Judge rules in favor of Baker refusing to make cake for same sex couple.

[David1967]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject. What do you think? Be nice please.

A wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

 

[Holdasown]

Then put up a sign where all can see that you don't do homosexual weddings so no one is subjected to your bigotry.

 

[Rival]

Good.

 

[Curious George]

Then put up a sign where all can see that you don't do homosexual weddings so no one is subjected to your bigotry.

It is not about doing homosexual weddings or not.

 

[Jainarayan]

Given that same sex marriage is legal in the US, in all 50 states per the SCOTUS, and public opinion turning in favor, it won't be long before this baker, and others like them begin to lose business from their entire customer base. Let them have their fun, other bakers will be more than happy to see two people, of any orientation be happy.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject. What do you think? Be nice please.

A wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that a baker may deny to a same-sex couple, Calif. judge rules

I fully agree with the court in ruling in favor of the baker. He was not discriminating against the couple, and made it clear that he would sell them any baked good that they want and that they are welcome customers in his shop. Rather, he stated that there are certain events (not people, but EVENTS) that, due to his religious beliefs and values, he does not bake cakes for. For all you liberals that are outraged over this, I'd ask you: If you owned a bakery, would you want to be required by law to bake cakes for a Trump rally?

 

[BSM1]

Then put up a sign where all can see that you don't do homosexual weddings so no one is subjected to your bigotry.

They just did...

 

[Estro Felino]

I would like to understand how "genial" one must be to spend lots of money on a lawsuit instead of looking for a more open-minded bakery.

 

[Curious George]

I fully agree with the court in ruling in favor of the baker. He was not discriminating against the couple, and made it clear that he would sell them any baked good that they want and that they are welcome customers in his shop. Rather, he stated that there are certain events (not people, but EVENTS) that, due to his religious beliefs and values, he does not bake cakes for. For all you liberals that are outraged over this, I'd ask you: If you owned a bakery, would you want to be required by law to bake cakes for a Trump rally?

Well I am not so sure I agree with the court ruling. But, I certainly agree that the issue is more complicated than just a plain refusal of service. I honestly think that public accommodation laws are a very interesting area. They are grounding in the commerce clause which seems questionable. But, I think most would agree that getting rid of the "no blacks allowed" signs was a major part of combating racism. Is this a case where the ends did justify the means? I am not sure. Could what was achieved have been achieved in a similar time frame without public accommodation laws? Is that the case with gay marriage? Is baking a cake speech? All these things are interesting questions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to understand how "genial" one must be to spend lots of money on a lawsuit instead of looking for a more open-minded bakery.

It wasn't the couple who sued - it was the baker.

 

[Curious George]

I would like to understand how "genial" one must be to spend lots of money on a lawsuit instead of looking for a more open-minded bakery.

It is a lawsuit on principle. They found another bakery. The bakery in question even refers potential customers to a bakery that happily prepares cakes for same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean a lawsuit should not be filed.

 

[Aldrnari]

I fully agree with the court in ruling in favor of the baker. He was not discriminating against the couple, and made it clear that he would sell them any baked good that they want and that they are welcome customers in his shop. Rather, he stated that there are certain events (not people, but EVENTS) that, due to his religious beliefs and values, he does not bake cakes for. For all you liberals that are outraged over this, I'd ask you: If you owned a bakery, would you want to be required by law to bake cakes for a Trump rally?

Curious, but what if the baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake because he, say, didn't support biracial marriages? A lot of people don't. Hell, I've even heard religious reasons for why they're ungodly (such as, god wanted us to all separate and go our own ways after the tower of babel).

 

[David1967]

Given that same sex marriage is legal in the US, in all 50 states per the SCOTUS, and public opinion turning in favor, it won't be long before this baker, and others like them begin to lose business from their entire customer base. Let them have their fun, other bakers will be more than happy to see two people, of any orientation be happy.

You make a good point. Judges and government should stay out of it. Let the customer give their business to who values it.

 

[Curious George]

It wasn't the couple who sued - it was the baker.

No the plaintiff is the state of California and the couple.

 

[David1967]

I fully agree with the court in ruling in favor of the baker. He was not discriminating against the couple, and made it clear that he would sell them any baked good that they want and that they are welcome customers in his shop. Rather, he stated that there are certain events (not people, but EVENTS) that, due to his religious beliefs and values, he does not bake cakes for. For all you liberals that are outraged over this, I'd ask you: If you owned a bakery, would you want to be required by law to bake cakes for a Trump rally?

I personally don't see it any differently than a Jewish or Muslim restaurant owner being forced to serve ham sandwiches.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Curious, but what if the baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake because he, say, didn't support biracial marriages? A lot of people don't. Hell, I've even heard religious reasons for why their ungodly (such as, god wanted us to all separate and go our own ways after the tower of babel).

Going by this article, the baker would be in their rights to refuse.


...but strangely, it seems that if the cake is already made, then the discrimination is illegal. So if the baker made a cake for a straight couple who then cancelled, they could get in trouble for refusing to sell that cake to a same-sex couple.

 

[Curious George]

I personally don't see it any differently than a Jewish or Muslim restaurant owner being forced to serve ham sandwiches.

No it would be like a Jewish or Muslim restaurant owner being forced to make the sandwiches they make for a same sex marriage. No one is trying to tell the baker that he has to bake a particular type of cake that he doesn't bake.

 

[David1967]

No it would be like a Jewish or Muslim restaurant owner being forced to make the sandwiches they make for a same sex marriage. No one is trying to tell the baker that he has to bake a particular type of cake that he doesn't bake.

Same point I was trying to make. Guess my words aren't working well this morning.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Curious, but what if the baker didn't want to bake a wedding cake because he, say, didn't support biracial marriages? A lot of people don't. Hell, I've even heard religious reasons for why they're ungodly (such as, god wanted us to all separate and go our own ways after the tower of babel).

I wouldn't have a problem with this either. So long as he does not discriminate against the people themselves, but only against events, there is no issue IMO, and his right falls under freedom of speech. People and events are entirely different.

 

[Curious George]

I wouldn't have a problem with this either. So long as he does not discriminate against the people themselves, but only against events, there is no issue IMO, and his right falls under freedom of speech. People and events are entirely different.

Are they though? What if the event is you coming in my diner to sit and eat. In other words, I am happy to serve you take out, but I don't want to celebrate your race sitting with and eating with my race?

It is not such an easy issue. It is not that I am allowed to deny service based on event, it is that the government cannot compel my speech. Does baking a cake constitute speech? If so, what speech?