By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

The_Yoda on 05 June 2018
Maxosaurus-rex said:
CrazyGamer2017 said:

Ok dude I've never responded to you because all you do is say "no", "you're wrong" and "stop", but you never even try to argue the points. That's not how debate works, I get it that you have no leg to stand on except disagree without explaining yourself but if you think I'm going to stop arguing against homophobic and discriminatory opinions, you don't know me very well. So keep telling me that I'm wrong, that I must stop etc and see if that works.

Yes, I have no leg to stand. Yet, 7 out of 9 justices agree with the people you say are making no sense. You also have been called out earlier in the thread. Also, you're the one making logical slippery slope and strawman fallacies along with red herrings here and there 

The 7-2 ruling was not about what he is talking about, he is looking at the broader issue and doesn't seem to understand the scope (or lack there of) of THIS ruling.

 

TH3-D0S3R said:
Agree strongly on the verdict with this one. As a Christian who knows a bit of different branches, not all branches are against gay marriage. In fact I believe the Methodist church does ceremonies for gay marriage.

I myself have nothing against gay people and will attend a ceremony and give a gift if its for a close friend or family member, however I would refuse to have any sort of part in making the ceremony a thing such as best man or in this instance baking a cake.

I love the person inside and understand what they are doing completely and will do anything to help them in the future, but there are some lines I prefer to maintain in my beliefs as well.

You do understand this was only about the Baker's case and not the broader issue?

 

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.

For all of you (most especially CrazyGamer2017) this was a narrow verdict meaning it IS NOT precedence setting.  This ruling was strictly on the treatment of the baker and the outcome from the hearing. This says it better than I, please read below:

 

The Court found, “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments.”

The Court also argued that there seemed to be a bias in the state government in favor of same-sex marriages, pointing out, “The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the [Colorado Civil Rights] Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.”

In short, the Court found that while the state’s interests in banning anti-LGBTQ discrimination “could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed,” the state commission did not do that, because it showed signs of hostility, in the Court’s view, toward Phillips and his religious beliefs. So the state could, in theory, prevent discrimination like Phillips’s, but it has to do it in a way that respects people’s religious beliefs — which, the Court concluded, the commission did not do here.

Again, the Court’s hyper-focus on the specific circumstances of the Colorado commission and Phillips’s particular case makes it unlikely this will set much of a precedent in similar cases related to anti-LGBTQ discrimination.



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 05 June 2018
DarkD said:
I am on the middle in this debate. A business should be able to operate the way it wants to a certain degree and refusing to bake the cake should be allowable, but for different reasons than were raised here. The ruling should be that you cannot be forced to make products that have political meaning behind them.

The cake shop should be forced to bake a wedding cake, but whether that cake has anything specific to gay people should be optional.

forced how? at gun point?



o_O.Q on 05 June 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

Exactly. Point is, it's the owners BELIEF that every person has the right to live (in fact that's why an overwhelming majority of gun owners in America own guns, that way they can better protect themselves when someone decides to try and infringe on their right) and as such wont sell to someone who doesn't have the same moral standard as he does and wants to kill as many as possible. By the logic that you've been stating here, such as this statement here:

'I would use the law to force the baker to DO HIS JOB which It seems I must remind you is BAKING, not discriminating.'

Let me replace the words to fit in with the context of what I am and you were saying:

'I would use the law to force the gun store owner to DO HIS JOB which It seems I must remind you is SELLING GUNS, not discriminating.'

You see how this becomes an issue when you force this in practical business? If you make a baker bake cakes based on forced business and not their moral beliefs, this will translate over to society in all other businesses. Teens who need help will get access to over the counter pills based on discrimination. Murderers can get guns because they're being biased with predetermined tests. Etc.

Point is, the baker did the best he could to help the customers. He offered to make them anything else, as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, because it goes against his standards of marriage as a Christian of his branch. The point is, he made the effort to serve the customers as far as he could based on his beliefs, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. The man didn't force them out of his restaurant because they were gay, he offered brownies, cupcakes, cakes, and other items as long it didn't have mention of any marriage related material, which to me is more than fair. He never made them become Christian or stop being gay for his services, so this idea of the baker being discriminatory is stupid, incoherent, and illogical.

If the couple really wanted to just be like everyone else, they would've gone to another bakery which most likely wasn't far away at all, or they could've opened their own bakery. Instead, they forced their beliefs on the guy by taking this all the way to SCOTUS, where they got exposed for the bullies they were.

You can offer services to anyone, but forcing the store owner to do it or else discrimination prison is beyond bad, and as I stated before, sometimes bad discrimination to you helps good discrimination not be carried out. If you forced a man to bake a cake for a gay wedding or else discrimination, what then will stop the murderers from yelling discrimination when it comes to buying guns?

While you may not like it, in a way it is a necessary evil that does good. It equals free speech in that people can say terrible things but you also have the right to say whatever you want, and in both instances, there CAN BE CONSEQUENCES. If you don't like the baker's decisions and frequently buy from him, don't go there anymore and run him out of business.

Again, I agree with the baker, but there are counter balances that seem to be ignored.

Dude I can see that you put lots of effort in your argument and while it has the merit of some reflection it is in the end nothing more than a house of cards that a simple sneeze can bring down.

First, you cannot compare the sale of guns for the very OBVIOUS reason that if you refuse to sell a gun to someone which you suspect is going to kill, you are SAVING a life. (Ideally you shouldn't sell any guns to any one but that's another debate)

So In what universe you are preventing a murder by refusing a wedding cake to a gay couple? What OBJECTIVE reason do you have to refuse such a cake? Other than ignorant religious beliefs? Try to think for a second on this. Imagine this news title: "Gun salesman saves lives as he refuses to sell gun to suspect which was later arrested after proof has been found that he planned a terrorist attack"

Now let's compare it to the issue at hand: Baker saves lives as he refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple which were later arrested after proof was found that they planned to what??? kill people with their cake?" I don't even know how to finish this comparison, it's so ridiculously totally unrelated to the sales of guns and the very good reasons to refuse to sell guns to someone.

So no, the cake thing does NOT become an issue the way the gun thing does. Like not even close!

The baker does not want to bake that cake because he's a bigoted individual that wants to impose his religion upon others. He can't force people to not be gay in their lives so he goes for his second best option: refuse service to them in his store. it's not much, I admit but it's a SEED for bigotry and discrimination.

The baker did NOT do the best he could since by definition the best is what you can actually do and he could have baked that cake, it was not above his strength, it was not going to give him cancer to bake that cake, so not only did he NOT do the best he could, he also acted CONDESCENDING and disrespectful towards a customer. The deal in a free country is to live your life freely and LET OTHERS LIVE THEIRS. The baker was supposed to do a JOB, the gay couple was going into a bakery to get a cake. Like I said before, NO ONE forces the baker to bake cakes if he does not want for whatever reason. bigotry for example but then why become a baker? Whereas the gay couple were just doing what any American is supposed to be able to do: ENTER INSIDE A BUSINESS NOT TO TURN THE OWNER GAY NOT TO BECOME HIS FRIEND but to do what he is supposed to do. HIS JOB, NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS.

You say "If the couple really wanted to just be like everyone else, they would've gone to another bakery"

Well again wrong. being like EVERYONE ELSE means being ABLE to go where EVERY ONE ELSE CAN GO. So by refusing service to that gay couple, the baker made it so that the gay couple COULD NOT be like everyone else. Everyone else can get a cake in that store so why not that gay couple (if you really believe they have the same rights as anyone else).

And finally it's not about forcing the baker to do something. The baker became baker of his own free will. It's called taking on responsibilities. If I choose to work in an office then I MUST go every day to the office to work. It's not about anyone forcing me it's just me taking my responsibilities. If I don't like it I QUIT and if the baker does not like serving customers then let him quit and do something else. Serving customers is part of the job, if you don't like it, don't do a job where you'll have to serve customers.

"And finally it's not about forcing the baker to do something. The baker became baker of his own free will. It's called taking on responsibilities. If I choose to work in an office then I MUST go every day to the office to work. It's not about anyone forcing me it's just me taking my responsibilities. If I don't like it I QUIT and if the baker does not like serving customers then let him quit and do something else. Serving customers is part of the job, if you don't like it, don't do a job where you'll have to serve customers."

 

hang on hang on... lets say i go to a prostitute and demand her services and she refuses because she doesn't like me for some reason? should she then be forced to sleep with me because its her occupation?



o_O.Q on 05 June 2018
CosmicSex said:
TH3-D0S3R said:
Agree strongly on the verdict with this one. As a Christian who knows a bit of different branches, not all branches are against gay marriage. In fact I believe the Methodist church does ceremonies for gay marriage.

I myself have nothing against gay people and will attend a ceremony and give a gift if its for a close friend or family member, however I would refuse to have any sort of part in making the ceremony a thing such as best man or in this instance baking a cake.

I love the person inside and understand what they are doing completely and will do anything to help them in the future, but there are some lines I prefer to maintain in my beliefs as well.

The issue isn't about how you feel about someone's lifestyle or your willingness to interact with them.  Its about whether or not business have the right to pick and chose who to server and since the state or region has the right to create their own business laws, they said, you can't deny someone service because they aren't the same religion, color, sex, sexuality... it because they can't decide how to regulate business or protect its citizens if every business plays by their own set of rules. 

You can't see a mixed race couple come in your store and say:  I'm not severing your because I don't believe in mixed race couples.  The law says you have to create that couple the same way you treat all couples.

And finally, if you fail to serve a gay couple the same way as a straight couple because of your religious beliefs. When I was younger I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and they are hardcore religion haters.  They think every other branch of Christianity is blasphemy and that people who adore the cross, go to church, worship the Pope, believe in Christmas and celebrate birthdays are going to die or be resurrected and killed again.  Welcome to my store, how can I help you?

 

"The law says you have to create that couple the same way you treat all couples."

which law states that?



Rocketjay8 on 05 June 2018
Mcube said:
Puppyroach said:
Maybe someone can explain this to me, because I don´t understand this ruling. Are the supreme court actually claiming that a business owner has the right to discriminate on the basis of the free excercise clause by refusing to sell certain products, i.e they claim that a cake is an expression of a bakers religion? How does that match up with the establishment clause and doesn´t that mean that US citizens now are free to create whatever religion they want and discriminate away? It should be possible for muslim vendors to refuse service to christians, for right-wingers t create a religion that refuse service to african-americans and so on. And the government would have their back, in my opinion clearly violating the establishment clause.

You cant just create a religion out of nowhere thats just anti black or something. There is a certain way this case should be measured instead of blatant racism. As far as we know the baker only refused to make a cake, something he makes himself, his own kind of art. He´s christian he doesnt believe in gay marriage so he wont make a cake for it since he´d be helping something he himself doesnt believe in. 

While thisismeintel´s example is a bit over the top he does have a point. When a KKK member walks into a bakers shop and the baker is black he´s not gonna make a cake with a fire cross on it and man in klux klux klan uniforms around the cross. Nor should he. Its a really really out there example its the extreme of the extreme but I do agree with what he says with it. You cant push your believe on other people as narrow minded as it is every person has a right to believe what they believe in. 

Being gay is not a choice. Being Nazi/KKK is a choice. It's not the same.

Last edited by Rocketjay8 - on 05 June 2018

Around the Network
KLAMarine on 05 June 2018
Pemalite said:

KLAMarine said:

If this bakery is the man's privately-owned business, this gay couple is imposing their religious/political/moral views on the baker and his privately-owned business. They're telling him how to run his business.


Homosexuality isn't a religious, political or moral view. You don't have a choice to be Homosexual.

I agree on both points. However, the reactions of the couple are a political gesture. One could argue a religious and moral gesture as well.



The_Yoda on 05 June 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:
HollyGamer said:

And then you compare a bakeries with a doctor SMH LMAO 

You can LYAO all you want the issue is, refusing to do a service for something completely UNRELATED to the service itself, and baking a cake or providing a medical service have both as much NOTHING to do with one's religious beliefs. if one has the right to use his religious beliefs to refuse doing his job, so does the other. Are you at war with logic?

 

CrazyGamer2017 said:
Super_Boom said:

I would disagree with this comparison, since medical care is an essential need, while a wedding cake is...obviously not. Even if the doctor in this extreme example is a private practice, he still chooses to ignore his Hippocratic oath, and so I'd say there should be repercussions given he has certain obligations to his profession. A private bake store owner has no such thing, and his business is purely non-essential, so obviously the comparison doesn't work.

Except the issue people have been discussing here so far is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM to segregate customers if their views or life style is not compatible. NOT the relevance or importance of providing cakes.

You would be right if the issue had been from the beginning the fact that cakes are not important or vital. But the issue was always that baker's right to refuse a customer NOT based on his job not being vital but on his religious freedom taking precedence OVER the right of American people to be served regardless of their skin color/sexual orientation etc.

So changing the rules in the middle of the game and shifting to a totally different issue which is vital jobs vs non vital ones is not the issue here. In this context if a professional has the right to discriminate his customers because and I quote other people in this thread: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM and FREE MARKET meaning you choose who you serve and don't serve then you cannot say that free market and religious freedom apply to one type of business but not another.

The bottom line is if you don't want to save lives, don't become a doctor and if you don't want to serve customers who want cake, don't become a baker because that makes sense. You choose a profession because you (hopefully) love what you do and your religious beliefs have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER when you are working. Well at least in my opinion, it seems we are going to agree to disagree on this one.
CrazyGamer2017 said:
Super_Boom said:
Without really looking deeply into this, I would say this is the right ruling. It's one thing if he's refusing any service whatsover, but this makes it sound like he's being asked to provide a service that endorses something he doesn't support. I would obviously disagree with his way of thinking, but it's a private business at the end of the day, the only thing that should be punished is his wallet through lost business. As sick as his way of thinking might be, it makes me more sick to imagine a world where everyone is forced to agree with each other at legal gunpoint.

I see.

But and I mean this very respectfully, next time you or better yet, one of your children are seriously sick and you urgently rush them to the hospital and the doctor or surgeon there says that he refuses to save their lives cause he does not like your skin color or your opinions or whatever, then if you are consistent with what you are saying you'll simply leave the hospital with your dying kid and rush to another hospital hoping you get there on time to save your kid, if you don't get there on time then you cannot blame that surgeon who refused to help because and I quote you "it makes you more sick to imagine a world where everyone is forced to agree with each other at legal gunpoint".

You must respect his "freedom" to not save your kid, because apparently in America one does not choose a job to provide a service to everyone but only to a select group depending on personal beliefs and opinions.

 

CrazyGamer2017 said:
TH3-D0S3R said:

Exactly. Point is, it's the owners BELIEF that every person has the right to live (in fact that's why an overwhelming majority of gun owners in America own guns, that way they can better protect themselves when someone decides to try and infringe on their right) and as such wont sell to someone who doesn't have the same moral standard as he does and wants to kill as many as possible. By the logic that you've been stating here, such as this statement here:

'I would use the law to force the baker to DO HIS JOB which It seems I must remind you is BAKING, not discriminating.'

Let me replace the words to fit in with the context of what I am and you were saying:

'I would use the law to force the gun store owner to DO HIS JOB which It seems I must remind you is SELLING GUNS, not discriminating.'

You see how this becomes an issue when you force this in practical business? If you make a baker bake cakes based on forced business and not their moral beliefs, this will translate over to society in all other businesses. Teens who need help will get access to over the counter pills based on discrimination. Murderers can get guns because they're being biased with predetermined tests. Etc.

Point is, the baker did the best he could to help the customers. He offered to make them anything else, as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, because it goes against his standards of marriage as a Christian of his branch. The point is, he made the effort to serve the customers as far as he could based on his beliefs, which is protected by the 1st Amendment. The man didn't force them out of his restaurant because they were gay, he offered brownies, cupcakes, cakes, and other items as long it didn't have mention of any marriage related material, which to me is more than fair. He never made them become Christian or stop being gay for his services, so this idea of the baker being discriminatory is stupid, incoherent, and illogical.

If the couple really wanted to just be like everyone else, they would've gone to another bakery which most likely wasn't far away at all, or they could've opened their own bakery. Instead, they forced their beliefs on the guy by taking this all the way to SCOTUS, where they got exposed for the bullies they were.

You can offer services to anyone, but forcing the store owner to do it or else discrimination prison is beyond bad, and as I stated before, sometimes bad discrimination to you helps good discrimination not be carried out. If you forced a man to bake a cake for a gay wedding or else discrimination, what then will stop the murderers from yelling discrimination when it comes to buying guns?

While you may not like it, in a way it is a necessary evil that does good. It equals free speech in that people can say terrible things but you also have the right to say whatever you want, and in both instances, there CAN BE CONSEQUENCES. If you don't like the baker's decisions and frequently buy from him, don't go there anymore and run him out of business.

Again, I agree with the baker, but there are counter balances that seem to be ignored.

Dude I can see that you put lots of effort in your argument and while it has the merit of some reflection it is in the end nothing more than a house of cards that a simple sneeze can bring down.

First, you cannot compare the sale of guns for the very OBVIOUS reason that if you refuse to sell a gun to someone which you suspect is going to kill, you are SAVING a life. (Ideally you shouldn't sell any guns to any one but that's another debate)

So In what universe you are preventing a murder by refusing a wedding cake to a gay couple? What OBJECTIVE reason do you have to refuse such a cake? Other than ignorant religious beliefs? Try to think for a second on this. Imagine this news title: "Gun salesman saves lives as he refuses to sell gun to suspect which was later arrested after proof has been found that he planned a terrorist attack"

Now let's compare it to the issue at hand: Baker saves lives as he refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple which were later arrested after proof was found that they planned to what??? kill people with their cake?" I don't even know how to finish this comparison, it's so ridiculously totally unrelated to the sales of guns and the very good reasons to refuse to sell guns to someone.

So no, the cake thing does NOT become an issue the way the gun thing does. Like not even close!

@ the bolded you seem to be saying that him following in the footsteps of one of your earlier lines of argument is wrong ...  then again you also think people only buy guns to kill people so the fact guns outnumber citizens 101 to 100 would seem to indicate your emotions may be impairing your logic (I really lost most respect for your logic when you sent that line out) otherwise the US gun owners would have already murdered us to the last man.

If I'm missing something in your intent here please point it out.


Aeolus451 on 05 June 2018
Teeqoz said:
Angelus said:

Oh sure, I get that. And it would definitely suck to walk in a place and get turned away like that. I'm just saying, once you go through that….can't imagine you'd really want to find some way to force that place to still make your cake anyway. You want someone who actually cares about your big day going off without a hitch.

They didn't attempt to force him to bake the cake. They went to a different baker, but they sent a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They didn't drag him to court to force him to bake the cake for them, they sent a complaint, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made ruling against the baker, which the SCOTUS now ruled that the Civil Rights Commission was biased thus the ruling was overturned.

Aeolus451 said:

That's his actual business and he's not in a service to anyone or obligated to make custom wedding cakes for a wedding he doesn't agree with based on his religion. If anyone is playing the victim as you put it, are the couple. They could have got a custom cake from somewhere else or just non custom cake from him but no they took this shit to court to force him thru law to do it. They look like bullies to me.

He refused to bake non-custom wedding cakes as well - both cakes he had baked for previous customers, as well as a non-descript cake. So it didn't have anything to do with them asking for a custom cake - he refused baking any wedding cake for a gay wedding.

I saw plenty of stuff that says otherwise. If it was as you said it, it would have been clear cut.



Aeolus451 on 05 June 2018
Pemalite said:
Aeolus451 said:

He is keeping his religion to himself, in his business and with his cakes.

No he isn't. He expressing his religious "morals" upon others by denying them a product/service.

Aeolus451 said:

Religion is protected by the constitution and they can get a cake elsewhere.

Fantastic. Cake is NOT religious. Religion does not overrule marriage law.

Aeolus451 said:

They're not getting  married at his store.

Exactly.

Aeolus451 said:

There's no justification to force a man to make a cake when he doesn't want to. Sorry, we don't live in a totalitarian society.

The bakers should have just done their job and moved on and kept their "dissatisfaction" to themselves.
LGBT people just wish to be treated like anyone else, could you imagine how the religious conservatives would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot? I have a fair idea considering the fallacies they leveraged during the postal survey we had here last year.

 

You have that backwards. Who is literally trying to force the other to do something against their will?

Religion is protected in the constitution which protects religious belief from the government from overstepping on it.  Yes it does.

Redundant.

Again, you can't force him to bake the cake against his will. They most likely did this to play the victim and force a christian to bake a personalized wedding cake for their gay wedding when he doesn't want. Sweet irony right?



Aeolus451 on 05 June 2018
numberwang said:

 I like this. I quoted this so it's easier to find for later.