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.
This ruling will become moot when the Supreme Court rules against the gay couple in that other case. Make no mistake about it, I am deeply upset that some of these bakeries refuse to bake specialized wedding cakes for gay and lesbian couples. Having written that, I also believe that it is an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights for government to force businesses (under threat of fine directly, or imprisonment indirectly) to endorse certain speech (forget about the freedom of religion argument for a second). While it is one thing (and I believe such a move would be constitutional) for government to force businesses to serve individuals in a general sense if they are operating and generally open to the public, there is a fine line. And, indeed, in none of these cases are gays/lesbians/etc. prohibited from engaging with the businesses in 99.9% of other matters . . . they are allowed to buy general baked goods, graduation baked goods, etc. Heck, they're even allowed to buy already-made wedding cakes. They just are not allowed to buy specialized wedding cakes celebrating and highlighting their upcoming big day.
Again, while distasteful and while I wish that these businesses would sell the wedding cakes to any and everyone regardless of sexual orientation, I do not see how what is essentially compelled speech against the baker(s) (i.e. forcing bakers to bake cakes with "x" or "y" message that they fundamentally disagree with) passes constitutional muster.
Note, while I think the religion argument is even stronger, I don't think we need to discuss it.
Again, there is a difference between declining to serve someone (period) based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., once you've decided to enter into the public arena of buying and selling goods vs. being compelled to create specific works of art for purposes that you disagree with.
The Oregon court really has no other way they can rule here. Nothing will be paid until after the Supreme Court rules on the current case before them at that.
Is someone prohibiting you from praying? Has the government burnt your church? NO.
You HAVE freedom of religion.
Freedom of Religion DOES NOT EQUAL discrimination against people who do not adhere to your religion.
Can a church be forced to marry a same sex couple?
I'm legitimately curious to hear your answer to that question as not even the most loony of state legislatures have required such (even though many churches have voluntarily decided to do so). That is discriminating against people who do not adhere to your religion, but no legal scholar seriously disputes that it is within the a church's right to refuse to do so. So where to we draw the line is the next most logical question? Does the freedom of religion stop with actual churches? Is John Doe not allowed to utilize the same religious freedom argument as the church? IMO, when government starts to take a position that John Doe is not, government gets in trouble as they are picking and choosing what is "legitimate" religious practice vs. what is not. Every action is not in good taste. But the Constitution protects the unpopular, too.
I seriously doubt the current Supreme court will rule in favor of the gay couple in that case. If they do, I will be absolutely shocked. And pleased. Bakers are in the business of baking and selling. Making a wedding cake for a gay couple does not equal supporting gay marriage. It's a financial transaction, pure and simple.
As a business, they have to follow local, state and federal laws. They chose not to follow them and this was the outcome.
My only beef with this is that Judge Vance Day in Oregon refuses to conduct same sex marriages citing religious beliefs and he's still on the bench without any kind of penalty that I'm aware of.
I seriously doubt the current Supreme court will rule in favor of the gay couple in that case. If they do, I will be absolutely shocked. And pleased. Bakers are in the business of baking and selling. Making a wedding cake for a gay couple does not equal supporting gay marriage. It's a financial transaction, pure and simple.
I'd wager that you're correct as far as most bakers are concerned. But what to do with those bakers who view their work as more than just "a financial transaction, pure and simple?" Like it or not, you have bakers/business owners who are not just in their line of work for the money/who do not just view their work as any other business. If they did, they would not risk hundreds of thousands in fines (as this Oregon couple has done) to fight for their right of expression, their right to create art as they see fit.
i will note one thing here, it seems to be only christian bakers that are sued for not making wedding cakes for gay marriages, where are the muslim bakers that are sued for the same thing? you cant tell me that gay couples have not approached muslim bakers and been refused based on religious beliefs.
and since that is likely the case, then this is a manufactured outrage, and an attempt to destroy christianity in this country.
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.
