There is not a single scripture anywhere that says: "Thou shalt not provide
products or services to sinners". Jesus DID say: "Do unto others as you
would have them do unto you." He also said: "Judge not lest ye be
judged by the same measure".Any claim of "religious
conscience" in serving "sinners" (i.e. LGBT couples), therefore, is
nothing but bigotry.
@RanchHandIt should not be news that many Christians consider any
sexual expression outside of a traditional marriage to be sin. Many Christians
also consider same sex marriage in the same category.If I were a
land lord I would not want to rent housing to a couple living in sin. I would
feel like I was helping them sin.Denying service is probably not the
right solution. I would inform the customer that I would provide them with a
wedding cake, but the profits would be donated to groups fighting same sex
marriage.1. The so called law would not be broken.2. The
customer would take their business elsewhere.3. There would be no law
@ RanchHandAll businesses in the country have the right to refuse
service to anyone, especially if it would violate personal religious views to do
so. If the government were to force someone to do this, it would violate the
rights listed in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
No thanks Ranch,I'd rather not have a gay cake.Oregon and
other states have their laws and, unfortunately, these new "Gay Rights"
seem to make liberal judges think it's okay for them to ignore the older
laws, even their old constitutions, in favor of what's popular at the
If the business owners feel the law violates the State Constitution, they need
to sue the state - not refuse to follow the law.
@The Rock;"Denying service is probably not the right solution. I
would inform the customer that I would provide them with a wedding cake, but the
profits would be donated to groups fighting same sex marriage."I
doubt they'd go elsewhere, but you'd be out the cost of the
service/product provided. Not particularly good business sense. You should get
to know some gay couples, you would probably like them.
@Mr Normal"I'd rather not have a gay cake."I
didn't know cakes had sexual orientations...
I wonder if these "Christian" business owners also ask straight couples
if they have had pre-marital sex before baking them a cake. Being as religious
as they are, I'm sure that's a lifestyle they wouldn't agree
with. They should also ask about lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Heck, they
might as well just post a 10 Commandments checklist to screen potential
@ AvenueDo they have the right to say who can and can't sit at
their lunch counters?
@ Ranch HandIt isn't, in my mind, about liking them or not. It
also isn't about if it is the best way to handle it. To me, those saying
they will not provide the service is about them not wanting to suggest in any
way that they agree with or support the actions. That is 100% about religious
freedom. If it were me, I am not sure what I would do, but I
completely respect business owner's rights to not provide service. I would
move from any state that forced me to violate my beliefs.
Rock, I love that idea! I think I'd more likely go shop
somewhere if I knew a portion of the proceeds were going to be donated to such a
worthy cause, such as protecting families!
For those of you who side with the bakery, would it also be okay for them to ask
couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex, and then refuse to serve them if
Our constitution has a bill of rights. We honor the constitution which gives
religious liberty.Let us honor our military dead heroes who gave their
life so that we can have our civilian lives and pursuing our lives, liberties
and happiness's with our conscience.Our constitution was created for
a religious people. Any other people will not honor this constitution which is
based on our Judeao Christian founding fathers desire for religion to control
the masses NOT government. The US is for self reliant citizens and God fearing
people. Socialists and government dependency is not what the founding fathers
had in mind when the constitution was written. JFK said it the people should be
giving back to their country not asking their country for a handout.
So much for American freedom. A business should have the freedom to serve whom
they want whether you agree with it or not.
NewAgeMormon,"For those of you who side with the bakery, would
it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex,
and then refuse to serve them if they had?"The bakery is baking
wedding cakes. If a couple has come, regardless of whether they have had
pre-marital sex or not, if they are requesting a wedding cake, then the bakery
is helping them celebrate their wedding. Their wedding is not a sin, even if
they've had premarital sex. The bakery would not be baking a
"premarital sex celebration cake". Its a wedding cake. Sorry, I know you wanted so hard to make a good point there, but it
doesn't hold up. The wedding cake is to celebrate the wedding.
" Now the two parties must undergo a state-ordered "conciliation"
process to reach a settlement?"This is an easy fix,
"I'll agree to bake you a cake and you agree not to get
married,"Like I said, easy, peezy.
New Age Mormon,"For those of you who side with the bakery, would
it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex,
and then refuse to serve them if they had?"That would make sense
if the couple was coming in for a cake to celebrate their pre-marital sex, but
most likely couples are coming in for a wedding cake. Even if a couple did have
pre-marital sex, the wedding cake is to celebrate the wedding, which between a
man and a woman, is not a sin.Good try.
"The New Civil Rights Movement website reported that Sweet Cakes wasn't
the only business to feel the reverberations of the discrimination complaint.
The LGBT community threatened to boycott any company that did business with
Sweet Melissa."Now that's just mean spirited and vicious.
Agree to disagree, but don't try to destroy the livelihood of the bakers or
of the suppliers that had no involvement with the disputed transaction.
Just bake the cake and take their money.
"What makes you think they [Mormons] could be forced to marry a gay
couple?"-RanchHand, Oct 2013Call me crazy, but
forcing others to do everything else for you doesn't help your case.
...And so instead of just taking their business and purse (or wallet?) somewhere
else, they decide to sue the baker. This sounds just spiteful. Just like the
rest of the radical SSM activists. They do not fight for "tolerance"
since they show none. They only fight for "their way or the highway." If
I do not like the way a business conducts itself, I just go somewhere else. It
is the right of that business to be jerks if they want (not that the bakers are,
I'm not saying that), but to sue them for it? Now if a business ripped
someone off, that is grounds for a lawsuit and action by the government. I hope
the Supreme Court will eventually get involved. The First Amendment is being
attacked in so many ways.
George Orwell noted cynically "All animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal."Today, we have the gay rights activists demanding
their "special" equality and will terrorize any who dare stand up to
it.Maybe they can force the bakers to make a cake. But the bakers
may just have a bad day and not make a very good one, and then they will
probably get sued again.Disgusting.
U.S. Supreme Court has been there and done that:"When followers
of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the
limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are
not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in
that activity." United States v Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him
from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State
is free to regulate." Employ. Div v Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990)Like Masterpiece Bakery in Colorado, this is plain-vanilla enforcement of a
state anti-discrimination statute by a state agency. If you are an
Oregon resident or business owner and disagree with the outcome, work to change
the law to remove sexual orientation as a protected class. Likewise for
Colorado. Or move to a state like Utah where this sort of protection is simply
not provided to LGBT consumers. Just don't kid yourself or
others that the U.S. Constitution will exonerate a OR or CO business breaking
these laws. It won't.
No problem. Allow all businesses to discriminate against any group if they
first, register their religious exemption and which group(s) they'd like to
not serve when they apply for their business license. Second, clearly post it on
the front of their establishment and on their website. (No gays served, no
blacks served, no mormons served, whatever) With this, gays could avoid the
embarrassment of being turned away without service and I could avoid supporting
a business model that I don't agree with. Let the market take care of it
from there. I have faith in the good people of Utah and believe that they
wouldn't support discrimination at large. Problem solved.
"So much for American freedom. A business should have the freedom to serve
whom they want whether you agree with it or not." That is a stunning
statement, worf. Do you really believe a business shouldn't serve Blacks,
Hispanics, Irish, or Chinese? I thought we'd gotten past that.
Isn't interesting that a business would be punished for trying to uphold
the state law of gay marriage not being legal or recognized in Oregon and
perpetuating or aiding and abetting illegal activity of their clients blatant
disrespect of State law. Just a thought.
This baker didn't refuse service because they were homosexual. She refused
to make a cake for a ceremony. It was the ceremony she discriminated against.
That is legal. Ceremonies don't have non-discrimination rights. I have no
doubt she would have baked them a birthday cake (unless she is Jehovah Witness,
they don't believe in celebrating birthdays). In fact, for
those of us who believe marriage is a religious union between a man and a woman,
SSM is mocking our religion. Should a homosexual baker be required
to bake for a rally mocking homosexuals?
It sounds like the Kleins are being discriminated against.
Moderatea better question is:do you think feminist bookstores
should be forced to sell porn?kosher delis should be forced to sell
bacon?the Utah pride center should be forced to stock ex-gay literature?
The Constitution will not solve all your problems, neither will the law suit.
Should we force a Jewish Deli to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve alcohol?
Forcing ANYONE to go against their moral convictions for a business deal is
silly and against our rights as Americans. If the tables were turned and
someone forced a LGBT business to make a cake or take pictures of an
"anti-gay rally" many on the other side would begin screaming about
rights. Somehow in our country if you are a Christian with morals and values it
equates to hate-mongering....I don't get it! What is often left off of
this story is this company offered to make a "birthday cake" but refused
to put items on it with anything regarding marriage. The lesbian couple did
this just to make a point at the expense of someone who did not agree with their
The issue here is not denying service to people whose morals you don't
agree with. The article plainly states that the gay couple were already
customers of this bakery, so the bakery must have been selling them products in
the past. The issue here is that the bakery did not want to participate in a
gay marriage ceremony. By baking a cake specifically for the wedding, the
owners of the bakery must have felt that they would have been taking part in and
contributing to a ceremony that is against their religious beliefs. Certainly
someone who believes gay marriage to be against their religion should not be
forced to participate in the ceremony themselves. Why did the gay couple not
just go to another bakery for their cake? Why would they even want someone to
bake it for them who did not want to do so. Their tactics of the LBGT activists
in this instance are nothing but bullying, plain and simple.
For the LDS commenters who disagree with the Oregon court's decision,
whatever happened to "We believe in . . . obeying, honoring, and sustaining
the law"? (12th article of faith) Does it only apply when one is fighting
illegal immigrants? Does it say you can pick and choose which law to obey,
honor, and sustain? Does it allow for civil disobedience? Does it make an
exception for laws that offend one's religious sensibilties?When the law says a commercial baker can't refuse to bake a wedding cake
for a gay couple, why isn't that a law that should be obeyed, honored, and
Does this cake company also refuse to bake cakes for women getting married who
have divorced? That is also forbidden in the bible.
Why didn't the couple just go somewhere else? Were their feelings hurt? Is
there no other bakery in town? No, they just want to make a big stink and cause
hurt to those who disagree with their sexual predilections. It's very
typical of this group who want everyone to accept them, but are intolerant
towards those with differing opinions. I think a business should be able
to decide what clientele they wish to serve (within reason).
Badgerbadger.If your comment was directed at my previous post.
Fine, business should post (no gay weddings serviced, no inter-racial weddings
serviced, no mormon weddings serviced, whatever) Same solution and I suspect,
same result. Business should not be allowed to hide their bigotry and only
bring it out when their victims are present. Knowledge is power. Let the market
I like the placard I saw on the wall of a shoe repair shop in Ogden some years
back—"WE AIM TO PLEASE — IF IT TAKES EVERY PENNY
YOU'VE GOT!"Like these bakers, I do custom work too.
I'd be happy to cater most anyone! Even if the freakin' cake cost them
"All businesses in the country have the right to refuse service to anyone,
especially if it would violate personal religious views to do so." -
Avenue"So much for American freedom. A business should have the
freedom to serve whom they want whether you agree with it or not." - WorfSorry, but both of you are wrong. Why? Because under those terms a
business owner could refuse service for any reason to anyone simply by saying,
"It violates my religious beliefs."If you're serving
the "public" you can't deny service to someone just because you
believe it violates your religious beliefs. Doing so, violates both state and
federal laws as Stephen Daedalus has so aptly shown (see his posting above).It's a simplistic in nature, but what the law boils down to is if
you provide a service or product for one person publicly, then you must do the
same for all.The way to get around the law would be to serve only an
exclusive clientele. One that is not open to the public. But to avoid running
afoul of the law, you better be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
"Should we force a Jewish Deli to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve
alcohol?" - trueconservativeThat's a false argument. Jewish
and Muslim Delis don't serve pork or alcohol. If they did, then yes, they
would have to serve everyone who asked for pork or alcohol (minors excluded in
the case of alcohol). Why? Because they are an establishment that is open to the
public."This baker didn't refuse service because they were
homosexual. She refused to make a cake for a ceremony. It was the ceremony she
discriminated against. That is legal. Ceremonies don't have
non-discrimination rights." - BadgerbadgerAnother bad argument.
Ceremonies don't have rights as you stated, but the gay couple does. And
they were the ones who were asking that a cake be baked for them. So, it's
their rights (as members of the public which the baker was serving) that were
violated under the law.Please read Stephen Daedalus' post
(above) and you'll see that the courts have already ruled against
discrimination on religious grounds, by those who choose to engage in commercial
activities i.e., ones that serve the public at large.
The anti-constitutionalist religious groups in America are being served notice
that their bigotry and discrimination is illegal under the constitution. The
anti's must understand that no amount of religious rationalization makes
their position right or legal in America.
The issue does not seem to be refusing to bake them a cake because from the
articles I have read the couple had purchased cakes from them before. The refusal came about when they requested that the baker utilize her artistic
talent to provide them with a very distinctive cake for their wedding. And while
it is one thing to deliver a cake with plain design it is a different situation
when you use your talents to provide a "signature cake".
Let me get this right , the lgbt community want to boycott anyone or any company
that does business withe the bakery? Isn't that the same as one person
sins and they are wroth with the whole congregation? Where does it stop? The
gas company that provides gas for trucks, the farmers that provide wheat for
flour, the power company for power... And the list goes on. It kind of puts
new meaning on the words let them eat cake
Easy peasy. The bakery needs to graciously accept their order, bake them a
delicious cake, and inform them all proceeds from that order will go as a
donation towards an organization dedicated to preserving traditional marriage.
Win win. The gays get their cake ( and a chance to prove that they as well
believe freedom of expression is a two way street) and the baker gets to put
some money toward a cause they support.So riddle me this- if in this
scenario the lesbians decide to withdraw their order, would they then be
sanctioned for violating equal treatment laws? I mean they deprived a hard
working business profit based on their belief system.
Continuing on Christopher B's comments, if they did decide not to service a
couple because they had sexual relations before marriage, that is in fact their
right. Businesses in the United States are private, not state, entities.
It's seldom in a business's best interest to be terribly picky about
customers, but they do hold the innate right not to serve a given person for
whatever reason, no less than you or I have in not admitting any given person
into our homes at their own whim if we don't want them there.When people tell me that those trying to change marriage are the
"victims", that we're the "bullies", or that changing
marriage "doesn't affect us", this and many similar incidents come
to mind, and serve as a grave discredit to the efforts of those who genuinely
think they're striving for "equality" or "rights".
@trueconservative and @counter intelligence: "Should we force a Jewish Deli
to serve pork? Or a Muslim Deli to serve alcohol?" "do you think
feminist bookstores should be forced to sell porn?"Those
examples aren't analogous to what happened in this case. The bakery
wasn't asked to make and sell a product they don't normally sell.The business in question was asked to provide the same product to a
lesbian couple as they had provided to countless heterosexual couples. They
refused on the basis of the customers' identity. If I run a
coffee shop I can't put up a sign that says "No Mormons" or "No
Irish Need Apply." The idea that they object to the wedding as
an activity not the fact that its gay people in the wedding is a distinction
without a difference.
The radical wing of the gay rights movement has proven time and time again to be
ultimately vengeful. One need look no further than the example of the Church of
England for refusing to marry a gay couple. Many moderate gays thought this
would never happen. Well, take a second look.
The Oregon (and CO) statute cannot force any business to sell products/services
they don't already or want to sell. However it -can- penalize
the business for refusing to sell the same products/services it routinely sells
the general public to members of defined protected classes. The shirtless,
shoeless, or obnoxious are not protected classes, nor is KKK. Religion is
however, so under these laws, a Mormon couple cannot be refused a wedding-style
cake for their sealing ceremony, on any basis, including the business
owner's feelings about LDS.In cake example, the literal message
or decoration requested by anyone (even a protected class) can be rejected on
1st Amend grounds in certain circumstances, but not a generic request. For
example, LGBT couple asking for 'flowers' on cake is fine, but a
request for a quote like "Jesus is okay with the gay" may be refused.
...and thus we see how same sex marriage, once again, violates the right of
conscience and religious freedom.
We now live in a country where the government forces consumers to buy products
that they specify, and forces business to create and sell those same products
whether or not either party is interested in doing so. Refusal to follow the new
government dictations results significant financial penalties, forced
'counseling' or inevitably, jail time for those who refuse.Whether it is government-institute health care plans, or privately produced
wedding services it is the same. We have now entered a new era of tyrannical
invasion of personal agency which is far more dangerous than what the NSA is
doing with our phone records. Those who cry "Pro Choice"
when it comes to abortion, are those that leave no choice at all in the
remainder of matters.
I would not eat a cake baked by my enemy.
I agree that the government should not have anything to do with this, seeing as
how their decision not to bake the cake is based solely off of religious
beliefs. This is not discrimination, they are trying to live their religion
which is based on the bible which clearly states that homosexuality is a sin. It
is domination of the government and going against our constitution to force them
to do something that they do not feel comfortable with.For those
thinking the bakers are in the wrong, please, to support your argument, give me
only three simple examples that illustrate why it is okay for the government or
popular/trendy opinion to force someone to do something that they are
uncomfortable with....I agree, there are none! To do so
would be abuse!It is pathetic that they are attacked for their beliefs and
right to run their business as they see fit.For those that might
find themselves in a similar situation at some point in time, my advice is to
charge triple or more for the service, and let them fork out or move along.Save yourself the assault of the easily offended and hipsters.
It's against the law for this couple to marry in Oregon . So there's
no need for a "wedding" cake in the first place!And why are
the courts there taking on the expense of this case when it's not even
legal? Because of pressure from the lesbian and gay community to make a social
statement. They look like they are bullying businesses.If I were
the bakery owners, and I was being "tested" or threatened I
wouldn't provide the service either.On the other hand, if
someone came in to my place of business and placed an order without incident, I
would fill their order and gladly take their payment.
In response to Techpubs I was reminded of an incident that occurred many years
ago. I was working in a law office and a surprise birthday party was given to
an attorney where only part of the firm were invited. The cake that was served
was the shape of a nude woman correct in every way. Everyone laughed, although
some seemed nervous. I felt it very offensive and demeaning. I have often
wondered about the baker and bakery that made this cake. Did they feel they had
to make this cake because the order came from a very large and powerful law
firm? Had upper management known about this cake being served in their firm
during business hours, what would have been their response? Just saying - maybe
it was the design of the cake, not the cake itself that the bakers were opposed
to. I believe that makes it a game changer. What if someone asked for a cake
decorated in a way that was demeaning to the Jewish community or a cake that was
racially slurred against African Americans?
This is a Commerce case - not an "Anti-Discrimination Case". Money is
going to exchange hands for a "Product" or "Service". In
Commerce, the Buyer has a choice of many Sellers. They can freely purchase from
whatever Seller is willing to offer them a product/service at a price and
quality they can afford. Money does not discriminate. The Lesbian couple - if
this goes to Arbitration, should be FORCED to buy ALL their future baked goods
from only Melissa's Bakery if Melissa is FORCED to sell to them - and
Melissa should be able to charge them AS MUCH AS SHE WANTS for price, and add or
remove whatever ingredients she may decide, and the Lesbian couple should then
be Obligated to pay without any claim of poor quality or unsatisfactory customer
service. Does this make any sense? This case is not about
Anti-Discrimination and should not be treated as such. Price, Quality, and
Service gets my money.
Imagine the comments on this if the baker had refused to serve Mormons.
If the bakery were asked to make a wedding cake of the same type that they
typically sell to the public, then to refuse because the customers are gay or
lesbian would be a violation of Oregon's anti-discrimination law. But what if the couple had requested a cake with a design that the
bakery does not normally do, such as decorating it with figures of a same sex
couple? Could the bakery decline on the grounds that such a cake is not within
their product line ("Sorry, we don't make that kind of cake")? In
hindsight, the bakery may have had more success with that line of argument, than
to base the decision on the sexual orientation of the customers. Or
could the bakery charge a premium rate, or even a prohibitively high rate, say
$100,000, for accepting an order for a specialty item ("We'd be happy
to make that kind of cake, but it will cost you extra--a lot extra")? No
law prohibits what an enterprise may charge for a custom job.Hindsight teaches that there may be more than one way to skin a cat.
Stephen Daedalus, after sifting through 3 pages of largely apples and oranges
comparisons, thank you sir for a comment that spells out very eloquently the
circumstances and makes perfect sense. You got a "Like" from me.
From DN article "The LGBT community threatened to boycott any company that
did business with Sweet Melissa."The power of the purse,
combined with publicity and the threat that brings with it, has wonderful powers
of motivation for business owners who don’t want to be known as
anti-equality," wrote Jean Ann Esselink. "The LGBT community should
remember the tactics used against Melissa’s Sweet Cakes when faced with
the many other acts of blatant discrimination that are sure to throw up
roadblocks as LGBT equality bumps along in fits and starts across
America."Another example where the gay community believes they
can bully people going against their concience - how sad!Just a
thought - I wonder what would happen if the heterosexual community decided to
boycott gay businesses in Oregon?
What happens when the majority in this state start to be refused services by
business owners who feel that serving Mormons would violate their religious
sensibilities or conscience? I'll take a wild
guess.........They will switch roles quickly and play the victim with aplomb (as
they are known to do when it serves their interests and egos).
Freedom of religion must not be allowed to extend to business operation.
Business should not be allowed to use the economic power of their business to
further their religion, so far as the business activities are concerned.
Freedom of religion for the individual requires that the freedom of religion of
organizations be limited.Individuals, including business operations
owners, can indicate their preference of belief in all the ways permitted by
law. On the private property of their body and their buildings and facilities
of business. However they cannot/should not perform certain actions effecting
other people that are contrary to civil law even though their religion says they
can. Business operations that feel the need to discriminate
contrary to civil law, can display their preference of customers within the
confines of their private area. Upon seeing such a posting, real Americans
should respect the feelings of the owner and avoid trampling on the feelings of
the owner. However in the end, the civil law must take precedence. The LGBT would do better for their cause of being excepted into our society by
making friends rather than enemies
lindaj72: Again, the bakers of your "lady" cake did not have to make
that cake. It was a decision on their part to do so. BUT, having
made that cake for some customers, they could not refuse to make that same cake
for another customer.The bakery in Oregon was making wedding cakes
for some of their customers but would not do so for these customers. It is a subtile difference, but I think most people can understand the
Would a gay baker be required to make a cake for a Nazi who favors concentration
camps for gays?
All animals are equal, but gay animals are more equal than you--slight misquoting of Orwell. See, the LGBT lobby is insisting
they have more rights. What happens when, as is inevitable, Oregon bankrupts
this couple and takes their house. The next gay person out to make a statement
will walk into some Christian business and demand that they be served, no matter
what, in any way. And for a nominal price. If you refuse, you are
discriminating. After all, Obama has shown that you cannot have a valid reason
to object to his policies--it's all racist. And if you refuse anything to
a gay, it's "religious bias!" Even if the reality is that they
want a million dollar service for 5 bucks, that's not how it will be
portrayed. And you'll spend ten million fighting the state run
discrimination board that is the gay lobby enforcement arm.
AGAIN... it all comes down to gays trying to force their morality on the rest of
society. The article plainly states that the gay couple were customers at the
bakery for years, and were not denied service as gay people. It was only when
they wanted to force the business to become part of their gay wedding, that a
line was drawn. In other words, most gays are in favor of denying citizens their
religious freedoms, and forcing them to participate in something against their
The time will come where the churches, and the Mormon in top of the list, will
be forced to marry a gay couple. The only solution that I can see to
this problem is that the business becomes a club where the owner chooses the
right to select the members, like any other club. Then the business will provide
the service to whoever he/she wants to serve. Sounds crazy but if
gays complain people push an agenda against them nevertheless they are the real
pushers of their own political agenda.
Next Churches will be forced to marry gay couples. This is a slippery slope.
So much for freedom.
Often times in modern American history law suits on issues that some thought
morally unacceptable by religious standards, educated the public and took the
lead on generating acceptance far beyond any of the major churches did.For example Brown vs Board of Education or the Supreme Courts decision that
allowed interracial marriages.The idea that people should just lay
down and accept discrimination by a business or otherwise is unconscionable.
I'm glad these people took a stand and made people take notice that bigotry
and discrimination is a real issue and is being done every day in this country
under the guise of morality or religious freedom. A little more than ironic
that it is the opposite of the meaning of being Christian.
Religion is not a defense for discrimination. Thank God!
This is out of common sense.You just might as well hang up a sign
"Here is a Jew, don't buy anything" of " Here is a Christian,
don't buy anything".(As well as here is an anti-gay bussiness)That actually happened in old Nazy Germany, and they got grilled later on, as
you all know.
Flat out, I think all that needs to happen is a couple of people be denied
service and told it's specifically because they're straight, or
religious. Things will change.
I remember signs stating "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and older
signs aimed at ethnic/religious groups with "No Japs" posted in
business windows. The no shirt signs were against the "hippies" as a
"health issue" and the others were plain ugly bigotry. Recently, a
person with a service dog was taken off a plane although service animals are
supposed to be allowed. Supposedly, the issue was that the large dog (obviously
well trained) could not fit in the tiny area beneath the seat--which is
ridiculous. Did the community of people that use service animals, including
seeing-eye dogs, sue the airline and vociferously call for boycotting any
suppliers to the airline? No. The incident was filmed and posted on youtube
and public censure flooded the airline. I don't think we have the
full story on this. Maybe the cake would have been offensive if done as
ordered. Maybe the bakery owners couldn't think in the thick of the moment
to say "We cannot be an accessory to you breaking the law--I'm
sorry." The offer of a plainer cake was refused, and ugliness commenced.
Was that the whole intent--making trouble? I think so.
Dear Christopher B,The only thing that Jesus was recoded as saying
about marriage was that people who divorced for reasons other than infidelity
and later remarried were adulterous in remarriage. The Christian bakers should
be most concerned about making cakes for these adulterers condemned by the Lord.
Would you support the Christian baker’s refusal to provide services to
people remarrying?I look forward to your thoughtful reply,
Unless they are secretly going to marry me to someone at the ceremony when I
drop off the cake I think I will bake them a nice cake.
This is another egregious violation of individual freedom. People should have an
unrestricted right to operate their business in line with their religious
belief.It is doubly egregious since it is unclear why Oregon can
treat differently marriages from other relationships, but cake makers can. If
the state does not recognize same-sex relationships as marriages, why can it
compel individuals to do so?
Luckily we do not have to be able to cite scripture to have a religious right
that is protected by the constitution. Ranch Hands attempts to argue that these
people are religiously wrong misses the heart of religious freedom. The test of
religious freedom is allowing people to do things mandated by their religion
that you personally disagree with.
All of you claiming that the 1st Amendment rights of the bakery owners is being
violated are ignoring the elephant in the room: The 1st Amendment rights of
LGBT supporters to practice their religious beliefs and allow same-sex couples
is being violated - BY YOU.
@dmcvey, "Imagine the comments on this if the baker had refused to serve
Mormons."Most LDS people, along with most people from other
religions, would "turn the other cheek" and take their business
elsewhere. It seems to only be the LGBT community that resorts to lawsuits if
they don't get their way or if they get their feelings hurt.
Atl 134If a cake is made for a gay couple, or decorated indicating such,
then that would make it a gay cake, simple. Leave the baker alone, he has his
freedom to like or dislike as he chooses. This is America, at least it was
before it started to morally sink.
John Pack Lambert of Michigan says:"The test of religious
freedom is allowing people to do things mandated by their religion that you
personally disagree with."Like marrying the person of their
choice for instance? You oppose that, sir, which makes you a hypocrite.YGradFan says:"Most LDS people, along with most people
from other religions, would "turn the other cheek" and take their
business elsewhere."I doubt that. I sincerely doubt that.
If you open a business to the public it should serve the public. How does your
selling a cake for a gay wedding, which will happen whether you provide the
product or not, encourage behavior you consider immoral? Would you also refuse
to sell a birthday cake to someone who you suspect is gay? Does it make you an
accomplice? Is it immoral for a Mormon youth to work in a coffee shop? I drove
cab to support myself in college. I knew that at times I was transporting drug
dealers, prostitutes, pimps and johns. Did I feel like I was enabling those
activities. No! It was not my business to try and curtail immoral activities,
but provide a service. It was not my job to make moral choices for them. My
refusing to give those people a ride would have had no effect whatsoever as they
would get transportation from someone else.
I feel we should be careful in these laws that involve "dictates of
conscience." Where as I can see many businesses in Utah not serving a LGBT
customer, imagine the unintended consequences of such a law. What if a business
owner's conscience prevents him from doing business with lifestyles he/she
doesn't agree with, such as missionaries? "You want a cake
for your son's farewell/homecoming? I'm sorry, I don't agree with
that lifestyle."I also don't believe that a lawsuit will
settle anything in this matter. People will refuse to do business with a certain
portion of the population. People will go to other businesses. Each side will
feel discriminated against and bullied.
This is an ugly case where the religious beliefs of the owners have seeped into
their business. They should remain separate. If I own a grocery store, and I am
Mormon, is it against my religion to sell alcohol in my store? My religious
beliefs are that I shouldn't drink alcohol, but my business is selling
product. That in no way makes the statement that I support drinking alcohol, it
supports that people can choose to or to not drink. You can't
sell alcohol, and then if somebody that is Mormon comes in to buy the alcohol
(yes, it does happen) deny them service because you don't want to
contribute to their sinning. That is ludicrous. You can't likewise operate
a bacon stand, and refuse to sell bacon to a jew or Muslim. You also can't
make cakes, and refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple because you think they
shouldn't be getting married. It doesn't mean to support or even agree
with what they are doing. Your beliefs should not be moving in to your business
as far as refusing service because you feel like something is a sin.
@ NewAgeMormonThey didn't ask the couple. It was right there
in front of them that the cake was for a gay couple.There was no
screening process other than the couple themselves.
I am offended by the same sex couple who sued the bakery. Whatever happened to
religious freedom? I would not have been surprised had the bakery been owned and
operated by a muslim couple and it refused service that nothing would have come
of it. This is a blatant attack on Christians and their values and beliefs.
Perhaps it is time for all Christians to boycott every single business operated
and owned by gays?
These rulings are disturbing. I don't agree with those who would refuse to
serve anyone LGBT. Nonetheless, the court is, in a very real sense, compelling
private businesses to perform a service against their will.Similar
rulings were made against businesses who refused to serve non-whites in the
1960s. So the courts began recognizes "protected classes" of persons who
were discriminated upon because of their "status" ie: gender, race,
nationality.These cases seek to expand "status" to
categories which are defined by behaviors, not status.Protection of
behaviors is covered by the 1st Amendment...you know the one protecting free
exercise of religion. Status is covered by the Fourteenth.Can I
refuse service to a known Mormon because I disagree with their way of life and
think they are of the devil? Juggalos? Flipside, can a Mormon refuse service to
a LBGT because the Mormon disagrees with the way of life of a LBGT and think
they are of the devil? What about an anti-Mormon?Most disagree with
the fact that the lady refused the couple service. But I struggle with the logic
that she should be compelled to.
"Most disagree with the fact that the lady refused the couple service. But I
struggle with the logic that she should be compelled to."Keep in
mind that one does not have the right to run a business -- they have the
privilege. To earn the privilege to run a business you are compelled to follow
the rules which includes "serving everyone".It is just like
driving. For the privilege to drive a car, one is compelled to follow traffic
law. You don't like the traffic laws? Don't drive. You don't
like selling wedding cakes to gay couples? Get out of the cake business.
@NewAgeMormon"For those of you who side with the bakery, would
it also be okay for them to ask couples if they had engaged in pre-marital sex,
and then refuse to serve them if they had?"---------The
cake was a symbol of a celebration of an event - a gay wedding. Had the couple
asked for a cake with obvious descriptions of pre-marital sex on the cake then
it would be OK to refuse them. Asking them whether they had actually engaged in
such an act is irrelevant - it is what the cake stands for.
Brama (Bull)Seems like you just can't square with the concept that we
live in America, where people are free to make their own decisions and choices.
It doesn't matter what logic the baker in Oregon is using, he has Freedom
to do what he feels. The gay couple can go elsewhere for their cake, have a gay
friend bake it or a willing participant. The stores also have Betty Crocker pre
mixed cakes for sale.
Ranch Said"All of you claiming that the 1st Amendment rights of the bakery
owners is being violated are ignoring the elephant in the room: The 1st
Amendment rights of LGBT supporters to practice their religious beliefs and
allow same-sex couples is being violated - BY YOU."I would
disagree. The LGBT couple has every right to go someplace else. the words of
those who side with the baker in no way impinge upon the "rights" of the
gay couple or any other LGBT couple. I am, in general, a supporter of LGBT
rights, but I find this couples desire to force the owners to sell them a cake
more offensive than the store owners position. Why would the couple even want a
cake from a business that doesn't want their money? They are using thier
marriage to make a political statement and I see their putting that political
statement first and foremost, incongrous with their desisre to have their
relationship accepted by society as a whole. The brouhaha they have fostered
does the LGBT cause more harm than good because it turns people who would
othersie be on the fence against them.
So let me understand:The gays believe the constitution gives them
the power to force or compel another's personal service or labor.Isn't that servitude? or slavery? even fascism?Where will it
end? I would rather we allow freedom, even if its disagreeable,
than allow the power to dictate to others.It's worse than
discrimination to force another to not bake a cake. Because you are compelling
personal labor and service, They not being denied a general service.The only "compromise", and only thing the baker need do to conform to
any equality law, is let the gay couple come in and buy any already made cake
in the store.Forcing the baker the make a special cake is slavery or
servitude, and that is unconstitutional.
Reading the commentary brought to mind the book, “All I really need to
know I learned in kindergarten.” And it occurred to me that public
accommodation laws are really just a more sophisticated version of what most, if
not all, of us were taught in our first years of schooling. “If you want
to bring a treat to class, make sure you bring enough for everyone.”
Because it isn’t nice to leave some people out, to unnecessarily hurt
someone’s feelings or humiliate them, no matter how much we dislike them.
If we want to treat only those we like, we can invite them to a private party at
our house. But in the classroom, the nice thing to do is to provide a treat for
everyone.I think the cries of “religious conscience” are
really just demands to be exempt from the rules of the classroom. It’s
saying, “I shouldn’t have to be nice to everyone because my religion
tells me so.”Not a very nice religion.
"Sometimes a cake is just a cake." --Counselor Deanna Troi (paraphrasing
Freud) to Lt. Cmdr. Data, Star Trek: TNG
The articles states: " Since refusing to bake a wedding cake for
a lesbian couple, protests by gay activists outside their Gresham, Ore., bakery
forced Aaron and Melissa Klein to move the business into their home while the
Christian couple awaited a ruling by state labor investigators"Deseret News, who are the Christian Couple? The bakers or the customers? Is it
possible that the four of them were Christians?A long time ago, I
read a book called "The Human Animal" it was a psychology book. The book
clearly expressed what we are seeing here. The dehumanization of those whom we
want to attack. "The Lesbian couple" on one side and Aaron and Melissa
Klein on the other side, but, they are humans they have names, also are like
most of the good people of Utah, they are Christians.Many LGBT are
Christians, many straight supporters of SSM are Christians, I don't know,
but I wouldn't be surprised if the Judge in the case is also Christian.Bigotry is Un-Christian. May be the Kleins are just misguided,
therefore, as a good Christian I would forgive tell them, "go an sin no
And yet Same Sex Marriage is illegal in Oregon. The law makes no sense.
WWJD?Ahhh, the dilemma for the faithful."The
Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman
“neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and
lesbians.” On the contrary, many Church leaders have spoken clearly about
the love and respect with which all people are to be treated. The
gospel of Jesus Christ is based on love, respect and agency. Mormons believe
that all humans have inherited strengths, weaknesses, challenges and blessings
and are invited to live, through the help and grace of God, the principles
revealed by Jesus Christ. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
maintains that “God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of
us with an innate and reverent acknowledgment of our shared human dignity. We
are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and
sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one
another.”(LDS org "Same Sex Attraction)
The FamilyA Proclamation to the World...marriage between a man
and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the
Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.All
human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each
is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has
a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual
premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.The family is
ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal
plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be
reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.
Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the
teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Cowboy DudeSAINT GEORGE, UTAnd yet Same Sex Marriage is
illegal in Oregon. The law makes no sense.-----------It
isn't illegal. It just is not recognized by the state. Big Difference!
@ J.ChangIronically, what you just said is why SSM is going to be
legalized. Your religion begins and ends with you....
Utah is headed this same direction via the proposed non-discrimination law that
is currently being looked at. There are ample laws that protect against
discrimination in housing, employment, and nearly everything else at the federal
level. There is no need for such a law at the state level. Pass it and we will
live to regret it. Guaranteed.
To attend or work a same sex wedding is to condone and support a same sex union.
And to profit from it. The bakers would have no trouble selling them any baked
good for any other reason or occassion in their lives. It has nothing to do with
not wanting to serve someone considered in a state of sin or not. It is just
about being asked to support and participate in a wedding their religious
beliefs do not allow them to participate. This was a bad decision by the courts.
If they refuse to sell them a donut on Sunday or batch of cupcakes for a
birthday I would agree with the courts. What is next, a judgement for a couple
from a church that refuses to wed the pair?
First -- as I understand it, they had shopped there before, just as the men in
WA had bought flowers for 9 years from the woman who turned them down. The
brides were acting perfectly reasonably, in a suburb of Portland (a very lesbian
town). How better to feel humiliated than to be turned down at one of your
favorite shops?Second -- the right has used this case to rant about
"forcing people to bake a cake". Actually, that would be involuntary
servitude. Since the discrimination was illegal in OR, kindly stop saying the
baker had a right to say no.Third -- from my observation of the
baker in TV interviews, I wonder how he spoke to them. Perhaps if he had asked
very nicely whether they would mind too much if he didn't want to do it,
they would have just gone elsewhere. Telling people they are not the right kind
of Christian (as has happened to me) is rude, at best.Fourth -- I
think some accomModation should be made for the religious, but it will be very
complicated to work it out fairly.