools, the backers of the bills might be less enthusiastic.
This nation has suffered through enough discriminatory business practices since its founding and this is just the latest.
10
It is clear here that Mr. Phillips (the baker) does not single out gays, or gay marriage, at all. He refuses to bake cakes for many occasions, such as Halloween, that do not comply with his religious beliefs. He won't bake cakes with alcohol -- he won't decorate cakes with sexual imagery (such as for bachelor parties).
He is entirely consistent in his ethics and behavior.
He is entirely consistent in his ethics and behavior.
The question here is whether the baker's first amendment religious freedom trumps the state law that prohibits discrimination based on the couple's fundamental right to marry.
The last time the issue came up, the discrimination was based on race. The court ruled if you're in business, you can't discriminate based on race. But race is a protected class and so far, sexual orientation is not.
The court could vote to protect gays against invidious discrimination. The baker would then have to decide what business he's really in. Or the Court could refuse to protect gay people and the baker can continue to discriminate, as his christian faith teaches.
The last time the issue came up, the discrimination was based on race. The court ruled if you're in business, you can't discriminate based on race. But race is a protected class and so far, sexual orientation is not.
The court could vote to protect gays against invidious discrimination. The baker would then have to decide what business he's really in. Or the Court could refuse to protect gay people and the baker can continue to discriminate, as his christian faith teaches.
4
If making a cake for someone who sins is a violation of his beliefs (as Mr. Phillips himself states), then given the fact that his religion states that only one man in history was free of sin, he can't make a cake for anyone, correct?
15
The real sin is appropriating a religious sacrament in an attempt to validate their ongoing, unrepented sin. They then force their sin on others when they try to make them participate in celebrating their sin. The baker didn't try to prevent the "marriage," but balks at being forced to be any part of it. He's shown much more respect toward the LGBT community than gas been shown to him.
2
Sorry, but what's the problem? The same-sex couple has every right to get married and have a cake, as much as the baker who doesn't want to bake one for them has.
Easy solution.
Just go out and find another baker -- there are plenty of them right here in New York who would be glad to do the job.
Easy solution.
Just go out and find another baker -- there are plenty of them right here in New York who would be glad to do the job.
10
Because that's not how it works. If you want to enjoy the massive benefits of a society that everyone provides, you have to serve everyone. It's that simple.
4
What about people who can't pay you? Why shouldn't you have to serve them?
Okay, your car is spewing coolant. Your family breathes a sigh of relief as you spot my service station. Guess what? I don't serve your kind. Push it to the next station down the road because the tow truck driver feels the same. Hopefully, you won't be disappointed at the next service station.
3
Yet gays and lesbians who don't share the religious beliefs of certain churches are nonetheless compelled to cover those churches' tax loopholes and exemptions, as well as other taxpayer taxpayer-funded goodies, like police officers to direct traffic into and out of church parking lots, and federal and state highways and railroads and trucks on which capital is moved.
If you're on the taxpayer-funded grid, you should have to serve everyone equally. Don't like it? Get off the grid. No one is owed a taxpayer-funded infrastructure from which to operate a business. No one is owed a taxpayer-funded infrastructure as a megaphone for religious objection.
If you're on the taxpayer-funded grid, you should have to serve everyone equally. Don't like it? Get off the grid. No one is owed a taxpayer-funded infrastructure from which to operate a business. No one is owed a taxpayer-funded infrastructure as a megaphone for religious objection.
14
I don't know of anywhere in my city that refuses to serve people because they are straight, or presumed to be. The USA can be so backwards sometimes it's shocking.
6
While I question Mr. Phillip's understanding of Jesus' teachings, I can't help but wonder why a gay couple would want to purchase a cake from him in the first place. What do the plaintiffs stand to gain if they prevail? Will they really force Phillips make them a cake?
We are not talking about an essential service like emergency health care (or even providing a meal) here. Surely there is another local baker who will affirm this couple in their union.
I understand the principle -- that Mr. Phillips is discriminating against a "class" -- but the practical purpose of this dispute eludes me.
We are not talking about an essential service like emergency health care (or even providing a meal) here. Surely there is another local baker who will affirm this couple in their union.
I understand the principle -- that Mr. Phillips is discriminating against a "class" -- but the practical purpose of this dispute eludes me.
2
"What do the plaintiffs stand to gain if they prevail? Will they really force Phillips make them a cake?"
A $135,000 Award for emotional distress seems like an excellent reason given our crazy legal system.
A $135,000 Award for emotional distress seems like an excellent reason given our crazy legal system.
4
I'm very sure the black people who sat at "whites only" counters did not want to support such businesses.
They endured the taunts and violence directed toward them so that future generations would not have to experience the indignity of being denied service just because the owners considered them less than equal.
Today it is a cake, tomorrow it is something more critical and essential, when myriad religious beliefs take precedence over the law.
This nation needs to move past orchestrated efforts to divide the country and start living up to the Constitutional principle that we are all worthy of equal protection under the law.
They endured the taunts and violence directed toward them so that future generations would not have to experience the indignity of being denied service just because the owners considered them less than equal.
Today it is a cake, tomorrow it is something more critical and essential, when myriad religious beliefs take precedence over the law.
This nation needs to move past orchestrated efforts to divide the country and start living up to the Constitutional principle that we are all worthy of equal protection under the law.
2
More Republican bigotry disguised as religious tolerance. Another step in their plan to establish a crypto fascist corporate theocracy. Vile.
9
If religion is your business and you want to "sell" it, it's up to the listener to buy it. If you are selling cakes, sell cakes and sweets, things that make people happy...keep your nose out of peoples cakes. If I am a clobber, should I discriminate as to whos shoes I'm going to repair? If so, your shoes will remain "holly", Mr. Religious Baker.
3
I believe it does not violate his 1st amendment rights. Yes freedom of religion and expression. But, it violates the couples rights to freedom of expression and the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that couple isn't asking for a neon rainbow tertracolor cake that says "Our Big Gay Happy Wedding" on it there should be no problems.
3
Actually, their rights were not with held at all. No one is forcing anything on the gay couple, but the couple is coercing the baker. Given he could lose his livelihood, they might as well put a gun to his head.
3
IF I were a gay couple, deliberately ordering a cake from a religious Christian baker -- knowing that person did not wish to bake my cake, and was doing it under duress, and fear of lawsuits -- I'd be a lot more worried about spit or worse in the cake batter.
Why order ANY type of food from ANYONE who doesn't want to cook/bake/serve it to you?????
Why order ANY type of food from ANYONE who doesn't want to cook/bake/serve it to you?????
It's sad how Evangelical Christians cry about how their Constitutional freedom of religion rights are being violated when they believe The Bible trumps the Constitution of the United States (no pun intended). They believe it is their Constitutional right to discriminate. They don't believe "all men are created equal". If Christ was the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, would he have sent away the gay couple? No.
Why are Evangelical Christians some of the most least Christ-like people among us?
Why are Evangelical Christians some of the most least Christ-like people among us?
18
Jesus was a First Century Jewish rabbi.
He would have believed that homosexuality was a deviation, and an abomination and a sin against God's law. If he did NOT believe this -- as was his religion -- he would have said so. He did not say so.
Therefore, he must have agreed with his Jewish education and upbringing.
He would have believed that homosexuality was a deviation, and an abomination and a sin against God's law. If he did NOT believe this -- as was his religion -- he would have said so. He did not say so.
Therefore, he must have agreed with his Jewish education and upbringing.
Christ might have reminded them of the seed with the shallow root that would not grow or the lamp plug without a socket that would not cast a light. Something like that.
Religion is the last institution which supports discrimination.
Hopefully one day either religion will no longer be necessary (preferable) or it's practitioners will no longer be so bigoted.
Hopefully one day either religion will no longer be necessary (preferable) or it's practitioners will no longer be so bigoted.
11
Are these bakers willing to post a sign for all to see saying that they refuse to serve the LGBTQ community? If they are so proud of their bigotry - post it. That way LGBTQ allies can take their business elsewhere.
If the bakeshop has a prejudice against making wedding cakes specific Americans, the solution is to not make wedding cakes at all.
3
Why can't people and the courts just admit there is a difference between a baker and a hospital? Sure, if a hospital refuses to serve a gay person, that should not be allowed. But this is not about refusing to serve gay people. it's about refusing to decorate a cake for a gay marriage. All the bakers I have read about were willing to serve gay people outside the context of a wedding ceremony. I am totally pro-gay marriage and think being gay is great - but this is ridiculous.
Either sell wedding cakes to all couples or don't sell cakes. That is equal protection.
If this man wants to avoid selling cakes to same-sex couples, maybe he should put a cross on every cake. That would probably be legal and most educated people would steer clear.
If this man wants to avoid selling cakes to same-sex couples, maybe he should put a cross on every cake. That would probably be legal and most educated people would steer clear.
7
First, equal protection, as a principle, only applies to the government, so that's already a losing argument. Second, why just couples?
3
The focus should not be his religious beliefs, or whether his religious beliefs are being violated by being forced to provide a service which he believes is in violation thereto. Even though Phillips is a private business owner, he wants to take advantage of the free-market, and wants to have access to customers to keep his business afloat. The First Amendment protects from the government establishing a national religion, and prohibits the government from inhibiting one's practice of a religion. This protection does not extend to when a religion's teachings are used to discriminate against other citizens. Those who do not see the comparison between this case and Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc., are conveniently neglecting that religious freedom on the grounds that the the religion in question prohibits racial integration was cited in that case.
Fair enough. As long as SCOTUS protects MY right to avoid establishments like this. Vendors who seek "protection" from "having to serve LGBT individuals" on religious grounds (I can barely write this without laughing uproariously at the rich irony) must be mandated to prominently display their customer preferences where I can see it. If I were to discover that I had inadvertently patronized an establishment with a policy to not serve certain human beings, I would be outraged. MY "right to know" would have been egregiously violated.
12
And that sums up why I will never shop at Hobby Lobby.
6
The comments on this article and the case itself reveal how the country has almost no shared values. It's essentially a valueless society and a free-for-all for competing interests. In this case, I believe discriminating against a gay couple is wrong and they have the right to buy the cake. Their inherent sexual preference is not a valid basis for refusing service. Rather their behavior inside the store or in the presence of the baker does. But many people disagree with me for some reason.
Abortion is the issue where even conservatives argue for more state control. Somehow, it's obvious to pro-lifers that an abortion is terrible and must be stopped. But many people do not agree with them. When does life start? Who knows, really.
Recently many cops have been acquitted on murder charges against black men. They pulled the trigger and killed people and there was no justice. This is a travesty in my mind, but some people don't believe it is. The country can't even agree that shooting someone dead deserves a punishment of some kind.
I believe everyone should have healthcare because all men and women are created equal. And I believe in taking care of our fellow countrymen. Others do not find it to be a right and people should have to earn healthcare.
In the mid-1800s, people from a bunch of states thought it was just dandy to hold dark skinned people as slaves. Others did not and it caused a civil war. Let's hope we can start agreeing on some issues soon in this country!
Abortion is the issue where even conservatives argue for more state control. Somehow, it's obvious to pro-lifers that an abortion is terrible and must be stopped. But many people do not agree with them. When does life start? Who knows, really.
Recently many cops have been acquitted on murder charges against black men. They pulled the trigger and killed people and there was no justice. This is a travesty in my mind, but some people don't believe it is. The country can't even agree that shooting someone dead deserves a punishment of some kind.
I believe everyone should have healthcare because all men and women are created equal. And I believe in taking care of our fellow countrymen. Others do not find it to be a right and people should have to earn healthcare.
In the mid-1800s, people from a bunch of states thought it was just dandy to hold dark skinned people as slaves. Others did not and it caused a civil war. Let's hope we can start agreeing on some issues soon in this country!
Exclusion based on hatred and bigotry is not religion. It is evil. If the US Supreme Court upholds this so-called "faith-based" bigotry, it will be time for me to leave this country. The GOP is slowly but surely dismantling all our democratic institutions.
9
As much as I despise discrimination, this baker had a private business and he shouldn't be forced to provide a service. Also, I don't understand why this gay couple wanted to give their business to this baker even after he declined because of his beliefs. The power of the wallet is just as strong as the power of the vote. Its time for people to stop patronizing businesses that don't respect them.
62
" Also, I don't understand why this gay couple wanted to give their business to this baker even after he declined because of his beliefs."
This is an example of the classic republican style of passive aggressively making a statement in the form of a question to forward a passive argument they never quite own or make in full.
Your statement does not stand as it is based on your imagination not the reality.
The men asked for a cake, they were told no. They filed a complaint for being discriminated against and then got a cake somewhere else and are now married and living happily somewhere.
The complaint process found that the baker was wrong to discriminate. He appealed... I do not know all the details but at some point one of the parties, I expect it was the baker or one of the republican shadow orgs helping to push phony ideas like the right to discriminate against X because god told you so and otherwise use religion to undermine our Constitution, took this to court and here we are.
This is an example of the classic republican style of passive aggressively making a statement in the form of a question to forward a passive argument they never quite own or make in full.
Your statement does not stand as it is based on your imagination not the reality.
The men asked for a cake, they were told no. They filed a complaint for being discriminated against and then got a cake somewhere else and are now married and living happily somewhere.
The complaint process found that the baker was wrong to discriminate. He appealed... I do not know all the details but at some point one of the parties, I expect it was the baker or one of the republican shadow orgs helping to push phony ideas like the right to discriminate against X because god told you so and otherwise use religion to undermine our Constitution, took this to court and here we are.
2
As others have pointed out, his bakery is open to the public. It is not, for example, a private bakery club with some kind of qualification process.
Applying your rationale, restaurants in the south could once again refuse to serve people of color, and their only recourse would be to eat somewhere else. Surely you don't mean to suggest this.
Applying your rationale, restaurants in the south could once again refuse to serve people of color, and their only recourse would be to eat somewhere else. Surely you don't mean to suggest this.
3
"this baker had a private business " - therein lies the rub. It's not a private business; it is a business doing commerce in the PUBLIC sector. if it was a private business - ie: by membership only, with a fee charged to shop at said bakery - that would be a different matter. In the United States of America, if one wishes to do business in public, with the benefits of a public presence, one needs to follow the laws of discrimination.
4
If the Supreme Court upholds the baker's right to discriminate and to introduce bigotry into commercial transactions, may I refuse to serve evangelicals whose medieval beliefs about women violate my religious beliefs?
18
Sure, when you prove that person practices those violations.
3
What makes this case different--and much thornier--than Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. U.S. (1964) and related cases, in which the defendants argued that as private businesses they had a constitutional right to choose their customers, is that Mr. Phillips, the baker, argues that forcing him to perform some services for certain customers would violate his deeply held religious beliefs. No one ever made an argument along those lines in the federal civil rights cases. Given the political climate and the constituency of the Supreme Court (especially if Justice Kennedy retires before Oct.), Mr. Phillips will likely prevail.
8
"No one ever made an argument along those lines in the federal civil rights cases."
Exactly why the reagan GOP began appealing to religion using a false moral argument and then invented this "It violates the tenets of my faith" excuse to undermine the recent Constitutional protections. Believe it or not the first major casualty of this tactic was the Voting Rights Act.
Exactly why the reagan GOP began appealing to religion using a false moral argument and then invented this "It violates the tenets of my faith" excuse to undermine the recent Constitutional protections. Believe it or not the first major casualty of this tactic was the Voting Rights Act.
I think it's interesting that Phillips is framing his cake decorating as an artistic expression. If he was denying any kind of service to gay customers, that would seem obviously wrong. But that doesn't appear to be his argument. He's saying "I don't want to make a cake that *celebrates* something I don't believe in."
Shoe stores should not be allowed to deny shoes based on a customer's sexual orientation. But should a sculptor be required to create a sculpture celebrating a gay marriage, even if he or she doesn't want to? I'm not sure if this guy is more like a shoe store or more like a sculptor, and I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it makes a difference from a legal standpoint. But for me the "I'm like a sculptor" argument makes me a bit more sympathetic to Phillips.
Shoe stores should not be allowed to deny shoes based on a customer's sexual orientation. But should a sculptor be required to create a sculpture celebrating a gay marriage, even if he or she doesn't want to? I'm not sure if this guy is more like a shoe store or more like a sculptor, and I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if it makes a difference from a legal standpoint. But for me the "I'm like a sculptor" argument makes me a bit more sympathetic to Phillips.
17
Agreed. He's not denying the sale of a plain cake to a gay customer. He doesn't want to decorate one with a same-sex theme or message on it, which is a totally different issue.
6
Then this decision will be so narrow as to be a waste of time for the court. And the nation. What is the issue is that it might become the camels nose under the tent for 'religious' (and i use that term both loosely and pejoratively) based discrimination.
Except that he said -- and had a policy that was enforced against several other gay couples -- that he would not bake wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. It's not about not printing a message he deems offensive; it's about denying a service he provides to the public to a specific protected class.
I really disagree with being asked by religion to accept belief-based discrimination just because because it's 'grandfathered prejudice'. So this discrimination is ok because it's based in faith literature that was written thousands of years ago? What if I write guidebook in 2017 for a new religion I'm starting, and I gain a bunch of believers, and my book teaches them to refuse to allow disabled/indigenous/old people, pick a minority, to buy cake. And say my believers can explain their refusal because my literature told them to refuse. Unreal.
The thought is laughable -- ridiculous, even -- that the Supreme Court would legalize discrimination against gay people and establish a state religion based on ignorance and bigotry.
But with Trump in the White House, I am no longer laughing about much of anything.
But with Trump in the White House, I am no longer laughing about much of anything.
21
The Supreme Court must have so much extra free time now since the ninth seat has been filled!
2
Believe as you like and do as you like, but when you are in the public square, you do not have the right to discriminate against others. If that doesn't suit you, do something different with your work life.
9
Except the baker is not "in the public square" because he's a proprietor who owns or leases the property where his shop resides, and he has the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness, which you are trying to deny him.
If the State of Colorado was employing Phillips to bake cakes for the "under-served" then he would be "in the public square." But by owning his own business, he is not.
But remember, Adolf Hitler thought just as you do - that everyone is supposed to behave according to the government's vision, and should be punished if they transgress.
If the State of Colorado was employing Phillips to bake cakes for the "under-served" then he would be "in the public square." But by owning his own business, he is not.
But remember, Adolf Hitler thought just as you do - that everyone is supposed to behave according to the government's vision, and should be punished if they transgress.
6
He is NOT discriminating, as he (the baker) can prove he serves gay customers all the time, and sells cakes and baked goods to gays and lesbians.
This is not about discriminating towards CUSTOMERS. If a gay man came in and ordered a wedding cake for his straight son and future daughter in law -- I assure you, Mr. Phillips would be happy to bake that cake.
This is not about discriminating towards CUSTOMERS. If a gay man came in and ordered a wedding cake for his straight son and future daughter in law -- I assure you, Mr. Phillips would be happy to bake that cake.
I am amazed at this. In fairness, I am an atheist. But, I should mention the gravity of this situation. If this becomes acceptable (as was temporary after the 50s ruling), we will see every nutjob out there claiming they will not serve customers because it is against their religion. This will ultimately travel down to the chain of employees who will also be able to refuse based on these grounds. These are very serious times. I wonder what the USA will look like in 20 years - America or Saudia Arabia?
14
These cake cases are always so interesting. Did the gay couple seek out the particular baker to try and make a point, and if so why? Who wants to turn a marriage celebration into a political or legal cause? But on the other hand, why doesn't the baker just bake the cake? What does baking a cake for a gay wedding have to do with the religious beliefs of the baker?
7
Maybe he was targeted. Other businesses have also been forced into serving as 'test cases' in similar situations. And there's compensation for hurt feelings...
2
I wonder if there would be so much outrage in these comments - and, especially, in legal circles - if it was a bakery owned by a Muslim that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, as opposed to a bakery owned by a Christian. Something tells me that people would be a lot more understanding of their 'sensibilities' in that case - or just more afraid to try to force him or her to do it.
13
I think exactly the opposite is true.
4
And you would be wrong. I think this baker is wrong and I would still hold the same opinion with a Muslim baker.
Why does this baker have to specifically tell the couple that he's not baking the cake because they are gay? I would just say my schedule is tied up and that would be the end of it. The baker's behavior seems provocative and attention seeking.
17
The religious right has dug deep to try to come up with a freedom of expression exception to civil rights that will allow it to get a foothold for its bigotry. We would not expect an artist, author or movie maker to have to write, film or sculpt Nazi materials so they want to blur the line to claim that this guy is an "artist" in his cakes and what he writes on them is art - he's Michaelangelo not a sign painter. However, this man doesn't just make his art and try to sell it; rather like a sign painter, this man does cakes to order and by doing so must lose his ability to claim artistic freedom. Thus he could perhaps make only a fixed line of cakes with fixed messages but once he says he'll write your message on your cake he has to be willing to write your messages for anyone. (Within restraints set by law such as racist or bigoted messages that could get him sued- criteria not set by him.) The requirement of equal access to the product of a company is one of the requirements we place on companies in return for the protections and support that the law gives to businesses.
5
I guess I'm just shocked that there are no decent bakers in Massachusetts. They've really got to get their culinary show in order.
Also, Stourley Kracklite, with due respect, can we please dispense with the intellectual bullying of calling a "bigot" anyone who dares make a comment with which you don't agree? I have a feeling if we were speaking to one another across a table, we would be respectful and get along fine, even if our views ultimately differed. But evidently not so here, where we are separated by cyberspace.
Also, Stourley Kracklite, with due respect, can we please dispense with the intellectual bullying of calling a "bigot" anyone who dares make a comment with which you don't agree? I have a feeling if we were speaking to one another across a table, we would be respectful and get along fine, even if our views ultimately differed. But evidently not so here, where we are separated by cyberspace.
7
BK: "I guess I'm just shocked that there are no decent bakers in Massachusetts."
The reception was to be held in CO, so that is why they ordered a cake in CO.
The article isn't entirely clear about that, but see the paragraph beginning: "The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ...".
The reception was to be held in CO, so that is why they ordered a cake in CO.
The article isn't entirely clear about that, but see the paragraph beginning: "The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ...".
1
Where and when does ignorance, judgement, intolerance, and entitlement (especially in the name of religion!) end? According to Jesus, Mohammed, David, Buddha (and all great divine figures) it must start from self. Otherwise, such people and their sin are just part of 'the system' that Jesus, for example, recognized as tragically broken.
1
You mean the David who sent Uriah to be killed in battle so he could acquire Bathsheba to be another of his concubines?
How bout this one. Recently in the NYTimes there was an article about how in many states it is legal to marry a minor. Shouldn't the baker be allowed to refuse? What if it was a same sex couple in which one was a minor?
3
If vendors/businesses want to discriminate against customers, they can't not pick and choose those who do not meet their "moral values." To remain impartial in selecting whom to serve, Christian providers should adhere to the 10 commandments: atheists, adulterers, robbers/thieves, persons who do not honor their parents, pedophiles, etc. "Christian" or other religious business owners cannot discriminate on the basis of what they perceive as a violation of their moral values. Business owners--large or small--enter the public marketplace to make a profit. A capitalistic marketplace does NOT deny service based religious or other prejudices based race, ethnicity, or gender.
12
Perhaps I'm wrong, but doing business with the public is a privilege, not a right. There are licences to buy, laws to follow; whether it regards cleanliness or discrimination, if you don't follow the laws, you are out.
17
Stop hating the guy for his beliefs for a second and consider.
What if he had refused their business but not told them why? Kept his mouth shut. Since his is a small business it doesn't seem like there could be a case against him. It's only because he expressed his opinion and reasoning that there is a case at all. But either way, whether he tells them or not, the practical result is the same. No cake. So his action, or lack thereof (not baking the cake), can theoretically go from legal to illegal even though the outcome is the same? Businesses do not owe you a product or service. It's a two way street. Meaning you, as a consumer are free to take your business here or there for whatever reason including any biases you might have. An individual business owner is free to serve who he wants. This is more a case about individual civil liberty than anything else.
What if he had refused their business but not told them why? Kept his mouth shut. Since his is a small business it doesn't seem like there could be a case against him. It's only because he expressed his opinion and reasoning that there is a case at all. But either way, whether he tells them or not, the practical result is the same. No cake. So his action, or lack thereof (not baking the cake), can theoretically go from legal to illegal even though the outcome is the same? Businesses do not owe you a product or service. It's a two way street. Meaning you, as a consumer are free to take your business here or there for whatever reason including any biases you might have. An individual business owner is free to serve who he wants. This is more a case about individual civil liberty than anything else.
15
Hey, there's even a word for this. It's called REDLINING. (Trump's daddy was a pro.)
1
So he's an honest bigot?
Give me s break.
Give me s break.
1
The political left has shown with these types of cases that their goal is not "liberty," but an endemic desire to control the behavior of others. Public accommodation laws should only exist to the extent that a person is providing emergency services or running a rural hotel or gas station. Wedding cakes do not qualify. If you don't like a baker's policies, go somewhere else, and complain on Yelp. If enough people agree, he'll either go out of business or have to change his policies. That's the way a free society does things. It does not use the power of the state to compel a person to provide a service he does not want to.
11
Why even exclude a rural hotel then? Do you have a list of all businesses that should be forced to comply? Did you just make it up?
1
"Control the behavior of others".
Bewhahahahahahahha omg the hypocrisy.
Pretty sure the only thing the couple wanted was a cake wheats the bigoted baker wants them to live their lives in according to his beliefs.
Give. Me. A. Break.
Bigotry is bigotry.
He is refusing them a cake on the ground of HIS religious beliefs. HIS bleiefs. No one is asking him to marry a man. They're just asking him to do his job like he would for any other customer.
Bewhahahahahahahha omg the hypocrisy.
Pretty sure the only thing the couple wanted was a cake wheats the bigoted baker wants them to live their lives in according to his beliefs.
Give. Me. A. Break.
Bigotry is bigotry.
He is refusing them a cake on the ground of HIS religious beliefs. HIS bleiefs. No one is asking him to marry a man. They're just asking him to do his job like he would for any other customer.
1
A person at a rural hotel, if turned away, likely will have no other options for what is an essential service. I don't dispute that the line may be blurry sometimes, but getting a wedding cake sure as heck doesn't qualify as an emergency or essential.
It's been awhile since I read the Bible -- is the recipe for butter cream frosting in the Old or New Testatment?
So suppose a hotelier or restaurateur claims that it violates his rights, to exercise his religion or to free expression to do business with African Americans? Or Muslims? Or Christians? Or Democrats? If religious prejudices are allowed to trump civil rights laws, then you will sanction this kind of invidious discrimination, too.
9
What about the police and fire protection his business receives? And the roads to get to his business or for him to use to deliver his products? And the water, sewer and electric infrastructure his business depends on. So every gay taxpayer contributes to his business in these ways, but they can't get a cake?
13
He pays for the same roads and services with his taxes, so that's an irrelevant issue. So does everyone else in his community who agrees with him. Are you suggesting that Might Makes Right?
3
If this baker refused to bake a cake for a Trump victory party because of his political beliefs I am pretty sure the tenor of these comments would be very different.
15
False equivalence. Political beliefs do not make a protected class.
1
I wish I could recommend this comment 100 times!
2
Remember the designers who announced that they would not make dresses for Melania?
How is that different?
How is that different?
2
If the baker loses in court, Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig will be vindicated, but why would a gay couple do business with an anti-gay baker? It’s your wedding cake. Seems like you would want it made by someone who views your union in a positive light.
In any event, bigotry will never be eliminated through legislation. Even if he loses in court, the baker can still devise ways to practice his bigotry. In the simplest case, all the baker needs to do is agree to bake a cake for a gay couple, and then conveniently misplace the order.
In any event, bigotry will never be eliminated through legislation. Even if he loses in court, the baker can still devise ways to practice his bigotry. In the simplest case, all the baker needs to do is agree to bake a cake for a gay couple, and then conveniently misplace the order.
3
The 11th Commandment : Thou shalt not bake wedding cakes for homosexuals !
5
Gay man here.
This is a terrible strategy. Same-sex marriage was the epic finale of a series of victories for gay people under Obama. A majority of the public is on our side, but a significant minority is not. They feel under assault. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong; that's how they feel. We need to give them a breather.
Because look at what's happening. They lost but their fear and frustration—of this and all the other rapid changes in the cultural landscape—have been successfully exploited by Trump.
This is a no-win situation. The GOP has long accused SCOTUS of "judicial activism." A victory for the plaintiffs on the heels of Obergfell while the base also seethes over legal setbacks re: travel ban will strengthen the GOP and chip away at their eroding support of our country's political institutions. And if the Court rules in favor of the defendant, well, gay people are screwed.
It's terrible politics. LGBT non-profits are, at this point, with their insistence on accommodations on cake-buying and bathroom bills, are doing more harm than good. It's up to all they gay people who get this, as well as our straight allies who might otherwise stay silent for fear of being labeled a homophobe by outrage-activists, to rein them in.
This is a terrible strategy. Same-sex marriage was the epic finale of a series of victories for gay people under Obama. A majority of the public is on our side, but a significant minority is not. They feel under assault. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong; that's how they feel. We need to give them a breather.
Because look at what's happening. They lost but their fear and frustration—of this and all the other rapid changes in the cultural landscape—have been successfully exploited by Trump.
This is a no-win situation. The GOP has long accused SCOTUS of "judicial activism." A victory for the plaintiffs on the heels of Obergfell while the base also seethes over legal setbacks re: travel ban will strengthen the GOP and chip away at their eroding support of our country's political institutions. And if the Court rules in favor of the defendant, well, gay people are screwed.
It's terrible politics. LGBT non-profits are, at this point, with their insistence on accommodations on cake-buying and bathroom bills, are doing more harm than good. It's up to all they gay people who get this, as well as our straight allies who might otherwise stay silent for fear of being labeled a homophobe by outrage-activists, to rein them in.
18
Very wise comment, indeed.
Nope. We need to educate them.
1. You don't get to choose which "beliefs" you use to cover your bigotry. Christianity chafes on divorce yet none of these hypocrites care about that.
2. Slippery slope when "beliefs" began to be ground for discrimination.
My son just came out at age 14. His friends celebrated such.....thatneoild never have happened if the LGBTQ community had not beaten much greater odds and gone up against much higher mountains of prejudice. Don't back down now. Wrong is wrong.
Besides their discomfort with their hypocritical behaviors is nothing compared to the oppression the LGBTQ community continues to endure in certain pockets and age groups in society. Glad our young people get it.....but we must stay vigilant against discrimination in any flavor....
1. You don't get to choose which "beliefs" you use to cover your bigotry. Christianity chafes on divorce yet none of these hypocrites care about that.
2. Slippery slope when "beliefs" began to be ground for discrimination.
My son just came out at age 14. His friends celebrated such.....thatneoild never have happened if the LGBTQ community had not beaten much greater odds and gone up against much higher mountains of prejudice. Don't back down now. Wrong is wrong.
Besides their discomfort with their hypocritical behaviors is nothing compared to the oppression the LGBTQ community continues to endure in certain pockets and age groups in society. Glad our young people get it.....but we must stay vigilant against discrimination in any flavor....
4
Gay guy here too and I'm not buying your argument. If this same argument applied in the 50s, blacks wouldn't be able to grocery shop in some cities at all. Your argument is fatally flawed and quite dangerous.
This baker is out of line and I hope the judge throws the book at him. Homosexuality is as old as man's tenure on earth. It will certainly outlast this bigoted baker. This guy should grow up, crawl out of his narrow mind and join the real world.
9
ok, get real.
if there's no perfect test for an individual's deeply held religious beliefs... how is the Court - or anyone else - supposed to know when it's only an excuse? who is to determine which cockamamie beliefs qualify as genuine religious beliefs, and which are just excuses to help someone get away with something mean, nasty, illegal, or all of the above? do only deeply held Christian religious beliefs count? does it only have to do with sex?
what about my deeply held religious tenet of my madeup religion, Glott Trumpism, that paying income taxes is forboten? will the IRS have to buy it? how about my belief, as a DMV employee, that Asian people cannit be issued drivers' licenses?
Supremes: get real!
if there's no perfect test for an individual's deeply held religious beliefs... how is the Court - or anyone else - supposed to know when it's only an excuse? who is to determine which cockamamie beliefs qualify as genuine religious beliefs, and which are just excuses to help someone get away with something mean, nasty, illegal, or all of the above? do only deeply held Christian religious beliefs count? does it only have to do with sex?
what about my deeply held religious tenet of my madeup religion, Glott Trumpism, that paying income taxes is forboten? will the IRS have to buy it? how about my belief, as a DMV employee, that Asian people cannit be issued drivers' licenses?
Supremes: get real!
7
If a white supremacist went to a black baker and requested a cake with KKK written on it would the baker not be allowed to refuse. Not that I mean to compare the two, I just was wondering.
19
I actually think this is an interesting comparison.
5
White supremacists are not a protected group under anti-discrimination laws. If a baker refused to sell a cake to someone simply because they were white, that would be a violation. However, a baker is within his or her rights to refuse to print an offensive message. There was in fact a parallel case in which a religious group sent someone to a different Colorado bakery and requested a cake with an anti-gay message. The baker refused, but the Colorado Civil Rights Division did not find a violation. The distinction is that the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed that getting married is inextricably intertwined with being gay, so refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple is the same as discriminating against them, whereas refusing to bake a cake with an offensive message is not discrimination.
That would fall under hate speech......and that is protected.
And if someone's religion forbids them from serving blacks or Jews? Is that OK too?
12
I don't remember Jesus asking if anyone was gay before feeding the 5000.
12
Who ever heard of a straight male cake artist?
15
Whatever happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of dessert?
5
True religious freedom does not include treason, murder, or creating second-class citizens with a few less rights than the rest. Fanaticism is not listed in the Bill of Rights.
6
The baker is not "creating second-class citizens". The gay couple is attempting to stomp on the baker's rights to liberty and to pursue his happiness. There is no "right to force someone to bake a cake" in the Bill of Rights.
2
So if they find in favor of the baker, can I discriminate against people who offend my moral and religious sensibilities? And choose not to serve racists, homophobes, misogynists and people who discriminate against others in my business establishment?
9
Yes.
1
Amazed at some of the comments here. Understand that if this baker can refuse service to gays, it's not that far of a jump that a business owner can refuse to serve you for whatever reason. Been divorced? Sorry, no service. Married to a Catholic? Move on please. Mormon? I'd love to sell that to your, but... And then another reason and another and another.
Yes, if it's just this one guy, no big deal. But then, that's how it always starts, doesn't it?
Yes, if it's just this one guy, no big deal. But then, that's how it always starts, doesn't it?
13
It wasn't refusal to serve a gay couple. It was a refusal to be co-opted into a specific event that the conflicted with their religious beliefs. Characterizing it as the former is leftist propaganda disinformation.
16
Really? Are you sure it's not just a deeply held excuse for overt bigotry?
Is your baker this circumspect when baking cakes for divorcees?
Didn't think so. Try again.
Is your baker this circumspect when baking cakes for divorcees?
Didn't think so. Try again.
1
@GWE: if a Roman Catholic baker refused to make a cake to celebrate the divorce of two Roman Catholics....he would be on sound ground to refuse.
However, you are assuming (very incorrectly) that all Christian churches forbid divorce. This is totally untrue! Only Roman Catholics prohibit divorce.
However, you are assuming (very incorrectly) that all Christian churches forbid divorce. This is totally untrue! Only Roman Catholics prohibit divorce.
I don't know. A bearded man surrounded by beautifully adorned cakes. I mean if he (and his supporters) are going to stereotype people maybe they doth protest too much?
3
Think for a moment about where this could lead. With the definition of "religion" so open ended:
I, as a business owner, refuse to provide PRODUCT or SERVICE (gas, food, emergency medicine, real estate brokering) to GROUP (Asian, transsexual, Mormon, lesbian) because it is prohibited by by my "religion."
I, as a business owner, refuse to provide PRODUCT or SERVICE (gas, food, emergency medicine, real estate brokering) to GROUP (Asian, transsexual, Mormon, lesbian) because it is prohibited by by my "religion."
7
There are lots of arguments here that a business such as this one should be free to not do business with anyone it wants.
What bothers me the bigotry masquerading as religion as justification.
People such as this baker are hypocrites. They piously use their "religion" (and by "religion" they usually mean how they or their church interprets their book, not what it says - or doesn't say) to selectively judge others to their standards. Ignoring all the other sins (their own?) that if they applied the same standard for would leave them without business or a very small and vetted clientele that has not lied, or cheated, or had extra-marital sex, stolen, cheated, used the name of the Load in vain, talked back to their parents, coveted what another has (including the beautiful cakes), worked on the Sabbath. Should he even sell cakes - since such indulgent cakes cover several of the seven deadly sins such as pride, gluttony, greed or lust. Their arguments are "those sins aren't such as bad" as the one I hate.
What bothers me the bigotry masquerading as religion as justification.
People such as this baker are hypocrites. They piously use their "religion" (and by "religion" they usually mean how they or their church interprets their book, not what it says - or doesn't say) to selectively judge others to their standards. Ignoring all the other sins (their own?) that if they applied the same standard for would leave them without business or a very small and vetted clientele that has not lied, or cheated, or had extra-marital sex, stolen, cheated, used the name of the Load in vain, talked back to their parents, coveted what another has (including the beautiful cakes), worked on the Sabbath. Should he even sell cakes - since such indulgent cakes cover several of the seven deadly sins such as pride, gluttony, greed or lust. Their arguments are "those sins aren't such as bad" as the one I hate.
8
If Kennedy remains, the couple wins. If Kennedy leaves, the baker wins. The Republicans will make sure of it.
3
Say a single woman gets on an app and orders up an Uber ride. When the car gets to her, it is driven by a Wahabbist Muslim who refuses to transport an unaccompanied woman. Is it his freedom of religion or is it discrimination? Would the Liberty lawyers agree to represent the driver?
At the end of the day, do we have a "nation of laws, not men" as Thomas Jefferson described?
At the end of the day, do we have a "nation of laws, not men" as Thomas Jefferson described?
9
Most single women decline to use Uber because the majority of drivers are male. This has spawned a competing service - women drivers for women passengers only.
The Wahhabist Muslim can "cancel" the Uber request as soon as he (because it must be a "he") determines that the passenger is an unaccompanied female. There are penalties (from Uber) for doing so, especially doing so too often.
The Wahhabist Muslim can "cancel" the Uber request as soon as he (because it must be a "he") determines that the passenger is an unaccompanied female. There are penalties (from Uber) for doing so, especially doing so too often.
1
This is an absurd case that only a right wing court hired by Fox News theocrats would consider valid. We are supposedly ruled by our laws, not our individual religious beliefs. The scope creep is off the charts.
Who and what defines another person’s faith-related beliefs as religious obligation worthy to hurt another? If I decide that Republicans are against my religion, can I refuse to do business with them? The article notes that Phillips also refuses to serve atheists. Can I refuse to serve climate deniers?
Absurd, red flag # 4,267 that our liberal democracy is dissolving under the a dangerous agenda pushed by a powerful, radical minority in this country.
Who and what defines another person’s faith-related beliefs as religious obligation worthy to hurt another? If I decide that Republicans are against my religion, can I refuse to do business with them? The article notes that Phillips also refuses to serve atheists. Can I refuse to serve climate deniers?
Absurd, red flag # 4,267 that our liberal democracy is dissolving under the a dangerous agenda pushed by a powerful, radical minority in this country.
7
I'm waiting for the day when my sister and I, who resemble opposite sides of the family, are denied a hotel room or other services because we are suspected of being a couple. I plan to move in with she and her husband; we will have the same address. Her neighbors have already assumed as such because I spent a winter with her, and her husband is disabled and rarely seen. How will we ever prove we are not a couple to a hotel manager who believes we are?
4
This sounds like your own personal issue, likely among many. I doubt even the Supreme Court wants to get mixed up in whatever it is you have going on.
2
I've been an atheist for along time -- since birth, 80 years ago -- but I can't imagine a baked good carrying a message that celebrates my absence of any belief in supernatural entities.
How does Mr. Phillips conclude that a potential customer is an atheist? How does he determine whether or not the cake's design celebrates atheism?
["Cake Artist? Really?]
How does Mr. Phillips conclude that a potential customer is an atheist? How does he determine whether or not the cake's design celebrates atheism?
["Cake Artist? Really?]
5
I chose this piece because this topic always gets me irritated. American is suppose to be a "Free country". A TRUE religion shouldn't question who you can or can not love. I may not support or object same-sex marriage. I may not want to understand same-sex marriage, but I sure know that everyone should have the FREEDOM to express their love to who ever they want. A free country is a free country. Stand on your word.
5
The defendant, Phillips, isn't denying the gay couple their freedom to express their love to each other. He's simply refusing to bake their cake. The gay couple is denying his right to liberty and his right to pursue his happiness, which is absurdly tied to his beliefs about the Ancient Male Sky Fairy. But your assertion applies to him as well: He should have the FREEDOM to avoid dealing with who ever he wants.
3
As an agnostic social liberal, my good senses tell me that we need to draw the line somewhere. We do not necessarily need to condone this man's choices, judgements, or beliefs, but if we can accommodate those religions other than Christianity by allowing prayer rooms, Ramadan celebrations, etc. etc., then we need to accommodate this baker. This is his private business. He should have some rights. If he does not want to bake a cake for someone due to his religious stance, isn't it our obligation to honor his right? He obviously feels very strongly, or he wouldn't sacrifice the loss of business that will likely result as a result of his protest.
8
If my religion prohibits serving black people (my religion says what I say it says, the federal government has always wisely refused to make independent determinations on that), can I refuse service to black people at the lunch counter? After all, there are a lot of other places they could go to get a cup of coffee, and they could even probably make their own coffee, so no problem, right? Anyway coffee isn't that important.
That would be a possible answer. To let the market decide. But way back in the 60's we decided, as a nation, that we were not going to go that way. Now that it's gays we're going to change our minds and give bigots free rein?
That would be a possible answer. To let the market decide. But way back in the 60's we decided, as a nation, that we were not going to go that way. Now that it's gays we're going to change our minds and give bigots free rein?
6
There are any number of ways a baker (or even a "cake artist") can diplomatically decline a commission.
It would be simple enough for a baker -- excuse me, a "cake artist" -- to offer up some face-saving excuse or schedule conflict. The "cake artist" can ultimately insist on a "creative vision" for the wedding cake so repulsive that even the most determined prospective buyers would back away from.
So I wonder if the real issue here is whether a bigot has a right to explicitly state the reason for his rejection of certain people. In taking this case, the Supreme Court justices have put themselves in the position of deciding how much First Amendment protection to give to hate speech.
And then, if Phillips loses this case, might it simply mean that homophobes will have to be more guarded in what they can say to gay customers when turning down their business?
The most effective antidote to Phillips's type of bigotry, whether it's openly stated or buried beneath euphemisms, is complete social opprobrium.
It would be simple enough for a baker -- excuse me, a "cake artist" -- to offer up some face-saving excuse or schedule conflict. The "cake artist" can ultimately insist on a "creative vision" for the wedding cake so repulsive that even the most determined prospective buyers would back away from.
So I wonder if the real issue here is whether a bigot has a right to explicitly state the reason for his rejection of certain people. In taking this case, the Supreme Court justices have put themselves in the position of deciding how much First Amendment protection to give to hate speech.
And then, if Phillips loses this case, might it simply mean that homophobes will have to be more guarded in what they can say to gay customers when turning down their business?
The most effective antidote to Phillips's type of bigotry, whether it's openly stated or buried beneath euphemisms, is complete social opprobrium.
4
If the court rules for the baker, every business transaction is potentially subject to the whims (religious freedom?) of the provider.
Unnecessarily chaotic.
Unnecessarily chaotic.
2
If I private business can refuse to serve to gay people, it will open the door to the same justification for refusing to serve to African Americans or any others who they believe would go against their religious beliefs. I am all for giving people freedom of religion, but it comes with a responsibility to treat ALL equal. Can't have it both ways...
2
Capitalism will put an end to this problem. Businesses which discriminate against gays or against any group will lose competitiveness. They will fall by the wayside. This is one place where capitalism works.
6
And unfortunately, the Left doesn't want Capitalism to be applied - instead, it wants to impose its Anointed Vision by stamping its jackboots on the necks of anyone who doesn't agree with its Anointed Vision.
1
I'm a practicing Wahhabi Muslim. I own a four story twelve unit apartment building and I live on the ground floor. My religion does not allow Christians homes to overlook or sit higher then my Muslim home. So sorry I can't rent you that charming second floor one bedroom overlooking the garden.
6
It is disturbing that the Supreme Court is agreeing to hear this nonsense. Colorado has a clear anti-discrimination law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The bakery is a public accommodation, no different than a hotel or a restaurant. What if my "religion" prohibits interracial marriage? Can I refuse to rent a hotel room to an interracial couple? All this was settled in the 1960s, and it is sad that the Christian right holds so much sway that this case (which the Colorado Supreme Court declined to even review) merits review by the Supreme Court.
4
I guess I'm old fashioned. If you operate a business you serve your customers. Remember the adage "The customer is always right." Otherwise we get Lester Maddox wielding his axe handle outside his restaurant keeping patrons out. Funny how conservatives who love to tout their "pro business" credentials support these cases.
The customers lifestyles are not the businesses concern since they are selling them a product, not biblical text or values.
When I buy tires the salesman does not go on about the history of rubber and reveal to me his religious opposition to using condoms also made from rubber products.
I understand conscious clauses and the role they play in a free society i.e. Ali and the draft but think it's a stretch here.
The customers lifestyles are not the businesses concern since they are selling them a product, not biblical text or values.
When I buy tires the salesman does not go on about the history of rubber and reveal to me his religious opposition to using condoms also made from rubber products.
I understand conscious clauses and the role they play in a free society i.e. Ali and the draft but think it's a stretch here.
4
Remember when this was a free country? Before perceived microaggressions were dealt with without getting the highest courts in the land involved.
People need to retain some measure of free will, free speech, and free enterprise without those who create false victim or microagression narratives making everyone as miserable as they are.
People need to retain some measure of free will, free speech, and free enterprise without those who create false victim or microagression narratives making everyone as miserable as they are.
7
I'm afraid the 2014 Hobby Lobby decision to allow privately held companies to refuse on religious grounds to provide contraception to employees means that this case was decided when the Republicans refused to confirm Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, paving the way for the appointment of Gorsuch by Trump and ensuring a conservative 5 to 4 majority on the Supreme Court. The homophobic Putin has even more to be happy about now.
4
If you can't bake the cake, get out of the kitchen!
8
Here we go. This is the wedge issue that will open the door to untrammeled discrimination against LGBTQ people--or indeed anyone. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis were refusing to transport people who had alcohol with them, or in one case, people who had been drinking on religious grounds. They were prohibited from this practice. Now, who knows?
Is a Catholic baker going to refuse to make wedding cakes for divorcees who are remarrying? The next step is the reintroduction of lodging and employment discrimination. The Alt-right has finally found a way to ensconce its bigotry in law, and with the present composition of the SCOTUS, they are well on their way to success.
Is a Catholic baker going to refuse to make wedding cakes for divorcees who are remarrying? The next step is the reintroduction of lodging and employment discrimination. The Alt-right has finally found a way to ensconce its bigotry in law, and with the present composition of the SCOTUS, they are well on their way to success.
219
Equal protection yesterday. Equal protection today. Equal protection tomorrow.
1
William, there is now a bill in the Missouri Congress which would allow owners of business to not hire you if you take birth control or have had an abortion. This also goes to landlords.
It will probably be signed into law by the GOP governor.
I'm 76 and was 23 before birth control became legal for single women. Here I am nearing the end of my life and I'm afraid we in this country are going full circle.
It will probably be signed into law by the GOP governor.
I'm 76 and was 23 before birth control became legal for single women. Here I am nearing the end of my life and I'm afraid we in this country are going full circle.
He did not refuse to make him a cake, but rather a cake that violated his religious beliefs. If they came in and wanted a cake out of inventory he would have no issue.
13
Unless they also refused to bake cakes for second marriages, it is what it is: singling out gay people for discrimination.
4
Well then he does not have a sincerely held religious belief...either a gay wedding is wrong or it is not. Shouldn't have to depend on whether it is a custom cake or an inventory cake.
vulcanalex Tennessee The problem arises when a business provides service to customers for days, weeks, months, years and in doing so gives the impression or appearance of acceptance and trust. No signs were posted explain what services would not be provided.
If a business because of deeply held religious beliefs (Jewish, Muslim, SDA Christians) wont serve pork or meat, or (Jewish, Muslim, Catholic) doesn't believe in adultery, divorce, living together sans marriage, should they be obligated to provide said services? Or at least be required to post a sign noting what services wont be done?
And should a person with deeply held progressive religious beliefs be obligated by law to provide services to someone who is a known racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe?
If a business because of deeply held religious beliefs (Jewish, Muslim, SDA Christians) wont serve pork or meat, or (Jewish, Muslim, Catholic) doesn't believe in adultery, divorce, living together sans marriage, should they be obligated to provide said services? Or at least be required to post a sign noting what services wont be done?
And should a person with deeply held progressive religious beliefs be obligated by law to provide services to someone who is a known racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe?
1
There was a time when Blacks, Catholics and women would not be served in many places, Augusta gold club being one of them. Why expend so much energy, cruelty picking on gay people? Grow up. Be a true Christian and be nice to ALL people.
65
I agree if they want common products.
3
If this guy wins I'll order an upside down cake from him representing Americas moral compass
Jenny says: I am reminded that "god" is a man-made fiction. I do not use man lightly since no woman have ever deigned to create such a concept. To which one do we adhere? There is the Judaic god, the Christian god, the Muslim god, the god of cults, the Old Testament god and the new Testament god. All these gods did not come out and speak to humans. What a dizzying conversation that would have been. A god is another construct, a concept, to which fearful humans give their consent and which keeps us in order. We are a very disorderly species. Scurrying from one command to another. Never really thinking. And, yet, so ready to impose our tremulous construct on others. We are pitiful in our fear and so ready to cave at the first sign of it. LIfe is not a given. LIke all other animals on this earth, we move, day to day, in the possibility of death, young, old, rich, poor, man, woman. So give over from this fear of the "wrath of a god". It is your own sad, little, fearfulness that is your undoing. ---- "Fear first made gods in the world." Statius, c. 90 ce Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo from my Roman ancestors. Jenny speaks
2
Does this man refuse service to adulterers or to divorcees?
73
Who buys a cake to celebrate their adultery?
2
What a ridiculous comparison. Adulterers and divorcees do not publicize, promote, flash, their status. Not sure what the state laws are in Colo., but last I checked, most states allow businesses to serve or not serve customers as they see fit. It is against the law for a business to not hire people over 40, but how many times has anyone challenged that in court. They don't. They just keep it moving, like that couple should have done.
1
You'd be surprised!
What else does this baker find offensive? Will he treat adulterers the same way or people who have lost their virginity before marriage? What about Blonds marrying Brunettes, older people from marrying younger, Christians marrying Jews, or Protestants marrying Catholics, Irish marrying Italians or Cubs fans from marrying Yankee fans? Where does his bigotry have to end?
25
But please, no Yankees fans marrying Red Sox fans... or Dodgers fans...
1
So now we are bringing back bigotry and seems to be working. I was fooled by the progress I thought we were making but the right is showing how bad it is. What if funny is that even large number of bigots cannot change the fact that Whites are on the way out. Just look at the world. We are a minority and cannot stop the mixing of races all over the world. Eventually Whites will be swallowed up and able to fit in with everyone else. So bigots have your day because it will soon end forever. Unless you figure out a way to ban sex.
11
Which religion is it, exactly, that prohibits supplying food for certain weddings? Is it only the gay ones? Not the fifth wedding of a serial philanderer? Or the second wedding of a 90 year old billionaire who decides to marry a 22 year old blonde with implants? Or the foolish kids getting married at 18 for all the wrong reasons? Exactly which religion singles out only gay weddings as evil?
Whatever religion that is- my religious beliefs cannot allow me to accommodate them in any way. This baker and his ilk are unwelcome in my sphere.
Only kidding- my religious beliefs require that I respect everybody, love everybody, and judge nobody. Aren't they lucky! They can bring their clothes to a gay dry-cleaner, order food from a gay waiter, seek advice from a gay doctor, and the gay mortician will take care of grandma when the time comes notwithstanding their self-righteous hypocrisy.
Whatever religion that is- my religious beliefs cannot allow me to accommodate them in any way. This baker and his ilk are unwelcome in my sphere.
Only kidding- my religious beliefs require that I respect everybody, love everybody, and judge nobody. Aren't they lucky! They can bring their clothes to a gay dry-cleaner, order food from a gay waiter, seek advice from a gay doctor, and the gay mortician will take care of grandma when the time comes notwithstanding their self-righteous hypocrisy.
17
So how about you baking that cake. Everyone makes judgments every day, I bet you do too.
4
Boy, the dumb stuff people fight over considering all the other problems we face. OK, God told me not to bake this cake...
5
Since when is a cake a religious artifact? Is the chicken dance some sort of rite as well?
10
Wonderful comment!!
I wonder, does he actually ask his customers if they are this that or the other or believe in this that or the other before he stoops down to baking and decorating their various cakes? Why doesn't he just put up a sign in his store window that he does not bake wedding cakes for whoever does not "strike his fancy"?
I wonder, does he actually ask his customers if they are this that or the other or believe in this that or the other before he stoops down to baking and decorating their various cakes? Why doesn't he just put up a sign in his store window that he does not bake wedding cakes for whoever does not "strike his fancy"?
Should a Jewish, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist Christian, vegan, caterer be required to make pork dishes for a gathering? Or be required to photograph a nudists wedding? Or photograph a wedding outside a religious setting?
Should someone with sincerely held religious beliefs against divorce, adultery be required to provide services for someone like a Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich about to marry for the third time?
Heck should gay/lesbian bakers, photographers, caterers be required to provide services to individuals or groups whom they disagree with?
Should someone with sincerely held religious beliefs against divorce, adultery be required to provide services for someone like a Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich about to marry for the third time?
Heck should gay/lesbian bakers, photographers, caterers be required to provide services to individuals or groups whom they disagree with?
8
Yes to all of your questions.
If you are a baker - you bake.
If you are a florist - you prepare flowers.
It's called work. Can't handle it? Find another job.
If you are a baker - you bake.
If you are a florist - you prepare flowers.
It's called work. Can't handle it? Find another job.
He is not in the business of making pork products as I would suspect the devote Jewish, Muslim, Seventh Day Adventist Christian, vegan, caterers you postulate.
1
Easy. You aren't required to perform something that you don't already perform for everyone else. If you are a private individual, you can discriminate. If you are a REGISTERED PUBLIC BUSINESS, you must accommodate the public in accordance with local/federal laws. Once you start introducing exceptions to this on religious grounds, it can get really messy really quickly. America was founded as a secular society; if you want to live your faith, move somewhere that allows it. I hear Russia is taking applicants.
1
He must sell a generic wedding cake, but he can refuse to decorate it based on his own values.
8
But some denominations could see this as being complicit in the "sin," if he knows the undecorated cake will be a part of the wedding. And do we really want bakers to start making moral judgments at the counter? Or asking what the intent is of the purchase? This is what's eye-rolling to me about his willingness to sell anything but a decorated wedding cake to a gay couple. If we take his moral compass to the logical extreme, that's what he would have to do to ensure his products won't be used in a manner he doesn't approve, and by extension, for him to remain "sinless" in the matter.
See? This whole discussion is beginning to get absurd. The best way to deal with bigots is to deprive them of business. Period. My money is just as good and spends just as well as a gay couple's. We can all just take our business elsewhere, and tell everyone we know to do the same.
See? This whole discussion is beginning to get absurd. The best way to deal with bigots is to deprive them of business. Period. My money is just as good and spends just as well as a gay couple's. We can all just take our business elsewhere, and tell everyone we know to do the same.
Question is this; are you in the business of making money or in the business of bible thumping your personal faith upon others. In the end he would be out of business if he feels he can't serve his fellow sinners. Does he exclude adulterers, divorcees, thieves, and liars from buying his wedding cakes? Will he have customers fill out a three page questionnaires listing all their sins so he can find a pretext why he can't sell them a cake. Regardless of a couple being hetero- or homosexual they are not asking him to ordain or participate in their wedding. Nothing more than a simple business transaction so they can have a wonderful wedding ceremony. This is simple, serve all or serve none who comes through his door. When he puts that open for business sign out on his window he needs to check his personal politics and religious views at the door. Finally, to remind the 'artist' that the Grand Architect of us all reminds that we all fall short of His Glory.
10
As a retailer, you don't get to pass judgment on your customers and deny them service. People make guns in this country. It's unlikely that Christian gunmakers want their products used in massacres, or that Christian knife-makers want their products used in random stabbings. But guess what...you can't CONTROL what people do with your product. All you can do is make it...what the consumer does with it is NOT up to you. Especially if they don't declare any intent to use the product to physically harm people. This isn't about FREE SPEECH...this is jut about CONTROL and POWER. To treat people as if their money -- THEIR SPEECH (as determined by SCOTUS) -- is not welcomed at a PUBLIC place of business because you don't like what they have to say...that's just a power play, man. There's nothing "Godly" about it.
5
But professionals do all the time. Your lawyer does not have to take your case, your doctor can decline you as a patient, your accountant might decide your tax situation is too complex for them. Same with any personal type services. I expect a decent decision respecting personal freedom and protecting the rights for public accommodations. For example you can go out to eat and order things on the menu, nothing requires them to make different things.
6
An accountant declining to provide you service because his/her lack of expertise could negatively impact your financial situation -- has a fiduciary responsibility to decline you service. That's the ETHICAL thing to do. However, an accountant declining to provide a service to a married same-sex couple because he/she "disagrees" with the legitimacy of their marriage is just wrong. Just as wrong is a doctor turning a gay patient -- it's not only unethical, but also flies in the face of the Hippocratic Oath to only help someone in need, so long as the person subscribes to the physician's politics. And while a lawyer can legally refuse to take a case, he/she CANNOT refuse a case for ANY reason that is discriminatory in nature, as it is ILLEGAL. Can we just agree that discrimination is ILLEGAL and to treat people with respect and dignity. Again, this case is not about FREE SPEECH. It is about denying a certain group of people legitimacy and dignity because others disagree with them. If this flies, then ANY BUSINESS can discriminate against the dignity and FREE SPEECH (monetary or otherwise) of anyone it "disagrees" with under "religious" grounds. There are over 300 religions in this country. Should they all have a right to discriminate in the public square? "You can't say all men are created equal," but allow for cherry-picked discrimination. Fundamentally, the question at the heart of this is...what kind of country do we want to be?
"I'll make you your birthday cakes [...], I just don't do cakes for same-sex weddings." How reasonable of him! He'll totally let you ride the bus; you just have to sit in the back of it.
9
If the Supreme Court allows this judgment to stand, the ramifications could be shocking. This is not just a general item being denied, but a personalized one for a very personal event. If this is ruled expect provacteurs to act. The Westboro church will order cakes, signs, and flags denouncing gays (in less savory language) and praising god for dead soldiers. They will sue anyone who refuse to give a platform to their protected religous beliefs. The alt right will be emboldened to test their right to free speech in private venues citing this case as justification.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
6
Exactly why personalized items are different.
1
I sincerely hope that was sarcasm, as those groups already do all of those things on a regular basis.
Yeah, because of a church of 50 weirdos ordering cakes and some clansmen we should hope that SCOTUS reinstates discrimination?!
Riiiggghhttt!
Riiiggghhttt!
Sigh. What a sad small fear filled man. Imagine. Simply imagine w all the innumerable things and places w which one could stand up. So afraid of peoples love that he "stands up", in this sad manner. Please - I am a very very heterosexual middle aged man. If you are gay, or anything else and fortunate enough to find a partner in life call me. I'll bake you every last cake you need and toss in fresh whipped cream....lots
6
If you are in buisness are you free to control absolute with whom you assoicate. The consitituion also say equal protection in contractual matters. I see the slippery slope os slick, so steep, and so board, i can connect the dots all the way to defacto slavery.
4
No equal protection does not force you to contract for anything, nor to charge the same to everyone. Equal protection relates to laws, not this. And defacto slavery is totally idiotic.
1
Conventionality is not morality.
- Charlotte Bronte
- Charlotte Bronte
In 1997 Tiffany refused to engrave frames for Sigourney Weaver when the actress asked to engrave on them her line from her play 'Sex and Longing'. Was Tiffany right?
areader: "... Tiffany refused to engrave frames ..."
Please cite a reliable source reporting that story.
Please cite a reliable source reporting that story.
If the faith is discriminatory to other human beings, change the faith! The Catholic doctrine says no birth control - guess how many Catholics follow that?! One cannot hind behind "faith" to not follow the law! This is ridiculous.
1
Minority view coming up, so fasten your seat belts.
My sympathy is entirely with Mr. Phillips. Hear me out.
Racial prejudice (against black people) is BY NO MEANS the same as prejudice against gay people. Talk to some black people. They'll tell you. Loudly and at length.
So, you say--how's that? Let me explain.
With black people the question is--what ARE you? You're black. Okay. I'm white. Either of us could be hard-working. Or slothful. Smart. Or dumb. Responsible. Or irresponsible. Musical. Or unmusical. We're still--a black person. And a white person.
This is gonna be hard to say. I am addressing gay people here.
The question is not what you ARE. It's what you DO. What you're telling us is: "I WANT to sleep with guys. (Or girls.) And I WILL sleep with guys. (Or girls.) Stop me if you can!"
To which I say--then do it. Would I invoke (or invent) laws to stop you? Never! Not a chance!
But you go on: "I want this relationship to be solemnized as a MARRIAGE. I want YOU to play a part in that marriage. A small part?--oh yes. But a part."
That's where Mr. Phillips has a problem. Me too. So do I. The law of the land permits you to call your relationship a marriage. I agree. So it does.
But I want no part of it. That's where the rubber hits the road. Is it a question of religious beliefs? Absolutely! His beliefs. My beliefs.
Mr. Phillips--I wish you the best.
My sympathy is entirely with Mr. Phillips. Hear me out.
Racial prejudice (against black people) is BY NO MEANS the same as prejudice against gay people. Talk to some black people. They'll tell you. Loudly and at length.
So, you say--how's that? Let me explain.
With black people the question is--what ARE you? You're black. Okay. I'm white. Either of us could be hard-working. Or slothful. Smart. Or dumb. Responsible. Or irresponsible. Musical. Or unmusical. We're still--a black person. And a white person.
This is gonna be hard to say. I am addressing gay people here.
The question is not what you ARE. It's what you DO. What you're telling us is: "I WANT to sleep with guys. (Or girls.) And I WILL sleep with guys. (Or girls.) Stop me if you can!"
To which I say--then do it. Would I invoke (or invent) laws to stop you? Never! Not a chance!
But you go on: "I want this relationship to be solemnized as a MARRIAGE. I want YOU to play a part in that marriage. A small part?--oh yes. But a part."
That's where Mr. Phillips has a problem. Me too. So do I. The law of the land permits you to call your relationship a marriage. I agree. So it does.
But I want no part of it. That's where the rubber hits the road. Is it a question of religious beliefs? Absolutely! His beliefs. My beliefs.
Mr. Phillips--I wish you the best.
8
Does your religion permit divorce? Do you think he asks each of his customers if they have been divorced before he agrees to make their cakes? Doubt it.
Typical "Christian". There are a million different sins, and he is so religious that he only has a problem with one of them?
Typical "Christian". There are a million different sins, and he is so religious that he only has a problem with one of them?
So many words.
So little meaning.
So little meaning.
People ARE gay. They didn't just wake up one morning and decide they want to sleep with guys (or girls). If you're going to be intolerant the LEAST you can do is own up to it.
I'm a catholic heterosexual woman and I wouldn't have my wedding cake made by this bigoted baker. Boycott him out of business!
4
Good for you, using the government to do so is not legal. I buy my cakes on quality and price mostly.
1
I actually think he is out of business although this article doesn't state it.
1
I am a little superstitious and this kind of energy, imho, brings bad luck! You can have a good, reasonable priced cake made by an open minded non judgemental baker
1
So, I guess in the eyes of this baker, some "sinners" are more equal than others?! Who is he to judge?
To be honest, I don't see any difference between baker and a comment moderator here at NYT. Both are enforcing rules on speech that have using their standards, which they have every right to for speech utilizing their medium.
I should know, I've been squelched at least a dozen times. At least the baker felt obliged to explain, and did it compellingly imho. With The Times, good luck replying to [email protected]. I'm reliably informed no one, NO ONE, messes with this bounce fella. Which is one reason why I've never taken issue when they squelch me.
But it's not the only one. Bottom line: both Mr. Baker and Mr. Times can do what they want with their comment lines.
So that's the reason why SCOTUS should hand Mr. Baker a victory. But that's no solution to gay couples. For this reason, SCOTUS should also ban all edible couple figurines on baker-ordered cakes across-the-board. Go without, it's healthier. If you must have one, make it in your kitchen. Or even better, go plastic and custom-order from Amazon (for safety reasons figurines must make screaming noise when bitten).
Everybody happy? Didn't think so. Bah.
I should know, I've been squelched at least a dozen times. At least the baker felt obliged to explain, and did it compellingly imho. With The Times, good luck replying to [email protected]. I'm reliably informed no one, NO ONE, messes with this bounce fella. Which is one reason why I've never taken issue when they squelch me.
But it's not the only one. Bottom line: both Mr. Baker and Mr. Times can do what they want with their comment lines.
So that's the reason why SCOTUS should hand Mr. Baker a victory. But that's no solution to gay couples. For this reason, SCOTUS should also ban all edible couple figurines on baker-ordered cakes across-the-board. Go without, it's healthier. If you must have one, make it in your kitchen. Or even better, go plastic and custom-order from Amazon (for safety reasons figurines must make screaming noise when bitten).
Everybody happy? Didn't think so. Bah.
3
Sure there is a solution, find a baker who wants money more than whatever ethics they might have. I bet a cake could have been gotten at some other baker.
3
"Everybody happy?"
I am. Good comment...
I am. Good comment...
1
Typical conservative, heterosexual, white male response from someone who has never felt the sting of discrimination. Sure, let the market decide; all vulnerable classes of people be darned.
2
This may be bigger than the same sex marriage question. Great case.
My money says the court upholds the previous opinion.
My money says the court upholds the previous opinion.
2
Yes it goes to freedom, freedom not to use your talents in ways that you find objectionable. I bet a plain sheet cake would be no problem, and why make a big thing out of your sexual preferences. How about a cake with the groom having sex with the entire female wedding party? I bet he would not do that either.
Separation of church and state. I respect Mr Phillip's right to exercise his religious beliefs, but that right begins and ends with his being allowed to freely attend the church of his choice. Bringing his religious beliefs into the workplace, which, in essence justifies the denial of his services to homosexual couples who wish to marry (his interpretation of the Bible, Old Testament, no doubt) is no different than a Christian form of Sharia law. Case closed.
6
Why would you use a Colorado baker for a reception in MA? I am sure there are plenty of artistic bakers in the Boston Metro to satisfy that need. Litigation of this sort is a total waste of public resources. If you don't agree with his religious ideals, don't support the business. CO is growingly liberal enough that the guy will be out of business.
3
SB: "Why would you use a Colorado baker for a reception in MA?"
The wedding was in MA, and the reception was in CO.
Carefully read the paragraph beginning: "The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ...".
The wedding was in MA, and the reception was in CO.
Carefully read the paragraph beginning: "The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ...".
1
You seem to profoundly miss the point.
3
BWY: "Carefully read the paragraph beginning: ..."
I did that, and the fault is with the Times, which should have made it clear that the reception was to be held in CO, so that is why they sought to order a cake in CO.
I did that, and the fault is with the Times, which should have made it clear that the reception was to be held in CO, so that is why they sought to order a cake in CO.
1
This is sad but given the make up of SCOTUS we can be pretty confident that institutionalized homophobia will win over decency. We are living in an age of U.S. Fascism, and the days of being able to count on SCOTUS to be a bulwark against discrimination and hate are long gone.
1
I would support this if it becomes legal to discriminate against Christians based on moral principles. It should be legal to turn away christians and refuse them service.
If someone walks into his bakeshop and orders a cake that will read, "I hate blacks" (or whites or Jews or Muslims or atheists or republicans or democrats etc), all of which are legal and constitutionally protected statements, he clearly has a right to refuse. The fact that he is open to the public does not change that. It certainly wouldn't be a Supreme Court case either.
This is really no different. Even if gays have a right to marry, that doesn't mean anyone is required to participate in the marriage proceedings if they don't want to for whatever reason. He isn't refusing to bake cakes for gay customers, just gay weddings.
This is really no different. Even if gays have a right to marry, that doesn't mean anyone is required to participate in the marriage proceedings if they don't want to for whatever reason. He isn't refusing to bake cakes for gay customers, just gay weddings.
1
So if an unwed heterosexual couple came in and asked for an anniversary cake would he refuse that too? Because they would be "sinning" too.
According to the Bible everyone is sinning constantly. I mean, how deep down the rabbit hole do we want to go?
When you start picking and choosing who to punish and judge, then that's when we need anti-discrimination laws.
According to the Bible everyone is sinning constantly. I mean, how deep down the rabbit hole do we want to go?
When you start picking and choosing who to punish and judge, then that's when we need anti-discrimination laws.
16
I assume Mr Philips is a Christian of some denomination or other. Does he refuse to make wedding cakes for the celebration of the wedding of divorced brides and/or grooms on the grounds that they have put asunder what God joined together? Does he ask his prospective weddihg cake customers whether they are marrying for the first time? Or is it only or mainly in the case of gay people that his religious principles apply?
11
The NYT headline here is highly misleading. What this case is really about is whether making a wedding cake is sufficiently expressive to be entitled to First Amendment protection. The Court previously turned down a case on a similar issue, where the expression involved was professional photography.
1
Based on a quick scan of these comments, I don't see anyone taking into account the context:
People of all ages who are or are perceived to be not conforming to majority gender norms are dying every day in this country, and many many more are suffering from savage oppression. If you or your child was attacked, physically or verbally, for their appearance or harmless behavior, if your mother was murdered, your nephew severely beaten, your daughter hounded to the point of attempting suicide, your perspective might be different. These acts are happening every day. Every American owes it to every American to reduce this harm where we can.
A government that supports discrimination that is in many cases deadly is failing in its duty. Absent these deaths, absent this pain, the situation would be different, and fine points of ethics and free speech would be more important. But as it is, we cannot consider this case without considering this context.
People of all ages who are or are perceived to be not conforming to majority gender norms are dying every day in this country, and many many more are suffering from savage oppression. If you or your child was attacked, physically or verbally, for their appearance or harmless behavior, if your mother was murdered, your nephew severely beaten, your daughter hounded to the point of attempting suicide, your perspective might be different. These acts are happening every day. Every American owes it to every American to reduce this harm where we can.
A government that supports discrimination that is in many cases deadly is failing in its duty. Absent these deaths, absent this pain, the situation would be different, and fine points of ethics and free speech would be more important. But as it is, we cannot consider this case without considering this context.
5
There should be no exception to any law that exists based purely on adding the magic incantation "religious conviction" to it. The legality of an action should be based entirely upon the action itself.
Maybe bakers should be allowed to refuse to bake for any (or no) reason. But they should not have a requirement of non discrimination, that magically disappears with the invocation of magic words like "religious conviction". Therein lies madness.
Maybe bakers should be allowed to refuse to bake for any (or no) reason. But they should not have a requirement of non discrimination, that magically disappears with the invocation of magic words like "religious conviction". Therein lies madness.
6
Can a person be forced to do something that it morally objectionable to them ust because they work in the commercial sphere?
Why do operators of commercial establishments have less rights than normal people?
Why do operators of commercial establishments have less rights than normal people?
4
Because incorporating provides him with certain tangible benefits, a key one being a shield from personal liability. He has religious beliefs, his company has none - its a legal not human being.
3
To me it's fairly simple: A group of liked minded people like Mr Phillips should create the National Association of Conservative Christian Business Owners to debate point-of-purchase and store window/door materials that signify membership. The group should then publicize what they stand for through online and traditional media. That way, any potential customer can decide whether they want to spend their hard-earned money at that establishment or not. This is similar to the "private club" idea mentioned, but much more public and straightforward.
3
Our first amendment rights to picket such a place should be available too
It's been said before here but bears repeating: he is operating as a corporation, which is a state sanctioned entity and offers him many advantages, key among which is a shield against personal liability. He may have religious beliefs but the corporate entity he owns certainly has none. It cannot on religious grounds disobey any laws of the state and refuse to serve anyone.
Jack Philipps, the baker, is not refusing to serve gays and lesbians at his bakery as he has served them preciously. He just does not want to bake a decorated cake for a gay couples's wedding which goes against his religious beliefs and principles. This should be his right as he would be violating his deeply held religious beliefs. Where is his religious liberty and freedom. This is not right and it is a correct decision to bring this before the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices will be fair in deciding this case. This is very important to all of us who are religious and do not want to go against our consciences. Religious liberty for all. I hope Mr. Phillips wins this as it will also be a win for devout Christians as well.
4
In my first sentence it should be "he has served them previously." Sorry for the error.
Does he refuse to make cakes for those that have been previously divorced?
He should if his religious beliefs are so deeply held.
He should if his religious beliefs are so deeply held.
2
Beverly - if that was his strongly held religious belief then he should have that right as well.
This is a harbinger of things to come. The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 and was the law of the land until the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the same by way of their decision in United States v. Windsor.
The Court has changed and I believe that the Windsor decision is going to be overruled by this present Court at its first opportunity. Abortion rights will be similarly outlawed when the Supreme Court calls up the appropriate case.
There will be screaming and gnashing of teeth all over this country by many who believe in both abortion and gay rights but this is what is going to happen. The past election and the appointment and confirmation of the ninth Justice has made it a fait accomplit.
The Court has changed and I believe that the Windsor decision is going to be overruled by this present Court at its first opportunity. Abortion rights will be similarly outlawed when the Supreme Court calls up the appropriate case.
There will be screaming and gnashing of teeth all over this country by many who believe in both abortion and gay rights but this is what is going to happen. The past election and the appointment and confirmation of the ninth Justice has made it a fait accomplit.
As the parent of a gay son, who has to deal with this increasing hate and intolerance under the guise of "Christianity," there are times when I wish people like Jack Phillips and all his like-minded friends would just find some place far, far away and start their own community where they wouldn't have to deal with diversity or anything else that challenges their parochial and self-sanctimonious view of the Bible and the world. That way, they won't have to deal with us and we won't have to deal with them.
A true win-win, in my eyes.
A true win-win, in my eyes.
6
Considering that SOCTUS ruled today that local governments with secular programs must also provide access to these programs to religious organizations, I am, sadly, not expecting an outcome that affirms one of the basic tenants of our constitution - the separation of church and state.
Because, we have foolishly elected representatives that see no issue in having a SOCTUS that is so clearly compromised by their religious - overwhelmingly "Christian" - beliefs.
Because, we have foolishly elected representatives that see no issue in having a SOCTUS that is so clearly compromised by their religious - overwhelmingly "Christian" - beliefs.
2
This is a case about vital rights. But factually, it's absurd. Does this couple have the right to get an ultra expensive wedding cake from an ultra expensive wedding cake maker. The rights of ultra expensive wedding cake makers and buyers are superfluous to me.. Couldn't they get an obnoxious employer and someone who need the job? That's something I could sink my teeth into.
How long can we continue to accept religion as an excuse to humiliate people? The baker doesn't have to approve of same sex marriage he just has to treat people equally. Suppose his religion forbade racially mixed marriages? Who decides what religions are legitimate? If I make up a new religion that forbids me to allow red-headed people with freckles to marry to might sound absurd but that's a point of view. Once we start excusing discriminatory actions based on someone's religious views where will it end?
6
It is a vital right that people may buy and sell to whom they wish to. The government does not have the right to interfere with these transactions!
4
So people can refuse to serve you if you're white? Black? A woman? A man?
It is in fact not your right anywhere but your own home Otherwise, it's discrimination.
It is in fact not your right anywhere but your own home Otherwise, it's discrimination.
2
If I were a product supplier for bakeries and I refused to sell flour, sugar, eggs and other ingredients needed to bake pastries because he's of the wrong religion, I feel confident he would be in court claiming his civil rights were being violated. He would be right.
5
Next the Supreme Court will decide if " No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" is legal.
3
I'm under the impression that an organization is granted a license to do business by the State in which it's located. Therefore, the State has at least some legitimate position in how that organization does business, perhaps even to include obeying all applicable laws, even if they are anti-discriminatory in nature.
As a side note, thanks again to SCOTUS's dreadful Citizens United decision, granting corporate entities First Amendment rights.
As a side note, thanks again to SCOTUS's dreadful Citizens United decision, granting corporate entities First Amendment rights.
2
Art is very subjective, chances are they wouldn't have liked the cake if it had been baked anyway, considering the artist's soul wasn't really into it to begin with. People can't force others to love them. Sue them, yes, love them, no. You get loved by not suing people.
1
It bears mentioning that Christians who wish to operate their businesses according to the tenets of Christianity, discriminate against occasions and not persons per se. The trouble is, however, when both the media and liberal activists harp on a peripheral characteristic of the clientele being denied a service the whole issue becomes hopelessly distorted.
As Mr. Philips and other Christians have explained ad nauseum, it isn't that Mr. Philips doesn't serve gay people, but that he doesn't serve gay unions. He said he bakes birthday cakes for gay customers, and for all sorts of other occasions. The comparison of Christian businesses to southern establishments during segregation doesn't hold water because it stands to reason that if an establishment wanted to withhold service to African-Americans, it would refuse to serve them under all or most circumstances, or that there would be a long pattern of discriminatory treatment, such as selling inferior/defective merchandise to black customers, or price gouging black customers.
As far as I'm aware, attorneys for the couple (Charlie Craig and David Mullins), have not produced evidence of a discriminatory pattern of behavior.
As Mr. Philips and other Christians have explained ad nauseum, it isn't that Mr. Philips doesn't serve gay people, but that he doesn't serve gay unions. He said he bakes birthday cakes for gay customers, and for all sorts of other occasions. The comparison of Christian businesses to southern establishments during segregation doesn't hold water because it stands to reason that if an establishment wanted to withhold service to African-Americans, it would refuse to serve them under all or most circumstances, or that there would be a long pattern of discriminatory treatment, such as selling inferior/defective merchandise to black customers, or price gouging black customers.
As far as I'm aware, attorneys for the couple (Charlie Craig and David Mullins), have not produced evidence of a discriminatory pattern of behavior.
4
Does a tutor determine who he will tutor without explanation? Does a lawyer have a choice in whether to accept or refuse a client? Does a minister have a choice as to whose marriage ceremony he will perform? Does a fine cobbler or a seamstress have the right to accept or decline a business request? Does an author have a right to accept or decline a particular writing topic? No matter how accepting or non accepting we are of other people's lifestyles, we must protect our rights of choice. Just as we should not judge the couple, we should not judge the baker. Our rights are our rights. They are precious. Once rights to make our own decisions are lost, we all will have lost.
4
Actually yes to most of your examples. A lawyer totally has a choice to accept or refuse a client -- for example, a defense lawyer who believes the person is guilty (but actually for any other reason either). And a minister totally has a choice as to whose marriage ceremony he will perform or there is no freedom of religion at all. For example, a Catholic priest will not officiate at the wedding of a couple in which one of the partners has a living spouse to whom they were previously married in the Catholic Church unless an annulment has been obtained. (And of course, a priest is not going to officiate at a wedding in which at least one of the partners is not a practicing Catholic -- and he gets to decide what practicing means.) An orthodox rabbi will not officiate at the wedding of a Jew to a non-Jew. And on a more basic level, any clergyperson may refuse to perform the ceremony because in his/her opinion the couple is not emotionally/spiritually ready to enter into marriage. Yeah -- marriage is kind of a religious concept to begin with.
Where a service is being offered to the public, the interests of the state in preventing discrimination takes precedence over the owners' sincerely held religious beliefs.
Hotels and restaurants and stores can no longer refuse to serve African-Americans. The Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination is unconstitutional. It took protests and violence for America to finally agree that discrimination based on race will not be accepted.
Why should discrimination against gays be any different?
Hotels and restaurants and stores can no longer refuse to serve African-Americans. The Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination is unconstitutional. It took protests and violence for America to finally agree that discrimination based on race will not be accepted.
Why should discrimination against gays be any different?
7
the "difference" is couching illegal discrimination in the costume of religion.
old wine in new bottles, or vice versa.
old wine in new bottles, or vice versa.
Nowhere in the bible is equal marriage addressed. Opponents are forced to rely on texts that purportedly deal with same-sex orientation, not marriage, to condemn it. Even then, Jesus said nothing about same-sex orientation.
Which is all to say, it does not bear scrutiny that Phillips permits himself to serve gay customers, but cannot provide them with wedding cakes. Adhering to his own alleged "sincerely held religious beliefs", he would have to deny service to gays based on their same-sex activity, not the fact they're getting a civil marriage license. That baking a secular wedding cake somehow crosses some line for Philips speak volumes: his agenda is about the politics of discrimination, not religion.
Which is all to say, it does not bear scrutiny that Phillips permits himself to serve gay customers, but cannot provide them with wedding cakes. Adhering to his own alleged "sincerely held religious beliefs", he would have to deny service to gays based on their same-sex activity, not the fact they're getting a civil marriage license. That baking a secular wedding cake somehow crosses some line for Philips speak volumes: his agenda is about the politics of discrimination, not religion.
Seeing and listening to Mr. Phillips talk makes me think he is sincere in his objection and actually believes that he would offend Jesus Christ's teaching if he were to bake a cake for the wedding of a gay couple. And it appears that he believes those teachings (which are open to a lot of interpretation, in any case) are important to obey. I can empathize with having to go against your beliefs. All of us, at one point in our lives, have had to swallow our beliefs in order to go along with the social order.
But when we live in a particular society, we have to obey its covenants. It is part of the social contract we agree to in order to also receive the benefits of that society, and in the U.S., discrimination based on race, age, gender, or sexual orientation is illegal. That is the binding covenant of this society. There are other societies, for example in parts of Africa and Russia, where the covenants are different. As far as I know, it is not illegal to move to those countries.
But when we live in a particular society, we have to obey its covenants. It is part of the social contract we agree to in order to also receive the benefits of that society, and in the U.S., discrimination based on race, age, gender, or sexual orientation is illegal. That is the binding covenant of this society. There are other societies, for example in parts of Africa and Russia, where the covenants are different. As far as I know, it is not illegal to move to those countries.
1
Freedom of religion does not give you the right to discriminate against the public when you choose to become a business owner who serves the public. Gay marriage is legal, get over it. In our private lives we are free to believe whatever we want. In our public lives we are not allowed to use our personal biases to promote discrimination.
That they were able to obtain a cake elsewhere isn't the point. They shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.
That they were able to obtain a cake elsewhere isn't the point. They shouldn't have had to do so in the first place.
4
How is refusing to serve LGBTQ clients on the basis of one's faith any different from refusing to serve clients of a different religion-- or even a different race? According to the Constitution, citizens are promised equal protection under the law. It is absurd to suggest that this baker is a victim, when in fact he is in the position of denying goods and services to others.
In my view, long as you open a business in a community, you are agreeing to serve the members of that community. Thus,
any business owner who insists on categorically excluding a whole group of people should be made to pay a tax, which reflects his or her failure to serve members of the community. Let's see how eager folks are to exclude when the government puts a price on their faith-based discrimination.
In my view, long as you open a business in a community, you are agreeing to serve the members of that community. Thus,
any business owner who insists on categorically excluding a whole group of people should be made to pay a tax, which reflects his or her failure to serve members of the community. Let's see how eager folks are to exclude when the government puts a price on their faith-based discrimination.
Equal Protection under the Laws is being Violated here. Separation of Church and State too. This is clearly wrong on so many levels!
What I truly want and need is freedom FROM religion. That's all, and that's everything.
5
Are "self-employed" drivers for Uber or Lyft going to be permitted to discriminate on religious grounds?
2
No, because the terms of the contract the drivers must agree to with Uber prohibit discrimination among passengers
Loaves and Fishes were multiplied for ALL.
1
Advice to all tolerant folks -gay or straight- planning weddings: When the time comes to order your wedding cake, do not specify the nature of the union to the baker. If the baker has to ask, take your business elsewhere. Of course, some group such as Focus on the Family will then cry, "Christian bakers are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs! Only intolerant people will buy their cakes!" As the saying goes, turn and turn about is fair play.
1
If you operate a public business you have to serve ALL of the public.
What is next?
Only serve members if your religion?
What is next?
Only serve members if your religion?
1
Of course it's not about a cake. It's about public-serving businesses being granted to the right to discriminate.
Do they discriminate against divorced straight people having second weddings? Do they ask straight couples if they use birth control or ever had an abortion? Nope, didn't think so.
Do they discriminate against divorced straight people having second weddings? Do they ask straight couples if they use birth control or ever had an abortion? Nope, didn't think so.
2
Why do these cases only come up when it is sone white Christian person feeling aggrieved? The general public owes no allegiance to this man's or anyone else's faith. People get really upset about peanut bans but seem okay with his bigotry. Disappointed in my fellow commentators! I can't imagine a Muslim, Hindu or Orthodox Jewish person being allowed to get away with this type of discrimination because we hold Christianity above other faiths in this country.
4
Couldn't take up the case about carrying guns in public. But baking. WHOA! Better see what the Constitution has to say about dessert.
2
From the perspective of the wedding services provider, the problem is not about serving gay couples, or disapproval of gay relationships. Many of the defendants in these cases have no problem serving gay people, coupled or not. (See for instance the Baronelle Stutzman case, in which she had served the gay couple for many years before declining to do flowers for their wedding.) The problem is that by creating the cake or flower arrangement or photo album, they are participating in an event that asserts that two men or two women are a marriage. Many people are not able to agree that marriage as a public/social institution can be gender-neutral--whether for religious reasons or secular ones. It's not a matter of expressing disapproval of gay people, it's a matter of basic disagreement about the definition of marriage.
1
Ok. OK! I am going to have to withdraw my many recent testimonials praising our Supreme Court. It appears that once again they have refused to hear any case or render any judgement regarding the Second Amendment and the right to carry personal weapons. Shame on them. I am very old, and I do hope my descendants will someday hear of a SCOTUS decision on personal firearms. I would prefer a decision that overturns that so-called right to own and bear arms, but ANY decision would be welcome. SCOTUS appears to be "chicken".............
I guess that whole "Love the sinner, hate the sin" thing has gone out of style? Good to know. So all those people buying cakes for the post-divorce second, third wedding are out of luck as well.
1
I find it amusing that Hallowe'en, the Eve of All Saints, is one of the holidays he will not create anything for. When fully understood in it's context, Hallowe'en is a Christian holiday.
1
Um...no. It's the eve of all hallows when kids used to trick adults by pretending to be evil spirits rising from the grave because they had no one to pray for them. By your reckoning "Devils Night" on October 30 is a Christian holiday as well. :)
I know nothing of the "Devil's Night" you say is observed on October 30. I was speaking of Hallowe'en, observed on October 31. As part of the autumnal triduum observed by Christians since ancient times, we prepare for the commemoration of all who have come before us by making fun of the things that scare us, including death. Come to New Orleans and experience it sometime. On the evening of the 31st we say "Boo", and on November 1 we visit our family tombs. So, um . . . yes!
It is implicit, if you are open for business to the general public you cannot discriminate against people who have values which differ from yours. What's next, no redheads, no lefties, no Jews?
If you cannot deal with that go into another line of work.
If you cannot deal with that go into another line of work.
1
Would this "cake artist" have refused to make a cake for an atheist couple? My lack of faith would seem to be a violation of his religious beliefs, so would he have the right to refuse to service my wedding?
Mr. Phillips lawyers state, ..."But his faith requires him, they said, “to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.”
“Thus,” the brief said, “he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.”
His beliefs must by implication be among other things that homosexuality is a sin. Presuming this to be so and that Mr. Phillips declares he is a Christian, then he must not serve anyone. To use the Bible's own commands, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The issue must boil down to objecting to sin in general. In that case he cannot serve anyone including himself! Otherwise this is a clear case of discrimination using religious belief as an excuse. Since homosexuality is not a human crime in Colorado, but may or may not be a sin in God's eye's, only God gets to decide; not Mr. Phillips. Besides LGBT is a protected class in Colorado and Mr. Phillips' establishment is a public accommodation and there is no clear and present danger to the public in his serving them. Settled case law.
“Thus,” the brief said, “he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.”
His beliefs must by implication be among other things that homosexuality is a sin. Presuming this to be so and that Mr. Phillips declares he is a Christian, then he must not serve anyone. To use the Bible's own commands, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". The issue must boil down to objecting to sin in general. In that case he cannot serve anyone including himself! Otherwise this is a clear case of discrimination using religious belief as an excuse. Since homosexuality is not a human crime in Colorado, but may or may not be a sin in God's eye's, only God gets to decide; not Mr. Phillips. Besides LGBT is a protected class in Colorado and Mr. Phillips' establishment is a public accommodation and there is no clear and present danger to the public in his serving them. Settled case law.
1
What about false advertising? I would never take my business to a baker who holds these ridiculous and offensive beliefs. But how would I know that he is a "Christian" (incidentally, since when do Christians refuse to handle alcohol? Wasn't there a little business in Cana about turning water into wine ?) Do I have to ask every time I want a croissant and a cup of coffee whether the owner believes that the world is 6000 years old? You want the freedom to discriminate? Fine, but the don't complain that people like me will boycott your business. Have the guts to post a sign at the entrance that you don't serve atheists, Jews and gays - so I, and all right-thinking people, can turn around and walk away.
1
This case is an attempt to elevate the right of religious belief above all other constitutional rights.
As a Christian, I share with other believers--and all others--this prayer:
God, judge of reaping and sowing
who tempers the mysteries and angst of change
with the path of light
lead us by love
hear our petition
and incline our hearts
to your charity, faithfulness, and mercy
as we sit at your table.
As a Christian, I share with other believers--and all others--this prayer:
God, judge of reaping and sowing
who tempers the mysteries and angst of change
with the path of light
lead us by love
hear our petition
and incline our hearts
to your charity, faithfulness, and mercy
as we sit at your table.
What's next? Denying mixed racial marriage! Or denying atheists?
1
Your religion is your business BUT ... if you're in business to serve the public you CANNOT DISCRIMINATE based upon your religious beliefs. If you can't do that don't be in a business serving the public!
Who amongst us thinks that the Supreme Court will uphold the true meaning behind Christ's words and strike down anything that is not inclusive or loving.
Christ preached tolerance and love.
Christ preached tolerance and love.
This is tough. There's not a clear way to delineate this without trammeling on someone's rights that I can see. I personally side with the gay couple, but I also see the other point of view to a degree. For the record I'm a way way left liberal and an architect. If the KKK wanted to hire me to design their headquarters, am I obligated to do it? I understand that beliefs are not protected against discrimination, but there is something of a parallel dilemma.
2
I really hate how so many religions twist text from 'holy books' to rationalize all kinds of hateful behaviors and actions. I can't stand formalized religions. Brainwashing, control of the masses, etc. No one 'needs' religion in order to be a good person.
It would be interesting to see how Mr. Phillips might feel about gays if he was in need of an organ. Is it likely that he'd question the sexual orientation of a kidney donor if his life depended on it? Might he choose dying over the kindness of a gay stranger?
I'm also interested in knowing if Mr. Phillips screens his customers for being on the national sexual offenders registry. Would he refuse to serve someone who is a registered sex offender/predator? Or does he limit his discrimination only to those with sexual identities different than his own?
I'm with everyone else who is mortified over what is happening in this country. We used to be the example to the world - the country that respected differences, helped one another, comforted those in need and shared each other's happiness.
Who are these people who feel so imposed upon by the expectation of being kind? And why do they hide behind their religion in doing so?
I'd encourage all those less-than-tolerant individuals to study their bibles a bit harder and less selectively. I'd also encourage them to study with biblical scholars and historians v. some guy who got a mail order "degree" in divinity - if he bothered to do that.
I'm also interested in knowing if Mr. Phillips screens his customers for being on the national sexual offenders registry. Would he refuse to serve someone who is a registered sex offender/predator? Or does he limit his discrimination only to those with sexual identities different than his own?
I'm with everyone else who is mortified over what is happening in this country. We used to be the example to the world - the country that respected differences, helped one another, comforted those in need and shared each other's happiness.
Who are these people who feel so imposed upon by the expectation of being kind? And why do they hide behind their religion in doing so?
I'd encourage all those less-than-tolerant individuals to study their bibles a bit harder and less selectively. I'd also encourage them to study with biblical scholars and historians v. some guy who got a mail order "degree" in divinity - if he bothered to do that.
Who would want a cake from a hateful person anyway?
There isn't enough sugar in the world to make that taste good.
There isn't enough sugar in the world to make that taste good.
1
My problem with the baker's argument is that his faith teaches him many things are wrong. He does not screen his customers for adultery, murder, theft, taking the Lord's name in vain, on and on. So why gay folks? This is bigotry plain and simple. And just for the record Christians, Jesus never said anything about our homosexual brothers and sisters. How about we take a tip from the pope and be more tolerant.
1
The cake maker is not "promoting a message"; his customers are.
2
Just wondering if Messrs. David Mullins and Charlie Craig are church-going members of any organized religion, agnostics or atheists? If so, they must have arranged to get married in court, a public institution that is subject to the provisions of the Constitution. If the latter, why would they approach a baker known as a church-going Christian, even though most likely facing a refusal to deliver one? Was it really because of Mr. Phillips's famous wedding cakes? In my view, they had failed to accord to a person of faith, the same support that the LGBT community had been fighting for throughout centuries, and finally receiving (in a much more enlightened America) just a few years ago: the legal right to profess in public, without discrimination, one’s faith, one’s membership in any organized religion, and one’s sexual orientation. In my view, we are, now, unnecessarily, faced with a simple question of fairness and willingness to compromise: Messrs. Mullins ad Craig should demonstrate the same respect for the baker’s constitutional rights, that they are now expecting from him. Isn’t forcing, say, a confirmed Catholic to participate against his will in the wedding of a gay couple, the equivalent of a confirmed Catholic couple forcing an agnostic or atheist gay couple against their will to attend holy mass and to take part in its public confession and communion?
Respectfully submitted, Adalbert Lallier
Respectfully submitted, Adalbert Lallier
2
He could have said he was too busy.
He could have made a terrible cake.
But instead he was honest and we want to punish him for being honest. How stupid have our laws become.
I am sure they found another baker and had a great wedding.
This is small and petty.
It is time that a person's individual beliefs be accepted.
He could have made a terrible cake.
But instead he was honest and we want to punish him for being honest. How stupid have our laws become.
I am sure they found another baker and had a great wedding.
This is small and petty.
It is time that a person's individual beliefs be accepted.
3
You can not discriminate against people for who they are - black, gay Asian etc... Period. That's the law
As far as his religious beliefs, does he ask couples if they were previously divorced and refuse service if they were ? He should. Jesus speaks against divorce more than once but never mentions homosexuality.
As far as his religious beliefs, does he ask couples if they were previously divorced and refuse service if they were ? He should. Jesus speaks against divorce more than once but never mentions homosexuality.
2
If he's running his bakery as a corporation, licensed under state regulations, then he receives certain benefits from the state, such as not necessarily being personally liable for the debts, etc., of the company. Therefore, he should also be required to comply with all other requirements that the state imposes, regardless of personal belief.
If he can't comply, then he needs to find another way of doing business.
If he can't comply, then he needs to find another way of doing business.
73
Exactly. Same reasoning applies to the Hobby Lobby situation. A corporation is not an individual. Key differences are that it has limited liability and exists in perpetuity. The religious beliefs of its owner are irrelevant.
I think he is Guilty of a Thought Crime.
This baker will sell other products (birthday cakes, cookies, brownies) to gay people. He also doesn't make Halloween cakes (can the law compel him to put a pumpkin on a cake?). He also seems to identify as an artist, meaning that he wants to pour his spirit, conscience and values into his custom cakes, which take more time and emotional involvement than whipping up a batch of brownies. That I understand. I once had a small business as a mosaic artist. If someone had liked my creative style, and wanted to commission a mosaic portrait of Jesus or a saint, I would have refused because, not being of that faith, it would have been out of integrity for me to do so. I would have referred the potential client to a colleague, and they would have been welcome to purchase something I had already made. For those who say "it's just a cake", perhaps for this baker it is more than just the mixture of eggs, flour and sugar. Even if not everyone understands that I believe we need to respect his faith. He seems willing to accept the consequences of his faith, too.
14
"" I would have refused because, not being of that faith, it would have been out of integrity for me to do so.""
No, it really would not have.
Perhaps, for THIS baker, he considers his ""cake"" to be as crucial as a suspension bridge. That does not mean it is.
Look, you seem to have completely missed the point. ""Faith"" belongs in a church. OUTSIDE that church you must deal eventually with people who do not share in your fairy tale. We do not have to and cannot in this specific case respect this mans decision, because it is nothing more than the self-pious claiming they cannot be as faithful as they want to be because someone else is not just like them.
No, it really would not have.
Perhaps, for THIS baker, he considers his ""cake"" to be as crucial as a suspension bridge. That does not mean it is.
Look, you seem to have completely missed the point. ""Faith"" belongs in a church. OUTSIDE that church you must deal eventually with people who do not share in your fairy tale. We do not have to and cannot in this specific case respect this mans decision, because it is nothing more than the self-pious claiming they cannot be as faithful as they want to be because someone else is not just like them.
If you are not an artist, it might be hard to understand what goes into creative output. Not all artists see themselves as manufacturers, making things to spec no matter what. I seriously doubt I could have created a meaningful portrait of a religious figure with whom I had no connection or identification or understanding. And, without putting such an image on my website, it's unlikely anyone would have approached me for such a commission, but that possibility existed, even remote. And, if this guy wants to refuse certain people's business, and go out of business as a consequence, that is his right.
Thats the silliest argument I've ever head.
This shows that most commenters of the NYT were right, as always. They were saying recently - thanks God, there are courts in the USA. This is a win for the these commenters' view.
2
If you choose to adopt a faith whose tenets are discriminatory and then discriminate against the public in your place of business because of that "faith" you must suffer the legal consequences of that choice.
No one is demanding that you drop your faith, only that you not discriminate against the general public in your public business.
The baker chose to impose his discriminatory "faith" (arbitrarily as he is happy serving gay people for anything else he bakes) knowing full well that it was illegal and that he had agreed to follow the law when he was licensed.
There is no conflict except within the minds of those who refuse to accept that applying their "faith" to the general public in their place of business is against the law. Maybe its the fact that they are applying (forcing) their "faith" on the general public that they don't want to admit to?
Whatever the intricacies of the mental processes (which are surely being hidden here) taken to get to the conclusion that they should be able to discriminate they knew it was illegal when they got licensed and choose to ignore that.
No one is demanding that you drop your faith, only that you not discriminate against the general public in your public business.
The baker chose to impose his discriminatory "faith" (arbitrarily as he is happy serving gay people for anything else he bakes) knowing full well that it was illegal and that he had agreed to follow the law when he was licensed.
There is no conflict except within the minds of those who refuse to accept that applying their "faith" to the general public in their place of business is against the law. Maybe its the fact that they are applying (forcing) their "faith" on the general public that they don't want to admit to?
Whatever the intricacies of the mental processes (which are surely being hidden here) taken to get to the conclusion that they should be able to discriminate they knew it was illegal when they got licensed and choose to ignore that.
26
Where does he purchase the materials to bake his cakes? If he is purchasing anything from outside CO then he is subject to the equal protections clause under inter-state commerce. This was used 50 years ago to fight Jim Crow. Then of course he's potentially subjected to the 14th and 15th amendments. This case is no different to a vendor refusing to sell to those of different colors or religions. Perhaps the best "state's rights" solution to this is to the state legislators of CO to pen a new law. To hold a valid license to sell any taxable good in CO requires the vendor to sell to anyone, regardless of color, creed or orientation. Thus this baker can continue to sell his cakes, but is unregistered and can only sell to family and friends, churches, and not the general public
24
If a baker refused to make a cake with a religious theme, with say a cross or a rosary for a funeral or first communion, or a Star of David for a bar mitzvah, maybe because he or she objected on philosophical or religious grounds, or because it just wasn't their thing or they felt they couldn't do a good job making it, I think that I, as a customer, would respect their decision and just go somewhere else. If I was a caterer and was forced to provide food for a Hindu wedding, I would be terrified of making a mistake and offending someone because I didn't or couldn't do some aspect of it correctly.
7
You mean use common sense? Don't make a mountain out of a molehill?
1
While I agree with the baker's position, I wonder how clearly the line can be drawn between discrimination based on bigotry and that based on religious belief. If the court agrees with the baker it will be interesting to see what limits it posts in the opinion.
11
What's next? Only serving members of your religion?
Discrimination is discrimination.
Discrimination is discrimination.
Actually it's fairly simple. If someone comes into your shop, want's to buy something off the rack, and has the ability to pay then you must serve them regardless of how they intend to use it. If someone commissions the creation of a customized product, then you should be allowed to refuse to create any product that doesn't align with your beliefs.
2
In most civil rights cases that go to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs are particularly sympathetic -- people who can't get jobs that they need because of their race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. White, back, gay, or women, I don't have a lot of sympathy for someone who can pay up to $3,000 for a wedding cake, particularly when there's another high price baker in town who can make the cake. The plaintiffs here weren't denied their cake. They found one baker who wouldn't make the sale. This is a contrived lawsuit. The same issue could have been brought on behalf of a sympathetic gay couple deprived of necessary services. I champion gay rights, but I couldn't care less about someone who has to go to a second exorbitant baker to to get his ultra expensive cake. Yes, I know that it's the principal of the thing. But these are expensive cases, and the cake case would be the last one I'd donate to.
You cannot in my opinion force someone to write or decorate a piece about something that goes against your belief. Any white supremacist then can go to an African American store and asks them to bake a cake with confederate flag color.
Also I am not sure whether the comparison with African American is correct and it sounds insulting. On different human races, their positions in society and the survival of human races are identical to each other. Heterosexual society and homosexual society have equal standings in the eyes of the law, but they are not identical. One depends the other while the others not, especially if monogamous, Darwinian natural relationship is the main emphasis.
If we are people who strongly believe in science, we should not say things which are not identical to be identical to avoid upsetting people.
Also I am not sure whether the comparison with African American is correct and it sounds insulting. On different human races, their positions in society and the survival of human races are identical to each other. Heterosexual society and homosexual society have equal standings in the eyes of the law, but they are not identical. One depends the other while the others not, especially if monogamous, Darwinian natural relationship is the main emphasis.
If we are people who strongly believe in science, we should not say things which are not identical to be identical to avoid upsetting people.
7
This is settled case law. A customer can't demand a message the baker objects to. But if you sell a confederate flag to one person, you sell it to all. If you don't sell any cakes with white supremacist themes to anyone, then you're good.
The baker can't be forced to make a gay wedding cake. He does have to sell the same wedding cakes he'd sell to anyone else, without discrimination.
The baker can't be forced to make a gay wedding cake. He does have to sell the same wedding cakes he'd sell to anyone else, without discrimination.
1
Any white supremacist then can go to an African American store and asks them to bake a cake with confederate flag color.
easy Hoss, you are already on that slippery slope.
The issue is not the issue you then suppose. What you suppose is clearly deliberately provocative, demeaning, insulting and should be refused.
We are talking about a cake. A WEDDING cake, specifically. One which, to as best I can figure, did not include gay twister.
easy Hoss, you are already on that slippery slope.
The issue is not the issue you then suppose. What you suppose is clearly deliberately provocative, demeaning, insulting and should be refused.
We are talking about a cake. A WEDDING cake, specifically. One which, to as best I can figure, did not include gay twister.
Jack Phillips believes his interpretation of his "religion" grants him the right to act on it even when engages in public commerce.
What if society deems Mr. Cake Baker's belief/interpretation/church teachings unreasonable?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but much religious dogma and/or catechism regarding "others" is misguided at best and counterproductive to promoting harmony in a pluralistic society. At what point do "religious" beliefs become so absurd that their exercise is unreasonable in any circumstances?
My answer - All of them. The exercise of personal religious beliefs should never be allowed to enter the world of commerce, politics, education or science. And please don't roll out that shibboleth that without religion we would have no moral compass. Or that our Nation is founding in religion. Because clearly the Founders sought to limit its effect on society and politics.
What if society deems Mr. Cake Baker's belief/interpretation/church teachings unreasonable?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but much religious dogma and/or catechism regarding "others" is misguided at best and counterproductive to promoting harmony in a pluralistic society. At what point do "religious" beliefs become so absurd that their exercise is unreasonable in any circumstances?
My answer - All of them. The exercise of personal religious beliefs should never be allowed to enter the world of commerce, politics, education or science. And please don't roll out that shibboleth that without religion we would have no moral compass. Or that our Nation is founding in religion. Because clearly the Founders sought to limit its effect on society and politics.
13
Just as respect is due to the couple to choose whether or not to marry, respect is due to the baker to choose what his religious beliefs allow him to bake. He is not denying the couple's right to marry or to buy a wedding cake elsewhere. He merely is living up to his personal religious belief yet not forcing it on anyone. Respect is due to both parties. We must preserve our freedoms whether or not we would choose to ban them a wedding cake.
6
WRONG.
REFUSING to make this cake for these men IS FORCING his belief on them.
REFUSING to make this cake for these men IS FORCING his belief on them.
This is discrimination. He's not refusing to sell wedding cakes with "I LOVE GAY MARRIAGE" written on them in rainbow icing. He is refusing to his product sell to a particular customer because of their sexual orientation. His license that allows him to sell goods and services as a private business to the general public REQUIRES that he not discriminate against who he sells his products to.
J, I'm pretty sure that exact argument was used in the 1960s by business owners refusing to serve blacks. After all, slavery and separation of the races are ok in the Bible! And the argument was, correctly, rejected then. As it hopefully will be now.
This is entirely simple - if you offer a product, you sell it to anyone who wants that product. If he sells wedding cakes, he sells the cake to anyone who wants one.
It is not remotely the same as refusing to sell a Halloween cake, because he refuses to sell a Halloween cake to anyone. But when you discriminate, based on a person's class, rather than on the individual, then you discriminate against that class. Businesses are not allowed to do that.
It is not remotely the same as refusing to sell a Halloween cake, because he refuses to sell a Halloween cake to anyone. But when you discriminate, based on a person's class, rather than on the individual, then you discriminate against that class. Businesses are not allowed to do that.
45
If you have a business you are basically free to choose to whom you sell your products.
If you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, you do not discriminate on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
If you refuse to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, you do not discriminate on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
My (Episcopal) church celebrates same-sex weddings. If we asked for a cake, would Mr Phillips have the right to refuse to recognize our theology? I am a Christian; would Mr Phillips be allowed to discriminate against my Christian same-sex marriage? Why not against Baptists then, or Methodists? Why does Mr Phillips get to decide whose religion is acceptable?
19
He's not "decid[ing] whose religion is acceptable". He's deciding whose religion he would like to incorporate into and celebrate with his art.
Undoubtedly he's a bigot, but his choice was about him personally.
Should you have the right to force him to create the kind of art that you like?
Undoubtedly he's a bigot, but his choice was about him personally.
Should you have the right to force him to create the kind of art that you like?
RK _ You raise the central point of the whole issue, but there is a fundamental difference between the right to create any work of art one wants, and operating a business in the public sphere. I would never force Mr Phillips to create the kind of art I like, but neither does he have the right to refuse to do business with people whose view he does not share - be they Black, Jewish, Methodist, or someone with the "wrong" view of the Athenesian Controversy. A sign saying "No Jews" would not be tolerated. Why should "No LGBT's" be allowed?
Bakers, country clubs, for-profit businesses, schools, hospitals, condos, landlords, real estate brokers. Where will discrimination against "others" end?
If you wish to open a business to serve the public, do not discriminate.
If you wish to open a business to serve the public, do not discriminate.
15
Public accommodation is public accommodation. If a private country club wishes not to have Jewish, or Muslim, or Roman Catholic, or black, or Asian, or gay members, well, that's they're right (but don't expect in PGA or LPGA tournaments to be played on your course). But when you open your doors to the public, you must serve the whole public. Discriminate against one class of people on the grounds of your personal religious beliefs, and you can discriminate against anybody for reasons of your beliefs about gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and anything else.
It's just plain unconstitutional.
The bakery in question, then, should form a private club of customers. Otherwise, they're open to the whole public.
It's just plain unconstitutional.
The bakery in question, then, should form a private club of customers. Otherwise, they're open to the whole public.
19
This is a thorny issue, in that I would love it if the market place could rule and vendors who don't want to serve the GLBT crowd on "religious" grounds could do so, but many states have said otherwise, by making sexual orientation a protected class. If religion can be used to not serve a particular group (and lets PLEASE remember that many if not most of this same crowd fought with tooth and nails against civil rights using the same arguments) then anti discrimination laws become totally meaningless. As a Gay man I don't want to give my money to anyone who does not want to serve me with respect. I don't think the current Supreme Court will overturn the lower courts on this one, but if we lose Kennedy or Bader-Ginsburg, another Trump appointment resembling Gorsuch will tip the court. Scary thought!
5
When they applied for their license to operate a business serving the public they agreed to follow ALL local, state and federal laws. Period. There is no clause in the application for freedom of conscious, religion or anything else. You want to run a business. Great! These are the rules you must abide by. Sign here. Pay there. Good luck.
11
This has nothing to do with discrimination against people. The baker is protesting the event, not the person. If a gay person enters the bakery they will be served. I assume there is no sign in the window that says No Gays Allowed. If I approach a black photographer to photograph my KKK-themes wedding, must they do so on the grounds that refusing would be discrimination against white people?
5
Actually, he IS protesting the people along with the event. After all, straight people don't have same-sex weddings!
He is protesting the event by refusing to sell to gay people. That is discrimination. That's like saying people who wouldn't allow black customers to eat in their restaurants were protesting inter-racial mixing, not discriminating.
Was there any indication as to how Justices voted on this matter? If not, why not just say so?
1
Headline: "Justices TO HEAR Case on Religious Objections . . . "
They haven't ruled yet.
They haven't ruled yet.
SCOTUS has not yet heard the case. Did you read the article?
Yes, I read the article, I know the Court hasn't ruled, and I suppose the decision to accept certiorari is usually or always issued without further information. That's why I write "matter" instead of "decision."
Some Justices wanted to take the case and probably some did not. It would be interesting to know who.
Some Justices wanted to take the case and probably some did not. It would be interesting to know who.
This is all so ridiculous, so absurd, all rooted in "America's" Calvinist-inspired exceptionalist mythology. Sure, Jack Phillips is most certainly sincere in his beliefs. But to anyone who doesn't share them, doesn't the whole thing just seem like simple power-holding patterns (patterns to used to protect sense of self-worth, ego, personal power) learned through culture, family, environment, and not anything "exceptional" at all? Isn't the absurdity magnified as group belief in this exceptionalist mythology has become less all-ecompassing, as American culture has become more diverse, and as notions of everything America's political and corporate elites do are not viewed as actions sanctioned by "God" (even though Phillips seems to view the Supreme Court in that manner)? As someone who has suffered a lot, I certainly honor the man's belief system, as I understand what little control I have over my life and health. At the same time, as someone who has suffered a lot, I feel empathy for those who feel outside of some grand cultural power circle, sanctioned by "God" (whose conception often benefits the elite power holders in that circle) and who are met with constant rejection (because they are "sinners"--doing something the elite power holders find disfavor with).
1
To say a business can discriminate based on a protected category means that a town where the small business owners don't like Jews can refuse to serve them, and make their town unlivable for Jews. Or Black people. Or non-Mormons.
This has been established before - we lived this before. Small towns would effectively run black people out of town by refusing to serve them.
It's not like everyone can just go to the next baker, not everyone lives in a city. I think many have a quiet belief that these people can just go to another town where they are accepted - you need to really think about that. Is it OK to run someone out of their hometown, to make them have to leave their job, search for a town that will accept "their kind"? No matter what "their kind" is - whether Jewish, Black, or Homosexual - that is just plain UNAMERICAN.
This has been established before - we lived this before. Small towns would effectively run black people out of town by refusing to serve them.
It's not like everyone can just go to the next baker, not everyone lives in a city. I think many have a quiet belief that these people can just go to another town where they are accepted - you need to really think about that. Is it OK to run someone out of their hometown, to make them have to leave their job, search for a town that will accept "their kind"? No matter what "their kind" is - whether Jewish, Black, or Homosexual - that is just plain UNAMERICAN.
11
There was a time when there were "religious" objections to interracial marriage... and "christian" bakers would, no doubt, insist on their right to discriminate against mixed-race couples.
We didn't put up with that, and I hope we don't put up with the latest incarnation of "Who would Jesus hate?"
We didn't put up with that, and I hope we don't put up with the latest incarnation of "Who would Jesus hate?"
My husband and I had a completely secular, civil ceremony at a courthouse--presided over by a judge and county personnel. Nothing whatsoever was religious about the event. No one--repeat--no one, had their religious beliefs taken away that day just because we got married.
This alleged "cake artist" has every right to his religious beliefs--and I have every right to dismiss his beliefs and not accept 2nd class citizenship status because our beliefs differ. He needs to get over himself and just do the job he expects to get paid for.
This alleged "cake artist" has every right to his religious beliefs--and I have every right to dismiss his beliefs and not accept 2nd class citizenship status because our beliefs differ. He needs to get over himself and just do the job he expects to get paid for.
7
It's just a cake. This is really stunning in 2017. I'm sure the baker doesn't advertise whom he will sell and whom he will not. Its discrimination. They may rule its his right to discriminate--but its discrimination, pure and simple. What's next: No cake for people with dark skin? No cake for people who are redheads? No cake for people who are Muslim?
11
What's next? If not this baker, then perhaps another baker or a florist or a locksmith. In fact, the ultimate goal for the multi million dollar operation of the religious right in this country is to be able to discriminate against gays in far more serious settings such as hospitals, education, housing...the list goes on. The bottom line:...the big money hate machine known as the religious right opposes church-state separation and they will stop at nothing in seeking the "political power" to mandate their "doctrine" upon all citizens.
13
I think it is fine to be able to refuse service but I do think that those that do be required to display a sign – just make a list of those you will not serve and post it on your door and in your marketing material. Something like: We do not serve: Homosexuals, African-Americans, Jews, Atheist and those of Middle Eastern decent all others welcomed including Klan Members and White Supremist.
25
Anarchy would reign if all individuals were allowed to ignore particular laws they claim would violate their religious beliefs.
86
You'd think in a society where we are in the habit of respecting the declared often invented by themselves faiths of people, that there would be a more tolerant attitude for those who are different from us and an ability to separate what we did for a living from what we did in church. We certainly used to before the republicans started using religion to divide and conquer us. BTW this phony "It violates my faith to do that" argument was invented by the reagan GOP to be used to undermine Constitutional protections and Civil Rights protections. The loss of the Voting Rights Act protections is one of the targets thay were aiming for way back then. You can rest assured this phony fight here is meant to help remove some other critically important protection for common folks.
3
I think that's what the religious right wants.
Then martial law can be imposed.
The Handmaid's Tale is not so far off.
Then martial law can be imposed.
The Handmaid's Tale is not so far off.
Unfortunately this isn't a clear cut situation.
On one hand two men are being discriminated against by being denied services. They could just nod and accept this without argument but if we all did that, insert your religion, color, sexual preference here, then very few of us would enjoy civil liberties.
The baker though also owns his business. He has a moral code that extends to exclude alcohol and Halloween patrons as well. His moral values don't align with my own and as a person looking for a cake if he were to hang a sign in his shop window saying he didn't create cakes for gay marriages, with alcohol or for Halloween events then I would just personally take all my cake and cupcake business elsewhere no matter what my event was. If I am to respect that he has a moral code he thinks would be violated by creating a cake then my own moral code would be violated spending money in his bakery.
On one hand two men are being discriminated against by being denied services. They could just nod and accept this without argument but if we all did that, insert your religion, color, sexual preference here, then very few of us would enjoy civil liberties.
The baker though also owns his business. He has a moral code that extends to exclude alcohol and Halloween patrons as well. His moral values don't align with my own and as a person looking for a cake if he were to hang a sign in his shop window saying he didn't create cakes for gay marriages, with alcohol or for Halloween events then I would just personally take all my cake and cupcake business elsewhere no matter what my event was. If I am to respect that he has a moral code he thinks would be violated by creating a cake then my own moral code would be violated spending money in his bakery.
According to the state court decision, the couple asked the baker to "design and bake" the cake. So no one was asking the baker to put any "messages" in the design that he found objectionable.
What if two guys sharing a hotel room order a pizza? Can the pizzeria refuse them service on religious grounds? On the suspicion that some objectionable conduct is going on? How about a man and a woman who may not be married? What's religious about baking a pizza or a cake?
If the couple insisted on the baker baking a cake covered in pride symbols, I could see the argument. But just a tiered cake of any design? Come on.
What if two guys sharing a hotel room order a pizza? Can the pizzeria refuse them service on religious grounds? On the suspicion that some objectionable conduct is going on? How about a man and a woman who may not be married? What's religious about baking a pizza or a cake?
If the couple insisted on the baker baking a cake covered in pride symbols, I could see the argument. But just a tiered cake of any design? Come on.
45
And of course what happens if a Jewish. Hindu, Muslim, or Universalist comes in to buy a cake from a person who has a religious objection to these religions and churches. A very slippery slope.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiff, whats to stop business owners from denying services to African-Americans because that would violate their 'religious values?' Or Jews - or frankly - anyone?
Hey - Democrats who stayed at home last fall because Hillary wasn't good enough for you - happy now?
Hey - Democrats who stayed at home last fall because Hillary wasn't good enough for you - happy now?
160
On race, the Supreme Court told businesses that if they serve Whites then they had to serve Blacks equally.
Now come the religious saying that they should be able to serve heterosexual customers but not homosexual ones.
I, and I hope the Supreme Court does too, say that if I open a business on Main or High Street, I am bound to serve everyone who enters my shop. If the customer asks for a rare hamburger, who am I to deny service or give him/her an over-cooked hamburger? If the customer asks for a cake with ‘Jim & John’ on it, who am I to make a ‘Jim & Sally’ cake for the customer? Of course, I could make a ‘Jim & Sally’ cake and hope that there is a couple by the name of ‘Jim & Sally’ who are willing to buy the cake. Artistic freedom is based on the idea that the artist composes a work and THEN offers it for sale; highest bidder gets the work. No Constitutional issues involved.
Will the Court differentiate between racial and religious freedom? I trust they will not.
Now come the religious saying that they should be able to serve heterosexual customers but not homosexual ones.
I, and I hope the Supreme Court does too, say that if I open a business on Main or High Street, I am bound to serve everyone who enters my shop. If the customer asks for a rare hamburger, who am I to deny service or give him/her an over-cooked hamburger? If the customer asks for a cake with ‘Jim & John’ on it, who am I to make a ‘Jim & Sally’ cake for the customer? Of course, I could make a ‘Jim & Sally’ cake and hope that there is a couple by the name of ‘Jim & Sally’ who are willing to buy the cake. Artistic freedom is based on the idea that the artist composes a work and THEN offers it for sale; highest bidder gets the work. No Constitutional issues involved.
Will the Court differentiate between racial and religious freedom? I trust they will not.
2
Why buy a cake for a gay wedding from an anti-gay-marriage baker? Why buy flowers from someone with similar beliefs? Or food? Better yet, send a note to the bigot, let him know you're using a competitor and explain the reasons why. And tell your friends.
34
There isn't always another choice - your town might not have another baker. Another baker might charge double or triple. It might be that your town, and the 5 other nearest towns ALL don't sell to "the gays".
The free market does not solve everything.
The free market does not solve everything.
3
... and what would happen if a gay person walked in and asked to buy a donut? It seems reasonable for a small business to be able refuse requested service on "objectionable" grounds or "no shirt, no shoes, no service" but probably wouldn't be allowed on simple purchase unless discretion is posted.
That is assuming their is any competition in the town they are trying to get a cake made.
Actually there is no religious component to civil marriage at all. There is no requirement for any religious affiliation in order to qualify for legal marriage.
15
This is not about "sincerely held religious beliefs". That's a smokescreen. This is about a bigoted backlash against the progress the LGBT community has been able to win in the past few years.
As a gay man who grew up during the culture wars of the past few decades, I am well aware of how bigots and homophobes use their "religion" as a mask a shield, and a cudgel for their bigotry. Now that marriage equality is legal throughout the country, this is just an attempt to hobble equality by chipping away at equal access to services.
Although, on one hand, I'd be pleased to know the name of each and every business that holds the same "sincere" homophobic beliefs of Mr. Mullins. In that way I can be sure my money- and those of my friends and family - will never go to them.
As a gay man who grew up during the culture wars of the past few decades, I am well aware of how bigots and homophobes use their "religion" as a mask a shield, and a cudgel for their bigotry. Now that marriage equality is legal throughout the country, this is just an attempt to hobble equality by chipping away at equal access to services.
Although, on one hand, I'd be pleased to know the name of each and every business that holds the same "sincere" homophobic beliefs of Mr. Mullins. In that way I can be sure my money- and those of my friends and family - will never go to them.
67
If that really was the baker's true religious beliefs then that baker belongs to a very NON CHRISTIAN church.
2
I sympathize, and I don't myself patronize businesses that advertise their religious loyalties or affiliations. But many people are deeply attached to their religious beliefs; obedience to what they call "god" is not a cover for bigotry. They genuinely believe they will go to hell, etc, for various transgressions, and their fears are not limited to their dealings with gay people.
Some churches address these conflicts between public norms and religious practices, offering ways for their members to function in a society that rejects their assumptions about how the world works. To me, resolving these conflicts is the responsibility of the church leadership. The Christian denomination the baker adheres to should discuss with him how to perform his job (baking) without running afoul of the law.
Some churches address these conflicts between public norms and religious practices, offering ways for their members to function in a society that rejects their assumptions about how the world works. To me, resolving these conflicts is the responsibility of the church leadership. The Christian denomination the baker adheres to should discuss with him how to perform his job (baking) without running afoul of the law.
Don't like Gay Marriage? Don't have one.
The fact these folks hide behind "religion" without understanding the first thing about Jesus and his teachings...to love others...to not judge others...is astounding.
The fact these folks hide behind "religion" without understanding the first thing about Jesus and his teachings...to love others...to not judge others...is astounding.
77
Given your logic, one could reply "Don't like assault weapons? Don't buy one."
This cracks me up... does this guy have a questionnaire to fill out before you order a cake?? Are you an atheist or a wiccan or do you have a shoe fetish??? Jeeze Louise... I would love a comprehensive list of companies that do not want to serve anyone based on anything so I can avoid them altogether.
29
Completely missing the point here - he doesn't have to have a questionnaire because they were specifying a custom theme. They could have bought a standard wedding cake without any objection from the baker. This was made very clear in the article. Hope that clears up your confusion.
This is an argument for the sake of argument. If the bakers didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple, they could just say they were too busy with existing orders. No need at all to disparage the couple's relationship.
On the other hand, who in their right mind, of whatever sexual orientation, would want to eat a cake that was baked by someone who bore them ill will? For one thing, worrying about spit, or worse, in. the batter wold put most of us off our feed.
On the other hand, who in their right mind, of whatever sexual orientation, would want to eat a cake that was baked by someone who bore them ill will? For one thing, worrying about spit, or worse, in. the batter wold put most of us off our feed.
"The baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts."
That is quite a long way to go for a wedding cake -- Mr. Phillips must be one heck of a baker! Or perhaps Colorado law had something to do with it.
That is quite a long way to go for a wedding cake -- Mr. Phillips must be one heck of a baker! Or perhaps Colorado law had something to do with it.
14
Reply to BK:
Have you forgotten that marriage equality is now (supposedly) the law of the land?
Marriage equality, I fear, will suffer the same slings and arrows of "religious" outrage that legal abortion has suffered since the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision.
Have you forgotten that marriage equality is now (supposedly) the law of the land?
Marriage equality, I fear, will suffer the same slings and arrows of "religious" outrage that legal abortion has suffered since the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision.
5
Marriage in one state precludes having a celebration of it in another? Only a bigot sees what he wants to see.
1
Or perhaps because the case started in 2012 when they could travel to Massachusetts to get married (where it was legal pre-2015) and then back home for the wedding reception in Colorado...
1
I am a long-term, staunch supporter of gay marriage and equal rights, but am oddly conservative on this matter.
In my opinion, if your business does not provide essential services and products, like electricity, food, housing, etc., you should be able to conduct your business as you choose, within reason.
We do live in the United States and enjoy certain freedoms that are not always palatable to everyone. I don't enjoy seeing the Westboro Baptist Church picketing with their disgusting signs or the KKK parading in their white sheets, but it's their right to be there and express themselves.
I don't have to like it, but can also choose to avoid supporting businesses owned and operated by those who support groups and practice business in ways I don't agree with.
And, really, on your wedding day, which is about true love, why would you want to ingest anything made by someone who doesn't understand it?
In my opinion, if your business does not provide essential services and products, like electricity, food, housing, etc., you should be able to conduct your business as you choose, within reason.
We do live in the United States and enjoy certain freedoms that are not always palatable to everyone. I don't enjoy seeing the Westboro Baptist Church picketing with their disgusting signs or the KKK parading in their white sheets, but it's their right to be there and express themselves.
I don't have to like it, but can also choose to avoid supporting businesses owned and operated by those who support groups and practice business in ways I don't agree with.
And, really, on your wedding day, which is about true love, why would you want to ingest anything made by someone who doesn't understand it?
Notice that those who want to refuse service to gays and lesbians on religious grounds have absolutely no problem with grabbing the tax dollars of gays and lesbians to cover those same businesses' tax exemptions and loopholes.
Religious freedom. What a disgusting lie.
Religious freedom. What a disgusting lie.
61
All true, but what gets under my skin is that these supposedly devout Christians have no problem providing services to adulterers or divorced people, both of whom could easily be condemned by citing Bible passages. Even though their version of Bible interpretation is literal, they have no problem skipping over the parts they don't care for. And now they want SCOTUS to put its imprimatur on their selective interpretation of the Bible. Where does that end?
Here's a test for the baker ... would Jesus bake a cake for a same sex wedding?
18
Loaves and Fishes. There's your answer.
2
Jesus would bake enough cakes to feed the entire wedding party.
4
Haha good one Franklin! Indeed he would! He'd multiply the cakes!
1
The guy can open a private bakery and check the sexuality and beliefs of anyone who wants to enter and refuse to serve anyone that doesn't pass his smell test.
No complaints from me.
But a business that is open to the public infers to "the public" that it is open to them. To allow same sex couples to come in and to buy items in his store, and then come in with their wedding plans to buy their "Masterpiece" wedding cake is sadistic and mean to a degree I cannot imagine. A moment of love, a memory to cherish, turned into a moment of hate and embarrassment and anger and illegal and unconstitutional sexual orientation discrimination.
The guy should put a sign outside in big letters saying "Your LGBTQ dollars welcome here UNLESS you're getting married. No same sex wedding cakes baked here - you sinners.
At least the young couple would be warned before their special experience is ruined horribly, and the rest of the townspeople can decide if giving their bakery business to this man is the moral thing to do.
No complaints from me.
But a business that is open to the public infers to "the public" that it is open to them. To allow same sex couples to come in and to buy items in his store, and then come in with their wedding plans to buy their "Masterpiece" wedding cake is sadistic and mean to a degree I cannot imagine. A moment of love, a memory to cherish, turned into a moment of hate and embarrassment and anger and illegal and unconstitutional sexual orientation discrimination.
The guy should put a sign outside in big letters saying "Your LGBTQ dollars welcome here UNLESS you're getting married. No same sex wedding cakes baked here - you sinners.
At least the young couple would be warned before their special experience is ruined horribly, and the rest of the townspeople can decide if giving their bakery business to this man is the moral thing to do.
29
What's a "private baker?"
My point. If you serve the public, you serve the whole public - not just your chosen section of the public.
3
No, he is not refusing any business from any specific group. He is refusing to create a cake on a theme that offends him. Should he be obliged to provide a cake that celebrates adultery (just as wrong and more prevalent)?
I vehemently disagree with Mr. Phillips (I happen to be a gay man).
However, there is a nuanced point here that I think is missing from some of the comments here. His own lawyer noted that “he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.” In other words, he has not refused to serve gay clients. He has refused to promote gay marriage through his own cakes.
What if the leaders of a hate group wanted a cake that celebrated their message? Would anyone require Mr. Phillips to promote a message of hate? I'm not conflating these two. One, gay marriage, is a reason to celebrate, while the other, hate speech, is a reason to mourn. But the principal of free speech remains. Mr. Phillips has asked for the freedom to not support specific speech with which he disagrees. He has not asked to discriminate against gay people, per se. Freedom of speech - by definition - includes the freedom to not speak. If I were a baker, I may - in good conscious - choose certain messages to not promote. Even though I disagree with Mr. Phillips, I respect his right to do the same.
In the words of Andrew Sullivan - let dissenters opt out in the name of their freedom - and ours.
However, there is a nuanced point here that I think is missing from some of the comments here. His own lawyer noted that “he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.” In other words, he has not refused to serve gay clients. He has refused to promote gay marriage through his own cakes.
What if the leaders of a hate group wanted a cake that celebrated their message? Would anyone require Mr. Phillips to promote a message of hate? I'm not conflating these two. One, gay marriage, is a reason to celebrate, while the other, hate speech, is a reason to mourn. But the principal of free speech remains. Mr. Phillips has asked for the freedom to not support specific speech with which he disagrees. He has not asked to discriminate against gay people, per se. Freedom of speech - by definition - includes the freedom to not speak. If I were a baker, I may - in good conscious - choose certain messages to not promote. Even though I disagree with Mr. Phillips, I respect his right to do the same.
In the words of Andrew Sullivan - let dissenters opt out in the name of their freedom - and ours.
43
I can appreciate your argument, but conflating this case with the right to refuse service to a hate group is misguided.
What if Phillips cited a biblical tenet against race mixing to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?
What if Phillips cited a biblical tenet against race mixing to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial wedding?
5
This. This is the progressive comment that makes sense.
The guy has no problem having gay and lesbian clients, but when you make something with a clear message, you put your name and reputation on it. If people open this argument broadly that the owner should do everything that the customer asks then I don't want to even imagine what will happen next.
Would these people who are attacking the baker go to Muslim-owned shops and ask them to write message that are contrary to their beliefs or insulting to their religion? I dare them to do so, if they claim to be free of double standard. I'm pretty sure they won't.
The guy has no problem having gay and lesbian clients, but when you make something with a clear message, you put your name and reputation on it. If people open this argument broadly that the owner should do everything that the customer asks then I don't want to even imagine what will happen next.
Would these people who are attacking the baker go to Muslim-owned shops and ask them to write message that are contrary to their beliefs or insulting to their religion? I dare them to do so, if they claim to be free of double standard. I'm pretty sure they won't.
His business is public, Daniel. Access to his bakery is through public sidewalks. He is okay with the use of a public sidewalk to enter his public business. He is not okay with a gay couple ordering a cake from his public business? Perhaps he should just sell his cakes on e-bay, or on FB, or on some other on-line site. Then, he could make a statement regarding gay couples, and no cakes would be baked for their weddings. He is wrong on every level. I am not gay; I am old and do not care who marries whom; I do believe that if you profit from public sidewalks, paid for by taxpayers who include gay couples, then you sell to the public. Period. This is not a man for anyone, gay or other, to defend. He is a religious bigot. How will that marriage impact his own life? It won't.
1
It's apparently his right to decide to whom he sells his cakes. It's also my right not to patronize his business, and to let all my friends and family know why as well. Word spreads.
13
Works great in San Francisco. But in a Red town in a Red state - he may get MORE business by publicly discriminating. And all the other businesses in town, and in all the other towns may do the same.
This isn't so very simple.
This isn't so very simple.
5
It is his right to refuse to sell a cake if No Shirt, No Shoes applies. It is not his right to refuse a person based on their religion or race. I expect the Supreme court will make this clear whether you are a baker or a pharmacist.
If a male / female couple wanted a cake with a rainbow on it, would Mr Phillips make them one?
Here's a suggestion: line the walls of your business with all the carefully extracted bits of the Bible that justify your bigotry and you'll probably find that no more of 'those people' will offend your faith by wanting a cake you've baked and decorated.
Of course, some people who think Jesus' failure to say anything whatsoever about homosexuality might just override the prohibitions in Leviticus may then decide to buy cakes from a non-bigot baker, but, hey, live your faith, dude.
Does Mr Phillips bake cakes for people who wear poly-cotton blend shirts -- you know, that whole wear no cloth of two fibres thing?
I used to work for a religious organisation. Most of the people I knew who were members and / or regular worshipers there were outspoken, actively engaged liberals and proud of it. We had all our printing done at a local firm owned by an outspoken conservative Republican, who had been, among other things an RNC Delegate. Her political views would likely have offended many of the organisation's faithful.
But her shop did good work at a fair price. She put up with our leftiness and we put up with her rightiness and we were able to do business together.
Here's a suggestion: line the walls of your business with all the carefully extracted bits of the Bible that justify your bigotry and you'll probably find that no more of 'those people' will offend your faith by wanting a cake you've baked and decorated.
Of course, some people who think Jesus' failure to say anything whatsoever about homosexuality might just override the prohibitions in Leviticus may then decide to buy cakes from a non-bigot baker, but, hey, live your faith, dude.
Does Mr Phillips bake cakes for people who wear poly-cotton blend shirts -- you know, that whole wear no cloth of two fibres thing?
I used to work for a religious organisation. Most of the people I knew who were members and / or regular worshipers there were outspoken, actively engaged liberals and proud of it. We had all our printing done at a local firm owned by an outspoken conservative Republican, who had been, among other things an RNC Delegate. Her political views would likely have offended many of the organisation's faithful.
But her shop did good work at a fair price. She put up with our leftiness and we put up with her rightiness and we were able to do business together.
11
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a difference between making art to express yourself and making art on commission for someone else. If you paint a portrait of someone, they expect it to look like them - even if it's a topless portrait and they have a rainbow tattooed across their chest. You're selling your artistic license the moment you go into business. Unless the customer specifically tells you, 'do whatever you want', you do what they want. Don't like it? Don't get into business.
23
This seems to be the crux of it:
“[I]t is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.”
The SupCt's legal precedents are clear: If you operate a business of public accommodation, you don't get to discriminate about who you want to serve and who you don't want to serve. This is not a case of 1st Amendment rights but is instead a case of equal protection under the 4th and 14th Amendments. And I don't know if it changes the legal posture of the case either way, but Mr. Phillips referring to himself as a 'cake artist' seems like a convenient legal fiction concocted by his attorneys.
“[I]t is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.”
The SupCt's legal precedents are clear: If you operate a business of public accommodation, you don't get to discriminate about who you want to serve and who you don't want to serve. This is not a case of 1st Amendment rights but is instead a case of equal protection under the 4th and 14th Amendments. And I don't know if it changes the legal posture of the case either way, but Mr. Phillips referring to himself as a 'cake artist' seems like a convenient legal fiction concocted by his attorneys.
19
What if I have to go to the ER and the only Doctor available is Muslim...or Jewish or Atheist and he refuses me service for being Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc.? What if the only gas station in town won't allow me to fill up my car b/c I am gay or Jewish or Christian? On and on and on.
25
Honestly, I respect the business owners beliefs, but I dont agree with him. Think about this in simpler terms. I go into a store to buy a dress. I chose a very provocative risque dress. if the salesgirl is very religious and would never wear a dress like that, would she refuse to sell it to me? I don't think so because she would be fired. It doesn't make sense. Nobody asked this cake maker to come to the wedding, be friends with them or approve of their lifestyle. He was just asked to make a cake and sell it to them, since that is his business. Just like the salesgirl would sell me a dress she would never wear. Honestly in business you come into contact with many kinds of people and you have to be able to adjust to the times, religious or not.
11
You don't need to respect beliefs that are bigoted.
4
I don't respect WHAT he believes, I respect the fact that he is allowed to believe in what he chooses.
Let us start at the start. He has a "faith" whose tenets tell him not to make wedding cakes for gay people. I'll try not to point out how incongruously specific that tenet seems to be in the face of his happily serving people he knew to be gay any other kind of baled goods.
So here he is a devout Christian who cannot let himself be a part of anything he imagines "his faith" does not approve of (Except those things he chooses to for his own reasons) and he wants to start a business that is open to the public. He knows that the laws states he cannot discriminate against anyone and agrees to this. We know he did since he started the business and has his licenses.
So there you have it. He chose to do business with the walk in public where he knew he would have to by law serve those he has told us his faith says he cannot serve, some of whom he did anyway. Somehow the kind of baked good these people want to buy plays a role.
Then he chose to violate the agreement he made when he got licensed and out of an abundance of cowardice has blamed his god for this bigotry. He is hoping no one will try to subpoena god, oh wait we can't since he's an imaginary figure.
So how do we judge this phony nondilemma dilemma? Simple really, if you choose to adopt a faith whose tenets are discriminatory you must suffer the legal consequences of that choice. No one is demanding that you drop your faith, only that you not discriminate against others.
So here he is a devout Christian who cannot let himself be a part of anything he imagines "his faith" does not approve of (Except those things he chooses to for his own reasons) and he wants to start a business that is open to the public. He knows that the laws states he cannot discriminate against anyone and agrees to this. We know he did since he started the business and has his licenses.
So there you have it. He chose to do business with the walk in public where he knew he would have to by law serve those he has told us his faith says he cannot serve, some of whom he did anyway. Somehow the kind of baked good these people want to buy plays a role.
Then he chose to violate the agreement he made when he got licensed and out of an abundance of cowardice has blamed his god for this bigotry. He is hoping no one will try to subpoena god, oh wait we can't since he's an imaginary figure.
So how do we judge this phony nondilemma dilemma? Simple really, if you choose to adopt a faith whose tenets are discriminatory you must suffer the legal consequences of that choice. No one is demanding that you drop your faith, only that you not discriminate against others.
9
Baking artisanal wedding cakes is not an essential public service like the provision of fresh water and electricity. If this cake baker chooses to gift business to his competition then more fool him.
11
I'm gay.. I'm planning my wedding. I live in Anytown, USA, and my taxes helped pay for the streetlights, the traffic signals, the cop on the beat and the sidewalk outside Jack's store, as well as all of the common infrastructure that makes it possible for Jack to do business.
Do I have to park and look up and down Main Street, and mentally calculate how many Jacks are lurking behind their storefronts, which stores I can go into, which businesses are not likely to serve me? What kind of a town is this?
Jack should go and set up his bakery in the basement of his church, where no one contributes a single penny to the government of Anytown, USA. There, he'll be free to choose his customers and they to choose him
Do I have to park and look up and down Main Street, and mentally calculate how many Jacks are lurking behind their storefronts, which stores I can go into, which businesses are not likely to serve me? What kind of a town is this?
Jack should go and set up his bakery in the basement of his church, where no one contributes a single penny to the government of Anytown, USA. There, he'll be free to choose his customers and they to choose him
31
You are absolutely right. I like the idea of setting up his bigot bakery in a church basement.
Seems to me that a Supreme Court decision in this man's favor would automatically give me the right to refuse service to anyone wearing a cross on a chain around his/her neck if I decide that the Born Again "lifestyle" does not align with my religious beliefs.
31
I think you missed the point. Read the article. He did not refuse service. He refused to create a custom cake on a theme that he objected to. You would probably like to reserve that right too. You should not be forced to create a cross-themed cake. I would worry about your blood pressure...
Only the rightwing nuts could claim that it's discrimination to forbid them from discriminating.
12
The religious freedom people have it backwards in these cases. Religious freedom is supposed to protect people FROM discrimination based on their belief, not allow other people TO discriminate against others because of their own beliefs. If you don't agree with someone else's belief or lifestyle, fine, no one's making you agree with or like it, support it or actively participate in it...just can't discriminate against it by choosing who can be your customer and who cannot. There was a time in our history when discriminating - not serving or selling - or allowing entry to Black or mixed race people was based on some vague religious interpretation--an interpretation that we have for the most part grown out of (though pockets still remain), and this is another such example. Plus-I see nowhere in the New Testament that Jesus ever turned anyone away based on what sort of life they were leading.
15
I don't agree with Mr. Phillips, but I understand his reasoning. And he is not saying that he will not serve homosexuals, he just won't make a wedding cake. Just as he does not do Halloween cakes, because is it viewed as a pagan holiday that also goes against his religious beliefs. Private businesses decline customers for numerous reasons. A 4-5 star restaurant that does not allow men wearing jeans or sneakers, or not wearing a blazer to dine. In the some places you see signs "No shirt, no shoes, no service." So would a man without a blazer be right in taking his case to the Supreme Court. Could the shirtless sue a store that would not serve them? Within the church sometimes interfaith marriage ceremonies are not permitted. Halal delis and restaurants don't serve pork. Clothing stores that only carry certain sizes. Can a plus size woman sue to force them to carry size 14 and up?
And more to the point, as the owner says, a wedding cake is not just a cake. It's an important part of the celebration and reception. Some cake designers have waiting lists a year long because it's such a big deal. You have to work closely with the couple, do tastings, settle on designs. Baking is an art and a passion. Why would you want to work closely with someone who is being forced to serve you against their will? Especially during what should be one of the happiest times of your life.
And more to the point, as the owner says, a wedding cake is not just a cake. It's an important part of the celebration and reception. Some cake designers have waiting lists a year long because it's such a big deal. You have to work closely with the couple, do tastings, settle on designs. Baking is an art and a passion. Why would you want to work closely with someone who is being forced to serve you against their will? Especially during what should be one of the happiest times of your life.
12
"Why would you want to work closely with someone who is being forced to serve you against their will?"
You are looking at this all wrong and I think making far too much of the baking a cake thing. I used to roommate with a baker who worked in a supermarket full time and did elaborate wedding cakes on the side. There is not the enmeshed relationship between baker and wedding couple that you seek to invent here. They told him what they wanted and he made it for them, end of story. People who don't know what they want try some samples but really by the time you are getting marries you already know what kind of cakes you like its not some ethereal mystery process.
You are looking at this all wrong and I think making far too much of the baking a cake thing. I used to roommate with a baker who worked in a supermarket full time and did elaborate wedding cakes on the side. There is not the enmeshed relationship between baker and wedding couple that you seek to invent here. They told him what they wanted and he made it for them, end of story. People who don't know what they want try some samples but really by the time you are getting marries you already know what kind of cakes you like its not some ethereal mystery process.
The person wearing jeans might be Muslim, Jewish, a billionaire, a man, a woman, a working-class stiff, whatever. The anti-jeans policy is about discriminating tastes, not discriminatory behavior against a group of people. -- thegamesmenplay.com
Your analogy is flawed. What this baker is doing is the equivalent of having a no-jeans policy that applies only to gay people. It's a standard practice (we sell wedding cakes; we allow jeans) that is voided only for certain groups of people that the business owner finds objectionable (but we don't bake cakes for Jewish ceremonies; we don't allow white people to wear jeans; etc.). If a business allows jeans or sells wedding cakes, then everyone gets in on it, irrespective of race, religion, sexuality, etc. It's not the states' job to protect a business owner's religiously based objections to another group. Just the opposite -- it's the state's job to make sure everyone gets a fair shake in the marketplace, whatever their religion or race or gender or sexuality.
As a lesbian in a large city, if baker A refuses services to my wife and I, we will gladly take our dollars to baker B. But what happens to gay and lesbian persons in towns where there is only one baker (or grocer or childcare provider) that refuses services?
A cake is trivial, but drugstores, grocers, and childcare are not. If the door is opened for a business to discriminate carte blanche against the any community they disagree with, the ripple effects will be felt in ways far beyond a decorated dessert. This sanctioning of bigotry against the gay community will become far more inclusive.
A cake is trivial, but drugstores, grocers, and childcare are not. If the door is opened for a business to discriminate carte blanche against the any community they disagree with, the ripple effects will be felt in ways far beyond a decorated dessert. This sanctioning of bigotry against the gay community will become far more inclusive.
640
What if there is only one house of worship, an someone seeks to marry? Hardly trivial, wouldn't you say?
In this hypothetical of being a gay couple in a town with one drug store that happens, also, to be bigoted against gays... why are you living in this town!?!?
We have only one divided limited power democratic republic where the LGBTQ can choose to stay in or out of the closet. What about those whose color or ethnicity or faith or national origin can not be hidden? The issue is equal protection of the laws for real human beings.
If you want to operate a business in America you should not be allowed to discriminate. Would we let a white racist refuse to serve coffee to a black couple at his coffee shop? Of course not, we are better than that. Just because we don't agree with a person doesn't mean we can't be polite.
A long time ago we decided that it not acceptable for business open to the public to discriminate. Discriminating against customers because they are gay is no different than restaurants refusing to sit black people based on their religious beliefs.
15
The baker argues that baking a cake for a same-sex couple is the same as not baking and selling cakes that contain alcohol or have Halloween decorations. Wrong. The latter two he doesn't sell to ANY of his customers -- all customers are treated equally. If he bakes and sells wedding cakes for all his customers, EXCEPT for groups of people that he finds objectionable for supposed religious reasons, then this is obviously a violation of his obligation as a business owner in Colorado to not discriminate against particular customers because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. If he is unwilling to bake ceremonial cakes for Jews or same-sex couples or whatever, then he should get out of the business of baking and selling such cakes.
91
Nowhere in any Christian Faith does it say you CAN PASS JUDGEMENT on another's actions. The faith teaches that this man (or woman) may not marry another of the same sex PERSONALLY. Fine don't do it. But you cannot pass judgement (or withhold services or kind gestures ) on those who do. That is THE MAIN TEACHING OF CHRIST!
Only God can judge.
The faith teaches only what one should do with one's own actions and this man cannot provide one scripture I'm sure that says he has a right to judge. It is antithetical to being a Christian.
Only God can judge.
The faith teaches only what one should do with one's own actions and this man cannot provide one scripture I'm sure that says he has a right to judge. It is antithetical to being a Christian.
22
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (NIV)
[12] What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? [13] God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
So yes, we are to judge, to use discernment, but we should keep it for those in the church.
[12] What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? [13] God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
So yes, we are to judge, to use discernment, but we should keep it for those in the church.
It is tempting by my conservatives friends to argue, why not let the market decide? If people believe this man is wrong, they can shop elsewhere, and if most people believe he's wrong, his business will fail.
The answer is rather straightforward. The market is a free and open marketplace. All comers may enter and partake. States ahve made that clear with anti-discrimination laws that clearly require market participants to adhere to. Remember that this gentlemen's business is protected by a police force that gay people's tax dollars pay for. His customers arrive on roads paved with gay people's tax dollars. He benefits from the advantages of the marketplace that we have all paid for and created. As a collective society, we pay for these things so businesses may thrive.
Thus, once you voluntarily enter into the marketplace, you place yourselves under the rules of the marketplace. Your business must pass health codes designed to protect the public. You are required to pay payroll taxes, withhold Social Security and contribute your share, and you cannot close your doors to customers based on their race, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or nonbeliefs), gender, and in some states, sexual orientation. Colorado is one such state.
Baking a cake is not an exercise of one's religion. It is not a form of worship. It is an action in the marketplace. And it is subject to the marketplace's rules.
The answer is rather straightforward. The market is a free and open marketplace. All comers may enter and partake. States ahve made that clear with anti-discrimination laws that clearly require market participants to adhere to. Remember that this gentlemen's business is protected by a police force that gay people's tax dollars pay for. His customers arrive on roads paved with gay people's tax dollars. He benefits from the advantages of the marketplace that we have all paid for and created. As a collective society, we pay for these things so businesses may thrive.
Thus, once you voluntarily enter into the marketplace, you place yourselves under the rules of the marketplace. Your business must pass health codes designed to protect the public. You are required to pay payroll taxes, withhold Social Security and contribute your share, and you cannot close your doors to customers based on their race, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or nonbeliefs), gender, and in some states, sexual orientation. Colorado is one such state.
Baking a cake is not an exercise of one's religion. It is not a form of worship. It is an action in the marketplace. And it is subject to the marketplace's rules.
254
Thank you.
Everyone is protected by a police force, uses roads paved with tax dollars, etc. This argument can be used to deny your right to invite some people to a party at your home, a party that is made possible by public roads leading to your home, and not invite others.
I completely agree. The baker is in the business of producing confections in exchange for money. The rest of it is none of his business. You have to follow the law when you open a store. Sell your cake.
If any conscience objection will be considered as a discrimination this could be the end of tolerance and the beginning of intolerance. The same tolerance gay people claim for themselves has to be and must be applied to others. Justices will have to be very clear in this issue.
2
I think the baker is okay on this one and his religion doesn't enter into it. He should not have the right--and explicitly disclaims seeking the right--to discriminate against individuals. But he does have the right to decide what items he will sell. He is willing to sell an ordinary birthday cake to a gay man, but is not willing to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to anyone. Similarly, a restaurant may not refuse to serve Jews, but it is not required to have kosher food available.
9
Does the baker also ask his wedding cake customers if either of them have been married before? Because according to the Bible that is adultery. Does the baker also ask if either the bride or groom have had an affair while married before? Bible says adultery.
I suspect the answer is no to both, so clearly he is discriminating against same-sex couples.
I suspect the answer is no to both, so clearly he is discriminating against same-sex couples.
1
While I do not agree with your conclusions, this is the first analysis that makes any sense to me.
1
Alan, I'm struggling with your analogy. if he didn't sell any wedding cakes, what you are saying would make sense. But he's not doing that. He is selling plenty of them. He's just not willing to sell them to gay people. That strikes me as more like not selling food to Jews than it is like simply not carrying kosher food.
A true Christian with a sincere belief that homosexuality is a sin would bake the gay couple their cake and pray in the privacy of his home and church that the couple repents of their sin and follows a righteous path.
This would be following the example of Jesus who preached love and tolerance. That the evangelicals STILL don't get this continues to boggle the mind.
This would be following the example of Jesus who preached love and tolerance. That the evangelicals STILL don't get this continues to boggle the mind.
22
Would this baker's religious belief allow him to refuse a birthday cake to an unwed mother?
13
I'd be interested in seeing the requests for custom cakes with alcohol, or for celebrating Halloween, racism, or atheism. Surely he can demonstrate that he has consistently applied his religious convictions to every custom cake and not merely singled out a gay couple.
9
The baker here is wrong on two grounds.
The first is that it makes no real sense to refuse to bake a cake for same-sex couples because some obscure passages in the Bible, when taken out of its context, can be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, there is no commandment in the Bible to go out and hurt others, but there is a commandment to love your neighbors the same way God has loved you, which means to love them unconditionally. If you are attacking people because they love in a way you do not or cannot understand, then you aren't practicing the love preach about. And to make it worse, bakers and other individuals who make these religious objections don't even have the intellectual consistency to make their beliefs seem sincere. Perhaps if these business owners gave all of their clients a questionnaire regarding their love lives (whether they've been married before, had a child outside of a marriage, or whether they are virgins), then I would believe they have a sincere belief that doesn't deliberately discriminate.
My biggest problem with the case isn't the fact that a homophobe is unwilling to bake a cake for my wedding. The bigger problem is the precedent it sets. If you allow someone to decide that their religious objection excuse themselves from obeying the law, where does it end? It also begs the question of why is that person's faith being given more credence than mine in a nation that claims to be based on religious liberty?
The first is that it makes no real sense to refuse to bake a cake for same-sex couples because some obscure passages in the Bible, when taken out of its context, can be interpreted to condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, there is no commandment in the Bible to go out and hurt others, but there is a commandment to love your neighbors the same way God has loved you, which means to love them unconditionally. If you are attacking people because they love in a way you do not or cannot understand, then you aren't practicing the love preach about. And to make it worse, bakers and other individuals who make these religious objections don't even have the intellectual consistency to make their beliefs seem sincere. Perhaps if these business owners gave all of their clients a questionnaire regarding their love lives (whether they've been married before, had a child outside of a marriage, or whether they are virgins), then I would believe they have a sincere belief that doesn't deliberately discriminate.
My biggest problem with the case isn't the fact that a homophobe is unwilling to bake a cake for my wedding. The bigger problem is the precedent it sets. If you allow someone to decide that their religious objection excuse themselves from obeying the law, where does it end? It also begs the question of why is that person's faith being given more credence than mine in a nation that claims to be based on religious liberty?
Did he lie on the forms when he got licensed or did his "faith" change after he got licensed?
With all these people throwing the Bible around, I have but one question...what, specifically, did Jesus say about homosexuality? Please provide quotes from the Gospels regarding Jesus's remarks on homosexuality.
I'll wait.
I'll wait.
22
Matthew 5:17-20 (NIV)
The Fulfillment of the Law
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
You are right that Jesus did not specifically address this issue, but he didn't need to. It was clear in the Law. However, the pride and hypocrisy of the religious leaders was of more concern. As Christians we are to judge those inside the church, but not those outside. Hope this helps.
The Fulfillment of the Law
[17] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. [18] For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. [19] Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
You are right that Jesus did not specifically address this issue, but he didn't need to. It was clear in the Law. However, the pride and hypocrisy of the religious leaders was of more concern. As Christians we are to judge those inside the church, but not those outside. Hope this helps.
What about refusing to serve Christians to protest their centuries of violence toward non Christians? What if someone refuses to create a cross because of objections to glorifying a symbol of execution? What if someone creates a new church that holds these ideas as central tenets? Would Christians have a right to protest even if the merchant is misguided? I suspect right leaning political Christians would not tolerate this.
8
Why is it so hard for some to understand that freedom FROM religion is as equally protected as freedom OF religion? This baker is not operating a church but business. What's next, he won't serve Muslims? Does he also deny cakes to divorcees who wish to remarry? If not, why not? Jesus after all was unequivocal in his condemnation of divorce (but silent on homosexuality).
38
The US Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion, nor does it compel private citizens to act against their religious tenets. Freedom of religion is protected. Is a Halal caterer bound to serve a roast pig for a traditional Hawaiian wedding ceremony? No, it's patently absurd.
1
I think that your willingness for him to refuse to create a divorce-themed cake addresses the issue correctly (and would be appropriate as a Christian). The issue is not over whether this couple could buy a wedding cake (they could) but as to whether they could oblige the baker to make one with a specific theme that he objected to.
While Jesus did not make any explicit statement (and I think this addresses the level of importance of the topic in Jesus' eyes relative to sins such as pride and idolatry), the fact is that Jesus said that he had not come to take away even a jot or a tittle of the law, so I think that there is your answer.
While Jesus did not make any explicit statement (and I think this addresses the level of importance of the topic in Jesus' eyes relative to sins such as pride and idolatry), the fact is that Jesus said that he had not come to take away even a jot or a tittle of the law, so I think that there is your answer.
Stupid analogy. A Halal caterer wouldn't have roasted pig in their available menu any more than, say, a vegetarian caterer would. A Halal caterer would not therefore serve pig to anyone. The problem would be if they did prepare pig but then served it to only certain customers. If you are open for business to the public and you sell cakes, or pigs, you can't deny them to some because you are a religious bigot.
I don't agree with Mr. Phillips at all, but once this whole matter is viewed under the same light as his lack of interest in providing "adult-themed cakes"... well. He's suddenly got a valid point, simply in terms of "No, we don't do that." This is what will enable him to get away with denying service to same-sex couples, if anything does. Shameful but still clever.
Discrimination can be a tough one to prove. Is the no-adult-themed-cake stuff discriminatory to those with a twisted or off-color sense of humor?
Slippery indeed.
Discrimination can be a tough one to prove. Is the no-adult-themed-cake stuff discriminatory to those with a twisted or off-color sense of humor?
Slippery indeed.
An interesting point. Still, discrimination is when people are not being treated equally. No adult themed cake stuff, no alcohol, no Halloween themes can be applied to all customers. The man makes wedding cakes, but not for gay people. The couple asked for him to design it.
1
I don't think that people who want adult-themed cakes are a protected class of people under Colorado law. Nor are racists, Halloween celebrants, or fans of baba au rhum. But sexual orientation is a protected class of people in Colorado. That's what this case is about.
2
The baker's repressive struggle is palpable.
"In psychoanalytic theory, reaction formation (German: Reaktionsbildung) is a defensive process (defense mechanism) in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency."
"In psychoanalytic theory, reaction formation (German: Reaktionsbildung) is a defensive process (defense mechanism) in which emotions and impulses which are anxiety-producing or perceived to be unacceptable are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency."
5
:-) Apply that evaluative skill to the Donald. :-)
What's next, the right to refuse the biblically condemned children of Ham because their skin is black? The Dutch Reformed church in South Africa played those & built the apartheid state.
7
So this baker thinks his religious views trump the secular laws of our land? If the answer to this question is yes, then why not allow religious sects to sacrifice virgins as part of their rituals? How is his approach any different from refusing to serve blacks? Or Jews? Maybe what this guy needs is a reason-based religion, not one based on ancient ideas. After all, the people who wrote his precious religious texts believed that sacrificing a goat would improve the harvest. Are we to run our lives based on ancient superstitions?
9
SCOTUS' decision to hear a case emanates from its rules: it only requires 4 justices to agree to hear a case. It does not impart any judgment on the merits of the arguments or the applicability of the law, both of which are overwhelmingly against plaintiff. This was a straight discrimination case brought by the Colorado state agency charged under Colorado laws and statutes to rule and enforce Colorado laws prohibiting discrimination,specifically (as I understand it) as they apply to public accommodation businesses; if one's business revolves around selling wedding cakes to the public, then you're supposed to be selling wedding cakes to everyone - Lakewood's position that it was entitled to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because of religious objections is bogus - the only reason the proprietor knew they were gay was because the icing on the cake was a symbol of being gay; if the couple (and arguably the cake could have been ordered by only one of them) had simply ordered a generic cake with white frosting, then this guy would have sold it to them, the same way he sold cakes to folks without establishing ANY of things he would presumably also have religious objections to - whether this marriage was in fact a marriage, whether the marriage was between two consenting adults or whether (for illustrative purposes) the female bride was visibly pregnant.
9
If you open up your business to the public, you serve the public for all lawful requests.
This argument is only possible because of that horrible Hobby Lobby decision.
This argument is only possible because of that horrible Hobby Lobby decision.
13
How is this different from refusing to serve blacks at a diner or refusing to hire women? It is state-supported discrimination.
If one does not wish to serve an unruly customer, or sell a home to someone with bad credit -- without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation-- that is clearly fine. Not discrimination against a group.
But this blanket discrimination is clearly a huge step backwards....
What is to stop an entire town from refusing to serve a gay couple? Cake is one thing, but what about food and water... or police service?
If one does not wish to serve an unruly customer, or sell a home to someone with bad credit -- without regard to race, gender, or sexual orientation-- that is clearly fine. Not discrimination against a group.
But this blanket discrimination is clearly a huge step backwards....
What is to stop an entire town from refusing to serve a gay couple? Cake is one thing, but what about food and water... or police service?
12
Funny how flexible those Devine beliefs are with those biggot's ain't it?