@ Mayfair"If same-sex couples would have just gone with civil
unions, there would be no issues today and everyone would treat LGBT with a
'live and let live' attitude as they had always done."Yeah, that "live and let live" vibe running through all those states,
including Utah, that passed laws not only denying gay people the right to marry,
but also the right to enter into civil unions.Or the "live and
let live" vibe running through American society in the past that
criminalized homosexuality or homosexual sex, that enforced penalties such as
imprisonment or castration; that looked the other way when LGBTs were routinely
targeted for harassment and assault, including by police. Yes, those halcyon
days of yore, when LGBTs stayed in their closets so we didn't have to know
they existed and deal with our own ignorance about their "condition."Give me a break. What a complete fabrication of the past.
panamadesnews wrote, "They not only want the same rights as
non-Lgbt's, but they want to have and now do have more rights in some
areas."More rights than straight people? Name one.
@John Forbes asks,"As a small business owner the government
wants to take away my right to choose my customers?" You
can't "choose" on the basis of religion, race, gender, or sexual
orientation. You can choose on what they wear (e.g. "no shoes no service)
or, in some cases, their age (day care places can restrict the age of the
child). You can choose to not serve them if they smell bad or are obnoxious." What if I run a customer's credit and I don't like what
I see? Will the government tell me I have to serve anyone that walks in the
door, even if they have bad credit?"You require payment in
advance. Nothing illegal about that, as long as its not a pretext for other
discrimination (see above)." What if a customer comes in my door
and is abusive to my staff, will the government tell me I have to serve
them?"Nope. Just make sure that that's the real reason.
Frozen Fractals said: "Is there anything same-sex couples have or are
seeking that interracial couples don't have?"Yes.Same-sex sex.That is why people are opposed to SSM.If
same-sex couples would have just gone with civil unions, there would be no
issues today and everyone would treat LGBT with a 'live and let live'
attitude as they had always done.But this baker and all other
wedding industry people who object with being involved with a same sex wedding
does so for one reason: They will not be party to what they see as a hijacking
@ Rifleman"Suing mortuary #1 to get what I want really
doesn't make much sense - unless I'm pursuing some political
agenda."So should Jackie Robinson have been content to find
another hotel when the whites-only ones wouldn't admit him along with his
teammates? He was always able to, you know. Should he have just been grateful
to have at least SOME equal standing with his fellow citizens?BTW,
equality is a political agenda. Until recently it was even seen as a
quintessentially American one.
Cactus Pete - "True happiness must come from within. People that
are experiencing mental conflicts can't be truly happy. 'It
solution' most unhappy people take is to blame others".Couldn't agree more Petey! You summed up the Trump, enabling faction
perfectly! Thank you comrade.
True happiness must come from within. People that are experiencing mental
conflicts can't be truly happy. It solution most unhappy people take is to
@John ForbesAs the owner of a small business, it might behoove you to
spend an hour or two with a lawyer (or at least Wikipedia) to understand the
content and application of non-discrimination law in this country.Seeking legal advice regarding the conditions you agreed to when you sought
and received your business licence is wise. Seeking said advice from anonymous
strangers on the internet, many of whom have apparent biases, is not.
As a small business owner the government wants to take away my right to choose
my customers? What if I run a customer's credit and I don't like what
I see? Will the government tell me I have to serve anyone that walks in the
door, even if they have bad credit? What if a customer comes in my door and is
abusive to my staff, will the government tell me I have to serve them? What are
the limits of govermental oversight?
@panamadesnews"I remember when the LGBT community was saying, we just
want to be able to be married just like you. Nothing more. We are not going to
do you people any harm. Just let us have the same rights as you have.
That's all."Is there anything same-sex couples have or are
seeking that interracial couples don't have?
@panamadesnewsProtection under non-discrimination laws *is* equal rights.
Pretending it isn't ignores the central hypocrisy of insisting on the right
to discriminate while hiding behind non-discrimination laws to protect oneself
from treatment-in-kind.@Irony Guy"On one hand,
discrimination in services is a slippery slope. OTOH, a Jewish baker
shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika on it just because some Nazi
asked him to."(A) In most jurisdictions political activity is not a
protected class.(B) Unlike this case, in which the baker said he would not
bake *any* wedding cake for the gay couple (never discussed decoration or
messaging), agreeing to make a cake but rejecting specific details, such as
message-based decoration, is acceptable. Compare the Hands-On Originals case,
in which a custom t-shirt printer refused a specific order of "gay
pride" shirts (they won their case).
If I were a Justice, I would be baffled by this case. On one hand,
discrimination in services is a slippery slope. OTOH, a Jewish baker
shouldn't have to make a cake with a swastika on it just because some Nazi
asked him to. Two principles seemingly in conflict: freedom of expression vs.
equality of access in a public accommodation. I have a feeling
nobody's going to be happy about this one.
I remember when the LGBT community was saying, we just want to be able to be
married just like you. Nothing more. We are not going to do you people any harm.
Just let us have the same rights as you have. That's all.Yeah,
right. Now look what they have done and are doing since that time. It will never
end. They not only want the same rights as non-Lgbt's, but they want to
have and now do have more rights in some areas. It will never end. Mark my
words, this will become a plague on society as we now know it.
@mhenshaw "Ever since weddings have been religious ceremonies."#NotAllWeddingsTo be clear: No god was invited to my wedding. Not
Zeus, Odin, the Morrigan, YHWH, Shiva, the Buddha, Coyote, Anubis, or any other
deity old or new. My parents, nearly fourty years ago, were also married in a
similarly no-god-invited wedding, in a courthourse in front of a judge.The only time, in any civilization, where all weddings have been religious
weddings, have been when the government only allowed religious weddings.@Light and Liberty"No one ever addresses the
'injustice' of a child growing up without a father and a
mother."Except every anti-gay campaign (for any topic, really) dating
back to Anita Bryant.@Rifleman In the case in question, the
man had arranged and contracted for the cremation services prior to his death.
The mortuary didn't voice their objections until *after* he died, forcing
the surviving spouse to make rush arrangement with a mortuary over a hundred
miles away.Which is another problem with these cases. Cases like
the baker, where the refusal is up-front, are not the norm. Normally the
refusal doesn't happen until the day of.
@Yar"If there are solutions that don’t involve forcing religious
folk to discard their moral conscience and that would please gay people,
I’m more than willing to consider such solutions."As I often
repeat myself, my only demand is that we all play by the same rules.If you can refuse me service because of your God's view of gays? Then I
can refuse you service because of your God's view of gays. If I have to
ignore your God's view of gays and provide you service? Then you have to
ignore your God's view of gays and provide me service.As such,
the one-sided arguments proposed by the lawyers and "religious liberty"
bills thus-far has been unacceptable to me.@No One Of Consequence
"There's a middle ground where people can respect each
other's rights without attacking people over their beliefs."Sure.
But between sodomy laws, employment bans, adoption bans and marriage bans, all
the while being protected by non-discrimination laws prohibiting religion-based
discrimination, y'all nuked that middle ground from orbit.
Hutterite - American Fork, UTUsing your analogy, if one mortuary
doesn't do cremations for what ever reason and I wanted one done then
I'd let my fingers do the walking through the yellow pages until I found a
mortuary that does do cremations.Suing mortuary #1 to get what I
want really doesn't make much sense - unless I'm pursuing some
@laura "Come on, now. He's paying attention to the position and
the lighting. He could care less who the couple are or at what point the
ceremony is at--his aim is to get a picture which will look good in the
album. This is skill--NOT artistry."Wow. Next you'll be
telling us that bands which perform primarily at weddings aren't artists
either, they're just employing a set of skills to create a good sound.If they are using their skills to create something "to look good" or
sound good, they are an artist. What do you think painters do? NOT use a skill
set to make a picture that will look good on your wall?Also, Why would you
pay a photographer who isn't paying attention to what they're taking a
photo of, or trying to maximize the visual appeal, intimacy, and particularly
the meaning created by the photo? All of these skills are what make artists
artists, whether using a camera or a paintbrush, and what you are paying for.And what about wedding planners, who are intimately involved in the details of
the wedding? Are they required to PLAN an event with which they disagree?
Where's the line? or does freedom of conscience and expression always
One thing that kind of sneaked by in the story shows how much more deeply
entrenched the problem is. We often hear of the emotionally stressed
photographer or baker or whomever in the wedding services industry not wanting
to have their services associated with a same sex marriage. They argue that
their services constitute a tacit approval or endorsement of the practise. How does that apply to the denied cremation service of a person in a same sex
marriage? Could you deny selling them tires, or veterinary services too? Apparently the affront isn't limited to cakes or photos or flowers. Tough
to say at some point how it's not discrimination.
People push the bounds and limits our society has set on morality and then are
surprised when those behaviors are questioned by those who are wiser. Some people just aren't ready to accept the "anything goes"
freedom from morality that only leads to sorrow, lack of self respect, and
depression. The solution for people who have experimented with the
"anything goes" mentality and found that it leads down a dead end road?
People in America are becoming overly sensitive and easily offended.Nursing hurt feelings will someday cause the collapse of our nation.Develop some thick skin and toughen up.
I've never had reason to question what the doctor put on my birth
certificate.My neighbor's daughter wants to be a man and has a
baby with a guy who wants to be a woman. How they want to live their lives is
their business but it doesn't seem to be bringing them the joy and
happiness they seek.
Redshirt:"To "Cougsndawgs" so are you saying that the LGBT
community is full of bad Christians since they are the ones who have gone to the
Government to force others to behave how they want them to (?)".No I don't think the LBGTQ community are bad Christians for requesting to
be treated the same way all customers are treated. It's not your place or
mine to judge another human being, it's Christ's because He earned it.
He suffered for them and knows EXACTLY how they feel so leave the judging to
Him. Otherwise, this baker must refuse service to anyone he deems offensive and
a sinner, not just a gay couple. And no one is asking for the keys to the temple
or that the baker take part in the wedding itself, so enough of the drama."You do realize that Jesus whipped people in the Temple...You forget
that Jesus isn't all hugs and kisses".No RS...you forget
that He, unlike you, me and a baker in Colorado, was perfect. He said: "I
the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive
all men...And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and
thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds".
Immorality is not all a crime in our society. If you worship a false god our
society will not throw you in prison. Profanity is banned, edited, &
censored but is only fined in a courtroom. No one is thrown in prison for not
attending Church on Sunday. If you don't honor your parents you are not
thrown in prison. Murder does get you thrown in prison, but not adultery.
Stealing gets you in prison. A false court testimony will get you potentially
fined & sued by the vindicated defense; & a false testimony to Congress
will get you impeached, but rarely leads to prison time. Coveting is encouraged
in societal advertising. & the overarching moral commandment to love, when
violated, is now punishable as a hate crime. & this is the real debate: Is a
baker allowed to hate under the guise of religious freedom to deny business to
others? In the 60's businesses denied service to hippies by having a dress
standard, it still exists today. W/ poverty @ crisis levels in our society, why
do we allow hate to dictate our laws to intensify the crisis? What is wrong with
people who justify hatred? Ezekiel 16 lists the sins of Sodom; homosexuality
isn't listed, but pride & neglecting the poor are.
The article makes a wonderful case for rejecting the position of the baker in
this case. But to make that rejection happen before the Supreme Court of the
United States, all five of the justices who voted to affirm the constitutional
right to marry for gay people will have to also agree that people who bake cakes
must also bake one for them, if they so desire. The key here is going to be
Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the Court in Obergefell. Notably,
however, he's a fairly conservative justice when not dealing with LGBT
issues. That's why the supporters of the baker have framed this, not as an
LGBT issue, but as a religious freedom issue. And, assuming the Court agrees
that is an appropriate framing of the issue, the baker just might win. But win
or lose, the present case is going to be an influential precedent for many years
if you go to court to FORCE someone to do something they don'y want to..
you are probably going to be rejected by society.
Forcing people into accepting the LGBT culture is discrimination.
It comes down to basic freedom: can we do what we want, or must we comply with
social or legislated changing standards (whatever they become). I'd rather
not be a robot in a totalitarian state.
No one ever addresses the 'injustice' of a child growing up without a
father and a mother. How sad is that, no matter how you feel about same sex
What I want to know is how would the couple feel if the baker decorated the
cake, but did a lousy job because he couldn't put his heart into it?
@ Jacob_Z Selling someone 2 cakes is ok. But that is not what this issue is
about. The cake maker in question not only bakes cakes, but painstakingly,
carefully, decorates them too. This means that he is taking not only his time,
but his talents--himself, really-- and it is not fair to ask him to do this for
something he does not support. This is very different than selling something off
the shelf. Another example: If I were a portrait painter, I'd paint
portraits of anyone willing to pay, but not in any vulgar pose they wanted or
not in any state of undress they wanted. Do you agree on this one? I believe
the "go the extra mile" analogy is flawed. If someone compelled you to,
say, smuggle drugs, or shoplift, would you volunteer to smuggle even more drugs
or shoplift even more?
@ Baccus 0902 No loving someone of the same gender is not a sin. But having
sexual relations with them (or with anyone to whom you are not legally married
-- and the Lord's definition of marriage does not include same-sex
marriage) is a sin. And marrying someone of the same sex is a sin. The living
prophets have made this quite clear. See the Proclamation on the Family. Of
course, there aren't scriptures against same sex marriage because it did
not exist back then. But there are scriptures against homosexual relations (e.g.
>>Since when a wedding cake is a religious symbol? Ever
since weddings have been religious ceremonies.Under the First
Amendment, no one has the right to tell another person what should or
shouldn't constitute a religious belief; nor does anyone have the right to
what dictate what physical objects should or shouldn't constitute an
expression of those religious beliefs.
Re: "Therefore, he does support sinful activity (such as gay marriage) and
does not ask us to support sinful activity either."By baking a
cake in exchange for payment to fulfill a contract you're not supporting
anything. And if you think you are, or if you think that your customers are
asking not just for a cake, but for your approval, you've got an inflated
sense of self-importance.Re: "In fact he wants us to
good-naturedly warn others about sinful activity and spread the good news that
we can all repent of our sins."Jesus says specifically that you
should not resist evil. (Matthew 5:39-41.) "And if any man will sue thee at
the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also." He
doesn't say, Tell them you can't do that, because it would be
supporting stealing. And he doesn't say, Tell them nicely that stealing is
wrong and they should repent. He says, Hand it over! In fact, give them more
than they demand.So are cakes a different matter altogether? If
somebody sues you for a cake, or simply asks you to bake them one for money,
which is certainly no great imposition, since that's your business, you
/should/ resist that? Or shouldn't you rather bake him two?
@OneHumanFamily writes,"Denying a product or service to a group
of people that you provide to others is unacceptable. Having a business license
comes with stipulations. Don't like it? Don't be in business. Why is
this so hard for people to understand?"Because they have spent
their entire life feeling superior to "those people" (many use
considerably more pejorative language) and much of their identity is based on
the belief that they are better than a group that they have been raised to
despise. Few people voluntarily give up power.
@ RG, - Buena Vista, VA" But "I the Lord cannot look upon
sin with the least degree of allowance." (D&C 1:31). Therefore, he does
support sinful activity (such as gay marriage) "Dear RG,
obviously you like to read the scriptures. So do I and have found that when the
Lord has wished to express something, He speaks in the first person. We see that
in the Old and New Testament, the BoM, D&C, and The Pearl of Great
Price.In other occasions we have men who claim to speak in the name
of the Lord, such as Moses, Paul and many others. If you compare the
"spoken word of the Lord" and "the messages of men", you will
see that are many things we don't follow because we understand them to be
their opinion. I.e. stoning people, women being quiet at church, etc.Going back to your quote of D&C 1:31. Do you have a passage in any of the
scriptures in which "the Lord" tells us that loving somebody from your
own sex is a sin?There are scriptures that may indicate exactly the
opposite e.g. Jonathan & David; Jesus healing the Centurion
"servant". There are Christian and Mormon congregations i.e. Community
of Christ, Episcopal Church, that support the dignity of SSM with the sacred
@my_two_cents_worth - university place, WA@Utes Fan“Being in support of a business owner who thinks he can hide behind
religion to ignore non-discrimination laws he agreed to as a condition of his
business license is certainly seen as a non-loving position.”There, cleaned it up for you.__________My bad. Of
course a business owner or citizen should never, ever, challenge a law, never
stage a protest, and never, ever disagree with the law or court ruling. And
never ever defend freedom of speech, and freedom of religion should never ever
be defended. Never. We should all just 100 percent agree with every law ever
passed and never ever think about challenging any ruling. Yes.
Thanks for cleaning it up for me.
I cannot believe we are having this discussion, especially among people that
claim to follow Christ. This was decided in the Jim Crow era, for
heaven's sake. Denying a product or service to a group of people that you
provide to others is unacceptable. Having a business license comes with
stipulations. Don't like it? Don't be in business. Why is this
so hard for people to understand?
To all the people that claim that Jesus loves everyone and so he would approve
of forcing the baker to bake the gay wedding cake, you are right and wrong. Yes
he does love everyone and wants us to love everyone to. But "I the Lord
cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." (D&C 1:31).
Therefore, he does support sinful activity (such as gay marriage) and does not
ask us to support sinful activity either. In fact he wants us to good-naturedly
warn others about sinful activity and spread the good news that we can all
repent of our sins. (And I realize that some readers don't believe in this
understanding of Christ but I'm not calling you "Mormonphobic." And
I'm not offended nor am I demanding the government step in to save my
The article seems to overlook an important difference between the case of the
bakers and alleged discrimination. In the case of the bakers, they are being
compelled to support a message they disagree with on religious grounds. In
other words, the law is compelling them to say something they disagree with.
Refusing a ride in a cab or a room at a hotel is not the same as what is
involved in the case of the bakers. But forcing someone to produce something
bearing a message that person disagrees with is compelled speech and the
government should never be allowed to compel speech.
The old middle ground after the abolition of slavery was Jim Crow law.Now the so-called Religious are asking for law that is middle ground to allow
them to discriminate.How much irony is that? And how little do
people actually read and understand of our history?
@Utes Fan“Being in support of a business owner who thinks he
can hide behind religion to ignore non-discrimination laws he agreed to as a
condition of his business license is certainly seen as a non-loving
position.”There, cleaned it up for you.
@Vanceone:Richard Raddon resigned from the LA Film Festival. The
LAFF has a mission of supporting diverse filmmakers, and Raddon's political
action supporting a law designed to discriminate undercut the stated mission.
Scott Eckern was artistic director of the California Musical
Theater. When his political donation to the passage of a discriminatory law was
revealed producers and playwrights, understandably, began pulling their work
from his theater. He resigned. William Bolthouse sold his share of
the company he founded nearly 3 years before Prop 8. The company did face some
threats of boycotts, but made it clear Bolthouse was not involved in the company
at all. He wasn't fired. Brendan Eich became CEO of a large and
supposedly diverse company. Employees were stunned to find he had supported Prop
8, a law that treated some employees as second class citizens. As employees and
business partners objected to Eich's political activism he admitted he
couldn't be an effective leader of a diverse company and resigned.
@my_two_cents_worth - university place"Oh my. I came here
looking for the “Christian/Mormon” perspective on “loving thy
neighbor as thy self.” Needless to say I was disappointed."________Yes. Being in support of a business owner being forced to
perform a function that he is opposed to or be sued out of business can
certainly be seen as a non-loving position.
Discrimination against.a.person because of their essence is destructive.
@NoNamesAccepted writes,"Why can't you let him make
wedding cakes for those events he supports while declining to make wedding cakes
for events he opposes?"The phrasing of your question makes me
think that you think that Phillips should be able to turn down a cake order if
he doesn't approve of the marriage. Would you say that he has a right to
decline an order for an interracial wedding, if he has a "religious
objection" to said marriage? If not, why not?
@NoNames wrote," A wedding photographer is an artist who must be
intimately involved in the wedding staging photographs to capture the best
memories possible."Come on, now. He's paying attention to
the position and the lighting. He could care less who the couple are or at what
point the ceremony is at--his aim is to get a picture which will look good
in the album. This is skill--NOT artistry. There is a difference.
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? Can we get
along?"Rodney KingThere's a middle ground where
people can respect each other's rights without attacking people over their
>>'"If what you say is, 'I object to your wedding,'
you're really saying, 'I object to you,'" said Rachel Tiven,
CEO of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.'No, it's
not saying, “I object to you.” It’s saying, “I
don't want to take part in this activity.” Enormous difference; but
claiming the former offers insight into the mindset of the plaintiffs and their
@Laura Bilington: "Phillips hasn't abandoned his occupation.
He's just not making wedding cakes now."Custom,
heterosexual wedding cakes was a major part of his business. Why can't you
let him make wedding cakes for those events he supports while declining to make
wedding cakes for events he opposes?"And how can you participate
when you're nowhere in sight when the item is used?"But
this is not an honest argument when you've made clear that you also believe
in forcing photographers to work weddings they find offensive. A wedding
photographer is an artist who must be intimately involved in the wedding staging
photographs to capture the best memories possible.In demanding that
photographers work every wedding offered, you've undermined the claim that
the degree of personal involvement matters to you at all. Clearly, this is
about forcing acceptance and support for homosexual events; or at least
punishing those who dare voice any meaningful opposition.Anyone who
claims Phillips, other customer bakers, or photographers are not artists is
foolish or deceitful. There has to be some reason people pay $1000 for a cake
if the exact same cake can be had at Costco for $100.
Oh my. I came here looking for the “Christian/Mormon” perspective on
“loving thy neighbor as thy self.” Needless to say I was
When I was a young boy businesses all over our town and neighboring towns posted
signs that simply read "we reserve the right to refuse patronage to
anyone". That's as true today as it was 50 years ago. America is tired
of having this stuff rammed down our throats and we're even more sick and
tired of being called homo phobs because of it. Each of us everyday makes
choices in our lives...good or bad and we have to live with the consequences of
those choices. If a business does not want to serve you...simply put, go
somewhere else and some where along the way you will find someone who will.
Enough said. Quit dragging hate into it just because a majority of people are
not on board with the choices you make in your life. Sportsmans warehouse has
bullets cheaper than Cabela's but I don't go around trashing
Cabela's or any other outdoor store because they charge more...it's
their right as a business and I respect that. I simply choose to go somewhere
else. And I don't run to the supreme court to voice my displeasure.
Forcing the baker to participate in a ceremony which violates some of his most
fundamental beliefs seems blatantly unconstitutional.If he did bake
the cake but wasn't sufficiently enthused or smile broadly enough when he
actually sold the cake and the couple was offended by his lack of
"support", would they then have cause to sue him for that?The idea that everyone **must** accept and comply with the wishes of everyone
else who might otherwise claim to be offended smacks a bit much of the same kind
of forced "happiness" demanded of the victim-citizens in N. Korea by the
Compromise would be a situation where both groups of people get to enjoy their
full rights. Of course, intolerant gay and bisexual groups dont agree with
that.The next best thing would be for the Supreme Court to say that
it is ok for a business to "outsource" the making of this product. In
that case, the gay couple again gets to enjoy their wedding cake (made by
someone who supports their union) and the business gets to state his beliefs and
stay in business as well.
To "Cougsndawgs" so are you saying that the LGBT community is full of
bad Christians since they are the ones who have gone to the Government to force
others to behave how they want them to.You do realize that Jesus
whipped people in the Temple and kicked out the merchants there. He didn't
put up with people making a mockery of the sacred events that take place in the
temple either. He has also promised to kill all that oppose him at the last
day. You forget that Jesus isn't all hugs and kisses.
Vanceone - No Laura, many cake bakers actually have to go to the
ceremony, set up the cake, help distribute it, etc. But even if you are right
and cake bakers don't have to be there: photographers certainly do.
Caterers must attend. As for "oh, no big deal, nothing bad will happen
to you!" Tell that to the State of Oregon, which bankrupted and seized
someone's house as well as their business for refusing to provide a cake to
a same sex "wedding"-- when it was still illegal in Oregon. That's
like the state throwing you in jail for saying you wouldn't cater a mob
function. Brandon Eich, Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon; William Bolthouse
was fired from his own company Bolthouse farms. Marjorie Christoffersen.That's not counting the death threats against the mayor of Fresno;
various pastors and of course the widespread terrorism campaign against the LDS
church conducted by the LGBT movement".Deep yawn...When all else
fails and there is no intelligent point to be made use hate rhetoric, fear
mongering, grossly inaccurate information and of course non cited source
material! Keep digging.
Public accommodation laws have outlived their need and they should all be
repealed.Let freedom ring with gay bars, non-gay bars, or whatever
bars. Let there be black businesses, Chinese businesses, women-only businesses,
handicapped-only businesses, republican businesses, democratic businesses, or
whatever businesses. I am not afraid of a world where people are allowed to live
free. Go ahead, tell me that Mormons are not welcome to work at your
company - it won't bother me. I don't need lawmakers forcing you to
serve me. Somebody else will. The government should never discriminate against
me, but freedom demands that everyone else be allowed to do so.I
walked past a shop in Portland, OR recently and they had a big sign welcoming
people of all sexual orientations. They should be free to do so. And if the
shop next door wants to post a sign saying they only bake cakes for male-female
non-mormon weddings, they should be free to so so as well. The world will still
be as wonderful to me.
No Laura, many cake bakers actually have to go to the ceremony, set up the cake,
help distribute it, etc.But even if you are right and cake bakers
don't have to be there: photographers certainly do. Caterers must attend.
As for "oh, no big deal, nothing bad will happen to you!" Tell
that to the State of Oregon, which bankrupted and seized someone's house as
well as their business for refusing to provide a cake to a same sex
"wedding"-- when it was still illegal in Oregon. That's like the
state throwing you in jail for saying you wouldn't cater a mob function.
Why do you leftists insist that you can force others to work for
you? The last time the Democrat party tried that, we had a civil war. You lost.
Yet here you are, demanding that just because you exist you have the right to
force others to work and do whatever you want. Impartial: Brandon
Eich, Scott Eckern, Richard Raddon; William Bolthouse was fired from his own
company Bolthouse farms. Marjorie Christoffersen.That's not counting
the death threats against the mayor of Fresno; various pastors and of course the
widespread terrorism campaign against the LDS church conducted by the LGBT
Plenty of progressive people to bake you a cake, I, for one, will bake you a
cake for $25,000. Freedom means I can charge what I want. Or shop elsewhere.
Economy evens out a lot of things. First class on airline is too costly for
me, so is New York real estate, and I can't file suit because they charge
I think it's unfortunate that we have to turn to our government to tell us
how to treat and serve others the way the Savior would. There are multiple
examples in the scriptures of Him teaching and serving those that had different
lifestyles, views, and beliefs than His own (the parable of the Good Samaritan
is a start) . If you are a true Christian, you don't need the government
to tell you how to follow His example. What should be against your religious
beliefs is when someone proclaiming to be Christian uses their limited judgement
to refuse service to someone they deem a sinner rather than follow His
omniscient example and serve there fellow men/women. The SCOTUS
decision in this case will examine the constitutional rights of both sides, but
I've already made up my mind to serve all as He did. Whether they're
gay or straight, in a heterosexual or same-sex-marriage shouldn't affect
our decision to serve them with love and kindness, as I guarantee you He would
If there are solutions that don’t involve forcing religious folk to
discard their moral conscience and that would please gay people, I’m more
than willing to consider such solutions.
Nobody should be denied general / off-the-shelf goods or services over sexual
orientation, lawful possession of a gun, race, sex, religious/political
affiliation, etc.And nobody should be forced to promote, support,
nor attend any event or message to which he objects.Neither a
Mormon, Black person, nor homosexual individual should be denied service.No photographer should ever be required to attend a Mormon church event,
a Black Lives Matter rally, nor a Pride Parade as a condition of having a
business license. Even if the photographer advertises general photographic,
on-site services. Even if she routinely does work for Evangelical Church events,
Hispanic rallies, or other events, she must remain free to decline work based
entirely on the content of the work.The government must never be
permitted to engage in content-based discrimination or censorship. Private
individuals, including private businesses, have always and must always remain
free to do exactly that.1915 Truax v. Raich Supreme decision:
"The right to work for a living ... is of the essence of that personal
freedom and opportunity which it was the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to
@Uteofferouus"Or, Imagine being fired from your job if someone at your
place of employment discovers that you voted for Prop 8 – oh, I forgot
that happens all the time!"Do tell. Name 3 people that got fired
for their vote? Oh, I forgot. You can't.
Based upon the countless, outlandish examples from those which obviously did not
complete a basic Con Law classs better yet possess a law degree, apparently
these individuals are under the impression it is perfectly acceptable for ANY
business to turn away those of the Mormon faith based upon individual
"religious freedoms". This means good luck when you are away from the
comfy confines and booming metropolises such as Cedar Hills, Provo, Green River
and Riverton! After all this is the exact treatment Mormon pioneers experienced
until finally settling Utah. It was wrong then and wrong today regarding the
treatment of the LGBTQ community! Your "religious freedoms" end at
others being discriminated against solely based upon their sexual preference.
Period! Thank you.
Vanceone : "When LGBT mobs invade churches during Sunday services; or they
spray graffiti on chapels; well, that's just old fashioned protesting and
you are wrong if you complain. Those poor church goers forced to sit through
profane LGBT people--they don't have rights to not be offended, no sir!
Only LGBT people have feelings that count! Just ask them!"Please
elaborate on your story telling, last time I remember a ugly protest against the
LDS was by another Christian Club/Church, because there's not enough hate
in the world.Just saying things, to justify your poor behavior
towards others, is shameful.Christ said turn the other cheek, but of
course that isn't taught as much as eye for an eye, because revenge is so
much sweeter, right?@patriotGay's have always been
around, it's just that nasty mean people made it dangerous to act on it.
"people of faith are forced to compromise their beliefs""He must repeatedly violate his conscience or permanently abandon his
occupation" "forced to choose between condoning a same-sex
marriage by participating in it or going out of business"Hyperbole much?People whose faith requires them to treat others as
lesser beings are free to believe whatever they want. I'm sure there are
people today who have some pretty awful beliefs about Mormons, but that
doesn't give them the legal right to refuse to rent to them, or photograph
their wedding reception. [I'm trying to envision Jesus saying
that equal treatment would compromise his beliefs. It's not easy]Phillips hasn't abandoned his occupation. He's just not making
wedding cakes now.Condoning? Participating? Come on, now. Selling
something--and never seeing the person again--isn't condoning what they do
with the thing you sold. And how can you participate when you're nowhere
in sight when the item is used?
@pragmatistferlife: "Oh please. Carrying a gun is a decision, being female,
being gay or transgender is not."Bringing your homosexual
partner to a work party, or showing affections as he drops you off at work are
decisions. You would be object greatly if a business claimed to treat
homosexuals equally, but barred homosexual couples from holding hands in the
store. Holding hands is a choice.Shall bakers be forced to provide
"wedding" cakes for polygamous unions? Remember, only a few short years
ago a popular refrain against homosexual conduct was "that is illegal".
Polygamy is illegal only because of moral objection to it. My
point here is that those who scream the loudest against "discrimination"
very rarely pause to carefully examine their own biases.Those who
fought most against claims of homosexuals being pedophiles turn around and claim
polygamy is inherently harmful to women and children. Those most offended by
expectations to be discrete in personal relationships are quick to force gun
owners into the closet they just exited. Those who decry intimidation use force
of law to bankrupt peaceful dissent.Congrats, you've become
everything you claimed to despise.
@ Vanceone - Provo, UT" Militant Homosexuals run around looking to
harass and harm Christians."Vanceone, please educate me. What is
the connection between a Wedding Cake and Christianity? Since when a wedding
cake is a religious symbol? What is interesting and ironic to me is
that many Same Sex weddings in the U.S.A. do take place in a religious setting
and of those most in Christian churches or performed by a Christian minister.
@patriot - "Second this whole so-called LGBT thing is
bogus. Ask someone 15 years ago what LGBT meant and you would get a blank
stare".Oh dear! The Exodus took place (supposedly) around 3,500
years ago. Instead of giving you a blank stare people were commanded to stone
you to death. Just ask Sharrona. So obviously homosexuality have been with us
for a long, long time. So, I don't think you can call it bogus or just a
fad.Angry friends, remember when you claimed the wrath of your god
would fall in the U.S. if SSM became the law of the land? On June 27, 2015 the
sun came out and life continued. This will also pass and when we respect each
other with our differences we'll be a better a more Christian society.
Uteofferous, you forget: the left is 100% ok with punishing those they disagree
with. How many times do we see leftist posters pushing the idea that the
government should silence the LDS church because by promoting chastity the
Church is "Forcing their views on everyone else". This is bad, they
say. But mandatory LGBT celebration day by the public schools like in
California is not at all wrong and people need that view forced on their
impressionable children. If someone asks you a hypothetical
question, that's grounds to take away your business license and bankrupt
you. All perfectly 100% ok, according to our "betters" on the left.
But when Apple, Microsoft and Google demand that laws be changed "Or
else", and they fire people who think there are differences between men and
women... just peachy keen! When LGBT mobs invade churches during
Sunday services; or they spray graffiti on chapels; well, that's just old
fashioned protesting and you are wrong if you complain. Those poor church goers
forced to sit through profane LGBT people--they don't have rights to not be
offended, no sir! Only LGBT people have feelings that count! Just ask them!
I am certainly happy to see that bigotry is defended by some Christians with
quotes from the Old Testament.It shows for all to see that the case
against the cake maker is pretty ironclad. He religiously acted to harm a
protected class of people. You do not get to hide behind your religion to
protect your bigotry.This case ought to be a slam dunk.
@Happy Valley Heretic - Orem, UT:Same-gender attraction may not be a
choice, I have come to believe that over the years. However, same-sex marriage
IS a choice, just like being active in a religion IS a choice. Most
conservatives don't object anymore to someone who is attracted to another
person of the same gender (as long as they don't act out and sexually
assault or harass other persons as Kevin Spacey allegedly has done).But it is a choice for us to refuse to support same-sex marriage and to view
it as a sinful practice just as it is a choice for you to mischaracterize
biblical and other moral teachings against sinful practices.
I've never understood how people who profess to be Christian can be so
intent on discriminating against others and hurting them. I seem to remember
Jesus insisting that we should "love one another." Refusing to even
sell someone a cake (or medical services or food or whatever) does not sound
like love to me.
NoNamesAccepted makes some really salient points in his comment which I
quote:“Imagine being fired for saying a silent prayer over
your lunch. Who would support firing someone just for hugging and giving a quick
kiss to his homosexual partner while getting dropped off in the parking lot?
What if Democrats were fired just for letting it be known they voted for
Hillary”?Or, Imagine being fired from your job if someone at
your place of employment discovers that you voted for Prop 8 – oh, I
forgot that happens all the time! And LGBTQ folks want fairness?
The story that Matt Adler tells about the Lyft ride driver is troubling. As a
Mormon and as an American citizen, I personally find that type of discrimination
to be despicable! It was pointed out that “one potential
compromise would involve creating an accommodation for businesses like
Masterpiece Cake shop under the assumption that support for same-sex marriage
would continue to rise and that shops that won't serve LGBT couples
wouldn't survive, Flanders added”.To Mr. Flanders I would
say that there is another assumption – and that is that there are a whole
lot of people who object to same-sex marriage who would actively support a
bakery which doesn’t support making cakes for Gay weddings over those that
do. Importantly, I would add that I would likewise not support that
same bakery or any other business which would attempt to refuse to serve (in a
general sense) goods and services to Gay customers which are not associated with
a gay wedding!In other words, a lot of decent people draw a line
when it comes to our religious objections to same-sex marriage.
re:LMacfarrengreat post. Agree 100% !
Vanceone claims: "Militant Homosexuals run around looking to harass and harm
Christians. This is a fact." Like when they passed a law saying
Heterosexuals couldn't marry the person they loved, even though their
church and religion condoned it?Since you claim this is a fact, you
should have no problem proving it with many references and situations, right? I
won't hold my breath.A gun is not a person, dumb analogy, let
me help, No shirt , No shoes, No Guns, see it's about safety. Don't
need another hero, shooting the toilet out from under them.@Macfarren: Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn't, even if you
believe it is. Now with your extensive diatribe, you failed to mention where in
your scriptures Jesus said, Not to serve sinners, specifically, not some vague
interpretation, like Sharrona's sex with animals nonsense. I
can't for the life of me find a single parable or sermon about who to serve
food to. That being the case, then religious folks are just making up their own
rules (always have) to justify treating others poorly.
Let me say first people should always be civil to each other regardless. There
is no excuse for anyone being nasty to others. Second this whole so-called LGBT
thing is bogus. Ask someone 15 years ago what LGBT meant and you would get a
blank stare. The fact is every society discrimnates in some fashion -- companies
have a standard, teams have a standard, colleges have a standard etc... You can
choose to dress how you want and make other life choices however I don't
have to hire you or make a cake for you. I have freedom of choice too. Hatching
up a brand for behavior (LGBT) and then screaming foul because people reject the
behavior surrounding that brand is not only wrong but dangerous in any free
society. I am all for civility and treating all people with politeness even when
you have to reject their behavior -- you love the sinner but not the sin and you
have the right to say it and legislate it. In a Democacy, the majority wins and
that means you may not always get your way. If I live in a city that offends
me then I move. Just because I am offended doesn't mean there was any
intended offending behavior toward me. It could be that I am the offender.
"There is no distinction between refusing to participate in a same-sex
wedding and refusing to serve a same-sex customer."But there is,
that's the problem! There's a difference between refusing to serve a
Mormon and refusing to host a Mormon baptism."Oh please.
Carrying a gun is a decision, being female, being gay or transgender is
not."But marrying another man/woman is a decision, as is
engaging in an physically intimate relationship. When establishments post
"No Smoking" on their doors, does that discriminate against smokers?
When BYU says that alcoholic beverages are not allowed, are they discriminating
against those who drink? When stores say "No shoes, no shirt, no
service", are they discriminating against people?I agree that
LGBTQ should not be discriminated against merely because of their sexual
inclinations (like the case with the Lyft driver). It's unfortunate that
that kind of stuff happens, and hopefully it's not so common. But shutting
down a baker/florist/photographer for not wanting to participate in a same-sex
wedding celebration is not the solution and will only make things worse.
And from 'pragmatistferlife':'Oh please. Carrying a
gun is a decision, being female, being gay or transgender is not.' Compare the following from ABC on October 30:'Actor
Kevin Spacey said that he has "loved and had romantic encounters with
men" and that he chooses "now to live as a gay man," after being
accused of a sexual advance on a 14-year-old.'So which is it?
Is being gay a decision? Spacey seems to think so. It is his currently chosen
And more.'But those familiar with everyday acts of
discrimination aimed at LGBT Americans say they're not content to
wait.'True. LGBT Americans have never been content to wait on
anything. Originally they only asked that their co-habitating companionships be
recognized legally (not as marriage). Then they pushed for marriage. Then they
pushed that the subject of gay couples be included in elementary school
curriculums. Now transgenderism has been pushed into school curriculums as well.
Now those that dare speak out disapprovingly about homosexual behavior are
prosecuted, even from the Christian pulpit. So speech has been censured as
well. It was *never* about just being 'recognized' as a
same-sex couple. From the beginning it was and always will be about pushing
their agenda deep into the roots of American civil society.
More responses to more quotes:'"If every time you walk into
a shop, you risk being intimidated, that's destructive. That's the
kind of harm we want to end in this society," she said.'No
one wants intimidation, but the shoe is on the wrong foot. The most severe
intimidation is coming from Lambda and the very real threat of legal sanctions
which have put the bakers out of business. The gay couples pressing charges can
prove no lasting harm or intimidation as their desired cakes were supplied
elsewhere by other retails happy to offer services, and their marriages went
forward with all the desired frosting.
A few responses to a few quotes:'"This case is about much
more than a wedding cake. It is about the rightful place of LGBT people and
their families in the commercial and public sphere," reads a brief from
legal scholars concerned with the constitutional rights of children.'True, we should absolutely be concerned about the constitutional rights
of children, but it has nothing to do with cakes. Rather, it is the unequal and
unnatural situation created when when their mother chooses to live with another
'mother,' and or their father chooses to live with another
'father.' Who is in defense of the rights of children then?'"If what you say is, 'I object to your wedding,'
you're really saying, 'I object to you,'" said Rachel Tiven,
CEO of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.'False. All the
bakers in question have indicated they are happy to provide products to people
of all backgrounds. Cookies, cakes, strudels, and the like, and have done so for
many years, so clearly they do not 'object to' their gay customers.
The objection is limited to supporting an personally objectionable practice (gay
marriage), not the persons themselves. This is a straw man created by Lambda.
@drich - Nov. 10, 2017 10:01 a.m.Your decisions have consequences, live
with it good or bad.---------------Very true, and
that's something Jack Phillips (Masterpiece) should have realized before
he/it practiced prejudicial discrimination contrary to the provisions of
To "Impartial7 " won't history be harsh on the gays that forced
people to lose their Constitutional rights? When religion has to go underground
due to militant gays and other groups, will that be a great day in history?To "Baccus0902" lets make this personal for you. Would you go
along with a law that says you can only day somebody that is the opposite gender
as you? If you wouldn't go along with that sort of law, why would you
support laws that force people to act contrary to their religious beliefs?To "pragmatistferlife" but according to liberals your gender or
sexual orientation is a decision. If it isn't a decision, why are there
more than 2 genders?
@NoNamesAccepted . Nobody should be turned away over race, sex, “sexual
orientation,” Where do you draw the line? Leviticus 18:23
“Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it.
A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it;
that is a perversion.”
If this case is decided against the baker, I suspect this case will be decided
5-4 with the same judges voting in favor of the result as in the Obergefell
case. This would be an unsurprising result.
I would be a big time fool to hire any artisan, customizer, (whatever) that was
not enthusiastic about my project. Unless, of course, my purpose
involved some agenda, be it lawsuit money or PC grandstanding.
Militant Homosexuals run around looking to harass and harm Christians. This is
a fact. By giving them the legal tools to do so, the left is waging war against
Christianity (note how none of these anecdotes are about Muslims--the left
doesn't care about Muslims killing gays). This is nothing more
than Animal Farm: "All Americans are equal... just some Americans are more
equal: the LGBT!" Colorado already ruled that LGBT bakers don't have
to serve Christians... but Christians must serve LGBT people.The
consequences of this case are simple: If it's granted, Christians are
pretty much enslaved to whichever gay walks through their door. We lose the
freedom of contract. A contract is a "meeting of the minds." Under
this LGBT law, it's more "We dictate, you be slave." If you cannot
say no to someone or else, you are their slave, plain and simple. And the left,
the party of slavery, is eager once again to have slaves. You want
to compare to civil rights? What is the difference between an LGBT person
forcing a Christian to work for him or her, and a slaveowner? Both demand with
no thought for what the worker wants, and punish if not done. Democrats: Slavers
"Gun owners face this threat daily. End the discrimination."Oh please. Carrying a gun is a decision, being female, being gay or
transgender is not. If I were gay, that would harm you how? You
carrying a gun proves grave danger. Whether I think concealed carry
permits should be allowed or not doesn't change the ridiculousness of
comparing discrimination against a human because of who they are and me not
wanting you to have deadly force in my work place.
Ms. Dallas and Deseret News, thank you very much for a very well written
article.As a gay man and overall as a citizen, I don't enjoy
the idea of a baker or anybody else going out of business for any reason. Much
less if the business fails because of the owners retrograde and malicious
notion.I think the law is simple and clear, if you sell wedding
cakes and you know the market, heterosexual and homosexual couples, then you
should be prepared to adjust to the needs of the market.I am afraid
that if the SCOTUS were to rule on favor of the baker, it would open the gates
for a multitude of discrimination cases based on phony claims of deeply felt
Good grief. Did we learn nothing from the 50's and 60's? History
paints the racists during the civil rights movements as the bigots that they
were. History will be equally as harsh on those that discriminate against the
lgbtq people today.
Your decisions have consequences, live with it good or bad.
Small businesses should serve all customers. Nobody should be turned away over
race, sex, sexual orientation, religious or political affiliation, union
membership or non-membership, marital status, having children with them, or
lawful possession of a firearm.I've been fortunate to live in a
location and era where I've never seen any "Help Wanted; Irish Need not
Apply" signs; no "Whites only" signs or separate facilities for
"Coloreds". My daughters have received equal or even more
encouragement to pursue STEM subjects as did my sons.But I do see
signs excluding law-abiding gun owners/carriers on some businesses. It is almost impossible to find an employer who won't fire an excellent
employee for no other reason than lawfully, peacefully, safely and discretely
carrying a self-defense firearm on her person while at work.Imagine
being fired for saying a silent prayer over your lunch. Who would support
firing someone just for hugging and giving a quick kiss to his homosexual
partner while getting dropped off in the parking lot? What if Democrats were
fired just for letting it be known they voted for Hillary?Gun owners
face this threat daily. End the discrimination.