U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s interesting to see who in this thread is defending religious beliefs over the civil law.

 

’Enjoy what beliefs you have but keep them to yourself’ goes out of the window when the opportunity to discriminate against gay men arises.

Are you saying that people that believe in something should just kow tow to PC when it goes against those beliefs?

This wasn't a life and death situation, and the offended couple had their cake made elsewhere, so they were not deprived of anything.

Seems that the US has become a nation of easily offended people that resort to the courts to punish people that don't approve of their life style.

 

Anyway, marriage is a crock of <deleted>, and the sooner that <deleted> institution is condemned to the dustbin of history the better, IMO.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I doubt many here have read the constitution and fewer understand it.

 

But I look forward to you offering a similar argument the next time the issue of religious beliefs and civil law come up.

 

In the meantime, where does it say in the bible ‘Thou shalt not sell wedding cakes to gay men’?

 

You never had a 9th grade Civics class huh? Sorry to hear it. You'll have to ask someone more religious than myself about what is said in The Bible.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that people that believe in something should just kow tow to PC when it goes against those beliefs?

This wasn't a life and death situation, and the offended couple had their cake made elsewhere, so they were not deprived of anything.

Seems that the US has become a nation of easily offended people that resort to the courts to punish people that don't approve of their life style.

 

Anyway, marriage is a crock of <deleted>, and the sooner that <deleted> institution is condemned to the dustbin of history the better, IMO.

No that’s not what I’m saying.

 

What I’m saying is recorded as words in my post, your fanciful interpretation is just that.

 

Your issues regarding marriage, while off topic, are noted.

[thaibeachlovers]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No that’s not what I’m saying.

 

What I’m saying is recorded as words in my post, your fanciful interpretation is just that.

 

Your issues regarding marriage, while off topic, are noted.

Had I understood what you were saying, I'd not have asked.

[Credo]

Personally, I think this sums it up.   

 

[ELVIS123456]

It is said that Phillips "refused to serve" Mullins and Craig. That's not true. He offered to sell them any item in the store. He would have even sold them a wedding cake. The only thing he would not do — could not do – was customize one the way they wanted. So, the gay men could have simply purchased a standard wedding cake. Or they could have left the store and gone to literally any other bakery in the state. Decent human beings would select either of those two options. But Mullins and Craig are not decent human begins. They opted for option three: set out on a years-long process to utterly destroy Jack Phillips, take down his business, and impoverish his family, for publicity for their 'cause'.

 

Jack Phillips was well known for his devout Christian beliefs before that fateful day when Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Phillips would regularly refuse to create customized cakes for events he found morally problematic. Yet, of all the bakers in the area, these two gay men just so happened to seek the services of the one baker who was so orthodox that he wouldn't even make Halloween cakes. It does not take much of a logical leap to see that this was quite intentional.

 

People like them are radical gay activists, and the reality is that most gays do not have the same mentality. The vast majority of gays believe in 'live and let live' and they would not deliberatly do to another person what those blokes blokes deliberatly did for publicity for their 'cause'.  There are far better ways to pursue gay rights and marriage etc, than attacking another person's religious beliefs. It wasnt needed in other countries (like Aust), and it aint needed in USA - it will only alienate a lot of people.

 

[BobBKK]

Why can't he serve who he wants?  it's his business why they have to run to the corner and cry?  America is getting more and more pathetic by the day.

[Chomper Higgot]

29 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

It is said that Phillips "refused to serve" Mullins and Craig. That's not true. He offered to sell them any item in the store. He would have even sold them a wedding cake. The only thing he would not do — could not do – was customize one the way they wanted. So, the gay men could have simply purchased a standard wedding cake. Or they could have left the store and gone to literally any other bakery in the state. Decent human beings would select either of those two options. But Mullins and Craig are not decent human begins. They opted for option three: set out on a years-long process to utterly destroy Jack Phillips, take down his business, and impoverish his family, for publicity for their 'cause'.

 

Jack Phillips was well known for his devout Christian beliefs before that fateful day when Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Phillips would regularly refuse to create customized cakes for events he found morally problematic. Yet, of all the bakers in the area, these two gay men just so happened to seek the services of the one baker who was so orthodox that he wouldn't even make Halloween cakes. It does not take much of a logical leap to see that this was quite intentional.

 

People like them are radical gay activists, and the reality is that most gays do not have the same mentality. The vast majority of gays believe in 'live and let live' and they would not deliberatly do to another person what those blokes blokes deliberatly did for publicity for their 'cause'.  There are far better ways to pursue gay rights and marriage etc, than attacking another person's religious beliefs. It wasnt needed in other countries (like Aust), and it aint needed in USA - it will only alienate a lot of people.

 

On what basis do you determine the gay couple here are not decent human beings?

 

Accepting other people discriminating against you is not any measure of human decency.

 

Your other generalisations and assertions such as ‘people like them...’ and the ‘vast majority of gays’ are utter hogwash.

 

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Why can't he serve who he wants?

 

He can.  The issue was not that the baker was serving people who didn't want to be served.  Maybe you should have asked "why can't he deny service to whomever he wants?"  The answer to which lies within the text of the following laws:

 

• Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for race, national origin & religion)
• Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 (for people over 40)
• Equal Pay Act of 1963 (for gender)
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Immigration Reform & Control Act (for citizenship status)
• Civil Rights Act of 1968 (housing discrimination against those who have children)
• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

 

Hopefully 50+ years of case law answers your question.

 

Having said that, I am conflicted about this decision.  I think that sexual orientation should be a protected class but decisions are all over the place at this point.  If I had been the one denied service, I would have simply found another baker and then started a grassroots campaign to put the bigoted baker out of business as fast as possible.

 

This business lost their reputation the day they told Roseanne Barr to hold their drink.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by attrayant

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

It is said that Phillips "refused to serve" Mullins and Craig. That's not true. He offered to sell them any item in the store. He would have even sold them a wedding cake. The only thing he would not do — could not do – was customize one the way they wanted. So, the gay men could have simply purchased a standard wedding cake. Or they could have left the store and gone to literally any other bakery in the state. Decent human beings would select either of those two options. But Mullins and Craig are not decent human begins. They opted for option three: set out on a years-long process to utterly destroy Jack Phillips, take down his business, and impoverish his family, for publicity for their 'cause'.

 

Jack Phillips was well known for his devout Christian beliefs before that fateful day when Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Phillips would regularly refuse to create customized cakes for events he found morally problematic. Yet, of all the bakers in the area, these two gay men just so happened to seek the services of the one baker who was so orthodox that he wouldn't even make Halloween cakes. It does not take much of a logical leap to see that this was quite intentional.

 

People like them are radical gay activists, and the reality is that most gays do not have the same mentality. The vast majority of gays believe in 'live and let live' and they would not deliberatly do to another person what those blokes blokes deliberatly did for publicity for their 'cause'.  There are far better ways to pursue gay rights and marriage etc, than attacking another person's religious beliefs. It wasnt needed in other countries (like Aust), and it aint needed in USA - it will only alienate a lot of people.

 

While what you're saying may make perfect sense to, say, a typical Christian, I do wonder about the precedence that it sets.  Which is to say, "discrimination is perfectly ok so long as it's based on religious teachings."  So discrimination could be ok against people of other religions, ethnicities, race, sex...so long as it's based on my religious convictions....?  What if a Muslim baker refuses to service a female customer who's not wearing a hijab?  I assume your support of religious freedom includes all religions. 

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, pedro01 said:

And great news is that this man has the right to decide which works he takes on and which he doesn't.

 

A win for common sense. 

 

Shame he lived through 5 years of hell, death threats to his family etc. - all at the hands of LGBTQ zealots.

No, that is not what the Supreme Court have said, it has basically been referred back to lower courts.

[jvs]

7 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

It is said that Phillips "refused to serve" Mullins and Craig. That's not true. He offered to sell them any item in the store. He would have even sold them a wedding cake. The only thing he would not do — could not do – was customize one the way they wanted. So, the gay men could have simply purchased a standard wedding cake. Or they could have left the store and gone to literally any other bakery in the state. Decent human beings would select either of those two options. But Mullins and Craig are not decent human begins. They opted for option three: set out on a years-long process to utterly destroy Jack Phillips, take down his business, and impoverish his family, for publicity for their 'cause'.

 

Jack Phillips was well known for his devout Christian beliefs before that fateful day when Mullins and Craig walked in the door. Phillips would regularly refuse to create customized cakes for events he found morally problematic. Yet, of all the bakers in the area, these two gay men just so happened to seek the services of the one baker who was so orthodox that he wouldn't even make Halloween cakes. It does not take much of a logical leap to see that this was quite intentional.

 

People like them are radical gay activists, and the reality is that most gays do not have the same mentality. The vast majority of gays believe in 'live and let live' and they would not deliberatly do to another person what those blokes blokes deliberatly did for publicity for their 'cause'.  There are far better ways to pursue gay rights and marriage etc, than attacking another person's religious beliefs. It wasnt needed in other countries (like Aust), and it aint needed in USA - it will only alienate a lot of people.

 

Well if this good christian lives by the book he forgot this,

Matthew 7 1-3.Something about not judging others.

[Jingthing]

I'm no legal scholar and neither is most of the public. But I do get the rough idea that the ruling was not a big win for either side, but of course both sides were looking for a big win. So overall, PR-wise, it is a lose for pro-gay civil rights advocates. Given the current trollish divisive, dog-whistler in chief's leadership of intolerance, adding this decision I really do think more everyday people on the street will get the message from the ruling (which it was NOT) that it's OK to deny all kinds of services to LGBT people only based on their status. If "trump" gets more SCOTUS picks surely the forces against LGBT civil rights will start to get the big wins they crave. Things like denying public accommodation (hotels and apartments), serving in restaurants, etc.. This in a nation where even before this far right wing anti-gay white nationalist wave, last time I checked it was legal in most states to fire people from their jobs just based on being LGBT people. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Jingthing

[Quidio]

So here's the thing:

 

Can a clerk refuse to sell you condoms, because they are Catholic?   

Can a clerk refuse to sell you alcohol because they are Muslim?

Can a waitress refuse to serve you a pork chop because she is Jewish?

Etc., etc., etc..

[lannarebirth]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

No, that is not what the Supreme Court have said, it has basically been referred back to lower courts.

This is very early days with respect to sexual orientation discrimination case law and it was a very narrow ruling.  Further precedents will be set. Each side will win some and lose some and the law will emerge from that.

[manarak]

this is ridiculous.

it has nothing to do with faith and gay rights and everything to do with the right of a business owner to do business with whom he pleases.

[Jingthing]

54 minutes ago, manarak said:

this is ridiculous.

it has nothing to do with faith and gay rights and everything to do with the right of a business owner to do business with whom he pleases.

Nope. Business offering goods and services to the public are required to operate under the law. By your POV, it would be OK to not sell cakes or hotel rooms to people based on any flavor of identity. Face it, this was a case at all because LGBT people are of a class of people that sorely lacks equal legal civil rights in the USA. 

 

The USA has been there/done that with other groups of people. Still work to do for LGBT people.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by Jingthing

[jvs]

6 hours ago, manarak said:

this is ridiculous.

it has nothing to do with faith and gay rights and everything to do with the right of a business owner to do business with whom he pleases.

According to the baker it was his faith that made him act this way.

[connda]

This is the reality now, so people just need to get over.  Lord, I'm glad I was raised in the era that I was. 
If you're offended, take your business elsewhere and have your friends boycott the business you are offended by.  So many offended people.  Geez.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, connda said:

This is the reality now, so people just need to get over.  Lord, I'm glad I was raised in the era that I was. 
If you're offended, take your business elsewhere and have your friends boycott the business you are offended by.  So many offended people.  Geez.

In a sense you are right.

 

2018 and Illiberals raging over people objecting to discrimination.

[pedro01]

12 hours ago, Credo said:

Personally, I think this sums it up.   

 

 

She's wrong. He wasn't selling something, they were asking him to make something.

 

Put it another way - the same cake maker also refused Halloween cakes. He'd also refuse to make a cake for the KKK, he said so in an interview. 

 

A democrat speech writer can't be forced to write a speech for the GOP. 

 

Loads of examples where you cannot be forced to do something against your beliefs.

 

He also didn't discriminate - he was more than happy for them to buy something from his store. He just refused to create something for them.

[pedro01]

8 hours ago, Quidio said:

So here's the thing:

 

Can a clerk refuse to sell you condoms, because they are Catholic?   

Can a clerk refuse to sell you alcohol because they are Muslim?

Can a waitress refuse to serve you a pork chop because she is Jewish?

Etc., etc., etc..

 

If it's their own business, then yes.

 

If they are an employee and they refuse to their job - they can be fired.

[pedro01]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Nope. Business offering goods and services to the public are required to operate under the law. By your POV, it would be OK to not sell cakes or hotel rooms to people based on any flavor of identity. Face it, this was a case at all because LGBT people are of a class of people that sorely lacks equal legal civil rights in the USA. 

 

The USA has been there/done that with other groups of people. Still work to do for LGBT people.

 

 

 

LGBT people do NOT need special protection.

 

They are simply people. And people are already protected.

[Rigby40]

I heard a lot of these bakers are taking their money and directly donating them to groups who oppose the gay agenda 555555

Good on those bakers!

Edited June 7, 2018 by Rigby40

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

I heard a lot of these bakers are taking their money and directly donating them to groups who oppose the gay agenda 555555

Good on those bakers!

 

You heard wrong.  That's not happening.

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

LGBT people do NOT need special protection. They are simply people. And people are already protected.

 

Any group that is subject to special persecution deserves increased protection.  We have fifty+ years of laws and policies that underscore that.

 

Protected Classes

 

Federal protected classes include:

• Race

• Color

• Religion or creed

• National origin or ancestry

• Sex

• Age

• Physical or mental disability

• Veteran status

• Genetic information

• Citizenship

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by attrayant

[Rigby40]

Just now, attrayant said:

 

You heard wrong.  That's not happening.

I know you'd like it not to be true but that doesn't change reality. I heard some people talking about doing that, I have no reason not to believe them I'd do the same thing in their shoes.

Political judo is a beautiful thing.

[attrayant]

5 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

I know you'd like it not to be true but that doesn't change reality. I heard some people talking about doing that, I have no reason not to believe them I'd do the same thing in their shoes.

 

First statement: "I heard a lot of those bakers are taking their money and..."

 

Next statement: "I heard some people talking about doing it..."

 

From 'doing it' to 'talking about doing it'.  I fully expect the next statement to be "A friend of a friend told me that she heard some people were talking about it..."

 

The reality is, it's not happening no matter who you overheard "talking about it".  

 

 

Edited June 7, 2018 by attrayant

[Rigby40]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

 

First statement: "I heard a lot of those bakers are taking their money and..."

 

Next statement: "I heard some people talking about doing it..."

 

From 'doing it' to 'talking about doing it'.  I fully expect the next statement to be "A friend of a friend told me that she heard some people were talking about it..."

 

The reality is, it's not happening no matter who you overheard "talking about it".  

 

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, bud.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

I know you'd like it not to be true but that doesn't change reality. I heard some people talking about doing that, I have no reason not to believe them I'd do the same thing in their shoes.

Political judo is a beautiful thing.

To be fair, one can find assorted of idiocy being broadcast on the internet.

 

That doesn’T make it true but it can be at least claimed as having been ‘read’, ‘heared’ or ‘said’.