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.
When he was told there were two brides and no groom, he told the lady and her mother (whose wedding cake they had made) that they did not approve of same sex marriages and would not make the cake.
This is a lot different than the Supreme Court guy. The baker in this example made it personal. He doesn't have the right to impose his view, even if he is claiming religous grounds, on anyone. He messed up when he said he didn't approve of the union.
The other issue being debated here...I side with the baker. If he believes his religion does not allow him to support same-sex marriage, he should not be required to accommodate something that would cause him to violate what he believes is God's law. He was willing to accommodate the couple in other ways, but that was not acceptable to them. I don't even know why anyone would want to spend money with a business they feel doesn't accept them. I wouldn't trust them making food items for me. You make a bigger statement by refusing to patronize their business. To me, suing someone for refusing to compromise their values is no different from religious people who try to cram their religion down your throat. Let people make decisions for their lives. If it bothers you so much that they don't see things the way you do, you can choose not have them in your life. It's really that simple. These people did something that could have put this baker and his family out on the street when they could have probably had an even better cake made by someone else.
If the bakers refuse to make a wedding cake for anybody, I could defend their position. It is simply not one of the things they offer.
Exactly. If they didn't make wedding cakes, then the couple could hardly complain or say it was discrimination. If that were the case, we would never have heard of these folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
But if a baker offers wedding cakes for everybody except same sex couples, they are definitely discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. That is so clearly a "who" issue that people who defend them are clearly not thinking correctly.
Exactly right. If you offer wedding cakes to straight couples, it is CLEARLY discrimination if you don't offer it to same sex couples. There is not one single difference in how a cake is made based off of who it is for (other than obvious things like flavor, color, size, etc). A white wedding cake with flowers piped on is the same regardless of who orders it, or where it is going.
In the case in Oregon, the owner of the company took out a form. He asked for the names of the bride and groom. When he was told there were two brides and no groom, he told the lady and her mother (whose wedding cake they had made) that they did not approve of same sex marriages and would not make the cake.
Nothing about deliveries, participating in the ceremony, cake toppers or decorations. They refused to make the cake for a same sex wedding. The ladies filed a complain with the state agency based on discrimination as defined in Oregon's laws.
So yea, just discrimination based off of the sexual orientation of the wedding party. My point with the delivery and other items part, was BF saying that the bakers just refused to make a "wedding" cake, and that simply wasn't true. They wouldn't have made the other items if they knew it was for a gay wedding, and they certainly wouldn't have delivered said items to the wedding.
They should have just let the customer and owner duke it out in the ring. I know that's primitive, but it would be less shrill and shrieking than regulating one person's rights over another person's rights.
It was for a wedding. For 2 women. He's not able to make a cake for said wedding.
The duplicitous way you guys post is astounding. It really is incredible the hatred you express. Why not live and let live?
Why not? What is different about the cake? You say he "can't", I say he "won't". They are two different things. The only reason the baker wouldn't make the cake, is because he doesn't like gay marriage. Sorry, that isn't a good enough excuse for blatant discrimination, BF.
You then have the nerve to say "live and let live", while you and your ilk clearly don't believe in such a thing, unless it is a Christian, of course. Hypocrites. Every last one of you.
This is a lot different than the Supreme Court guy. The baker in this example made it personal. He doesn't have the right to impose his view, even if he is claiming religous grounds, on anyone. He messed up when he said he didn't approve of the union.
The other issue being debated here...I side with the baker. If he believes his religion does not allow him to support same-sex marriage, he should not be required to accommodate something that would cause him to violate what he believes is God's law. He was willing to accommodate the couple in other ways, but that was not acceptable to them. I don't even know why anyone would want to spend money with a business they feel doesn't accept them. I wouldn't trust them making food items for me. You make a bigger statement by refusing to patronize their business. To me, suing someone for refusing to compromise their values is no different from religious people who try to cram their religion down your throat. Let people make decisions for their lives. If it bothers you so much that they don't see things the way you do, you can choose not have them in your life. It's really that simple. These people did something that could have put this baker and his family out on the street when they could have probably had an even better cake made by someone else.
So can I be allowed to turn away black people and Mexicans, since my personal convictions say that they shouldn't be able to have what I am selling, or that they aren't "equal"?
Should a realtor be able to only sell houses to white people in certain areas? Should a teacher be able to turn away non-white students? Should your local restaurant be able to turn away black people because they are racists? Should Kim Davis be able to turn away gay couples because of her religious beliefs?
See, you only think in these small, black and white terms. This one baker, and this one situation. Fact is, if you agree with discrimination based off of religious reasons or "personal convictions", you open the door to a VAST array of discrimination options. Surely that isn't what you want, is it?
This is a lot different than the Supreme Court guy. The baker in this example made it personal. He doesn't have the right to impose his view, even if he is claiming religous grounds, on anyone. He messed up when he said he didn't approve of the union.
The other issue being debated here...I side with the baker. If he believes his religion does not allow him to support same-sex marriage, he should not be required to accommodate something that would cause him to violate what he believes is God's law. He was willing to accommodate the couple in other ways, but that was not acceptable to them. I don't even know why anyone would want to spend money with a business they feel doesn't accept them. I wouldn't trust them making food items for me. You make a bigger statement by refusing to patronize their business. To me, suing someone for refusing to compromise their values is no different from religious people who try to cram their religion down your throat. Let people make decisions for their lives. If it bothers you so much that they don't see things the way you do, you can choose not have them in your life. It's really that simple. These people did something that could have put this baker and his family out on the street when they could have probably had an even better cake made by someone else.
Well, in the Oregon case, they went to that baker because they had made the wedding cake for one of the ladies' mother. If I remember correctly, she had gone there before with her mother to order the cake for the mother's wedding. They liked to transaction that the mother had with the baker, so the [naturally] went back when the daughter needed a wedding cake. They went to the baker expecting another happy transaction.
In Kim Davis' case, not only did she violate the law, but she went further and violated a court order. It seems odd to hear people defending someone who chose to violate the law.
LGBT and race-based discrimination are not at all comparable, and I am not going to get into that issue. He wasn't the only baker in town. If he was, that would make things a little different. I'm sure they could have found a non-Christian baker. Would have been a lot easier than filing a lawsuit.
In Kim Davis' case, not only did she violate the law, but she went further and violated a court order. It seems odd to hear people defending someone who chose to violate the law.
She was also a public servant. Different elements here, and she deserved any ruling against her.
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.
