Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TheResearcher

Colorado baker faces year in jail for refusing to make cake for gay wedding

108 posts in this topic

http://www.examiner.com/article/colorado-baker-faces-year-jail-for-refusing-to-make-cake-for-gay-wedding

 

"In June, the Advocate said the Colorado Attorney General’s office filed a discrimination complaint against the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver after the bakers refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a Denver area gay couple, last year.

But Jack Phillips, one of the owners, declined to make the cake citing his Christian beliefs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the article was lacking in any evidence of profanity except for the word bull$**t. If he said anything else they didn't report it so I guess it really didn't happen. His anti christian views were pretty much in keeping with 90% of the population, after all no body doesn't like Lobster. The bible expressly condones slavery, incest and polygamay, just to name a few of the thousands of nonsensical passages in the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the article was lacking in any evidence of profanity except for the word bull$**t. If he said anything else they didn't report it so I guess it really didn't happen. His anti christian views were pretty much in keeping with 90% of the population, after all no body doesn't like Lobster. The bible expressly condones slavery, incest and polygamay, just to name a few of the thousands of nonsensical passages in the bible.

Oops! This was supposed to be posted in the thread about Don Savage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a very poorly written law, not to allow for religious exemptions. Its not like there is no other place in Colorado to buy a cake for god's sake. Somehow I don't see a weddiing cake as a fundamental right.

Still if that really is the law then it must be obeyed, just like the law allowing abortion. It must be obeyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how baking a cake for someone is supporting gay marriage. It's not like the baker is performing the ceremony. Just bake the darn care and be done with it.

 

With that said, jail time for not baking a cake? That sounds ridiculous as well. This is America, home of the free, not some communist nation. Having a cake at your wedding isn't exactly a God-given right.

 

But then where do you draw the line? Can a 7/11 owner refuse to sell the gay couple slurpees? Can the local food store not sell food based on relgious beliefs? Can apartment owners put of "no gays allowed" signs? I don't know about the jailtime, but I'd still side with the gay couple for some sort of compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be a very poorly written law, not to allow for religious exemptions. Its not like there is no other place in Colorado to buy a cake for god's sake. Somehow I don't see a weddiing cake as a fundamental right.

Still if that really is the law then it must be obeyed, just like the law allowing abortion. It must be obeyed.

 

So, should religious exemptions be allowed for people who oppose interracial or interfaith marriages? How about if one of the parties getting married is previously married and divorced?

 

If religious folks want to change our civil rights laws to allow religious-based discrimination, they might find that comes back to bite them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't the two gay men just go to another bakery? If I go someplace where I don't get the service I want, I just don't go back and I let my friends know about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't the two gay men just go to another bakery? If I go someplace where I don't get the service I want, I just don't go back and I let my friends know about it.

 

They did. However, the attorney general brought discrimination charges against the bakery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn't the two gay men just go to another bakery? If I go someplace where I don't get the service I want, I just don't go back and I let my friends know about it.

 

But there's a difference between not getting the service you want (I.E. bad service) and getting no service at all. Where do you draw the line? What if I needed a plumber to stop a flood in my basement and the plumber refused to come out because he found out I voted against gay marriage? It can work both ways. IMO, if you provide a service to the community, then you must provide that service to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, should religious exemptions be allowed for people who oppose interracial or interfaith marriages? How about if one of the parties getting married is previously married and divorced?

 

If religious folks want to change our civil rights laws to allow religious-based discrimination, they might find that comes back to bite them.

I hope they get bit in in the @$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the baker did not like the idea of homosexuals getting married, then he should have done an intentionally piss-poor job in baking a cake for them. Then, the homosexuals would have been forced to go to another bakery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bakery owner who refused to sell a gay couple a cake for their wedding reception broke discrimination laws, a Colorado judge determined Friday.  Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig attempted to buy the cake in July of 2012. They planned to marry in Massachusetts, then hold a reception with friends and family in Colorado.  But Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips refused to serve them, saying his religious beliefs would not permit him to support a same-sex relationship in any way.

...

In handing down Friday’s decision, Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts noted that Phillips had previously made cakes for the “marriage” of two dogs, but made a policy of refusing to serve same-sex couples. By definition, that policy constitutes unlawful discrimination, the judge found.  “Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” Mullins said. “We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

 

http://kwgn.com/2013/12/06/court-finds-against-bakery-that-refused-to-make-cake-for-gay-couple/

 

I didn't see anything in the article about jail time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had this almost exact same discussion about a similiar sitution in Oregeon. In both cases, the owner of the bakery could have handled the conflict so much better. I suggest that they sit down with the couple and tell them they will make the cake, or whatedver, but explain to them how it violates their religious beliefs, really help them understand. and then ask them if they wouldn't rather go somewhere else. Does a gay couple really want to force someone who has been honest and respectful towards them, and make them make that cake? well, it they do, the baker knows that he has done what he has done. He should make them the cake. One might think of it as turning the other cheek.  I think it is more important for this baker to help others understand his point, that it isn't personal, its about his faith, than it is for him to refuse to compromise. Compromise contributed to making this country great. Compromise says that there is room for you and your ideas in this world too.

 

The gay couples should agree to go somewhere else to have someone make the cake. Time is on their side. This sort of religious discrimination toward sexuality is going to fade out eventually. There is no need to force the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.  Neo nazis will no doubt soon go to a kosher bakery and order a Hitler themed cake.  Wait for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kandace--

 

I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting that kind of discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kandace--

 

I'm not aware of any laws prohibiting that kind of discrimination.

 

 

Come now, Baltimatt, don't be coy.  Of course there are no laws prohibiting that kind of discrimination. But that is the point really.  We have freedom of speech and neo-Nazis are free to march in Skokie, a town with a large Jewish population.  However, there is no law as such that one must endorse Neo-Nazism by making a Hitler cake.  We have freedom of religion but there is no law that an individual must endorse a religion. The porno industry does not demand that all bakers make sexually explicit cakes.  [i admit, I have seen a few]    The weakness of the gay rights movement is that it has confused freedom with endorsement.  To go down that road will inevitably lead to friction, backlask, and bad outcomes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Come now, Baltimatt, don't be coy.  Of course there are no laws prohibiting that kind of discrimination. But that is the point really.  We have freedom of speech and neo-Nazis are free to march in Skokie, a town with a large Jewish population.  However, there is no law as such that one must endorse Neo-Nazism by making a Hitler cake.  We have freedom of religion but there is no law that an individual must endorse a religion. The porno industry does not demand that all bakers make sexually explicit cakes.  [i admit, I have seen a few]    The weakness of the gay rights movement is that it has confused freedom with endorsement.  To go down that road will inevitably lead to friction, backlask, and bad outcomes.  

However, we do have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what this ruling is based on.  

 

 

 

Edited by Baltimatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However, we do have laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what this ruling is based on.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, we do have laws that say you cannot discriminate against a person's sexual orientation.  To say for instance that you must endorse a sexual orientation is quite another thing.   Hence the problem that will inevitably arise and create the socio-legal problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Kandace's Cake Shop refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, it could be subject to legal action.  The proprietress would not have to endorse such a marriage, but just bake the damn cake! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Kandace's Cake Shop refused to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, it could be subject to legal action.  The proprietress would not have to endorse such a marriage, but just bake the damn cake! :)

 

Doesn't a business have a right to refuse a job?  What if the baker was working on another job that took up up all of their time and resources and just couldn't do the job?  Are they still required to do the job by law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't a business have a right to refuse a job?  What if the baker was working on another job that took up up all of their time and resources and just couldn't do the job?  Are they still required to do the job by law?

Turning down a job because of prior commitments is not discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or other prohibited categories.  And kandace thinks I play coy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turning down a job because of prior commitments is not discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or other prohibited categories.  And kandace thinks I play coy?

 

You think I am playing coy?  No, I asked a serious question.  Then why would anyone say they don't want the job because of their beliefs?  They just should have said they had prior commitments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smokey--

 

I'm pretty sure you have asked this question before and it's been answered.  How could having another commitment possibly be grounds for legal action?  Otherwise, no one could refuse a job for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't a business have a right to refuse a job?  What if the baker was working on another job that took up up all of their time and resources and just couldn't do the job?  Are they still required to do the job by law?

 

Interesting. Isuggest they sit down and have an honest discussion with the party in question, you suggest they lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Isuggest they sit down and have an honest discussion with the party in question, you suggest they lie.

To be fair to Smokey, here's what he said on another thread:

 

Fine then don't force the photographer to do the work and let the LLC take the photos.  :rolleyes:

 

I suppose you would have an issue if she lied and said she was booked that weekend. Damn shame a person has to lie to avoid being forced to do something they don't believe in. 

 

 

Edited by Baltimatt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0