Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

CrazyGamer2017 said:
REDZONE said:
And this is why this world is fucked up.He refused to bake a gay cake,so what?He offered other cakes,he did not refuse them service because they were gay.Why is this even an issue, if it's not his beliefs it is not his beliefs.If he had been a Jewish baker and a Nazi lover walked in and told him bake a cake for me but with the Hitler sign and he refused would there been an outcry?I doubt very much.

It should not have been an issue obviously. The baker had a simple job to do, make a cake for their customers, the job is NOT decide what cake the customer must have but give the customer the cake he/she wants.

As for a nazi lover asking a Jewish baker for a cake with a swastika. Nazism has hurt Jewish people beyond anything we can even imagine so him refusing makes total sense. When did homosexuals mass murder Christians? They never did so that homophobic baker had no ground for refusal of service... other than his ignorance and homophobia and the US Supreme Court upheld that homophobia and that is both wrong and a dangerous precedent.

My point is Christians hates Gays as much as Jews hates Nazi.They killed and entire Nation of them in the bible.He has a choice to make it or not he didn't.Life is about what you choose to do and not what someone thinks you should do and it is"HIS" business to do as he chooses.That is your problem thinking he should do it because it is the "moral" thing to do.



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:

I've heard nothing that says he refused to do business with gay people, it was the act of using his artistic talents to design a wedding cake that led to his turning down the commission.

I'm confident that if a straight wedding planner or a parent of one of the brides asked him to bake it and offered the commission, he would refuse just the same.  It is the message of the end product, not the customers themselves that led him to decline.

So, double standard back in play.

Of course he'd refuse, his double standards don't apply to that specific gay couple, it's a double standards of straight vs gay. I never said he refused a cake to that couple but would have accepted to bake a cake to another gay couple or for a straight person acting on behalf of a gay couple. His narrow-mind (the baker) would obviously make him refuse to bake a gay cake for everyone that needs a gay cake. He's discriminating against a minority and that's what is wrong here.

As for your last line, double standards back at play, you were originally referring to me and I demonstrated to you that I do not apply double standards as I demonstrated with your erotic cake example. I clearly said if he refuses an erotic cake to EVERYBODY then there are no double standards, if he refuses an erotic cake to a black person but does the erotic cake for a white person then that baker does use double standards.

Double standards and prejudice by definition go along together. If you are prejudiced against a group like the LGBT community you will necessarily apply double standards since you don't hold them to the same value as you do straight people.

The baker's business is to bake cakes for CUSTOMERS, not for STRAIGHTS, GAYS, BLACKS, WHITES, ATHEISTS etc. His job is to have customers and meet their demand and this baker acted totally unprofessional because he does have double standards and prejudice. Regardless of the legal outcome, the couple was totally right to register a complaint for discrimination because discrimination is the issue here.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 05 June 2018

REDZONE said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

It should not have been an issue obviously. The baker had a simple job to do, make a cake for their customers, the job is NOT decide what cake the customer must have but give the customer the cake he/she wants.

As for a nazi lover asking a Jewish baker for a cake with a swastika. Nazism has hurt Jewish people beyond anything we can even imagine so him refusing makes total sense. When did homosexuals mass murder Christians? They never did so that homophobic baker had no ground for refusal of service... other than his ignorance and homophobia and the US Supreme Court upheld that homophobia and that is both wrong and a dangerous precedent.

My point is Christians hates Gays as much as Jews hates Nazi.They killed and entire Nation of them in the bible.He has a choice to make it or not he didn't.Life is about what you choose to do and not what someone thinks you should do and it is"HIS" business to do as he chooses.That is your problem thinking he should do it because it is the "moral" thing to do.

Well yes it is the moral thing to do but that alone is not what I am defending here. It is technically not my problem since I am not gay but it's a precedent and it opens up a Pandora's box for prejudice of all kind and refusal of service based on nothing more than prejudice. As such it could very well become my problem tomorrow, I could see myself refused service in America because I'm not American or my hair it too long or too short or cause I'm an Atheist. It could be your problem too cause you are Jew or black or Democrat, Republican etc... It can become EVERYBODY's problem if we don't contain that kind of prejudice.

The baker can hate blacks or gays, nothing we can do about it but he should NOT be allowed to refuse service when he opens up a business that engages the public based on SUBJECTIVE prejudice. He can refuse business to someone drunk or unruly or threatening someone but not based on someone's life style or sexual orientation or skin color. Well at least not in a civilized country.



CrazyGamer2017 said:
Tigerlure said:
You can't deny people based on race in a business. I don't see why you should be able to deny based on sexual orientation.

I wonder if this baker has declined to bake a cake for a divorced person, or someone with a child out of wedlock. The other thing that annoys me is selective religious convictions.

Finally a few people here that make sense. Where were you and the others common sense people last night when I was here alone dealing with the homophobic comments?

You still having answered my earlier question: would you use the power of the state to force the baker to express approvement of homosexual things under punishment.



REDZONE said:
And this is why this world is fucked up.He refused to bake a gay cake,so what?He offered other cakes,he did not refuse them service because they were gay.Why is this even an issue, if it's not his beliefs it is not his beliefs.If he had been a Jewish baker and a Nazi lover walked in and told him bake a cake for me but with the Hitler sign and he refused would there been an outcry?I doubt very much.

Or if a KKK member wanted a black baker to bake a cake for his clan meeting that said "Lynch'em all." 

The sad thing is that many on the Left are always on the look out for Fascists on the right, when they are more prone to become Fascists. They want a big, all overseeing government that forces citizens to bend to their political will. To police language, because some words they have deemed "hateful." Certain areas need to be made safe zones, because free expression from those who disagree with them triggers them, which hurts them physically and mentally. 

And in this situation, it's not good enough that they won the gay marriage fight and there are dozens of bakeries that would support them. No, those who disagreed with them must be punished. So, we'll find the ones who did and either sue them or have the government take care of them, when they say they can't bake exactly what we want. Even though in both cases I have seen, both bakers politely explained the situation and either tried to work with them or use their free time to find a bakery that would bake the cake. Nope, not good enough. Big Brother, force them and/or punish them. 



Around the Network

While I think that him refusing it in the first place is just fucking dumb he does have his reasons. He didnt want to make a special cake for them because it goes against what he believes in which is fair I rather not have it like this but again believes are believes and you should be able to believe in what you want to believe in as long as he´s not calling names or being very bigotted about it. I heard somewhere that he gave adresses to other bakery´s that make cakes and if they dont have the same problem then to me it doesnt seem a problem since it doesnt seem like he disliked gay people (If that part is true) his believe just stands against the wedding between two men.



Well freedom of speech and what not. He has the right to not make the cake but everyone in that town has the right to boycott his close minded bs



It's his religious right, his right as a business owner, and his right as an individual. No one is in the right when they say he should have baked the cake. The gay couple have no right to force him to make them a cake, they have every right to go to another bakery. There was no discrimination whatsoever in this case, the cake baker wasn't rude at all.

And this whole story ignores the fact that Muslim cake bakers deny gay people all the time. This is just to make Christians look like the bad guys in this world. Christians & gays being a group of people who are killed in record numbers everyday in muslim countries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIwqPbFCFck



Ka-pi96 said:
hmm, not sure what to think of this. On one hand businesses should have the right to choose what business they take, but on the other hand refusing customers due to their sexual orientation is not a good precedent.

I guess really it should depend on what the details were. ie. if they wanted a custom made cake then he should be well within his rights to refuse, but if they were just buying a regular cake from the menu or shop window or something then refusing that should be grounds for a discrimination case.

Pretty sure all wedding cakes would be custom made.

But from what I've heard, it was not just refusal of gay people. He has no problem making gay couples cakes on any normal occasions, birthdays, graduations, ect. It was the sole marriage aspect. He believes that gays marrying is against his religion and thus doesn't feel right about it. I think the court compared it to another business not wanting to pay for abortions for its employees due to religious reasons. They offered insurance on everything else, but abortions.

I'm mixed on the issue. I understand their stances and would like to support them. Heck I believe the baker even referred other bakeries to the gay couple if I recall correctly. Just feels like let people do what they want and let capitalism sort out the rest. You know, if I opened up a restaurant and had signs outside that said "whites only" I'm fairly confident that in today's day and age, I would be out of business by the time my first bills were due. (sadly in today's day, I would also probably be killed) But it is a slippery slope. We let religious people refuse service for this or that and more and more things become acceptable and soon we could be back to refusing service for black or women or who knows.



Pemalite said:
Aeolus451 said:

But they're trying to force him bake cakes or not at all. The bible does mention homosexuality so it falls under religious belief. 

I live in a secular nation... And I am also an Atheist.
Thus I firmly believe the law and equal treatment of all comes before Religion.

Freedom of Religion also implies Freedom FROM Religion, if you contract someone to do a job, you damn well expect them to do it without any fuss or bullshit, having someone whinge and croak about their religion is ultimately irrelevant, they should keep it to themselves rather than push their religious agenda onto others.

For instance if I am contracted to do a job, I damn well do it. - I don't bring any personal opinions or perspectives or prejudices or bigotry, just do the damn job and move on like any normal Adult would.
Instead they did the complete opposite and made a giant production of it all, playing the victim.

He wasn't contracted for a job. Two guys came into his business and asked him to do a job. He refused. No contract was made. He didn't promise services and then change his mind.

It's like the same if I walk into a store with no shirt or shoes and am refused service.