Remember The Oregon Bakery?

[why me]

 

 

Service is not a sin. Jesus was worried about the poor, Jesus was never worried about his religious freedom and the government. 

Maybe he was worried about the poor. But jesus also needed money to survive as did the disciples and I do believe that according to scholars, he had some rich friends to help him along. What we know of jesus is just what the gospel writers wanted us to know about him. We need to remember that the gospel writers wrote their narratives decades later and they basically sifted out much information about him. In other words we have only some of his teachings. But we certainly do not have everything. I can read what he said in 15 minutes. So, his life was full of just fifteen minutes of teaching?

 

The group that is facing the most persecution are the christians, especially when it comes to core christian beliefs. And of course this persecution has affected their beliefs and understandings. If one is a christian, one will face persecution from the media, from moral relativists etc. And the often comeback from moral relativists is that god is love and so, just continue to love regardless of the direction of society and all will be well. But do nothing to defend christian beliefs by protesting etc even if you will face more persecution though the passing of moral relativist laws.

Edited July 13, 2015 by why me

[california boy]

I find it interesting that people can actually claim to know just how christ would react. We do have his reaction at the temple with the money changers. I saw no kindness and understanding there. Also, I saw no understanding with the couple who cheated on their tithe in the new testament. So, it is amazing that one can speak for christ and what he would do. We have very little of christ's life in the new testament and we have very little of his ministry. Lets face it, if the gospels contain all that christ did for those three years, he certainly had much free time.

And this is why I find what you say to be a little bogus. I do not think, from my reading of the bible, that christ was a moral relativist. Just the opposite. Also, if the bakery would tell the couple to sin no more, I do think that a lawsuit would be forthcoming too. It is not about sinning no more but about the very foundation of the family according to christian beliefs that have existed for two thousand years and to think that christians must get on board with the new paradigm or be ostracized, is quite unfair.

So, lets turn the table: Would christ put such a high fine on this baker? .You definitely should be against the fine because Jesus would not have put such a fine on this bakery. He just would have said, sin no more. Right?

Of course i don't know what Christ would do nor do I claim to speak for him but EVERYTHING I read in the New Testament tells me he wouldn't discriminate

"For I was in prison and he visited me. I was in hunger and he fed me". Whatever crime or reason the man was in prison for didn't seem to have any relivance Christ was not teaching that by visiting the man in prison you were somehow encouraging sinful behavior. In fact he was specifically telling us what we MUST do to enter the kingdom of God It seems like we should be looking for ways to serve sinners. Does any of this touch your spirit?

PS. The fine was put on by the state for damages, not by the lesbian couple. They didn't even file a lawsuit.they only reported the violation of the law by the bakers. How big the fine will be will be determined by the courts.

Edited July 13, 2015 by california boy

[longview]

Marriage in the US is becoming a completely civic right, if it hasn't already become so. It is the voice of the people. Christians are trying to keep it a religious rite, but as deeply entrenched as it is now in our government, it will ultimately be a losing battle. Society has taken God out of marriage.

With all that in mind, my testimony continues to increase about temple sealings and God's wisdom to provide that ordinance to members of the church.

I don't view marriage as a "right" so much as it is a serious responsibility with profound consequences. The "basic unit" consisting of mother/father/children is the most ideal component of society. Which is why government has to be involved in safeguarding legal aspects of parental responsibility, care and nuture of children, reduction of crime rate in society. Marriage is a very long term commitment with grandparents helping with teaching and encouraging the rising generation and looking out for extended families including care of the elderly. When done right, no broken links. A forever family.

[ERayR]

Of course i don't know what Christ would do nor do I claim to speak for him but EVERYTHING I read in the New Testament tells me he wouldn't discriminate

 

 

Of course he discriminated.  He was constantly condemning the Scribes and Pharisees.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course he discriminated.  He was constantly condemning the Scribes and Pharisees.

Let us not for get that he will discriminate at the end times. The goats on one hand and his sheep on the other. The wheat and the tares. Need I go on?

 

Do all receive the same reward? No! Why not? Discriminate means more than just the popular trendy word that people use all the time these days.

 

God has an issue with sin. Those that partake in it and do no repent will be burned at the last day.

[california boy]

Let us not for get that he will discriminate at the end times. The goats on one hand and his sheep on the other. The wheat and the tares. Need I go on?

 

Do all receive the same reward? No! Why not? Discriminate means more than just the popular trendy word that people use all the time these days.

 

God has an issue with sin. Those that partake in it and do no repent will be burned at the last day.

When we are talking about discrimination we are talking about protected class, religion,race, sex.and in most states, gender orientation. We are also talking about secular discrimination. I don't think goats or sheep are a protected class.

For some reason I can never remember if I am suppose to be a goat or a sheep. Humm. This could end badly. Can anyone help me out?

[ERayR]

When we are talking about discrimination we are talking about protected class, religion,race, sex.and in most states, gender orientation. We are also talking about secular discrimination. I don't think goats or sheep are a protected class.

For some reason I can never remember if I am suppose to be a goat or a sheep. Humm. This could end badly. Can anyone help me out?

 

We always have trouble when it comes to words, especially when someone wants to redefine them to fit their own agenda.

There is no doubt in my mind you are a . . .

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For some reason I can never remember if I am suppose to be a goat or a sheep. Humm. This could end badly. Can anyone help me out?

Did Jesus say that his goats hear his voice and follow him? I really don't think you are asking this question in good faith.

[sheilauk]

The question is not what would Jesus do, because whatever he would do would be perfect.  He would be able to perfectly judge the appropriate response for each individual and each situation.  We are not perfect.  The question we should ask ourselves is what would Jesus have me do in this situation?  Love God first and then Love thy Neighbour.  We should teach against sin and warn against sin but we cannot stop others from committing sin, only ourselves.  

[thesometimesaint]

The US is a secular nation, not a sectarian one.

[Daniel2]

It’s been a while since there’s been any discussion on the so-called “conflict” between “religious freedom” and laws protecting equality for gays and lesbians.

 

Today, there have been a couple of developments regarding court decisions about some of the pending cases in which individuals have asked the courts whether or not the First Ammendment protects any ability to discriminate against same-sex marriages based on individuals’ religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.

 

The first case is the Colorado baker’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling that the anti-gay bakery violated Public Accommodation laws:

 

Colorado court: Baker can't cite religious beliefs in refusing to make cakes for gay weddings
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/13/colorado-court-baker-cant-cite-religious-beliefs-in-refusing-to-make-cakes-for/

 

Associated Press Aug. 13, 2015 | 11:27 a.m.

 

DENVER (AP) — A suburban Denver baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple cannot cite his religious beliefs in refusing them service because it would lead to discrimination, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday.

 

The decision is the latest victory for gay couples, who have won similar cases in other states. Gay rights supporters and religious freedom advocates have passionately debated whether individuals can cite their beliefs as a basis for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding ceremony.

 

And it is bound to get more heated after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

 

In the Colorado case, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, declined to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. They were married in Massachusetts but planned to celebrate in Colorado.

 

After the ruling, Phillips faces fines if he refuses to make wedding cakes for gay couples. Phillips has maintained that he has no problem serving gay people at his store but says that making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his Christian beliefs.

 

His attorneys have said they would consider appealing up to the U.S. Supreme Court. They said there are bound to be more cases where businesses' religious convictions clash with gay rights.

 

In recent cases elsewhere, a bakery in the Portland, Oregon, area that declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple two years ago was ordered to pay $135,000 in damages in July.

 

Two years ago, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photographer who wouldn't take pictures of a gay couple's 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

 

And in Washington state, a florist has been fighting a lawsuit filed after she refused to provide services for a gay wedding in 2013.

 

Phillips' case started in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, where Craig and Mullins filed their complaint. In December 2013, a judge for the commission ruled that Phillips discriminated against the couple and ordered him to change his store policy against making cakes for gay weddings or face fines.
 

Phillips then went to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

 

 

And the second is the case of the Kentucky County Clerk who’s refusing to issue marriage licenses to any couples (gay or straight) after the Obergefell ruling, because of her religious beliefs (ironically, Ms. Davis is personally on her fourth marriage):

 

Clerk turns away same-sex couple after federal judge orders her to issue marriage licenses
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/12/3985740/federal-judge-orders-rowan-county.html

By John Cheves
jcheves@herald-leader.comAugust 12, 2015 Updated 1 hour ago

 

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to resume issuing marriage licenses despite her religious objection to same-sex marriage, but Davis quickly filed an appeal and continued her refusal to issue licenses.

 

Davis will ask Bunning to stay his injunction while she appeals it to the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, said her attorney, Roger Gannam.

 

On Thursday morning, Rowan County Deputy Clerk Nathan Davis turned away David Moore and David Ermold, refusing to issue the men a marriage license.

"Kim Davis is resolute in vindicating her rights," said Gannam, senior litigation counsel at Liberty Counsel, a religious advocacy group. "Fundamentally, we disagree with this order because the government should never be able to compel a person to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs."

 

U.S. District Judge David Bunning granted a preliminary injunction against Davis sought by four Rowan County couples who applied for marriage licenses.

 

Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses in her county since June 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and Gov. Steve Beshear instructed all 120 of Kentucky's county clerks to comply with the court's decision.

 

Davis "likely has violated the constitutional rights of her constituents" by promoting her Christian beliefs "at the expense of others," Bunning wrote in his order.

"The state is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a variety of religious activities," the judge wrote. "She is even free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk."

 

The Rowan County couples — two same-sex and two opposite-sex — would have been happy had Davis complied with the injunction, but they expected her to resist further, said one of their attorneys, Laura Landenwich.

 

"None of us want anyone to be forced to change their religious viewpoint. But when you are an agent of the state, as she is as county clerk, then you need to follow the law," Landenwich said.

 

In his 28-page order, Bunning considered and dismissed every argument Davis has raised in her defense — and in a related lawsuit she filed last week against Beshear, alleging that he violated her religious liberties by directing county clerks to comply with the Supreme Court decision.

 

On Davis' argument that she can't in good conscience "authorize" a same-sex marriage, given her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian, Bunning said she was not being asked to authorize marriages. Kentucky's marriage license paperwork requires clerks only to acknowledge that a couple has provided accurate biographical information and is legally permitted to wed, Bunning wrote. And whether or not Davis likes it, same-sex couples now are legally permitted to wed, he wrote.

 

On Davis' argument that same-sex couples could drive to another county where the clerk is willing to serve them, Bunning said she did not take into account the difficulty of travel for her poorer constituents or the likelihood that other clerks would seek the same religious exemption she demands, so that "approximately half of the state" could declare itself off-limits to gay couples seeking a license.

 

Beyond all that, Bunning wrote, "she fails to address the one question that lingers in the court's mind. Even if plaintiffs are able to obtain licenses elsewhere, why should they be required to? ... They live, work, socialize, pay taxes and conduct other business in and around Morehead. Quite simply, Rowan County is their home."

 

Finally, on Davis' argument that Beshear violated her religious liberties by instructing her to comply with the Supreme Court decision, Bunning said the governor had "a compelling state interest" in government officials upholding the rule of law across Kentucky and respecting the First Amendment's separation of church and state.

 

"Davis has arguably (violated the First Amendment) by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," Bunning wrote.

 

"Our form of government will not survive unless we, as a society, agree to respect the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of our personal opinions," Bunning wrote. "Davis is certainly free to disagree with the court's opinion, as many Americans likely do, but that does not excuse her from complying with it. To hold otherwise would set a dangerous precedent."
 

 

As the articles mention, it looks like these cases (and/or others similar to them, such as the Oregon bakery) are likely on a fast-track to the Supreme Court.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

I understand that Ms Davis is elected so can't be fired from her job. However Ms, Davis can be arrested and jailed for contempt of court, and subjects the county to lawsuits, and possible contempt charges as well.

Edited August 13, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

It’s been a while since there’s been any discussion on the so-called “conflict” between “religious freedom” and laws protecting equality for gays and lesbians.

 

Today, there have been a couple of developments regarding court decisions about some of the pending cases in which individuals have asked the courts whether or not the First Ammendment protects any ability to discriminate against same-sex marriages based on individuals’ religious beliefs against same-sex marriage.

 

The first case is the Colorado baker’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the ruling that the anti-gay bakery violated Public Accommodation laws:

 

 

And the second is the case of the Kentucky County Clerk who’s refusing to issue marriage licenses to any couples (gay or straight) after the Obergefell ruling, because of her religious beliefs (ironically, Ms. Davis is personally on her fourth marriage):

 

 

As the articles mention, it looks like these cases (and/or others similar to them, such as the Oregon bakery) are likely on a fast-track to the Supreme Court.

 

Can you not see the difference.  The Kentucky case is a government official, elected to perform government services.  The baker is a privately owned business.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Can you not see the difference.  The Kentucky case is a government official, elected to perform government services.  The baker is a privately owned business.

 

that is a libertarian and conservative point, please get the politics out. The church doesn't say "protect private businesses"  

 

bytheway 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/03/lawsuit-alleges-7-year-old-quizzed-on-religion-ordered-to-sit-alone-at-lunch-for-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

Edited August 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Zakuska]

Service is not a sin. Jesus was worried about the poor, Jesus was never worried about his religious freedom and the government. 

Render to Cesar that which is Cesars be damned.

[ERayR]

that is a libertarian and conservative point, please get the politics out. The church doesn't say "protect private businesses"  

 

bytheway 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/03/lawsuit-alleges-7-year-old-quizzed-on-religion-ordered-to-sit-alone-at-lunch-for-telling-classmates-he-didnt-believe-in-god/

 

If you have nothing to better to offer please get the politics out.

[filovirus]

^{Verdict is in: Colorado: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/08/13/colorado-court-sides-against-baker-who-cited-religious-beliefs-refused-same-sex-couple/}

[Kenngo1969]

^{Verdict is in: Colorado: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/08/13/colorado-court-sides-against-baker-who-cited-religious-beliefs-refused-same-sex-couple/}

I don't agree with it, but, for crying out loud, at least this was an actual Article III court decision, instead of some thou-shalt-never-hurt-anyone's-feelings-at-any-time-over-anything-lest-thou-pay-a-hefty-fine human/equal/yada-yada rights commissioner running amok.

[Daniel2]

This opinion piece by a pro-gay, Christian minister resonated with me:
 

Religious Liberty, Marriage Licenses and Losing a Job for the Gospel
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7985894?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592&ref=yfp

 1 hour ago | Updated 28 minutes ago

By Rev. Emily C. Heath Clergy, United Church of Christ

I was looking for a something new. That was the start of it. I made a phone call and talked with a recruiter. And a packet of pamphlets and government forms arrived in my mailbox not long afterwards.

I had been a minister for several years. I enjoyed trauma chaplaincy work, but was looking for a new challenge. This particular ministry sounded challenging and meaningful. And they needed people.

The setting: the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

For a while I agonized over that pile of paperwork. Being a federal prison chaplain was something I believed I could do well. I was willing to do the work. And the need was great.

But there was one thing I just couldn't get past. And so, I tore up the packet, threw it in the trash and started looking elsewhere.

Growing up, like most people in my death penalty state, I believed some people deserved the ultimate penalty for their crimes. I didn't love the idea of an electric chair, but I believed that justice sometimes requires an eye for an eye.

That changed for me when I became a Christian and read the Gospels. My own personal faith journey convinced me that supporting the death penalty was incompatible with following the Christian faith.

And that was the reason I knew I couldn't be a chaplain in a federal prison system where the death penalty is still practiced. Even if I never had to escort a human being to the death chamber, I could never work in a system that upheld the option of killing someone.

I know there are some who disagree with me, but that's what I truly believe. Just like there are good Christians who disagree about same-sex marriage.

I'm proud to be a part of a tradition that blesses the marriages of all. And I'm glad that now state and federal laws recognize my religious freedom as a member of the clergy to marry any two adults who love one another.

Many Christians disagree. And some are the very people whose government job requires them to issue marriage licenses.

Let's be clear. These are not members of the clergy being forced to perform same-sex marriages. These are government employees, paid for by their fellow citizens' taxes, who are being asked to follow the law.

Just like I would have been had I chosen to be a prison chaplain in a death penalty system.

Religious liberty is guaranteed in this country. But that does not mean that every job needs to bend to your particular interpretation of your faith.

So when someone is being asked to follow the law, and issue a marriage license, and they say they are being persecuted, I just don't buy it. You are being no more persecuted than I was when I decided not to be a prison chaplain. We are both operating out of our sincere Christian convictions, after all.

The job of someone issuing a government marriage license is to basically handle a piece of paperwork. In this case a piece of paperwork that says that two people will have their marriage legally, not even religiously, recognized.

If you really believe doing your job is against your faith, then quitting would be an act of faith. Defying the law so two people you will never see again can't get married? Not so much.

One of the most important teachings of Christ is that we must be willing to lose everything to follow him. Discipleship, as Bonhoeffer said, is costly. And sometimes it will cost us our jobs. If you really believe doing your job is violating your faith, then stepping aside would be a small price to pay for the love of the Gospel.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Can you not see the difference. The Kentucky case is a government official, elected to perform government services. The baker is a privately owned business.

Yes, I see some differences between the two cases, such as the one you noted.

Because of those differences, different laws regarding anti-discrimination apply to the two separate cases, albeit with the net effect to prevent discrimination in the public realm.

Namely, public accommodations law preventing discrimination in the business sector applies to the bakery business, while laws prohibiting unconstitutional discrimination by public servants apply to the county clerk.

In fact, pages 12-14 of the Colorado ruling cite the specific law that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated:

Section 24-34-601(2)(a), C.R.S. 2014, reads, as relevant here:

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...sexual orientation...the full and equal employment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation...

CADA also bars discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, marital status, national origin, and ancestry. § 24-34-601(2)(a), C.R.S. 2014.

Further, a “place of public accommodation” is “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public. 24-34-601(1).

Finally, CADA defines "sexual orientation" as "an individuals' orientation towards heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or an individual's perception thereof."

The above seems pretty clear to me.

So, while I see the differences, I also understand how different laws apply to both cases with the net effect of preventing public discrimination.

Now... can you see the similarity, ERayR?

Edited August 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

For those wishing to read the ruling, it can be found here.

 

I find it interesting (and I agree with the fact) that the appeals court acknowledged that businesses may refuse to convey (in frosting, print, or publication, presumably) messages that they may find offensive, because those instances would be freedoms of speech of the business owners which would be protected by the First Amendment:

 

That's not to deny that a baker's First Amendment rights might come into play given specific customer requests. And the appeals court acknowledged this as well.

 

"We recognize that a wedding cake, in some circumstances, may convey a particularized message celebrating same-sex marriage and ... First Amendment speech protections may be implicated," the court said. "However, we need not reach this issue. We note, again, that [Jack] Phillips denied Craig's and Mullins' request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake's design or any possible written inscriptions."

 

So the bottom line: if you provide a specific good or service to the public, you can't decline to provide it for one segment of the population based on your religious beliefs.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Incidentally, some posters in this and other related threads (Mystery Meat, post #12, #15; Russell McGregor, post #17, #25, #26 ; Storm Rider, post #46--who actually issued a CFR for "what law requires me to work when I choose not to as an owner of any business?," which I've now answered) have asserted that in cases like these, businesses (in this case a bakery) aren't "discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation" because, they say, the bakery is willing to sell gays and lesbians other baked goods unrelated to same-sex weddings, they just don't want to bake a "specific kind of cake" for "a specific event."

These posters insist that bakeries' willingness to sell non-same-sex-wedding cakes to gays and lesbians shows that the bakeries aren't discriminating based on sexual orientation; they just religiously object to "the act of a same-sex wedding."

The court of appeals contemplated--and rejected--these same arguments, which were attempted by Masterpiece Cakeshop, quoting ample SCOTUS precident in their ruling:

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods...

Masterpiece contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that its refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was "because of" their sexual orientation. Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was "because of" its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of it's opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig's and Mullin's sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece's refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was "because of" their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA...

Masterpiece asserts that it did not decline to make Craig’s and Mullins’ wedding cake “because of” their sexual orientation. It argues that it does not object to or refuse to serve patrons because of their sexual orientation, and that it assured Craig and Mullins that it would design and create any other bakery product for them, just not a wedding cake. Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct —entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey. Therefore, because its refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not “because of” their sexual orientation, Masterpiece contends that it did not violate CADA. We disagree.

Masterpiece argues that the ALJ made two incorrect presumptions. First, it contends that the ALJ incorrectly presumed that opposing same-sex marriage is tantamount to opposing the rights of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to the equal enjoyment of public accommodations. Second, it contends that the ALJ incorrectly presumed that only gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples engage in same-sex marriage.

Masterpiece thus distinguishes between discrimination based on a person’s status and discrimination based on conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate. See Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 689 (2010) (“[The Christian Legal Society] contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather ‘on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.’ . . . Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context.”); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.”); id. at 583 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is . . . directed toward gay persons as a class.”); see also Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 605 (1983) (concluding that prohibiting admission to students married to someone of a different race was a form of racial discrimination, although the ban restricted conduct).

Further, in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), the Supreme Court equated laws precluding same-sex marriage to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2604 (observing that the “denial to same-sex couples of the right to marry” is a “disability on gays and lesbians” which “serves to disrespect and subordinate them”). The Court stated: “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2599 (emphasis added). “Were the Court to stay its hand . . . it still would deny gays and lesbians many rights and responsibilities intertwined with marriage.” Id. at ___, 135 S. Ct. at 2606.

In these decisions, the Supreme Court recognized that, in some cases, conduct cannot be divorced from status. This is so when the conduct is so closely correlated with the status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular status. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage constitutes such conduct because it is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly” by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Masterpiece’s distinction, therefore, is one without a difference. But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services.

(pgs 1-2, 12-15)

Edited August 14, 2015 by Daniel2

[williamsmith]

What are you talking about? This isn't about tolerance, this is about discrimination. This is about breaking the law. And from a religious point of view this is about unchristian like behavior and using the name of Christ to justify self righteous actions.

Christ taught both by exams and word to serve others including sinners. It was the gospel of the pharasies that taught a message of "we don't serve sinners". Is there any proof that this "sweet" bakery refused service to someone who was divorced? How about an adulter or someone who abuses children. Or beat their wife? Or is this refusal only about discrimination against gays

No Christian could read Matthew 25 and get that they should not serve sinners. They should be ashamed to bring Christ into their argument to justify discrimination and break the law.

 

What are you talking about?

This is about tolerance.  Making a Cake is an artistic expression, and a Baker has every right to not make a cake in a manner and in support of things that he has no interest in making a cake for.

This is not about "not serving gays", it's entirely about not wanting to make a Gay Wedding Cake for a Gay Wedding.  Period.

 

As to your question, absolutely.  A Bakery or any business has the right to serve anyone they want, and not serve anyone that want.  If they don't want to serve someone who beat their wife, they have every right to.

Homosexuality is not a protected class.  As much as some claim or think they are born that way, there are plenty who aren't born that way, thus a business has every right to refuse service to people based on "character".

 

The Gospel teaches to love the person but hate the sin.  They weren't hating "gays", they were hating the sinful act of a gay marriage.

No Christian is under any obligation to support, serve, promote sinful activities.  And they should never be, nor should ANYONE else for whatever is morally against their concious.

Is this a Free Country or not, where we have the right to worship and do things according to our own consious, as long as we aren't doing them "to" people against their right to exist?

 

Forcing someone to bake a cake is not a human right.

[williamsmith]

Incidentally, some posters in this and other related threads (Mystery Meat, post #12, #15; Russell McGregor, post #17, #25, #26 ; Storm Rider, post #46--who actually issued a CFR for "what law requires me to work when I choose not to as an owner of any business?," which I've now answered) have asserted that in cases like these, businesses (in this case a bakery) aren't "discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation" because, they say, the bakery is willing to sell gays and lesbians other baked goods unrelated to same-sex weddings, they just don't want to bake a "specific kind of cake" for "a specific event."

These posters insist that bakeries' willingness to sell non-same-sex-wedding cakes to gays and lesbians shows that the bakeries aren't discriminating based on sexual orientation; they just religiously object to "the act of a same-sex wedding."

The court of appeals contemplated--and rejected--these same arguments, which were attempted by Masterpiece Cakeshop, quoting ample SCOTUS precident in their ruling:

 

 

They weren't asked to bake a cake, they were asked to bake a cake that promotes and support something against the artists values.

This is like a Painter who because he paints paintings for people can be forced to paint a painting showing a Gay Wedding and to be displayed at a gay wedding.

 

People who engage in "creative works", and provide a "service" outside of their establishment should NEVER be forced to do something against their concious.  SCOTUS is utterly wrong.

But nothing new, they were wrong about Abortion also.  One of the primary obligations of the government is to protect the people, the innocent.  It's thier charter.

Yet, we now have government sanctioned murder of the innocent.

 

Let me give you an example.

If you were a painter, and you didn't like Mormonism, thought it was a cult and evil, and a Mormon came to you and asked you to paint a Mormon Temple, don't you think you have the right to decline service?

After all, the Mormon is a "protected class".... so according to you, you should and must be forced by the gun and force of law of punishment by the government to paint that Temple.

This is why you people are so utterly wrong.  You want your cake and to eat it to.  You have zero understanding that if the same was being done to you you would not want it done.

Edited August 14, 2015 by williamsmith

[Daniel2]

This is not about "not serving gays", it's entirely about not wanting to make a Gay Wedding Cake for a Gay Wedding.  Period.

 

As to your question, absolutely.  A Bakery or any business has the right to serve anyone they want, and not serve anyone that want.  If they don't want to serve someone who beat their wife, they have every right to.

 

Homosexuality is not a protected class.  As much as some claim or think they are born that way, there are plenty who aren't born that way, thus a business has every right to refuse service to people based on "character".

 

The Gospel teaches to love the person but hate the sin.  They weren't hating "gays", they were hating the sinful act of a gay marriage.

 

No Christian is under any obligation to support, serve, promote sinful activities.  And they should never be, nor should ANYONE else for whatever is morally against their concious.

 

Is this a Free Country or not, where we have the right to worship and do things according to our own consious, as long as we aren't doing them "to" people against their right to exist?

 

Forcing someone to bake a cake is not a human right.

 

 

Williamsmith, you have every right to believe that the law of the land is wrong, and you are entirely free to promote a change in the law, if you feel it's unjust.

"Homosexuality" isn't a protected class--but on many states, "sexual orientation" IS a protected class--and the number of states is growing. That means one cannot discriminate based on any or all sexual orientations, regardless of whether one is straight, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

 

Here's the portion of my previous post citing the specific language of the law in the Colorado appeals court's ruling that demonstrates your error:

 

Section 24-34-601(2)(a), C.R.S. 2014, reads, as relevant here:

 

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...sexual orientation...the full and equal employment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation...

 

CADA also bars discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, sex, marital status, national origin, and ancestry. § 24-34-601(2)(a), C.R.S. 2014.

 

Further, a “place of public accommodation” is “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public. 24-34-601(1).

 

Finally, CADA defines "sexual orientation" as "an individuals' orientation towards heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or an individual's perception thereof."

You may believe bakers should have a right to refuse service at any time, but that's only in your head--that's not a civil right that any business actually has.

The legal reality increasingly says you are wrong, and the legal reality is the one we deal with in... well... actual, real life.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Daniel2