I liked the approach one commentor suggested.When a BLT person comes
in and wants a cake for their "marriage" the owner should tell them what
they think of gay "marriage" and what the bible says about
homosexuality. The owner can then explain that they will bake them
a cake and that the proceeds will be donated to a pro-traditional marriage
orgazniation.Then, bake their cake. When the person comes to pick
up the cake, remind them again what the bible teaches us about this and thank
them for donating to a pro-traditional marriage group!I applaud this
The SSM debate needs to stop comparing itself to civil rights, and start
comparing itself to the abortion issue. SSM is against moral and
religious values. Would you go ask the cake man to go perform an abortion for
you? How would you feel when he said no to that? The issues are morally
Bigotry is so ingrained and automatic, we shouldn't be surprised they
cannot see it in themselves.
This Associated Press article puts a human face on both sides of this issue -
something that is sadly missing from most of the stories I read. I suspect both
sides have become unwitting and unwilling pawns in a sometimes deadly game. It
would seem that helping people understand each other would be the highest
calling of anyone in public life. Sadly, its easier to get attention and
political power by appealing to peoples' fears than helping them see other
points of view.
Very good article. It is good to see a non-biased article that discusses both
sides with respect.
People who operate a business and choose to deny services to gay people are
bigots and should be subject to prosecution.
When you go with your loved one and your Mom to pick out a cake for your
wedding....You don't know the history of the baker.You
don't know the religion of the baker.You don't know that he may
have been a sinner and found God.You don't know he does not make
Halloween cakes or batchelor party cakes.You just know that you are
left out, unwanted, disapproved of, that your money has been refused, and you
were told you do not qualify.Perhaps you ought to have noticed the
cakes with the crosses,etc, but you consider yourself a Christian, and they did
not bother you.Preparing for the most important occasion of your
life -- something so good you could not have dreamed of it years ago, but that
everyone else in your family can have -- you have been told you are not
eligible.There was no sign in the window saying "No Gay
Weddings".You are in a State where it is illegal to discriminate
against GaysBut you are not good enough to buy a cake there, it
seems.How do you feel?
Civil rights legislation was written in broad terms that do not limit the scope
to what is reasonable. Therefore, it is easily subject to abusive use in
private social situations. Is refusal to treat someone with respect the same
thing as a physical assault? In the eyes of the law, there is no legal basis
for recognizing the obvious difference. Is refusing to rent to a gay couple the
same thing as suggesting they take their one-time wedding cake request to
another bakery, while offering to provide pastries that celebrate any other
family or personal event? The law can't see the difference.As
legal precedents are established over trivial disputes, our laws have been
corrupted. We will mourn that these days have come.
This is a free county, the baker has the right to do what he wants, leave the
guy alone. I am sure there are gay bakers out there. If not, then the grocery
store has Betty Crocker.
Well done on this article that encourages the reader to empathize with
individuals on both sides of the debate. If all articles represented both sides
of the story so well, I think it would eventually change the nature of voters,
and therefore the nature of politics.
The real issue is that this should not be a civil rights issue. The baker has
the right to turn away customers. The free market system would be the real
leverage. Forcing the cake maker to serve the customer takes away his right as
a business owner. If another cake maker advertised that he would make cakes for
any marriage, then he would corner the market. The first baker would lose a
portion of the market. This is not the same as separate bathrooms and drinking
fountains. The baker has his constitutional right to uphold his beliefs. Would
we force a store owner to sell alcohol or tobacco if he felt those were products
he didn't want to sell?Forcing the baker to make a cake against
his will is not the way to handle it. The court ruling is wrong.
"The affair has made them realize, Mullins said, that 'as a minority,
you don't have the option to opt out of the culture wars.'"========================Every last one of us is a minority of one.
When our most deeply held beliefs are disallowed by a society that can't
find room for compromise, then our freedoms of thought and expression are
denied.So, what happens when one minority has views that are
contradictory with another? In a case like this, where one person feels
constrained from participating in something the person believes is a violation
of their structure of ethics is then compelled to participate regardless, it
seems to be a obvious violation of their freedom of thought and expression. For
surely, such a freedom includes NOT expressing and/or NOT thinking in some
way.Yet, as shown by the judges ruling and a few comments here, some
people feel completely justified , obligated in fact, in punishing others for
simply NOT thinking and/or NOT expressing themselves in a way the judges deem
"proper."How will the freedom of thought and expression
survive? The same way it always has, by fighting for them!
Why couldn't this gay couple just find another bakery that would bake their
wedding cake rather than seek to take away the Phillp's Bakery's
freedom of religion? It seems that the Gay Community wants others to be tolerate
of their lifestyle, but won't extend the same coutesy to those with
differing beliefs. This isn't about diversity or equality, it's about
conformity and power. If the straight and Christian side of society won't
conform to the Gay agenda, then they'll try to destroy your way of life.
What's next, Christian's will be forced to accept Pedophile's who
want to marry a child, or people into bestiality who want to marry their dog?
We, as a nation, need to realize that there will be times when people's
belief's will collide with one another, and that's when moral courage
needs to take a stand for what is right.
The United States having violated the golden rule in times past overtly through
its discrimination is not now free to discriminate with impunity. A business
owner may feel it is their right to discriminate against a certain class of
people because those other people are not acting in accordance with the business
owners religion.Given this nations history that is not reason
enough. The business owner still can however choose to sell their business and
go into another line of work. When a people abuse freedom they lose parts of
their freedom . This is a part of our our inheritance which consists of both
good and bad.
Re sigma blueFor the same reason if stores or resturants
discriminated against you for what ever reason, you wouldn't put up with it
either.Besides where in the Bible does it justify not selling to gay
people? Are you aware that the Bible teaches that women who are divorced are
not supposed to remarry? I doubt this cake place refuses to serve women who
have been divorced. And if not it really isn't about following religion
@SigmaBlue. Gays our trying to destroy your way of life? You mean like
preventing people who are in love from getting married.I think
Christians need to stop thinking they are victims when they are the ones trying
to force their way of life on everybody. Especially in Utah.
@waikiki_dave"People who operate a business and choose to deny
services to gay people are bigots and should be subject to prosecution."So we are going to fight discrimination with discrimination?Denying services to the gay couple may have hurt their feelings but it caused
no harm.This is about revenge. They want to hurt anyone who disagrees with
them. This will lead to persecution of all people who take their Christian
Baking a cake has nothing to do with the bakers religious beliefs. Would it be
appropriate for a Mormon waiter to refuse to serve a customer who ordered a
beer? Do your job and stop trying to force the rest of the world to live by
your definition of morality. @ SigmaBlueComparing
same-sex couples to pedophilia and beastiality is very offensive, nor is it
accurate. Children and animals can't legally sign a marriage license, so
there is no need to worry about that becoming a reality. Not only that, but
both of those thing constitute a significant amount of harm. Prove that
same-sex marriage is detrimental to society, causes harm to straight couples, or
disadvantages children and you will make a lot of money in the legal world. But
so far, everybody who has tried to do so has failed.
I agree with Sampson! Why does tolerance seem to be a one way road with this
issue? If you choose to live a LGTB life style, that's your choice. But
don't FORCE me as a traditional-marriage-believer to agree with it or
I wonder what the authors would think if suddenly the majority of stores no
longer accepted Christian customers. Would you feel ok if grocery stores, gas
stations, and banks refused to do business with Christians? Why do you (if you
do) think discrimination is ok?
The baker doesn't bake cakes for Halloween? Uh oh! Soon, he'll be sued
by Wiccans and Satanists!
I think the two dudes wanting to get a wedding cake were obviously sincere, but
in light of how personal Phillips tries to make his cakes it would have put him
in a very awkward position. Marriage is a religious institution. To say,
"Hey you can modify it any way you like and I'll endorse it" seems
to be compromising in principle. What if someone who asked him to make a
bachelor party cake tried to take the angle, "Hey, you're
discriminating"? Or people started to ask for "divorce cakes."
Ultimately, I'm glad the guys were reasonable and got the cake made
somewhere else. Good on them.
@ChrisB:"When a BLT person comes in and wants a cake for their
"marriage" the owner should tell them what they think of gay
"marriage" and what the bible says about homosexuality. "And if a person comes in to buy a cake and appears overweight, the owner
should tell them what he thinks about fat people and what the bible says about
gluttony. (Hint: it says a lot more about gluttony than about sexual behavior.)
Similarly, if the couple are not of the same faith, he ought to tell them what
he and the bible say about marrying outside one's faith. Same thing if
either of them has been divorced without biblical grounds. Or is there only one
"sin" of which he disapproves because refusing on any other grounds
would cut into his profits too much?
When a person goes into business s/he gets a business license. I presume this
baker had a business license.To get a business license, you have to
agree to obey the laws in place and established in the future concerning the
operation of a business. I presume this baker, did just that to get his
license.One of the laws that the baker agreed to follow was a state
law that forbids refusal of service based on sexual orientation. By refusing to
bake the Mullins/Craig wedding cake, the baker broke that law -- a law he had
previously agreed to obey.The judge rightly found that the baker
broke the law, and rightly held him liable for not doing what he agreed to do
when he got his business license.This had nothing to do with
religion. If it did, the baker would refuse to bake cakes for all classes of
sinners (molesters, abusers thieves, liars, etc.) but he will bake wedding cakes
for all of THEM. He just wants to pick the class of sinner for whom he will not
provide service. That is based on prejudice and discrimination, not religion.
Morality has become, and is becoming, more and more politicized globally. Once
being an individual choice of agency how one chooses to live, morality is
evolving into socio-political agendas that have now formed the basis of a new
discrimination toward those who wish to live their lives under traditional
Judeo-Christian morals. Christ taught to love everybody, but never taught to
rationalize, support, condone or tolerate sinful behavior.Elder
Bruce D. Porter said March 5, 2010,"When tolerance is so
inflated out of all proportions, it means the death of virtue, for the essence
of morality is to draw clear distinctions between right and wrong. All virtue
requires saying no firmly and courageously to all that is morally
bankrupt."The global socio-progressive movement is blurring the
essence of morality, turning that which is right to wrong, and that which is
wrong to right. It is advancing it's progressive moral agenda via
hypocritical intolerance and bigotry. Those who wish to continue to lives their
lives as Christ taught must do so "firmly and courageously" as this man
in in Colorado and others elsewhere have done.
Another "you must accept us" story. The gay couple wants everyone to
accept them. They don't care about how the baker feels. He doesn't
have rights. Why are we as a society making this so complicated?
The baker respectfully refused. It was obvious why he did so. He has his own
beliefs and the gay couple have theirs. They don't match. They never wil.
If both sides are courteous about choosing to disagree, that ought to be
sufficient.Who funds the ACLU, anyway?
Now if it had been a black woman and a white man wanting a wedding cake, and it
was against this man's religion--would all you commenters still see it the
same way?Suppose the baker refused to do a cake when you told him it
was a Temple wedding...because he considers the LDS religion to be
unacceptable..would you still feel the same way?Suppose it was a
wedding cake for a second marriage and the baker refused because his religion
does not allow for divorce--anybody out there who thinks this would be OK?
I'm curious and don't know the answer to this but am open to
suggestions. When one opens a business and utilizes public roads, sidewalks,
utilities, airwaves, etc and offers a service to the general public in exchange
for monetary compensation does he incur a duty to provide that service equally
to all comers? If gay members of the public helped pay equally for the
infrastructure from which the business profits do they have the right to demand
equal service?Any thoughts?
Balanced article that highlights the feelings from both sides. But still, it
cannot convince me of the baker's viewpoint to refuse service to a gay
couple. Compare: some people consider Mormons as belonging to a cult and condemn
their practices as against Scriptures. Would we find it acceptable that a
business refuses to service a Mormon couple?
@The ScientistYou keep using that word. I do not thing it means what you
think it means.To help you out, I have included the definition:
Bigot-stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that
differs from one's own. This baker is willing to do other types
of cakes for gay people. So it isn't the fact they are gay which is the
issue. It is that he doesn't do cakes for certain types of events. Not
the same thing.@Bob KThat there is another baker a couple
doors down and I can just let it wash off my back.
When we start seeing stories about people denied goods or services for no other
reason than because they are not gay or are christian, then we will have
achieved a place where this guys' actions were correct.
@SigmaBlue “Moral courage needs to take a stand for what is
right.”Living in Utah, you’re pretty much insulated from
the bigotry and, in some cases, outright hate that some Evangelicals feel toward
Mormons. And they feel just as passionately as you do that their cause is
“right”. Many of them also feel that way about blacks--that their
God ordained the separation of the races. But--unless you like living in a
society where people can discriminate at will, personal feelings have to be put
aside and people need to be treated civilly. This is why we have laws
prohibiting discrimination against people because of their race or religion.
Nobody is forcing somebody to make Halloween cakes or sell alcohol if they have
religious objections. The point of the plaintiffs is that it’s
discriminatory to agree to make wedding cakes for some people and not others.
The Scientist said"Bigotry is so ingrained and automatic, we
shouldn't be surprised they cannot see it in themselves."Interesting you can see this in others-- and not see it in your own ingrained
and automatic bigotry against the LDS Church, as your many comments on these
comment boards attest.
What if an African American baker were asked to make a cake for a Ku Klux Klan
rally? Should he be fined and punished for refusing to do so?
He doesn't make cakes for bachelor parties or halloween parties either.
Should he go to jail for that also?
So, applying conservative logic consistently here, until this baker's
random "I found Jesus" moment while driving his car in his mid-twenties,
he was living a life contrary to the Bible so he should have been denied service
in restaurants, hotels, gas stations, grocery stores, etc... etc....This is a great breakthrough. Now, instead of a greeter at a supermarket, we
can have interrogators asking "Hi, welcome to "blank". Are you a
fornicator?" "Did you have that child out of wedlock?" "Have
you coveted today?" Joking aside, the fact that conservatives
don't apply this standard across the board but rather have chosen to
approve of it when applied against LGBT folks is undeniable proof positive of
Let the market make the difference. If you don't want to make cakes for
homosexual weddings that is your prerogative as a businessman. Many cake makers
have no qualms about that, use them. They get your business the other bakery
does not. A new bakery business might see serving homosexual couples as a
business opportunity and may want to specialize and emphasis that in their
advertising. Since homosexuality is becoming more acceptable in our society that
very likely is or will be happening. Homosexuals, you don't need to crush
someone's business because of your sensitivity, take your business
elsewhere and build up that business. That is the most productive reprisal
against a business model that offends you.
A gay wedding is an event. Like a meeting of the GLAAD is an event. Like a
meeting of the National Organization of Marriage is an event. Like a talk by
Mother Teresa is an event. Like a KKK cross burning is an event.This
baker did not discriminate against gays. He's served them in the past.
Just like the florist in Oregon who would not do flower arrangements for a gay
wedding. She had been making floral arrangements for the potential customer for
years.If it is discrimination to boycott a gay wedding, then you
will have to say that getting married is a immutable property of gay people.
Just like contributing to Prop 8 is an immutable property of some religious
people.One should be able to boycott an event.
People (you know who you are in this thread) who are quick to claim bigotry on
this issue are being judgmental and would be considered hypocritical ignorami.
It should not be a problem to refuse to bake someone a cake for whatever reason.
Let's not forget that religion was used not so long ago in the south as an
excuse to discriminate against black Americans. Remember the picture of those
"good Christians", who threw angry epithets at children trying to go to
school. As Christians, let's not forget the message of Jesus, of love and
tolerance. Let he who is without sin...cast the first stone.
U-tar "the baker has the right to do what he wants"A business
owner cannot do what he wants. Running a business is privilege, not a right.
Just like driving a car is a privilege, you need a license and must obey the
It is deeply unjust to force people to violate their deeply held beliefs by
putting a gun to their heads. And the gun is not just metaphorical. If the baker
were to resist you can be sure that actual guns would be quick to arrive on the
scene. To see the injustice consider if the roles were reversed. Would it be
just to put a gun to the heads of the gay couple to force them to hand over
their money to a Christian baker? The right thing to do is to put
the guns away and leave both parties (those selling money and those selling
goods) to make free exchanges with whom they please.
waikiki_dave wrote: "People who operate a business and choose to deny
services to gay people are bigots and should be subject to prosecution."People who patronize businesses and deny their money to ________ (fill
in the blank Christian, devil worshipping, gay, pancake-eating) business owners
are bigots and should be subject to prosecution. Obviously that
doesn't make sense. *Nobody* should be prosecuted for electing to not
participate in a free exchange. We shouldn't single out business owners for
special restrictions just because they operate from a fixed location.
The use of the word bigot is out of control. By definition bigotry is judging
somebody without reason. This baker didn't say he hated anybody. He
didn't refuse to bake the cake because he hated them, but because he felt
that gay marriage violated his belief system. If he baked a cake that mocked
their marriage, maybe bigotry. If he sent his friends out to beat them up,
bigotry. But politely stating that it doesn't fall within his belief
system, not bigotry. Think if things were the other way around. Suppose a gay
ran a bakery. Should he be compelled to make a cake for an anti-gay rally? I
think not. Everybody is entitled to a belief system. You are not infringing on
somebody else's beliefs when you refuse to participate in a cause. You are
definitely infringing on somebody else's beliefs when you force them to
participate in a cause. Just find another bakery. If you want to make a
difference, tell all your friends not to use that bakery. But don't force
somebody to do something that violates their belief system.
Two For FlinchingSalt Lake City, UT"Baking a cake has nothing to
do with the bakers religious beliefs. Would it be appropriate for a Mormon
waiter to refuse to serve a customer who ordered a beer? Do your job and stop
trying to force the rest of the world to live by your definition of
morality."Precisely, stop trying to force everyone to accept and
tolerate the homosexual lifestyle. This baker sincerely felt compelled by his
religious convictions which prevent him from using his talents and business to
celebrate what he believes is an immoral and sinful act. By
assassinating the baker's character, attacking his business and his
personal religious convictions, these two homosexuals have in reality violated
his First Amendment right to exercise his religious convictions.There are many things we all disagree with in life. But to take that
disagreement to such a level of intolerance as to destroy one's life,
business and character is the uttermost of intolerance. The feelings of these
two may have been hurt, yet there are other bakeries that would have been happy
to bake a cake for them.
Could the baker refuse to decorate a cake celebrating Hitler, swastikas and all?
Waikiki Dave,But people who boycott a business, author, etc., based
on the religous beliefs of the owners are not bigots? If they guy does not make
halloween cakes or bachelor party cakes either, it sounds like he is simply
living his religion. It is not discrimination base on sexual orientation - it is
discrimination based on an event. I find it stunning that you suggest criminal
prosecution for people living their religion. Would you like to go back to the
days of criminal prosecution for people following their sexual orientation?
Intolerance, pure and simple. We can find many soft ways to tell a black man to
go to the balcony or use separate drinking fountains,We can carry on Jim
Crow laws for decades, so that we might allow ourselves the freedom to
discriminate as much as we legally can. We can use Orwellian doublespeak and
call bigotry "religious freedom" but in the end, intolerance reveals
itself and good people will not let it stand. Such shall be the case here, when
all is said and done.
It is refreshing to see an article in DN which provides both sides of the story.
DN readers would be well-served if there were personal stories from our LGBT
community and their families--such as the Montgomery family from central CA.If "Christian" bakers were screening all their customers for
egregious sins, there would at least be a veneer of sincerity. Charlie Craig's mom, Deborah Munn wrote an article, " It Was Never
About the Cake."..."I just sat there in disbelief. All of
the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that
bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiancee. What should have been
a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion.The
decision that Judge Spencer made has renewed my hope that no other couple in
Colorado will face discrimination by a business owner based on their sexual
orientation. It was never about the cake. It was about my son being treated like
a lesser person."
I would also point out:Same-sex marriage is banned in CO. The gay
couple was married in MA and were simply having a reception in CO. Essentially,
the baker was refusing to provide a cake for a party, simply because the couple
was gay. It was another baker in CO who, after reading about the
couple being refused a cake, reached out and provided their cake.Which baker more resembles what we are taught in the New Testament?
I don't see this as a religious freedom issue; it seems to be more an issue
about freedom of association. There is this unreasonable fear that florists or
cake decorators who sell their services to a gay wedding somehow instantly
become advocates for gay marriage. I would think a reasonable business owner
would be more concerned about providing the best service to all customers
regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe that the real fear
is that once these business owners start serving gay marriages, they will
discover the authentic love those couples share. Their opposition to same-sex
marriage may fade, and they believe that will lead them down an imaginary
slippery slope to do other things that violate their moral convictions. Instead,
they will learn more unconditional love and realize that gay people who want to
marry aren't the immoral, selfish people that they have been led to
believe. Perhaps we need to all think about what the scriptures mean
when they tell us that God is "no respecter of persons." He didn't
lead anyone to repentance by denying them service. He blessed them and then
commanded them to go and sin no more.
CONTINUED:Believe me, the cake decorator, florist, or photographer
does not compel anyone to repent by denying them their services. Such actions
instead lead to contention, and who have we been taught is the father of
contention?Being a respecter of persons mean that you make claims of
superiority over others. You believe that God loves some people over others.
That is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact, he tells us that showing
favoritism is a sin in James 2: 9. God's greatest commandment
is love. We do not do that by denying others--even sinners--the services that we
would provide every other customer. So, who is with me on extending more love to
all of God's children?
@cjb"I doubt this cake place refuses to serve women who have been
divorced. And if not it really isn't about following religion
anyway."Wrong comparison. He did not refuse them service. We
know he refuses to make cakes celebrating Halloween. In your example, he might
feel similarly about a cake celebrating divorce.@Two for
Flinching"Would it be appropriate for a Mormon waiter to refuse to
serve a customer who ordered a beer?"It certainly would be
appropriate. If he is not the owner his choice may require him to decide whether
to remain employed there, but it is still his choice. Carried to its ridiculous
end, your logic suggests that every business that meets the qualifications for a
liquor license should be required to obtain one and be compelled to serve beer
to anyone who asks for it. That is of course not what you meant.A
better comparison would be a bookstore that sells magazines, but refuses to sell
what it deems obscene or offensive material. I would not expect to find Islamic
Horizons magazine at Eichlers Judaica bookstore nor should they be compelled to
Bob K writes: "But you are not good enough to buy a cake there, it seems.How do you feel?"Someone asks you to do something against your
deepest held beliefs. The issue is not the persons themselves. You would gladly
offer your services if it were anything else. They may even be your good
friends. But this one thing you cannot do. It doesn't seem like a big deal
to others, but it has profound significance to you. The people in your nation
don't care. They hold a gun to your head. How do you feel?It's going to be a pretty miserable society if we whip out the guns
whenever people hold opinions we don't agree with or don't give us the
affirmation we think we deserve.
Two for Flinching writes: "Do your job and stop trying to force the rest of
the world to live by your definition of morality."Can you see
the irony in that statement? You obviously think it is moral to force people to
violate deeply held beliefs and insist on forcing "the rest of the world to
live by your definition of morality".
So the baker does not have the same rights as the gay couple? The baker is
expected to violate his religious beliefs because those beliefs do not conform
with the "New Normal" of society? Are the baker's values and
beliefs less important than the gay couple? In the eyes of the law it
certainly appears that way. How unfortunate that religious beliefs are no
longer considered part of our civil rights/liberties.How incredibly ironic
that people are being penalized for some of the very principles this country was
A well written article that actually shows both sides to increase understanding
instead of pushing an agenda.But here is the problem: Phillips the
baker wants to improve people's lives "because that's what Christ
does." I have read the every word of the Gospels several times. I can't
find a place where Jesus refused to help or heal a person because he disagreed
with their "lifestyle." In fact, helping those who were different got
them to listen.Phillips could have baked the cake and wished them
good fortune. The couple would have a positive impression of a born-again
Christian, perhaps being willing to hear the message of the life change Phillips
expressed in this story. Instead he caused pain and made sure he would never be
heard. The Bible gives believers rules to follow in their own lives.
It also tells how believers are to treat others. What part of "do unto
others" turns into "I won't bake a cake to add to your happiness on
your special day"?
logicguy"What if an African American baker were asked to make a
cake for a Ku Klux Klan rally?" @arand"He
doesn't make cakes for bachelor parties or halloween parties either. Should
he go to jail for that also?"You're both drawing false
equivalencies. Unless a baker makes cakes for other events that are
specifically racist, he isn't discriminating by refusing to make them for a
Klan rally. Similarly, since he doesn't make any cakes for bachelor or
Halloween parties regardless of who the customer is, there's no comparison.
Here, he's refusing to make something that he routinely makes for other
customers. The difference lies in whether his refusal is based on an
innate aspect of the person ordering it -- race, religion, ethnicity,
nationality, or sexual orientation. When you're running a business that is
considered a place of public accommodation -- which includes retail bakers --
you don't have the right to refuse service for those reasons any more than
you can put up a sign saying "whites only" or "no Mormons".
@Spoc:"A better comparison would be a bookstore that sells magazines,
but refuses to sell what it deems obscene or offensive material. I would not
expect to find Islamic Horizons magazine at Eichlers Judaica bookstore nor
should they be compelled to sell it."Not a good comparison at
all. The baker isn't being asked to sell something that he doesn't
carry or stock. He's being asked to sell the same thing he sells to other
customers. The comparison would be if the bookstore told a customer that he
couldn't buy a wedding planning book because he's gay.
Okay. This one is really just too easy. But let's waste our time on it
anyway:How does Mr. Phillips feel about all the other mortal sins
mentioned in the Bible, such as eating shrimp, etc? And what did Christ himself
actually really say about homosexuality? .... (chirp...chirp...chirp...). Where
is Christ ever specifically mentioning homosexuality as a sin? Oh yeah, finally,
there's one...! No wait! That was Paul, wasn't it!? Hmmm... a
murderer (actually, by today's definition, more like an inquisition-type
genocidal maniac)! And also someone who claims to have had a vision, during a
time, when he felt just too awfully guilty about his having gone
"adrift". But, unfortunately, no chance for Christ to ever step in and
say: "Hold on, Paul, I never said that!" Christ was already gone at
that time. And if he were to come back, one wonders if Paul and the likes of Mr.
Phillips wouldn't advocate crucifying him a second time. Time to read the
bible for yourselves, people! And don't conveniently abandon reason, while
doing so. Because that also happens to be one of God's commandments.
This is NOT about selling something. The gay couple could have bought any cake
off the shelf.This is about forcing and compelling the baker's
personal labor and service in support of something that is against his religious
beliefs.A business license does not require him to give up his
constitutional rights. It just gives him license to operate a business and pay
>Truthseeker: "Which baker more resembles what we are taught in the New
Testament?"Obviously, the one who politely turned down the request to
bake the cake.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery"Matthew 5" But I
say unto you, That whosoever shall aput away his bwife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced committeth adultery."Does the baker also screen out
the adulterers and fornicators?If not, why not?
@RyfrenIf you truly believe in the bible, you should also believe in the
standing it has on homosexuality."If a man also lie with mankind, as
he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)
I was pleased to see an article that details many factors on both sides of this
issue. Although a romantic SS relationship is something that I cannot relate
to, I think that I would probably provide the SS couple with the cake. I would
also probably let them know that I do not agree with the concept of SS marriage,
but that I respect their feelings and beliefs just as I would expect them to
respect mine. This would likely promote friendship and communication that could
be beneficial to all parties involved. Friendship and the communication it leads
to often has amazing positive consequences.
It sounds like someone had think skin about this. The shop owner telling them no
on the cake was worse than being slurred in previous years? Seriously?
What about the Mormon employee working at Starbucks selling coffee to get
through school. Or the Muslim employee selling beer and tobacco at the Maverik?
It doesn't hurt their religious beliefs to sell those things, nor does it
hurt the religious beliefs of the baker selling the cake.
@ AZDZRTFOXDiscrimination and intolerance are NOT religious
convictions. Sorry. The baker is not celebrating anything. He is baking a
cake for people who are.@ SpocIt would not be
appropriate. If the restaurant that employs the waiter serves alcohol on the
menu, than the waiter is expected to do his job. He doesn't get to pick
and choose what he serves the customers. Same with the baker. He bakes and
sells cakes. He doesn't get to discriminate based on his personal
@ Samuel L.There is no irony. If you don't believe it's
right to be gay, than don't be gay. It's that simple. However, you
don't get to discriminate against people just because they are different
than you. It's wrong for a Christian to deny service to homosexual people;
likewise, it would be wrong for a homosexual business owner to deny service to
someone who is LDS.
@Two For FlinchingThat simply doesn't make sense. A person has the
right to lend their services as they please; they can not be compelled to
support something they choose not to. There is no basis by which to state that
they can't pick and choose who to serve.@Utefan60WHether
or not to consume alcohol or coffee are matters of personal covenant; they
people they serve are free to choose whether or not they do so. The purpose and
definition of marriage, however, are not up to preference or choice; it is a man
and a woman. It is an entirely different thing to reject lending business to an
event used to undermine this fact.
To: Jamescmeyer The covenants that people take are their own, as are their
opinions about marriage. In our fair state, "traditional marriage" in
the past included multiple wives. (Also in some parts of our State it is
practiced by thousands of follower) So really when you say something is
"traditional" we have to take it in context. I may not believe in Same
Sex marriages but that should not cause me to discriminate against anyone who
I have been with my partner 15 years. We didn't get the chance to marry
when things happened here in Utah. It is more important to me than it is my
partner. I guess that is how he handles it. We all handle the discrimination in
our own way! I wouldn't have done anything in this situation because I hate
fighting like that, but they had every right to stand up against discrimination.
In my opinion, it is a sad excuse to use our belief in Jesus Christ to treat
someone like they are garbage!I have always believed in God and in Jesus
Christ. It is sad that so many people push us off to the side! They take a few
scriptures to justify some really bad stuff! Anyway, I have spent years being
treated like I was against God! I never stopped believing in Him! I know that
Christ is fine with me! I am almost 50 years old! People don't think we
know anything about it! Come on! there is no reason God would treat us badly,
but there is a reason we are gay, and God knows that reason because He Made us!
@Jamescmeyer"A person has the right to lend their services as
they please; they can not be compelled to support something they choose not to.
There is no basis by which to state that they can't pick and choose who to
serve."------------------That's true up to a
certain point, but it's not an absolute. When a person gets a business
license, s/he AGREES to follow the law at the time the license is obtained and
any laws in the future that are passed dealing with the operation of a business.
One of those laws in all jurisdictions is a law against refusal of service or
other prejudicial/discriminatory acts against people in identified classes such
as, among others, age, race, sex, handicap and in some jurisdictions sexual
orientation. By obtaining a business license, the person waives the right to
discriminate or refuse any type of service otherwise available in the
marketplace to people in the protected classes. Any breach of that agreement is
actionable. One's personal beliefs, even those otherwise protected by the
First Amendment, become secondary because of the AGREEMENT inherent in the
business license to follow the law.
@JamescmeyerAdditional explanation -- I ran out of words my previous
post.When I spoke of the waiver the right to discriminate or refuse
any type of service otherwise available in the marketplace to people in the
protected classes, I was speaking of broad categories of "service available
in the marketplace". For example, if a baker bakes wedding cakes, s/he must
provide those cakes to the people in the protected classes. On the other hand,
if the baker does not provide bachelor party cakes or halloween cakes, etc., to
anyone, then the baker is not required to make an exception and provide a cake
not otherwise available from the bakier to those in the protected classes. Simply put -- if the business provides a given product to some people
then it cannot refuse to provide the product to someone in a protected class.
If the business does not, as part of its normal business operaiton, produce a
given product then the business is not required to produce it for anyone, member
of a protected class or not.
So claim this is a "deeply held religious issue."1 Peter
2:18 (ESV) Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to
the good and gentle but also to the unjust.Ephesians 6:5-6 (ESV)
Obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you
would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants
of Christ.1 Timothy 6:1 (ESV) Let all who are under a yoke as slaves
regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the
teaching may not be reviled. And what if you decide you don't
want to honor those you work for? The Bible has an answer for that, too:Luke 12:47 (ESV) And that servant who knew his master's will but
did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe
beating.So maybe not "sincere religious belief." Maybe just
What happened to the idea that businesses have the right to refuse service to
anyone for any reason? Jim and Bob can get another cake anywhere. They are not
harmed because Shelley Christian didn't want to sell them one of HERS. Who
cares? What happened to "live and let live". If it were public
accommodations or a grocery store I could empathize with the gay couple…
but the provider of the service is an artist, someone who puts himself or
herself into the creation, is different. Artistry, on some level, needs consent
by the artist. Artistry such as wedding cake making is not fundamental to life
and living as public accommodations are.
A local restaurant in my area is run by a Muslim couple and they don't
serve pork, and guess what, I am not offended since its is part of their
religious convictions which is why I go to the BBQ shop down the street. Just
because I like pork and its against their beliefs should I force them to serve a
product when I can find what I need at another location? One would presume that
the best way for homosexuals to get the products and services they want is to
support like minded companies. After all this flack, would anyone really want to
eat a cake made by someone who was forced to? The baker should make their cake
but decorate it with the image of a husband and wife, not a same-sex couple, or
just make a cake that doesn't taste good such as leaving out salt in the
recipe.The first rule in the military is to not annoy the people who
serve you your food. The same lesson should be applied here.
Dr Thom,Please read Furry 1993's posts. It will explain the
difference between you "forcing" a Muslim to sell pork and the baker who
bakes wedding cakes for everyone but gays. If your BBQ shop sells
their pork to everyone BUT a Muslim (because the BBQ shop does not believe that
Muslims should eat pork), they are going to be in trouble with the law, if the
Muslim brings a case. It is not up to the BBQ shop owners to decide how a
Muslim should live. That is between the Muslim and his God.