Local bakery owner refuses to make gay couple's wedding cake

[_Abyssinia]

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - A local business owner says she will not make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because it’s against her religious beliefs.

Tastries bakery owner, Cathy Miller, said the couple came in for a tasting. She said at the end of the meeting she told them she couldn’t design their wedding cake because she is Christian and couldn’t celebrate same-sex marriage.

kerngoldenempire.com/news/local-news/local-bakery-owner-refuses-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake/799163285

 

[ucfengr]

Burn the heretic!!!

 

[Pat_Payne]

Tastries bakery owner, Cathy Miller, said the couple came in for a tasting. She said at the end of the meeting she told them she couldn’t design their wedding cake because she is Christian and couldn’t celebrate same-sex marriage. kerngoldenempire.com/news/local-news/local-bakery-owner-refuses-to-make-gay-couples-wedding-cake/799163285

How this would have ended we didn’t live in Bizarro World:

“We understand, we’ll find another baker who can accommodate us.”

But since we live on Htrae:

Judge: “You shall either bake the cake, or pay a ruinously high fine for each day you do not.”

 

[SuperLuigi]

Judge: “You shall either bake the cake, or pay a ruinously high fine for each day you do not.”

Unless you convert to Islam and/or threaten the re-election chances of members of the Democratic Party.

 

[giuseppe96]

Why am I not surprised that yet another idiotic attack on religious liberty came out of California?

 

[Peter_J]

I think I miss the days when it was news-worthy if someone did bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[esieffe]

Wal-mart makes wedding cakes now…

 

[Otar_Mendes]

because she is Christian and couldn’t celebrate same-sex marriage.

Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.

because I’m XXX I can’t transfuse blood to the black spawns of the evil god Mumbajamba(afro0americans), I can’t fix Jews’ teeth and I can’t sell drugs to people with red hair coz of my sincerely held religious beliefs

Just curious… where do we draw a line? Coz this argument (I believe in XX ergo I won’t serve you) doesn’t seem to have any limits.How this “defense” should be regulated by law?

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.

Just curious… where do we draw a line? Coz this argument (I believe in XX ergo I won’t serve you) doesn’t seem to have any limits.How this “defense” should be regulated by law?

It is good to know that you know better than others what violates their conscience or not.

As for drawing the line, firstly I think we should always err on the side of freedom of association rather than on state-enforced compulsion. Just as in a court of law we purport to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Secondly, it is pretty easy to see what constitutes Christianity and what does not. It seems that the teachings of Christ were conveniently written down in a book, and in regards to this particular situation, that book says men should not lay with men. This does not mean that the government gets to interpret what the Bible means for people as some kind of official teaching. Nor does it necessarily mean that anyone can claim that such and such an action is biblical and can’t be challenged. In a reasonable world, I think as long as something can reasonably be shown to be a Christian belief, it should get the benefit of the doubt. For example, “I can’t support same sex weddings” has standing. “I can’t support interracial marriage” does not.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Otar Mendes;14883958]Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.

It can be seen as that way and therefore be scandalous.

Just curious… where do we draw a line? Coz this argument (I believe in XX ergo I won’t serve you) doesn’t seem to have any limits.How this “defense” should be regulated by law?

Don’t draw a line at all. Let consumer choice in the free market regulate it.

 

[JonNC]

Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.

Just curious… where do we draw a line? Coz this argument (I believe in XX ergo I won’t serve you) doesn’t seem to have any limits.How this “defense” should be regulated by law?

Essentially, it shouldn’t have any limits in a free society, except that government should be held strictly to equal access. The “law” that should govern this is public opinion. In a place like California, and most other places, a significant percentage of potential customers will take their business elsewhere.

Providing services does indeed lend the appearance of supporting the event.

It clearly does.

Jon

 

[ATraveller]

It can be seen as that way and therefore be scandalous.

Don’t draw a line at all. Let consumer choice in the free market regulate it.

The line is drawn but apparently a wedding cake is a life-saving service. The equivalence of a wedding cake with medical care is an interesting tactic by the Left. I always thought cake did the opposite of saving lives in West.

 

[PRmerger]

If I were a business owner I would simply say: yes, I will make your cake for your same-sex “wedding”, but please be aware–everything you pay me will be donated to a charity that supports traditional marriage. So you are essentially donating to a coalition that opposes gay marriage.

There is no law that prohibits me from saying that.

It would be in the gay couple’s interest to take their business elsewhere.

 

[JonNC]

If I were a business owner I would simply say: yes, I will make your cake for your same-sex “wedding”, but please be aware–everything you pay me will be donated to a charity that supports traditional marriage. So you are essentially donating to a coalition that opposes gay marriage.

There is no law that prohibits me from saying that.

It would be in the gay couple’s interest to take their business elsewhere.

This is my position as well.
There’s no law yet. Im sure that’s coming. Remember, the whole premise is your right to religious free exercise does not extend to the market place. Why would we assume our right to free speech does under the progressive paradigm?

 

[Peter_J]

Your right to religious free exercise does not extend to the market place?

 

[Book_Worm]

There are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the races should not mix because it was God’s plan to create separate races.

So these Christians have the right to refuse services to POC because that is their religious belief?

 

[ucfengr]

There are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Bible teaches that the races should not mix because it was God’s plan to create separate races.

So these Christians have the right to refuse services to POC because that is their religious belief?

How are POCs harmed by having to purchase their cake from another bakery?

 

[Book_Worm]

How are POCs harmed by having to purchase their cake from another bakery?

Or by not being able to live in certain areas or able to shop in certain stores or eating in certain restaurants or having to sit in certain parts of the bus.

That’s pretty much the basis of the whole Civil Rights movement.

 

[EasterJoy]

It is good to know that you know better than others what violates their conscience or not.

As for drawing the line, firstly I think we should always err on the side of freedom of association rather than on state-enforced compulsion. Just as in a court of law we purport to presume innocence until proven guilty.

Secondly, it is pretty easy to see what constitutes Christianity and what does not. It seems that the teachings of Christ were conveniently written down in a book, and in regards to this particular situation, that book says men should not lay with men. This does not mean that the government gets to interpret what the Bible means for people as some kind of official teaching. Nor does it necessarily mean that anyone can claim that such and such an action is biblical and can’t be challenged. In a reasonable world, I think as long as something can reasonably be shown to be a Christian belief, it should get the benefit of the doubt. For example, “I can’t support same sex weddings” has standing. “I can’t support interracial marriage” does not.

The law is that if someone wants a cake you’d make for anyone else, you make it for them. That is equal accomodation, and it is not a violation of a Catholic conscience.

If that does violate your conscience, however, then you don’t make the kinds of cake for anyone that you cannot in good conscience make for everyone. For instance, a baker who cannot make the same wedding cake for anyone who walks through the door, whether the cake is going to a typical wedding or for a poodle-cat wedding pretty much has to decide that their business does not make wedding cakes for the general public. (One could still make special projects for their relatives that they wouldn’t make for the buying public.) If you cannot in good conscience put the name of two men on a wedding cake, then you don’t put names on wedding cakes. If you cannot put a topper on with two men, then you just don’t put toppers on that depict people. You still have artistic control, provided your policy is the same for everyone.

 

[ucfengr]

Or by not being able to live in certain areas or able to shop in certain stores or eating in certain restaurants or having to sit in certain parts of the bus.

That’s pretty much the basis of the whole Civil Rights movement.

The bus is a public utility, so it really doesn’t belong in a discussion of transactions between private individuals. The Civil Rights movement was about state sponsored racial discrimination, which is wrong. A state should represent all its citizens equally without regard to race, creed, or sex. Private individuals are a different matter. I personally don’t think “hurt feelings” should be legally actionable.