@Uteofferouus;You don't think that those who wish to
discriminate aren't going to pounce at the opportunity to follow their
heart's desires? We are STILL facing huge problems with racial
discrimination. There are probably many business owners in the deep South who
would love to be able to claim "religion" as their excuse to
discriminate against blacks. If the SCOTUS rules that religion is a legitimate
excuse (and I do mean Excuse) to discriminate against LGBT customers, then they
have no position that can justify refusing to allow discrimination against
blacks or women or other religions. None. If you allow religion in one case,
you must allow it in all cases. Otherwise you have government favoring the one
belief over the others and that is a violation of the 1st amendment.
I agree that this is a very difficult case to decide. If you have no regard for
LGBT rights, the decision is easy. Or, on the other hand, if you have no regard
for religious freedoms, the case is equally easy to decide. Both sides have
equally important rights to preserve. How the Supreme Court decides this is
very important.Having said that, the one aspect of the Supreme Court
that troubles me most is that they are rarely able to decide such cases
unanimously. So it may likely be decided by left/right leaning activism. And
that would be very sad. If this could be decided unanimously, we
would truly be able to say that we have a wise SCOTUS of which we can all be
proud. I'll give them a chance, but I am extremely un-optimistic that a
good balance will be found.
@Lilly Munster:You postulated: “How soon will Christian
Fundamentalists be refusing Mormons? Can Jews refuse to serve Christians and
Muslims? Baptists refuse to serve Catholics?”Lilly, none of
that is likely to happen. Various religions do not see differences between
themselves anywhere near the concerns they perceive with the immorality of
same-sex marriage.You are merely attempting to trump up some
hypothetical fears to justify your own contempt for morality.
@Harrison B;If they make cakes with swastikas for some people, then
they need to do so for any who ask. However, we both know that if they
don't do it to begin with they won't be required to if asked.The difference, which you are well aware of, is that Masterpiece Cakes DOES
make wedding cakes for *ANYBODY* who asks for one - unless they're gay.
You see the difference and the fact that you're posting such comments
indicates that you don't care about truth.
Should a Jewish cake maker be compelled to make a cake for a neo-Nazis? With
The hypocrisy and shameful anger toward LGBT Americans is breathtaking and very
sad.If this man wins, on the claim that he has the right to discriminate
against (fill in the blank) because of religious beliefs, we all lose.How
soon will Christian Fundamentalists be refusing Mormons? Can Jews refuse to
serve Christians and Muslims? Baptists refuse to serve Catholics? Can Atheists
refuse any Believer? Open this can of snakes, and persecution of Mormons
cannot be far behind, since much of Christianity considers us a cult.
@dgw;If the baker puts obscene images or makes obscene cakes for one
group he may not refuse other groups; however, if he doesn't do them for
any group to begin with, he can't be required to by customer XYZ. In this
case, the baker makes wedding cakes he's simply refused to sell wedding
cakes to LGBT customers. That is why this case is about discrimination.
@InMyOpinionAlsoI skipped over this earlier, but you're flat-out
wrong. Even if same-sex marriage is a "wrong decision", that has
nothing to do with non-discrimination law. This case got started in 2012, a
year before Windsor v. United States and three years before Obergefel v.
Hodges.Like Elane Photography before, Masterpiece Cakeshop is about
non-discrimination law, not legal marriage. And it's that
non-discrimination law precedent that says "because God" is not an out,
that "I'm refusing the event, not the customer" doesn't fly,
and that defined the line between refusing a specific message ("KKK
cake") and refusing a class of customers (Southern Baptists).This case, and other non-discrimination cases, aren't about marriage.
They aren't even really about religion or gay folk. They're about to
what degree it's acceptable to compromise people's Freedom of Speech
to advance the government's goal of reducing discrimination in the
marketplace (AKA: non-discrimination laws).@imsmarterthanyouSo
long as I also have the right to refuse you, I can accept that. But that means
you have to repeal large parts of the CRA (1964) first.
It's not too difficult for me. "I reserve the right to refuse service
to anyone, for any reason, or no reason." No business can be forced to serve
someone they don't want to serve. I would close my doors first. Go on
unemployment & welfare & food stamps like all the other liberals.
@dgwWell that's an unworkable standard. The baker can refuse to
bake, but the make-up artist can't refuse to apply make-up. There's a
reason the Justices pushed the ADF's lawyers *hard* on where the line of
who was or wasn't an "artist" lay.There's a reason
a lot of *lawyers* looking at this keep saying that if we give this baker a
break, that it'll probably end up undermining non-discrimination law in
many more cases.And as I've said, I'd be fine with that
*if* it goes both ways. Either we all have to be nice, or we all get to be
nasty. @ScottashleyThe business license. When you apply for
and accept a business license, you are affirming that you'll willingly obey
a number of laws and regulations, including health code and non-discrimination
regulations. You can think that a business license shouldn't come with
such conditions, or that business licenses shouldn't be required, but
that's not the world we live in.@dgw (again)Bakers and
other vendors can already refuse specific messages, including text and symbols.
The new thing in *this* case is that that Phillips is arguing that *any* cake
would be a "message".
@RanchI understand what you are saying. I agree that the baker should not
be allowed to discriminate against the individual making the request, I disagree
that he/she should be forced to make something thing that he/she disagrees with,
for example a Nazi symbol or an obscene image or shape of cake. If YOU were a
baker, would you want to be forced to make a cake that goes against YOUR
@InMyOpinionAlso;The only 'wrong decision' that has been
made, so far, is the one of bigotry and discrimination. SSM may be the wrong
decision for you, but it is the right decision for LGBT citizens.
Difficult Decision? Yes it will because it follows an already wrong decision of
A lot of misinformation here. If one were to pay attention and listen to
credible discussions like those on NPR, you would be far more informed.There are actually cases that deal with the artistic question. The Baker
claims that by using his artistic talent he is forced to show support for
something he finds immoral. That is a test of first amendment speech, however
there is a 2nd part, and that is the message the artist claims to be forced to
portray needs to be perceived by others. In other words those at the wedding
need to look at the cake and reasonably say..oh this baker supports gay
marriage. That is a pretty high bar to clear. The 2nd piece of the
argument is around who do you get to discriminate against. If here then who
else? I still think it will be completely partisan with Kennedy the
swing. The conservatives will bring a religious bias so strong that they will
ignore case law, or just say, of course it's a public message. They will
huddle around religion so strongly that the second answer will be..who else?
Anyone who violates "my" principles.
Straight news. Nice job.
Why is the act of burning an American flag legally protected "freedom of
expression" while the act of making and decorating a cake NOT freedom of
expression? Can someone explain that to me?
Yar says:"...but please let us live our faith. We would express
so much gratitude to you if you gave us that freedom. It means so much to
us."--- First, there is not a single scripture or tenet in your
(Christian) faith that tells you that your business should refuse to serve
"sinners'. Your god did command you to treat people the way you'd
like them to treat you though.Second, your plea rings very, very
hollow after your refusals to live and let live by Prop-8 and Amendment-3.
Jesus preached that you reap what you sow. You've sown hate and bigotry
for far too long; we're not going to roll over now and let you denigrate
and demean us we're done with that. What you're asking is for us to
simply play dead for you. Ain't gonna happen.@dgw;The baker can still worship and believe anything he wants; his *business*
can't discriminate; you get the difference?
I charge you $25,000 for a cake. Economy solves many problems.
@YarNo, if the item/cake that is being made is not against your beliefs,
you cannot discriminate FOR WHOM it is being made, whether you agree with who
they are, or how they live their life.@EcherEnigmaI agree with
you that "... this guy can refuse me service because of how his God feels
about ***" is NOT acceptable. That is blatant discrimination! However,
"this guy" should be allowed to refuse to "make something", or
physically participate in something that they find uncomfortable, or goes
against their beliefs (religious, moral or ethical), regardless of whomever is
requesting it. That right should be available to ALL people.
maybe the USSCOuRT will decide if you can have your cake and eat it too
This is not difficult at all. Should a photographer be required to accept an
assignment in which he photographed indecent or even just intimate acts he felt
uncomfortable about? Of course not. Same with the a case of a cake celebrating
a homosexual "marriage"; It violates the conscience of the baker just
as the photographer had a right not to promote something he regards as
reprehensible.It is the very first freedom in the Bill of Rights.
Congress shall make no act .... prohibiting the free exercise of" religion.
The baker or any other workman has long had "the right to deny service"
even if only on the grounds of being unshod or unshirted. Without that right
and control of property, and without that freedom of conscience, workers and
business owners are mere slaves and we don't believe in slavery, or we are
just whores to customers' whims which amounts to the same thing.Of course it would help if our state and federal laws accepted marriage under
its original definition not twisting it to apply to newly concocted meanings,
involving acts that were illegal within living memory.
@Yar"please let us live our faith"You keep saying things
like this, but you never clarify.Does that mean that you're
free to refuse us service? Do we get to refuse *you* service?Does it mean
that when you refuse us service, we don't tell people about it on Yelp! and
Facebook? That you suffer no social or economic consequences because people
disapprove of your discrimination?Does it mean that I'm supposed to
stand idly by while you send your kids to "conversion therapy"
that's known to increase suicide risk?Does it mean that we're
supposed to never talk about our family lives at work? Would you also refuse to
talk about family at work?What about TV and movies? Are we only letting
you "live your faith" if we disappear from them, so you never have to
see a positive depiction of a gay person?What about politics? Are we
supposed to never run for office, never petition the government for redress over
wrongs done to us?Does it mean that teachers are banned from even
mentioning that yeah, we can get married now and all the research shows me make
just fine parents?So please. Explain. How is this supposed to
work. Because y'all's track record ain't so clean.
If at end of it all, this guy can refuse me service because of how his God feels
about gays and then follow me to *my* place of business, and I'm legally
obligated to ignore how his God feels about gays, then justice will not have
been done.Either we can all be as mean and nasty as we like, or we
all have to smile and serve. But you get to be nasty while I have to smile?
@RanchHandLook, if you want to engage in the things we advise
against, that’s fine. But this is not something we can celebrate.
It’s against our moral code. I know you don’t agree with us about
sexuality and marriage and you don’t have to, but please let us live our
faith. We would express so much gratitude to you if you gave us that freedom.
It means so much to us.
@sister;"It is interesting to think as an LDS Christian we are
taught that only those who are "righteous who keep the commandments of
God" will inherit the Kingdom of God..."-- Here's one
of his commandments to the "righteous": Treat others as you would have
them treat you. (This case is a huge failure to obey this commandment).Here's another commandment: Judge not.You so-called
"righteous" are failing miserably at keeping his commandments.Here's one more for the record: Eating shellfish is an abomination
according to "god"; how good are you at keeping that one?@Yar:"it’s still communicating a message of
celebration."-- Oh, the horror of it!! A celebration! The
@RanchHand:You ask 4 questions, but then answer them yourself
incorrectly:Who was it that pushed to restrict the rights of the
other? It can also be argued (and has) that the rights of the cake maker are
being restricted to force him to make something against his beliefs. (See other
responses about the message requested on the cake.)Who is it that
demands the right to refuse services to the other? Was it the people he was
refusing or the message?Who is pushing laws to restrict where we can
go to the bathroom? "Society" for many, many years have created 2
bathrooms, based around biological anatomies, not around to whom a person is
attracted or more closely identifies.Who is pushing laws to allow us
to be fired, evicted, denigrated and ostracized? Though there are smaller
examples to the contrary, the most religious state in the union has had
anti-discriminatory laws in place for employment and housing for many years, and
continues to enforce them.
Some others have mentioned something like this, but I believe the key issue is
separating the item (or service) being produced (artistic or otherwise) from the
party who is requesting it. The artist (or manufacturer) should not be required
to make an item that goes against their beliefs (moral, political, religious,
etc.). This would include words, symbols, shapes, and purpose (how used, not
who used). They should also not be required to put themselves in an environment
where they did not feed comfortable or safe. For example, a photographer should
be equally not required to work at a KKK wedding, nor a nude wedding, if either
made them feel uncomfortable or unsafe. (Or even a more average wedding (or
other event), if they were asked to "do" something that they felt
uncomfortable or unsafe.)However, the artist should not be allowed
to discriminate against whom he/she provides the item or service, based solely
on the customer's race, religion, gender, orientation, etc. I hope that
the SCOTUS looks at this difference, and uses it as a key aspect of its
deliberations and ruling.
RanchHand:when the story came out two years ago the item regarding a
message on the cake was included by the baker. It is one reason the focus on
defence is "freedom of speech". News since has not included this -
mainly because the national "media" is focused on the baker as being
"anti-gay" and discriminatory. It is interesting to think as an LDS
Christian we are taught that only those who are "righteous who keep the
commandments of God" will inherit the Kingdom of God - Does that make God
"discriminatory", "intolerant", or "hateful"? I ask
because we mortals judge incorrectly - we WILL know one day!
@RanchHandYes there was. Even if there were no words, it’s
still communicating a message of celebration.Also, keep in mind that
it was gay activists that have abused their otherwise valuable goal for pretty
dubious reasons. Attacking our churches for example.
Back Talk says:"Gays are not tolerant of Religious
belief."--- Who was it that pushed to restrict the rights of the
other? It was the "religious".Who is it that demands the right to
refuse services to the other? It is the "religious".Who is pushing
laws to restrict where we can go to the bathroom? It is the
"religious".Who is pushing laws to allow us to be fired, evicted,
denigrated and ostracized? It is the "religious".You think
that we don't tolerate your beliefs and yet, you continually try to
relegate us to the dumpster.@NoNames;If you don't
want to advertise your discrminatory practices, you're being a hypocrite
about them.@wrz;Customers can easily add a shirt or
shoes. Not a problem.@sister;There was no
"message" being put on the cake.
@ No One of Consequence"We have the tools available today to
work through this as a society..."Like what? Are you saying
that we, a divided, tribal America, have the tools NOT to use our shops to
passively-aggressively punish those we don't like/approve of? Or are you
calling for a balkanized America - an America where we don't work to get
past this non-violent civil war and instead fracture into our tribes?I'm for a United States. This requires promoting civility and basic
respect/dignity, and DE-emphasizing our differences. Phillips is asking SCOTUS
to emphasize them.
A wedding cake isn't just a cake you bake and let walk out the door. A
quality professional wedding cake is delivered and set up by hand at the event
by the baker. They finish connective work between separate pieces and touch up
elements jarred during transportation.A wedding cake is a work of
art. Forcing this baker to put his personal artwork to endorsing something he
finds morally repugnant is wrong. He sold regular cakes and bakery items to the
customers in question all the time without a problem. It was when they wanted
him to lend his artistic creativity and voice to their ceremony that he chose to
decline them. I worry about how Kennedy chooses to go on this. The Supreme
court hesitates to overturn prior rulings so if this goes against religious
freedom and the freedom of speech it will be hard to find the case that could
get it overturned.
Karen R. - Dec. 6, 2017 7:30 a.m.@ Furry1993If SCOTUS
lets us down, I would rather we go with the "If You're Buying,
We're Selling" signs only. I'd prefer to let the absence of a sign
speak its volumes and we already know what the equivalent of "whites
only" signs does to society. We also already have enough negativity being
injected into society from those currently in power. We don't need to add
to the daily ugliness they're providing (IMO).-----------------Good point. I just want there to be some overt
and prominent sign or other indicator so that people will know if they're
@Cheesecake: Should a baker be any less concerned about how his product is used
than you expect a gun dealer or pharmaceutical company to be? Double
standard?@Furry1993: I can't guarantee anything about what
people choose to feel. I believe the homosexual community is as capable of
dealing with minor slights with dignity and aplomb as the LDS are responding
appropriately to plays that mock their most sacred beliefs.@Henry
Drummond: We can quibble over whether a cake is art or expression and whether
the baker is really involved in the wedding. What say you to the photographer
whose work is unquestionably art--routinely copyrighted as such--and whose
personal, physical presence is required at the event and who must pose and frame
photographs so as to present the event in a positive light? Does the
photographer have a right to earn a living while remaining free to decline work
that offends her?This case go well beyond this baker. And the same
folks trying to use the specifics of this case to set precedence were just as
demanding that photographers be required to provide creative services to events
they oppose as they have been the baker. Seems a little dishonest to me.
Someone said "A cake maker can make cakes, but if the maker chooses to
refuse to modify,perform artistry, or put words on the cake that run contrary to
his/her beliefs, the government has no role in forcing the artist to make the
objectionable message."Many want to debate the
'artistry' angle, or the 'what was on the cake' angle.Perhaps that was what Mr Phillips was concerned about. But
maybe it was just the men told him they were celebrating their Same-sex
marriage--- and he didn't want to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex
marriage.Even if they wanted a snowman cake or an airplane cake,
with no gay couple cake topper on it or no hijacked rainbows, he likely would
have not wanted to be involved with his time and effort to make any kind of cake
being used to celebrate something he found offensive and wrong.So
forget the 'artistry'. Let the man avoid anything to do with SSM if
that is how he feels. (I know a man that will take no orders
associated with BYU emblems because he's a diehard Utes fan and despises
BYU fans. His choice)At the very most, the gay men should
have told the baker what they thought of him - and then gone to another bakery.
See column LDS Church, 22 Utah senators back Colorado baker in Supreme Court
case, boy @dennisromboy, Published: September 12, 2017 Deseret News, They put
their names on amicus or friend-of-the court briefs supporting Masterpiece
Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips in his case against the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and seven other religious organizations say in the brief that
they accept same-sex civil marriage is the law of the land."But some
deeply religious Americans, including some of amici’s members, cannot in
good conscience assist with same-sex weddings. Now that the court has protected
the liberty of same-sex couples, it is equally important to protect the
religious liberty of these conscientious objectors," according to the brief.
LDS Church affirms that its doctrine holds that “marriage between a man
and a woman is ordained of God." It also acknowledges that civil law allows
same-sex marriage but that it does not change church doctrine, teachings,
practices or policies regarding marriage.
@ Shaun"I was under the assumption that the baker declined to
bake a cake before any design considerations were even discussed."You are correct. They didn't get to design, so Phillips had no idea what
they had in mind.
The more I read about this case the less supportive I am of any
anti-discrimination laws that compel behavior or speech by individuals. The
government must treat all citizens the same but by creating anti-discrimination
laws that make one group of citizens privileged over another the government is
not treating all citizens the same. The people need to be free to interact
according to their conscience, within the bounds of the Constitution. I
don't see anything in the Constitution that says you should be given
special consideration in commercial interactions with your fellow citizens based
on your skin color, beliefs or sexual drives. Life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, not the guarantee of happiness. We have the tools available today to
work through this as a society without compelling anyone to violate their
conscience.If your freedom requires my servitude, are either of us
The purpose of the marketplace isn't buying or deigning to grant approval,
so it seems a little self-important for the shop owner to inject this into a
transaction. And as at least five justices recognize, carving out an exception
for one opens the door to all, and there goes public accommodations laws, valued
by all who think civility, decency, and basic respect are good things to promote
in a diverse marketplace.@ Furry1993If SCOTUS lets us
down, I would rather we go with the "If You're Buying, We're
Selling" signs only. I'd prefer to let the absence of a sign speak its
volumes and we already know what the equivalent of "whites only" signs
does to society. We also already have enough negativity being injected into
society from those currently in power. We don't need to add to the daily
ugliness they're providing (IMO).
Henry Drummond-No that’s not it at all. Read the entire story
about this baker. He makes cakes for EVERYBODY. What they do with it after it
leaves the store is their business. He doesn’t care. What he
doesn’t want to do is use his artistic talents to put personal touch and
message on it that he doesn’t agree with.
@NoNamesAccepted - Dec. 5, 2017 6:34 p.m.@Furry1993: "I propose that
all businesses be required either to ..."We could just respect
the freedom to decline to promote messages one finds offensive without asking to
be vandalized or picketed.------------What would you suggest be put
in place to prevent people from being made to feel rejection and humiliation if
they go to a business to buy a given product/service, and be told by the
proprietor that s/he refuses to sell to them the good/service the business sells
to every other type of sinner who comes in the door? In the case of
Masterpiece, that the gay couple weren't worthy to receive a product that
the business would sell for the "marriage" of two dogs prior to their
being bred (yes, Jack Phillips really did that -- check out Google)?What mechanism would you require to be put in place to ensure that the
business could discriminate if it chose to do so, but potential customers would
be able to know whether they would be accepted as customers if they chose to
patronize that business? That's why I suggested that the businesses should
be required to prominently state whether or not they would do business with
I was under the assumption that the baker declined to bake a cake before any
design considerations were even discussed. Can anyone verify this?To
me, that makes a huge difference because without design considerations even
being discussed you have to define what is a gay wedding cake and what is not a
gay wedding cake.In the end, I will support the decision made by the
SC because I believe in the rule of law.
The media reporting of this case, which impacts comments for or against
constantly leaves out THE most important fact: this baker makes cakes cakes for
EVERYBODY. including gays and lesbians. What he objected to was the MESSAGE he
was asked to put on the cake. His religious beliefs do not support gay
marriage. Being asked to do this he felt would indicate that he was in support
of gay marriage, which he is not.
Trump wins again in 2020 if terrorism continues, and if red states feel
threatened by un-elected life- time appointed judges. Gay marriage was a big
over reach which backlash gave us Mr. Trump as president to bring us back to
normal. Red states will stay red and from Florida to Idaho you can drive
through all red states. The equality movement is angry they gets wins and then
they lose elections and lose on the Supreme Court. For Breyer to say, "it
will be chaos" if we rule in favor of the baker, so we have to always give
in to the loudest threatening unhappy voices, is sad. Happy people will always
win. So I guess the ruling doesn't matter. Meanwhile in Utah the past
few days, protests abound concerning environmental lands few will ever step foot
on, and we don't see protests about there being homelessness. Where are
@Palmetto Bug:"If this were an easy decision the case wouldn't be
at the Supreme Court."The Court should rule that anyone can
refuse service to anyone. This seems to already be the case. Some restaurants
can refuse to admit customers who are not wearing shirts or shoes.What if polygamists wanted a cake?The issue is easily solved...
build the cake and make it look goofy. This might put an end to it.
@CheesecakeI think you nailed it. The baker is basing his refusal on
how the cake is used after it leaves his store. He’s not being forced to
endorse anything. It is no different than some providing furniture say he
won’t sell it to you if its used in a Mormon Temple because Mormon beliefs
From my reading of Justice Kennedy's comments, he is concerned that this is
a Trojan horse. I expect the swing justice to narrowly limit any religious
speech relief to written words and not grant a global amnesty to blatantly
discriminate against gays. Kennedy knows that any crack in the equality wall
would also put religious, racial, and social minorities at risk.
The decision should be simple. The plaintiffs need to show how they were injured
or damaged by the baker and prove it in court. "Hurt feelings" do not
constitute injury or damage. Laws on the books that force people to
"behave" in a certain way just because they might "offend"
someone simply don't belong in a free country, and that includes the
Colorado law. Crime is properly defined as injury or damage to an actual victim
and when we start criminalizing thoughts or beliefs, our liberties will soon be
gone. As much as the liberals would like to see it happen, you cannot legislate
The apologists for the baker want to make sure that religious conscience is
allowed. The same sex couple's allies want non-discrimination policies to
remain in place as written.Apparently, these are in conflict. So it
is up to our Courts to tell us which principle has the higher ground. Or which
party is the more grievously harmed.I believe it is important for
the same sex couple to win on the grounds that the anti-discrimination laws are
that important. And I believe that the baker is stretching his claim of
religious expression into a characateur of an reasonable argument. Furthermore,
by beginning the exemptions allowed for religious conscience represents a clear
and present danger to all law protecting minorities and other disfavored
populations in this country.No one is burning down churches, passing
laws to restrict religious services or any governmental interference in the
business of any given religion. In fact, government has gone to far in my
opinion to accomodate some extreme views in my opinion.We will just
have to see how the Judges decide, and learn to live with the consequences.
I want to agree with the baker, but for one problem. He seems awfully concerned
with what his customers do with his products. Why does it matter? If someone
comes in and purchases a wedding cake, and uses it for a same-sex wedding, why
is that the baker's concern? Obviously he is protected by the First
Amendment as to what he puts on the cake, and how he designs it. But he is
arguing that he should be able to discriminate against his customer's
protected attributes (like gender or religion) based on how they intend to use
his product after purchase. He says he is "supporting" same sex weddings
by selling the cake to a same-sex couple. I think that is a stretch, and he is
stepping over the line with that logic. He has every right to ensure the
substance of a product leaving his shop is in line with his beliefs, but once
that product leaves his shop, it's none of his business what happens to it.
Once he is compensated for the product, ownership belongs to the purchaser. He
is off the hook in terms of how it is used, just a gun shop owner is off the
hook when someone buys a gun for nefarious purposes. He has no business refusing
service based on religion, gender, etc...
What a silly notion that a man should be able to make his own decisions for his
privately-owned business.Government really needs to do something
about this. Too much liberty.....
There is a distinction between event/messages and individuals.Refusing to bake a birthday cake for a homosexual person would be
discrimination unless the customer requested a specific, pro-homosexual message
on his cake. A birthday is just a birthday. Ditto a house warming, or work
anniversary.Ditto a Mormon birthday cake...unless the request is for
the cake to celebrate baptism, priesthood advancement, or other explicit
religious event tied to the birthday.In contrast, weddings are
deeply personal and yet also intended to send a very public message. In
Cali--even post Prop 8--Civil Unions conveyed every (State level) legal benefit
of marriage. Yet homosexuals are still angry about Prop 8. The dignity of
having their unions called a "marriage" was a central point argued to
and ruled on by the supreme court. Marriage send a message.Church
weddings and LDS temple weddings send a different message than a civil marriage
with a judge. Homosexual weddings send a different message (for many) than do
heterosexual marriages. Ditto polygamous marriages vs monogamous unions.Let individuals, not government, determine which messages they want to
Leave him alone! I'm sure there is someone else who would love to make a
cake for them.
This is a really simple issue. A cake maker can make cakes, but if the maker
chooses to refuse to modify,perform artistry, or put words on the cake that run
contrary to his/her beliefs, the government has no role in forcing the artist to
make the objectionable message.This should have been an easy
business decision, but both parties have gone out of their way to prove
themselves right. If the business would have asked another artist to perform the
modification, it would have been seamless to the customer, and this
wouldn't be an issue.The above works for religion, or any
social messages. Don't want to put an LDS temple, biblical scripture, gay
message.. on a cake, I'm fine with that. The artist needs the customer
more then the customer needs the artist. Don't shop there, and convince
others to do the same. Money, or lack there of, will change the business'
behavior. In free societies, objectionable speech is rarely
corrected in the courts, and the government can't force anyone to be
polite. Successful businesses will make arraignments to satisfy as many
customers as it can.
@Furry1993: "I propose that all businesses be required either to ..."We could just respect the freedom to decline to promote messages one
finds offensive without asking to be vandalized or picketed.I
recognize that you and your side view this as discrimination against
individuals. But it would do much for civility for you to at least acknowledge
that you understand how those on this side see this as event or message based
rather than based on individuals.Refusing to bake Halloween cakes
isn't discrimination against Pagens. Mr. Philips doesn't bake such
cakes for anyone.Refusing to decorate cakes with bigoted and hateful
messages isn't discrimination against the KKK or skin heads when I
won't sell such cakes to anyone.Refusing to create wedding
cakes for homosexual ceremonies isn't discrimination against homosexuals.
Mr. Philips would refuse such a cake if a heterosexual friend asked to buy
it.If a photographer isn't comfortable with church weddings, or
just LDS temple weddings, she should not be forced to take those jobs as a
condition of earning a living taking photographs at other weddings. Why do
homosexuals demand special protections in such intimate events?
@Furry1993OK. That’s a fair compromise. After Phillips wins
(if he does), let’s post some stuff that gives everyone an idea on what
happens at the shop. You get your cake. I get my beliefs. Both of us win. I
like that idea.
What's ridiculous about this whole argument and the case itself is that the
plaintiffs could have easily found a wedding cake just about anywhere, as many
cake decorators would not have refused, but instead they chose to single this
guy out who refused to make a cake for a customer because of his sincerely held
religious beliefs.That's wrong.
Let Walmart or Costco make the cake - they are good, tasty and don't care
who eats their cakes. It is not right to be able to force someone to make
and decorate a cake - surely there are others who wouldn't mind. Leave the
guy alone as well as the blessing of being able to be free to follow our
Yar - Dec. 5, 2017 4:18 p.m.My preference is that all businesses
operating in the civil/secular marketplace be required to serve all potential
customers equally, and that prejudicial discrimination for whatever reason
(including sexual orientation) be prohibited. That's the same way the
question of racial discrimination was handled.But, if the USSC
allows anti-gay discrimination (or any other type of discrimination), how about
this for a compromise?If the court allows prejudicial
discrimination, I propose that all businesses be required either to let people
know they will serve everyone equally (like the 2014 "If You're Buying,
We're Selling" campaign in Mississippi) or state that they will not
sell [given product/service] to [given class of person]. One of those options
must appear prominently in all their advertisements, and be posted prominently
on the door(s) of the business site. If neither of these options appears in
their advertising or on their business door, they are presumed and required
serve everyone equally. That way we all will know what to expect if
we seek to buy a good/service from the business, and the proprietor could be
"selective" if s/he so chooses.
"Photographers, makeup artists and architects" and anyone else should be
able to turn customers away based on the behavior and event they are asked to
participate in. They are not turning down people based on their sexuality, but
on the event they are asked to support. Should a makeup artist be forced to work
at a transexual modeling event if they are opposed to that lifestyle? No, they
should not. Should a makeup artist be able to turn away a transexual customer in
his or her own shop? No, they should not. Should an architect be compelled to
design a sadomasochism bondage room for anyone of any sexuality? Not, they
should not. Should they be allowed to turn away a gay couple looking to design a
house. No. Should photographers be mandated to take photographs at gay weddings?
No. Should they be allowed to turn away a gay couple who comes to their studio.
No? It's not about the person, it's about the activity, and anyone and
everyone should be able to say no to that.
It is actually kind of unfortunate the court decided to take this case, with the
baker, rather than an earlier case involving a wedding photographer.One might split hairs about whether a wedding cake is a creative work or art
or merely a commodity, and about how much baking a cake is actually
"supporting" the message of the event where the cake is served.I think a wedding photographer is a much more clear case. Clearly photographs
are works of art, routinely copyrighted. There is no doubt that a wedding
photographer has to be personally in attendance at the wedding, and that she is
obliged to portray the event in the most positive light possible. That just
seems a much cleaner discussion.Religious freedom is but one aspect
of this. Freedom of speech/expression and association--all of which must include
freedom not to speak, not to express/create, and not to associate--are also
crucial. I hope the decision is not about carving out a religious freedom
exception, but rather is about recognizing an "event or message" based
exception.Nobody should have to support an event or message that
What happens if a Jewish baker is asked to do a cake symbolizing Nazi symbols
and beliefs? What about a black baker is asked to do a cake decked out with KKK
symbols and lynching pictures? As we wade into restrictions of our daily
conducts, we find that we are giving away our liberties to satisfy the
designated behavior of the day. The gay couple could have gone to another
bakery. But as they want to force their right on another person's right, we
are in this situation. The High Courts will never satisfy everyone.
what is the difference if a former jewish concentration camp survivor, now
baker were forced to make a nazi a cake....then I guess that is OK according to
our gay litigants in this case.........I will be glad when the
Colorado agency who supported the gay cake case and failed to support the
christian litigants in another case are left with cake on their face!
""It was clear that many of the justices wished there was a way to
reconcile the competing values in a workable way — even if the arguments
ended with no evident path to such an outcome,"This was my
favorite quote in the piece because it made me chuckle. In my mind I can
picture some of these justices saying to themselves, "why can't these
people just respect each other and get along...why do they need us to show them
how to do something they should have learned in kindergarten". Treat each
other with respect and dignity and stop being offended at every little innocuous
statement or opinion. It's time for our society to grow up...and the
juveniles are on both sides of this argument.
Agree, the "decorating" of the cake aspect of this case makes it
different. It should surely be protected.Also, I hope Judge Roberts
or some other judge will state if "outsourcing" of this service would be
acceptable . That way, the service is provided but the cake maker can tell the
gays how he feels all day long. As always, Gays dont want people who
dont approve of their lifestyle to participate in their weddings. They just dont
want them to have a legal right to so no.Kennedy said it right,
tolerance really has meaning only when it is done on both sides. Gays are not
tolerant of Religious belief.
Gay marriage advocates want to have their cake and eat it too.
“...a ruling for Phillips would create a win-win situation. Religious
believers could participate fully in the public square without compromising
their convictions, and members of the LGBT community could find bakers who want
to take part in their wedding.”Assuming that we construct this
correctly, I agree that this will be a win-win. You get your cake. We keep our
faith. Both benefit.
If this were an easy decision the case wouldn't be at the Supreme Court.
There's support and precedent for either side and there's likely no
perfect outcome. I have my guess on what the Court do but I'm
not a legal expert. I'm interested to see what the Court
Leave the man alone.
The is not that difficult. Why do smart people turn something simple into
something complicated? Wedding cake decoration is an art. You can’t
force an artist to do something that he doesn’t want to do. I
agree if he wouldn’t sell to someone a run off the mill cake for religious
reasons, that would be obvious discrimination. However this is not the case.If the court rules that this is discrimination, then religion is dead in
America. Then no one can ever use his religious beliefs his guide in life. This whole situation is becoming more and more like the tail wagging the