- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.There is no Constitutional right to freedom of association.
Exactly how does a non discrimination law that requires people to provide services to gays and lesbians lead to violation of their religious beliefs? If you could actually articulate what specific religious belief is violated, that would be helpful.
I also find it amusing that conservatives call their disobedience to laws, "annulment" based on their particular interpretation of the Constitutionality of laws.
The owner was willing to do business with them, he just didn't want to bake a cake that went against his religious beliefs. Forcing someone to bake a cake they don't want to bake, or decorate, or labor at, is not a good precedent for any free society.
We have laws that say you cannot refuse to sell something to someone on certain basis alone, such as their race, sex, religion, etc. It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial or interfaith couple. How many wedding cakes does he sell where at least one of the two getting married is getting divorced? Has he ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a remarrying person because it violates his faith? I'm willing to bet he hasn't and yet that goes against religious principles of marriage much more than same sex couples getting married. It is picking and choosing his religious convictions because he doesn't approve of same sex couples getting married. That is not really basing it on religious beliefs, but pure bias, unlawful discrimination.
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.
Now they are out of business, which does no one any good at all. This sorry episode became a matter of vindictiveness, not law or discrimination.
They have a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They made the decision to do business in that state and thus are subject to its laws to provide all services they offer to the general public.
The bakery was willing to provide services but not bake a wedding cake designed for Gays. They could buy an ordinary cake or bread, cookies or what have you.
Now they are out of business, which does no one any good at all. This sorry episode became a matter of vindictiveness, not law or discrimination.
Since folks don't generally have divorce celebrations where they order a cake none of that applies. The baker wasn't against selling his wares to homosexuals (he made that clear), but was against supporting in any way, even with his wares, the event. I'd be willing to bet he'd have also turned down the job of baking for a polygamist commitment ceremony.
We have laws that say you cannot refuse to sell something to someone on certain basis alone, such as their race, sex, religion, etc. It is no different than refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial or interfaith couple. How many wedding cakes does he sell where at least one of the two getting married is getting divorced? Has he ever refused to sell a wedding cake to a remarrying person because it violates his faith? I'm willing to bet he hasn't and yet that goes against religious principles of marriage much more than same sex couples getting married. It is picking and choosing his religious convictions because he doesn't approve of same sex couples getting married. That is not really basing it on religious beliefs, but pure bias, unlawful discrimination.
All your questions remain the baker's business. It is about refusing to bake a cake on religious principles and the baker can decide what those principles are, not anyone else.
Of course there is also this.They have a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They made the decision to do business in that state and thus are subject to its laws to provide all services they offer to the general public.
All your questions remain the baker's business. It is about refusing to bake a cake on religious principles and the baker can decide what those principles are, not anyone else.
Of course there is also this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Of course there is also this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Of course there is also this.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.
But even still, it is kind of hard to argue that discriminating against gays by denying them cakes and photographs is a part of any religion. It is harder still to argue that this is a core principle of your business when it isn't even mentioned until you deny services.
It certainly mentions gays in the Bible and that it iis a bad thing. The baker believes this, and why not iif it is in the Bible? A muslim would feel the same way because of the Koran.
It seems to me that many are not seeing the big picture here. It is abut human rights and freedoms and how there has to be a balance between them. Few seem to see that this baker has been discriminated against. He may views with which we might disagree but those are his views, are supported by his Holy Book, and he should be allowed to exercise them.
I have a Gay son and know what his response would be, but it would not include going to the courts and destroying another person's livelihood.
1. The baker chose to obtain a business license in a state that has a non discrimination law that protects sexual orientation.
2. The baker could have still provided the service by contracting it out or finding an employee who would do it.
3. The baker's religious rights do not extend beyond the rights of the customer. All of my rights end where they begin to violate the rights of others. The customers, under state law, had the right to be served.
4. The baker did not make clear, prior to providing services to the general public, that they were comfortable only providing certain services to certain groups.
Congress did not make that non discrimination law, that was a state law. The First Amendment protects free speech from being violated by the Federal Government.
They do get married after divorce though, which violates the religious rules of at least a couple of religions. Catholics consider it constant adultery to get married after getting divorced, basically living in a constant state of sin.
And I wouldn't have any problem with a baker that refused to bake a cake for the ceremony in that case. In fact, I'm not sure the state would either. Divorcees are not a protected class in any state AFAIK.
hmmmm im gonna bookmark this for a different discussion
i find this interesting
now i agree there is a freedom of association i got no problem with that
but there are a hand full of dishonest biased posters who use the completely failed and retarded arguments like if its not directly in the constitution its not a right and the other one is marriage is not a right even though SCOTUS said it is 14 times that doesnt count LOL
now this has nothing to do with the poster i quoted only those that use those failed arguments and then frequently and dishonestly refer to freedom of association even though thats not impacted
The government can not offer or require the signing away of the peoples rights to take part in certain activities.
There is no just reason for them to do anything but kick out those they don't desire to serve. Try being a libertarian for once.
No one has the right to the service of someone else. It is a violation of the 13th amendment for any laws to exist that makes someone the servant of another.
Someone being ignorant doesn't make someone have to serve them, nor does it give them the right to someones else's property.
He is in no way being kept from exercising his religion. He is free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. Refusing to sell someone a cake with certain words on it, while selling cakes with the same words on it to others is discrimination, not excercising your religion.
Here's the difference, I'm using freedom of association specifically because it was written into the constitution by the judicial branch. So if you buy the other right-ins by the judicial branch, as you do, you have to swallow that one too.
All rights are property rights, and as such all rights are built on discrimination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?