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.
It is not discrimination to stand by your moral code. This man does not believe in same sex marriage, as is his right. Also, his religious beliefs do not condone same sex marriage. So he could not make the cake with a clear conscience. If this man were a Muslim or some other religion, no one would care that he refused to serve these people. It is only because he is Christian that it became a big deal. If this gay couple ran a bakery and the same man came into their shop and asked for a cake with Jesus on it, and they refused to make it, that would also be well within their rights. Many businesses have signs at the door which state they can refuse service to anyone, anytime.
PS. I would have made the cake. Money is money. The cake maker should have just put two sets of wedding cake couple toppers in the box. Then the couple could have made it a same sex cake themselves.
They didn't ask for a cake with "gay is great" on it, in fact the design wasn't discussed at all before he refused them a cake.
Those we reserve the right signs do not trump the law. You can't refuse to serve people based on race or religion just because you put a sign up.
They didn't ask for a cake with "gay is great" on it, in fact the design wasn't discussed at all before he refused them a cake.
Those we reserve the right signs do not trump the law. You can't refuse to serve people based on race or religion just because you put a sign up.
Ok, first of all, you just said the design wasn't discussed at all before he refused to make the cake. Yet, you also said they didn't a for a cake that said "gay is great". So which is it? Also, he did not refuse based on their religion. He refused based on his religious beliefs, which was well within his rights to do.
If the baker wins, which he probably will, it could rip a huge loophole in every anti-discrimination law in the country. I’m not sure people realize the potentially devastating effects this case could have on civil rights laws.
Ok, first of all, you just said the design wasn't discussed at all before he refused to make the cake. Yet, you also said they didn't a for a cake that said "gay is great". So which is it? Also, he did not refuse based on their religion. He refused based on his religious beliefs, which was well within his rights to do.
They didn't ask for any particular design because the baker refused to make them any wedding cake BEFORE the discussion of the design started.
Maurice Bessinger thought he could claim religious belief to get out of serving some of the public. That argument didn't work for him either.
Seems like ppl don't know what happened between the baker and the customers. Here's a piece of the transcript from today's hearing...
"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But I thought -* I'm a little bit surprised by what you're saying because your briefs seem to suggest differently -- that the couple was looking at his already pre-designed cakes that he appears to sell without any customization, and they sat down with him, and he said I don't supply cakes of any kind to gay couples. So I thought this cake was about his refusal to supply a cake for any wedding ceremony.
MS. WAGGONER: Justice Sotomayor, that's not how he responded to the couple. The couple came in and they requested a custom cake for their wedding. At that point, they brought in a folder with all kinds of designs they wanted to discuss and ended up purchasing a rainbow-layered cake or -- or received a free rainbow-layered cake, which certainly is expression.
The order below requires Mr. Phillips also to include words and symbols on his cakes. It's that broad. So if, for example, Mr. Phillips had used a Bible verse on a cake in the past, he would be compelled to use that Bible verse in a different context."
If the baker wins, which he probably will, it could rip a huge loophole in every anti-discrimination law in the country. I’m not sure people realize the potentially devastating effects this case could have on civil rights laws.
I don't think that will happen. A large portion of the caselaw that deals with this issue was written by Scalia. Allowing this type of self created religious exemption would essentially render laws moot. If laws can be overridden at any time by anyone by only the mere invocation of a religious exemption, we no longer have a country based on the rule of law.
Unless the justices are willing to overlook all jurisprudence and rule based on personal belief, there is really no way that SCOTUS can say that a Native American is subject to drug laws even though they restrict their actual religious ceremonies while telling every Christian baker and florist in the US that they can discriminate against anyone they choose regardless of laws in place to prevent such discrimination.
"But Oregon's ban on the possession of peyote is not a law specifically aimed at a physical act engaged in for a religious reason. Rather, it is a law that applies to everyone who might possess peyote, for whatever reason—a "neutral law of general applicability". Scalia characterized the employees' argument as an attempt to use their religious motivation to use peyote in order to place themselves beyond the reach of Oregon's neutral, generally applicable ban on the possession of peyote. The Court held that the First Amendment's protection of the "free exercise" of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. Citing the Reynolds v. United States (1878) decision: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."[3] Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes."
The baker has changed his story. First it was he wouldn't make the cake because of his religious beliefs, and agreed to the fact that no design was discussed. Now it is about speech and expression even though he didn't know what the couple wanted since they didn't discuss design.
How can you oppose the "speech" of a wedding cake design if you don't know what design is wanted?
The baker has changed his story. First it was he wouldn't make the cake because of his religious beliefs, and agreed to the fact that no design was discussed. Now it is about speech and expression even though he didn't know what the couple wanted since they didn't discuss design.
How can you oppose the "speech" of a wedding cake design if you don't know what design is wanted?
jj, the baker wasn't objecting to the design of a cake or selling the men a cake. he was objecting to the action of being asked to bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding, a product he made, which he considered participating in a gay wedding and against his religious beliefs. he offered these men any cake in the shop already made.
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.
