the "progressive" meltdown when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Colorado baker will be epic.
Good day for religious liberty...
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
“it is no answer to say that Mullins and Craig could shop somewhere else for their wedding cake, just as it was no answer in 1966 to say that African-American customers could eat at another restaurant.”
The baker had no problem making these folks anything other than a "wedding" cake...by that example, a black baker shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to someone requesting a cake which says "the KKK rules."
Like I said, either way the SCOTUS rules the meltdown will be epic.
I particularly look forward to your reaction should bakeries be interpreted as lunch counters have in the past.
I will be disappointed in that case as it will be a bad day for religious liberty. I won't have a mentally deranged-type meltdown as the "progressives" tend to do anytime the slightest thing doesn't go their way.
I'm pro gay marriage. Two very close gay friends, one male and one female, are married to the same sex, they both have children (2 adopted by the gay male and sperm donor for the gay female), and they both have healthy happy relationships and are great parents.
Even though I don't agree with gay folks trying to litigate acceptance, I can't see where baking a cake for a same sex wedding violates any religious tenets. It doesn't make someone gay to bake and decorate a cake for gay folks. I may be completely wrong, but I don't think the bible prohibits business transactions with gay people. Just make the damn cake like you would for any other couple getting married.
Even though I don't agree with gay folks trying to litigate acceptance, I can't see where baking a cake for a same sex wedding violates any religious tenets. It doesn't make someone gay to bake and decorate a cake for gay folks. I may be completely wrong, but I don't think the bible prohibits business transactions with gay people. Just make the damn cake like you would for any other couple getting married.
I'm still of the believe that a store owner has the right to serve or not serve anyone they choose. Don't like it? Go somewhere else....yeah I know all of the what ifs....
Question: Would Pickleman's in Norman have the right to not serve Joe Mixon? Would that be considered racist? Or against one's belief system? I tend to believe like you.
Last edited:
This is only hard if you choose to make it so. Denying service to Joe Mixon because he beats the shit out of other customers for no good reason is totally legal. Denying him service because of his race, not so much, well not at all.
You guys know that, just come out and say you resent the notion of equal access to public accommodations rather than this weak sauce.
Everyone can spin. I can to: So, you do agree a line in the sand exists, but you feel you know better then the store owner as to why and under what grounds? How on earth can anyone know the real reason a store owner might choose to deny service to Joe Mixon? What if Joe Mixon came in late at night in your store in Norman? Motivation to deny service could be racist along with a number of things, but as long as he says it was because of his past it is ok even if it is motivated by racism? Form over substance? BS.
Nice try at labeling people and having no idea at to why some may feel people should have a right to deny service.
Personally, I would have not denied making the cake, but I believe in the right for the store owner to do so, it is not that big of a deal. It also is the right for potential customers to boycott that store because of his practices. Should the store owner sue customers for not coming to his store because of his policies? What about equal access?
No shirt, no shoes, no service. No alcohol service to inebriated patrons. Banning previously violent patrons from a venue. All legal. No spin. No BS. Sorry, that doesn't fit your Christian as a victim narrative.
I'll just go ahead and answer the question for squeak. Jesus would bake the cake and then pray for the couple.
That is your narrative and that is the only way you care to frame the discussion. That is ok, no one going to change your mind, and you are entitled to your opinion.
Jesus would not bake a cake which encourages sinful behavior. He would pray for them and instruct them to "go forth and sin no more."
For the most part, I believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. However, without some legislative action that contradicts this I'm not sure the south would be integrated today.
I imagine that there are 10 other places that would have been more than happy to make this cake. I also imagine that this cake business has made cakes for people just as sinful as these two gays. God Bless America.
I imagine that there are 10 other places that would have been more than happy to make this cake. I also imagine that this cake business has made cakes for people just as sinful as these two gays. God Bless America.
I don think see this as religious liberty question, instead, just a liberty. Count me as someone who thinks it should be ok for store owners to not serve blacks, whites, asians, etc. in this day, their business will be hurt due to bad pub and will either go out or start serving.
If I were gay, I most certainly wouldn't want to give my business to a cake shop that didn't want my business.
If I were gay, I most certainly wouldn't want to give my business to a cake shop that didn't want my business.
Reminds me of the Massachusetts used car dealership who verbally abused the pizza delivery guy. The video went viral and within a few weeks the place had thousands of bad online reviews because of it and a few moths later the place went out of business because of the bad pub. The free market would absolutely sort it out.
Jobu says he can't hit a curve ball either.
You've obviously never been refused service in the Rock Café/Stroud in the early 60's because Jimmy Mason was black. (Depew basketball team).
A store owner can refuse service for a number of reasons without giving the real reason. "Let me check my calendar...sorry, I'm already booked."
Another good ruling.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...edom-churches-arent-second-class-institutions
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...edom-churches-arent-second-class-institutions
Bake me a cake, but you can't march in our parade.
While I agree that not allowing others to march in your parade, the group that organized and paid for the parade permit is a "private association."
A business is a public accommodation.
Those are two entirely different things and raise two entirely different legal standards to be applied.
If you're the Masonic Lodge, the Elks, Moose, the Rainbow Coalition or any other "private" association then you are not subject to a number of laws which may apply to you otherwise.
But when you open your doors to the general public, then it is illegal to discriminate against members of the public on certain basis, such as race, religion, ethnicity. This is because you are discriminating against a "group" of individuals, not a specific individual.
That is also why it is 100% legal to discriminate against an individual because they lack in hygiene, are intoxicated, are loud, boisterous, rude or otherwise annoy you or your other customers/guest, regardless of any other factor.
You simply cannot conflate the two things as representing the same thing.
Thanks for the perspective.
I'm sure there are other pertinent details, but I think that you probably have hit on the most important. Another detail may include how well defined the rules are of the association. I would also be curious to see to what degree the public accommodation being requested plays in the absence or enforcement of the protections being discussed.
A business open to the general public is a public accommodation.
A bakery is no different from a restaurant in that regard.
What I'm finding interesting here, is that all those who love to cry "State's Rights" don't seem to understand that what the bakery did was in violation of COLORADO STATE LAW! Colorado made discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal in its Public Accommodation Laws in 2008. That is the primary basis for the claim, along with a claim under the 14th Amendment at the Federal level.
What if small businesses only do business with members that apply and are accepted to their business .. Everyone fills out a application, pays a buck for a lifetime fee and the business sets all guidelines as to what they do and do not do. Would this hold water?
And he says his business/bakery is happy to sell baked goods to gay customers.
His professional skill/service to create something custom is what is being requested and denied.
It's bad business to refuse service to customers.
If in the business the customer asks you to participate in a ceremony that you find morally or ethically wrong, I support the business owner's decision to refuse service.
We would all celebrate any baker that refused service to a white supremacy sect that asked for a cake that was decorated with swastika. We would do the same if a baker refused service to a local KKK chapter. The baker personally found participating in a gay marriage ceremony to be morally objectionable. I support that decision.
Refusing service on an order of cookies, or a birthday cake would be bad business.
If in the business the customer asks you to participate in a ceremony that you find morally or ethically wrong, I support the business owner's decision to refuse service.
We would all celebrate any baker that refused service to a white supremacy sect that asked for a cake that was decorated with swastika. We would do the same if a baker refused service to a local KKK chapter. The baker personally found participating in a gay marriage ceremony to be morally objectionable. I support that decision.
Refusing service on an order of cookies, or a birthday cake would be bad business.
It is amazing how religion is used to influence politics. So, it is horrible by a segment of our US Society to have a travel ban for national security purposes and for people who are not even US citizens and it is denounced in this country as racist and singling out a certain religious group and so who cares about national security and let's protect certain religious and immigration rights for foreigners? But this same group says forget the religious rights (and BTW the US IS predominantly Christian, we should not have to apologize for that) of white males who are US citizens and refuse to bake a freaking cake over their religious beliefs? So, baking cakes is more important than national security and protecting the rights of foreigners and their religious freedoms is more important.
I for one as other have stated believe the free market would settle all of this. As down as I am right now about MSM and the politics in this country, I do believe the vast majority of Americans in this country are not racist. For example, I believe if you allowed business owners today to not serve whites or blacks, that those establishments would be boycotted by a bunch of people and go out of business. I know today, if it was allowed, any establishment that did not serve African americans would not receive my business, period. I know of no one that would frequent that business.
As to the cake? I am indifferent, I would have baked it. But I see no problem with a business owner making that decision, it is not an issue of national security, and it is not as if someone else would not bake a cake for you.
I for one as other have stated believe the free market would settle all of this. As down as I am right now about MSM and the politics in this country, I do believe the vast majority of Americans in this country are not racist. For example, I believe if you allowed business owners today to not serve whites or blacks, that those establishments would be boycotted by a bunch of people and go out of business. I know today, if it was allowed, any establishment that did not serve African americans would not receive my business, period. I know of no one that would frequent that business.
As to the cake? I am indifferent, I would have baked it. But I see no problem with a business owner making that decision, it is not an issue of national security, and it is not as if someone else would not bake a cake for you.
Refusing service for something already prebaked and on the shelves for anyone to purchase is one thing and bad business. Refusing to contract to build something is another subject.
So a BigMac in the warming bin is fine, but asking for one minus the pickles would not be?
He might bake the cake, but it would never rise.
How did you come up with that question? You tell me, you seem to be profiling me.
All I know racism exists in the minds and hearts of people, no laws are going to change what is in the hearts and minds of people. Real change starts at home and how you are raised.
Too many laws can favor or disfavor certain groups, which can cause more discrimination and hate.
No. Asking McDonalds to make one with broccoli or asparagus or some other non-routine ingredient would warrant a refusal.
