Despite anti-discrimination laws in many states that require Christian bakery owners to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, 13 LGBT and gay-owned bakeries objected to one man’s request when he asked if they’d make a pro-traditional marriage cake that would read “gay marriage is wrong.” All refused to back the cake and one person even cursed at the Christian man for “hate speech” and said a cake supporting traditional marriage "went against their beliefs."
There is no law stating anyone must buy a cake.
There is one stating that everyone deserves to be treated equally.
Allan
adroit
1375
This is mind numbingly dumb. The bakers refused because of the message. They didn’t refuse because of the person’s religion or gender or sexual orientation. If a gay person came in and requested that same message, they would have refused. In fact, this particular type of scenario is explicitly touched on in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
So they have rights and Christians do not. Got it!
They didn’t refuse the cakes because they were Christian, the refused to make a cake with offensive text.
Make two cakes (such as from the Masterpiece Cakes wedding catalog).
Sell one to a heterosexual couple, and refuse to sell the same cake to a homosexual couple. That decision is based on who the couples are.
.>>>>
The gay wedding cakes are offensive to Christians as well. One side has rights and the other clearly does not.
I know, you want special rights for someone to hide behind religion to be exempt from a law that is general in nature.
(I on the other had want PA laws repealed to allow the Baker to discriminate against gays because of his religion and gay shop-owners to be able to discriminate against the baker for his religion. Something right now that is against both state and federal the law.)
.>>>>
The special rights are obviously going to the gay bakers who can simple refuse a cake because they don’t like it.
Rights should be even handed.
adroit
1381
I’m trying to be patient here.
The case you posted was about the content of the cake. A Christian could have brought that. Or a gay atheist Muslim. The people would have refused it no matter what. They didn’t refused it because of a particular protected attribute of the person requesting it.
Now, if they would have baked such a cake (the same one) for a gay Muslim atheist but not the Christian, then they would have violated the law.
I wouldn’t have thought this would be such a difficult concept to grasp. You cannot refuse service because of particular attributes of the customer.
If a baker refused to bake a cake for a gay person that says “Christians suck!”, he’s not discriminating against gay people. He’s refusing to bake an offensive message.
adroit
1382
There are no ■■■■■■■ special rights. The content of the cake is not the issue when determining if PA laws are violated. It’s if the decision was based on some attributes of the customers.
If someone walks in and requests a white wedding cake with simple, elegant floral designs and the baker must ask what the genders of the couple is, then he’s violating PA laws.
Masterpiece would have sold any cake in the shop to the homosexers. You are posting incorrect information.
No, the law required full and equal access to goods and services. That is correct information.
You are trying to limit correct information to spin a narrative.
The business model of the baker was to takde special orders for cakes to be delivered at a future date, that is one of the services offered for the creation of goods.
.>>>>
.>>>>
Joanne
1386
That was part of the decision reached by SCOTUS and written by Kennedy the commission trashed the Masterpiece owners religion and compared it to the holocaust while supporting bakers who refused to bake cakes with anti gay messages. In other words double standards.
That’s really why they lost their case. And clearly many on the left still don’t get it.
1 Like
I am not going to double check and link etc. But I believe the Baker would have sold them a cake for a heterosex wedding…And I believe he would have refused to sell a cake to a heterosexer if the cake was going to be used for a homosex wedding.
You are likely unwilling to consider the significance of that. But … it is there.
the homosexers have certain rights. The homosex wedding has none. In fact… no wedding has rights. The baker would have provided cake and service to the homosexers for any purpose other then to support a homosex wedding. Conversely he would have refused to sell to ANYONE who would have used the cake for a homosex wedding.
Kennedy also said the Colorado can protect gays with laws.
Thats something that the right isnt getting.
Allan
none of the nonsense arguments from the left matter. What matters is Ginsburg recognizing that she is senile and leaving the bench.
And it’s meaningless because if the baker:
Sells cakes to man/woman couples and refuses to sell to man/man or woman/woman (regardless of sexual orientation) then he is still in violation of the exact same law which prevents discrimination based on the sex of the customers.
Here let me link it for you:
“(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or,”
.
.
.
.
.
.
Notice it says “full and equal” access to “goods and services” and includes “sex” as a limiting factor. The idea that the baker would sell some things but not others as an excuse is an irrelevant deflection. The idea that he wouldn’t sell to man/man or woman/woman heterosexuals is also irrelevant deflection because it’s still a violation of the “sex” component.
.
.
.
.>>>>
A classic feature of liberalism. Everyone gets to be equally miserable.
you are not paying attention. He would not have refused to sell to them if the cake was for a heterosex wedding.
