Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 07, 2018

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KBAK/KBFX) -- A Kern County judge on Monday night ruled in favor of the owner of Tastries Barkery, who the State of California argued in court engaged in unlawful discrimination when she decided not sell a custom wedding cake to a gay couple. A professing Christian, Cathy Miller says she will sell gay people anything else in her bakery, but will not be made to celebrate a ceremony her faith finds objectionable. Miller and her attorneys equate designing a custom cake with speech and say California compelling speech she doesn't agree with violates her own constitutional rights.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Cathy Miller says she will sell gay people anything else in her bakery

That's the kicker there, a fair compromise.

#1 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-02-07 06:26 PM | Reply

"will not be made to celebrate a ceremony her faith finds objectionable."

She doesn't have to celebrate any ceremony. All she has to do is bake a cake.

What really gets me about these "offended" Christians is how they can expect everyone to respect their beliefs when they obviously do not respect anyone else's beliefs.

Besides, nowhere in the bible does it specifically forbid same sex marriage. So her faith actually does not forbid it.

The Bible offers a wide variety of marriage arrangements, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.

It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God's generous love and a profound concern for justice.

---Robyn J Whitaker, Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Trinity College and a lecturer at the University of Divinity.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 06:36 PM | Reply

Don't blame Christians. She is faux Christian, she is just using religion as cover for being a nasty b***h.

#3 | Posted by bored at 2018-02-07 06:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I don't know. Why should I be compelled to make a cake (or whatever) at my own private business to help celebrate an event I feel is repugnant.

If she is willing to lose the business and the customers, that should be her choice. She should not be compelled to do or make something she opposes. Again, this is a privately owned business.

#4 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-07 06:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#4 | POSTED BY MODER8

Agreed.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 06:51 PM | Reply

This is similar to going into a restaurant and demanding something that is not on the menu.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't know. Why should I be compelled to make a cake (or whatever) at my own private business to help celebrate an event I feel is repugnant.

If she is willing to lose the business and the customers, that should be her choice. She should not be compelled to do or make something she opposes. Again, this is a privately owned business.

Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-07 06:49 PM | Reply

I adamantly disagree. If she was refusing service to black people she would be shut down post haste. Why should same sex couples get discriminated against??? No I hope this gets her shut down. You serve the public you serve the public.

#7 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 06:56 PM | Reply

This is similar to going into a restaurant and demanding something that is not on the menu.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not even close. The cakes exist.

#8 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is similar to going into a restaurant and demanding something that is not on the menu.

#6 | Posted by JeffJ

It's on the menu. It's called a wedding cake.

A cake is a cake.

It was just asked for by the wrong type of person.

#9 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#8

A gay wedding cake is not on the menu. Nor is a polgyamist wedding cake. Nor probably are a whole slew of other themed cakes. The thing is they are not being discriminated on based upon their sexual orientation. The bake shop owner has a menu of cakes and gay wedding cakes are not on the menu, apparently. Personally, I think it's a poor business decision, but that's not up for me to decide.

If you go to a restaurant, and ask what exactly is in the seafood chowder and you don't hear "lobster chunks", do you demand lobster chunks be added to the soup and threaten to sue if they refuse?

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

A gay wedding cake is not on the menu. Nor is a polgyamist wedding cake. Nor probably are a whole slew of other themed cakes. The thing is they are not being discriminated on based upon their sexual orientation. The bake shop owner has a menu of cakes and gay wedding cakes are not on the menu, apparently. Personally, I think it's a poor business decision, but that's not up for me to decide.

If you go to a restaurant, and ask what exactly is in the seafood chowder and you don't hear "lobster chunks", do you demand lobster chunks be added to the soup and threaten to sue if they refuse?

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:10 PM | Reply

LIAR The cake exists. They sell Wedding cakes.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 07:13 PM | Reply

whats the difference between a gay wedding cake and any other wedding cake?

I had 2 at mine...hers and mine. what does a gay cake look like?

defendingthelord.com

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-07 07:15 PM | Reply

LIAR The cake exists. They sell Wedding cakes.

#11 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Apparently they don't sell gay wedding cakes.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:16 PM | Reply

whats the difference between a gay wedding cake and any other wedding cake?

Probably not much. I was at a gay wedding this past August, I wish I had paid attention to what the cake looked like.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:17 PM | Reply

Apparently they don't sell gay wedding cakes.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your intellectual dishonesty is legendary. There's really no such thing as a gay or straight wedding cake. A wedding cake is just that a wedding cake. It confers no distinction beyond that.

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 07:20 PM | Reply

Apparently they don't sell gay wedding cakes.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ

LOL

The cakes are not gay, the people are.

Besides, I am having trouble imagining two cakes having gay sex.

You might have to draw me a picture.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 07:22 PM | Reply

our intellectual dishonesty is legendary. There's really no such thing as a gay or straight wedding cake.

Sure there is.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 07:23 PM | Reply

There's really no such thing as a gay or straight wedding cake.

Sure there is.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ

Well, this IS America where you get to believe what you want to believe.

And if you want to believe that wedding cakes can be gay that is certainly your right.

That does not make it true, however.

Just so you know.

#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 07:35 PM | Reply

Besides, I am having trouble imagining two cakes having gay sex.

The gay cakes use a LOT of butter.

#19 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 07:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let me wade in a little deeper here. A private business, especially a private individually owned business is NOT compelled to follow the same rules as a government agency or institution. Just because you own and run your own small bakery does not mean you suddenly are compelled to do or make anything requested of you. You can tell the potential customer to go pound sand. Now you might not be able to remain in business very long if you piss off enough potential customers and your local community by doing that. But that is the individual owners decision.

If I were a private criminal defense attorney as opposed to a public defender, I would have every right in the world to refuse to represent anyone I did not want to represent. Child molester? Dog torturer? Hit the road. I get to decide who I represent. And, even though it may offend the sensibilities of other people, I don't have to accept cases from gay people or black people or Asian people or anyone else. My law practice is my own private enterprise. I get to decide who I do and do not represent. As with everything in life, there probably are certain exceptions to that rule, but generally speaking a private attorney or a private baker can not be required to bake a cake they don't want to bake or defend a client they don't want to represent.

#20 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-07 07:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON, May 24 -- Denny's, a national restaurant chain, agreed today to pay more than $54 million to settle lawsuits filed by thousands of black customers who had been refused service or had been forced to wait longer or pay more than white customers.

The new head of the civil rights division of the Justice Department, Deval L. Patrick, said it was the largest and broadest settlement under the Federal public-accommodation laws. Those laws were adopted more than 30 years ago to end segregation in restaurants and other places that serve the public.

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 07:47 PM | Reply

Here's the court's opinion. It's relatively short at 8 pages. To the point some make:

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

As a reminder the court refers to a passage from Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion:
"[f]inaly, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

#22 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.legalzoom.com

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of "public accommodation" include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can't discriminate based on someone's unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there's no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 07:53 PM | Reply

My law practice is my own private enterprise. I get to decide who I do and do not represent. As with everything in life, there probably are certain exceptions to that rule, but generally speaking a private attorney or a private baker can not be required to bake a cake they don't want to bake or defend a client they don't want to represent.

#20 | Posted by moder8

Damn you lawyer people like to complicate things.

Its freaking wedding cake.

If wedding cakes are on the menu you think it is ok to refuse to make one just because you don't like the type of relationship a person has that is asking for it?

If you don't have the gay toppings just say so. Why disrespect people because of their belief system? If you want people to respect your beliefs then you need to respect others.

If you come into my cake shop and ask me to make a "Christian cake" can I refuse to make your cake because I don't believe in what these so called Christians are doing?

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 07:57 PM | Reply

"No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose"

Mah Freedumbs!

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 07:58 PM | Reply

#24

f wedding cakes are on the menu you think it is ok

That isn't a legal question.

I get where you are coming from and agree with the moral/ethical arguments you are making. But this is a legal argument, which is a different ballgame.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:00 PM | Reply

It's nice that you can acknowledge the law need not be moral or ethical, JeffJ.

I'd urge you to remember this next time you defend something that's legal purely on the basis of being legal, or oppose something that's illegal solely on the basis of it being illegal.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:02 PM | Reply

#21 | Posted by LauraMohr

Odd that you refer to the federal public accommodation statute. It only offers protection from "discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." IOW, public accommodation discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is legal under federal law. www.law.cornell.edu

#28 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 08:02 PM | Reply

#27

I'm well aware of the differences which is why I made the distinction.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:04 PM | Reply

RE #22

her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids

As I pointed out in post #2

Where exactly does her "religion" forbid same sex marriage?

#30 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-07 08:05 PM | Reply

Damn you lawyer people like to complicate things.

That's because the thread is about a lawsuit.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:06 PM | Reply

legal argument, which is a different ballgame.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Legally it's forbidden. Ergo you have no argument.

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 08:08 PM | Reply

Where exactly does her "religion" forbid same sex marriage?

#30 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

That question is immaterial to this thread. She didn't violate federal law nor did she violate state law (had her business been located in Oregon the outcome of this case would have been different) which is why she was acquitted.

#33 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:08 PM | Reply

"Where exactly does her "religion" forbid same sex marriage?"

The Courts don't ask those kinds of questions.
They take claims of religious belief at face value.
They even decided a company called Hobby Lobby can have religious beliefs. A freaking company.
And this is why RFRA legislation exists, to serve as an end-around on the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights Act, etc. etc.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:09 PM | Reply

"The gay cakes use a LOT of butter."

How much does the Marlon Brando cake use?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 08:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Legally it's forbidden.

#32 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Oh, I see. California is one of the states that prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. Yes, on that ground you are correct and I was wrong. However, this is how the judge saw it:

No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification.

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Now, you could argue that this ruling is contrary to California state law and whilst I agree with the jurisprudence here, this isn't cut-and-dry IMO.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:13 PM | Reply

The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked. The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Now, you could argue that this ruling is contrary to California state law and whilst I agree with the jurisprudence here, this isn't cut-and-dry IMO.

Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 08:13 PM | Reply

Rubbish argument. Most foods aren't yet prepared before ordering. Nice try though.

#37 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 08:15 PM | Reply

#35

I gave you an FF even though what happened to Maria Schneider was not only the opposite of funny but criminal, but a newsworthy didn't seem appropriate either.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-02-07 08:19 PM | Reply

Legally it's forbidden.
#32 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

I know you're aware of the Supremacy Clause. It applies here.

#39 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 08:19 PM | Reply

"The Courts don't ask those kinds of questions.
They take claims of religious belief at face value."

It seems to depend on the issue. As it's been described to me, the nature of a set of religious beliefs has bearing on things like the status of conscientious objectors.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-07 08:23 PM | Reply

Rubbish argument. Most foods aren't yet prepared before ordering.

It's rubbish only if you ignore the second sentence following what you emphasised.

The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids.

#41 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-07 08:24 PM | Reply

I've nothing against Christians but where is all the love your neighbor as yourself and judge not lest you be judge or if you have done the least for my brethren.

I mean come on now, do you follow the teachings or not.

Decorate the cake and spread some happiness. FOR CHRIST's SAKE.

#42 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 08:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Law enforcement compelling people to say things that they don't believe makes a mockery of free speech.

#43 | Posted by Tor at 2018-02-07 08:41 PM | Reply

Bruce,

"judge not lest you be judge".

Sounds like you're doing a fair share of judging yourself right now.

You are judging these bakers.

That's always been the Catch 22 (so to speak) about accusing others of judging.

You run the risk of becoming guilty yourself.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of people using shame to control other people.

I left a conservative church because I just came away feeling worse sometimes when I attended.

And now liberals are trying to use shame against Christians to manipulate them into agreeing to something.

Give a rest.

Non-Christians shaming Christians for not acting Christian...yea right.

#44 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-07 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Libertarianism has many, many faults. Having said that, as a governing philosophy it applies "live and let live" better than other governing philosophies.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-07 09:51 PM | Reply

How does it apply that, when it's not being practiced anywhere that I'm aware of?

Do you mean it gives it the best lip service?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-07 09:59 PM | Reply

Well Bill I see you picked one of my three quotes to argue with. Not mentioning love your neighbor as yourself and if you've done the least for my brethren.

Give it a rest yourself, one trick pony.

I'm not shaming anyone, infact though I have my doubts on the various religions because nobody really knows, I try my best to live by the various teachings.

And none of them have anything to do with shunning parts of the population who mostly mind their own business.

Peace be with you.

#47 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 10:02 PM | Reply

A man is stranded on a deserted island all by himself. Years go by and a ship comes up on the distance.
He builds a smoke fire and they come to his rescue.
Rescuers notice that over time he has built three buildings. They inquire.
Well the first one is my house and that one is my church.
What about the third building?
Oh that's the church I used to go to.

#48 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 10:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

A gay wedding cake is not on the menu.
#10 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Apparently they don't sell gay wedding cakes.
#13 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What the ---- is a gay wedding cake?

Seriously. Are you trolling?

#49 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-07 10:47 PM | Reply

Bruce,

"Not mentioning love your neighbor as yourself and if you've done the least for my brethren."

ok...let's talk about loving your neighbor.

Are you saying if you don't approve of your neighbor's lifestyle, you can't love still love them?

Since you are such a wise person, surely you understand how Christians can love the person and hate the sin.

Do you not think Jesus hated sin but loved the sinner?

#50 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-07 10:55 PM | Reply

Do you not think Jesus hated sin but loved the sinner?
#50 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

When did Jesus say/suggest/imply that homosexuality is a sin?

#51 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-07 10:58 PM | Reply

Peace be with you.
#47 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ

All: And also with you.

BRUCEAZ: Lift up your hearts.

All: We lift them up to the Lord.

BRUCEAZ: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God.

All: It is right to give him thanks in praise.

BRUCEAZ: Let uuuuus...pray.

(Don't mind me, I'm a recovering Catholic.)

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-07 11:08 PM | Reply

Damn Bill ,why is this so hard, it's none of my business of my neighbors lifestyle. If they pick up after their dog and turn down the noise at 10 pm and make a reasonable effort on the front yard , who am I to say.

Most of the gay people I know are as boring as anyone else.

And personality I am a pos in many ways.

Decorate a cake, it won't kill you. Seek joy. Don't blacken your heart over things that if god finds objection to he can take care of.

God didn't make any of us sherrif over anyone elses personal lives.

Now go into your closet and pray, Carrie

#53 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 11:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#52 Rasty, you forgot the part where I need a personal Learjet. Inshallah.

#54 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 11:32 PM | Reply

Personally I'm a piece of ----. Not personality, damn word guesser.

#55 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 11:36 PM | Reply

Rsty,

"When did Jesus say/suggest/imply that homosexuality is a sin?"

Good question.

You can look at from different perspectives.

First, just because Jesus isn't quoted in the Bible on the subject doesn't mean he didn't have an opinion.

What you have to do is extrapolate other things He is quoted speaking on.

For example, Jesus said if you even look at a women with lust, you have committed adultery in your heart.

Some of the verses in the Bible used to condemn gays also condemn adulterers to the same fate.

So...are straight sinners any better than gay ones?

There are those who believe it is homosexual behavior that condemns a person.

I propose Jesus may say any same-sex sexual attraction even without acting on it is no different in the eyes of God. You have sinned.

Makes you wonder how many people would find homosexuality on their list of sins on Judgement day and are in deep denial.

However, to simply say Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality is a fairly weak argument.

It is a complicated topic though as a Christian.

In this court case, wasn't it decided her freedom of speech was being denied and her religious beliefs were not her defense so that's not the issue here.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-07 11:37 PM | Reply

#54

"I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs." -- Frederick Douglass

#57 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-07 11:39 PM | Reply

Bruce,

"God didn't make any of us sherrif over anyone elses personal lives."

Then why doesn't that apply to the gay couple?

Why are they playing sheriff over someone else personal life?

Just typical.

Rights for me...none for you.

#58 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-07 11:40 PM | Reply

Hey Bill, I think that everyone should have their personal rationship with god and keeping it at that.

You don't have a clue about Jesus's thinking about what he didn't enumerate on and neither does anyone else.

And there have been many who've claimed to be the son of god, why this one?

Blue eyes?

#59 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-07 11:55 PM | Reply

Oh lovely. Bill Johnson has to insert his nonsense into the thread like always. Listyen slick no one is taking your rights away from you. Capisce????

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-07 11:56 PM | Reply

#58 All they want is a cake. Your not going to be struck by lightning.

The good Samaritan " sorry pal"

Nevermind, goodnight fellow traveler.

#61 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-08 12:00 AM | Reply

"However, to simply say Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality is a fairly weak argument."

It's the word of God. Words matter, even the ones that go unspoken.

It's BS rhetoric like yours that pushed me away from the Church.

Well done, I applaud you. Maybe some other Catholic will read your post and cringe like I did.

#62 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-08 12:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

First, just because Jesus isn't quoted in the Bible on the subject doesn't mean he didn't have an opinion....

#63 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 12:12 AM | Reply

# wow clown, I think we all gave him a good ration of ----, but you may have proved his point

#64 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-08 12:18 AM | Reply

About to be overturned on appeal. Waste of time and taxpayer money.

#65 | Posted by morris at 2018-02-08 12:28 AM | Reply

Libertarianism has many, many faults. Having said that, as a governing philosophy it applies "live and let live" better than other governing philosophies.

#45 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-02-07 09:51 PM | FLAG:

Nonsense. The market is about anything but live and let live and your sort want to take off its chains.

#66 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 12:31 AM | Reply

"The thing is they are not being discriminated on based upon their sexual orientation."

Except they'll sell to straights what they won't sell to gays.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-08 12:45 AM | Reply

you may have proved his point

He had a point?

Was it gays are destroying America and Jesus doesn't abide?

Why don't you enlighten me.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 12:54 AM | Reply

Well you shouldn't bring someone's wife into it, she doesn't post here.

#69 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-02-08 01:01 AM | Reply

That was his point?

I did miss it.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 01:02 AM | Reply

There's really no such thing as a gay or straight wedding cake. A wedding cake is just that a wedding cake. It confers no distinction beyond that.

#15 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Well I can imagine the figurines being the same-sex being a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

Whats curious is on their website the there are wedding cakes that have no figurines etc etc .....

Except they'll sell to straights what they won't sell to gays.
#67 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Not exactly ...

The question is what was the custom cake design ..... there doesn't appear to be enough information to make a determination.

For instance on their website, using same-sex figurines should be perfectly reasonable.

Why don't you enlighten me.
#68 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Given your previous posts is that even possible?

public accommodation discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is legal under federal law. www.law.cornell.edu
#28 | POSTED BY ET_AL

But not in California law, this is a county judge .... why are we discussing Federal regulations, why not point out this is a state issue, not Federal?

This bill would further prohibit that discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation, and would define related terms. The bill would also integrate those definitions into other related provisions, and would make specified findings and declarations in that regard.
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

#71 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 01:13 AM | Reply

Blah blah blah...
#71 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

That's about as much as your post amounts to.

Same as everything else you post.

#72 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 01:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#71 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Someone else brought it up. Your first clue should have been the cite to the post number. Your second clue should have been the first five words I wrote, "Odd that you refer to ...."

I'm aware of the CA statute, it's cited in the opinion, link at 22.

Applying required First Amendment strict scrutiny and weighing the state's asserted compelling interest the court found that interest lacking. The court cites Justice Kennedy's Obergefell assurance regarding the First Amendment and same sex issues. That assurance is quoted at 22.

#73 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-08 01:47 AM | Reply

Someone else brought it up. Your first clue should have been the cite to the post number. Your second clue should have been the first five words I wrote, "Odd that you refer to ...."

It wasn't me, but I wish it was. Poignant.

#74 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2018-02-08 02:09 AM | Reply

A gay wedding cake is not on the menu.

Neither is a "non-gay" wedding cake. It is just called wedding cake and it is already on the menu.

#75 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-08 06:57 AM | Reply

A private business, especially a private individually owned business is NOT compelled to follow the same rules as a government agency or institution. Just because you own and run your own small bakery does not mean you suddenly are compelled to do or make anything requested of you.

So you're good with:

"No Irish need apply"

"Whites only"

#76 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-08 06:59 AM | Reply

First, just because Jesus isn't quoted in the Bible on the subject doesn't mean he didn't have an opinion.

So a book that was hand copied by illiterate monks for a thousand years doesn't mention the subject so modern day "christians" are safe to say homosexuality is a sin.

Then again so is shellfish. I don't see any religious groups picketing outside Red Lobster.

What isn't a sin? Slavery.

God could have banned slavery or shellfish. He chose shellfish.

That in and of itself is reason enough to believe the bible is nothing more than hogwash.

#77 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-08 07:05 AM | Reply

but will not be made to celebrate a ceremony her faith finds objectionable.

Does that mean gun sellers are celebrating mass shootings?

You're selling an elaborate twinkie and using your "faith" to be a ---- to two fellow human beings.

Is this really where you want to be when Jesus comes back?

#78 | Posted by 726 at 2018-02-08 07:08 AM | Reply

Why should I be compelled to make a cake (or whatever) at my own private business to help celebrate an event I feel is repugnant.

You do realize, of course, that the exact same argument was used in the 1960s by bar and restaurant owners who didn't want to serve blacks. Some of them even claimed it was motivated by their faith.

A business that serves the public should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation nor race.

A cake baker isn't "celebrating" the event she puts on a cake. Before this gay cake controversy, no one would have said that a baker who made 1,000 birthday cakes last year was "celebrating" all 1,000 birthdays.

#79 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 07:46 AM | Reply

Just like other bakeries she has cakes and donuts and cupcakes frosted in the case available for anyone to come in buy.
What she said she wont do is to sit down with a couple to go over creating their custom wedding cake. Can you force an artist to create a product?

#80 | Posted by homerj at 2018-02-08 08:48 AM | Reply

Replace sexual orientation with race and ask yourself if you still agree with the court's decision. Of course you can pretend that sexual orientation is a choice but then you would reveal your inner bigotry. If you are going to advertise services to consumers then don't refuse service to some consumers based on their race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

#81 | Posted by danni at 2018-02-08 09:10 AM | Reply

The cake is a lie.

#82 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-02-08 10:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

"You do realize, of course, that the exact same argument was used in the 1960s by bar and restaurant owners who didn't want to serve blacks. Some of them even claimed it was motivated by their faith."

This unfortunate fact sure remains unaddressed by anyone on the right.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:01 AM | Reply

You do realize, of course, that the exact same argument was used in the 1960s by bar and restaurant owners who didn't want to serve blacks. Some of them even claimed it was motivated by their faith...

#79 | POSTED BY RCADE

Apples and oranges. During the Jim Crow era blacks the menu was off-limits to blacks at some restaurants. In this case, everything on the baker's menu is available to anyone regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc. The menu itself has limits. Had this gay couple requested a birthday cake - they would have gotten it.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 11:15 AM | Reply

So, if you claim your religion is against interracial couples, Muslims, atheists, Pagans, Wiccans, Native Americans (who worship Nature gods), transgender people, divorced people, Democrats/liberals (who are pro-choice), does that mean you can refuse to make them a wedding cake?

#85 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 11:21 AM | Reply

"everything on the baker's menu is available to anyone regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc."

Then what's this case about?

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 11:21 AM | Reply

What if your religion is against pre-marital sex, can you refuse to make a wedding cake for a pregnant couple? Or is this just an anti-gay thing?

#87 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And if your religion is against pre-marital sex, can you refuse to make a birthday cake for a child who was born out of wedlock?

So many sinners in the world. Why is this woman singling out who she sees as "gay sinners" for special (mis)treatment?

#88 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 11:31 AM | Reply

"Apples and oranges. During the Jim Crow era blacks the menu was off-limits to blacks at some restaurants. In this case, everything on the baker's menu is available to anyone regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc. The menu itself has limits. Had this gay couple requested a birthday cake - they would have gotten it."

Black only water fountains weren't acceptable. Gay only menu options shouldn't be either.

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 11:33 AM | Reply

#82: The cake is a lie. lol. I doubt 10 people on this site know what that is in reference to.

#90 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-08 11:56 AM | Reply

So if a known Pedophile gets released from prison, walks into your bakery, do you have to bake him a cake with an adult and child figurine on the top? Would you do it or refuse?

#91 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 12:15 PM | Reply

Had this gay couple requested a birthday cake - they would have gotten it.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ

What if they had said it was a gay cake for a gay birthday party?

Would they have still gotten their gay cake?

#92 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 12:18 PM | Reply

What if they had said it was a gay cake for a gay birthday party?
Would they have still gotten their gay cake?

#92 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I don't see why not. A birthday is the anniversary celebration of one's birth.

#93 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-08 12:21 PM | Reply

Boaz, pedophiles aren't a protected class, despite your heartfelt support for Trump and Mopre, and how strongly you feel Nasser was treated unfairly by that mean lady judge.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 12:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It is a complicated topic though as a Christian.

In this court case, wasn't it decided her freedom of speech was being denied and her religious beliefs were not her defense so that's not the issue here.

#56 | Posted by BillJohnson

It is actually not really complicated at all. Not to me.

The warped logic you have to follow to claim it is a against your religion is so twisted and convoluted you cannot even explain it. So you say it's complicated. There is no place in your sacred religious documents where it says that God does not approve of gay marriage. Only people disapprove of it because of their own insecurities. It has nothing to do with God. Or Jesus.

Gay sex is natural. It is Man that has made it unnatural. Not God. not Jesus.

And now it is about free speech?. Nonsense.

It's about baking a damn cake. Not a gay cake. A cake for a gay couple. If you don't carry "gay" toppings just say so. Insulting people's beliefs by refusing to bake a cake that you would bake for anyone else is discrimination and just plain rude.

Their sexual orientation does not "pick your pockets nor break your bones". It does not affect you at all.

If you cannot respect the beliefs of others do not expect them to respect yours.

#95 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 12:35 PM | Reply

Donner,

"If you cannot respect the beliefs of others do not expect them to respect yours"

That door swings both ways.

Gays can find a gay bakery that gladly does it.

You want my opinion why it matters so much who makes it?

The gay couple wanted a "real" wedding cake to justify their marriage.

#96 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-02-08 01:39 PM | Reply

The gay couple wanted a "real" wedding cake to justify their marriage.

#96 | Posted by BillJohnson

And if that were true... so what?

Same sex marriage is legal. Anyone who gets married wants to "justify" their marriage.

"If you cannot respect the beliefs of others do not expect them to respect yours"

That door swings both ways.

Umm isn't that what I just said?

The gay couple (as far as I know) did nothing disrespectful other than to ask the baker to bake a cake.

A wedding cake as advertised on her web page.

Tastries specializes in custom baked goods, including tiered wedding cakes, cupcakes, dessert tables and personalized wedding favors. We will bake, decorate, deliver and set up your desserts to create a stunning and delicious presentation

www.tastriesbakery.com

#97 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 02:01 PM | Reply

The gay couple (as far as I know) did nothing disrespectful other than to ask the baker to bake a cake.

And ask her to bake a cake that goes against her moral beliefs. Once she said "No", the gay couple should have respected that. But we know that cant happen, because she must be forced to accept the gay couple, right?

#98 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 02:06 PM | Reply

Boaz, pedophiles aren't a protected class, despite your heartfelt support for Trump and Mopre, and how strongly you feel Nasser was treated unfairly by that mean lady judge.

--- you Snoofy, no one said anything like that..

#99 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 02:07 PM | Reply

If you cannot respect the beliefs of others do not expect them to respect yours.

You do good jumping in the face of Christians in your safe country, would you do it to a Muslim?

Somehow, I think not..

#100 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 02:08 PM | Reply

And ask her to bake a cake that goes against her moral beliefs. Once she said "No", the gay couple should have respected that. But we know that cant happen, because she must be forced to accept the gay couple, right?

#98 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-02-08 02:06 PM | FLAG:

Replace "gay" with the racial minority of your choice and see how well the argument holds up.

#101 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 02:36 PM | Reply

You do good jumping in the face of Christians in your safe country, would you do it to a Muslim?

Somehow, I think not..

#100 | Posted by boaz

I do not see the relationship. Religiosity is Religiosity to me. I don't care which cult you currently belong to. If it does not "pick my pockets or break my bones" I have no issue with it.

If Muslims respect me and my beliefs, I of course, will respect theirs.

Muslims I have met are very respectful people. What they do at home or in their church is of no concern to me. As long as it does not "pick my pockets or break my bones" why should I care?

because she must be forced to accept the gay couple, right?

#98 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I really do not understand your question. Who is being forced to accept the couple? The baker was asked to bake a wedding cake. Not change her lifestyle or even like the couple. Was she being asked to attend the wedding? I did not see that. It is a damn cake. She is not being asked to sign a EULA or any other type of agreement. She was asked to bake a cake. A cake like she advertised on her web page.

#102 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 02:55 PM | Reply

Replace "gay" with the racial minority of your choice and see how well the argument holds up.

Boaz doesn't care about racial minorities. He curses the fact that he's black every time he sees his own reflection.

#103 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 02:59 PM | Reply

The gay couple (as far as I know) did nothing disrespectful other than to ask the baker to bake a cake.

"And ask her to bake a cake that goes against her moral beliefs."

If her baking cakes for black folks was "against her morals" would it still be "disrespectful" for a black person to ask her to bake a cake as she advertised ?

#104 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 02:59 PM | Reply

It's funny how people (Jeff, Bill, Andreà, Moder8, Boaz) can defend such petty people.

The baker bake cakes. She's not being asked to do anything out of the ordinary. She's choosing to be homophobic and using her ignorance (religion) as her defense.

Just because you all belong to the same book club cult doesn't allow you to discriminate against anyone.

Go practice your mumbo jumbo on your own time and leave the rest of us alone.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 03:05 PM | Reply

Once she said "No", the gay couple should have respected that.

Sorry Bozo, respect is earned. This baker is a straight up stupid birch. She doesn't deserve respect.

But we know that cant happen, because she must be forced to accept the gay couple, right?

The only thing she was asked to do is the same thing she does everyday, mix flour with eggs milk and sugar and decorate it with frosting.

She could remain as homophobic as she desires.

If she were a racist, I'd still expect her to be professional enough to do her job despite the race of the person who walked into her store.

#106 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 03:11 PM | Reply

"A professing Christian, Cathy Miller says she will sell gay people anything else in her bakery, but will not be made to celebrate a ceremony her faith finds objectionable."

You are being asked to bake a cake for which you will be paid. You are not being asked to celebrate by attending the wedding and reception and bringing a gift.

#107 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 03:34 PM | Reply

A pacifist baker can now refuse to bake a cake for the families of military personnel and veterans who are having a good-bye party before a deployment or celebrating the return home of a loved one after one?

#108 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 03:38 PM | Reply

#108,

I would say yes, Gal.

But, like this baker for the gay couple, the pacifist would face the community not patronizing the establishment for their choice.

I think that's fair.

#109 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 03:43 PM | Reply

You are being asked to bake a cake for which you will be paid.

The cake maker can still say no..

#110 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 03:44 PM | Reply

I guess this also means anyone who provides any type of service a wedding ceremony and reception might require can now object on religious grounds? I'm thinking of people who provide the flowers, food, bride & bridesmaids' dresses, tuxes, etc.

#111 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 03:45 PM | Reply

You guys know what's going to happen?

Business owners are going to start refusing service and not saying why. They will just say "No" and when you ask why, they will refuse to respond. They do have a right to refuse to respond, dont they?

#112 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 03:45 PM | Reply

Can you force an artist to create a product?

If you want to call a cake "art" you can call a mixed drink an "art" just as easily.

Can you force a bartender to serve a black person a drink? Yes.

#113 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 03:46 PM | Reply

You guys know what's going to happen?
Business owners are going to start refusing service and not saying why. They will just say "No" and when you ask why, they will refuse to respond. They do have a right to refuse to respond, dont they?

#112 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-02-08 03:45 PM | FLAG:

And do you know what will happen next? The jilted customers will get together (the internet makes this effortless), identify the discriminatory pattern and sue the offending business out of existence.

#114 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-02-08 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

In this case, everything on the baker's menu is available to anyone regardless of skin color, sexual orientation, etc. The menu itself has limits.

This is a meaningless distinction. The cake baker is offering a service whether the cake is premade or made to order. That service should not be denied to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation.

A restaurant could offer food that's premade or made to order. Are you now going to argue that a restaurant could deny black customers food as long as it was made to order?

A pharmacist offers drugs that are packaged and drugs the pharmacist prepares. Can that pharmacist deny black customers life-saving medicine as long as it was made to order?

You and a lot of other people need to get over the insipid idea that a cake baker's religious prejudice is sacred. If you let that idea in for wedding cakes it'll show up all over our society. Some religious people will use their faith to openly practice bigotry in who they do business with.

#115 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 03:50 PM | Reply

#113,

Rogers,

The racial aspect of this has nothing to do with it. It's already been established you cant refuse out of race.

It's not the same thing...

#116 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 03:52 PM | Reply

They do have a right to refuse to respond, dont they?

If you and other black people you know all were turned away by a business that provided no explanation, you'd figure out what was happening in a New York minute.

#117 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 03:53 PM | Reply

If you want to call a cake "art" you can call a mixed drink an "art" just as easily.

True. The Art of Mixology. There are even books about it. The Art of Floral Arrangement. The Art of Cooking. The Art of Dressmaking. The Art of Wedding Planning. Everybody can be an artist, if you look at it a certain way.

#118 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 03:54 PM | Reply

It's not the same thing...

Of course it's the same thing. A person's sexual orientation is no more justifiable a basis of discrimination than race or gender.

If you operate a public business in America you have to serve the public. You can refuse specific individuals but you can't refuse an entire group. This has been a principle of our laws since the 1960s.

#119 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 03:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I don't know. It is all very confusing and the topic lends itself to pertinent examples from different sides of the issue. But I just take umbrage at the idea that in America it is okay for a private citizen running their own private enterprise business to be required to provide non-essential services that are repugnant to their moral or religious beliefs. It seems... un-American.

#120 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-08 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"#108,
I would say yes, Gal."

So now Christian Science bakers can deny graduation cakes for doctors, nurses, PAs and pharmacists because they don't believe in medicine?

#121 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 04:00 PM | Reply

What if you go to a Christian jeweler who objects to gay marriage? No wedding bands for the ceremony!

#122 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 04:02 PM | Reply

But I just take umbrage at the idea that in America it is okay for a private citizen running their own private enterprise business to be required to provide non-essential services that are repugnant to their moral or religious beliefs. It seems... un-American.

I think it's un-American to give people the permission to discriminate as long as they can claim their god told them to do it.

It's not like the courts would ever say to a discriminating business, "You're not religious at all. You're just doing this because you want to discriminate." So anyone claiming religion as a motivation could deny service to gays.

We've seen in the last year that a lot more Americans want to be open bigots than anyone realized. Where does it end? Do we let religiously-motivated discrimination undo all the good that the civil rights era did towards equal protection under the law?

#123 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 04:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It seems... un-American.

#120 | Posted by moder8

It is not un-American.

We Hold these Truths to be Self Evident...

It is un-Christian (fake plastic Christians, not the Real Jesus of Love Christians).

#124 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 04:16 PM | Reply

Should anti-gay Christians be allowed not to rent the honeymoon suite at their hotels to gay couples? Where do we as a society draw the line? This isn't just about an artistic, anti-gay Christian wedding cake baker.

#125 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-02-08 04:20 PM | Reply

Just to be difficult... So a guy who runs a sign making shop has to make a sign saying The Holocaust Never Happened, with swastikas all over it, if a customer comes in and orders just such a sign?

I don't know where the line is drawn. I admit I don't know the 'proper' answer to this legal issue. But, again, I do take umbrage at the notion that private citizen running their own private businesses can be required to take affirmative actions which are repugnant to their moral or religious beliefs. I just don't know at what point that becomes a green light for people with hidden racist or other hate inspired agendas.

#126 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-08 04:26 PM | Reply

So a guy who runs a sign making shop has to make a sign saying The Holocaust Never Happened, with swastikas all over it, if a customer comes in and orders just such a sign?

How is an individual seeking a "The Holocaust Never Happened" sign comparable to a group such as all gay people or all black people?

The cake baker didn't refuse service to one gay couple because of a specific objection to a specific message on their cake. She objects to making any wedding cake for any gay people.

I do take umbrage at the notion that private citizen running their own private businesses can be required ...

Do you object to a private citizen running a private business being required to be handicap accessible?

Do you object to people who cut hair being required to obtain a state license?

Private businesses have to live with some rules in how they operate. They don't get to do anything they want "because freedom."

#127 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

In all cases it is a matter of the government telling a private citizen how they must run their own private business in contradiction to their genuine moral or religious beliefs. It is not that complex. Which isn't to say that you are wrong or being dishonest in making the point that private businesses of course have to live with some rules on how they operate. But it is to say that it becomes troubling at the point when private citizens are required to perform services they genuinely find to be morally objectionable or be forced out of business.

Again, I just don't know at what point this very American right to individual liberty in how we run our own private business becomes a green light for people with hidden racist or other hate inspired agendas.

#128 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-08 04:41 PM | Reply

In all cases it is a matter of the government telling a private citizen how they must run their own private business in contradiction to their genuine moral or religious beliefs.

If your moral beliefs violate the law or the spirit of the law and you cannot serve the public without discrimination because you have goofy religious restrictions you need to rethink your business plan or career choices.

#129 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 05:07 PM | Reply

But it is to say that it becomes troubling at the point when private citizens are required to perform services they genuinely find to be morally objectionable or be forced out of business.

I think that people who take a profession should be willing to accept the constraints of that profession or go into another line of work.

The idea of moral objection is infinitely broad. A person could object to literally anything on religious grounds.

Let's pretend there's a landlord named Donald who doesn't want to rent to black people. He thinks to himself that he can make more money off whites and more people will rent his building if there are no black people in it.

If a cake baker is allowed to object to serving gay customers on moral grounds, what stops Donald from claiming a moral objection to serving black people?

Do the courts say that a moral objection to gays is OK but a moral objection to black people is not, because God would only be against a sexual orientation and not a race? Before anyone tries that argument we've seen religions actively discriminate on the basis of race.

#130 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-08 05:33 PM | Reply

"I think that's fair."

Boaz thinkd it's fair to not seat the gays at his restaurant because some other restaurant will serve them.

Correct, Boaz?

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-02-08 06:39 PM | Reply

#130

What about a Jewish baker being asked to design a cake celebrating Hitler's birthday? That baker shouldn't be allowed the right to say no?

They should just "be willing to accept the constraints of that profession or go into another line of work?"

There used to be a coffee shop in PDX that didn't allow police officers. I think most would consider that discrimination. But the clientele was comprised mostly of far left activists. They could make the argument that the presence of Police Officers hurt their business. And in fact when it made national news when they kicked a cop out, the company experienced a surge of business.

#132 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 06:43 PM | Reply

"I don't know where the line is drawn. "

Where the excluded is a protected class.

Nazis aren't a protected class.

#133 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 06:46 PM | Reply

Nazis aren't a protected class.

They blend right into society. So unless they were wearing a swastika armband or had it as a tattoo. You could never tell if someone is a Nazi.

But.

The KKK are allowed their marches (parades?) and gather in public demonstrations and have police their for their protection.

#134 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 06:57 PM | Reply

The racial aspect of this has nothing to do with it. It's already been established you cant refuse out of race.
It's not the same thing...
#116 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Why is it not the same thing, Boaz?

#135 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 07:04 PM | Reply

Rogers,

The racial aspect of this has nothing to do with it. It's already been established you cant refuse out of race.

It's not the same thing...

#116 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-08 03:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.youtube.com

#136 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-08 07:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The KKK are allowed their marches (parades?) and gather in public demonstrations and have police their for their protection."

Should someone be forced to bake a cake or otherwise support for profit an event celebrating the KKK?

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 07:39 PM | Reply

"Should someone be forced to bake a cake or otherwise support for profit an event celebrating the KKK?" - #137 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 07:39 PM

Apparently, you're not paying attention:

"Nazis aren't a protected class." - #133 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 06:46 PM
And...
"You could never tell if someone is a Nazi." - #134 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-02-08 06:57 PM
In the future, pay attention.

#138 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-08 07:44 PM | Reply

If a cake baker is allowed to object to serving gay customers on moral grounds, what stops Donald from claiming a moral objection to serving black people? -rcade

That's not what's at stake here, you are outlining a strawman.

They don't wish to make a piece of art for a same sex wedding.

It's a distinction, with a difference.

The question imho is how much "custom" work is there, what is the design. Is it a lot different than what they have done in the past.

#139 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 07:55 PM | Reply

Why is it not the same thing, Boaz?

#135 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Because the baker does sell to LGBT people non custom cakes etc....

#140 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 07:57 PM | Reply

For instance regardless of who is the buyer, does a baker have the right to refuse sexually graphic custom designs?

#141 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 07:59 PM | Reply

"Because the baker does sell to LGBT people non custom cakes etc...." - #140 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 07:57 PM

Sounds familiar.

#142 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-08 07:59 PM | Reply

"For instance regardless of who is the buyer, does a baker have the right to refuse sexually graphic custom designs?" - #141 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-02-08 07:59 PM

Is this a hypothetical?

Or is this seeking advice?

#143 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-08 08:07 PM | Reply

"In the future, pay attention."

Got it. I didn't realize that it was legally still OK to discriminate against individuals based on their beliefs. I stand corrected.

#144 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 08:18 PM | Reply

"...against individuals..." - #144 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 08:18 PM

The answer is in your own comment.

Pay attention.

"I stand corrected."

One of many.

#145 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-08 08:21 PM | Reply

You're so smart Hans...I'm glad you're here to educate knuckledraggers like me...another reason why progressives should always be in charge.

#146 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-02-08 08:50 PM | Reply

"You're so smart Hans." -#146

Of course I am.

#147 | Posted by Hans at 2018-02-08 09:09 PM | Reply

I've looked at this issue similar to employment related discrimination.

There are 2 kinds of discrimination.....legal and illegal.

You can discriminate against anybody except those who fall into a protected class.

Some people are protected and the rest aren't.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2018-02-08 10:12 PM | Reply

...another reason why progressives should always be in charge.

#146 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-02-08 08:50 PM | FLAG:

"You're so smart Hans." -#146
Of course I am.

#147 | POSTED BY HANS

Congrats!

You both are as smart as Plato!

According to Plato, a philosopher king is a ruler who possesses both a love of knowledge, as well as intelligence, reliability, and a willingness to live a simple life.

#149 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-02-08 11:22 PM | Reply

"The question is what was the custom cake design ...."

Yeah. The design they'll do for straight couples, but not for gay couples.

#150 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-09 06:21 AM | Reply

Hans,

I refuse to believe you are too stupid to see Madbombers point in #146.

The baker has a belief. So does the gay couple. Why is one more important than the other?

#151 | Posted by boaz at 2018-02-09 07:39 AM | Reply

"The baker has a belief. So does the gay couple."

So does the racist. You still have to be served.

#152 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-02-09 08:08 AM | Reply

The baker has a belief. So does the gay couple. Why is one more important than the other?

Being gay is not a belief. Being black is not a belief.

There's an obvious difference between refusing to do business with an entire race/sexual orientation and refusing an individual for individual reasons.

A person wanting a birthday cake for Hitler is not a group like gays or blacks.

If this baker made gay wedding cakes for other customers but rejected one couple, it wouldn't be a case. But the baker wants to reject all gay customers for wedding cakes.

This is freaking obvious, people.

#153 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 08:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Rcade, respectfully, this is not so obvious. You have many of us who are telling you in good faith that there is an issue of concern. Being condescending and telling us that it is "freaking obvious" just shuts down discussion. And I will go a step further and concede that you may be right about the overall issue. (Maybe not. I'm still on the fence.) But it is not "freaking obvious".

#154 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-09 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Rcade, respectfully, this is not so obvious. You have many of us who are telling you in good faith that there is an issue of concern. Being condescending and telling us that it is "freaking obvious" just shuts down discussion. And I will go a step further and concede that you may be right about the overall issue. (Maybe not. I'm still on the fence.) But it is not "freaking obvious".

#154 | POSTED BY MODER8

This.

NW

#155 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-02-09 12:12 PM | Reply

Rcade, respectfully, this is not so obvious. You have many of us who are telling you in good faith that there is an issue of concern. Being condescending and telling us that it is "freaking obvious" just shuts down discussion. And I will go a step further and concede that you may be right about the overall issue. (Maybe not. I'm still on the fence.) But it is not "freaking obvious".

#154 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-02-09 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag

Actually it is freaking obvious.

#156 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-02-09 12:30 PM | Reply

Rcade, respectfully, this is not so obvious.

I wasn't being condescending. You misunderstood my comment. I guess I should have been more clear.

I didn't say the entire issue was freaking obvious.

The difference between rejecting all gay/black customers and rejecting one Hitler birthday cake order is what I called freaking obvious.

We keep getting dragged back to that. Any time someone says "you can't refuse to do business with customers of a specific race or sexual orientation," someone replies like Madbomber did when he asked, "What about a Jewish baker being asked to design a cake celebrating Hitler's birthday?"

I had already addressed that point: "You can refuse specific individuals but you can't refuse an entire group." Others did as well.

I'll try again: IF THIS BAKER REFUSED A SPECIFIC GAY CUSTOMER'S CAKE ORDER FOR SPECIFIC REASONS ABOUT THAT ORDER, IT WOULD BE LEGAL. THIS WEDDING CAKE BAKER DOESN'T WANT THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. SHE WANTS TO REJECT ALL GAY COUPLES. THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

#157 | Posted by rcade at 2018-02-09 12:52 PM | Reply

... THAT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

Yes. As a matter of CA policy it is illegal. However, this judge ruled the First Amendment prohibits that policy in this circumstance. Other courts have ruled the First Amendment does not prohibit such policy.

Which view of the First Amendment prevails? We'll likely find out before the end of June. www.scotusblog.com

Issue: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

#158 | Posted by et_al at 2018-02-09 01:05 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort