Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

the baker would not be required to write any anti-gay messages on the cake as he does not sell cakes with anti-gay wording to anyone

just like a Christian would not be required to make a cake with words he would not sell to anyone else, like one that says "under no god we Trust"

he should sell the cake, just say I can not add the words you want

the difference is, your trying to say a cake is different based on who is buying it
vs
a different cake then is normally sold

example, a baker that doesn't sell wedding cakes, but sells other cakes, cause he can't sell wedding cakes without discriminating.. would not be required to sell wedding cakes

 

No, it would be like a cop who has a particular dislike of someone whose address they know, goes to that person's home and waits for them to go out in their vehicle and then follows them in order to catch them breaking the law. Your ridiculous scenario above describes a RANDOM situation!

 

nope, not the same at all, this is a business open to the public, not a private home

the baker said he would sell him other items, just not a wedding cake.... he took him at his word

we have a cop that parks at the top of our street to catch speeders, we know he is often there, so we make sure to follow the law, we would not scream it's unfair if we speed and he gave us a ticket

 

The HOME was NOT the point! The cop knows someone who they dislike and they follow that person
all around the city in order to catch them breaking the law. THAT is what this low-life piece of human waste did to Jack.

He's not targeting any one specific person is he?

 

I’ve explained this to you several times before and I really can’t see why you don’t understand the core points, even if you disagree with the underlying principles;

Nothing about the baker is relevant in any way what so ever. The law applies equally regardless who is running the business. If we stopped mentioning any characteristics of the bakers (real or hypothetical), it would remove a lot of this confusion.

The law is that everyone should be treated equally, not everything. The content of the cake is generally irrelevant if the baker offers the same kind of content to all customers.

Refusing to make cakes with hateful messages against any group would be absolutely no problem. If they’d never made a cake with a hateful message on it before, refusing the first one would be no problem. That is a very simple and uncontroversial example.

If they made cakes with hateful messages against some groups but not others, they would be in a grey area legally, one which would depend on specific wording and interpretation of the relevant laws in that jurisdiction. That is kind of close to one of the arguments in favour of the bakers in the wedding cake cases but not quite the same thing.

I’m also not a fan of comparing the baking of a wedding cake, an entirely positive and happy thing in general terms, with making something around any kind of hateful and negative message. It really shifts the entire context and feel of the scenario way further than any equivalent metaphor needs to.

 

if the cop think a store is committing a crime, they can go in undercover and see if they do.. in this case the store was not following the law

the problem is the store was not following the law, not that they were caught

 

Sorry Joe, but you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Perhaps this is the law in the freedomless hell hole, authoritarian UK where there are speech codes limiting what opinions people can express, but in the US these laws simply say that businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of certain protected characteristics such as race, sexual orientation and religion.
If it WAS the law is that everyone should be treated equally, then that would mean that businesses would have to serve members of the KKK!

A gay baker in the US who made a cake which had a hateful anti-Christian message but refused to make a cake with a hateful anti-gay message would NOT be in the LEAST bit of trouble! In the same way, a Christian baker in the US who made a cake which had a hateful anti-gay message but refused to make a cake with a hateful anti-Christian message would NOT be in the LEAST bit of trouble! This is the protection that the First Amendment provides. You may have heard of it?

 

They weren't following the law BEFORE the request was made?

 

you seem to be the one that doesn't know what your talking about, in America stores open to the public are not allow to discriminate based on the race or gender of the customers

"A gay baker in the US who made a cake which had a hateful anti-Christian message"

nor woudl a Christian baker that sold a cake with a hateful Christian message against gays be required to sell a hateful anti-Christian message on a cake - they are two different cakes

your confusing forcing a baker to sell something they normally don't sell to something they do sell

you can't force a vegan store to sell meat, cause they don't normally sell meat

 

Let's say that the First Amendment didn't exist and it was the law that business have to serve everyone's request. Would you find it acceptable if the government went after a gay baker who offers a cake design service, because they refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message?

 

When did I say that it was ONLY race, sexual orientation and religion? I simply gave a summary.

 

I was just stating the facts

as long as the message is not hateful, just sell the dang cake

 

Err, it's a birthday cake comprising pink sponge covered with blue icing sugar. Where in the Bible does it say that you cannot make this sort of cake for a transgender person but you can make it for anyone else?

 

What was the message on the cake reported in the OP?

 

Don’t be so literal, I was just making the distinction between people and things. We’re both smart enough that we shouldn’t need to going in to all the details every time.

I disagree that either example wouldn’t necessarily cause those businesses problems. Even if it were technically unconstitutional, that wouldn’t necessarily protect them from legal difficulties and any actual ruling on the constitutionality could go either way. So legitimately or not, the same principles that led the authorities to act in the wedding cake cases would likely lead them to act in either of these hypothetical cases too.

It’s not as if it would be the only constitutionally questionable laws in place in the USA, especially if you take any kind of literal reading of it. Do they have an uninfringed right to bear arms yet?

Whether it should be permitted or not, legally and morally, are different questions that aren’t going to see any consensus in the foreseeable future.

 

Wait, at what point in this saga are you saying that he was "outed of his real beliefs?"

 

Answer my question first.

 

None, I was talking in context of a hypothetical.

 

No, they are fundamentally tied to the Biblical definition of marriage. And why the hell would this baker care about the "legal acceptance of their relationships?"

Yes, it's absolutely discriminatory. However, last time I checked, these laws don't say that it is prohibited to treat a same-sex marriage differently to a mixed-sex marriage.

How can someone who serves men, women, straight people and gay people be accused of discriminating on the basis of gender or sexual orientation?

What are you talking about? These business owners are trying to win THEIR case! They have to use EVERYTHING they can which applies to them in order to have the best chance possible at winning their case. You think that they are in a position to take on the actual laws themselves? Get real Joe. That's not up to them. That's up to a lobby of some sort and I will say that I'm surprised that this hasn't happened in the US.

For the SAME work? And in what Western country/countries?

Then logically there was widespread anti-gay discrimination in public accommodation prior to the laws being introduced. Are you under the impression that this was the case?

That doesn't mean that they are specifically arguing for these laws to be retained. They don't say, we want the law to be retained.

I have no problem with the laws remaining, so long as they are used to stamp out ACTUAL discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation! I'm saying that they are totally unnecessary. However, if I was presented with evidence that widespread anti-gay discrimination in public accommodation would break out if these laws were removed, I would say that they are totally VITAL!

No, but I CAN say that the problem is small and exclusively involves weddings based on not hearing about ANY other cases.

 

Stick to facts about the case. The baker refused to bake a birthday cake for a transgender woman but would have baked the same cake for anyone else. ---> illegal - violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act and Consumer Protection Act.

 

Are you aware of any such unconstitutional laws which would get the bakers in my scenario in trouble?

 

Why would anyone else want a cake which expresses a gender transition?

 

The Bible doesn't talk about cake. Now, at what point in this saga are you saying that he was "outed of his real beliefs?"

 

You are still on the carousel! I've already addressed this with you. Post 20

 

Because they don’t live in a theocratic dictatorship and the laws of the land apply to them just as they apply to everyone else. None of us can (should!) get away with “I don’t like that law so I’m going to ignore it!”.

Laws don’t give specifics like that, which is why they need to be interpreted by the courts. The ultimate question here is whether making wedding cakes for mixed-sex weddings but not for same-sex weddings falls within the scope of the law or not. That question remains unanswered.

It sin’t just about serving them, it’s about serving them equally. If a store only offered you their lowest quality products, charged you twice and much and made you wait twice as long as other customers, you wouldn’t feel you were being treated the same. They’d still be serving you though.

I agree. They’re not interested in fundamental rights or freedoms as is being claimed (largely on their behalf to be fair), they’re only interested in them personally being able to do whatever they want and everyone else be dammed (literally ).

Same or equivalent work, yes. There are contemporary cases and they are often being won by the employees. There are some grey areas and questionable claims but it certainly isn’t done and dusted entirely.

There was widespread anti-gay discrimination in general. It was a criminal offence in a lot of places and effectively illegal in many more. The legal and social situations continue to change and evolve, and in different ways in different places, even within individual nations and religions. I doubt any one element like this can be easily attributed to any specific changes but nor can anyone be dismissed as irrelevant.

Well as you’ve already conceded, they’re only arguing to win their case. Their motive isn’t to change the law, only to be able to do whatever they want regardless of the law.

Even if that discrimination were on the basis of the business owners religious beliefs? With that argument, whether the actions in these cases are actually discriminatory would be a secondary question.

Exactly the same laws that is getting the Christian bakers in trouble in the real cases. My points is that, regardless of whether they’re right or wrong, the principles behind the cases brought against the bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings could (and I feel would) be applied in both of the hypothetical scenarios you presented.[/QUOTE]