Bakery Did Not Discriminate By Refusing To Bake Anti-Gay Cakes, Court Rules

[Jaylan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...202.html?cps=gravity_2685_6811691549668227026

So apparently you cannot force a business to write hate speech. Sounds good.

One comment reads:

"The bakery did not turn away the customer. They baked the cake to THEIR business' specifications which is to not write hate speech on their cakes. They even accommodated the customer as far as to provide them with their own icing and tools to do the hate speech themselves. They went above and BEYOND in terms of customer service within the perimeters of their business' brand and operations."

 

[Mike32ct]

The baker was simply covering their butt in case this was a SETUP or a TRAP designed to smear that particular business. In today's climate, if I were a business owner, I would be VERY careful about being "baited" or "tricked" into some anti-gay stuff.

As it turns out, it wasn't a trap; but you can't be too careful.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think the point here was to see if one could compel a baker to make a religious and anti-gay cake as one can compel a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding. I don't think it's totally analogous since in this case it was compelled speech.

But I don't believe a person should be compelled to knowingly make a wedding cake for a gay wedding against their religious beliefs. Activist judges forcing the legalization of gay marriage on to states shouldn't infringe on a private person's religious beliefs.

 

[LiveFreeX]

Homofacism in full effect. Gay jihadis incoming.

 

[speed dawg]

"The bakery did not turn away the customer. They baked the cake to THEIR business' specifications which is to not write hate speech on their cakes. They even accommodated the customer as far as to provide them with their own icing and tools to do the hate speech themselves. They went above and BEYOND in terms of customer service within the perimeters of their business' brand and operations."

But if you refuse to bake PRO-GAY cakes, it IS discrimination. Things that make you go "Hmmmmm".

I personally would bake a cake and take money from anyone, I don't care. But the double standard here is just flat pitiful.

 

[logicallefty]

If I owned a cake shop and a gay couple wanted a cake, I would treat them no different than anyone else and gladly serve them. However, I also respect the views of these people who refused. They own the business. They can serve or not serve whoever they want. They don't owe anyone an explanation.

Gays want the rest of us to respect their views and we should, but they equally should also respect the views of others'. Any smart gay person should know that homosexuality is a sensitive topic and should just move on and find another cake shop in cases they come across such as this.

Lefty's views on gay men: The more gay men there are, the more women there are for Lefty

Lefty's views on gay women: Can I watch?

 

[zekko]

Gays want the rest of us to respect their views and we should, but they equally should also respect the views of others'. Any smart gay person should know that homosexuality is a sensitive topic and should just move on and find another cake shop in cases they come across such as this.

Gays lobby for this type of thing, of course. But I think for the most part the people who are deciding that no one has the right to refuse providing service for gay weddings are not gay. They are judges who want to feel like they are doing good by putting the gays in the "may not discriminate against" pile. I'm sure many of these people are just doing what they think is right, but some of them can get very self righteous about it.

Some here have mentioned that gay people have become protected while religious people have not. So it's not okay to discriminate against gays, but it's perfectly fine to discriminate against religious people. In fact, if someone's religion rejects homosexuality as sinful, then the religious people are called bigots.

Let's say you believe murder is a sin. If a murderer comes in to your restaurant, you serve him. But if he comes in and wants you to cater his "Murderer's Convention", then you might balk. Not that I'm comparing gays to murderers. Personally, I think it's dumb for a business to refuse gays service, but whatever.

 

[Stagger Lee]

There is a double standard. I've mentioned the government has classes within its classes. Christian business owners have been fined for not providing services to gay weddings and their business licenses put in jeopardy.

The gay marriage agenda is in part a thinly-veiled attack on Christians who see marriage as a religious ceremony and a gay wedding as a sinful event.

Mostly activist federal judges have redefined marriage and legalized gay marriage even against the will of the legislature and public vote. I think even most religious people who object to gay marriage would accept civil unions. Civil unions would give gays the same benefits as married couples. Gays didn't want that. They want homosexuality to be accepted as the exact equivalent as heterosexuality and traditional marriage.

The government does not have the right to force people whether religious or not to accept homosexuality as the equivalent of heterosexuality. Sexual orientation should not be a protected class.

 

[zekko]

The government does not have the right to force people whether religious or not to accept homosexuality

Apparently the government doesn't agree with you.

I agree though, that if religious people see marriage as sacred, and a religious ceremony, it is wrong to force them to accept the gay equivalent. I even think it is wrong to paint them as bigots and haters for not accepting a lifestyle that their religion says is wrong.

The government, on the other hand, sees marriage as a legal agreement as opposed to a religious ceremony, so I think most people can accept gay marriage on that level. But you're right, there's a double standard. Gays are protected, religious people are not.

I still don't understand why polygamy is illegal. If people can choose to marry their own gender, why can't they choose to have more than one spouse?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Apparently the government doesn't agree with you.

Well the federal courts at least sure don't. But the government doesn't really believe in being constitutional limited or in personal freedoms and liberty either.

I agree though, that if religious people see marriage as sacred, and a religious ceremony, it is wrong to force them to accept the gay equivalent. I even think it is wrong to paint them as bigots and haters for not accepting a lifestyle that their religion says is wrong.

Agree. Not just for religious objectors but any conscientious objector. The government's stance today is it doesn't have a reason to not support homosexuality. I think that's false with just the AIDS matter. But the courts even argue the government is not suppose to push moral beliefs. Yet the courts are pushing just that with forcing homosexuality's full acceptance by private individuals.

The government, on the other hand, sees marriage as a legal agreement as opposed to a religious ceremony, so I think most people can accept gay marriage on that level. But you're right, there's a double standard. Gays are protected, religious people are not.

I still don't understand why polygamy is illegal. If people can choose to marry their own gender, why can't they choose to have more than one spouse?

That's the thing. The state governments now per federal courts must issue a licenses for gay marriage. Why not polygamy and incest marriage too? Or possibly a marriage licenses for other types of unions? Apparently only the dictators in black robes decide what licenses should and shouldn't be issued.

The government can issues what ever marriage licenses it wants. It could issue a marriage licenses to join two brothers and their sister for all I care. But it shouldn't force any private individual to accept it and provide services to that marriage.

 

[Stagger Lee]

And another thing. The lawsuits in state and federal courts over gay marriage were also a money making endeavor for lawyers. Tax payers get to pay these fees to the gay agenda's legal teams.

gay-marriage-battle-looms-attorneys-fight-over-fees

As a historic constitutional showdown over gay marriage looms this month at the U.S. Supreme Court, attorneys are fighting over another bitterly disputed issue: their fees.

The battles over billables are erupting far from the Washington, D.C., limelight, in lower courts from West Virginia to Wisconsin and Oklahoma. They pit lawyers representing gay couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans against the states that had enacted the laws.

Typically in the United States, each party pays its own lawyers. But under special laws designed to encourage civil rights cases against the government, parties who win can petition the county, state or other entity they sued for "reasonable” attorneys' fees and costs.

In some cases, the fee requests run well into seven figures and are submitted on behalf of powerful law firms that a Reuters examination found have outsized access to the Supreme Court.

 

[zekko]

But the courts even argue the government is not suppose to push moral beliefs. Yet the courts are pushing just that with forcing homosexuality's full acceptance by private individuals.

The government is pushing the gay agenda in the name of "tolerance", which supercedes morality in today's culture. We have to accept everyone, unless they are on the wrong side of the aisle (the right wing, basically).

The state governments now per federal courts must issue a licenses for gay marriage. Why not polygamy and incest marriage too?

I can see denying incest marriages since the children of such unions can be defective. But I can't see any reason why polygamy should be illegal.

 

[Mike32ct]

The government is pushing the gay agenda in the name of "tolerance", which supercedes morality in today's culture. We have to accept everyone, unless they are on the wrong side of the aisle (the right wing, basically).

Exactly. But, as I said before, politicians are working the gay rights angle mostly to get the white women votes because they are a larger demographic than LGBT themselves.

I can see denying incest marriages since the children of such unions can be defective. But I can't see any reason why polygamy should be illegal.

I agree with you about polygamy. While I'm not a fan of it, I don't see why it should be illegal. I mean, if you could AFFORD more than one wife, then why not? But politically, I can understand why it is illegal. Women don't like it because it greatly reduces her ability to divorce and get "half."

Let's say you have two wives. One of them wants to divorce you, but the other wants to stay married. Do you have to pay 1/3 to the one that divorced you, or does she get zero because you are still "married" lol? It's problematic in that way. Either way, the woman loses her power/advantage in that department. She also can't withhold sex until you remodel the kitchen because you'll just get it from your other wife lol.

It's just like women wanting prostitution to stay illegal because it could reduce a woman's ability to demand commitment in exchange for sex.

 

[Stagger Lee]

The government is pushing the gay agenda in the name of "tolerance", which supercedes morality in today's culture. We have to accept everyone, unless they are on the wrong side of the aisle (the right wing, basically).

Yeah, but this so-called "tolerance" goes way beyond tolerance and into forcing total acceptance and like you said really favoritism of one group over another. What gets me the most, is that this progressive agenda has been propagated the most by 5 judges (progressive dictators) on the supreme court.

I can see denying incest marriages since the children of such unions can be defective. But I can't see any reason why polygamy should be illegal.

There's reasons polygamy could be justified to not be legal, welfare of children, males left without mates leads to a violent society etc, but they're probably not anymore valid than reasons for homosexual marriage to not be legal. People argue that gay marriage has good reasons to be illegal but judges dismiss the arguments almost out of hand, so I agree they're being inconsistent by not allowing polygamy.

Personally, I believe homosexuality is just as detrimental as incest. And polygamy if widespread increases inbreeding. Homosexuality is no less abnormal than pedophilia in my book. I believe there's a good reason to ban all three together polygamy, incest, and homosexual marriages. I'm not too much for miscegenation either. I don't see anything unconstitutional when states with few exceptions only issued any adult a licenses to marry the opposite sex of their race. Everyone had the same right to the same licenses.

All that said, my real problem with it is the government compels private individuals to not just tolerate but fully accept gays and gay marriage and to provide service to their weddings. That's not freedom, liberty or even tolerance of others. Even worse is the favoritism.