The Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple is back in court. Why would anyone use him, especially if you knew his refusal history?
Asked by
chyna (
51598
)
August 16th, 2018
from iPhone
This baker refused to make a cake for a gay couples’ wedding because of his religious beliefs. He went to court about it and won. A transgender woman wanted him to make a cake commemorating her anniversary of her transition. This is not a question of whether it’s right or wrong, I want to know why anyone would shop in his bakery? If I know a place will discriminate against me for any reason, why put myself through that? Please share your thoughts on why this person, or any other that knows he will refuse them service would even walk in there.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
78 Answers
I guess they wanted to challenge him again. Like sitting at a segregated lunch counter during the Civil Rights period.
SIX PRINCIPLES OF NONVIOLENCE
Fundamental tenets of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence described in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom. The six principles include:
PRINCIPLE ONE: Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people.
It is active nonviolent resistance to evil.
It is aggressive spiritually, mentally and emotionally.
PRINCIPLE TWO: Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding.
The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation.
The purpose of nonviolence is the creation of the Beloved Community.
PRINCIPLE THREE: Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not people.
Nonviolence recognizes that evildoers are also victims and are not evil people.
The nonviolent resister seeks to defeat evil not people.
PRINCIPLE FOUR: Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform.
Nonviolence accepts suffering without retaliation.
Unearned suffering is redemptive and has tremendous educational and transforming possibilities.
PRINCIPLE FIVE: Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate.
Nonviolence resists violence of the spirit as well as the body.
Nonviolent love is spontaneous, unmotivated, unselfish and creative.
PRINCIPLE SIX: Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice.
The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win.
Nonviolence believes that God is a God of justice.
LGBT community is going to wear him down with their business.
They are angry that he does not see things the way that they do, and they want to punish him for it.
But anger should be avoided whenever possible. It is toxic to the spirit. It causes or exacerbates plenty of psychic disturbances, like depression, anxiety, PTSD etc. (I say this from personal past experience. Once I was an angry young man and had a period when I walked around with all of those. Now I am at peace, and they are gone.)
So if it were me, I would just go someplace else. That’s what I do anytime I don’t get along with a particular merchant or vendor. The only problem would be if I had no alternatives. But since monopolies are illegal, there are nearly always options. The only exception is the State. There is only one courthouse, one tax agency, one police organization and the State permits monopolies like utilities. But usually there are choices.
Perhaps he is the only baker around, or perhaps he is a very good baker with a reputation for quality. In either case, if a quality cake is required, surely it is worth either the trip to or shipping expense from Denver or Aspen.
Prick probably thinks bisexual people want their cake and eat it.
I am quite surprised that he actually won the case. I admit I didn’t follow through the case until the end since I’ve assumed that the court would never tolerate discrimination. I won’t give the court that much credibility anymore.
It could be because of the person ordering the cake didn’t know about/had assumed that there has been some change of costumer service procedure in the bakery. Really, if the owner doesn’t want to sell to LGBT community then he should put a sign that reads “We don’t sell to LGBT people” so that people (whether straight or not) won’t buy anything in his bakery. Not everyone follow the news and know about this man’s history of wrongdoings.
I hope he will eventually receive retaliation from people that disagree with how he treats his customers. People could refuse to sell him anything or charge him more whenever he come to their stores.
This is the retaliation. This will go to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for another round.
I thought he had brought suit against the State of Colorado for persecuting him over his beliefs.
He did. I said “he went to court and won.”
Ah, I thought you meant the original suit. I was under the impression that this was a new suit and had not gone to court yet.
Just confused about who is suing whom.
The fact is the LGBT community is just trolling him at this point. I don’t understand why anyone would want a cake made under duress anyway. Why would you want to force a business-owner to provide a product they don’t want to provide?
Yeah, I don’t like the fact that he won’t make a same-sex wedding cake either, but so what? There are other cake shops in the world. Leave this guy alone. This whole thing just makes the LGBT community seem like bullies.
Well, if she asked for a cake from that person, knowing what the reaction would be, I’d say she was just looking looking to make a statement. What @Tropical_Willie said.
I don’t think the folks who sat at the lunch counter were interested in having a sandwich. Or that Rosa really had to sit in the front of the bus.
The point of his being in business remains the same: To make money. Why diss him for the same reason he dissed the gay couple???
@Demosthenes I kind of understand what you’re saying, but the statement is important. I guess you could say the lunch counter sit ins in the 50’s was “just trolling,” on the part of the blacks. It’s not. It’s making a statement. Maybe the baker should find another line of baking to focus on.
The point of his being in business remains that fact that he is a publicly licensed business. He is not allowed to break the law. State laws are now starting to recognise the civil rights of the LGTBQ community and have passed laws as such. If he had a private club, that’s something else, but he is serving the public. What they are trying to do is get a case tested and it will probably go to the Federal court system and they have to do it right this time.
But is it breaking the law? There’s a difference between refusing to serve gay people and refusing to provide a specific service, i.e. a cake for a same-sex wedding. If a straight person requested a cake for a same-sex wedding, I don’t think that would he provide it then either. It’s not like he’s saying “no gays allowed”. That’s why I’m not sure the comparison to Rosa Parks is apt.
The point is, it shouldn’t matter. It’s a cake. They just want a pretty cake for their wedding. It is like he has a sign up saying ‘No gays’.
The LGBTQ community mat have civil rights, but so does everybody else. I don’t think you can violate one person’s to uphold another’s. If someone wants to assume their rights outweigh another’s, then let them take it to court. It’s a free country…
@ScienceChick I agree it shouldn’t matter. I also think it’s disingenuous to act like refusing this service is his Christian duty. It seems unchristian to me. But I also think they should just go somewhere else and let this guy to himself. I think pragmatically, it’s doing a disservice to the LGBT community, because this guy is now presenting himself as an oppressed beleaguered simple cake-maker bullied by the LGBT agenda. Right-wingers are going gaga over him as a champion of religious freedom. It would’ve been more dignified to simply walk away from this guy, seeing that he’s not actually breaking the law. Not the current laws, at least.
Yes, it is breaking the law. If you have a public service, it is illegal to deny that service to someone based on their race, religion, whether or not they are disabled. You can’t refuse to rent to a person, or sell a house to a person for those reasons.
Maybe they should have two different type of business licences, then. One can be a full public license and the other can be some sort of ‘Privileged Class’ license, so they can be exempt from the Civil Rights Act. Then, you need to extend that right not just to business owners, but to employees. Jewish and Muslim employees won’t have to serve any pork products. Muslims won’t sell alcohol…. and down the rabbit hole we go. Then there is the head-wear issue…...
“Down the rabbit hole…” when are we, as a nation, ever going to pull our head out of our asses?
@DutchessIII. It’s not exactly breaking the law for this guy where he originally refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. He was taken to court over it, lost on the grounds of discrimination. He then got the decision reversed as his “religion” was being discriminated against. These are my words. @sciencechick posted the link a few answers above.
How much can you get away with when you do something for religious reasons? Should we allow volcanic sacrifices of virgins?
Only if the virgins are willing.
Yes..what IS this thing called “religion”, anyway?
Because he makes beautiful cakes, that’s why. This new situation is contrived to get a plaintiff. Even a non-attorney should see that.
If Satan wants a cake, you bake it. That’s what you do.
@joab I don’t know who you are talking to, but you can bet I choose with whom I do business.
There is absolutely no comparison to the lunch counter sit downs.
These protests were about entire communities shutting down the basic rights of people to have access to necessities.
Having no public restrooms in entire towns, food unavailable for hungry people, not being killed over want of a drink of water, those things are way different from, “I want a pretty cake. Of all the bakeries around that will provide me one, I want to antagonize the guy I know hates me.”
If this were over a necessity which they could not get elsewhere, I would be all in with them over it, but having options, and insisting on going to the one place where they know they are not welcome, does make him the victim, not them.
This is all about someone saying, “look at me, somebody doesn’t like me. Wah!”
Take your business where you are welcome.
What kind of jerk wants to tell the world some guy doesn’t believe in being their support system? His religious beliefs are protected by the constitution, whether we believe that some god wants it that way, or not.
@Patty_Melt From a lawyer in the US:
What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?
At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.
The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.
The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.
So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.
@MollyMcGuire so you could refuse to serve blacks, put up signs that say “white only”? Or “No Jews aloud,” signs? Do you really think you could get away with that if you had an actual business, open to the public?
Putting up a sign of that sort is racist.
Forcing that man to go against his beliefs is discrimination against him. It is not a matter of bigotry. It is fundamentally a part of his religion, his basic belief system.
We can disagree with him, but we must also observe his right to disagree with us, or anyone else.
You would not go to a kosher deli to ask for a cheeseburger.
People who live kosher would choose which bakery to buy their wedding cake from according to what supports their belief system.
So should that man be able to live according to his religious values and rules.
He is not trying to harm anyone. He is simply following what his heart tells him is correct according his beliefs.
@Patty_Melt Denying equal rights to another group of people based on your religious beliefs is still called bigotry.
God loves you but he calls you to be celibate.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible.
Gay people need to pray God will deliver them.
If you don’t find the above sentiment shocking, then you’re inured to religiously based homophobia.
I’m not religiously based anything, but religion is not a new concept. You can’t force entire religions to go against their beliefs because you disagree.
Don’t point fingers at me. I am simply stating fact. There is nothing involving my personal feelings in what I said.
You don’t have to like it, but you do have to respect it.
So the bigot should find a job or position where there is no religious conflict.
Duh !
Being judgey? He just says please go somewhere else. He is the one getting all kinds of grief. He did not seek anybody out. It is not like an alley beating. He asked them to be cooperative enough to go elsewhere.
I have difficulty getting into cabs. Some are vans too difficult for my physical limitations. I just call the other company. I don’t call the one I have troubles with, then accuse them of discrimination against the handicap. I call the place which suits me, and leave the vans for groups, and people too big for cars.
Maybe the bigot should go somewhere else for cake, instead of targeting someone for their religion.
The answer to your question is __for attention__. They most likely are trying to become a plaintiff for attorneys looking to make trouble for someone.
A bigot is someone who is not tolerant of those who believe differently than they. There’s a bunch of them on this site. They are easy to find….........they are quick to call others bigots.
I just had to console my transgender child because he’s being bullied online, but I’m the bigot because I won’t tolerate this shit? I’m supposed to respect the beliefs of these transphobic bullies?
smfh
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Writing Standards)
I would not tolerate personal attack either, but that is exactly what people are doing to that baker.They are getting in HIS face, over HIS beliefs.
Harassment of your son is wrong, so is harassment of the baker, who just doesn’t want to defy his god for people who only want him to squirm.
Respect HAS to go both ways.
No-one’s wondering about case law as it does or does not apply to transgenders under sex discrimination legislation?
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
@Patty_Melt you do realized that discrimination against blacks was thought by many whites to be what their religion called for. Does that make it OK?
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Thanks guys!
The KKK claimed to be a Christian organization, too. From Wikipedia: ”...members of the KKK swear to uphold Christian morality.”
Yeah, not a comparison, radical group, attacking without provocation, sprung up in contemporary times, versus some guy following longheld beliefs just wanting to do his job without being harassed by somebody victimizing him to make a point.
You’re correct PM. This guy won his cake case because the State of Colorado didn’t handle the discrimination complain correctly regarding the baker’s right to freely practice his faith. The Supremes didn’t rule based on his right to not bake the cake….they ruled on the way Colorado handled the complaint. Stay tuned…................
It’s not personal. It’s his business. His business is licensed by the state. Therefore separation of church and state should be sledge hammered in. Full stop. If, as an employee they refused, then fine, but someone at that publicly open for trade business needs to make a cake. It’s a cake shop. If America keeps letting religion into every decision, especially when it is used as an excuse to discriminate, they are going to end up like 15th century England. Welcome to Gilead, folks.
Response moderated
It’s his craft and his life. Perhaps in your country they are separable but here, no. Separation of church and state is not part of the U. S. Constitution. Our government may not establish a religion and may not give deference to one religion over the other. That’s it. No one will condemn you for being ignorant about a foreign country’s law. Many Americans can’t grasp this either.
@Demosthenes (and @Dutchess_III) The “Curse of Ham” was long used by Christians…”
All Christians?? Or some Christians? Which Christians? Any percentages? How long ago? What part of the country/countries are/were more likely?
I, for one, have never heard of it.
@MollyMcGuire “Separation of church and state is not part of the U, S. Constitution.” Maybe not in those exact words…
@kritiper It was used by some in the United States during the pre-Civil War era to provide a Christian justification for slavery. But this kind of disingenuous “scripture mining” was not the only way that people defended racism, of course there were simply people who just believed that God created the races separately and gave them different abilities and qualities, and that some were naturally inferior to others.
The point was not to say that this is true Christian doctrine, but that people sincerely believed that their religion supported these things.
Religion was only a secondary back up. The main go to was “scientific proof” that dark skinned persons had a lesser developed brain, and could not fiction like “normal” humans. This included natives of the Americas, Australian aborigonal peoples, and many island peoples.
Such references can be found in encyclopedias right into twentieth century editions. That it was “scientifically” based gave credence to some to claim a religious objection, but religions differ in interpretation, so such rantings would have been quickly squashed were it not for self proclaimed experts who touted their so called scientific evidence.
Sexuality, however is covered in the Bible with some detail, and direct reference to “God’s will.”
So, attempting to compare the two is a non point. Slavery was reared out of greed. The baker is willingly turning away business to meet his religious beliefs.
@Patty_Melt It’s a fair point in that it is a situation in which people use religion to justify “discrimination” (whether this is really discrimination is the debatable part; I’ve already said that I don’t think it is, hence why I defended the baker in my other comments). Additionally, religion is often a secondary factor in anti-homosexual sentiment. Some people are simply grossed out by it and use their religion to support that. Not to mention when they bring up the scientific side of it, citing statistics about STDs and suicide rates. A prejudice often requires numerous areas of support to maintain it.
I agree that the support for racism in the Bible is flimsier than an opposition to homosexuality, but that’s not really the point. People’s beliefs don’t necessarily depend on strong textual evidence.
I believe for many, it does. Why else would so many people still cling to their gods, if not for a very strong emotional hold?
There are some who use their religion like a get out of jail free card, hoping that if there is a god they will get heaven when they die, but many believe that god himself wrote the Bible, albeit with the hands of humans.
I have known people who believed god would strike them down on the spot, for certain infractions.
I did housework for a rabbi whose wife gave me very detailed instructions as to doing certain dishes in one dishpan, and others in this one. Her whole kitchen was color coded as to what could touch milk, and what could touch other foods.
Religion takes a very strong hold on some people, and belittling that is just cruel, because right or wrong THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE.
@MollyMcGuire what on earth do you mean ” Separation of church and state is not part of the U. S. Constitution.” Of course it is. However, since the bakery is not a government organization I’m not sure how your comment applies.
The courts need to determine what is fair and just and right while balancing individual religious situations. In the end they finally get it right, although it can take hundreds of years.
@Patty_Melt I don’t generally believe that belittling people ever accomplishes anything other than making that person defensive and obscuring your point by ensuring that you will be seen as a jerk. My point is that religious beliefs can be used to justify awful things and we can’t simply leave that behavior unchecked and unquestioned because it’s claimed to be a religious belief. No, I don’t think that applies in this specific case (not producing a wedding cake is many steps away from say, honor killing), but I’m merely speaking against the slippery slope of “it’s a religious belief, therefore we should leave it alone”. That’s not always true, especially if religious beliefs are used to justify what should be unjustifiable behavior.
I agree with you there.
How does this person’s belief affect society as a whole?
I’ve mentioned in another thread about oddness living as a non-Mormon in a Mormon community. It gets doubly weird if you’re a Jew living in a Mormon community. When I was a child I remember hearing about someone who hired a caterer for a bar mitzvah. When the hors d’oeuvres arrived everything had pork on it.
Apparently it never occurred to either of them that the caterer had no concept of what Jewish dietary laws required. What a way to ruin a bar mitzvah!
@Dutchess_III You might want to actually read the Constitution. Listening is a much more important skill than talking.
Are there any permissible grounds for not serving a person, other than making a disturbance or disrupting the business in some way? Suppose that the baker is not on good terms with an ex-wife who wants a wedding cake for her new spouse. Must he be required to make it? Suppose that the baker is a rabid sports fan of a particular team. Must he be required to sell to someone wearing a sweatshirt for an opposing team?
@MollyMcGuire ”Separation of church and state” is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
She may have the idea that the courts aren’t allowed to rule on this issue because it involves religion or something. IDK.
Yes, it’s a quote from Mr. Jefferson. It is not in the constitution. Mr. Jefferson and others did not want America to have a state church the likes of England’s Church of England. They wanted people to worship in the way and through the religion of their own choice. There it is. That’s the context. If they had wanted it in the constitution, they would have included it. Over and over again the court reminds us that government and religious organizations can and do have many associations. Government money flows to Church school and religious mission. Just last year it was again affirmed.
Feel free to continue cutting and pasting.
It is a paraphrase of the first amendment. We all know that.
So…it would be better if I typed out the whole first amendment instead of copying and pasting?
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
