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

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EasterJoy said:
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.
Click to expand...
When I was married 20 years ago, the caterer referred us to a baker who had a number of various styles for wedding cakes. I chose the cake flavor and filling and frosting. I purchased my own cake topper.
 
EasterJoy said:
**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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, except that is not what the issue is here. Not a single one of these bakers or florists involved in these cases has denied a homosexual man, woman, or couple on the basis of their being homosexual, or denied them goods they would provide to others. I doubt very much whether these bakers and florists would sell a wedding cake or flower arrangement to a straight person who said they intended them for a same-sex wedding ceremony. They simply don’t provide wedding cakes or flower arrangements for same sex weddings. They are not discriminating against an individual but against an action.

It is also condescending and presumptuous to go around telling others what does and does not violate their own consciouses. Maybe providing a wedding cake for a same sex wedding doesn’t bother you or violate your conscience. Good for you. It doesn’t mean that everyone else has to feel the same way about it that you do. And telling people to either sell the cakes, make plain cakes that the customer can “weddingize” later, get out of the wedding cake business altogether is really a false choice.

There is no reason we can’t have bakeries that won’t bake SSM cakes as well as bakeries that will bake SSM cakes in this country. Why some feel the need to absolutely crush and ruin those they disagree with I will never understand.
 
PRmerger said:
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.
Click to expand...
You would probably be charged with hate speech for saying you support traditional
marriage.
 
ucfengr said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not all buses are public utilities.

So you think refusing to serve POC in a private restaurant is permissible?
 
Pat_Payne said:
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.”
Click to expand...
You can force a person to work.

You can’t force them to do a good job. I’d bake the cake if forced to after I objected, but I’d make darn sure they didn’t like what they got.
 
ARSpade said:
You can force a person to work.

You can’t force them to do a good job. I’d bake the cake if forced to after I objected, but I’d make darn sure they didn’t like what they got.
Click to expand...
It’s very simple; if you don’t want to provide public accommodation to everyone, don’t enter a field of public accommodation.

Honestly, if I knew a Christian deliberately did something as reprehensible as this this, I’d have a pretty low opinion of his religion and his conscience. “I don’t want to bake your wedding cake because my conscience says it’s wrong, but my conscience says it’s perfectly okay to take your money and do a lousy job.”
 
Book_Worm said:
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?
Click to expand...
This is a false equivalence because it’s a serious doctrinal error just like same-sex ‘marriage’.
In some similar cases, the businesses have been serving gay customers and knew they were gay. There were no problems then. The conflicts occurred when those businesses were asked to contribute to a gay wedding.
There’s a case in Northern Ireland where a bakery was purposely targeted because the gay couple knew they were Christians and wouldn’t want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or with political messages supporting gay ‘marriage’.

I always avoid this as much as I can but is there any reason why Muslim-owned businesses are targeted? Because if they were, those suing the business owners would be called racist. People underestimate how much politics is actually involved in these cases. Political activists start these cases or get involved to score political points and marginalize those they disagree with.
 
According to the people who held this belief, it wasn’t a doctrinal error.

And according to the people who had POC sit in the back of the bus or at segregated lunch counters, they were providing services to them, just not the same services.

That’s why public accommodation laws were written. If you provide a public accommodation, you must provide it to everyone.

If you don’t want to do that, don’t offer it to anyone.
 
Book_Worm said:
Where does it say was required to be there and participate?
Click to expand...
A photographer would have to be at such an event and they’ve been targeted before. So much for the claim ‘don’t like gay weddings, don’t go to one’.
 
Otar_Mendes said:
Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.?
Click to expand...
Should a black print shop owner be required to print signs for a neo-Nazi rally?

That would just be providing a service, would it not?
 
Otar_Mendes said:
Providing services doesn’t equal celebrating.It doesn’t even mean “supporting”.
To you maybe but not to them.

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?
Click to expand...
Once again they are not saying they will not serve a gay person they just can not be a prat of a gay wedding ceremony. It is a good question though where do we draw the line. Do we draw it a Jewish bakery having to make a cake for a KKK cross burning ceremony? How about a gay bakery making a cake for the Westboro Bapitist burn in hell party. Where do you get to draw the line and kick people out of the “Not be discrimanted against” law!
 
Book_Worm said:
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?
Click to expand...
How do you know what they believe and what they hold to be true or even what denomination they belong to. They could easiily be a number of denominations. What is your source!
 
Book_Worm said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn’t even close to what they are saying. They are declining the event not the person!

Why do only gay people have a right to have a cake made for an illicit ceremony. Why not all groups of people. Why do they have special rights in the cake making department!
 
EasterJoy said:
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.
Click to expand...
So if you make a “CAKE” for any type of event then you have to make a cake for all events?

Good to know! Lets put this theory of yours into practice.

So a Jewish cake maker is minding his own business when all the sudden a white supremacists walks in…
 
Book_Worm said:
So these Christians have the right to refuse services to POC because that is their religious belief?
Click to expand...
No. No one has the right to refuse service on the basis of the customer’s race, just like no one has the right to refuse service on the basis of the customer’s sexual orientation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top