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.
You really shouldn't cherry pick to make a point in this debate. The First Amendment also clearly states that government shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's the "freedom to discriminate." Again, like it or not, what I wrote is a reality.
There are some really messed up "religious beliefs" out there. Are you saying that if one claims that child sacrifice is a "religious belief" then government can not make a law against it? How about honor killings, or spousal rape, or under age marriage, or any of the billions of other messed up things that people can claim are religious beliefs?
I think it's wrong to deny someone service because they're gay, but it's also not hard to walk away and find someone who does support you. They could've just went to a non-homophobic bakery and the problem would've been solved.
The thing is, you don't know the owners are homophobic until you try to buy their wares and are then turned away because of their bigotry.
If we want to go the route of deciding that a business owner is within his rights to deny services to certain groups of people, then they should be made to post in a sign in their window for all to see exactly who they will be refusing service to. Something like, "We don't take cake orders from gays here." Kind of like the old Jim Crow days when a business could post that blacks were not welcomed, or were allowed only certain services and denied others.
Go ahead and let the communities know who is in their midst, so customers can decide whether to support such bigotry or not.
But I guarantee these bigots don't want to post their hatred for the whole world to see because they know it would put them out of business.
In my area, they have to have a male escort for every woman, or they have to have connections to get in. I have seen it myself where my friends who are lesbians or cross dressers are turned away without a well dressed male escort. They often get away with it because the strip clubs are just that, clubs, and specifically "gentleman's clubs", so they can discriminate all they want. Same with Chippendales. Only women allowed to attend, no male patrons.
I don't agree that the government can tell a private business what products they can or can not make. So if a bakery is forced to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, then it can be also be forced to bake a cake for a white supremacist / neo-nazi group. While you make or make not like the message a group believes in, they would have the same rights of freedom of expression the homosexual couple has.
Another interesting test to the Government telling you what cake orders you can or can not take would be to place an order with a Jewish bakery instructing them to bake an anti-semitic cake for a white supremacist event. I would be interested to see how the courts deal this. After all the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and freedom of expression, while you make not like the message, they still have the right to express it.
I really don't see how you can say the Homosexual couple have the right to have a cake made for their event, but the white supremacist / neo-nazi group does not.
I don't agree that the government can tell a private business what products they can or can not make. So if a bakery is forced to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, then it can be also be forced to bake a cake for a white supremacist / neo-nazi group. While you make or make not like the message a group believes in, they would have the same rights of freedom of expression the homosexual couple has.
Another interesting test to the Government telling you what cake orders you can or can not take would be to place an order with a Jewish bakery instructing them to back an anti-semitic cake for a white supremacist event. I would be interested to see how the courts deal this. After all the constitution guarantees the freedom of speech and freedom of expression, while you make not like the message, they still have the right to express it.
If a business decides to offer a good or service, then they should sell that good or service to anyone. I can see not being required to make an objectionable design, or writing, but if it is something that you would sell to person A, then you should be willing to sell it to person B. If the Jewish bakery offers anti semetic cakes then they should be willing to make that cake for anyone. If they do not offer that cake, then they do not have to make it for anyone.
There are some really messed up "religious beliefs" out there. Are you saying that if one claims that child sacrifice is a "religious belief" then government can not make a law against it? How about honor killings, or spousal rape, or under age marriage, or any of the billions of other messed up things that people can claim are religious beliefs?
There are messed up religious beliefs. I happen to think a religious belief that leads one to deny service to gays and lesbians is one of them. Again, let's be clear: I am personally strongly against the decision by the baker to deny this service to the couple merely because of their sexual orientation. But that's neither here nor there for the purposes of my argument.
Still, the Supreme Court has outlined the test for analyzing whether something passes constitutional muster. For the First Amendment, which is a fundamental right, the test will be strict scrutiny. Laws against murdering someone in the name of religion would always pass this test. As would laws against rape and a host of other laws.
The baker did not know if the "art" in question is something that he would have objected to since the design was not discussed. Maybe they wanted a cake exactly like the one he made for one of their mothers, he did not object to that "art" for her and her husbands wedding why would he object to it for this couple?
The objection to creating particular "art" fails when the "art" design has not been discussed.
You're not understanding. The "art" is the cake itself. Again, decorations may play a role in determining the artistic value/nature of an object, but they are hardly a necessary role.
You're not understanding. The "art" is the cake itself. Again, decorations may play a role in determining the artistic value/nature of an object, but they are hardly a necessary role.
If he objects to the "art" of cake then maybe he shouldn't be a baker. Also he did not object to the "art" of baking a wedding cake for other people, so it is not the "art" he is objecting to, but the person buying the "art".
You're not understanding. The "art" is the cake itself. Again, decorations may play a role in determining the artistic value/nature of an object, but they are hardly a necessary role.
The court is never going to go for that argument. In the case before the Supreme Court it might as the guy was established as an artist. In this case, a cake is just a cake or a person could claim to be a hamburger artist.
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.
