Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a religious liberty case concerning a Colorado cake artist who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding reception, claiming that to do so violated his religious liberty under the Constitution. Lower courts have ruled against the baker among other businesses, stating that businesses must comply with anti-discrimination laws.
No, the government should not force them to bake a cake.
Whomever agrees with this really needs to listen to themselves: You want the government to FORCE a business to do something that they don't want to do.
For the love of God already, will you fools let the free market work!? Let. It. Work.
The government does not belong involved in this, at all.
I would never question a religious belief but I can also remember how Blacks were treated and this could easily become the same thing.
This is what I see. The precedents are there with lunch counters and dinners that denied African-Americans in the 1960's.
The fact this is even getting a date in the Supreme Court is stupid. Get a better case that isn't so cut and dry based on rule of law (ie: Constitution.)
I think the cake shop owners offered to provide the wedding cake but for the gay couple to put their own decoration atop the cake. The gay couple refused the offer and wanted the bake shop to place the ornament. Why? Because the gay activist couple had targeted a known Christian bakery to harass them and make their point for their own reasons
That in itself should make this case an interesting argument in court
This is what I see. The precedents are there with lunch counters and dinners that denied African-Americans in the 1960's.
They were denied due to racism. No Constitutional Right protects that.
In regards to the wedding cake case, the denial was based on a religious objection, which IS a Constitutionally protected right. That's precisely why SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, et al.
How do bars get by with posting a sign..........."We have the right to refuse service to anyone "
But here's the thing. Putting up a sign isn't always legally binding. Let's say you sign up for a gym membership. You sign the usual disclaimer forms saying the gym isn't responsible for any accidents or injuries you may incur. You go and use the equipment and everything is fine until one day, you run on the treadmill and the belt was unfortunately too loose after being lubricated and not tightened properly. You fall, crack your skull open, go into a coma, and die. Is the gym responsible? Yes.
Even though you signed the form saying they weren't responsible, the gym was negligent in the maintenance of their equipment, so they are still responsible. The same goes for the bakery or bar. They put a sign up saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone because we are prejudiced bigots." That doesn't give them license to break the law just because they put up a sign.
I think the cake shop owners offered to provide the wedding cake but for the gay couple to put their own decoration atop the cake. The gay couple refused the offer and wanted the bake shop to place the ornament. Why? Because the gay activist couple had targeted a known Christian bakery to harass them and make their point for their own reasons
That in itself should make this case an interesting argument in court
The case had nothing to do with a cake topper. The bakery owner said that he would not make any wedding cake for the couple, but would make them birthday cakes, or cookies or brownies.
5.Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table.They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”
6.Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
7.Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.
8.The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.
How bout a compromise: Businesses are free to refuse service to any groups they want to, as long as they are willing to prominently post a list of the groups they refuse to do business with on the front door.
The case had nothing to do with a cake topper. The bakery owner said that he would not make any wedding cake for the couple, but would make them birthday cakes, or cookies or brownies.
The case had nothing to do with a cake topper. The bakery owner said that he would not make any wedding cake for the couple, but would make them birthday cakes, or cookies or brownies.
That would be fine if they were having a birthday, but they were not. I know when I married my wife in a same sex ceremony in 2015 we would not have found brownies or a birthday cake acceptable. We wanted a wedding cake. I believe no heterosexual couple who is getting married would be cool with a birthday cake instead of a wedding cake either. Gay couples should not be forced to be treated as second class citizens because the voices in the baker's head told him it was the right thing to do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
