Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (woman, historical)
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.
That's a lousy example. No one is saying that man who sells chicken and beef has to add a totally different product to their meat case.
But, even as a gay person, I will say that this case is not as simple as most people try to make it out to be. Personally, I think he should have to sell wedding cakes to anyone who wants to buy one. And the reason I believe that is that I assume he had to have a business license to set up shop in that community. I assume he benefits from the public sidewalk in front of his store and the public highway in front of his store...which all citizens paid taxes to pay for. On the other hand, I don't think he should have to decorate cakes in any way demanded, UNLESS he advertises that he decorates cake "to suit any occasion"...and I have seen such advertisements in bakery shops. Of course, I also think the patrons have every right to go online and publish reviews of the business...to tell their story, as long as it's truthful.
...
I find it both interesting and frustrating at how hard it appears for some religious people to understand what discrimination is and how anti discrimination laws work. ...
Actually, as is demonstrated on this forum on a fairly regular basis, christians are excellent at pointing out discrimination...when they feel it is discrimination against their religion. Then there is non-stop whining...and I think everyone knows exactly who I'm talking about. They're not so good at the "do unto others" principle.
How can you determine what's wrong according to someone else's religion? This is the crux of the issue. The couple feeling they can dictate what's "right" in a religion they don't necessarily follow. You cannot dictate the terms of someone's religion.
How can you determine what's wrong according to someone else's religion? This is the crux of the issue. The couple feeling they can dictate what's "right" in a religion they don't necessarily follow. You cannot dictate the terms of someone's religion.
And yet the baker is allowed to determine what's right in the couple's life. Interesting and selfish.
IIRC my grandparents raised pigs on their farm but kept a kosher home.
I don't know what religion your grandparents followed, but the scriptures lay out what animals are clean and unclean. This is a pretty universal "law" in the monotheistic religions, and even though people are more liberal these days, the dietary laws are to be followed forever. I would argue that anyone keeping a kosher home should not be raising pigs, because God deemed that animal unclean. But your grandparents are free to practice their religion as they please...which is what the Constitution protects.
Quote:
I find it both interesting and frustrating at how hard it appears for some religious people to understand what discrimination is and how anti discrimination laws work.
No, I think people in general do not know how discrimination works. As I said, the 14th amendment was passed after the Civil War to protect newly freed slaves. This is not something I'm making up. This is historical fact. It just so happens that when black people sue and win cases citing 14th amendment protections, other minority groups benefit. But those laws were not created for them. I am really only familiar with select Supreme Court cases dealing with African-Americans, but I Googled Lily Ledbetter to see what the Supreme Court ruled on. It looks like the Supreme Court did not consider equal protection in her case (I am not a lawyer, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If I am reading correctly, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of her case. If that is true, it makes sense, because she is a white woman. The "equal protection" clause was not created with white women in mind...even though they are the greatest beneficiaries of "affirmative action". Ask any lawyer how easy it is to prove discrimination in the courts. So I don't think it is a case of "religious people" not understanding discrimination. Americans in general lack an understanding of how the court system works (myself included).
For those of you who believe this is a matter of "personal" opinion or behavior...how do you propose people practice their religion? If you own a business and your religion tells you pork is unclean and you're not supposed to eat or handle it...do you think that business owner should be forced to accommodate everyone simply because he lives in a society that thinks consuming pork is okay? I'm using pork as an example because there are quite a few religions--Christianity, Judaism and Islam, to name the bigger ones--that deem pork unlawful. I'm curious to see you guys' take on that.
Only if he sells pork, otherwise, he can just not sell pork. Problem solved.
Why would he be in the business of selling pork if he can't touch it?
If someone can't make wedding cakes for certain people then they shouldn't make cakes for a living. You can't discriminate when it comes to certain types of people buying the cake. If your personal beliefs prevent you from making a gay mans cake then that's a personal problem. You will have to give up selling cakes and deal with your own issues. Why would a gay guy have to suffer from your personal beliefs? You can't just put a sign in the window of the shop that says "no gays allowed." This is America.
I have a deep feeling you already know this though.
If someone can't make wedding cakes for certain people then they shouldn't make cakes for a living.
It's not an issue of the baker not being able to make wedding cakes "for certain people". The baker believes that it is against his religion to support same-sex marriage. The issues isn't, "I don't like gay people; I am going to refuse to bake cakes for gay people." The issue is that the specific occasion he was asked to make a cake for was against his beliefs. And he shouldn't have to be asked to violate his religious beliefs to earn a living. Now if the baker refused to bake, let's say, a graduation cake for the couple's child (if they even have one), then I'd be more inclined to think that he is being discriminatory. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that court cases rely on evidence. There is plenty of evidence concerning ALL religions that a reasonable person should be able to determine if someone is legitimately citing a religious exemption or just using religion as a cover for hateful behavior.
Amen. Religion is an entirely personal matter concerning private personal behavior. Secular laws are entirely public matters concerning public behavior in a community. When you open a business to the public, you are operating under the secular laws. You cannot use private personal religious reasons to discriminate against the public.
Exactly right,
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.
