Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

You're conflating issues. I, for one, do not believe in a 'health code'; I find it overly intrusive Government - again - and I also find it generally ineffective. Weekly, we have a news feature on our local FOX affiliate of restaurants that are horribly dirty - and the health inspector was clueless.

Businesses who cannot provide a good, safe and healthy experience for their clients die a natural death.

And - regardless of what you cite wrt to regulations, that doesn't compare to violations of religious freedom. Health code stuff isn't in the Constitution.

Churches, btw, do claim 'religious freedom' not to pay taxes.

Just exactly how my right to self-defense trumps your right to life if you try to kill me.

You're speaking of Julie Davis (IIRC). That was not equatable, as she was an employee of the Government.

 

Those are two separate qualifications. There are parts of the Constitution which work only for a moral people; there are parts specifically tailored for the religious.

They can certainly overlap, but they aren't required to overlap.

That's my take on his statement, at least.

 

Me as well. For me it comes down to two things, neither really based in legal argument.

Firstly, I think it's about purchasing one's unique talents, artistic ability and craftsmanship to produce something adverse to their beliefs. This isn't a widget we are talking about, it's a man's unique expressive skill. This isn't some uniform personality less bolt or screw. We are demanding a man use his mind and his hands to craft something unique, something unique to him, his skill. This touches the soul, and that is spiritual. This actually is torture.

Secondly, I think asking a man to utilize his talents to do something, to create with his unique talents, that harms his belief is rude. I wouldn't ask it of any man.

Cheers

 

In business and useing the case of the baker, I would argue that the bakery is a business thus subjective to the laws of government. I would also argue that a gay baker should not be able to deny service to Christian customers because of their faith.

Outside business I am not sure as any line in the sand will be subjective. There are Christian nudists, Christians who use weed, Christians who dance with serpents, Christians who want to marry childeren... so where do we draw the line all depends upon who you ask.

It will be interesting to see where SCOTUS lands on this.

 

custom is voluntary. if you walk into a business and the owner 'pushes' something unpalatable on you, you turn around and walk out. that's the freedom and power of your dollar. I frequent a small business near my home which is heavily adorned with religious symbols, and the owner often does/says things in keeping with her religious fervour. she also frequently asks groups of high schoolers to leave (they can be a bit rowdy). no one cares. her stock is fresh and well priced, and that's all that matters.

 

There's refusing service to someone because they're disorderly, then there's refusing service on the basis of race or religion, what I call The Untouchable R's. You deny service to someone because they're black, that's no better than back in the days of segregation when restaurants used to cater to exclusively white people. Religion, on the other hand, well all major religions have yet to be validated by science, should not interfere with your business transactions, whether you deny someone or not because a book of morality, like the Bible, because it is overall good business etiquette to serve the different types of creatures that wonder through that door. That would be like Walmart refusing to serve someone because they're gay. Large corporation or mom-and-pop shop, there is a line drawn clearly in the sand that you don't cross as a business owner.

 

I think they will side with the baker but do so in a way that makes it hard for the case to be construed to mean a whole lot beyond the parties. The actual fact that they were seeking a customized cake as opposed to a standard cake will be where they hang their hat. The case really turns on the Colorado Supreme Court's perhaps contrived conclusion that they didn't do the work because they were gay and not because they were a gay couple planning to get married. They could send the case back down for actual evidence clarifying that but I am a bit skeptical they will.

 

who cares? it's his business to run as he sees fit. he'll either succeed, or close. a surprisingly large percentage of small business operators don't do abide by the motto "the customer is always right", and about the same number close within 3 years of opening.

 

Source citation needed for the above bolded claim.

That is limiting product selection as opposed to limiting clientele.

 

I think the left's worry is that if they let the free market and owner choice have it's way, many of their causes would fall flat on its face.

They must be worried

I think this is where I fall. I think it should be illegal to deny a wedding cake for a gay couple, but it should be ok to refuse to make a specific type of cake if you disagree with it for personal reasons.

Would the left be willing to force a black baker to make a cake for the KKK ?

 

I can assume you've never been in business. MANY business people can and do discriminate .... every day. Maybe they've experienced a common tendency to pay late amongst certain groups, maybe they were once beaten up by teenaged boys, maybe they don't like having to speak a language not their own. Maybe they got out of the wrong side of the bed and don't feel like being nice. Maybe his wife and daughters drive him crazy so he's less patient with females. Maybe they're ill, and can't take that final order of the day.

 

It isn't baking cakes that is the issue.

 

My response that you quoted really is clean-cut. What you do after business hours, whether you go to the tavern and drink your worries away, or pray to your god in your bedroom, is up to you. You do have individual rights, the right to choose what industry you go into, what type of legal entity you classify your business as, etc. God, Buddha or Mohammad are not part of that equation.

Again, you can open a Church if you hold such religious convictions that impact every step of life. It really is that simple.

 

Then he would be violating Federal Law in the Civil Rights Act. That baker had sold products to gays. But due to the Matthew quote below it violated the tenants of his religion to participate.

Matthew 19:4-5 - 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?

The fact the baker had sold products to gays in the past, just refused to decorate a wedding cake based on his Religious beliefs will score him the win in the SCOTUS. Then he should sue the gay couple and the State of Colorado for all his business losses to date.

 

Yet a business is not a religion thus it is subject to the law of the government.

This is why the baker serves gays in his shop but won't decorate a "Gay Wedding" Cake.[/QUOTE]

Out of curiosity, if a gay atheist baker did not want to make a cake for a Christian couple would that be Ok.

 

Not true. The bakery relies on public roads to deliver their services and ship and receive goods for sale. They are protected by fire and police services supplied by public dollars. Their sewer and light systems are paid for in part by tax dollars. No business is free of tax dollar benefits.

Can a private hospital refuse service? How would you feel if you were brought in with a heart attack and the doctor said, "Can't help you, you're heterosexual ..."

Do we want to get to the point where your private trash collection agency can refuse you service cause you're a Mormon? Or because you're eyes are the wrong color.
When religion become the sole parameters for service we end up with gold stars being sewn into the clothes of "others" so they can be discriminated against.

 

I've read enough on business, thank you. I'm not totally clueless.

There are events, I will agree, that can mess with you psychologically. PTSD can screw with your ability to cater to Muslims, if you were in the Middle East, and it can be as benign as being beat up by teenagers. And to that, you should seek medical treatment for. But if its a common tendency to, for example, pay minorities less than whites, then one needs to find a way of fixing that. And, with all due respect, if his wife and children are driving him crazy, that's a personal issue and shouldn't bleed into the genders of the customers he serves. Same with how he slept and being nice, and I've pushed myself to go to work pretty ill before. To me, it just sounds like excuses not to be a responsible vendor.

 

Agreed, the "customized" issues is what the opinion will turn on. Roe v. Wade again.

Cheers

 

I agree with that.

 

A bakery pays no commercial property taxes for the road? You need to refrigerate your red herring.

 

The article states that the baker is claiming "faith-based grounds" as his excuse for discriminating in not baking a cake for a customer.

There is no recognized faith that forbids baking cakes.

I'm sure that many religious bakers can testify that they bake cakes all the time without any concern about the occasion for which they are intended. They're cakes, not personal blessings.

As for anyone who claims that anyone in business is entitled to discriminate according to whatever his bigotry dictates, that's a separate argument.

 

I don't understand how anyone can be torn. These bakeries don't have problems serving gays. Most have knowingly served their outright gay customers for years.

The bakeries have a problem with gay marriage. Just like a pro choice bakery might have a problem with a "choose life" cake. Who should be forced to help celebrate what they deem wrong?

 

Hey, little authoritarian, establishments have the right to refuse service. It's really that simple. Get a grip.

 

"We all have gender." That doesn't make any sense. Seems like you're flailing.

My argument is based on rulings in at least a dozen states. I'm more comfortable with those informed legal opinions than that of some random internet poster who appears to be basing theirs on some emotional reaction.

Yes, yes, every judge you disagree with is an "activist." Keep telling yourself that if it helps you feel better.

 

Viewpoint isn't a protected class. Even if we pretend that it is for a second, what is the difference between a "choose life" cake and a regular cake? Assuming your answer is it says "choose life" on it, the right of a baker (or any person) to refuse to create a message they disagree with is protected. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there's another case in Colorado that was settled where a baker was willing to bake a cake but not write a message on it that they deemed offensive. The baker won out.

I'd entertain the argument that a business should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but that isn't the principle challenged in this case. Rather, it's about whether the the baker's religious freedom gives the business cover for violating state law.