Can the government make me decorate a cake?

[Notanumber]

I don’t know how these activists would cope if they had service like this.

Fawlty was based on real life hotel owner.

 

[Nous]

Would you like to finish that scripture quotation?

Matthew 22:21...“Pay back, therefore, Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”....do you get the picture?



Oh please.....

Romans 1:18, 19, 24, 26-28:
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. . . .Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. . . .
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.
28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting."

Don't know your Bible well enough to use it as a defense apparently.

So obviously you are unable to cite any scripture that requires aherents of any religion to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples while catering to desires of criminals. Discrimination against gay people is motivated by nothing other than homophobic bigotry. Enlightened people do not desire to express such irrational animus.

 

[Nous]

That sounds like blinkered justice.

Justice is supposed to be blind.

 

[Notanumber]

Justice is supposed to be blind.

Justice is not supposed to ignore evidence.

Why do same sex couples always target Christians?

This man was literally minding his own business. He wasn’t wasting his time on protest marches and the like, yet he was hunted down for some so-called principles.

 

[Nous]

Justice is not supposed to ignore evidence.

Why do same sex couples always target Christians?

What? You have it backwards. Phillips is the one who acted illegally.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Justice is not supposed to ignore evidence.

Why do same sex couples always target Christians?

This man was literally minding his own business. He wasn’t wasting his time on protest marches and the like, yet he was hunted down for some so-called principles.

What makes you assume he was "hunted down" or targeted?

While I see nothing wrong with a person challenging illegal conduct by putting themselves in a position where they'd have standing to do so, nothing I saw in the OP or the liked article suggests that they actually did this.

 

[Nous]

he was hunted down for some so-called principles.

Phillips hasn't made any such claim in his affidavit or his many appeals of his conviction.

How was it possible for Craig and Mullins to "hunt him down"? Did he advertize that he's a homophobic bigot?

 

[Notanumber]

No doubt, they found out that he was a Christian and would likely fit the bill.

How many Islamists have been targeted in a similar fashion?

 

[Nous]

No doubt, they found out that he was a Christian and would likely fit the bill.

Prove it.

Obviously just because a business-owner is a Christian, it does not mean the business illegally discriminates in violation of public accommodations laws.

If there were any evidence that Craig and Mullins went shopping for a baker who would illegally discriminate against them, Phillips would certainly have presented that evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No doubt, they found out that he was a Christian and would likely fit the bill.

How many Islamists have been targeted in a similar fashion?

Here's a word you might like:

whataboutery

PRONUNCIATION:
(wat-uh-BAUT-uhr-ee)

MEANING:
noun: The practice of responding to an accusation by making a counter-accusation, real or imaginary, relevant or irrelevant.

ETYMOLOGY:
From the response “What about ...?” to a criticism. Earliest documented use: 1974.

NOTES:
The word was coined in 1974 in a story about the Northern Ireland conflict. It was widely employed by then USSR as a propaganda technique and is now often a favorite of Trump. It’s also known as whataboutism. See also tu quoque.

USAGE:
“‘Paris? Don’t you care about what happened in Beirut?’ Turbo-charged online whataboutery is destroying proper debate.”
Helen Lewis; If Activists Want Real Change They Must Ditch the Dying Cat; The Guardian (London, UK); Nov 26, 2015.​

 

[Notanumber]

As a Christian taqiyya was not an option, he felt obliged to tell the truth.

 

[Milton Platt]

I want to know what you think about this.

If there are any lawyers or legal scholars here, I’m very interested in what you have to say!

The background

Some very basic facts below; a better story is here, but there are many accounts of this available online. I encourage you to read the items I have linked here, as there are more details and it makes little sense to rewrite all of them. I tried to include enough facts for a good running start, though.

Arizona lawmakers weigh in on case pitting gay rights, religious rights | Cronkite News

In 2012, a Colorado baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The baker refused because of his religious beliefs. He said they could have anything else in the store, but he would not make a wedding cake. The couple filed a complaint with the CO Civil Rights claiming discrimination and the Colorado Court of Appeals agreed.

Yesterday, several US House and Senate members filed a court brief defending the baker. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal. The basis of the argument is that making the baker make wedding cakes for a gay couple is violating his freedom of expression and that the state shouldn’t be able to regulate it.

After this happened yesterday, the ACLU published this opinion by James Esseks: President Trump and Attorney General Sessions Want to Enshrine a Business Right to Discriminate Into the Constitution

It says that this court brief filed yesterday is farther reaching than freedom of expression and gives businesses the right to discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. It goes one further step and says that this would give a business owner the right to say they don’t serve gays, for example, and it would authorize business to discriminate based on national origin, sex, religion, disability, etc.

My question
Does the court brief filed yesterday support the ACLU writer’s opinion: Allowing someone to object to creating something for a customer based on religious or other reasons means that being able to discriminate for any reason is the logical next conclusion?

My opinion

1) I separate “making a wedding cake” from “selling a cake” to someone. Making and decorating a wedding cake is artistic. I fully support an artist of any type being able to refuse to create art that they don’t agree with. If I were a baker I could think of many things I would not want to decorate a cake with. I wouldn’t want to create a “KKK ROCKS! College Recruitment Party 2017” cake. I’d ask that they go somewhere else. I’d sell them a blank cake, though. They could come in with hoods and I’d sell them cupcakes. But I couldn’t stomach creating art for them.

Why should the state be able to tell me what I’m required to create or express?

My spouse disagrees and says that not making the cake would be discrimination, as long as whatever is on the cake is not illegal. (e.g., ‘Yay, raping and pillaging!’)

What do you think? Can the state regulate artistic expression and tell me I MUST create for someone? It’s not electricity, medicine, or groceries. A wedding cake requires a person put their unique artistic abilities into something that is then sold solely because of that artistic input. If they did make me, and I did it, and I did a terrible job … did I violate the law? “OH! I spelled KKK wrong!? And no, those aren’t pooh emojis, I just can’t draw those silly hats right!”

2) I can see that there could be a slippery slope of which business are artistic vs not artistic, but it seems like that could be dealt with on a case by case basis and most things would be pretty obvious.

3) I think the ACLU opinion I linked to is doing a bit of fear mongering. I don’t think that saying that a person has a right to their freedom of expression is the same thing as saying any business could refuse business to anyone they want to. That seems like a huge leap to me. Is it?

Well, I don't see how making a cake violates someone's rights to religious beliefs or practices. The person is only making a cake, nothing more is required of him. I think in this case, the person in question was simply personally offended at the thought of a gay marriage (bigoted) and used Christianity as a convenient excuse.

 

[Deeje]

You're talking about how you would, though.

No, I am saying that I would not be able, in all conscience, to bake and decorate a specific cake for a ceremony that was against everything I believe. I would not decorate a Halloween cake, or one with a satanic theme or even an infant baptism....so the bakery business is obviously not one I would choose to engage in....unless it was just coffee and cupcakes or cookies.

I have no desire for confrontation on such emotive issues. If all I want to do is provide good food for all my customers, which Mr Phillips did without refusing anyone, then why should him declining to make one cake ruin his business? He did so respectfully by all accounts. This whole situation is ridiculous as any fair minded person can see.

If you choose to disobey the law, that's on you.

If you know anything about the history of JW's you will see that we have always taken that stand. The law of man cannot force us to disobey the laws of God. We will go to jail rather than violate our Christian beliefs. It is the only reason you will find faithful JW's in prison. We are among the most law abiding citizens in the world.

Public accommodation laws are not "bullying" and they have nothing to do with free speech. They're in the same spirit as public health laws: if you're going to be in business, do so in a way that doesn't hurt society... so keep your fridge cold enough and treat your customers with at least a basic standard of decency.

No doubt public accommodation laws fill a need, but I believe that, like all things that elicit an emotional response in people, things can be taken too far. The bakery incident is a good example. It was obviously intended to give ammunition to the gay lobby. It is amazing to me how low public acceptance can go when legal buttons are pushed and penalties can threaten a kind and loving man with ruin because he has principles by which he chooses to live in a free country. One has to wonder how much freedom can be eroded by public opinion swayed by effective propaganda. Do you really want to go where this is heading? Perception management is a science you know....used effectively in so many areas where people are influenced to support a certain agenda, but not aware or where it will ultimately lead them.

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to do. If a person's religion would require them, if they owned a bakery, to violate public health standards or treat their customers disrespectfully, as you imply yours does, they can easily avoid the conflict by simply choosing a different line of work.

This man's bakery was not the only one in town, was it?

In Australia, Muslims have been trying to force the food industry here to certify everything as "halal". But it costs a lot of money to get certification. (guess who gets the money) Most food stores in Muslim dominated areas will already cater to their needs in this respect. But for those who do not wish to go down that route in a largely secular country, they have an option NOT to sell halal certified foods. If they lose business, then they lose business. Its their choice. Should the government impose legal penalties for those store owners who do not wish to specifically cater to Muslim customers? Are they not free to take their business elsewhere? Do you see the problem? It is solved by putting a sign in the window indicating whether the food sold in the store is "halal certified". Muslims can then decide whether or not to shop there. Why can't the same be done for gays? A symbol in the window......then there is no conflict or law suits or reasons for threads like this.

It sounds like you're acknowledging that the baker's choices are instrumental in creating these sorts of conflicts. If so, I agree.

No, it is one powerful lobby group with a specific agenda trying to steal what is left of things that belong to God. The baker in this story wasn't going to allow these customers to steal what is left of his Christian values. He is fighting for his right not to surrender to something that is against everything he believes in. At the end of the day, we can only hope that common sense and not skewed emotions and a slick legal team will see justice prevail....but I am not holding my breath.

Your right to disagree isn't the issue; it's only when you ask for the right to be awful to other people in the name of your religion that we have a problem... and even then, only in some situations.

Who said anything about being "awful" to anyone? Would I be awful to Muslim if I didn't sell halal foods in my shop? Should I be arrested and charged for not being "friendly" to Muslims? I have no animosity towards anyone of any faith, but it doesn't mean I have to break my own moral code to cater to them. There will be plenty of others who will....so where is the problem really?

 

[Deeje]

So obviously you are unable to cite any scripture that requires aherents of any religion to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples while catering to desires of criminals. Discrimination against gay people is motivated by nothing other than homophobic bigotry. Enlightened people do not desire to express such irrational animus.

Please tell me you are not a member of the legal profession or training to be one.....your attitude demonstrates why we have this kind of thing happening right now. It appears as if your own bigotry is shining through every word. Do you have a 'phobia' of your own?..... Muslims declined to make a cake for a gay wedding too...where are they in court facing charges?

The reasonable approach is not one of victory at all costs, but one where conflict and animosity are mitigated.
That means a reasonable approach to this issue would see the law trying to serve the needs of the entire community, preserving everyone's right to believe whatever they wish and to practice those beliefs in their everyday life. The discrimination has just changed sides by all appearances. For "Christians", it is wrong to hate anyone. You can hate what they do, but not them as individuals. Any Christian who demonstrates hatred towards anyone is going against Jesus' teachings. (Matthew 5:43-47) No one is supporting "Christians" acting in a hateful way towards gays or anyone else. Jesus consorted with "sinners" in order to preach to them and help then to see there is a better way to live. He did so with respect.

Mr Phillips was not motivated by hatred or bigotry, even though people like you and the gay couple at the bottom of this travesty want to paint him in that light. Watch the videos and you will see that he is nothing like you want to portray him. He does not refuse to serve gay customers in his shop but only refused to bake and decorate a specific cake for a ceremony he sincerely felt was against everything he believed in. Would those in a satanic cult be in the same league if they asked him for a cake celebrating their sacrifices in the woods? Would Mr Phillips be in the same legal mess? Seriously!

 

[Nous]

As a Christian taqiyya was not an option

What is "taqiyya"?

he felt obliged to tell the truth.

Whom are you referring to? Phillips isn't accused of lying; he has been convicted of illegally discriminating.

 

[Nous]

Please tell me you are not a member of the legal profession or training to be one.....your attitude demonstrates why we have this kind of thing happening right now. It appears as if your own bigotry is shining through every word. Do you have a 'phobia' of your own?..... Muslims declined to make a cake for a gay wedding too...where are they in court facing charges?

The reasonable approach is not one of victory at all costs, but one where conflict and animosity are mitigated.
That means a reasonable approach to this issue would see the law trying to serve the needs of the entire community, preserving everyone's right to believe whatever they wish and to practice those beliefs in their everyday life. The discrimination has just changed sides by all appearances. For "Christians", it is wrong to hate anyone. You can hate what they do, but not them as individuals. Any Christian who demonstrates hatred towards anyone is going against Jesus' teachings. (Matthew 5:43-47) No one is supporting "Christians" acting in a hateful way towards gays or anyone else. Jesus consorted with "sinners" in order to preach to them and help then to see there is a better way to live. He did so with respect.

Mr Phillips was not motivated by hatred or bigotry, even though people like you and the gay couple at the bottom of this travesty want to paint him in that light. Watch the videos and you will see that he is nothing like you want to portray him. He does not refuse to serve gay customers in his shop but only refused to bake and decorate a specific cake for a ceremony he sincerely felt was against everything he believed in. Would those in a satanic cult be in the same league if they asked him for a cake celebrating their sacrifices in the woods? Would Mr Phillips be in the same legal mess? Seriously!

I'll repeat: So obviously you are unable to cite any scripture that requires aherents of any religion to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples while catering to desires of criminals. Discrimination against gay people is motivated by nothing other than homophobic bigotry. Enlightened people do not desire to express such irrational animus.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What is "taqiyya"?

An obscure Islamic concept that raging Islamophobes have seized on to accuse all Muslims who don't support violent Jihad of lying.

Taqiya - Wikipedia

 

[Nous]

An obscure Islamic concept that raging Islamophobes have seized on to accuse all Muslims who don't support violent Jihad of lying.

Taqiya - Wikipedia

Thank you.

 

[Deeje]

I'll repeat: So obviously you are unable to cite any scripture that requires aherents of any religion to discriminate against loving, committed, responsible same-sex couples while catering to desires of criminals. Discrimination against gay people is motivated by nothing other than homophobic bigotry. Enlightened people do not desire to express such irrational animus.

I noticed that you repeat yourself a lot....can you not think of a good response to my questions?

I thought they were quite reasonable.

You haven't heard a word I've said....

Now we know why these issues get all out of hand. Take your fingers out of your ears and learn to reason with your mind and heart. There is no reason for all this hogwash. The solution is very simple....and it doesn't mean you have to make lawyers rich whilst witch-hunting perfectly nice bakers who might not want to do what trouble making gay men might demand of them. Go find a baker who is happy to make you a cake. How hard is it really? Put a rainbow ribbon in your window and gays will flock to your bakery. If there is no ribbon...don't ask for they do not wish to provide. No one is offended and no one one needs to be sued for having scruples.

"Enlightened people" you say? Let me just "enlighten" you......

enlightened
ɪnˈlʌɪt(ə)nd/
adjective

1. having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook.
   "the more enlightened employers offer better terms"
   synonyms: informed, aware, educated, knowledgeable, learned, wise, literate, intellectual, tutored, illuminated, apprised;
   
   • spiritually aware.
     "we become enlightened in our relationship with God

Can you see what "enlightened" actually means? Your interpretation of the former obviously does not include the latter.

All I see in your posts is the same kind of bigotry that you accuse the Christians of demonstrating. This is not a war unless you want to make it into one. I have no desire for a war, so why force one? This can be solved amicably and with reason, not with out of control emotion.

Good grief!

 

[Notanumber]

I am not a Christian but from what I have seen and heard Christians are more likely to feel obliged to tell the truth when defending their faith.

This baker told the truth and he and his family are been punished for his honesty.