Your take on gay wedding cake issue

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have. I am sorry but this decision was correct whether you like it or not. They couldnt do this in a governing body but as a private business they can do what they want. They could go to someone else. They have an option. They just want to sue because they found a possible way of making money.

First off, the whole thing was a setup from the get go to advance their agenda to impose their beliefs on others. There are plenty of cake decorators in Denver that specialize in erotic cakes. They chose this particular shop to bring light to their cause, not because they couldn't find someone to bake a cake for them.

Second, cake decorating is an art form. There are contests for it and they have classes for it at the art center. If the court can defend pornography as an art form, then cake decorating should be considered in a similar light.

Third, the country was founded on the right to freedom of religion by individuals seeking shelter from persecution abroad. That is why it is in the first amendment. It is not the courts job to impose beliefs upon individuals or religions. If you believe in free speech, you should not be opposed to freedom of religion.

Mal Content wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-baker-gay-wedding-cake-case-reaction-swift-predictable-172655745.html

1. Is this a slippery slope for convenient discrimination?

2. Is a baker an artist or a businessman? What if you are a baker for HEB? Do you consider yourself an artiste?

3. Why do religious beliefs hold more weight than regular beliefs?

4. Does having God as your imaginary friend allow you more leeway when discriminating?

5. Flagpole?

Well you have an obvious POV but I agree with you.

There's a simple test here. Replace "gay" with "Black" and see if you still think it's ok. Is it ok for a baker to refuse to serve someone because they're Black? Obviously not. What if her religious beliefs promoted racism? I don't care. I don't care if your religion encourages discrimination against gay people or Black people, and I don't care what class or group of people the law is intended to protect, it's wrong to discriminate.

Homosexuals cannot really be married, so they don't need a cake.

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

no forced labor wrote:

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

Same here. I think the business should be able to decide for themselves what clients to take.

To equate gay with black is quite a reach.

I’m not an expert on the case so maybe I have the facts wrong. I was under the impression that the baker offered other cake options to sell, they just didn’t feel comfortable making the cake as requested. If so, it certainly seems like the baker was within their rights. Can anyone confirm this?

no forced labor wrote:

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

I am pro-cake. I don't care if the cake is gay, or if it is for a wedding, or whatever. Cake is cake. Pretty sure that's in the Bible somewhere. Or the Constitution. Or maybe just a cookbook. Anyway, I am pro- cake.

Mal Content wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-baker-gay-wedding-cake-case-reaction-swift-predictable-172655745.html

1. Is this a slippery slope for convenient discrimination?

2. Is a baker an artist or a businessman? What if you are a baker for HEB? Do you consider yourself an artiste?

3. Why do religious beliefs hold more weight than regular beliefs?

4. Does having God as your imaginary friend allow you more leeway when discriminating?

5. Flagpole?

1. No

2. It doesn’t matter in this case. If a business refuses to do business with a person because of who they are (gay) that is discrimination. If a business refuses to do a particular service or sell a product to anyone (a cake about gays) that is not discrimination.

3. The first amendment. Based on a history of religious persecution around the world which still continues.

4. Most religious people don’t view God as an “imaginary friend.” Most religions preach love and are opposed to discrimination. MLK Jr. being a good example of a religious man using religious principles against discrimination. There is a difference between believing something to be wrong and discrimination.

5. Half mast?

Not a homophobe wrote:

I’m not an expert on the case so maybe I have the facts wrong.

I was under the impression that the baker offered other cake options to sell, they just didn’t feel comfortable making the cake as requested.

If so, it certainly seems like the baker was within their rights.

Can anyone confirm this?

no forced labor wrote:

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

Believe you are correct. This baker was well known for his beliefs, he doesn't even do Halloween cakes.

As stated by a poster above, it was apparent to pretty much everyone he was targeted for the publicity the case would bring. That couple wasn't just randomly walking around looking for a baker.

I think the Supreme Court saw this too and was the reason behind the narrow, carefully worded decision.

If a national poll was taken, my guess the majority would say "If the guy was a jerk, why didn't they just go to another baker"?

Democrats are “funny”

Chips and dip wrote:

2. It doesn’t matter in this case. If a business refuses to do business with a person because of who they are (gay) that is discrimination.

So if someone wants to hire a band to play at a white nationalist rally, the band shouldn't legally be able to say "we won't play at your rally because we don't believe in what you stand for"?

Not a homophobe wrote:

I’m not an expert on the case so maybe I have the facts wrong.

I was under the impression that the baker offered other cake options to sell, they just didn’t feel comfortable making the cake as requested.

If so, it certainly seems like the baker was within their rights.

Can anyone confirm this?

no forced labor wrote:

While I don't really like the idea of businesses discriminating against gay people, I also don't really like the idea of the government forcing anyone to provide their labor. I think the baker is a dick and a backward religious fanatic, but I don't think that it should be illegal for him to refuse service to anyone he chooses.

I just finished reading the SC decision - was suprisingly refreshing in light of the current state of politics and media coverage. The Baker was willing to provide other goods to the couple, just not a wedding cake. So, does not seem he was discriminating against gay people or he would not have offered to provide any goods to them. He just didn't believe that gays should marry based on his religious belief. The State of Colorado tried to force him to take action against his conscience. On reflection, I worry that there were two members of the court who did not agree with the ruling. You can figure for yourself who those tools are - pretty scary that members of the Supreme Court would be ok with the Govt forcing people to take action against their religious beliefs.

there's already a thread on this topic

Social Justice Warrior wrote:

Freedom of Religion is the highest Freedom an American can have.

A bakery is not a place of religious worship.

As a business owner you should be able to discriminate all you want on who you do business with. Let's say you're a nightclub owner, do you not have a right to let some people in and not others? In a free market, the business owner who discriminates too much will lose anyway as the customers he chooses to discriminate against will buy from someone else - this is really simple economics, people! If the government were to intervene in this situation and force the cake shop owner to work against his will, that would be called SLAVERY. I'm glad the government didn't take the tyrannical route in the name of the left's sick brand of equity and "diversity."

I also like the fact that all of these cases only include Christians when an Muslim cake shop would (and does

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmdiqB_8l2k&ab_channel=TheBlaze

) have the same policy. I guess cultural relativism doesn't extend to Christians.

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." And further:

"Eternal damnation awaits those pastry chefs who manufacture their goods for the degenerate disciples of Sodom."

Bobby1 wrote:

Homosexuals cannot really be married, so they don't need a cake.

Uh, obviously you are factually incorrect, regardless of your personal opinion!