Bakery pays over $135K for refusing to make cake for gay wedding

What I do not see any facts anywhere of what you are alleging. Is there proof of money or other tangible assets being passed from the local gay rights organization to the judge ? hat is the name of this gay rights organization ? If this was to be true then the judge can, should , and must be arrested criminal corruption by a judicial official, given a fair trial, and put into prison for a very long time. If there was no trial then what was it ? Was it a procedural hearing or an arbitration session? Since there was a judge involved it had to have been sanctioned by the judicial arm of the government so what exactly was the process? Being that it was a judicial official act there must be a public record of the proceeding so where is the link to the proceeding ?

If it had to do with a religious ceremony for a gay couple what type of ceremony ? What is the religion of the gay couple/ or what is the religion of the religious official who was to perform or had performed the gay act of "marriage". Those the religion that decided to marry this gay couple have a name such as Methodist, Unitarian, God's Assembly of the Holy GAY Cake ? Just wondering how the cake fits into this religious ceremony ? Do they bless this holy cake ? Do they throw it at each other ? Will they ( the gay couple) be naked and rub frosting on each other ? Sorry for asking questions but when someone says that it is a religious ceremony I need to ask becaue I have never been to a gay wedding and hope to God that I never ever do.

 

Of the first, I've posted that before but don't care to look it up again.

My point of the cake it has been posted and claimed the bakers were denying rights in relation to an SSM, when that is false. If the couple wanted to buy a pen for the officiant to sign the license with and they refused, then it could be claimed it was to deny the couple equal rights in terms of marriage.

Religion and ideology mean the same thing in my opinion.

- - - Updated - - -

So what if he described their relationship as an "abomination," other than the hatred some people have of free speech.

 

Have religious morals and a "We're open" sign as a public business, then pay the piper and pay dearly. Discussion over.

- - - Updated - - -

Amazing stance. Look past differences and being human. What a concept!

 

Would it matter either way? They were loyal customers for multiple years and they took their business to a place they were long time customers of and thought the business, with a big "WE'RE OPEN" sign will offer them the dignity and respect they deserve. State law dictates as much and the business thought differently. The business had a profit motive and now they have to pay out for being a religious organization, which they are not clearly.

 

There is not a single word in that ruling about what has really happened.
"Deny of service" is just frivolous interpretation of the fact.
Lesbians insist that they need special cake, not just a cake
Period.

 

Why are you trying to lie and speak nonsense?
The request has been made for special cake, that cake was very different then regular cake
There is a picture on the internet about proposed cake.

- - - Updated - - -

again he is free to say anything he wants (First Amendment right)
They refuse to make special cake with two doll girls on the top.

 

I already challenged you to show a lie I told and prove it was a lie. I'm still waiting.

The cake ordered was no different than any other cake.

They weren't asked to make a special cake.

 

So if you do not like how the SCOTGUS rules on a specific case you accuse the party in power in the WH of peeing on the Constitution !! I see ! Funny but in some recent cases when the SCOTUS ruled against your liking isn't it odd that the majority on the SCOTUS is not of the same ideological party as is in the WH. So who peed on the Constitution when the majority on the SCOTUS is your party but the WH is held by the other party ?

You appear to be whining that if a ruling by the SCOTUS does not go your way and the other party is in the WH it's not that the SCOTUS did their job and interpreted the Constitution albeit different from your views but that the WH peed on the Constitution.

So each time a SCOTUS ruling does not go your way you do not accept that the SCOTUS may have honestly ruled that way but that someone peed on the Constitution and you know who did it.

So you will never accept that a given SCOTUS can and did the job that the founding fathers envisioned but oh my someone peed on the Constitution because you do not agree with a ruling.

 

let's simply look at "gay marriage"

it's about qualifying people based upon the sex act they choose, not how they are born.

let's look at the ACA. I do not see anywhere in the Constitution that the fed govt has the right to force one into commerce.

You might be happy today with Democrats and how the SCOTUS has been swayed by the administration. It can easily swing the other way

 

I have said it and I will say it again that I do not agree with the concept of gay marriage because it is illogical in the way our human society has evolved. I also said that it is biologically illogical. Ok said it again. What I do not agree with is with people who wanted the SSCOTUS to rule against gay marriage based upon religious tenants. No branch should back any religion or even back religion in general. It needs to be neutral on religion and not impose a religion or any religion on anyone or allow another party to do so.

Now gays want the right to marry but it is not that they need the SCOTUS to let them have sex they already are having same gender sex. They want marriage for economic, legal and social reasons. They what to get at the SS pension, and Veteran's benefits of their partners. They want the right to make decisions and get information about their partners medical conditions. They want social acceptance - but I do not really understand how the SCOTUS can grant that.

The ACA act as commerce or as you lean it "force" into commerce already had precedence in the casualty liability insurance arena in that states force people to carry liability insurance to register a vehicle. I believe that there are other areas but I do recall off hand.

Of course I am not a raving proponent of the ACA since I do not believe that it was set up properly yet I want insurance facilitation to stay as a private enterprise.

There are some SCOTUS decisions I agree with and others I do not. That one that declared a business corporation or a union a person is wrong in my thinking. Yet I am not out creaming that the right wing peed on the Constitution. It was a ruling that I believe was flawed and hopefully it may get reversed some day.

Unfortunately I do not have any hope that gay marriage will get reversed.

if we all take he position that every time we do not like what a particular SCOTUS does or what a president does that the constitution was peed on we will hit the BOY WHO CRIED WOLF syndrome. We will desensitize ourselves to the point that some president someday may real pee on the Constitution but no will listen because we heard that cry way too many times. It's like the cry of racism I feel we have heard it too many times. That may be another reason many of us are not listening to the shrill cries of BLM. If someone claims that all shooting by police are as a result of racism then eventually no shootings of Black men will be viewed as racism.

 

You are free to believe anything you want about that case or any other, but I suspect that what you believe should be in line with the facts of the case and the law. I do not believe your opinions meet those two requirements.

I think you went a bit off the rails here. All I'm talking about is to allow people to eat a meal in their restaurant of choice or rent a room in a motel without regard to whether of not they are straight, gay, white, black or any other factor which may upset somebody's prejudices.

Fine with me if you don't want to invite certain "kinds" of people to your house. No skin off my nose. BUT, when you open a business to serve the public, then you must, under penalty of law, do exactly that. Don't do it, and there may be consequences as there were in this case.

When someone walks into a bakery and orders a wedding cake, one presumes it will be made for them, not other people. That's the nature of the wedding cake biz. If they were refused by the owner because of their sexual orientation, then the owner violated state laws. Open. Shut. Pay at that window over there.

 

Theists types, sure. I don't see much difference between your irrational faith in police powers to fix all that you perceive to be evil and the theist's irrational faith in deity powers to fix all that they perceive to be evil.

No, just an omnipotent state to take care of you cradle to grave and fix your problems for you and enforce your morals.

Right there, you display a healthy desire to see your morals inflicted on everyone else through the police powers of the state. Really, you are no different than the theocrats that you complain about.

That you don't advocate for the state to punish someone for doing something you dislike is not tolerance. If you get your right and wrong from government, as you seem to do, then you are no different than religious people who get their right and wrong from a book. If anything, your source is worse, as it's completely based on violence against others.

There you go. Laws define right and wrong. That is the thinking of a worshiper, not a rational thinker.

 

No, she confronted the owners deliberately knowing very well that wedding cake means something different for them.

 

Again, it is your opinion that is not supported by any kind of real life evidences.

 

You made the claim that the cake was a special request yet after numerous requests you are still refusing to post any evidance of such. If the cake was a "special request" that used special ingredients or techniques unknown or unavailable to the bakery then you have a point, but it wasn't so you don't.

If they wanted religious protections they should have opened in a church as a non-profit religious orginizarions; instead they wanted to make money by being open to the public which means they must follow public law. Why do you believe those choosing religious affiliation should have special rights?

 

Like a said the "wedding cake" is not just a cake it has a special meaning.

 

I do not agree that a condition of employment the government can require is that a person abandon ethics and morality.

You claim if a seamstress refused to tailor KKK uniforms for a cross burning religious ceremony that everything that seamstress has should be taken from her and she is banned from future income as a seamstress because she engaged in religious discrimination. You claim she should be wiped out by government decree and judgment. I disagree.

 

The bakery sold wedding cakes to the public. If baking a wedding cake is such a sacred act it looks as if they would have been investigating every wedding they served. But they didn't.

Like I said: if your faith requires you refuse service to "sinners" but your greed of making public money outweighs that premise then you should be questioning your own faith.

The amount was excessive but correct in its intent. Want religious refusal, open a church.

 

I agree to that legalistic reality. All churches should declare themselves to be a non-profit organizations and contract out the church location for rental during church service time, for which that church operation is then a religious organization.

By doing so, they then could engage in politics directly like all other non-profits can do, but also would have the protections also of being a religious organization. That is the only way that religious people could 1.) have the same free speech rights as everyone else, while 2.) cannot be required to participate in or in support of other religions and adversarial ideologies.

For example, PP is non-profit and can spend as much money lobbying for legalized abortions and for federal money, and even support candidates, but an anti-abortion church cannot support or oppose any candidate. If in their overall structual model there was included an incorporated non-profit element separate from the religious entity, then they could have the same rights as PP for political activism. The church operation also would be separate, and incorporated. Any massive fines could be eliminated by dissolving the corporation.

Churches should incorporate as a non-profit entity and contact out the church facility for services rentals, with that aspect recorded as a religious organization, that also is incorporated.

Businesses that do not agree that they have to say and do anything the government demands even if unethical or immoral to them, and due to the unstable nature of government and the legal system, should incorporate to avoid all personal liability and use multiple levels of separate entities (church, non-profit, corporate) contracted in limited degrees within itself so in a worst-case senario they declare the corporation bankrupt and dissolved, and then just create a new corporation and other shielding legal entity definitions.

The USA is the land of lawyers and legaleze. It is not about equity or common sense, but about ever-changing minute legalistic details, paperworks and word-selection. The legal and political system is corrupt as it gets. People have to learn to play the game however absurd and bizarre it is.

Any lawfirm that would explore and establish the paperwork for businesses to offer these legal shields would likely make a pile of money.

 

The courts have already ruled that refusing to preform services related to hate speech, illegal or nefarious activities are perfectly valid. Also, the KKK is not a protected class - but your comparison between a couple trying to obtain typical goods available to the public and a hate group is noted.

 

Emotional damages??? Oh bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The court dropped the ball on this.

 

I specifically stated for a religious ceremony and burning a cross isn't illegal, nor did I say anything about hate speech. Religious beliefs is a protected class and that was upheld in the Westboro Baptist Church decision (concerning the military funeral).

Sewing costumes is the typical work of a seamstress and gay activists groups have engaged in extreme acts of hate against Christians including such raiding church services, throwing condoms at members and so forth.

Your message points to the hypocrisy. You oppose KKK religious ceremonies and do not oppose religious ceremonies for gays - therefore you claim the first group of people do not have protection against discrimination and the second group does - yet both are an ideology/religious activity.

I am pointing out the cake-decision was NOT on principle because of the hypocrisy. Rather, it was a PC political decision for a politically preferred group that in that area is a political force of the majority party. You also confirm the war against free speech is not only growing, but you support the government expanding the speech it effectively outlaws - anything the government declares is "hateful" - but very selectively so.

- - - Updated - - -

There was no emotional damage and it has been only recently there could even be an award for emotional damage without actual damage. The case was a setup and the administrator, gay rights organization and judge all are the same team.

 

Aaron did not say anything about dolls. He said he would not bake a cake for the couple, because they were homosexual. He further demonstrated a personal bias for homosexuals, using his first amendment right to make that proclamation.

I'm sure the court is grateful Aaron chose to use his first amendment rights in that way. It made the important questions before the court trivial to answer.

It's the equivalent of an accused murder choosing to use his first amendment rights to assert he killed a man because the man was a mechanic and then saying he hated mechanics. It answers questions of both what was done and why it was done.



​

 

"Greed?"

Don't you think it is time we end all food stamps and cash welfare programs to eliminate that "greed" too.

- - - Updated - - -

Your message is false. The refused to provide services for a religious/ideological ritual that endorsed homosexuality.

 

In your example of denying service to those practicing the Christian faith (the KKK in this instance) is an interesting scenario. Unfortunately the KKK is not a protected group - claiming that their religious stance puts an interesting twist on the narritive although I do not believe that a pro-discriminitation group would take their business to an individual they are wishing to discriminate against in your hypothetical. The courts have ruled in reasonable accomidation so the outcome may be placed on the seamstress.

Anti-discrimination law doesn’t entitle anyone to demand a product or service that is not part of a business’s advertised lineup. But a wedding cake isn’t magically transubstantiated into a different product the minute a gay couple requests it. Again, if a baker advertises wedding cakes, they have to sell them to people who want to buy them without regard to their membership in a legally-protected class.

It is odd however that you would highlight the dangers presented by the passage of laws which undermine all notions of civil rights protections by carving out arbitrary and vague “religious exceptions”. While I am sure this was not your intent the example still stands.

I am not the one advocating for more discrimination; if you open a business in a state then you agree to abide by the laws of said state.