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

[JonNC]

Not to mention people on this forum explicitly stating that they should be allowed to deny service to someone for any reason they like.

Which is not a statement that it is right, depending on the reasons. There are lots of things people have a right to do but shouldn’t.

 

[EasterJoy]

The baker did not want to participate in a gay “wedding”. Requiring to do so violates his first amendment rights. Requiring him to do so is discrimination.

Dropping a cake off for the reception has not been legally deemed to be “participation” in a wedding.

Sometimes I think the professionals serving the Wedding Industrial Complex overestimate their “participation.”

 

[JonNC]

Dropping a cake off for the reception has not been legally deemed to be “participation” in a wedding.

Sometimes I think the professionals serving the Wedding Industrial Complex overestimate their “participation.”

Who are you to decide that? What constitutional basis is there for government to make a legal definition of participation? “congress shall make no law”.
I agree with you that it is a stupid business decision. But people make stupid decisions all the time

 

[gracepoole]

To server PEOPLE no, but there is no moral requirement to provide services for an EVENT that goes against their religion.

Events are not people.

The issue is not not serving gay people, Any homosexual can walk into his baker and buy a loaf of bread, or rolls, or a dozen muffins, or even a birthday cake for his mother that said “Happy Birthday Mom!”. So clearly the law is NOT being broken. The homosexual person can purchase goods. Gay people are not being denied services because they are gay.

What the customer wants is the baker to participate in a particular EVENT, one that goes against their religion. They want the baker to produce a message, one that goes against his religion. That is where the conflict is.

Does the bakery refuse to bake wedding cakes for anyone other than homosexuals? Two adulterers who’ve decided to marry, for example? If not, they’re discriminating against people. No matter how many times you place the word “event” in all caps.

 

[JonNC]

Does the bakery refuse to bake wedding cakes for anyone other than homosexuals? Two adulterers who’ve decided to marry, for example? If not, they’re discriminating against people. No matter how many times you place the word “event” in all caps.

If they choose not to exchange their labor for payment of two adulterers, that’s their choice. In all of these scenarios, some realistic, some absurd, it is a contractual arrangement between two parties. I don’t see a constitutional mandate to force individuals into contractual arrangements they oppose, particularly on religious but also other grounds.
I support that baker who refused to make a Trump styled birthday cake for a kid. He’s a jerk, in my view, but I support his right.

 

[gracepoole]

If they choose not to exchange their labor for payment of two adulterers, that’s their choice. In all of these scenarios, some realistic, some absurd, it is a contractual arrangement between two parties. I don’t see a constitutional mandate to force individuals into contractual arrangements they oppose, particularly on religious but also other grounds.
I support that baker who refused to make a Trump styled birthday cake for a kid. He’s a jerk, in my view, but I support his right.

No, that’s not “their choice.” They’ve been licensed to serve the public equally, not privately decide against whom they want to discriminate.

 

[Peter_J]

The baker refused one customer* the very cake *she would been willing to bake for another customer. You can’t do that.

There in lies the rub: a store cannot discriminate in terms of whom they sell to, but they can choose what they sell.

As a concrete example, if a black couple requested a cake with a figurine showing a black couple, and I would certainly hope that a bakery would accommodate such as request (out of the goodness of their hearts and/or out of good business sense) … but I don’t believe it would be illegal for the bakery to refuse.

 

[JonNC]

There’s no conflict between religious liberty and requiring places of public accommodation to serve gay people. If you feel your religion is more important than your business it should be an easy choice between the two if the requirements of running your business interfere with your faith.

So, what other constitutionally protected inherent individual right should the business person be required to give up to be in business?
How about due process?
Or maybe the protection again cruel and unusual punishment?
Maybe the right to an attorney?

If one right can be confiscated, and this is a confiscation of an inherent right, why not others? Why not these?

 

[gracepoole]

There in lies the rub: a store cannot discriminate in terms of whom they sell to, but they can choose what they sell.

As a concrete example, if a black couple requested a cake with a figurine showing a black couple, and I would certainly hope that a bakery would accommodate such as request (out of the goodness of their hearts and/or out of good business sense) … but I don’t believe it would be illegal for the bakery to refuse.

It would be. The bakery could choose not to make wedding cakes for anyone but it can’t decide not selectively make wedding cakes for some customers and not others.

 

[EasterJoy]

[QUO*TE=JonNC;14891406] Who are you to decide that? What constitutional basis is there for government to make a legal definition of participation? “congress shall make no law”.
I agree with you that it is a stupid business decision. But people make stupid decisions all the time. /QUOTE]

States have public accomodation laws, including the ones prohibiting denial of service based on sexual orientation. We shall see if the Supreme Court rules that providing a cake constitutes tacit approval of the honorees of a reception. Considering that Gorsuch replaces Scalia, why do you think the Court is going to decide in a way starkly different than it decided in* Obergefell v. Hodges* or Pavan v. Smith? I do not see that happening. I can see the Court saying that a baker is free to refuse to make some particular kind of cake for any customers at all, but I do not see the Court recognizing a right to serve some customers but to discriminate against others asking for the same service.

We do not live in a country where denial of rights recognized by federal courts is allowed on the grounds that people are free to make stupid decisions. We may think the Supreme Court is gravely in error in an objective sense–certainly Roe v Wade was–but there are real limits placed on us by legitimate governmental authority. It has always been so, from the beginning of the Church. When there is an option to both follow civil law and to follow conscience, we follow civil law. The Magesterium has not taught that it is a sin to make a cake destined for celebration of a marriage that gravely violates moral law.

 

[gracepoole]

So, what other constitutionally protected inherent individual right should the business person be required to give up to be in business?
How about due process?
Or maybe the protection again cruel and unusual punishment?
Maybe the right to an attorney?

If one right can be confiscated, and this is a confiscation of an inherent right, why not others? Why not these?

The bakery agreed to serve the public equally when it was licensed. Why should breaking this agreement be seen as noble?

 

[EasterJoy]

Who are you to decide that? What constitutional basis is there for government to make a legal definition of participation? “congress shall make no law”.
I agree with you that it is a stupid business decision. But people make stupid decisions all the time

States have public accomodation laws, including the ones prohibiting denial of service based on sexual orientation. We shall see if the Supreme Court rules that providing a cake constitutes tacit approval of the honorees of a reception. Considering that Gorsuch replaces Scalia, why do you think the Court is going to decide in a way starkly different than it decided in* Obergefell v. Hodges* or Pavan v. Smith? I do not see that happening. I can see the Court saying that a baker is free to refuse to make some particular kind of cake for any customers at all, but I do not see the Court recognizing a right to serve some customers but to discriminate against others asking for the same service.

We do not live in a country where denial of rights recognized by federal courts is allowed on the grounds that people are free to make stupid decisions. We may think the Supreme Court is gravely in error in an objective sense–certainly Roe v Wade was–but there are real limits placed on us by legitimate governmental authority. It has always been so, from the beginning of the Church. When there is an option to both follow civil law and to follow conscience, we follow civil law. The Magesterium has not taught that it is a sin to make a cake destined for celebration of a marriage that gravely violates moral law.

 

[EasterJoy]

There in lies the rub: a store cannot discriminate in terms of whom they sell to, but they can choose what they sell.

As a concrete example, if a black couple requested a cake with a figurine showing a black couple, and I would certainly hope that a bakery would accommodate such as request (out of the goodness of their hearts and/or out of good business sense) … but I don’t believe it would be illegal for the bakery to refuse.

I think they could refuse to put figurines on cakes, refuse to put names on cakes. I don’t think they can approve figurines that depict couples they approve of but not figurines that are identical except for the kind of couple depictced or accept male-female names but not male-male pairs or female-female pairs.

Considering some of the tacky figurines people have to choose from (the bride dragging the groom to the altar by the collar being an example), I could totally understand opting out of those.

 

[JonNC]

The bakery agreed to serve the public equally when it was licensed. Why should breaking this agreement be seen as noble?

No one can or should be required to give up an constitutionally protected inherent individual right. The entire idea of free exercise excludes in imposition by government that limits it.
Congress shall make no law…

 

[SuperLuigi]

In 10 years from now will the same people who think the government should tell who a baker can and cannot serve be arguing in favor of giving teacher and daycare licenses to pedophiles?

And if you won’t bring your kids there, you’ll be deemed a hateful bigot.

 

[JonNC]

States have public accomodation laws, including the ones prohibiting denial of service based on sexual orientation. We shall see if the Supreme Court rules that providing a cake constitutes tacit approval of the honorees of a reception. Considering that Gorsuch replaces Scalia, why do you think the Court is going to decide in a way starkly different than it decided in* Obergefell v. Hodges* or Pavan v. Smith? I do not see that happening. I can see the Court saying that a baker is free to refuse to make some particular kind of cake for any customers at all, but I do not see the Court recognizing a right to serve some customers but to discriminate against others asking for the same service.

We do not live in a country where denial of rights recognized by federal courts is allowed on the grounds that people are free to make stupid decisions. We may think the Supreme Court is gravely in error in an objective sense–certainly Roe v Wade was–but there are real limits placed on us by legitimate governmental authority. It has always been so, from the beginning of the Church. When there is an option to both follow civil law and to follow conscience, we follow civil law. The Magesterium has not taught that it is a sin to make a cake destined for celebration of a marriage that gravely violates moral law.

If the baker Is prohibited from exercising his inherent right to religious free exercise, then an overt denial of rights has occurred. This is the problem with government choosing a hierarchy of rights.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I heard a good point made on the radio yesterday. Basically, it was pointing out that, for years, leftists railed against social conservatives who wanted to use the power of government to maintain conventional marriage, battle porn and abortion, and so on. In turn, the left said that the social conservatives had no right to push their morality on everyone else.

Now, the left is using the power of government to force the issue of gay marriage, baking wedding cakes, and so on, while social conservatives are (rightly, I think) looking at how the shoe is on the other foot and wondering exactly where the leftist moral panic is going to end.

So, years ago, the left said that no one had a right to use the law to enforce sanctions against homosexuality. Now, it says no one has the right to honor their conscience over the rule of law.

Just an observation.

Being a leftist by its very nature involves such hypocrisy. That’s why it’s both amusing and unfortunate to watch everyone from skeptics to Catholics who have to have that one or a few issues to agree with the left on (in vain hopes of avoiding being called a white supremacist or even right wing) and toss their logic and fundamental principles to the wind and use raw emotions and logical fallacies to defend nonsense.

Really, it’s getting harder and harder for them to do as the fundamentals of the Enlightenment are under full assault. As that happens, the more bitter and angry they get and it’s well demonstrated. So what they have to do is justify that anger even to the point of dog-whistling to the anti-fascist fascists and identitarians who conduct violence.

There’s really nothing special or unique about what they are doing. It’s history repeating itself.

 

[SuperLuigi]

If the baker Is prohibited from exercising his inherent right to religious free exercise, then an overt denial of rights has occurred. This is the problem with government choosing a hierarchy of rights.

It’s also the problem when the government picks winners and losers in the free market—even when there are hurt feelings on the internet. :crying:

 

[gracepoole]

No one can or should be required to give up an constitutionally protected inherent individual right. The entire idea of free exercise excludes in imposition by government that limits it.
Congress shall make no law…

There is no constitutional right to arbitrarily discriminate against customers. Advertise services to the community and you then have to provide services to the community. All of it.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t want to belabor this, but those civil rights laws passed in the 50’s and 60’s because of Republicans, not Democrats. As good a man as Kennedy was , he sided with the southern Democrats in 1957. It was Nixon who got that legislation passed.

This is pure spin.

The civil rights legislation began with two bills singed by Eisenhower late in his administration, followed by several landmark bills signed by Johnson. All bill were passed by a Congress in which both houses were controlled by Democrats. Lyndon Johnson was the Senate leader during the last years of the Eisenhower administration. He led these bill to passage, knowing full well the effect it would have on the party’s electoral prospects. Strom Thurmond then a Democrat, afterwards a Republican, filibusterd against the 1957 bill. After Eisenhower, the Democrat held fiibuster-proof majorities. Southern Democrats continued to resisted. Overtime, since that era, the deep south, once solidly Democratic, became solidly Republican - apart from the first Cater election. I don’t doubt that it was, as you suggested, a reaction to progressivism - things like equity in voting rights, housing rights, educational opportunities, etc.

Blacks shifted to the Democratic Party starting in the 1930’s, not because FDR was a champion of civil law rights ( he wasn’t, he was a racist and a bigot), but because of the New Deal. There is no “big shift” based on race. That’s propaganda.

Through the FDR years, Democratic party affiliation among blacks was steady at ~42%. During the Truman and Eisenhower years it jumped, but for the most part remained steady at about 56%. In 1964 it had jumped to 82%; in 1968, 92%. That era of hard-fought and hard-won landmark legislation was clearly the turning point that ushered in the era a Democratic party affiliation among blacks in vast majorities.

Your narrative is not compatible with the facts.