The threat to individual freedom is the underlying issue. It is not restricted
to religious freedom or free speech. The making of a cake requires human
talents, abilities, vision, discipline. It requires the application of a human
mind.Forcing a cake maker, a human, to trade his cake, the result, the
product of his mind, with or for something against his mind is a criminal
act.That is why coercion nullifies the meeting of the minds of humans who
freely enter into an agreement to trade things of value.Force by either
party, in a contract, makes that contract void. Expression of human
freedom, the ability to make your own mutually beneficial agreements with other
humans is what the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution were intended to
protect.God given inalienable rights.Forcing a baker to provide the
product of his mind, a cake, against his will is a crime against his mind.Those who force mind control as a means to an end are violating God given
rights.This should not have to be said, but it is a sigh of the peril we
fact, that it does.
Tenacious dJesus 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
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
@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
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.
@ 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 weddingdid 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.
@ Dan SmithI 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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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."
Baccus0902I'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.
@ Dan SmithI 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.
@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.
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?
@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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
@Dan SmithIf 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.
@ 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?
@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!
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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 platesNo, 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.
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.
@WindsorAre 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
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@2close2call: Agreed. Better apply one's principles consistently.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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?
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
@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.
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
@ Selznik - Saint George, UTSept. 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?
@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.
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.
@ 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?
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?
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. SOBoth 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
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 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).
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.
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.
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.
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
@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.
@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.
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.
"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.
@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
@bounitful guyWhat 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
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.
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.
It's a slippery slope. Just sayin'.
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
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!
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.
The Church has compromised many times for gay rights advocates -- don't
expect the same treatment in reverse.
@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
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!
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.
@ RanchHandNot 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_worthI'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.
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?
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).
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.
@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).
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!
@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
Why are we getting involved in this? These things always blow up in our face.
Prop 8 ring a bell?
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
@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.
@Daedalus, Stephen - ARVADA, CO:We shall see? Colorado
isn't an island the last time we checked.
@ 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.
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.
@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?
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
@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.
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
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.
@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.
@Flying ScotsmanI 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.
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.
@ 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
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!
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.
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?
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.
@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.
@ 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?
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,
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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."
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
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?
There's a reason why Utah is looked upon as a cultural backwater. And it
starts by our governmental "leadership".
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.
@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,
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
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.
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.
@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.
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?
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?
@JoCo UteA 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.
@nonamesacceptedI do not understand your argument. How is baking a
cake and putting frosting on it promoting a pro gay message?
They are seeking, at the same time, the right of anyone to refuse service of any
kind to someone who is not gay.
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.
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!
If you don't want to bake cakes for everyone get out of the cake baking
business. It's as simple as that.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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)
@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.....
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.
There's 0 legal difference between this and refusing to serve black
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
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.
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.
@*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.
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.
Since when is it illegal for a PRIVATE business owner to decide what he wants to
do withing HIS OWN business?
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.