Anti-gay baker now takes stand against birthdays for trans people

[sojourner]

"People?" I would bake that cake. Most bakers would. Only this guy, and a few like him, would not, because of THEIR religious beliefs regarding marriage

It only takes one man.

I read your post, and what I saw was....yeah, the underdog now has the power to do what they have been protesting all this time. Now THEY can dictate what other people may and may not do, how they may or may not exercise their belief systems

You’re twisting this. They’re not forcing the man to have a gay marriage against his will. They’re asking him to bake a cake, just as he does for other people. A wedding cake.

.......and you don't see the problem with that, do you

The only problem I see is the oppressor whining “oppression.”

What happens when the folks who are now being discriminated against and forced to behave in a way contrary to their faiths get that power BACK?

No one’s being discriminated against except the gay couple. They’re not excluding the baker. That’s not discrimination.

You are setting very bad precedents. It's a GOOD thing that minorities are now seen as equal under the law. It's a BAD thing when the only thing that has resulted from this is that the power to discriminate has simply changed hands

Sorry. I don’t see discrimination in someone being told that they have to do their job.

 

[sojourner]

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

people who admire the cake will ask who made it.

I’m a member of the clergy, and before that, I was a professional musician who,played a lot of wedding gigs. I’ve been involved in more weddings than I can count. No one has ever had a cake with a little placard saying the baker’s name. The baker has NEVER been present for the ceremony or festivities. Only beforehand sometimes to set up the cake.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And, no, they are accurate. I did those things called "fact checking" and "research."

Well, that's why he was confused, isn't it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Draw the line here: where there is a possibility of harm to someone who has not consented to participate, that's where you draw the line.

How much harm constitutes "harm?" The inability to buy a cake from the cheapest (or best value-for-money) cake shop creates a financial cost for the customer. Isn't that a sort of harm?

It seemed like you considered financial cost to be harm when you expressed concern about the livelihood of the baker earlier.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wrote that. Didn't I write that? (looking) yes, I wrote that. the important part is 'free EXERCISE.'

You wrote exactly this:

The constitution doesn't guarantee the rights of people to believe as they wish.

So, it's "impolite" when you scramble your own words but I have to call you out when you do it to mine and call your excuses on trying to downplay you doing it to me?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And some more of why "artistic expression" fails. One being that Elton John has performed at the weddings of Conservatives who have some nasty things to say about homosexuals. And my favorite:

(And I really don't think he condoned nannies perving on kids)

 

[InChrist]

Yet... this "design" utterly, completely and to 100%, fails to be convincing to many educated people.

Why?

There appears to be a direct correlation between the degree and quality of education, and being convinced that your god is real. In that the more education one obtains? The less likely one is to believe in god.

Is this part of the "design"?

That is a good question(s). I think you should contemplate it for awhile...and if you are willing, ask God about it.

 

[dianaiad]

Then that is not by definition polygamy. Polygamy is still illegal. Bigamy is only one form of polygamy. Bigamy is having two wives. And that is illegal as well.

By definition what they are doing is not a "wedding". At least not now. They may call it that, but that does not make it the case.

Interesting. You realize that this is exactly the same language used by those who opposed making gay marriage legal?

Look. I'm tired of this. You've made your point, all of you. I believe I have expressed mine.

Yours is that you believe that the government should enforce morality upon the people and force them to behave in ways contrary to their own religious beliefs as long as it is politically correct/acceptable.

I find that this approach is both subjective and dangerous.

I believe that freedom of religion must be sacrosanct...even for those whose religion mandates things I...or you...find distasteful or even abominable, as long as their beliefs do not involve inflicting physical harm upon those who don't freely agree with them.

If we fiddle with that, then those who are in the 'driver's seat' NOW will find themselves being the ones put in the ghetto later. One CAN sort of see that with this bit about the baker and the wedding cake. Fundamentalist evangelicals have been opposing gay marriage for many, many years and trying very hard to keep it from becoming legal. They find themselves, now, (as in the case of the baker) on the wrong end of the discrimination stick...experiencing for themselves exactly what they were trying to do to the gay population.

I suppose that one COULD just say that this is 'justice,' but it's not. It's revenge, and it's asinine. And it will come back to bite us. Opinions change. Beliefs change. Ideas and ideals change. What is acceptable now will become unacceptable twenty or thirty years from now, and vice versa. If we don't hold to the strict constitutional rule here, I guarantee that those who are NOW being forced to violate their religious beliefs in the service of political correctness WILL eventually redefine 'political correctness' to be more acceptable to themselves, and those who are crowing over their victory now will find themselves in a pickle.

Again.

I say...we should just stop. If a gay couple wants a cake, let them get one from someone who wants to make one for them, and not force someone to violate his religious beliefs just because they can.

Let that guy who won't do it look like the bigot and jerk he is.

Let him lose a significant part of his customer base.

And let us all keep the advancements we have made, and not just turn around and oppress others because we now have the power to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. You realize that this is exactly the same language used by those who opposed making gay marriage legal?

Look. I'm tired of this. You've made your point, all of you. I believe I have expressed mine.

Yours is that you believe that the government should enforce morality upon the people and force them to behave in ways contrary to their own religious beliefs as long as it is politically correct/acceptable.

Not at all. I only want the government to enforce laws on public accommodations. Did you see the article I linked on those. You are supporting the maker's hypocritical behavior.

I find that this approach is both subjective and dangerous.

I believe that freedom of religion must be sacrosanct...even for those whose religion mandates things I...or you...find distasteful or even abominable, as long as their beliefs do not involve inflicting physical harm upon those who don't freely agree with them.

If we fiddle with that, then those who are in the 'driver's seat' NOW will find themselves being the ones put in the ghetto later. One CAN sort of see that with this bit about the baker and the wedding cake. Fundamentalist evangelicals have been opposing gay marriage for many, many years and trying very hard to keep it from becoming legal. They find themselves, now, (as in the case of the baker) on the wrong end of the discrimination stick...experiencing for themselves exactly what they were trying to do to the gay population.

I suppose that one COULD just say that this is 'justice,' but it's not. It's revenge, and it's asinine. And it will come back to bite us. Opinions change. Beliefs change. Ideas and ideals change. What is acceptable now will become unacceptable twenty or thirty years from now, and vice versa. If we don't hold to the strict constitutional rule here, I guarantee that those who are NOW being forced to violate their religious beliefs in the service of political correctness WILL eventually redefine 'political correctness' to be more acceptable to themselves, and those who are crowing over their victory now will find themselves in a pickle.

Again.

I say...we should just stop. If a gay couple wants a cake, let them get one from someone who wants to make one for them, and not force someone to violate his religious beliefs just because they can.

Let that guy who won't do it look like the bigot and jerk he is.

Let him lose a significant part of his customer base.

And let us all keep the advancements we have made, and not just turn around and oppress others because we now have the power to do so.

Freedom of religion still is sacrosanct, as long as a person is not affecting the beliefs of others. When two beliefs conflict we must look deeper. The baker opened up a business to the public. As I pointed out a public accommodation. By doing so he put the ability to express his beliefs on hold. This was his choice. If he wanted to exclude certain groups he could and should have opened a private club. That was an option he could have taken, but did not. Instead he is a hypocrite that wants the benefits of a public accommodation, but does not wish to pay the costs.

 

[dianaiad]

Not at all. I only want the government to enforce laws on public accommodations. Did you see the article I linked on those. You are supporting the maker's hypocritical behavior.



Freedom of religion still is sacrosanct, as long as a person is not affecting the beliefs of others.

No. It isn't.

When one group can force another to violate his own beliefs, it's absolutely NOT sacrosanct.

Please do not confuse 'legal' with 'moral,' 'ethical,' or even 'a good idea."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

refuses to do a non-Kosher cake for a 'gentile' couple

It is not reasonable to go to a kosher bakery and expect non-kosher product. It IS reasonable to go to a normal bakery and expect to get a product.

But because the couple is gay, THEIR rights seem to supercede all other rights.

He has, which I disagree with, the right to have sincerely held religious beliefs that run completely counter to anything any divine source said in his religion. He does NOT have the right to force customers to put up with his arbitrary fluff.

As Jesus nor God told him to act that way, is being "legal" better than going to heaven? I guess God or Jesus could forgive him, but blatant disobedience doesn't strike me as heaven-worthy.

But if they so much as HINT that I don't have the right to say 'no,' that's it.

THEY aren't. The government that gave him the legal permission to open his doors IN THE FIRST PLACE did.

By obtaining a business permit/license, he agreed to follow the rules set by the issuer.

We all have the absolute RIGHT to be bigots.

Personally, not professionally.

But I want that bigot up front and without excuse; I want to know who he is.

But you don't want him to have any consequences?

.......and you don't see the problem with that, do you?

When I got my nursing license, I agreed to act as a nurse is expected to. I feel no empathy for people who had to get a permit or license and then want to disobey the rules regarding such certification.

I actually consider it a breach of contract.

It is an expression of the baker's art; his advertisement. The cake is there saying 'this person made and decorated it. This person made this cake for THIS occasion."

Does he also own the poop that comes after they eat it? Does he support that, the transformation of his beautiful work of art into brown sludge?

He's not being forced at gunpoint to do "event" cakes. He can stop any time he wishes and the problem goes away (for now).

I would, because I believe that they--as consenting adults entering into a mutually agreed upon contract that harms no one--should be able to have such marriage arrangements. It's not our business what they do so long as it is consensual, so we can all bugger off over it.

Plus, it's biblically supported.

And he shouldn't even be against pederasty or pedophilia, since men typically thought girls were on the market as soon as they could rape them.

I mean, if the baker cares about his sincerely held religious beliefs and all.

......and nobody is going to give that baker a problem for refusing to bake a cake for someone's second or third wedding when spouse one is waiting with the groom at the altar.

If it's a legal relationship (sorta), then why WOULD he? It's in his sincerely held religious beliefs, after all.

I wrote that. Didn't I write that? (looking) yes, I wrote that. the important part is 'free EXERCISE.'

People who believe they can kill their kids for being disobedient because the bible says so don't (or shouldn't) get a pass.

By definition what they are doing is not a "wedding". At least not now. They may call it that, but that does not make it the case.

It's as much a wedding as Adam and Eve got, which is nothing.

The baker has NEVER been present for the ceremony or festivities. Only beforehand sometimes to set up the cake.

I've only ever seen bakers at weddings if I watched Cake Boss.

And that was a guy who had an episode where he did a great roulette table (I think) for someone who *cough* made him an offer he couldn't refuse *cough*. If Buddy can make a cake for a not-mob boss *wink wink*, then a baker can make a stupid wedding cake for a legally marrying couple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It isn't.

When one group can force another to violate his own beliefs, it's absolutely NOT sacrosanct.

Please do not confuse 'legal' with 'moral,' 'ethical,' or even 'a good idea."

One more time. He is not being forced. He chose to open a public accommodation. By doing so, even If He did not realize it, he agreed to follow the antidiscrimination regulations. He had the choice to open a private club. He did not do so.

And as usual you are the confused one here. If one agrees to do something and reneges that person is in the wrong.

 

[dianaiad]

It is not reasonable to go to a kosher bakery and expect non-kosher product. It IS reasonable to go to a normal bakery and expect to get a product.


He has, which I disagree with, the right to have sincerely held religious beliefs that run completely counter to anything any divine source said in his religion. He does NOT have the right to force customers to put up with his arbitrary fluff.

The force is the other way around. He just says 'no, I can't do your cake.' THEY are the ones forcing him.

As Jesus nor God told him to act that way, is being "legal" better than going to heaven? I guess God or Jesus could forgive him, but blatant disobedience doesn't strike me as heaven-worthy.

So your problem with him is that he doesn't comply with YOUR religious beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The force is the other way around. He just says 'no, I can't do your cake.' THEY are the ones forcing him.



So your problem with him is that he doesn't comply with YOUR religious beliefs?

He opened a public accommodation. Do you know what that means?

 

[sojourner]

It is not reasonable to go to a kosher bakery and expect non-kosher product. It IS reasonable to go to a normal bakery and expect to get a product.


He has, which I disagree with, the right to have sincerely held religious beliefs that run completely counter to anything any divine source said in his religion. He does NOT have the right to force customers to put up with his arbitrary fluff.

As Jesus nor God told him to act that way, is being "legal" better than going to heaven? I guess God or Jesus could forgive him, but blatant disobedience doesn't strike me as heaven-worthy.


THEY aren't. The government that gave him the legal permission to open his doors IN THE FIRST PLACE did.

By obtaining a business permit/license, he agreed to follow the rules set by the issuer.


Personally, not professionally.


But you don't want him to have any consequences?


When I got my nursing license, I agreed to act as a nurse is expected to. I feel no empathy for people who had to get a permit or license and then want to disobey the rules regarding such certification.

I actually consider it a breach of contract.


Does he also own the poop that comes after they eat it? Does he support that, the transformation of his beautiful work of art into brown sludge?

He's not being forced at gunpoint to do "event" cakes. He can stop any time he wishes and the problem goes away (for now).


Plus, it's biblically supported.

And he shouldn't even be against pederasty or pedophilia, since men typically thought girls were on the market as soon as they could rape them.

I mean, if the baker cares about his sincerely held religious beliefs and all.


If it's a legal relationship (sorta), then why WOULD he? It's in his sincerely held religious beliefs, after all.


People who believe they can kill their kids for being disobedient because the bible says so don't (or shouldn't) get a pass.


It's as much a wedding as Adam and Eve got, which is nothing.


I've only ever seen bakers at weddings if I watched Cake Boss.

And that was a guy who had an episode where he did a great roulette table (I think) for someone who *cough* made him an offer he couldn't refuse *cough*. If Buddy can make a cake for a not-mob boss *wink wink*, then a baker can make a stupid wedding cake for a legally marrying couple.

The ones in bold are priceless!

 

[sojourner]

The force is the other way around. He just says 'no, I can't do your cake.' THEY are the ones forcing him

The difference is that he needs to be forced to do his job. He’s forcing them to the fringe out of a misplaced sense of privilege.

 

[sojourner]

He opened a public accommodation. Do you know what that means?

I don’t think he knows what it means, and it got him in trouble.

 

[dianaiad]

The difference is that he needs to be forced to do his job. He’s forcing them to the fringe out of a misplaced sense of privilege.

Baloney.

If you go into a store and they don't have the product or service you want, you go somewhere else. You are NOT being 'put on the fringe.'

There is a store here in town that sells sport clothing. Nothing for women above size 16 and THOSE sizes are put waaaay back in the back of the store.

Why can't someone who is a size 18 sue them? Are they not in business to sell sport clothing? This person who wants a size sixteen wants it to work out just like the person next to her who happens to wear a size 6. They go to the same gym, participate in the same marathon events, hike together...but the size 6 can get clothes there and the size 18 cannot.

How is that different from the baker? Because this clothing store is quite obviously discriminating against people he doesn't approve of; heavy people.

But that's just fine, isn't it?

The size 18 is just going to have to buy her clothes somewhere else, isn't she? Nobody is going to force this guy to stock larger clothes, or force the seamstress there to let out any seams.

I don't see a difference.

 

[dianaiad]

He opened a public accommodation. Do you know what that means?

Do you know what "condescending" and "rude" means?

 

[sojourner]

Baloney.

If you go into a store and they don't have the product or service you want, you go somewhere else. You are NOT being 'put on the fringe

Yeah, but the baker had the product/service.
His reason wasn’t that he didn’t have what they needed, it was that he didn’t wanna givevit to them.

How is that different from the baker? Because this clothing store is quite obviously discriminating against people he doesn't approve of; heavy people

No, it has to do with what’s available from their supplier. A real analogy would be if a size 6 Mom could get a pair of leggings there, but a size 6 lesbian couldn’t. Just because she’s lesbian.

The size 18 is just going to have to buy her clothes somewhere else, isn't she? Nobody is going to force this guy to stock larger clothes, or force the seamstress there to let out any seams.

I don't see a difference

Again “not having stock” is a different issue from “I’m not selling to you because I disapprove of you.”

But, as you say, you won’t see the difference.