Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (America, faith)
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.
No one is saying that you can't buy a cake. Nor do you have a constitutional right to a cake.
No, but I do have a Constitutional right to not be treated differently than anyone else.
(I'm actually not a member of the unlawfully discriminated against group of law abiding citizens in this case. I simply continued in the same 1st person you had used).
I'm all for religious freedom, as long as that freedom doesn't take away someone else's freedom. You can't set up a system where anyone can do anything and just claim "my religion says..." and get away with discrimination or worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonkonkomaNative
These guys are giving bakers a bad name. No one should have to go into a store, and be refused service because they are LGBTQ.
You come to me for a cake. Your sexual identity is moot. It seems only Christian bakers have cake gaydar. My cake gaydar is broken. Or, it might be covered in buttercream.
No legal problems, though, going into a store to buy...and upon finding out the people that own/operate the place are those you don't prefer and are biased towards...refusing to do business with them and walking out. You could even outwardly proclaim why you are leaving by proffering epithets as you leave.
All perfectly legal.
These laws CAUSE discrimination...of Buyers over Sellers.
~~Buyer refuse to do business with Seller-- Perfectly legal and permitted.
~~Seller refuse to business with Buyer-- Criminal offense and proscribed.
How is that "fair"? How is that "equal"?
I think your knowledge should expand. The alleged bakers believe they should not bake cake for LGBTQ weddings. The Supremes have spoken. Now these alleged bakers must do business with everyone, or give up baking wedding cakes for everyone.
No legal problems, though, going into a store to buy...and upon finding out the people that own/operate the place are those you don't prefer and are biased towards...refusing to do business with them and walking out. You could even outwardly proclaim why you are leaving by proffering epithets as you leave.
All perfectly legal.
These laws CAUSE discrimination...of Buyers over Sellers.
~~Buyer refuse to do business with Seller-- Perfectly legal and permitted.
~~Seller refuse to business with Buyer-- Criminal offense and proscribed.
How is that "fair"? How is that "equal"?
What a ridiculous argument. If I walk into a bakery where cakes are sold, clearly the bakery is in the business of selling cakes. I am not in the business of buying cakes.
No legal problems, though, going into a store to buy...and upon finding out the people that own/operate the place are those you don't prefer and are biased towards...refusing to do business with them and walking out. You could even outwardly proclaim why you are leaving by proffering epithets as you leave.
All perfectly legal.
These laws CAUSE discrimination...of Buyers over Sellers.
~~Buyer refuse to do business with Seller-- Perfectly legal and permitted.
~~Seller refuse to business with Buyer-- Criminal offense and proscribed.
How is that "fair"? How is that "equal"?
Vizini of Guilder? Is that you?
Customers are free to purchase my delicious baked goods, or not for what ever reason. The buyers always have choice.
If you, ask me to bake a cake, I am not allowed to tell you no, because I do not approve of you, Vizini of Guilder.
If you ask me for a cake I do not bake, or an ingredient I do not use, I will decline your business, with great sadness, because I make some awesome and delicious cake.
This ruling was from the Colorado Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court of the United States.
However, citing the Supreme Court ruling last summer, the court said: "As the Court of Appeals ruled, refusing to serve a same-sex wedding cannot be distinguished from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, just like a “tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Because his cakeshop does not have a religious purpose, he is not protected by the religious exemptions in the state’s nondiscrimination law."
Now we know that, at least in Colorado, cake shops are not religious based businesses. Maybe they are in other states, but not in Colorado. I would assume that a "Bible book shop" is, but the court didn't give any examples of what would constitute a "business with a religious purpose." So, what would you consider as a business that has a religious purpose?
Now, the court specifically addressed the 1st Amendment issues, whether it be freedom of religion or freedom of speech. The Court of Appeals said:
“that the act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings likely to be understood by those who view it. We further conclude that, to the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece.”
There you have it. Making a cake is not endorsing the marriage. BUYING a wedding cake MAY be sending a message that the marriage is approved, but that message does not carry back to the baker.
Here's the report of the case that the Colorado Supreme Court let stand by refusing to hear the appeal:
I actually have almost no issue with this if there is full disclosure up front, along the lines of "I am an evangelical Christian and will be using evangelical dogma as my standard-of-care." Anyone who doesn't buy the dogma is free to not indulge it. It is similar to the office building that my stepson's therapist is in. It's got legitimate practitioners but is also full of quacks who will happily Rolf you or have drum-beating sessions with you or, comically, offer "Alexander Therapy (back entrance)", which I trust is unintentional juxtaposition rather than actually descriptive of whatever Alexander Therapy is.
At any rate ... I said "almost" because even with full disclosure, people with mental health issues aren't necessarily thinking straight and are vulnerable to the false comforts of religious ideation and other forms of woo, and I would really prefer that society limit its endorsement and largesse to mental health standard-of-care rather than any random thing. Besides, even accepted mental health practice is part art, and certainly no one therapist even in that realm is a slam-dunk for all comers. It's difficult enough to find effective and affordable mental health care at our current crude state of the art without allowing religious charlatans to have a go at it on even a quasi-equal basis.
What a ridiculous argument. If I walk into a bakery where cakes are sold, clearly the bakery is in the business of selling cakes. I am not in the business of buying cakes.
Not the point.
As long as Buyers get the legal option to pick and choose what Sellers they will or will not do business with...the only "fair" and "equal" ruling, is to grant the same option to the Sellers.
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.
