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

[SuperLuigi]

I think you have to draw SOME line; otherwise, we might go back to the days of blatant discrimination. As it stands now, we still have subtle discrimination, but it is at least some improvement.

But who gets to decide that then if not the consumer and why?

What would happen if a Jewish baker were forced by the state to bake a cake with a Nazi flag and a picture of Hitler when he or she did not want to?

Even 10 years ago the thought of forcing bakers to do something never crossed anyone’s mind, but now, all bets are off.

And this isn’t about equality. More nefarious forces are at work here.

 

[dvdjs]

But who gets to decide that then if not the consumer and why?

We the people, through our laws.
The other alternatives have proven inadequate to defend the constitutional rights of of many in this country.

 

[EIF5A]

What could possibly go wrong with mob rule in today’s culture of manufactured political and social outrage.

 

[abucs]

But who gets to decide that then if not the consumer and why?

We the people, through our laws.
The other alternatives have proven inadequate to defend the constitutional rights of of many in this country.

When there are two different cultural tribes it becomes you the people and us the people.

Stop doing Progressive religion through the state or it will continue to divide people and the state will become increasingly unstable.

 

[dvdjs]

What could possibly go wrong with mob rule in today’s culture of manufactured political and social outrage.

Mob rule?
Get a grip.

 

[EasterJoy]

What could possibly go wrong with mob rule in today’s culture of manufactured political and social outrage.

Well, what could go wrong is there won’t be just one mob. There won’t even be just two. Plus they will be armed and can use the internet to make themselves really annoying by use of chemicals found at a gas station, equipment from Home Depot, a kitchen supply store and/or a feed store, not to mention physical moves and military strategies probably being taught online by bona fide psychopaths. Oh, and they can do flash mobs now. There is no police force or military that can stop them, but someone will surely form a police state in order to try.

Other than that, probably not much.

When there are two different cultural tribes it becomes you the people and us the people.

Stop doing Progressive religion through the state or it will continue to divide people and the state will become increasingly unstable.

We’re getting to the point that convinced the Desert Fathers to get out of Dodge and do spiritual warfare on some real estate no one else wanted, I’m thinking. (Don’t know if there is any real estate like that left on Planet Earth, though.)

I say that only partly tongue in cheek. The strife level has become more astonishing by the day. Even those who would be saints are having a difficult time steering clear of rampant and virulent hatred of enemies. That is an extremely bad sign.

 

[EasterJoy]

When there are two different cultural tribes it becomes you the people and us the people.

Stop doing Progressive religion through the state or it will continue to divide people and the state will become increasingly unstable.

We’re getting to the point that convinced the Desert Fathers to get out of Dodge and do spiritual warfare on some real estate no one else wanted, I’m thinking. (Don’t know if there is any real estate like that left on Planet Earth, though.)

 

[EasterJoy]

But who gets to decide that then if not the consumer and why?

What would happen if a Jewish baker were forced by the state to bake a cake with a Nazi flag and a picture of Hitler when he or she did not want to?

Even 10 years ago the thought of forcing bakers to do something never crossed anyone’s mind, but now, all bets are off.

And this isn’t about equality. More nefarious forces are at work here.

The difference is that no one is asking a baker to do a cake for one customer that she would not do for another one. They are insisting that bakers bake their cakes the same without control over what happens with the cake after it leaves the shop. A wedding cake is such an effort, that is very hard, but so far that is the issue.

 

[EasterJoy]

OK…for some levity. Here are some cakes that were presumably not done out of a passive-aggressive hatred for the customer (but we’ll never know):

cakewrecks.com/home/tag/wedding-wrecks

Notice that this is one of MANY pages of truly…well, you have to see them to believe.

 

[Beryllos]

 

[lmachine]

And those rules cannot violate the Freedom of Religion that is part of the Constitution.

And they don’t.

 

[lmachine]

The right to religious free exercise is confiscated.

Nope. Government can regulate commerce. One of the things they can regulate is discrimination. If someone feels their religion isn’t compatible with treating gay people as equal to straight people then they don’t have to run a business.

It’s an important yet simple distinction. If the government was forcing someone to work a job that violated their beliefs they would have a case. But you don’t get to agree to treat gay people equally and then cry foul when you’re expected to treat gay people equally.

 

[abucs]

Nope. Government can regulate commerce. One of the things they can regulate is discrimination. If someone feels their religion isn’t compatible with treating gay people as equal to straight people then they don’t have to run a business.

It’s an important yet simple distinction. If the government was forcing someone to work a job that violated their beliefs they would have a case. But you don’t get to agree to treat gay people equally and then cry foul when you’re expected to treat gay people equally.

That’s about the third time I have heard the authoritarian dictate of telling people what profession they can enter.

Of course it is wrapped up in words like ‘they don’t have to’ The reality is you’re saying ‘they won’t because you want to control them’. Also, people have the authoritarian attitude that if people don’t want to participate in homosexual weddings the reason for that is because they don’t like homosexual people and you are going to step in and save the world by being an authoritarian bully.

Keep your politically correct religion out if it.

You cannot force other people to accept your pc religion through control of the state.

Your equality world would be a very scary place.

 

[JonNC]

But you don’t believe in free exercise anyway.
So dropping the pretense, what is your real point?

Of course I do. I just don’t believe in the ludicrous example you think proves your point, which seems to be, “since we don’t allow human sacrifice, religious free exercise can now be compromised in any way that suits a particular cause.” That, of course, can be applied to any enumerated right. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, therefore public university campuses can keep conservatives from speaking on campus.
The list goes on.

The constitutional conservative viewpoint is government shouldn’t even be involved in marriage. Marry any adult human being you wish. If you want a religious marriage service, find a priest/pastor/minister who will agree to it. Get a wedding cake from any baker who is willing to enter into a contractual arrangement with you. In both cases, don’t try to force them to do it against their right to religious free exercise.

 

[JonNC]

But he wouldn’t and neither would the National Review.
He made an error on that one, and nearly everyone understands that now.
You cannot give the states discretion to uphold the rights of citizens of the United States as they see fit.

Actually, he would, and did. In his autobiography, he goes into some detail of his reasons for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted for the 1957 and 1960 acts. He also mentions how LBJ voted against civil rights measures.
He writes:

During the Senate debate, I questioned the constitutionality of Titles II and VII of the proposal. These proposals were devoted to fair employment and public accommodation practices. …
“I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort. I believe that, though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help; but not law that embodies features like these, that flu in the face of the constitution.”

pg.172, Goldwater, Barry Goldwater with Jack Casserly. Doublday, 1988

 

[JonNC]

The difference is that no one is asking a baker to do a cake for one customer that she would not do for another one. They are insisting that bakers bake their cakes the same without control over what happens with the cake after it leaves the shop. A wedding cake is such an effort, that is very hard, but so far that is the issue.

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/7/bakers-refused-make-pro-trump-birthday-cake-9-year/

I have heard no outrage from progressives about this. You won’t hear any from me because I defend the baker’s right to not make a Trump-themed cake.

 

[abucs]

washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/7/bakers-refused-make-pro-trump-birthday-cake-9-year/

I have heard no outrage from progressives about this. You won’t hear any from me because I defend the baker’s right to not make a Trump-themed cake.

I would also agree with a baker’s right not to have to bake a Trump themed cake. This refusal may very well be because the baker strongly disagrees with the Trump platform, not that they hate 50% of the country.

This is the same as celebrity performers agreeing to support Hillary Clinton through appearances and not Donald Trump.

We would not say to professional performers that if asked they must treat Donald Trump rallies the same as Hillary Clinton rallies.

No, we understand that they could be seen as supporting a political platform if they appear and thus have a right to refuse. The same with people providing lighting, venue etc.

 

[JonNC]

Nope. Government can regulate commerce. One of the things they can regulate is discrimination. If someone feels their religion isn’t compatible with treating gay people as equal to straight people then they don’t have to run a business.

It’s an important yet simple distinction. If the government was forcing someone to work a job that violated their beliefs they would have a case. But you don’t get to agree to treat gay people equally and then cry foul when you’re expected to treat gay people equally.

Congress shall make no law…
From that point, government can regulate commerce, but not compromise constitutionally protected inherent human and individual rights. There is no discrimination in the actions of a baker who chooses not to participate in an event that is contrary to his/her religious beliefs.

 

[meltzerboy]

Nope. Government can regulate commerce. One of the things they can regulate is discrimination. If someone feels their religion isn’t compatible with treating gay people as equal to straight people then they don’t have to run a business.

It’s an important yet simple distinction. If the government was forcing someone to work a job that violated their beliefs they would have a case. But you don’t get to agree to treat gay people equally and then cry foul when you’re expected to treat gay people equally.

What if the employer has already been doing business for a number of years and then the new law is enacted? And, in this case, the argument is that the discrimination is not directly against servicing gay people per se, but rather against servicing a behavior that is contrary to one’s religious beliefs. So if a straight person were buying a cake for a gay couple’s marriage, that straight person might also be discriminated against by the baker for the use of the cake in a gay wedding.

What sayest thou?

 

[Peter_J]

Nope. Government can regulate commerce. One of the things they can regulate is discrimination. If someone feels their religion isn’t compatible with treating gay people as equal to straight people then they don’t have to run a business.

That should really be “gay couples as equal to straight couples”.

But isn’t it a moot point anyhow? Like I said earlier, a store has the right to decide *what *it sells not *whom *it sells to. (E.g. a store can’t refuse to sell to neo-Nazis, but they can choose not to sell anything that says “Jews will not replace us.”)