Question :

What was on this cake that was in and of itself offensive?

Or was it just the fact it would be a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down. The court added that people seeing the cake would not understand Mr. Phillips to be making a statement and that he remained free to say what he liked about same-sex marriage in other settings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/us/s ... riage.html

If he had said, "I'll sell you a cake but i Won't write on it what you want because of my religious beliefs, he'd have a leg to stand on....
But he didn't. He saw a couple of gay man and said No.

There are people, who profess their religion does not condone inter-racial marriage. Will that discrimination be allowed if it is presented as a protection of their right to express/not express themselves?

The there are people who, if the baker wins on his free speech argument, will argue that they are also protecting their right to free expression when they deny gays service at their say: jewelry store, restaurant, That seems to me to be beyond what free speech and freedom of religion is about.

danivon wrote:Question :

What was on this cake that was in and of itself offensive?

Or was it just the fact it would be a wedding cake for a same sex couple?

It never got to the design, but I think you know that.

The issue is the “design” phase. The baker must take the customers’ wishes and execute them. In this case, they would violate his religious beliefs, so he declined.

That shouldn’t be controversial.

The discussion did not get that far. The Christian baker refused to make a cake, any cake, that would be used in a gay wedding. He was offended that he would be participating in a gay wedding, however tangentially. He would have had a much better case if the gay couple had asked him to put a message on the cake that was against his beliefs. Anyway, Don't you know the bilblical verse: "Thou may not make wedding cake for the gays, for goodness sake?" They were going to have pizza too, but the owner of the pizza joint refused to have his pepperoni participate in a gay wedding...

It's a late night at the bakery. A voice is heard...

"Psst!"
Gay wedding cake: "Can't you see I'm trying to sleep?"
"Too bad your time here is nearing its end.."
(Crowd): "Let's lynch him! Hang him"
Mr. Appleby (an Apple Danish): "Now pastries...let's act in a civilized manner. Let's try him..then We'll hang him!"
Mr Winchell (A jelly doughnut): "Ok. I'll be the judge. Mr. Appleby you be the prosecutor. Who will be the defense attorney. Ah, I see our local li-be-ral Mr. Alleman has volunteered."
Mr. Alleman (an everything bagel): "I will do my best to stop this travesty of justice!"
Judge Jelly Donut: "We'll see about THAT. First, we need to empanel a jury. Mr. Appleby you may voir dire the jury."
Mr. Apple Danish: "Thank you, your honor. I have just a few questions for the potential jurors. Herr Braun (a German Chocolate Cake) you are German. Do you think you can judge an American fairly?
German Chocolate: "Of course. Ich bin Amerikaner!"
Judge Jelly Donut: "Well, I suppose if JFK could say he is a donut, Herr Braun could declare himself to be human..."
Mr. Apple Danish: "And you're brown and Mr. White (the gay wedding cake) is white Can you promise to not discriminate against him on the basis of color?"
German Chocolate: "Of course..even white cakes taste good!"
Mr. Apple Danish: "What about the fact that he is a wedding cake--la de da--and you're just an ordinary cake?"
German Chocolate: "All cakes are created equal! We all have to go into the oven..."
Mr. Apple Danish: "Thank you. No further questions."
Judge Jelly Donut: "Mr. Alleman. Any questions for the panel?"
Mr Everything Bagel: "Yes, thank you, your honor. Ms Sprinkles (a cupcake with chocolate frosting) do you think that you would be able to resist the majority if they sought a verdict you did not agree with?"
Ms Sprinkles: "Oh, so I'm a cupcake and I'm a lightweight, is that it? Us cupcakes don't get any respect. It really frosts me the way other pastries try to put us down!"
Mr. Everything: "Easy, easy Ms. Sprinkles. No offense intended. That's all the questions I have, your honor."
Judge Jelly Donut: "Very good. Shall we start the trial
Mr. Everything: " I need to confer with my client first, your honor."
Judge Jelly Donut: "Of course, of course."
Mr White (whispering to Mr Everything): "So...what do you think?"
Mr Everything (whispering): "Well...the judge is kind of full of it and the jury may be full of sugar...but they aren't very nice! I'll do my best!" To the judge. "We're ready, your honor."
Judge Jelly Donut: "Proceed, Mr. Appleby."
Mr. Appleby. "Thank you. My fellow pastries. The question in this case is simple: to be or not to be a gay wedding cake! Mr. White was designed to be a gay wedding cake and therefore it follows that he is a gay wedding cake. Are any of us going to be used in a gay wedding? No, of course not! He is a gay pastry and that my fellow cakes, cookies, and cupcakes this cannot be allowed. If we tolerate this...pretty soon all of us will be used in gay weddings. I rest my case!
Judge Jelly Donut: "Excellent argument Mr. Appleby! I cannot see how the jury would not follow your logic and render a verdict in your favor! Mr. Alleman...it's fruitless but you can try to counter Mr. Appleby' brilliant summation."
Mr Alleman: "My fellow sweets...are we not all made of sugar, butter and flour (apologies gluten-free)? Aren't we all destined to make people obese and clog arteries?
Judge Jelly Donut: "Court makes its own objection and sustains it! I will not have pastries put down like that in my courtroom! You bagels and your health kick have no place here. Always trying to put donuts down as being too unhealthy--like a bagel with cream cheese and jelly is any better!
Mr. Alleman: Gosh donuts are so sensitive nowadays! "Sorry, your honor. Anyway, I dream of a time...when all pastries will be judged by the content of their filling and not the color of their frosting! Mr. White is made of the same stuff as you and I...just wants to be a wedding cake. Why should be treated differently because he will be consumed in a gay wedding instead of a straight wedding? He looks like a straight wedding cake (takes some frosting off of Mr. White), tastes like a straight wedding cake...donuts and danishes of the jury he is exactly the same as a straight wedding cake! I ask that you render a verdict in favor of the defendant!"
Judge Jelly Donut: "Hmm...I don't know how the jury could be persuaded by THAT argument. Anyway, jury you may retire and let us know when you are ready to render your verdict."

1 minute later...

Judge Jelly Donut: "I have been informed that you have reached a verdict. What say you muffins, eclairs, danishes, donuts, cookies, and cupcakes of the jury? Ms. Sprinkles..you are the foreperson. You may read the verdict. "We the jury in the above-entitled action The Pastries vs. A Gay Wedding Cake...find the defendant guilt as charged!"
Judge Jelly Donut: "Excellent verdict! Thank you for your service, members of the jury. As for you Mr. White...you will be exchanged for a straight wedding cake from another bakery at the earliest opportunity so that you may live among your own kind!"
Mr. White: "What happened!"
Mr. Alleman: "Sorry, I did my best. The pastries here are not as progressive as they are at some other places..."

He certainly seems like a nice, sincere guy. But that's not the issue. Everyone should have equal access to the public square.

freeman3 wrote:He certainly seems like a nice, sincere guy. But that's not the issue. Everyone should have equal access to the public square.

And, they do, which he makes very clear--repeatedly.

In fact, he won't design any cake which violates his Christian faith. What's the problem?

Let's just say it is not easy adjudicating competing rights--freedom of religion versus the right to not be discriminated against.

I am curious whether you agree with some European countries banning the burqa and other Muslim head wear in public? And, if so, why?

Personally, I think there is weighing process that needs to go on, considering the following factors: (1) How burdensome is the restriction on the practice of religion?, (2) How central is the belief intruded upon to the religion?, (3) is the religion legitimate, an established religion?, (4) What is the public interest served by the law that intrudes on the the religious belief? (5) In the context of a public law requiring participation in an act that violates a religious belief...what is the level of participation in the act that ostensibly violates the religious belief?

Is baking a wedding cake to be used in a gay wedding that much of an intrusion upon religious belief.? I am wondering if the Christian Baker...consulted with any religious authority as to whether baking a wedding cake to be used in a gay wedding would violate his religion's tenets or was this just his personal inclination?

A clear-cut victory for the Christian baker would mean that any gay couple walking into a bakery could be told that they do wedding cakes...but not same-sex wedding cakes. That is a judgment on them that cannot feel good.

freeman3 wrote:Let's just say it is not easy adjudicating competing rights--freedom of religion versus the right to not be discriminated against.

I am curious whether you agree with some European countries banning the burqa and other Muslim head wear in public? And, if so, why?

I find the burqa odious. I’m putting that up front.

I also believe it can be and is used to get around security measures. Therefore, at the very least, it is a legitimate security concern.

Personally, I think there is weighing process that needs to go on, considering the following factors: (1) How burdensome is the restriction on the practice of religion?, (2) How central is the belief intruded upon to the religion?, (3) is the religion legitimate, an established religion?, (4) What is the public interest served by the law that intrudes on the the religious belief? (5) In the context of a public law requiring participation in an act that violates a religious belief...what is the level of participation in the act that ostensibly violates the religious belief?

Religious freedom is one of the basic foundations of our republic. We must be very circumspect before we start limiting it.

If I turned your question around and focused on homosexual marriage, how would it fare? How “burdensome” was it on this couple to find another baker? Did this baker disrespect them—or did they disrespect him (by cursing at him, flipping him off, etc.)? Is the practice of homosexual marriage “established” in our society? Is it necessary or legal to force all people of all religions to accept it? In this case, the alternative would be to force all religious people out of business.

Is baking a wedding cake to be used in a gay wedding that much of an intrusion upon religious belief.? I am wondering if the Christian Baker...consulted with any religious authority as to whether baking a wedding cake to be used in a gay wedding would violate his religion's tenets or was this just his personal inclination?

You are mischaracterizing the situation. This isn’t about “baking a cake.” They could buy any pre-made cake he sold. They wanted a wedding cake. They wanted his artistic skill. He was not willing to employ that skill for something he believes is sinful. They want to leverage the court system to force him to violate his conscience. It is not a “personal inclination.” The Bible could not be more clear about what marriage is. That some people engage in polygamy, polyandry, or even marry chandeliers (yes, really) does not legitimate them just because the Bible is either silent about that specific case or appears to sanction it via description. The model, from creation, was clear: marriage is one man and one woman for life.

A clear-cut victory for the Christian baker would mean that any gay couple walking into a bakery could be told that they do wedding cakes...but not same-sex wedding cakes. That is a judgment on them that cannot feel good.[/quote]

I think it would be ok to ban a burqa in public on non-security grounds as denigrating women and that outweighs the religious beliefs. The right to freely practice religion was put in the Constitution after all the persecution after the Reformation, where when Catholics had political control Protestants were persecuted and vice-versa. Here, we are talking about an undue burden on religion in their public businesss because they are being forced to do something they don't want to do to ensure that a particular group is not discriminated against.

So how do you balance those two rights? It's easy to say in a large city a gay couple could go somewhere else...but how about in a small rural city where there in only one bakery that does wedding cakes within 50 miles?

One of the main reasons that attitudes changed toward homosexuality was the realization that it was not a free behavioral choice--regardless of what combination of genetics and life history there was, homosexuals were not making so much a choice but becoming who they are. Their ability to not make that choice was heavily limited by by factors beyond their control. And ultimately if they are not making a choice--or if at least the choice is heavily tilted one way--then they should be allowed to become who they are. If God didn't want homosexuals...he shouldn't have made them.

A burqa is repugnant to our values because our values have evolved. We don't think women should be treated that way; it's not fair. I think our values with respect to how homosexuals are treated--and transgender and other square pegs that don't fit into the round holes of society-- are evolving as well. Of course, religion does not evolve. But I don't see why we should allow values from 2,000 years ago dictate how we treat people today in the public space.

http://www.sweetladyjane.com/wedding_cakes_a/257.htm

No basis for the 50 mile bakery argument.

I guess if you don't mind stale cake...

Or stale arguments...

freeman3 wrote:I think it would be ok to ban a burqa in public on non-security grounds as denigrating women and that outweighs the religious beliefs. The right to freely practice religion was put in the Constitution after all the persecution after the Reformation, where when Catholics had political control Protestants were persecuted and vice-versa. Here, we are talking about an undue burden on religion in their public businesss because they are being forced to do something they don't want to do to ensure that a particular group is not discriminated against.

There's a lot more to the Freedom of Religion than Catholics vs. Protestants. They didn't want a "Church of America," as in "Church of England."

Did you know the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 was written in 1677, but could not be published as such until 1689, after the Act of Toleration was passed? The UK had a long history of religious strife. The different Christian sects were at the heart of the English Civil War.

So how do you balance those two rights? It's easy to say in a large city a gay couple could go somewhere else...but how about in a small rural city where there in only one bakery that does wedding cakes within 50 miles?

Unreasonable hypotheticals are not a sound basis for crafting law.

One of the main reasons that attitudes changed toward homosexuality was the realization that it was not a free behavioral choice--regardless of what combination of genetics and life history there was, homosexuals were not making so much a choice but becoming who they are.

Uh-huh. So, if I can show one person who simply chooses homosexuality does that negate your entire argument?

Also, please note: you are making a half-baked pseudo-scientific argument. In other words, we are supposed to accept as scientific fact what you are saying even though it cannot be proven and we know there are clear exceptions to your rule.

Additionally, it does nothing to negate someone's religious belief and practice.

Their ability to not make that choice was heavily limited by by factors beyond their control. And ultimately if they are not making a choice--or if at least the choice is heavily tilted one way--then they should be allowed to become who they are. If God didn't want homosexuals...he shouldn't have made them.

Denying God, invoking Him. Make up your mind.

They are making a choice to get married. They are intent on changing the definition of marriage for no urgent reason. It does not change their lives to get married.

However, in effect, using governmental power to force someone to violate the precepts of their religious faith for no reason more compelling than it hurts someone's feelings if they don't--that will, carried to its logical conclusion, eradicate religion.

A burqa is repugnant to our values because our values have evolved. We don't think women should be treated that way; it's not fair. I think our values with respect to how homosexuals are treated--and transgender and other square pegs that don't fit into the round holes of society-- are evolving as well. Of course, religion does not evolve. But I don't see why we should allow values from 2,000 years ago dictate how we treat people today in the public space.

You are welcome to try and repeal the First Amendment. I wish you the worst of luck.

DELETED