woodguru

First reaction here is that this is a stupid setup by the t*********r, this person has to know that this baker is opposed to baking any cakes for gays...

...so knowing this guy has a problem with this why on god's green earth would a gay person want to push this guy who doesn't like them or want to bake them a cake into doing so? Leave the bigot alone and find someone who wants your business already. So knowing this guy has a problem with gays is this going to surprise this person, do they have a reason to be all butt hurt over getting the expected result, which would be to refuse to make their cake?

So on the side of the baker, what is this guy's problem with using his head and using common sense and human nature against this t****y? The t**********e describes the cake he/she wants, the baker says with a dead straight face, "really, you want ME to bake you a cake, are you really really sure about that"? Yeah I'm sure, to which he responds with a wistful little, "okay, wh**ever".

This is major stupid wanting a guy who has a problem with gays to bake them a cake. They are looking for a legal settlement. The baker should bake a cake with extras, say flies, crickets, cockroaches, wh**ever.

bahmer

It is the gay people who are going to shove it down this guy's throat whether he likes it or not. They will make him bake a cake for them or close his business. They know that the Muslims will not bake them a cake as well but they aren't going to the Muslims and forcing them. Why?

woodguru

I think you missed a point I was making, that it is ridiculous for a gay person to go where they obviously aren't wanted, they should be advocating boycotts, not forcing him to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

So given the dynamics why doesn't the baker sort of just strongly suggest that this isn't a good idea?

That said if you are open for business to the public you are open to business to anyone who wants to buy a cake. He would not be allowed to say I don't bake cakes for b****s even if he is a r****t, and a business person should be able to cater to the public or find a new business that doesn't have to. It's a touchy subject and this guy should be doing everything possible not to cause himself more legal headaches. If he feels that strongly that he can't offer the service or product that's what he does for everyone he should close it up, he's bit too bigoted to have a public business.

What if atheists started saying they don't cater to christians? Now refusing to serve Trump supporters is another story,

bahmer

From my understanding he is a bakery and ant and all bakery is for sale by anyone entering his shop. So if had a cake sitting in the display window and a gay person wanted to buy it he/she could buy it. But when you ask the baker to make a special cake for a special occasion like coming out t*********r or a gay wedding cake then you are trying to force the baker to use his sk**ls and his artistic abilities for something he does not believe in.

JW

Many years ago, on a board far away, I tried to explain to the Pollyannas there that a single individual has easily enough power to make life miserable for an entire community. They just couldn't seem to get it. Without going into the whole demonstration once again, let me just say that too many rules makes the nasty individual's job that much easier. The above noted situation is a case in point.

A business should be allowed to select and reject clientele at its own discretion... and its own peril. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can demand of the citizenry. Religious freedom is absolute. The very concept of a human rights commission is a violation of the Constitutional guarantees of governmental non-interference embodied in the Constitution.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

woodguru

I do agree with that breakdown, it wouldn't be a problem to sell a stock item,

bahmer

Can you post the article where this comes from if it is the one I am thinking of it was a little different somehow not quite sure though. I read many articles and sometimes my memory is good and other times not so hot.

maryjane

I have never understood why, after asking for their date, the baker didn't simply look through his calendar quickly and declare that he was all booked up for that time. I also wondered why, when told "no" by the baker, the t*********rs didn't simply go to another bakery. Maybe there simply was a lot of arrogance on both sides. I, myself, have trouble understanding deliberately turning away business when that selling your product is your only purpose for being there. And, in my opinion, dealing with customers wanting to purchase your product, is no place for exhibiting your personal views about anything. Was the baker, as well as the customer, determined to make his point, mo matter what?

maryjane

I don't recall, were the customers asking for obscene, etc, decorations on the cake? Or was the whole refusal simply because the baker "knew" they were gay?

bahmer

Is this the article that you are referring to.

BREAKING: Colorado Civil Rights Commission Comes After Christian Baker AGAIN — This Time For Not Baking A Cake Celebrating T*********r T***sition

ByBEN SHAPIRO
@BENSHAPIRO
August 15, 2018
On Tuesday, according to The Daily Caller, Christian baker Jack Phillips — who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against him on the basis of religion by fining him for not baking a same-sex wedding cake — filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission. Why? Because the Civil Rights Commission has apparently issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a g****r t***sition celebration cake.

On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips’ shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex t***sition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina’s t*********r identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods. In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests. … Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination.

Phillips has now sued, claiming violation of free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection. The lawsuit, by the Alliance Defending Freedom, asks for an injunction against the Civil Rights Commission and sues the head of the commission in her personal capacity.

The possibility of a renewed crackdown on religious business practice was not foreclosed, however, by the prior Supreme Court decision. That decision was narrowly-tailored to avoid the key issue: whether the government can force a business owner to violate his or her religious precepts via antidiscrimination law. The case instead turned on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s openly disparaging language about Christians and their differential treatment of religious bakers from non-religious bakers.The root issue, however, was far deeper. Justice

Kennedy wrote that such an issue would have to wait for another day:

The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided. …The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts. …

If the political Left should ever gain a fifth v**e on the Supreme Court, it will not be long before states across the country — and perhaps a Democratic Congress — would crack down on individual religious business owners in blatant violation of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of association, speech, and religion. Jack Phillips isn’t out of danger yet.

woodguru

No... a business cannot reject people at their own discretion, you can't reject b****s, Muslims...or gays, and doing so is at your own peril.

The bill of rights is not nearly as much about what the government can expect out of people as it is about the protections afforded to people (b****s, w****s, christians, muslims, gays). Christians do not get preference over gays.

Defining religious freedom, it is not absolute in the context of how the conservative religious right is trying to see it. Muslim beliefs mean everything that christian beliefs mean, christian beliefs have no more power in regard to laws as muslim ones do, we do not nor will we ever recognize sharia law, and religious ideology such as a******n and the hard conservative objection to it is as objectionable. Putting religious beliefs ahead of the constitution is objectionable. Religious freedom and rights does not mean that a county clerk such as Kim Davis has a right to deprive a gay couple of the legal right to get a marriage license. In support of Davis's religious right to believe wh**ever she wants she is free to quit and find another job that she is not required to issue marriage licenses she has a problem with.

Giving christians the religious rights they seem to think they have on the job, whether they own a business or are an employee opens the door to Muslim business owners walking all over the religious rights of their employees because they own the business. You can own a business and believe wh**ever you want, but you cannot jam your religious beliefs down your employees throats. You can allow employees to pray if that's what they want to do, but you can't tell them that they will pray to a god they don't believe in.

The constitution protects the right to believe what you want, but not at the expense of someone else's beliefs. Beliefs do not need to interfere with someone else's freedoms and rights to be "exercised". Beliefs are something everyone can have that nobody can interfere with, if your beliefs affect someone else you are wrong

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I dunno why people do what they do sometimes. 15 minutes of fame, maybe?

BigMike Loc: yerington nv

I have no problem not going where I'm not wanted.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

But a business can reject a person because of who they work for?
Think Sarah Sanders.