LDS Church, 22 Utah senators back Colorado baker in Supreme Court case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 22, 2017 9:35 p.m.

    Tenacious d
    Jesus did say love everyone regardless of their weaknesses. But it does not say that he condoned they're unrighteous Behavior.
    He did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. But he did tell her to go away and sin no more. This tells us that he considered the adultery a sin. He also considers homosexuality a sin and a perversion the power of procreation

  • Jimbo Low PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Sept. 18, 2017 11:34 a.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon:
    ..."And the religious conservatives of this nation are screaming bloody murder over one baker and a cake for 1 gay couple."
    I think you are missing the point. Using the logic that because bad things are happening we can force people to do things they don't want to do and enforce it through the courts...yeah that is bloody murder. Just because other bad things are happening does make this issue less crucial. If it were 1 baker and 1 gay couple that would be one thing....the law has a principle called "precedent" and if 1 baker is forced to make a cake for 1 gay couple; guess what? All bakers (and similar business owners) will be forced to do a lot of things they don't want to do (maybe even things liberals would find illogical) if this ruling does not go the right way.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    Sept. 17, 2017 8:58 a.m.

    I am very relieved that the Church has taken this stance publicly. Sometimes you wonder if public pressure is going to sway even the Church on matters of principle (which would be the end of it), but this is a welcome sign to the contrary. And this isn't simply a matter of principle; it is a matter of compassion with those who want to--who need to--be true to what they know is sacred, including in the public sphere.

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Sept. 16, 2017 7:14 p.m.

    NO artist should be forced to make art that this against her conscience, be it a water color, acrylic, song or cake. Special order cakes with specific messages on them are a form or art and expression.

  • *TEX45* Logan, UT
    Sept. 16, 2017 1:28 a.m.

    I feel like I'm being discriminated against for trying to stand up for what I believe in. Anyone want to throw a parade for me or write a newspaper article about how my rights are being trampled?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 15, 2017 1:36 p.m.

    91% of Americans have pre-marital sex.
    52% of American children are being born out of wedlock.

    And the religious conservatives of this nation are screaming bloody murder over one baker and a cake for 1 gay couple.

    Talk about entirely MISSING the complete moral dilemma facing the nation...

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 15, 2017 12:00 p.m.

    TO "tenaciousD" that is my point Jesus healed people. Since being gay is not aligned with the Gospel, then one would have to conclude that Jesus would heal a gay person and make them straight.

    To "Jeff Harris" this isn't exactly about public accommodations. Read the article again. It is about being part of or supplying custom works for ceremonies or events you disagree with. What that means is if you go into Biased Bob's bakery he cannot deny allowing you to buy anything in his bakery. Bob can only refuse business if you want him to create something that isn't off the shelf.

  • Jeff Harris Edmonds, WA
    Sept. 15, 2017 10:44 a.m.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and these Utah legislators, should be careful what they wish for. If the US Supreme Court finds a religious exemption from civil rights laws protecting people from discrimination in public accommodations, as civil rights laws in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington do, there will be nothing to protect Latter-day Saints from discrimination under the same circumstances. Such a decision would undermine civil rights protection for all people sharing protected characteristics including religion, sex, race, skin color, national origin, as well as sexual orientation.

  • tenaciousD San Rafael, CA
    Sept. 15, 2017 9:12 a.m.

    @redshirt. Jesus is my example. He turned no one away. He healed by serving. He taught us to love all our neighbors and leave the judging to Him. It is a simple message.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 15, 2017 7:29 a.m.

    To "tenaciousD " Jesus was the Son of God. Based on scriptural records, Jesus would have healed the gay person and made it so they were no longer gay. Then he would have sent his disciples out to help the person.

    If you disagree, give us some examples that support your idea.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 15, 2017 6:34 a.m.

    @ TJ - Eagle Mountain,
    Sept. 14, 2017 3:29 p.m.
    You worte:
    " Homosexuality is an abomination before God. I should not be forced to support it in any form if I don't choose to."

    Well, that is only your opinion. Not necessarily God's opinion. Certainly is not the opinion of many, many men and women who devote their lives to the service of God and their fellowman.

    Again, you are another person that is jumping to the wrong conclusion because of their hate and disdain of homosexuality. Nobody is asking you, a baker or a florist to support homosexuality, nobody!

    When a person applies for a license to operate a business. The person is entering into an agreement to serve and treat all customers in the same manner. No more no less.

    I was not there, but I am sure the couples that wanted a cake or flowers of their SS wedding
    did not ask the florist or baker for their opinion. They didn't stop to think their celebration could bother the merchant. They went to the store under the benefits and obligations that bind all businesses and customers in their locality.

    You can twisted all you want. But the facts will remain.

  • FJSL Houston, TX
    Sept. 15, 2017 6:27 a.m.

    @ Dan Smith

    I agree that no baker should be compelled to decorate a cake with symbols or other messages that promote something /she objects to. And they aren't. But if you have two wedding cakes side by side - no topper; no messaging of any kind - how do you tell which one is for the wedding of Jacqueline/Steve and which is for the wedding of Jack/Steve?

    "If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding because they don't agree with it. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE."

    So should the black men that sat at the Woolworth's counter have just gone somewhere else? Why would anyone with a measure of self-respect agree to be treated as a second-class citizen?

    Also, people who don't want to serve gay couples on the basis of their religious beliefs are asking gay couples to bear the burden of THEIR beliefs. They're saying, "I choose to believe X and Y. You don't believe these things, but you must be bound by them nonetheless." And this isn't in a church. This is in the public square, where we've long agreed that all are equal. So who's imposing on whom?

  • waikiki_dave Honolulu, HI
    Sept. 15, 2017 5:44 a.m.

    Let's get real. The fact is there is a very 'thin' line on passing a law to allow a cake baker to discriminate against gay people to preserve his/her 'religious freedom' and allowing any business owner who provides public accommodations (i.e. food service, hotel rooms, on and on and on) to also discriminate against gay people just because they are homosexual. It is so wrong on so many levels. I cringe when I consider the ramifications of passing such a law. It is exactly what happened to black people in the southern states back in the 1960s. If you can't see that then you are blind.

  • BlackDogPhotography Chandler, AZ
    Sept. 14, 2017 5:05 p.m.

    I am a portrait photographer. I am LDS. Will I shoot portraits for gay or lesbian individuals? Certainly. Will I Shoot their wedding? No. So sue me! There are plenty of local photographers who will, so they are denied nothing.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 3:29 p.m.

    If I knew a person who came into my business passed out anti-mormon literature , or was a pedophile, or had stolen money from a neighbor or friend etc, I should be able to choose not to do business with them.
    On the flip side, if someone doesn't like being refused service, they can organize a protest and do their best to put them out of business.
    Homosexuality is an abomination before God. I should not be forced to support it in any form if I don't choose to.

  • Beart SAINT LOUIS, MO
    Sept. 14, 2017 3:18 p.m.

    Providing a wedding cake does not constitute participating in a "sin." The bakery is a commercial enterprise that should not discriminate in such a basis. Inasmuch as wedding cakes are generally neutral, with nothing written on them, the only distinction between any cake would be the figures on the top. Let the bakers refuse to provide those figures and simply sell the cakes. It really is not their business what kinds of couples are marrying. If the couple makes an issue, then let the bakers explain that while cakes are fine, the figures are, for them, offensive to their preference not to directly recognize something contrary to their personal moral beliefs. If this kind of issues persists, the commercial world is going to commence a free-for-all of hypocritical discrimination and a perpetuation of bad feelings. Didn't Jesus say, ". . . he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil"?

  • tenaciousD San Rafael, CA
    Sept. 14, 2017 1:23 p.m.

    Jesus was a carpenter. If a gay couple needed shelter, Jesus would build it for them. Jesus served. This I know to be true and I say it in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 1:18 p.m.

    Re: "Some people believe Mormons are non-Christian and evil."

    Way too many, in my opinion, but that's not the real issue.

    The question begging for an answer is whether the left's thinly-veiled fascist agenda should succeed -- compelling adoption of its dogma by applying the government boot to the neck of more and more real people and organizations.

    The left should note that there is nothing in the precedent of this foolish bakery ruling, preventing it from being applied to require, say, a minority-owned statue business to cast bronzes of Confederate generals, to require a Jewish printing business to produce leaflets advocating a new Holocaust, or even to require a left-leaning actor or director in the movie business to do a friendly film about Rush Limbaugh [horrors!].

    That's the danger inherent in empowering nameless, faceless government bureaucrats to rule over us.

    The Church's point is only that Americans should be guaranteed our First Amendment right to follow our beliefs and be free of government interference in our faith.

    It's a good point.

    The left would be smart to consider it -- along with the "law of unintended consequences."

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Sept. 14, 2017 12:55 p.m.

    Baccus0902

    I'm not missing the point. See, if the baker is willing to bake a cake for the gay individual for other events (i.e. birthdays, etc.) then the baker is NOT discriminating against anyone. The Baker is choosing not to do a cake for a wedding celebrating something the baker disagrees with. Here are some other examples so you will hopefully understand the concept.

    A Jewish baker may bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi celebrating a child's birthday, but would not bake a cake for Neo-Nazi celebrating the holocaust.

    A gay baker may bake a cake for someone who despises homosexuality for that person's retirement party, but not with homosexual slurs on the cake.

    A Christian baker may bake a cake for a homosexual's birthday party, but not a homosexual wedding.

    You see, in each case, someone refused to do something that would against their personally held beliefs, be it religious or otherwise.

    If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding because they don't agree with it. GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

    Now, if that person won't bake a cake for ANYTHING for you because your homosexual, then there IS a problem. But from what I've read, that is not the case here.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 14, 2017 12:12 p.m.

    @ Dan Smith

    I think you are missing the point. The goal of the sue is not force the Baker to bake a wedding cake for the couple that is suing.

    The sue objective is make the baker accountable for his discriminatory act. Hopefully, after the SCOTUS rules in favor of the gay couple, this will set a precedent that as a business person you "on your own volition" have entered into an agreement with society that requires to treat all customers as equals.

    We don't expect society to change overnight on its own. It will take years, just as in 2017 we still have white supremacists, in 2020 and beyond we will have homophobic individuals that excuse their phobia behind religion. Because we know this, we (all of us) need to be on guard and alert against injustice committed against any group or individual.

    Is suing the best answer? Perhaps not. But in an imperfect world we need to work with the legal tools at our disposal.

  • n8ive american Shelley, Idaho
    Sept. 14, 2017 11:46 a.m.

    @Seahawk Coug - Seattle, WA;

    Does that same logic apply to entertainers that refuse to perform in certain cities that they do not agree with? Should these entertainers be FORCED to play concerts in cities that have common-sense bathroom laws that they do not agree with? Should they be sued for NOT performing at these locations? So far, no entertainer has been sued for denial of service.

    These gay people also had a choice. They could have gone to another bakery. Also, what if a cake was made, but the couple didn't like it. Should they be FORCED to purchase the cake anyway? No one is forced to purchase at certain locations. No one should be forced to serve against their wishes.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 11:30 a.m.

    To "1aggie" again, it isn't their sexual orientation that is the issue. It the celebration of something that is against their religion. Should a person be forced to produce racist materials simply because a customer wants it?

    If they shouldn't be forced to produce racist materials, why should they be forced to produce anything else for events or celebrations that are contrary to their beliefs?

    To "Seahawk Coug " that depends. Are they asking for a custom wedding cake or are they picking one out of a catalog of established designs?

    If they believe that the Mormons are evil and they don't want to make the cake, would you buy a cake from them? Do you honestly think that you will get the best work from the cake decorator when they hate you?

    By allowing discrimination you are getting consumer protections from sub-par workmanship. So, tell us, which is more important protecting consumers or forcing others to work for you?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 11:26 a.m.

    @RedShirt
    "You use the word discrimination as if it is a bad thing. You discriminate all the time, and it is a good thing. Would you leave a child in the care of a person with a history of abusing children?"

    Discrimination is not inherently good either. Would you consider refusing to serve someone because they're another race be a good thing? This argument is based on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is an acceptable or unacceptable kind of discrimination.

  • Seahawk Coug Seattle, WA
    Sept. 14, 2017 11:07 a.m.

    Some people believe Mormons are non-Christian and evil.
    Should they be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for a Mormon couple?
    How quickly we as Mormons have forgotten all the discrimination that we have suffered (and continue to suffer).

    If you are in a public business you need to serve everybody equally.
    Anything else is simply discrimination.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 10:50 a.m.

    Back in the early seventies, my wife was working as a hostess of a locally owned chain of restaurants. One day a couple came in, of a minority group. They asked to be seated, she was in the process of seating them in the general seating, they asked to be seated at the bar. She was seating them at the bar, and they told her no they wanted to be seated in the back of the restaurant. So she accommodated them seating them in the back. She no later than returned to the front, and in came a representative of the local NAACP and a TV film crew to claim there was discrimination of the couple because they were the minority. The couple lied about being force to sit in the back of the restaurant. The restaurant had been set up. The manager was wise enough and kind enough to slip this 16 year old hostess out the back door and send her home for the night.

    Was there discrimination? Only against the restaurant by the couple and the NAACP.

  • Cav Pilot St George, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 10:50 a.m.

    Somebody doesn't want to celebrate your chosen life style and it makes you feel like a lesser person. how does it make them feel when you denigrate their religious beliefs?
    marxist -- How will we see this in 200 years? I bet it will be similar to the way we say it 1500 years ago when Greco/Roman liberalism was seen as the downfall of the empire.
    Is the restaurant, hotel, airline being forced to lend their name to the public celebration?
    What tax breaks for the married exist? well maybe for the non-working partner there is a break. if you ever take the time to look the single deduction is exactly the same as the married separate and 1/2 of the married joint deduction. where is the unfair advantage?
    Manzanata-- LDS opposition to civil rights act? Maybe you should revisit George Romney's opposition and see where that fell.
    The difference between a wedding cake for SSM and a hetero couple who have been living together? One is a celebration that they will no longer be in a sinful relationship, the other perpetuates it.
    Do we really want a society where a person can be compelled to do what others want if they chose to operate a business? revisit 1860-65

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 10:40 a.m.

    Seriously, what is the difference between a wedding cake for a straight couple vs a same-sex couple? Nothing. Except who is purchasing the cake.

    DanSmith:
    "I won't sue someone. I walk away...Just as the Savior taught."

    So, I guess you would support the Priest or the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan?

    Look,
    sexual orientation isn't a trait someone chooses. It is a biological trait, different from a chosen religion or political viewpoint etc. So any analogy not using biological differences is not applicable in this debate. Various U.S. Supreme Courts over the years have ruled that marriage is a fundamental right--including allowing people of different races to be married--and, most recently, extending that to include same-sex couples. As with the law regarding inter-racial couples, same-sex couples deserve the same treatment.

    As a person of faith, I believe it is between them and God. Cake bakers, florists and photographers are not in the business of spiritual advising.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 10:25 a.m.

    To "Kevin J. Kirkham " so yes, in those cases yes. However, if instead of a custom suit the missionary purchased a suit off the rack, then the tailor would be obliged to sell the suit.

    Had the LDS church simply purchased the Conference Center organ, as a COTS item, then the manufacturer would again be obliged to sell it.

    You use the word discrimination as if it is a bad thing. You discriminate all the time, and it is a good thing. Would you leave a child in the care of a person with a history of abusing children? If you say no, then you are discriminating.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Sept. 14, 2017 9:51 a.m.

    @Dan Smith
    If anyone participating or observing my wedding felt they were involved in a religious ceremony, that's projection their part. We no more invoked the Christian God then we invoked Anubis or Odin.

    Second, it doesn't actually matter if you, personally, would sue. I wouldn't sue either. But if it's unacceptable for the law to give me the option to sue you for refusing me, then it's unacceptable for the law to give you the option to sue me for refusing you.

    Which is why this "fairness for all" line is so hard to take seriously. Because everything done in it's name has been to allow *you* to discriminate against me without fear of being sued, but still holding that sword of Damocles above my head.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 9:45 a.m.

    @ Kevin J. Kirkham

    "The baker could put a sign in his window saying that they'll bake [S]SM wedding cakes, but all of the monies received will be sent to the Westboro Baptist Church. That should eliminate the problem."

    Awesome!

    This comment made my day. Just desserts!

    I also agree with other commenters who wonder why they would want this baker to bake their cake. After all, why would you want to give someone your money and your business when you know that they hate you? It's the same situation as in a news article I read in the 80's about a black man who sued to join a country club in Florida that only allowed whites. This made no sense to me. Why would this man want to join a club full of people that hate him? The answer is that they all just want to make a point. Besides, if the couple wins the lawsuit, does that mean the baker will be forced to now bake their cake? Isn't it a little late now?

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 9:38 a.m.

    @Dan Smith - , AZ:

    Thanks for your very intelligent and cogent comments. You did a nice job of helping Mr. "RancHand" and others of his ilk to understand that suing folks to force them to do things against their conscience is going to solve anyone's problem!

    You are a class act, keep up the good work!

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Sept. 14, 2017 9:32 a.m.

    "Fairness for all" is not obligating me to serve people who's holy book literally calls for my death, while allowing those same people to refuse me service because their holy book literally calls for my death.

    If you folks are serious about "conscience exemptions" and not compelling people, then work to repeal large parts of the Civil Rights Act (1964).

    But so long as you ignore the hundreds of non-discrimination cases every year involving religion, and only talk about how terrible these laws are when they involve gay people? Then it's pretty obvious to everyone that you don't really care about "fairness for all", "religious liberty" or people's "conscience". All you *actually* care about is whether or not you can kick me to the curb, while being safe in the knowledge that I can't legally do the same to you.

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Sept. 14, 2017 8:44 a.m.

    KJK - OK, instead of a bike shop, let's make it a tailor. The missionary goes in for a custom tailored suit. A custom item is being created and used in the promotion of religious beliefs contrary to the tailor's. The people who built the Conference Center's organ probably weren't LDS. Could they have denied building it if they were against LDS teachings? The bottom line is that LDS can face discrimination too. The shoe CAN be on the other foot.

    And I say, that's just fine. I've been discriminated against because I was Mormon, white, and a veteran. I don't want to give my money to those places. So, I leave and I don't go back. It's really simple.

    The LDS church would probably NOT want someone who didn't want to put the organ in at the Conference Center because they wouldn't likely do a good job. It's really simple. Trying to FORCE someone to do something they don't want to do doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Sept. 14, 2017 8:39 a.m.

    I said: "Then I would go to a DIFFERENT cake maker."

    RanchHand Said "--- Doubtful. Your daughter would be devastated due to the discrimination and you'd be mad as heck."

    #1 - Well, I guess you know me better than I know myself. Oh wait, you don't. So no, we would walk out thinking they were jerks, but then I don't want jerks making my cake.

    #2 - If that is how they are, why do I want them at my daughter's baptism? Why do I want to promote them and their business? How would I know they weren't doing something to the cake because they didn't want to be there, but I filed a lawsuit against them, so they are there now?

    See, it's really ridiculous, when you think about it, to MAKE someone do something for you they really don't want to do.

    So, no RanchHand, I won't sue someone. I walk away...Just as the Savior taught.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 8:00 a.m.

    RedShirtHarvard -
    "Is there a custom item being created? Is the custom item being created being used to celebrate or promote something contrary to the business owner's (not employee) religious beliefs?"

    KJK - OK, instead of a bike shop, let's make it a tailor. The missionary goes in for a custom tailored suit. A custom item is being created and used in the promotion of religious beliefs contrary to the tailor's. The people who built the Conference Center's organ probably weren't LDS. Could they have denied building it if they were against LDS teachings? The bottom line is that LDS can face discrimination too. The shoe CAN be on the other foot.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 14, 2017 7:24 a.m.

    To "Kevin J. Kirkham" you have completely missed the boat.

    Tell us, what religious ceremony is involved in selling a bike to a missionary.

    You should read the article. This would not allow blanket discrimination. What they are fighting for here will not end in discrimination. There is a test involved. The test is simple.

    Is there a custom item being created? Is the custom item being created being used to celebrate or promote something contrary to the business owner's (not employee) religious beliefs?

    Now, apply those two questions to the situations you list. Unless you can answer Yes to both of those, you still cannot deny service.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 6:37 a.m.

    Those who use "freedom of religion" and then try to put those ideas into secular civil law are not following our Constitution. They try to deny secular and civil rights for any group of God's children that they don't like.

    Freedom of religion is a wolf in sheep's clothing used by many including those in some Churches to use bigotry and discrimination to get their views put into secular law. The Episcopal Church accepts all unto the body of Christ. The LDS Church view is not universal.

    If a business uses any tax payer services such as electricity, property and even the use of a business license, then they are required to serve all. (Religious freedom is not an excuse to not follow law) Those here who say they would just go to another place forget that every business is regulated by civil and secular law.

    When any Church or politicians like Lee and those Republicans scream "religious Freedom", you know they are attacking a minority and acting with bigotry and hatred. I noticed that NO Democrats supported this. These honest people will not support the hatred and dishonest behavior by the GOP and some Churches. They support civil rights for ALL citizens.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 14, 2017 6:35 a.m.

    I would like to invite all commenters here to read an Editorial in today's Washington Post entitled: " The Justice Department goes out of its way to side against a gay Couple"

    An interesting piece of information and legal analysis now that this case has been accepted to be heard by the SCOTUS.

  • explorer686 davis, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 1:33 a.m.

    As usual all I see are homophobic comments. The issue is simple if your going to do business in a public arena you cannot discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. Don't sit there and defend a baker who is blatantly violating civil rights. Read between the lines and stop misconstruing the facts. Homophobia is wrong.

  • Hope & Faith give us strength Utah County, UT
    Sept. 14, 2017 1:25 a.m.

    rdJust like interracial marriage?

    Not really.

    If a baker said "I bake for black people all the time, but a black guy marrying 5 wives? I won't do that wedding" then it could be compared. "Black people" as a whole wouldn't be denied service.

    Personally, I don't believe the world would be a better place if every bakery had a sign saying "no gay wedding cakes". I don't think it would have been for interracial or polygamous or a sign about men marrying their own mailbox. What I believe is that the world would be a better place if we didn't lynch the bakers that do hold on to their opinions.

    The opinion police and shame culture are hard at work. When discrimination is a code word for anything you don't like, then you're unreasonable and interested in hating others rather than finding solutions everyone wants, not just what you accept.

    I support the baker's rights. He has a right to serve gays and blacks and deny using his art to make a cake for a partially male groom to 5 other partners, one being a robot that's legally defined as being half human.

    The right to make a living your own way, with your opinions, is American. It's human. It's a real right. If it goes, the rest will.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:49 p.m.

    Kevin J. Kirkham posted:

    =Perhaps some bike shop owner in Alabama will refuse to sell bikes to LDS
    =missionaries because they're spreading beliefs contrary to his own and he isn't
    =going to go against his religion. The shoe can be on the other foot as well
    =regarding discrimination.

    I completely agree. If the mentioned Alabama bike shop owner did decide to refuse to sell the bikes, it would annoy me that he chose to do that, but I would recognize that the US Constitution gave him the right to do it just as much as it gave the baker the right to sell heterosexual-only wedding cakes.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:45 p.m.

    It is a mixed bag. If you force businesses to serve gay people then you can force them to serve the Klu Klux Klan members, white supremists, neo-Natzi groups. I'm sure lots of people do not want to serve them. People can easily hide behind religion and claim religious liberty to not be a good neighbor and serve gay individuals, Muslims, non-Christians or anyone else they want to feel free to discriminate against. It is a delicate balance before the court between religious liberty and civil rights.

    If religious liberty wins then that will be that much more business and financial success for those willing to serve gay individuals and couples.

    The thing that seems so hypocritical is that these Christians that do not want to serve gay couples likely serve pedophiles, rapists, murderers, and other people that do not represent their Christian beliefs. How do they really know who they are serving every day?

    It makes more sense to just serve the public instead of trying to sort out who fits with your religious beliefs and who doesn't.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:20 p.m.

    A few points to consider:
    * Business owners should be able to do as they please...even discriminate.
    * The baker could put a sign in his window saying that they'll bake SM wedding cakes, but all of the monies received will be sent to the Westboro Baptist Church. That should eliminate the problem.
    * Actors are free to turn down rolls where they use their creative talents if they don't like the roll, why not bakers?
    * Perhaps some bike shop owner in Alabama will refuse to sell bikes to LDS missionaries because they're spreading beliefs contrary to his own and he isn't going to go against his religion. The shoe can be on the other foot as well regarding discrimination.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:51 p.m.

    RedShirtHarvard says:

    "So again, the issue ...is about being forced to serve or create things contrary to your religious beliefs."

    --- I am forced to support LDS missions when Mormons take tax breaks for the money they spend on their kid's mission.

    "...but businesses are operated by people."
    " The liberals cannot separate the person from the event."

    --- And you seem to be incapable of separating the person from the business.

    @RG;

    The adulterer marrying the person they committed adultery with is celebrating their adultery.

    You want evidence about how difficult it would be? Read the comments here.

    @imsmarterthanyou;

    Not a good business plan there.

    @CaliCougar;

    The point of a lawsuit is to make sure nobody else has to experience the discrimination in the future.

    Yar;

    When the only people requesting the content are LGBT then you can't separate the event from the people.

    jsf says:

    "How do you know he didn't deny service to the fornicators, adulterers, liars, thieves and Sabbath breakers? "

    -- He made a cake for a pair of dog's wedding.

  • rslutefan Gilbert, AZ
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:10 p.m.

    It seems like if you are going to hold yourself out to the public as a commercial enterprise you shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against any protected class. What if Islam was against his conscience, or atheists, or a 70-year-old marrying an 18-year-old. What if he was a racist and didn't want to support Blacks or Hispanics? Asians? Jews? What if the hetero sexual couple wanted gluten-free but he didn't believe in gluten free - it was against his conscience?

    Chick-fil-a was founded by highly religious individuals. Do you think they could get away with this type of discrimination? Can I decide not to rent my VRBO to anyone other than rich white males? Can Delta refuse air travel to gay couples?

    Every day, in one way or another, we implicitly provide support for things and causes that may inconsistent with our religious beliefs? They are numerous organizations that receive taxpayer subsidies that provide support to the LGBTQ community and hundreds of cases across a wide dispersion of race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and religion.

    Sorry, I just don't buy the argument. You're free to seek to change the law but your not free to discriminate under the law.

  • kvnsmnsn Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:07 p.m.

    JapanCougar posted:

    =So if you're a minority, say a Mormon in the South, you're out of luck if the
    =prevalent society turns against you and denies you services and goods?

    Heck, there was a period of 60 or 70 years that we would have been glad if all prevalent society had done was deny us services and goods. Instead they were involved in driving us Latter-day Saints out of Jackson County, then Clay County, and then Illinois. And then when we sought refuge in the far west, Johnston's Army came to Utah to quell a non-existent rebellion. We're used to opposition from our fellow Americans. And we've survived a lot worse than the legal reverse boycotts you're talking about.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:04 p.m.

    To "RG - Buena" the proper response to "Ranchhand" is are the adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, Sabbath breakers holding an event or wanting a custom cake to celebrate their sins.

    Are the adulterers planning an event to celebrate their adultery?

    As others have pointed out, had the gay couple wanted cakes that are "off the shelf" and not custom they could have purchased as many as they wanted.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Sept. 13, 2017 4:51 p.m.

    @Ranchhand "Did the baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for fornicators? Adulterers? Liars, thieves and Sabbath breakers? If not then he's a hypocrite and his "religious conscience" is selective."
    Similarly, @ There you go again, A gas station attendant in Oregon …refuses to pump gas for a car with UTAH license plates

    No, No, No. As others have said repeatedly, and as I've said for years on this comment forum, baking a cake for someone who lies is not the same as baking a cake celebrating the lies. Baking a cake for Sabbath breakers is not the same as baking a cake that specifically celebrates Sabbath breaking. Putting gasoline in a car full of Mormons is not the same as agreeing with the religion. etc etc. Baking a cake--such as a birthday cake-- for someone who happens to be gay is not the same as baking a cake that specifically celebrates gay marriage.

    @SM Cloud “What if the couple lived together before getting married? Does the baker support that?”
    So what if they lived together? Now they are repenting—doing things right. That’s a cause to be celebrated.

  • CB Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 4:45 p.m.

    Seems to me that the gay couple forcing a baker/florist/ photographer to accommodate their ceremony should have to attend their church. That way both sides will have been equally treated.

  • Woohoo Somewhere, ID
    Sept. 13, 2017 4:28 p.m.

    @Windsor

    Are those examples supposed to scare LDS people?

    @Ranchhand

    "What if *every* baker refuses, then what? "

    Not going to debate hypotheticals with you. If you have evidence that same-sex couples can't find bakers to make their wedding cakes then please provide it but please provide actual evidence that it is a widespread issue and not some random blog on the internet.

    It would be hypocritical if I weren't willing to find another bakery and would follow in the same manner as the same-sex couple (which I wouldn't because it is silly to start a lawsuit over a random wedding cake baker unwilling to make me a cake).

    I guess you haven't heard of non- profit business? Pretty sure they aren't all about making monies. Also just because a person goes into business doesn't mean they are doing it all for money this would especially be true for artist. There's a reason that there is the term starving artist.

  • bassoonlady OREM, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 4:22 p.m.

    for those worried about a slippery slope:
    You say that if the bakers win and are allowed to refuse to cater an event they disagree with, then soon we will be hanging up signs saying "no gays served here", and worse, repealing existing civil rights laws that disallow discrimination in housing, employment, etc. I find this much less likely than the possibility of what lies on the other side of that slope.
    If the SCOTUS rules against the bakers, then what? Already the slope has begun to slide. It used to be that LGBTs just wanted to be able to call their union marriage. Now they want to be able to force wedding services to accommodate them. True that a baker isn't physically involved with the wedding, but what about a wedding planner, or a band? Will they be able to refuse their services when they are more actively involved? where's the line? And After THEY are forced not to 'discriminate', will it be the clerics performing the ceremony next? already civil officers have faced this question, that's only one step away from religious leaders. and what about churches themselves who wont do ssm?
    The slippery slope argument can go both ways.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 13, 2017 3:34 p.m.

    Tyrex..... there all lots of restrictions on the free expression of religion. Are you saying that the prohibitions on polygamy are unconstitutional.... or that we should allow sharia law? Really? Having a relious belief is not a green light to discriminate in the public square.... your can do what ever you like up and to the extent it doesn't infringe on others right to equal protection of the law. A person's non belief in Islam does not give them the right to deny service to a Muslim. A persons dibelief in Mormonism doesn't allow the discriminate against lds in housing.

    Being allowed to discriminate in a public business may be your idea of a protected religious right.... but that just isn't supported by the law.

  • Tyrex Austin, TX
    Sept. 13, 2017 3:09 p.m.

    For those who don’t embrace faith, it is hard to understand that religion isn’t just a box you check on a census form; it infuses everything in the life of the believer. It is the reason so many individuals and families risked their lives and gave up everything to come to a place where they could live according to their conscience. It is because the founders were men of faith, and because they understood there were those who would try to smother their and other's faith, that the first right guaranteed under the constitution was the “free exercise” of religion.

    The state can’t compel an individual to participate in an activity that violates his/her conscience without violating the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. If the state prohibits individuals of a certain religious belief from participating in commerce, it is suppressing the free exercise of religion.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:33 p.m.

    JapanCougar posted:

    =They can restrict their content-- "no nude portraits" -- if they want, but it
    =applies to any and all.

    Why should someone have more of a right to specify "no nude portraits" than to specify "no two grooms on top of a wedding cake"?

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:24 p.m.

    It is interesting to read the comments. The liberals cannot separate the person from the event.

    The issue isn't about gay marriage.

    The issue is forcing somebody to service or produce artistic works that are contrary to their beliefs.

    Would you force a gay artist to produce things that have an anti-gay message?

    The bigger question is would you want an item produced by somebody that opposes your event?

    Lets take this political. If you are the DNC would you hire a person to produce a documentary for you knowing that person is a Republican that opposes everything you stand for?

    Remember, if you can force a Christian to do something against their beliefs it isn't that long until gays get the same treatment.

    So again, the issue not not about gays but is about being forced to serve or create things contrary to your religious beliefs.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:20 p.m.

    Why?

    ...of all the things happening in the world today,
    and this is supposed to be a "global" organization,

    Why does the Church of 'Jesus Christ' jump unto another local and political boon-doggle?

    Jesus didn't get involved with Roman politics.
    And do not think he ever signed an affidavit to the Romans denouncing 'gay' cakes.

    However, I personally believe his might have sat down and enjoyed a nice dinner with them from time to time...

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:15 p.m.

    To "christoph" lets move away from cakes. Imagine you are a photographer. Your religion tells you pornography is bad. A couple wants you to take pictures of them that you feel would be pornographic. What do you do in that case?

    To "sashabill" no, we do not end up at a free-for-all because this only applies to situations where artistic expression are involved or when being at an event is contrary to your beliefs. How do you connect dry cleaning to a religious event or artistic expression?

    To "UtahBlueDevil " you are ignoring where Jesus said to avoid the appearance of evil. If you are shown to be supporting a practice that is contrary to your beliefs, you are appearing evil.

    To "Shaun " if all they wanted was cake with frosting, then why are they asking for something customized. The baker offered to provide his regular cakes. Isn't a custom decorated cake more than just frosting and cake?

    To "RanchHand" but businesses are operated by people. Since when has a building baked a cake and decorated it without people being involved?

    To "Dutchman" lets look at the opposing POV. Would Jesus force somebody to do anything?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:11 p.m.

    KevinSim said: "I agree 100%. Jesus would also not require someone who refused that service to pay a hefty fine or go to jail."

    Depends on your Christian beliefs, the hefty fine or jail could last an eternity.

    But to the point, "render unto Caesar" something...yeah, I believe he would as he went to "Jail" when innocent, or am I remembering this all wrong.

  • JapanCougar Layton, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:04 p.m.

    re: imsmarterthanyou:

    One would assume based on your post that you're fine with the old Jim Crow laws. You would be OK with discrimination against blacks, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, etc? So if you're a minority, say a Mormon in the South, you're out of luck if the prevalent society turns against you and denies you services and goods?

    Not a good policy or position, in my opinion. Then again, I've lived overseas for 9+ years as a minority (white American) and appreciated fair treatment from others.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:34 p.m.

    Go ahead and come into my store and order something like that. You'll get an invitation to turn around and go right back out. I reserve the right to serve, or not serve, anyone or everyone, for any reason I choose. If I don't like the way you look at me your out. No government is going to tell me I must serve someone. I will decide who I serve and who I don't serve.

  • JapanCougar Layton, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:26 p.m.

    I disagree with the baker and the groups supporting him on this matter.

    I'm all for freedom of religion and the right for a religion to set standards based on their beliefs. I think it's OK for any private group to select inclusion criteria for whatever reason: Mensa only accepting the top 0.5% of IQ scorers. Boy scouts only having boys, Girls choir only allowing girls. Hispanic heritage groups only allowing those with hispanic heritage, etc. Bottom line when it comes to private groups, either find a group that accepts you or form your own group. Not every group is for you.

    However, when it comes to running a business that sells items or provides a service, I don't think they should arbitrarily deny services or goods to any group. They can restrict their content-- "no nude portraits" -- if they want, but it applies to any and all. But I don't think they should be denying a service because they disagree with the the choices that person is making in life or how they look, etc.

    Just imagine if the tables were turned against you.

  • CaliCougar American Fork, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:21 p.m.

    It will be interesting to see how this particular situation plays out in the court.

    While I don't know for sure, my guess is this particular homosexual couple ended up getting someone else to handle their request, just not this particular baker.

    I also would guess that there have been other homosexual couples who have run into this type of situation, respected the particular baker's position, moved on, and found another baker who was able to handle their request...all without fanfare, press involvement, law suits, etc.

    There is middle ground to be found in this situation. I hope the court finds it.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:18 p.m.

    @2close2call: Agreed. Better apply one's principles consistently.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:11 p.m.

    The first person is the one who offers his item; the second is the one who is in the position to accept the offer. The right to boycott is the right for the second person to refuse the trade; at issue is the right for the first person to refuse the trade. Nobody would dream of making it illegal to boycott. Why should it be illegal to do the reverse?

    Although I've got to say I'm torn on this issue. I don't want to live in a nation where there's significant danger that gays and lesbians won't be able to get their basic needs met. Perhaps people who don't like the baker's behavior should boycott it.

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:10 p.m.

    Silo posted:

    =What you are advocating and how you are justifying it is no different than
    =those used during the civil rights movement.

    There have been two LGBTQ-themed stories in the news recently, this one about the baker who refused to bake a cake with two tiny grooms on top of it, and the North Carolina "Bathroom Bill" that required people to use the bathroom of the gender on their birth certificate, rather the gender that they associated with. Many in the LGBTQ community and organizations that wanted to show solidarity with them started boycotting North Carolina, and kept up the pressure until that state repealed the law that bill became.

    Central to any economy based on capitalism is the idea of a free market, which means that two people are completely free to agree to a trade. Neither one is compelled to make that trade; the trade cannot happen unless both parties consent. Much is being made of the order these two people enter into the trade.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:09 p.m.

    @Mayfair: "...how did they expect they were going to get that cake back to Massachusetts in one piece?...oh man, this is so great"

    Um...no, you did not discover some diabolical intent that no one else noticed.

    This case started pre-Obergefell. The couple lived in Colorado, where SSM was not yet legal. But it was legal in MA, so they planned to go there to get married, and return home, and have a celebration in Colorado, after-the-fact. After. The. Fact.

    FYI - it is impossible to participate in an event that already occurred, if you did not participate in the event when it happened.

    The marriage was to occur 1000 miles away, and the couple had no plans to bring a CO-baked cake to the MA-based wedding ceremony. By the time Masterpiece was to bake and deliver the cake, the SSM event that the baker found so objectionable on religious grounds would be over and done.

    If the outcome you desire depends on convincing SCOTUS that time-travel is possible, don't get your hopes up.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:03 p.m.

    I still support the baker, but for clarification, at the time of the incidence 2012, Colorado did not recognize ssm. They went to Mass. which did and were married there. They returned to Co. intending to recognize an event the state did not recognize.

    "the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual orientation discrimination."

    "an administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment. The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations,"

    Can you see the tyranny in this ruling? They removed the free speech portion of the cake decorating. The ruling had nothing to do with the original complaint based on orientation discrimination.

  • Rocket Science Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:50 p.m.

    If the baker was willing to bake basic wedding cakes for anyone and sell to them but did not go to set up the cake is that OK? If the baker sold wedding cakes to anyone but his supply of the cake toppers he carried were only those of tradition man/woman marriages would it be OK for the law to say he Must now also stock cake toppers depicting gay marriage?

  • KevinSim Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:48 p.m.

    Dutchman posted:

    =Not sure why the LDS Church wants to pick sides here. Doesn't seem productive.
    =I believe as a carpenter/son of God, Jesus would not refuse service to anyone.

    I agree 100%. Jesus would also not require someone who refused that service to pay a hefty fine or go to jail.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:33 p.m.

    @Jacobiuntherus: "We shall see? Colorado isn't an island the last time we checked."

    Yes, and no.

    Colorado is a sort of legal 'island'...part of an archipelago of states that share the following: 1) LGBT citizens are a protected class in their public accommodations laws, 2) no mini-RFRA, as work-around to the 1990 SCOTUS decision in Empl. Div. v. Smith.

    The Masterpiece litigation and its unique facts and circumstance, are also an 'island', isolated from the more optimistic hypotheticals floated in these comments. The factual record from the Colorado civil rights commission and lower court decision is fixed and this particular baker's conduct and the particular sequence of events will determine the outcome.

    But Colorado is also part of the main...along with the baker, and other Americans ...bound together under the U.S. Constitution, and the decisions of SCOTUS, in the past, present, and future.

    The lower court was limited by the facts and applicable law, including SCOTUS precedent. Masterpiece needs SCOTUS to establish new precedent. But the facts will make this a really hard sell, especially if it requires SCOTUS to eviserate 100-year-old state civil rights laws.

  • Mayfair City, Ut
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:20 p.m.

    barfolomew said: "The article states: "Phillips refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of a gay couple who were planning to marry in Massachusetts." Now, tell me, why did this couple go all the way to Colorado to get a wedding cake if it wasn't just to make a political point and start all this brouhaha? And how did they expect they were going to get that cake back to Massachusetts in one piece? Are you telling me that there isn't a baker between Massachusetts and Colorado that would bake them a cake?"

    oh man, this is so great.
    Thanks for pointing out the real intent of the LGBT couple.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:12 p.m.

    @ Selznik - Saint George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:21 p.m.

    "If you don't want to bake cakes for everyone get out of the cake baking business. It's as simple as that."

    No, if you want a cake baked by someone and they refuse to bake you that cake, go somewhere else. It's as simple as THAT.

    The article states: "Phillips refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of a gay couple who were planning to marry in Massachusetts."

    Now, tell me, why did this couple go all the way to Colorado to get a wedding cake if it wasn't just to make a political point and start all this brouhaha? And how did they expect they were going to get that cake back to Massachusetts in one piece? Are you telling me that there isn't a baker between Massachusetts and Colorado that would bake them a cake?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:05 p.m.

    @Tekakaromatagi

    "60+ Democrats did not attend Trump's inauguration because of their conscience. Applying the same broad definition of discrimination being applied to this baker, then we have to conclude that they were discriminating against Trump."

    Except Trump's job title as POTUS is not considered a protected class.

    Until the concept of illegal discrimination against a protected class is clear, please stop making completely irrelevant comparisons.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:48 a.m.

    At some point, this endorsement of discrimination, while couched as "religious freedom", even though it is a public accommodation, will come back to bite the Church. With our history, you would think we would be less dogmatic and more mindful of that history. More could be said, but I'll refrain. It's a bad move.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:45 a.m.

    @ Yar

    "Religious folk should not be forced to create something that promotes something that goes against their beliefs."

    First of all, I'd say no one, not just people whose beliefs happen to be religious in nature.

    Secondly, weddings don't go against this baker's beliefs. What goes against his beliefs are the nature of the people getting married, therefore it is absolutely about the people and the courts have consistently recognized this.

    And third, assuming no decorations that signify something LGBT (e.g., rainbow colors, etc.), how exactly do you tell whether a cake is for a hetero or a SS wedding?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:32 a.m.

    There is a billionaire LGBT activist named Tim Gill. He has spent +400 MM on his cause and he has been fighting against religious freedom restoration acts in various states. He recently was interviewed by Rolling Stone magazine and he said that the purpose of his lobbying is to "punish the wicked". The wicked being people such as this baker.

    In a liberal progressive society it is not acceptable to one segment of society to punish those they view as being wicked. If the baker belongs to a religion that disagrees with his view, then they can censure or excommunicate him. But they cannot usurp the law and have the law do the censuring. First amendment.

    60+ Democrats did not attend Trump's inauguration because of their conscience. Applying the same broad definition of discrimination being applied to this baker, then we have to conclude that they were discriminating against Trump. But there was no outrage.

    Why then is there this double standard that says a Democrat can act on his/her conscience, but a Christian baker cannot?

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:24 a.m.

    The key word is TOLERANCE.

    Everyone throws the word tolerance around like it should mean something, yet people only tolerate others difference's so be it that the other person see's it their way.

    Perhaps the highest court of the land should place this word as a point of emphasis when they make their ruling on this case, and that emphasis should be that both sides need to tolerate each others differences and respect their wishes.

    In other words people need to learn to respect their differences and go their seperate ways. In one hand an interested party wanting services from an establishment who's owners do not support or find their lifestyle offensive should be respected. And the interested party who is offended that the service provider finds their lifestyle offensive offends them. SO
    Both parties are not congruent with each other, that being established what is so hard about simplying going their seperate ways and leave each other alone.

    Hells Angel's biker gangs no more want to be seen in a church let alone be seen with a christian in the same room. So they give each other their space and let them be who they are.

    People need to be thicker skinned, stop being snow flakes

  • Dutchman Murray, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:22 a.m.

    Not sure why the LDS Church wants to pick sides here. Doesn't seem productive . I believe as a carpenter/son of God, Jesus would not refuse service to anyone.

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:17 a.m.

    I wish people understood this more often. The issue is not the person. It's the content of the stuff in question. Religious folk should not be forced to create something that promotes something that goes against their beliefs (and this is not limited to homosexual weddings).

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:06 a.m.

    Building off my last comment:

    If a print shop refused to make fliers for a white supremacist group would we call that illegal discrimination against whites? Absolutely not! The print shop is not discriminating against the individual, but rather against their agenda/belief/event/message/etc. They believe it's wrong and don't want to support that individual's effort that they find harmful. It has nothing to do with the individual, but the message.

    If we say you cannot conscientiously object, as a business, to the requests made by customers of your business then I believe the former example must be treated the same way as requests for wedding cakes by gay individuals. Some may say, but LGBTQ individuals are or should be a "protected class." I disagree with this concept - all of us should be protected the same way - otherwise that would be discrimination. Others would say minority groups should be protected. White supremacists are definitely a minority group (thank heaven). So, does non-discrimination only apply to those who society at large has accepted? At what level of acceptance is one discrimination and the other appropriate shunning?

    Conscientious objection is constitutional.

  • Pssst LOGAN, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:03 a.m.

    All but one Republican in this and no Democrats. That's pretty good for the Republican Party. No wonder Democrats do not fare well in Utah if they do not allow liberty of conscience.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:01 a.m.

    If we are going to live together peacefully in an ever more diverse society, there is going to have to be mutual respect and some compromise and accommodation on all sides. Religious folks with moral opposition to homosexual conduct have to come to terms with the fact that homosexual couples are entitled to legal marriage rights. We've passed laws to prevent (or at least punish) discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace and in housing.

    On the flip side, homosexuals have to stop looking for ways to poke in the eye anyone who doesn't fully support or agree with them.

    Nobody should be denied off-the-shelf services.

    And nobody should be forced to promote any message with which he disagrees.

    Most all white supremacists are white. A guy with a shaved head and offensive tats ought not be denied services at the proverbial lunch counter. But if he asks a baker, florist, photographer, or reception center owner to provide goods or services specifically to support a (peaceful, legal, but offensive) KKK rally, the business owner must have the right to refuse.

    Ditto for Mormons and LDS Proselyting events. Homosexuals and same sex marriages are in the same boat.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 11:00 a.m.

    Troy Williams from Equality Utah: "However, we do not believe that religious freedom gives business owners the right to pick and choose who they want to discriminate against," he said.

    Williams said he can't imagine Utah vendors hanging signs that say, “No Gays Served Here."

    The point is being missed. "No Gays Served Here" is discrimination and is wrong. It's not about WHO but WHAT business owners should be able to discriminate. If a gay man requests a birthday cake, the baker should make it - because he sells birthday cakes to everyone. However, if a baker doesn't want to participate in gay weddings he discriminating against the event - not the people. If a straight family member came to request the cake for the gay wedding he would turn them away. We wouldn't call a Jehovah's Witness who refused to sell a birthday cake to a senior citizen someone discriminating against seniors. Why? Because he wouldn't make birthday cakes for anybody - it's against his religion to celebrate birthdays.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:54 a.m.

    @Shaun: "How is baking a cake and putting frosting on it promoting a pro gay message?"

    Baking a rainbow colored cake and putting two grooms on it most definitely promotes a pro homosexual message.

    It does so exactly the same way that baking a cake and putting a swastika on it promotes a certain message. Baking a cake and decorating it to look like Old Glory or the Confederate Battle Standard also promotes a message. Similarly, a cake decorated to look like an LDS Missionary name tag, or to say "Welcome Home Elder Smith" promotes a certain message.

    And the question isn't whether you or I think a particular message or event is worthy of promotion or not. The question is whether an individual should be forced to employ creative talent to promote any message that he doesn't want to promote.

    Someone objects to a pro- (or anti-) homosexual message, or a pro (or anti) LDS message, or a pro (or anti) Republican or Democrat message should be free to decline custom goods or services that would promote that message. That is very different than denying service to homosexual persons, Mormons, Republicans, or Democrats.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:53 a.m.

    @diligent dave

    "Freedom of speech should include the right to say "No!" It's not like this homosexual couple wouldn't be easily able to find another bakery who would gladly take their money and bake a wedding cake for them!"

    Let's modify your comment a bit and see how it flows...shall we.

    Freedom of speech should include the right to say 'No'. it's not like this african american man wouldn't be able to find another drinking fountain somewhere that wasn't labeled 'whites only'.

    What you are advocating and how you are justifying it is no different than those used during the civil rights movement.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:45 a.m.

    When are they going to expand the definition of religious freedom to include all behaviors that are against someone's religious beliefs?

    I would love to get to chose how to do my job without fearing repercussions.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:41 a.m.

    "Did the baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for fornicators? Adulterers? Liars, thieves and Sabbath breakers? If not then he's a hypocrite and his "religious conscience" is selective."

    Well ranch, that is a far reach. How do you know he didn't deny service to the fornicators, adulterers, liars, thieves and Sabbath breakers?
    It has already been established it was not about the sexual orientation. But the event of a ssm. But what you are equivocating, is the baker must make a cake promoting or celebrating the fornicators act, a cake promoting the adulterous event, a cake celebrating the liars success in promoting his lies, the thieves success of a robbery or his act doing the robbery. As for Sabbath breakers that is just ludicrous in support of the false argument. How does a Sabbath breaker celebrate breaking the Sabbath?

    As far as Marxism, hard to accept an argument from a person aligning them selves with someone who extolls the millions of death in the name of Marxism. Like taking on the name of the worst of the confederacy.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:39 a.m.

    @Diligent Dave "No one should be forced to do anything contrary to their conscience. "

    I disagree completely. It completely depends on what their "conscience" is telling them. For instance, many white supremacists will claim that it is their religious belief and they are acting according to their conscience. We all need to study more history so as not to repeat it!

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:38 a.m.

    @bounitful guy

    What was asked then by the gay couple? As far as I know and I may be confusing this with another incident but they didn't get to the design stage of the cake.

    So my previous comment is completely valid.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:33 a.m.

    Sure, a doctor opposed to abortion shouldn't be required to perform one, etc.

    But to refuse to bake a cake just because the cake will be eaten at a gay wedding? That sounds like spite. Same thing if a copy center refused to print copies of a rainbow signifying gay pride. Or an LDS store clerk who refused to ring up a pack of cigarettes.

    Some so-called Christians apparently have never heard of the Golden Rule.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:25 a.m.

    If the baker provided the customer with another bakery that would do the cake for them would that suffice? The bottom line is both parties feel like they are being discriminated. No gripe free solution to this dilemma.

  • Edgar Samaria, ID
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:18 a.m.

    It's a slippery slope. Just sayin'.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:05 a.m.

    Dan Smith says:

    "Then I would go to a DIFFERENT cake maker."

    --- Doubtful. Your daughter would be devastated due to the discrimination and you'd be mad as heck.

    DrMAN says;

    "If I have to walk 2 doors down to buy ..."

    --- But what if the next shop is 2 miles away? 20? 100? What then? You wouldn't be so sanguine about being discriminated against then. Furthermore, unless they post "no gay weddings served here", how are we to know where we can find one that *will* serve us?

    Let's rephrase your comment:
    "Although the Christian faith explicitly prohibits members from having SSM , there is no explicit prohibition from selling for one."

    "Not baking a cake or supplying flowers for same sex weddings applies for every customer, too."

    --- You wrote that with a straight face? Wrong, it applies ONLY to LGBT customers since OS couples wouldn't make the request anyway.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:02 a.m.

    No one should be forced to do anything contrary to their conscience. Freedom of speech should include the right to say "No!" It's not like this homosexual couple wouldn't be easily able to find another bakery who would gladly take their money and bake a wedding cake for them!

  • Sportsfan123 Salt lake, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 10:00 a.m.

    Lets look at the the realism here, everyone can honestly say that a gay couple who lives and obeys the laws of the land doesnt hurt anyone, for that I agree.

    Is their life style wierd, different, unatural? The answer is yes, should they be allowed to get married, the answer is yes.

    And because of the natural physiology of humans a lgbtq couple cannot procreate which is the very reason we are all here and the human population grows, for this the lgbtq community does not contribute to the future posterity of this country and future generations. This why it was wrong for our govt a'la Oblama, and the liberal left should not have changed the the constitutuonal law of marriage between a man and a woman.

    By doing this Oblama opened pandora's box, he has effectively created a cultural issue that has torn at america put every religious person at odds with the lgbtq community, religious persecution is on the rise because of this divide created by the left.

    Yet bakers, other religious business owners have lost their livelyhood and have had their homes and business's vandalised, oblama gave the left a religion bashing card and they get away with it, it needs to be evened out.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:59 a.m.

    The Church has compromised many times for gay rights advocates -- don't expect the same treatment in reverse.

  • Jimbo Low PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:58 a.m.

    @wgirl:
    "I don't think it would be right for them to deny to make cakes for just one type of person or one type of event. If they make wedding cakes, they should make one for any customer that wants one - regardless of their color, creed or sexual preference. But, if a customer wanted swastikas on their wedding cake, the baker could refuse to do so."
    OK--that is fine for you. The question is why should wgirl's...or the government dictate what is OK and not OK? This comes down to a freedom issue. Any business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason and accept the consequences of their decision. They could certainly be sued for refusing service to "black folk" or "Mormons" but this particular case is 8 standard deviations outside of what should be litigated. Just because virtually all of us find swastikas offensive--by the left argument they must bake the swastika cake because they are in the cake business and they must put their moral judgment on the shelf and do whatever the customer wants. Is that where we want to go as a country?

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:56 a.m.

    It angers me that Troy Williams would mischaracterize what this baker is doing. Troy, come on. Refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding to which is fundamentally against someone's religious convictions is far different than hanging a sign in the window that says, "gays not served here." If that happens, then I'll sign on as an amicus in favor of the gay individual being discriminated against. Why can there be no accomodations for those with religious convictions? This is another great example of gay extremists who want everyone to put a stamp of approval on their relationship. You can't legislate someone's beliefs and deep convictions Troy!

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:37 a.m.

    I wish this pious baker would have just priced his cake out of the couple's budget and kept my church out of this self-destructive exercise.

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:30 a.m.

    @ RanchHand

    Not baking a cake or supplying flowers for same sex weddings applies for every customer, too. If they serviced some SS weddings but not others, then you'd have a point. SS weddings, too, can be rectified by these customers marrying opposite-sex partners, just as customers can put on shirts/shoes to be serviced.

    @my_two_cents_worth

    I'm saying that, in cases involving individual and constitutional rights (e.g., religious liberty, freedom of speech), a business owner does (and should) be able to refuse to part with his/her products/services. Civil liberties do not supersede individual and constitutional rights. This is an issue best dealt with one-on-one between the two parties: (i.e., for the religiously affiliated to explain his/her position for not providing the products/services, provide recommendations for bakers/florists/professionals who will, etc.). A sign out front is contemptuous and breeds intolerance. Looking someone in the eyes and having that sincere dialogue, empathizing and sympathizing with each other, and building community is the way this should be done.

  • Fabled Soul Provo, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:19 a.m.

    The Utah compromise disallows employers from discriminating in their hiring based on sexual orientation. How can you say descrimination is wrong when it comes to hiring but right when it concerns service?

  • Macfarren Dallas, TX
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:15 a.m.

    We live in a time where the government can force you to buy a product (health insurance), as well as force you to make one (wedding cake).

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:14 a.m.

    One might be more convinced of the sincerity and dedication to legal principle of the amici had they similarly come to the defense of religious liberty in cases where the religious practice went against their own religious views. On April 29, 2014, this paper reported on a lawsuit brought by the United Church of Christ in North Carolina challenging a law that prevented clergy from performing religious ceremonies, in this case same sex marriages. In North Carolina, it was a misdemeanor with up to 120 days in jail. (The counterpart law in Utah made it a felony with a $15k fine and five years in prison.) The law banned officiating unlicensed marriages, so even “symbolic” or spiritual wedding ceremonies were criminalized. And where were the LDS Church and the Utah legislature at this time? Out lobbying against same-sex marriage and preventing churches that accepted same-sex marriage from freely exercising the dictates of their faiths. It would appear that religious liberty is a one-way street. We are free to constrain your religious practice, but we don’t want you to constrain ours.

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:13 a.m.

    @marxist I value freedom and constitutional rights infinitely more than spontaneity and responsiveness in the marketplace. If I have to walk 2 doors down to buy a sandwich because the first two stores didn't like my haircut, that's a small price to pay to affirm their (and my) freedom and constitutional rights. And I'll happily do it!

    @Baccus0902 So if their letterhead had written on it "wedding cakes for heterosexual weddings" or "flowers for heterosexual weddings" and that's their official business model, these suits would go away? Uh...no. And to the Marriott example, you've proven my point. Although the Mormon faith explicitly prohibits members from consuming alcohol, there is no explicit prohibition from selling alcohol. Thus, each member (and by extension business) gets to conduct himself/herself/itself consistent their respective interpretations of what is right. These bakers, florists, etc., are simply asking for the same right. And with that right, they simply come to a different conclusion (i.e., that to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple is to endorse same sex weddings) than Marriott does (i.e., selling alcohol does not endorse drinking it).

  • Yar Springville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:12 a.m.

    Hopefully the Supreme Court will understand the difference between refusing because of the content in question and refusing because of the person. Jack Phillips, I wish you good luck!

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 13, 2017 9:04 a.m.

    @RG - Buena Vista, VA

    "2close2call: I've never heard of a couple celebrating their non-married-but-living together relationship with a cake. But yeah, the baker should be able to refuse to make that cake too."

    It is an anniversary even when they have lived together and never married. I know several couples in this situation that believe a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper.

    Regardless, my point was that they had better be consistent in their application of their religious belief or otherwise they are just showing prejudice towards one group over the other.

    I believe this was the issue in Oregon. The baker did not apply their religious beliefs fairly and consistently. He cherry picked who he was going to discriminate against.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:55 a.m.

    Why are we getting involved in this? These things always blow up in our face. Prop 8 ring a bell?

  • ADifferentView Park City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:52 a.m.

    Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and Amendment 1 prohibits restricting the free exercise of religion and speech. There is no question that "anti-discrimination" laws can infringe on the free exercise of religion and speech. The question is how to resolve such conflicts when they arise.

    It is my view that so-called "civil rights" are subordinate to individual rights because our country's founding documents recognized individual rights as coming from God, therefore they do not change. The Constitution was framed in such a way as to protect individual rights so they named many of them explicitly.

    Civil rights are created by legislation and can change. They are secondary to individual rights. They can come and go depending on the whims of lawmakers, the courts, and public opinion.

    In this case, the cake baker's religious expression is an individual right. The offended party is claiming a violation of a civil right. The primary individual right of the baker should trump the secondary civil right of the offended party.

    This approach is consistent and fair and could be used as a method to resolve similar future conflicts.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:46 a.m.

    @Mods; why deny legit comments?

    If "religious conscience" is reason enough to allow discrimination against LGBT couples, then it is reason enough to allow discrimination against Mormons or Blacks or the Disabled (after all, their disability is a 'punishment from god' right?).

    @Flying Scotsman;

    You meant to say that the baker doesn't want to operate his business like a business.

    @AlanSutton;

    Did the baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for fornicators? Adulterers? Liars, thieves and Sabbath breakers? If not then he's a hypocrite and his "religious conscience" is selective.

    @DrMAN;

    "No shirt/shoes/service" is not discriminatory as it applies to EVERY customer w/o the appropriate attire, AND it can easily be rectified by putting on the missing apparel.

    @RG;

    And heteros choose to have hetero relationships. What's your point? Discrimination is discrimination - and FYI, religion is also a BEHAVIOR.

  • Jacobiuntherus Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:43 a.m.

    @Daedalus, Stephen - ARVADA, CO:

    We shall see?

    Colorado isn't an island the last time we checked.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:42 a.m.

    @ IAlaw

    "...the most likely scenario is that bakers who refuse to serve gay weddings will lose revenue..."

    But it doesn't have to be this way. If the law protects SS couples, then there is no need for them to punish the vendor economically. Suddenly there's room for them to respect the vendor's beliefs without it being an admission of second-class citizenship. This is the position that religious objectors are placing gay people in. "For the sake of our conscience, please let us treat you as less worthy of service than others." No! Who with any ounce of self-respect would agree to this?

    But if the law does acknowledge gay couples as equal, then they're the ones treating conscientious objectors as second-class citizens if they force them to serve them. If a vendor respectfully (and privately) advises the couple of their difficulty, then the customers are jerks if they don't graciously respect the vendor's beliefs. (It would be against self-interest, too. Who wants someone baking their cake whose heart isn't in it?)

    IMO, only one resolution of this matter invites civility.

  • Dan Smith , AZ
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:40 a.m.

    wgirl

    "How would you feel if you took your little 8 year old girl to a cake shop to order a special cake for the refreshments after her baptism, and the baker refused to serve her because being part of a Mormon baptism violated his religious rights?"

    Then I would go to a DIFFERENT cake maker. Why? Because WHY would I want anyone making a cake for my daughter that felt that way? Answer: I don't. I'm not going to cry about it, I'm just going to go to a different place that baked cakes. In addition, I wouldn't want my money to go to someone that was that prejudice.

    See.

    Simple.

  • Justiciaparatodos Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:38 a.m.

    @JustGordon:

    You made this extreme and unfair assertion: "Do we really want signs in this country that proclaim " Gays not served here." How is that different from "Jews or Blacks not served here"??

    In the argument before the Supreme Court, no-one is arguing for the right to post signs that say "Gays not served here". That is an extreme and untrue characterization of the issue.

    Would you deny the freedom of conscience and freedom of expression rights of a certain baker to refuse to use his artistic expression of speech to construct a wedding cake for a gay wedding celebration while there are bakers everywhere who would gladly make it?

    Where is the heart? Where is the fairness in that?

  • liberty or ...? Ogden, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:31 a.m.

    The problem with the pro LGBTQ commentators here is that they conflate Religon with Belief. Religion is not just mere belief. Religion is how I practice my belief in my everyday life and since my faith is a personal thing I decide for myself where the line of compromise is between where I will accomodate those I disagree with. this is where the civil rights act I believe went to far. The original intent was good but now it is being exploited for persecution basis. A person regardless if whether I agree with him or not has right to serve who he wishes or not, to compel someone to serve against their will is tyranny. LGBTQ advocates are basicaly making the argument that since a Black printer operates in the public sphere he must print material for the local KKK convention if they solicit his services. A jewish caterer must cater the local Nazi convention. A Muslim baker must bake a gay marriage cake or provide for a companies Christmas party .Tolerance is a 2 way st. In ea case these business owners have served these people w/out reservation any other product they provide. All they asked was for tolerance of their beliefs the way LGBTQ people want to.

  • Meckofahess Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:30 a.m.

    @my_two_cents_worth - and others who would deny citizens their religious freedoms:

    You posited: "Then the business owner has a moral and ethical obligation, up front, to clearly let the consumers know who they will and will not serve. The old" no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs MUST be changed to read "no shirts, no shoes, same sex, no service."

    Hmmm? I can agree that if a vendor prefers not to baker a cake or do an artistic flower arrangement for a "same-sex" marriage ceremony that they do have an obligation to communicate that openly. However, please stop insinuating that the shops would not serve "gay customers in general" - that is an exaggeration - and that doesn't help the dialogue.

    Finally, many Christians and Churches like the LDS Church are making efforts to promote "fairness to all" citizens. The LGBTQ community wants a more "fair" world to live in. I believe that a fairer world can only be achieved with some give-and-take for fairness and respect for the other side's concerns (as the LDS Church has demonstrate). Otherwise the world will never approach what you are fighting for - take heed.

  • Lolly Lehi, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:17 a.m.

    From the article in DN. "Besides the LDS Church, the other religious organizations that signed on to the brief are the Christian Legal Society, the Center for Public Justice, the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, National Association of Evangelicals, Queens Federation of Churches, Rabbinical Council of America and Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America."

    It doesn't sound like the LDS Church is alone in this as some of the comments would make you believe if you haven't read the article and its not political.

  • Daedalus, Stephen ARVADA, CO
    Sept. 13, 2017 8:16 a.m.

    Making a fuss over the Masterpiece case is encouraging Utahns to kick the same football again, a la Lucy and the hapless Charlie Brown .... promising that -this- time the ball will not be pulled away (see Kitchens, Obergefell re: SSM).

    Sen. Lee 'compelled speech' argument ignores how Masterpiece refused service before -any- discussion of the cake design. No 'message' or special design was ever requested.

    This is not a Utah issue. Utah's state public accommodations law does not include LGBT as a protected class. Utah dealt with a potential Masterpiece issue with the much touted "Utah Compromise". Other states codified mini-RFRAs. RFRA was the work-around to the 1990 SCOTUS holding in Emp. Division v Smith, which made clear that religion could not be used as an end-run around a "neutral law of general applicability" (Scalia's words no less!)

    Not so Colorado.

    Here, LGBT is a protected-class, we have no state RFRA, and the 1990 SCOTUS decision is the law of the land.

    For Masterpiece to prevail on these facts, they need a loophole big enough to swallow ALL state public accommodation laws for ALL protected classes: religion, race, age, gender.

    SCOTUS won't go that far.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:58 a.m.

    @DRMAN "If a business doesn't want to serve me because of the car I drive, the haircut I have, the clothes I wear, the color of my skin, my height, my eye color, the languages I speak, etc. If those business don't want my cash, I'll happily spend that cash with another business that does. And everybody's rights are preserved."

    Let me, a socialist, point out to you one of the virtues of capitalism, and that is the spontaneous ordering of economic activity which capitalism allows. This allows capitalism to get away with less central planning (central planning does work, but it's slower). If you start restricting exchanges because of the silly things you list, capitalism gets a whole lot less spontaneous and less responsive. Be careful what you wish for.

  • JustGordon Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:45 a.m.

    @Flying Scotsman

    I beg to differ. The goal posts are firmly planted in the concept that all men/women are created equal.

    It is ironically you who have "moved the goalposts." You've changed the argument to "the baker is not being denied over all services." The issue here is that his/her services are not "participation." They are services that provide a product' he/she is not marrying them.

    Are you arguing that the baker would provide donuts for the wedding breakfast for this couple, but not the cake? Neither the donuts nor the cake requires the "actual" participation in this gay couple's wedding. S/he has not been invited to the wedding in any way.

    Are you suggesting that a rental company could deny renting their equipment on the religious grounds? Can one then refuse to rent to Mormons because their lack of belief in the real presence of Christ in the sacrament violates someone's religious beliefs?

    Why should religious objections trump intended any users' rights not to be discriminated against?

    This is a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against a couple who happen to be gay. Period.

  • IAlaw Council Bluffs, IA
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:38 a.m.

    Rather than attacking straw men and crying "bigotry!" and "discrimination!", why not see the enormous business opportunity for bakers who WANT to make cakes for gay weddings? The slippery slope arguments are so misguided it's almost comical; the most likely scenario is that bakers who refuse to serve gay weddings will lose revenue, and other enterprising bakers will see the opportunity to advertise their support for gay weddings and reap the financial rewards. There is absolutely no chance that allowing bakers and photographers to exercise their First Amendment rights will result in 1960s-in-the-South style segregation and oppression of the LGBTQ community.

  • IAlaw Council Bluffs, IA
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:30 a.m.

    @ Selznik:

    You said, "If you don't want to bake cakes for everyone get out of the cake baking business. It's as simple as that."

    What if we turned that tables on that statement? What if we said "If you don't want to be denied when you ask for a gay-wedding cake, go to a bakery that wants to make you such a cake. It's as simple as that."

    Why do you feel that a person's desire to avoid the inconvenience of shopping around should trump another person's deeply held religious convictions?

  • TripleB1111 Milford, NH
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:24 a.m.

    I am LDS and run a small bakery in NH.

    We are willing to make cakes for any occasion, I would even make a NY Yankee cake if asked, but we don't deliver on Sunday. Most of the time our customers have all been willing to accept delivery on Saturday, those that have not, go somewhere else. I can't imagine being sued over this because of my religious beliefs but we try to accommodate whenever we can.

    I would never judge our customers and am open to providing our services to anyone willing to hire us!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:23 a.m.

    Woohoo says:

    "Should we allow peoples religious rights be trampled over when there are plenty of bakers out there willing to accomodate same-sex couples?"

    --- How do you know that? What if *every* baker refuses, then what? Unless you have to go from business to business to business to get your products and services, then it is hypocritical of you to demand that someone else has to do that. Finally, businesses are NOT people and have no religious beliefs one way or the other. Their sole purpose is to make money. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Vermonter Plymouth, MI
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:23 a.m.

    This one is really not all that difficult.

    If a baker makes generic cakes with vanilla icing, then they must sell them to everyone. But, if an active Mormon baker is asked to use their creative, artistic talents to ice the cake with a swastika or a Confederate flag, the First Amendment gives them the right to demur.

    Lunch counters still have to serve lunch to all patrons, hotels must sell rooms to all who desire to stay there, as long as there is no illegal activity, and basic standards that apply to everyone, equally are observed (no shirt, no shoes, no service, no noise after 12 midnight, etc.)

    This Masterpiece Bakery Case may be quite clear (I think it is). But, the bigger question for the Supreme Court is, at what point does the ability to do work for another person cross the line from generic work that almost any properly trained adult can do, to the use of specialized and unique creative, artistic capabilities that if used to do a job, could be viewed as supporting or endorsing a lifestyle or a cause?

  • IAlaw Council Bluffs, IA
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:18 a.m.

    It's crucial to understand that this baker did not simply refuse to make a cake. Really, the baker would have sold them any ordinary cake. What the baker refused to do was to lend his talent to make a cake that would amount to be an expression of a message that would violate his deeply held religious beliefs.

    This is a freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue; it is not an equal rights or discrimination issue.

    The law does not require you to hang your religion at the door of commerce (see Burwell v. Hobby Lobby). So, please stop the inane comments suggesting that when you open for business you do so on condition of surrendering religious liberties. That's just not true.

  • Bountiful Guy Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 7:18 a.m.

    @Shaun

    "I do not understand your argument. How is baking a cake and putting frosting on it promoting a pro gay message?"

    Of course that is not what was asked for. Such a cake was not denied and had been provided many times.

    So many still stand firm that service was being denied. I'm glad the Supreme Court will not limit their understanding of the case. I trust they will find a solution that protects rights of everyone without forcing one to promote against religions beliefs.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Sept. 13, 2017 6:54 a.m.

    @ DrMan,
    Thank you for your examples, all of them indicate that a business person has the right to deny to do something different than his business model.
    The baker in question makes "wedding cakes" that is his business model. In what way the request to make a cake for a SS wedding took him out of his business model?

    Years ago I was dining at a Restaurant owned by the Marriott corporation. My friends commented that it was strange that Marriott Inc. owned by Mormons promoted so much alcohol. I answered that I didn't see any conflict as one was a public business and the other the "private" religious beliefs of the owners. Was I wrong?

  • Egyptian origins Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 6:44 a.m.

    This can of worms was opened due to our US Government interfering with religious liberties by allowing Civil Marriage in the first place. Marriage is a religious ritual, not a government action, nor a Civil Right. So Gay Marriage should never have come up in the first place and instead have been at the discretion of the various religions. But our government then reinforced it by giving tax breaks to married couples, which is already a discriminating bias. So now we come to the rights of businesses. Unfortunately, the religious freedoms followers have no justifiable case, because they consent to accepting the new Law of Gay Marriage. The 14th Amendment guarantees equality, so businesses cannot refuse treatment based upon discrimination, only religions can discriminate according to their 1st Amendment Rights. Businesses cannot refuse service to blacks, women, the disabled, etc., thus they cannot refuse service to LGBT persons. Businesses can only refuse service to those who are committing or provoking a crime. I'm sorry but religious liberties cannot dictate the behavior of society only the behavior of its own members. Religion has lost the fight against government, again.

  • Mom jeans man is gone Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 6:05 a.m.

    To those that find "their" church's stand troubling might want to do some real soul searching. They don't give comment on things like this without a great deal of thought and prayer. If you feel you know better maybe you need to humble yourself. If that doesn't work you have the option of following YOUR thoughts. Just be prepared for your life to change in ways you wouldn't have expected.....all over a cake.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Sept. 13, 2017 6:03 a.m.

    Am proud the LDS Church weighed in on this.

    And how about this news big news item that those who are siding with the LGBT side have conveniently forgotten?

    "Tom Ford refused to design dress for Melania Trump and says his clothes are 'too expensive' for her to wear as First Lady -despite making a custom gown for Michelle Obama...And so, catering to Trump's wife quickly became an ethical dilemma for designers. Would doing so signal tacit approval of her husband’s scorched-earth tactics?"

    I totally agree that some NY designer does not have to do design work for the First Lady who he feels will link his work as 'tacit approval of her husband'

    Is Exactly the very very very same in the bakers/florists/photographers examples.

    They don't want their work to be involved with or seen as 'tacit approval' of a same-sex wedding.

    Just seems totally hypocritical and intellectually dishonest for Liberals to totally support the dress designer--- and yet conveniently ignore it is the very exact same thing as the wedding industry people.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:56 a.m.

    @ SillyGander, and @ the old switcharoo: you asked how is this different than serving those of various races, genders, etc. Here is how it is different: the case in question is about someone's BEHAVIOR, not about their looks or other attributes. These people chose to have homosexual relations. Again, behavior.
    @JustGordon, since you mentioned serving Jews, what is your counterargument to those who say a Jewish baker should have the right to not make a pro-Nazi cake?
    @JOCo Ute: this is not about anyone's orientation. It is about their BEHAVIOR.
    @Utah BlueDevil: Not making a birthday cake for a kid born our of wedlock is kind of a silly example. We all know it wasn't the kid's fault.
    @2close2call: I've never heard of a couple celebrating their non-married-but-living together relationship with a cake. But yeah, the baker should be able to refuse to make that cake too.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:45 a.m.

    AlanSutton said: "Did the couple sue the baker because they were denied a wedding cake? Or did they sue the baker because they want to force him to see things their way?"

    And I would add, or did they sue the baker both to punish him for not seeing things his way and caving to these PC demands--
    And also with the hopes of profiting financially from punitive damages they hoped would be awarded them like the lesbian couple in Oregon who received a $136,927 check from the co-owners of a bakery that refused to make their wedding cake back in January of 2013.

  • Yorkshire City, Ut
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:36 a.m.

    I vote for the bakers--here are 2 reasons why:

    Evangelical Christian bookstore in Tulsa Oklahoma in a major shopping center asks Mormon missionaries to please leave their store. Missionaries leave.

    LDS Valedictorian in an Oklahoma high school denied 3 locally based publicly offered scholarships--because in the words of the high school councilor: "Just know now that you will never receive any of these scholarships--They all like you as a student and admire your grades and qualifications--But they will never let their money be used at BYU."

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 5:13 a.m.

    Those saying that the baker should not have the right to refuse. Does a Muslim butcher have the right to refuse to prepare a Ham, or how about a Jewish Butcher? No we do not force them to serve foods they find prohibited or offensive to even handle.

    Similarly when this case first cropped up an individual went to several bakeries asking for anti-homosexual themed cakes. he was refused in every case. Often shortly after getting a statement from those same bakers that this baker should be forced to make a cake for an event he finds morally repugnant. Then minutes later they would flat out refuse to make cakes that criticized their lifestyle.

    This is about religious liberty and freedom of expression and belief for all, not just one side. This baker never refused to sell regular products to these very same customers, but he rightfully chose not to lend his talents to support an event he found morally offensive.

  • FanOf"ChuckARama" Vernal, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 3:23 a.m.

    Is this the beginning for the LDS Church to be more outspoken instead of just rubbing around the edges in speaking out against all political issues, they agree or disagree with?

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:52 a.m.

    There's a reason why Utah is looked upon as a cultural backwater. And it starts by our governmental "leadership".

  • Hugh1 Denver, CO
    Sept. 13, 2017 2:26 a.m.

    Once again, freedom comes at a price and if your religion demands the tribute that you won't serve gays - then we're right back to the exclusive lunch counter and country club debates of the 60s.. How about real estate developers refusing to sell to Mormons, blacks, Jews, gays etc. because the architect used his creative God given talents to design the place and his religion doesn't approve of your station in life - so no house for you Mr. Mormon. What is it that you buy that doesn't incorporate creative talents?

    Sounds like a foolish argument? Of course it is. In all of these cases, except religion, there is no choice, that is how a person is born. If your religion demands that you discriminate against people like me in Colorado, tough luck, - because I can't, and I don't want to change, and I'm not moving anywhere. Remember, you're freedom comes at a price too, and I pay that price every day.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:45 a.m.

    @DrMAN

    "A license to do business does not mean that you must accept all business from anybody who asks it from you."

    It does mean you must obey the laws and conditions under which that license was granted.

    "If you are a wholesaler and sell only in bulk, you can refuse clients who want to buy below your minimum threshold purchase."

    But you can't refuse to sell in bulk to an LGBT buyer just because they are LGBT.

    "If your business hours are M-F 8am-5pm you can refuse a client's purchase outside those days/times."

    But you can't refuse LGBT during those business hours just because they are LGBT.

    "If you want to paint only using red, you can refuse clients who demand you paint with purple."

    But you cannot then refuse to paint with red for an LGBT customer just because they are LGBT.

    "In short, a business owner..."

    Then the business owner has a moral and ethical obligation, up front, to clearly let the consumers know who they will and will not serve. The old" no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs MUST be changed to read "no shirts, no shoes, same sex, no service."

  • SMcloud Sandy, UT
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:27 a.m.

    This is discrimination. You don't like gay marriage? Then don't get gay married.

    What if the couple lived together before getting married? Does the baker support that? Should there be a bishop's interview before every cake assignment is accepted? What makes one "sin" different from another? Whose interpretation of the bible should we use to determine who we can give services to?

    This is a slippery slope that ends in bigotry.

  • dustman Gallup, NM
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:18 a.m.

    History tells us a few things:

    1. Laws and practices against interracial marriages were based on religious beliefs. "Separate but equal" laws were also religion based.

    2. When a religious belief allows for discrimination against protected classes, then the courts normally side with the protected class.

    3. When the cumulative effect of a discriminatory practice affects interstate commerce, that discrimination will always lose. Because if one person can claim religious reasons/justifications for discrimination, it opens the door for all discrimination.

  • FactsRStubornThings San Diego, CA
    Sept. 13, 2017 1:01 a.m.

    There is a difference between a business or store that sells general merchandise and a business that applies artistic creation to custom produce each product. True artistic creation requires the artist to internalize the feelings and motivations of the idea that he/she is trying to portray. They must put their heart into it and make a welcome place in their minds for the subject and theme they are giving life to through their art. It would be totalitarian to force someone to do this against their will.
    Harry Anderson was a devout Seventh-day Adventist, but he is famous in LDS circles for painting the Second Coming, Christ Anointing His Apostles and other Bible-themed paintings commissioned by the LDS Church. But he refused to apply his artistry to paint Book of Mormon themed paintings. It would require him to devout himself to a cause that he did not believe in. Can you imagine a law that would force Mr Anderson to paint paintings against his will?
    The baker in question would gladly make custom cakes for gay people or any other people. He just would not make a cake with a gay-marriage theme. It would require him to devout himself to a cause that he did not believe in.

  • Woohoo Somewhere, ID
    Sept. 13, 2017 12:11 a.m.

    @SillyGander

    "should we allow the individual the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason what so ever?"

    Should we allow peoples religious rights be trampled over when there are plenty of bakers out there willing to accomodate same-sex couples?

    Are there really that many bakers unwilling to make cakes for same-sex couples that this is really a big civil rights issue to them? Comparing this to the civil rights issues of the past is ridiculous. Same-sex couples are still being served by these bakers just not being served wedding cakes.

  • There You Go Again St George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 11:20 p.m.

    So...

    A gas station attendant in Oregon (they actually have gas station attendants who are required by law to pump gas as part of the stations adherence to the law) refuses to pump gas for a car with UTAH license plates because he/she has a religious problem with people in the car who are wearing BYU caps...

    The amicus would therefore support/sustain the behavior of the gas station attendant who had the religious problem?

  • wgirl Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 11:01 p.m.

    I think it would be justified and legal for a baker to have a policy again making cakes with vulgar decorations or words - or offensive language such as pro-Nazi language. A Jewish baker could refuse to decorate with hate-speech/offensive language and that decision would apply to any person who walked through their door.

    I don't think it would be right for them to deny to make cakes for just one type of person or one type of event. If they make wedding cakes, they should make one for any customer that wants one - regardless of their color, creed or sexual preference. But, if a customer wanted swastikas on their wedding cake, the baker could refuse to do so.

    Could a frame shop owner refuse to frame my temple pictures because using his "creative process" violates his religious rights because he believes Mormonism is cult? What about caterers or event centers refusing to serve Mormon receptions/weddings/missionary farewell parties?

    How would you feel if you took your little 8 year old girl to a cake shop to order a special cake for the refreshments after her baptism, and the baker refused to serve her because being part of a Mormon baptism violated his religious rights?

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:58 p.m.

    @JoCo Ute

    A license to do business does not mean that you must accept all business from anybody who asks it from you. If you are a wholesaler and sell only in bulk, you can refuse clients who want to buy below your minimum threshold purchase. If your business hours are M-F 8am-5pm you can refuse a client's purchase outside those days/times. If you want to paint only using red, you can refuse clients who demand you paint with purple. In short, a business owner does not become the property of the public because he or she takes out a "public" business license. He or she is not a slave to the public, being forced to part with those products/services in ways that violate their constitutional rights, including free speech, exercise of religion, etc. But, that's what these suits are pushing: that business owners relinquish their constitutional rights. Very disturbing.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:49 p.m.

    @nonamesaccepted

    I do not understand your argument. How is baking a cake and putting frosting on it promoting a pro gay message?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:36 p.m.

    They are seeking, at the same time, the right of anyone to refuse service of any kind to someone who is not gay.

  • Manzanita , 00
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:35 p.m.

    Fortunately, when the LDS and other churches fought against public accommodation laws, desegregation, and Civil Rights in the 1960s, the Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution prevailed. The Courts saw right through the "but my religion requires me to be racist" arguments as nothing more bigotry masquerading as religion.

    It was a hard fought battle, but truth ultimately prevailed. I believe the same will ultimately result here as well. I stand with my LGBTQ brothers and sisters.

  • DrMAN Orem, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:34 p.m.

    The constitution is clear.

    A person has constitutional rights to the free exercise of his or her religion, free speech, and other rights afforded by the constitution. And businesses, in many cases, have been recognizes as "people" for the purposes of being afforded constitutional rights. A person does not have constitutional right to capitalistic transactions (e.g., demand of others cakes, provide flowers). Capitalism is a privilege, not a right.

    I'm fine with anybody refusing products/services to anybody for any reason or no reason at all. Ever seen the sign "No shoes, no shirt, no service." Why is nobody up in arms over that? If a business doesn't want to serve me because of the car I drive, the haircut I have, the clothes I wear, the color of my skin, my height, my eye color, the languages I speak, etc. If those business don't want my cash, I'll happily spend that cash with another business that does. And everybody's rights are preserved.

    Where does it end, you ask? With the companies who refuse service to broader demographics of people going out of business. Problem solved, no litigation, billions of dollars saved!

  • Selznik Saint George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:21 p.m.

    If you don't want to bake cakes for everyone get out of the cake baking business. It's as simple as that.

  • AlanSutton Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:12 p.m.

    Did the couple sue the baker because they were denied a wedding cake? Or did they sue the baker because they want to force him to see things their way?

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:07 p.m.

    The baker has not refused service to any homosexual. He has declined to use his creative talent to bake a cake with a pro homosexual message.

    This is no different than when a liberal actor declines a role in a religious movie, or when an ad agency specializing in liberal causes declines to promote a GOP candidate.

    If a baker cannot decline to promote homosexual sexual activity, he cannot decline to promote white supremacy. Most all white supremists are white, and race is a protected category.

    And freedom of religion means every individual gets to determine how to live his religion. Neither the anti religious zealots nor the state gets to decide whether his religious views meet their definition of rational or consistent.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Sept. 12, 2017 10:06 p.m.

    Masterpiece Cakes has a "Public" business license. . . period. When an public business license is requested and issued any legal service requested by a customer must be honored. Being gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender is not illegal. The law is already established and not amount of legal gyrations by so called christian conservatives will change those basic facts.

    Would a restaurant, hotel, airline, grocer or doctor refuse service to someone because they dislike their sexual orientation? I don't think so.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 9:52 p.m.

    We need to be careful. A couple of generations ago inter-racial couples were routinely denied accommodations. In my wife's family a very Swedish woman married an Asian man in the late 40's. They were denied lodging on their wedding day throughout the entire state of Utah. They finally obtained lodging in New Mexico, probably because of that state's more mixed population. The resentment they felt lasted a lifetime.

    Of course now almost everyone accepts inter-racial marriage.

    How will we see this 20 years from now. We need to be careful.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 9:45 p.m.

    "In July of 2012 my son and his fiancÉ invited me to join them at a bakery for a cake tasting and to discuss a design that was recommended by their event planner. What should have been a fun and special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my son said “it is for our wedding,” the man said that he does not make cakes for same- sex couples’ weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son said “really?” the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding cake.

    I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiancÉ. What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion...It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated as a lesser person."
    (Deborah Munn)

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 12, 2017 9:18 p.m.

    @2close2call - add to your comments.... how about refusing to bake birthday cakes for children born out of wedlock. This is an absurd case, and is a great example of people following their prejudices rather than following Christ example. When the Roman soldier came to Christ, did Christ refuse to council him because he was an occupier?

    In Luke 7 we read " When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends, saying to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7 Therefore I did not presume to come to you. But say the word, and let my servant be healed. 8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me: and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard these things, he marveled at him"

    And as we know, the servant of the centurion was healed. If Christ can heal the servant of a centurion (occupier), surely baking a cake would not violate some moral chasm. You convert by engaging with people, not ostracizing them. Lets not repeat mistakes made in the past towards other people.....

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 9:08 p.m.

    Gordon,

    It depends on the cake. Generic, off-the-shelf cakes should be sold to anyone. Demanding creative content that goes against ones inner beliefs is another matter. BTW, cakes are not a scarce or critical commodity.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Sept. 12, 2017 9:05 p.m.

    There's 0 legal difference between this and refusing to serve black Americans.

  • SillyGander Winnipeg, Canada, 00
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:57 p.m.

    If one is arguing that one should be allowed to discriminate against serving folks based on sexual orientation,
    then how is that different from and should we allow one to discriminate against serving folks based on race and ethnicity,
    and how is that different from and should we allow one to discriminate against serving folks based on sexual gender,
    and how is that different from and should we allow one to discriminate against serving folks based on religious affiliation, and philosophical ideology, and political affiliation,
    and how is that different from and should we allow one to discriminate against servings folks based on socio-economic differences?
    Libertarian-conservatives Barry Morris Goldwater Senior (1909 – 1998) and Ronald Wilson Reagan Senior (1911 - 2004) both opposed enforced civil rights because they thought that the State had no business telling folks not to discriminate against anybody for any reason what so ever (even though neither one of these two would have personally discriminated against anyone).
    So question that remains is this: should we allow the individual the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason what so ever?
    I say no! What say you?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:57 p.m.

    Tex45:
    "Since when is it illegal for a PRIVATE business owner to decide what he wants to do withing HIS OWN business?"

    When the Civil Rights Act passed.

    How is this issue different than refusing to bake cakes for interracial couples--which some Christians view(ed) as sinful?

    I heartily and strongly disagree with my church's position on this case and find this deeply troublng.

    A cake baker is not conducting the ceremony. They are simply being asked to provide a cake. If there are is any place where a religious person could refuse service that would be it--to perform the service.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:54 p.m.

    I have mixed feelings about this issue. I sympathize with the baker In Colorado -- yet, if we follow this out to its logical conclusion, wouldn't we end up with a "free for all" where anybody of any religious faith (or no religion) could refuse to provide services or products (flowers, cakes, photography, cleaning of tuxedos or weddings gowns, or whatever) to anyone of any religion (or non- religion) that is different from theirs? I could very well imagine a fundamentalist Protestant business owner refusing to provide services for Mormon, or even Catholic weddings.

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:51 p.m.

    @*TEX45* "Since when is it illegal for a PRIVATE business owner to decide what he wants to do withing HIS OWN business?"

    I take it you don't live in California, lol. In all seriousness, the answer to your question is Ever since the US government and states set up non discriminatory laws and all of the other countless laws and regulations that businesses must follow in the US. Have you ever tried to run a business? Navigating all of the rules and regulations can be mind numbing.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:45 p.m.

    Religions will never tell their members to not bake the cake, I personally don't know how to make a wedding cake, yet if I did know how, I would not really care who the cake is going to, as long as I make money, that is the main purpose of a business: to make money and keep customers happy. Others may say they don't want to make the cake. Nobody is saying we should put sign on front of door that says, "We won't serve certain people." Nobody is saying that. However, if we some day all come to agree on wedding cakes, there will be a law suit about different genders playing on different sports team in Olympics and in little league, then it gets crazy and foolish. When is enough enough? Courts should not discriminate against Bible values which enrich nations and people.

  • *TEX45* Logan, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:40 p.m.

    Since when is it illegal for a PRIVATE business owner to decide what he wants to do withing HIS OWN business?

  • 2close2call Los Angeles, CA
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:39 p.m.

    Does the Colorado Baker also refuse to bake cakes for heterosexual couples, celebrating their relationship, who are not married and live together, since it is against their religion? If not, they are inconsistent in their "practice of faith" and it appears to me as cherry picking who they discriminate against and has little to do with their religious belief.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:37 p.m.

    Endless lawsuits: legacy of last administration. People loving each other doesn't hurt us as society, it is un-elected judges and law suit nation that is out of control.

  • Flying Scotsman Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:33 p.m.

    @JustGordon.

    You are moving the goal posts with your argument.

    The baker nor the legal team are suggesting that gay couples be denied overall service. The baker had been serving gay individuals for years and will continue to do so if given the opportunity.

    The baker does not want to participate in a particular event that goes against his religious beliefs. He has never suggested gays, outside of this event, be denied service.

  • glacierlake3 Provo, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:24 p.m.

    without compromise for the rights of each individual says the defendants should win this case. Just keep trying to comprise on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. as individuals. the bakers were not hurting anyone except there own business possibly is choosing who they will do business with. Individual right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness does win in the world of without compromise. i vote for the bakers.

  • JustGordon Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 8:18 p.m.

    I find people who argue that a person offering his/her services/skills for sale can deny that individual those services because he/she does not agree with her sexual orientation in total ignorance of what is fair, just and what the Constitution can be reasonably interpreted to mean.

    Providing a service does not necessarily cause one to violate his/her beliefs. I am not asked to be present, affirm or take part in their ceremony.

    Do we really want signs in this country that proclaim " Gays not served here." How is that different from "Jews or Blacks not served here"??

    In the instant case above from conservative scientist, a political belief is not a protected class, thus the example is irrelevant.

  • conservative scientist Lindon, UT
    Sept. 12, 2017 7:03 p.m.

    The LDS church makes a very reasoned argument that I agree with. Would even the most liberal person want to force a Jewish baker to bake a cake honoring Hitler or the Nazis?

    Surely first amendment rights, including our cherished tradition of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, should continue to be foundational for all laws in this nation.