Lesbian wedding cake

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Squaller, Dec 28, 2017.

  1. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,128
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    First Amendment to the United States Constitution

    "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."


    The First Amendment is intended to protect individual citizens from government over-reach in the areas of speech and religion.

    In this case, the "cake bakers" are freely exercising their right to act within the scope of well established Christian doctrines relative to marriage and gay marriage. Love the sinner, hate the sin - and don't support or condone the sinning.

    Furthermore, even putting the religious part aside - there should be no problem with a private business selecting their customers on whatever basis they see fit.

    To have the government come down with a $135,000.00 fine in this case is chilling to say the least.

    And as an aside - while you might find this "bigotry" (I didn't realize that to be un-supportive of sin is now somehow defined as bigotry - but that's another discussion) to be offensive, it is not unconstitutional.

    Kind of like allowing the press to spew the falsehoods that they do on a regular basis. I might not like it - but I can always change the channel. Can you imagine the uproar if Donald Trump used the force of government to fine some individual blogger $135,000.00 for spewing some hate filled rhetoric towards the President?
     
    The_Duck_Master likes this.
  2. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,267
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    All sinning, or just this one in particular? The bakery could possibly have an argument for the above if they refuse to bake cakes for all of those who sin or those who do not accept Christ as the son of God and their Savior, but that's not the case here, is it? Being paid to bake a cake is not being supportive of anything other than capitalism.

    I don't necessarily disagree with this and if you read my post, you would see where I said essentially the same thing.

    If you can show me other examples of this particular bakery being "un-supportive of" other sins (like refusing to bake a cake for the couple who has been living together for the past 4 years and has 2 kids or for the couple with one partner who divorced his wife over the affair that he was having with his now fiance), I'll entertain your argument.

    And as an aside - until you can show me were I indicated that I found it either offensive or unconstitutional, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2018
  3. Bear

    Bear Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    31,874
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Location:
    God Bless Texas!!!
    I wonder if the bakery could qualify it's business model to emphasize the "Bible followers" only model.

    The bakery kind of left it open ended as to their "Christian intentions".

    What about if a gay or even straight couple wanted a cake that showed two people having "sex"?

    Anyway...as I understand it the bakery is not claiming religious liberty but is claiming their artistic expression, of the cake design, is protected speech and no one has the right to tell them what "stand" they have to take.

    Don't know...sounds like prima donnas met prima donnas and are fighting over who is the biggest prima donna.
     
  4. Squaller

    Squaller Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    19,609
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    You mean like 2 figurines of 2 women getting married on the cake, or any writing on the cake that would indicate a gay wedding (which is apparently contrary to the beliefs of the baker)... Or the fact that the baker now has to be involved with and thus contributing to the act of something he does not believe in?

    Any argument made, seems to me to be somewhat subjective based on the perspective of the person presenting the argument.

    Under what I consider to be our current laws, I would think that the baker would have to bake a birthday cake for a gay person (as he is not contributing to the fact that this person if having a birthday), but would not have to contribute to a gay wedding, as his cake is part of the ceremony itself...

    My personal belief, as stated earlier, is that any business should be able to choose who they sell or service what to.... And let the free market decide.
     
    The_Duck_Master likes this.
  5. stevena198301

    stevena198301 Elite Refuge Member Supporting Member

    Messages:
    12,159
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    HSV, Alabama
    I’m kinda happy to live in a country where this is one of the biggest issues to the entire nation. Baking a cake... not baking a cake... actually caring enough about not going to the next bakery up the street, that you would take someone to court over it... and actually fining a company for not giving in on their religious beliefs. Beats out the issues of a whole host of places to live.
     
    J.Bennett likes this.
  6. theduckguru

    theduckguru Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,617
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2003
    Location:
    ohio
    It is not about a cake, it is about refusing service to people who have different religious beliefs than you and it is illegal.
     
  7. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,267
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    That is exactly what I mean. You can refuse to decorate it a certain way, but you can not refuse to make it just because you don’t agree with what you think the customer is going to use it for after it leaves your shop.

    You can say “I can’t make that particular design” (which means that you can still make a cake, just not one which depicts what the customer is requesting). You can not say “I will not make that for YOU.” One is a refusal based on content and one is based on who is buying it. One is legal and one isn’t.

    If one of your patients uses the glasses that you made for him to view child pornography, are you now “involved” in child pornography? Have you “contributed” to it? To put it bluntly, what one does with something that they purchase from a business that sells the same thing on a regular basis to everyone else is none of that business’ business (with a few limited exceptions).


    Maybe you’ve been to more weddings than me, but I’ve never once seen a wedding cake that was involved in the ceremony itself. If someone stole the cake before the ceremony, do you think there would still be a wedding? Besides your own wedding, can you tell me who baked the cake at any wedding that you’ve ever been to? No matter how anyone tries to spin it, the cake is not a part of the wedding ceremony, and the person who bakes/sells it is not contributing to or involved in any way with what the cake is being used for.

    I echo your sentiment, but the market is only truly free if all parties involved have a choice regarding what impacts them... The business owner is free to choose who they sell to, those who the business owner chooses to sell to are free to choose where they spend their money based on the business’ practices... but are the people who the business chooses not to sell to free to choose whether or not they belong to the group that the business has chosen to exclude? For example, a business might be free to not serve blacks, and non-blacks are free to go elsewhere, but how free are the blacks to choose where to go? Not exactly what I’d call a “free market.” As soon as one group’s choices are involuntarily made more restrictive (when compared to others who are similar to themselves, only belonging to a different group) it is no longer “free.”
     
  8. API

    API PAF-CA Flyway Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    23,854
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    That rational' establishes law makers as omnipotent and God like. Are we talking about cake baking being akin to serious crimes against others? Is it a legitimate function of government to make some attitudes illegal while essentially defining other attitudes as okay? While trying to level out and be all things to all people, we seem to be lesser as a whole.
     
  9. Squaller

    Squaller Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    19,609
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Location:
    Fresno, California
    No argument here.

    First off... Not sure how I would know the patient is using the glasses to view child pornography?

    But, if the patient is using his glasses (that he also uses for everyday activities), and happens to use them while watching porn, I am really not directly contributing to the particular creation of that activity....

    Now if the patient told me that he was making a child porn movie and wanted one of the "stars" to wear these glasses specifically for filming the movie, that would be a different story. My oath and confidentiality clauses put me in somewhat of a corner, but I would certainly be making some phone calls to find out what recourse I had.


    I would include traditional reception activities (such as throwing the bouquet, the garter, and cutting & eating the cake) part of the wedding ceremonies, as these activities are all somewhat organized traditional actives that take place at many if not most western weddings. Maybe not part of the actual wedding ceremony per say, but certainly integral aspects of the wedding process, which I believe is inclusive of the wedding ceremony.

    Once again, subjective opinion that I would not want to argue in a court of law either way.

    Your point is extremely valid... It certainly hits on a valid ethical point, but I remain uncertain as to if it is a constitutional right to be able to shop where you want, as opposed to being able to set up a personal business and sell to or serve who you wish?

    I would argue that preventing certain people from purchasing is more ethically wrong than regulating that a business has to serve everyone, but I would argue that from my understanding of the constitution that the business owner's rights would take precedent in this situation (constitutionally speaking).

    The idealism of the constitution and individual rights sometimes has to take precedent over ethical/moral ideals.

    As our population grows and becomes more diverse, I believe it is going to become increasingly difficult and complicated to protect the rights of some individuals without infringing upon the rights of others.
     
    The_Duck_Master likes this.
  10. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,128
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    All sinning, or just this one in particular?

    What difference does it make? How, where, and to what extent they choose to "exercise" their religious rights, free from government interference, is their First Amendment right.

    The bakery could possibly have an argument for the above if they refuse to bake cakes for all of those who sin or those who do not accept Christ as the son of God and their Savior, but that's not the case here, is it?

    I have no idea if these particular owners have turned away others on religious grounds. Do you?

    Either way, a clear reading of the First Amendment lays no such responsibility at the feet of the business owners. It merely states that the rights of individuals to practice and adhere to their religious beliefs shall be free from government interference. You know - like imposing $135,000.00 civil penalty type interference.

    If you can show me other examples of this particular bakery being "un-supportive of" other sins (like refusing to bake a cake for the couple who has been living together for the past 4 years and has 2 kids or for the couple with one partner who divorced his wife over the affair that he was having with his now fiance), I'll entertain your argument.

    I could really care less what you will "entertain". How, where, and to what extent they choose to "exercise" their religious rights, free from government interference, is their First Amendment right. Marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is a central tenet of ALL Christian religions.

    And as an aside - until you can show me were I indicated that I found it either offensive or unconstitutional, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

    Your attempt to reduce the bakers argument to one of simple "bigotry" puts you on par with those who baselessly shout down others as "racist". In this case, no word placement is needed on my part.
     
    The_Duck_Master likes this.

Share This Page