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

[Bartholomew]

I think the baker did not want to violate his own faith in God.

He did not want himself to do anything bad in the eyes of his God.

He did not want to get himself in trouble with his God.

 

[Curious George]

I think the baker did not want to violate his own faith in God.

He did not want himself to do anything bad in the eyes of his God.

He did not want to get himself in trouble with his God.

How exactly does that work? How is baking a cake for event x, that celebrates something goes against your faith, the same as partaking in something that goes against your faith?

 

[Jainarayan]

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?

Unfortunately, he's forcing his religious views on others who don't necessarily hold with those, business owner or not... he's a place of public accommodation While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, it also implicitly guarantees freedom from religion. Your rights end when they infringe on my rights. As far as I know, the SCOTUS has almost always ruled this way. But as I said, money talks and principles walk, so let the customer base decide.

 

[Curious George]

Unfortunately, he's forcing his religious views on others who don't necessarily hold with those, business owner or not... he's a place of public accommodation While the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, it also implicitly guarantees freedom from religion. Your rights end when they infringe on my rights. As far as I know, the SCOTUS has almost always ruled this way. But as I said, money talks and principles walk, so let the customer base decide.

The first amendment is limiting on the government, not citizens.

 

[Kenny]

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

I think this is a great point. Like the baker, they would serve anyone who comes in. If I am not mistaken, the baker sold to the couple on a continual basis, it was just the decorating of the cake that was the issue.

 

[David1967]

I think this is a great point. Like the baker, they would serve anyone who comes in. If I am not mistaken, the baker sold to the couple on a continual basis, it was just the decorating of the cake that was the issue.

I think its a sign of the times we live in. Rather than leave an establishment that offends and go to one that accommodates and appreciates a persons business. The new tactic is 'Sue and Destroy'.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I didn't see a reference to the Commerce Clause in the article.
Where did you find it?

I find the "artistic expression" aspect to be a new factor in this old debate.

 

[metis]

I think this may be the first time a judge (in California surprisingly) has ruled in favor of a baker on this subject.

How's that different than not serving black people at a lunch counter?

 

[Jainarayan]

The first amendment is limiting on the government, not citizens.

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

 

[Curious George]

I think this is a great point. Like the baker, they would serve anyone who comes in. If I am not mistaken, the baker sold to the couple on a continual basis, it was just the decorating of the cake that was the issue.

It was the creation and preparation of an artistic design that would be then used to Celebrate a same sex marriage. Think of it more as being forced to sell your art(you are an artist who regularly sells art in this analogy) to a group of people(of some protected class) who were going to use it to advocate for their protected class.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the baker did not want to violate his own faith in God.
He did not want himself to do anything bad in the eyes of his God.
He did not want to get himself in trouble with his God.

This is understandable. But the law regarding non-discrimination in public
accommodation does mean that in some businesses, one must either do
things which violate one's religion, or stay out of the business.
As a landlord, if I refused to rent to an unmarried couple, a homo couple,
Jews, or Pastafarians, I could be prosecuted. So it wouldn't be an
appropriate business for some people to enter.

 

[Curious George]

I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment - Wikipedia

I am pretty sure they have not. Do you have a particular instance about which you were thinking?

 

[Curious George]

How's that different than not serving black people at a lunch counter?

In this instance it is claimed that creating and preparing a cake is a form of speech, whereas serving lunch at the counter is not.

Whether that is true or not is debatable, but that is where the difference is.

 

[David1967]

In this instance it is claimed that creating and preparing a cake is a form of speech, whereas serving lunch at the counter is not.

Whether that is true or not is debatable, but that is where the difference is.

What he said.

 

[Aldrnari]

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.

Alright, then. And what if a catering business refused to cater a bar mitzvah or any Jewish events because they are antisemitic? Religious reasons are often used to mask bigotry...

 

[columbus]

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

Well, it obviously is different. They are not treating customers differently. Nobody gets a ham sandwich, because it's not on the menu. They're treating everyone the same.

That said, I still find this sort of thing ridiculous. Nobody needs a cake, get over yourself and stop acting like a victim. Same for the bakers, get over yourself and stop acting like a victim. Being prevented from discriminating doesn't mean that you are being persecuted.
Tom

 

[Akivah]

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

It's nice to see a moral Judge.

 

[Akivah]

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.

I agree with this. Rather than having the government coerce people to participate in something that goes against their morals, let their actions speak for themselves. The free market will deliver any consequences for their decisions to them directly.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

You seriously don't?

The difference is that this case is akin to a restaurant owner who will happily sell a ham sandwich to plenty of other people.

 

[columbus]

It's nice to see a moral Judge.

Too bad I can't say that for the religion.
Then people act surprised that many of us consider your religion immoral.
Tom