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.
If all the couple wanted was a traditional cake the baker could lose.
If they wanted something that required the baker to use artistic talent(?) he could win.
Example used- if a black baker was asked to make a confederate flag cake he could refuse based on his artistic talent to make a specialized cake. If a person came in with all the confederate flag stuff all over him as long as he just wanted a regular cake he could not be refused.
Religion was not mentioned, as it became artistic freedom of speech.
Except for the fact that the design of the cake was not mentioned. The baker refused to sell them any wedding cake.
Just sad that so much effort and legal expanse went to a case that is essentially being nitpicky. The gay couple could have easily got a cake elsewhere.
They held a double standard and went off into the weeds of how gays are fired and oppressed, which had nothing to do with their complaint. They wanted their 15 minutes of fame, got it and probably FUBAR'd things in the process. Now there will be far more people denying service based on religious beliefs.
The final decision has not been rendered yet, but the statements from one of the justices implied that Colorado went way too far against the baker.
They should have just gone to a baker that doesn't care either way, rather than trying to force this baker to do something he isn't legally required to do.
They crushed his constitutional rights in the process of wielding theirs. Shame on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Except for the fact that the design of the cake was not mentioned. The baker refused to sell them any wedding cake.
That's patently false! He said he would sell them anything in the bakery, just not a custom wedding cake. THEY themselves admitted as much.
Just sad that so much effort and legal expanse went to a case that is essentially being nitpicky. The gay couple could have easily got a cake elsewhere.
It's not about the cake, it's about the expanse of it all. "Pick your own nits"
your question is immaterial to this discussion. the sc will decide if business owners can be compelled by the state or local government to contradict their religious beliefs as to anti-discrimination laws or government can not. the supreme court ruling will affect business owners of all religions.
Quote:
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Quote:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
Where is the line drawn though? What fundies are asking for is a blanket exemption to ignore any and all laws based on nothing more than a claim that it violates their religious freedom. Can I kill everyone coming out of a Red Lobster for Jesus? The murder statutes very clearly violate the Biblical instruction to put shellfish eaters to death.
They held a double standard and went off into the weeds of how gays are fired and oppressed, which had nothing to do with their complaint. They wanted their 15 minutes of fame, got it and probably FUBAR'd things in the process. Now there will be far more people denying service based on religious beliefs.
The final decision has not been rendered yet, but the statements from one of the justices implied that Colorado went way too far against the baker.
They should have just gone to a baker that doesn't care either way, rather than trying to force this baker to do something he isn't legally required to do.
They crushed his constitutional rights in the process of wielding theirs. Shame on them.
That's patently false! He said he would sell them anything in the bakery, just not a custom wedding cake. THEY themselves admitted as much.
The state law says that all goods and services are included in the anti-discrimination law. The service of custom wedding cakes was offered by the baker.
If he wants to claim that he was opposed to the artistic expression of the cake wouldn't he have to know what the couple wanted on the cake? If he made a 3 tier white cake for Bill and Sue but refused the same cake to John and Dave it is not the design of the cake he objects to, but who is buying the cake.
They DID go to another baker and then reported the violation of the law to the state. The state is bringing the case not the couple.
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.
