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.
Flustered? No. I'm just not sure how many times you expect me to repeat myself. The answer was given. The cake was refused because the woman is transgender,
No that's not a given, that's your interpretation. An interpretation either born out of desire or born out of your own mental limitations.
To make this as easy as possible as I can for you. There are three reasons he could have refused to bake the cake:
1)The person's sexual orientation (<- you favor this)
2)The design of the cake (we both agree it seems innocuous and is not the reason)
3)The stated purpose of the cake.
You keep ignoring 3). You seem to want to frame it as a choice between 1) and 2). And if 2) is false then it must mean 1). Unfortunately there is a third option.
Why are you skipping over 3)? Is it due to innate biases or innate mental limitations?
But, federal law protecting a person's religious rights trumps all states rights. So they are going to lose again!
You are wrong on both counts. You cannot rely on religion to break laws. The Rastafarians tried it back in the day so they could smoke pot. Southern Baptists tried to use it for racial discrimination. No dice said the courts.
Ok, now go a step further - should all bakers be forced to bake cakes for all themes, political motivations and purposes, etc?
You can't discriminate based on someone's race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else that is considered a protected class.
If a baker is asked to make a penis shaped cake for a bachelorette party, they are allowed to say they do not make penis shaped cakes. If they were then asked to make a penis shaped cake for a gay wedding, they can still say they do not make penis shaped cakes. They're not discriminating based on sexual orientation since they wouldn't make such a cake for anyone.
No that's not a given, that's your interpretation. An interpretation either born out of desire or born out of your own mental limitations.
To make this as easy as possible as I can for you. There are three reasons he could have refused to bake the cake:
1)The person's sexual orientation (<- you favor this)
2)The design of the cake (we both agree it seems innocuous and is not the reason)
3)The stated purpose of the cake.
You keep ignoring 3). You seem to want to frame it as a choice between 1) and 2). And if 2) is false then it must mean 1). Unfortunately there is a third option.
Why are you skipping over 3)? Is it due to innate biases or innate mental limitations?
You are wrong on both counts. You cannot rely on religion to break laws. The Rastafarians tried it back in the day so they could smoke pot. Southern Baptists tried to use it for racial discrimination. No dice said the courts.
No, I am not wrong. It's why no government is going to force a church to marry gays. And these fascists picking on an innocent baker will lose again, and they deserve to lose.
Because it IS illegal in Colorado to discriminate against persons based on their sexual orientation. It's quite simple.
We've had this conversation, ad nauseum. Constitutional Rights supersede local or state laws, and there is no Federal Law that protects LGBT. Congress, regardless of party in charge, can not make it happen despite numerous attempts.
US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Cakes generally intended to celebrate some occasion. You can be against baking something that celebrates something you disagree with.
For example a straight person walks in and asks for the same cake to celebrate the samething (in this example, the transition for a friend). And the baker refuses. I think even you can see that the baker wasn't discriminating against the straight person's sexual orientation but the topic of the cake.
Sounds like the “customer” was baiting him. I think that a sole artist like the baker should be able to refuse requests for any reason. I don’t think a corporation like Walmart should get that protection because the sole artist’s work is personal and impacts his beliefs directly. But, at the end of the day, I don’t see how this guy can lose. If Hobby Lobby gets to be exempt from federal law because if its “religion” then I don’t see how SCOTUS can justify forcing this one guy to make a cake for a transgendered person. Then again, the Hobby Lobby decision probably had more to do with protecting a large corporation than it did with religious freedom.
You are wrong on both counts. You cannot rely on religion to break laws. The Rastafarians tried it back in the day so they could smoke pot. Southern Baptists tried to use it for racial discrimination. No dice said the courts.
That was true up until the Hobby Lobby decision.
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.
