Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS

[cacheman]

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I've never seen no gays signs in my entire life! If they didn't exist in the 1950's they are not going to appear now....

Not far from me,  a Christian owner of a hardware supply store put up a 'no gays allowed' sign.  After the national press picked up the story,  he replaced it with a 'religious freedom' sign.  If you'd like to support this Christian establishment,  but don't have any hardware needs. ..that's ok...you can purchase one of his anti-gay hats or bumper stickers. 

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I knew that the baker offered to sell other items. I thought that Scott was saying that he offered to bake a wedding cake just undecirated.  

I believe there have been a few articles which have mentioned undecorated cakes, but I seem to recall those being hypothetical scenarios being discussed rather than the situation in this particular case. I could be wrong on that though. Nobody's memory is perfect. For example, I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the owner was willing to sell them a non-custom cake, but I honestly can't remember where that was - probably from one of the amicus briefs, but it's possible that it was only in my mind. 

 

Quote

Offering cupcakes is a bit different

I believe the store owners would agree with you; that's why there is a controversy. 

 

[juliann]

6 hours ago, Amulek said:

I believe there have been a few articles which have mentioned undecorated cakes, but I seem to recall those being hypothetical scenarios being discussed rather than the situation in this particular case. I could be wrong on that though. Nobody's memory is perfect. For example, I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the owner was willing to sell them a non-custom cake, but I honestly can't remember where that was - probably from one of the amicus briefs, but it's possible that it was only in my mind. 

 

 

 

I also recall that. I was able to be more sympathetic to the baker after reading that. But I'm not real sure what decorations scream gay. I remember ideas like he could sell them two bride and groom figures and they could rearrange them but I don't know what else would be that obvious on a standard wedding cake, unless it is one of those fancy custom jobs where they were asking him to construct a gay parade float or something.

Everyone likes to give extreme examples but I do wonder how a law like this will actually protect people when it will have to be applied to all situations. I think it unlikely that a Jewish baker would be asked to put swastikas on a cake. He would likely get run out of the bakery by other customers before the baker had to say no. But I can think of an antifa member wanting a cake with one of their violent slogans (assuming they eat cake instead of throwing it.) Or any of the other things that those on the opposite side of the political spectrum hold dear. How about having to make a cake mocking climate change? Or the wrong political candidate? Now that everything is politicized and put into good and evil categories, there are everyday things that some bakers would object to as in terms of right and wrong as strongly as this anti-gay baker. I would be curious how many bakers support a law like this.

[Calm]

The big difference with a wedding cake with other specially designed cakes is it is usually delivered and set up, correct?  Or are special event cakes turning into massive, needing to be assembled at the location constructions?

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The big difference with a wedding cake with other specially designed cakes is it is usually delivered and set up, correct?  Or are special event cakes turning into massive, needing to be assembled at the location constructions?

I think it is a mixed bag.  Most weddings I have been involved in, someone picked up the cake.  But I assume a baker could offer delivery service.  If that was the issue, then is all a bakery would have to do is not offer delivery service if they felt like they just couldn't be at the scene of a wedding that would take place later that day.

Most of the time people want an excuse to validate their prejudices.  "It is not me that is prejudice,  It is God that doesn't want me to bake you a cake."

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most of the time people want an excuse to validate their prejudices.  "It is not me that is prejudice,  It is God that doesn't want me to bake you a cake."

If one assumes that God is fine with SSM and wouldn't inspire someone to reject it or that there is no God at all, then that conclusion is reasonable.

Otoh, if one believes God is not approving of same sex marriage, then it is reasonable to believe that God inspires some to refrain from participating.

One can easily slip into circular reasoning if one rejects that possibility of inspiration or revelation...they only hold that belief because they are prejudiced and the proof of that prejudice is they hold that belief.

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

If one assumes that God is fine with SSM and wouldn't inspire someone to reject it or that there is no God at all, then that conclusion is reasonable.

Otoh, if one believes God is not approving of same sex marriage, then it is reasonable to believe that God inspires some to refrain from participating.

One can easily slip into circular reasoning if one rejects that possibility of inspiration or revelation...they only hold that belief because they are prejudiced and the proof of that prejudice is they hold that belief.

That is one way to look at it.  I guess I just have a hard time actually believing that God would inspire anyone to not serve someone just because they are a sinner.  I see God inspiring them to make the best cake possible and deliver it with as much love and compassion that they possibly could.  But I guess my view of God and His teachings is much different that a lot of christians.

You don't have to be ok with SSM to serve the sinner.  I am not really on board with prostitution, but that does not mean I would refuse any help asked of me to someone who is a prostitute.  And I certainly see no reason to discriminate against them.

Edited September 16, 2017 by california boy

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is one way to look at it.  I guess I just have a hard time actually believing that God would inspire anyone to not serve someone just because they are a sinner.  I see God inspiring them to make the best cake possible and deliver it with as much love and compassion that they possibly could.  But I guess my view of God and His teachings is much different that a lot of christians.

You don't have to be ok with SSM to serve the sinner.  I am not really on board with prostitution, but that does not mean I would refuse any help asked of me to someone who is a prostitute.  And I certainly see no reason to discriminate against them.

But they aren't refusing to serve gays in any way save a wedding (in most cases).  It is not comparable.

I wouldn't normally go here, but since you chose a prostitute as an example, the correct analogy is they would refuse to make a special cake for a paid sexual encounter between a prostitute and their client (because of their viewing the SSM as a sinful event).

I think a better analogy to move away from the legal/illegal aspect and just focus on how the wedding itself is seen as immoral would be if a baker became aware that a couple was marrying for money, not for love, (perhaps to do with inheritance requirements), had no intention of living together, etc. and the baker refused because they saw the wedding as invalid, a mock ceremony.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Calm

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

But they aren't refusing to serve gays in any way save a wedding (in most cases).  It is not comparable.

I wouldn't normally go here, but since you chose a prostitute as an example, the correct analogy is they would refuse to make a special cake for a paid sexual encounter between a prostitute and their client.

There has never been any indication that the baker ever refused to bake anything including wedding cakes for prostitutes or any other group of sinners. In fact, this baker did bake a wedding cake for a customer that wanted to celebrate two dogs getting married.

 It is partly why this whole issue seems more about discrimination than "personal held religious beliefs" unless they belong to a church who believe that only gay couples that marry are sinning.  

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

There has never been any indication that the baker ever refused to bake anything including wedding cakes for prostitutes or any other group of sinners. In fact, this baker did bake a wedding cake for a customer that wanted to celebrate two dogs getting married.

 It is partly why this whole issue seems more about discrimination than "personal held religious beliefs" unless they belong to a church who believe that only gay couples that marry are sinning.  

I am not talking about this specific baker.  You made a generalized statement that most in his situation who would refuse would do so because they were prejudiced and were using God as an excuse.

You have no way of knowing that, but it is a reasonable assumption if you believe God would not inspire someone to reject SSM.  It is not a reasonable assumption if one believes God does inspire a rejection.  And it is quite possible that some bakers would also refuse to knowingly give prostitutes cakes if for a rendezvous with a client or if they believed a wedding was a sham, say for a green card or to get Grandma's millions or a cheap apartment that was only for couples.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Calm

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

There has never been any indication that the baker ever refused to bake anything including wedding cakes for prostitutes or any other group of sinners.

Again, from the brief (citations omitted, emphasis added):

Quote

Phillips gladly serves people from all walks of life, including individuals of all races, faiths, and sexual orientations. But he cannot design custom cakes that express ideas or celebrate events at odds with his religious beliefs. For example, Phillips will not design cakes that celebrate Halloween; express anti-family themes (such as a cake glorifying divorce); contain hateful, vulgar, or profane messages (such as a cake disparaging gays and lesbians); or promote atheism, racism, or indecency. 

So it seems like Wiccans, atheists, and others aren't necessarily going to get any kind of cake they might want either.   

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not talking about this specific baker.  You made a generalized statement that most in his situation who would refuse would do so because they were prejudiced and were using God as an excuse.

You have no way of knowing that, but it is a reasonable assumption if you believe God would not inspire someone to reject SSM.  It is not a reasonable assumption if one believes God does inspire a rejection.  And it is quite possible that some bakers would also refuse to knowingly give prostitutes cakes if for a rendezvous with a client or if they believed a wedding was a sham, say for a green card or to get Grandma's millions or a cheap apartment that was only for couples.

I am still talking about bakers in general.  I have never heard of any baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for anyone except gay couples.  Never heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce.  or a baby shower for an unwed mother or a couple living together or any else that is not living by their moral standards.  What kind of conclusion can one draw from this?

[Gray]

On 9/14/2017 at 1:53 PM, LittleNipper said:

I feel that most Christians would just rather homosexuals leave them alone.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. Christians are persecuting gay people and have been for decades, not vice versa.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 I have never heard of any baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for anyone except gay couples.  Never heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce. [...]

You may have missed it, but the baker involved in the current litigation refuses to make cakes which "express anti-family themes (such as a cake glorifying divorce)." 

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You may have missed it, but the baker involved in the current litigation refuses to make cakes which "express anti-family themes (such as a cake glorifying divorce)." 

We have repeatedly gone over this.  The baker already has the right to not custom write ANY message on a cake.  That is not what this case is about.  This case is about discriminating against who you sell your standard products to.  Bakers or t-shirt designers or anyone else is required to print any message that they do not want to.  I repeat, that is already law.  If the gay couple demanded that the baker write "happy gay marriage" and the baker refused, there would be no court case.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The baker already has the right to not custom write ANY message on a cake.  

I didn't say anything about a written message. You said that you have "(n)ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce." Well, the baker in this case refuses to make custom cakes to celebrate divorce. It doesn't matter what you want on the cake; you aren't getting a custom cake from him.

If you want cupcakes, pastries, or whatever else they sell over the counter you are welcome to buy those instead, but custom cakes are off the table.

They are happy to sell any of their "standard products" to anyone. But they are more selective when it comes to taking commissions for custom cakes.

You know, sort of like how a fashion designer might not want to create a custom dress for someone even though they may have no issue with them buying something off-the-rack.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Amulek
This is harder on phones.

[CV75]

On 9/12/2017 at 1:23 PM, Daniel2 said:

What do you all think?  Should the state be allowed to bar gay men from surrogacy?  Is the discrimination justified?  If anyone hears whether the LDS church officially weighs in on the issue, I'd love to hear it, too.

If this is meant to be a strictly legal / political discussion, I don't think it matters what the State should be allowed to do -- let the people (and the courts where prompted) speak. Whatever “discrimination” flows from due process is by the checks and balances justified.

Aside from that, I think the Church has a handbook guidance about surrogacy within a recognized LDS marriage, advising a prayerful approach and extending the availability of priesthood leaders for spiritual counseling.

Dealing with this subject reminds me of Pharaoh in Abraham 1:25-27.  Here we have a righteous, just and wise ruler whose legacy was but a sincere emulation of that which he acknowledged he could not rightly possess -- doing the best he could with what he had to work with – but unfortunately his vision was eventually perverted by those feigning authenticity and things went downhill from there.

Similarly, we have both altruistic and commercial surrogacy to meet a couple’s desire to rear offspring. In the latter, money serves as an enticement more than would the reimbursement of medical care alone, with the attendant risks for eroding societal attitudes. We also have, depending on the community which drives due process, a perceived pretense of a 6,000-year order, (which is why the underlying marriage is not legal in many countries).

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say anything about a written message. You said that you have "(n)ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce." Well, the baker in this case refuses to make custom cakes to celebrate divorce. It doesn't matter what you want on the cake; you aren't getting a custom cake from him.

If you want cupcakes, pastries, or whatever else they sell over the counter you are welcome to buy those instead, but custom cakes are off the table.

For all customers?  Are you stating that this particular bakery absolutely does not offer or make "custom cakes" for anyone?

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say anything about a written message. You said that you have "(n)ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce." Well, the baker in this case refuses to make custom cakes to celebrate divorce. It doesn't matter what you want on the cake; you aren't getting a custom cake from him.

If you want cupcakes, pastries, or whatever else they sell over the counter you are welcome to buy those instead, but custom cakes are off the table.

They are happy to sell any of their "standard products" to anyone. But they are more selective when it comes to taking commissions for custom cakes.

You know, sort of like how a fashion designer might not want to create a custom dress for someone even though they may have no issue with them buying something off-the-rack.

You have to argue before the Supreme Court that a standard wedding cake that is offered to straight couples becomes a custom cake when requested by a gay couple.  I think that is going to be difficult to convince the justices especially when no "gay related" decorations are requested.  But I guess we will see.

 

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

18 hours ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say anything about a written message. You said that you have "(n)ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce." Well, the baker in this case refuses to make custom cakes to celebrate divorce. It doesn't matter what you want on the cake; you aren't getting a custom cake from him.

If you want cupcakes, pastries, or whatever else they sell over the counter you are welcome to buy those instead, but custom cakes are off the table.

For all customers?  Are you stating that this particular bakery absolutely does not offer or make "custom cakes" for anyone?

No. I thought it was clear from context that I was talking about a certain kind of custom cake (i.e., a custom cake designed to celebrate divorce). He doesn't sell those kinds of custom cakes to anyone. 

So if you want to celebrate your divorce with a tasty specialty cake, well...sorry, this is not the baker for you.  

He's not going to stop you from purchasing anything that they sell over the counter (e.g., cupcakes), but he isn't going to make a custom cake for you to use at your divorce party. 

[ALarson]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

No. I thought it was clear from context that I was talking about a certain kind of custom cake (i.e., a custom cake designed to celebrate divorce). He doesn't sell those kinds of custom cakes to anyone. 

Well, if nothing is written on the cakes, then that's discrimination.  Just because a couple celebrating divorce hasn't sued him, doesn't change the fact that this baker discriminated against them.

If the cakes are identical and he sells them to some customers, but refuses to sell them to others, that is discrimination.

Edited September 18, 2017 by ALarson

[Amulek]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have to argue before the Supreme Court that a standard wedding cake that is offered to straight couples becomes a custom cake when requested by a gay couple.

I think what the petitioners plan on arguing before the Supreme Court is that creating a custom wedding cake is like creating a custom piece of art, and the outcome of the case is largely going to be decided on how the Court answers that question. 

Like I said earlier, the fact that the Court took this case instead of the photography case (which, in my view, had the stronger 1st Amendment argument) makes me think that they are going to rule against the baker, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Amulek

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If the cakes are identical and he sells them to some customers, but refuses to sell them to others, that is discrimination.

And if the cakes aren't identical and are - instead - custom, made-to-order pieces of art, then that discrimination is perfectly lawful. 

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say anything about a written message. You said that you have "(n)ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a divorce." Well, the baker in this case refuses to make custom cakes to celebrate divorce. It doesn't matter what you want on the cake; you aren't getting a custom cake from him.

If you want cupcakes, pastries, or whatever else they sell over the counter you are welcome to buy those instead, but custom cakes are off the table.

They are happy to sell any of their "standard products" to anyone. But they are more selective when it comes to taking commissions for custom cakes.

You know, sort of like how a fashion designer might not want to create a custom dress for someone even though they may have no issue with them buying something off-the-rack.

I'm just gonna leave this right here:

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To ‘Dog Wedding’ Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

A Colorado bakery that refused to prepare a wedding cake for a gay couple is once again in the headlines after being exposed in another same-sex pair’s experiment.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that Stephanie Schmalz opted to conduct the experiment when she was told that Masterpiece Cakeshop had a strict policy against selling cakes for same-sex weddings and commitment ceremonies. Schmalz had been seeking cupcakes for her forthcoming commitment ceremony to her partner Jeanine.

After being turned away, Schmalz called the bakery and told owner Jack Phillips that she was planning to host a wedding celebration for two dogs. She told him that the “dog wedding” cake should be decorated with the names “Roscoe” and “Buffy.” Phillips then quoted her a price and asked how soon she needed it, according to the ACLU report.

Schmalz’s experiment is similar to that conducted by an alternative weekly paper in Oregon at Sweet Cakes By Melissa, a Gresham, Ore. bakery whose owner Aaron Klein cited religious principles in his refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian couple’s wedding. When a Willamette Week reporter requested cakes for a “pagan solstice party,” as well as a divorce party and a party for a woman who’d had multiple children out of wedlock, a Sweet Cakes employee reportedly agreed to take the orders.

In 2012, Phillips told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members, but nonetheless does not support gay marriage, when he refused to bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Arguing that he who rather “close down the bakery” than “compromise our beliefs,” Phillips said at the time, “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It’s just the wedding cake — not the people, not their lifestyle.”

The ACLU also points out that Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop broke the law by discriminating against Mullins and Craig, which prompted the Attorney General’s office to file a formal complaint against the bakery this week.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And if the cakes aren't identical and are - instead - custom, made-to-order pieces of art, then that discrimination is perfectly lawful. 

From what I've read regarding this specific case, the cake would have been identical to any other wedding cake the baker had made and sold to others.  So that argument or defense is not going to be applicable (at least in this case).