To bake or not to bake

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#1
the USA Supreme Court is hearing the case today about a baker who didn't want to create a wedding cake for a gay couple
the couple went to a baker for a wedding cake, and the baker told them he would sell them anything in the store, but he couldn't, based on his religion, justify creating a wedding cake for them
rather than just going to another baker, the couple decided the baker should be forced to create a wedding cake for them
this is how it got to the Supreme Court
the baker has a right to practice his faith in any way he sees fit
the gay couple has a right to not be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation
does tolerance go both ways?
should it?
personally, I don't understand why anyone would want a cake from somebody who didn't want to do it
I'd happily go spend my money somewhere else!
 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
24,306
Likes
6,365
#2
thats a tough one to think about what would i do in the baker's shoes?
i believe we are to hate the sin but love the sinner
the baker is running a public service and by law can not discriminate..but his religious beliefs
are he is not going to support such an event..he did not refuse service to them because he did not have them removed from his bakery and was willing to sell them anything in the store..he just wasnt going to make something
that was not already on the shelves..which in my opinion is fine

i believe the couple have no right to demand something from someone just because their feelings are hurt
the couple has made it all about them and their 15 minutes of fame in the news
i stand with the baker on this..it isnt just some birthday cake he refused to make
this cake represents the joining of 2 people for life and is perfectly in his right to refuse to make it
his only mistake was telling the couple why instead of just saying he was too busy to make it

the issue i see is the lack of tolerence from that couple..they can live as they want as long as it doesnt cause harm to others..well by making this a legal issue they are causing harm to that baker's reputation..they should have just gone to another baker that would be willing to make it..i am sure someone in their circle would be able to help the couple out

tolerence has to go both ways or it doesn't work
 

Tsalagi

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
4,743
Likes
1,577
#3
Or bake them a really crappy, tasteless, cheap icing, flawed decorations, leaning to the side, thin layered cake.
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#6
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5123218]Or bake them a really crappy, tasteless, cheap icing, flawed decorations, leaning to the side, thin layered cake.[/QUOTE]

see, that's why I would go somewhere else! lol :high5:
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#7
one of the justices, Kennedy, who is considered to be a swing vote, had this to say about the state's case:

“It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of Phillips’s views

but they're not going easy on the Masterpiece baker either, wondering "what if" an interracial couple or inter-religious couple would be turned away

there's no biblical foundation for turning away interracial or inter-religious couples

ruling expected by June ... June? really? lol :waiting:
 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
24,306
Likes
6,365
#8
[QUOTE="Tsalagi, post: 5123218]Or bake them a really crappy, tasteless, cheap icing, flawed decorations, leaning to the side, thin layered cake.[/QUOTE]
but wouldnt that still be showing the baker's personal opinion and not is religious views?
if it truly is about freedom of religion would he not be in disobedience to his God by not making the best cake he could?

[h=1]Colossians 3:23-24New International Version (NIV)[/h][FONT=&quot]23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.[/FONT]

 

roadkill

Jokeroo Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
24,306
Likes
6,365
#9
[QUOTE="squirt, post: 5123380]one of the justices, Kennedy, who is considered to be a swing vote, had this to say about the state's case:

“It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of Phillips’s views

but they're not going easy on the Masterpiece baker either, wondering "what if" an interracial couple or inter-religious couple would be turned away

there's no biblical foundation for turning away interracial or inter-religious couples

ruling expected by June ... June? really? lol :waiting:
[/QUOTE]

but this isnt a what if case..this is the case that is before them right now and the only one that should be considered when making their ruling..in my opinion the other 2 scenarios you mention are not based on religious freedoms as you stated.. the what if's are based on personal feelings and that is not what this case is about
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#10
I would venture that the question was to get a gauge on if it really was about his religious beliefs
 

KingHomie

Sex for Brains
Joined
Nov 25, 2003
Messages
76,229
Likes
1,179
#11
Other than agreeing with RK's first post on this,, I would say Fuck 'em both - case dismissed :point:
 

stevent222

Jokeroo Immortal
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
262,508
Likes
10,058
#12
Heck I am still confused why I cannot buy a Cake at Walmart with an American Confederate flag on it.
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#16
they haven't made a decision yet, one is expected any time, but it won't be the last such case they hear, there's quite a few coming up the pike!
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#17
The decision is in: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, in a righteous 7 to 2 ruling
they determined that the state of Colorado was antagonistic in its approach to the baker, that it did not take into account the right of the baker to not participate in activities, such as a wedding, that conflict with his religious beliefs
the narrow ruling is not a win for religious liberty, nor is it a ruling against LGBT rights
the Court did not address general rights, it only addressed the rights of the Colorado baker, in that the Court felt like the baker's rights were violated by how the state of Colorado treated him
there are still legal disputes headed to America's highest court that involve florists, video producers, and graphic artists
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the larger issue "must await further elaboration" in the courts

I don't understand how or why it came to this, the baker was willing to sell them anything in the store, he was willing to compromise, but the gay couple decided it was going to force him to do the one thing he didn't want to do
they could've easily went to another baker, that's the beauty of the free market, we have choices
I accept that the gay couple has the right to get married

the gay couple needs to accept that I have the right to not participate in their happy event, nor will I insist they participate in mine
 

squirt

Administrator
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
770,439
Likes
30,859
#18
I didn't know that the state of Colorado had compared the baker's behavior to the Holocaust, the Commission told him that religious liberty was just "despicable rhetoric"
the Supreme Court's decision was based in large part by how the government treated the baker
the 7 to 2 decision is noteworthy as this pulled 2 liberal justices into the decision
one of the things they pointed out in the gay marriage decision was that both sides deserve respect, and again in yesterday's decision, they pointed out the need to treat everyone without animus
the lesson is not lost on me