Gay Wedding Cakes

[creekster]

Oh sure. Cue the lawyer protecting his own!
Is there not a libertarian here that will confirm its core belief is to let people believe and do whatever they want, so long as other people aren’t harmed? Constitutional or not, that’s essentially what OG said.

The constitution is primarily intended to protect us from government, not to empower government to compel us in belief or action. That’s not libertarian, it’s American.

[Uncle Ted]

I wish I had listened (known) to the UT/Walter faction when I was in school and made a boatload of money before I was 30. I’m not sure what political party that falls under, but I endorse it.

I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.

Liar.

[BigPiney]

You must only have straight sons.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't what you are talking about, Art... Walter and I are both college dropouts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As were Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, Tiger, Lebron never even matriculated to college, etc, etc.

[smokymountainrain]

If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?

at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?

[Northwestcoug]

Twitter is abuzz right now about the lawyer for the state’s apparently terrible argument, and Kennedy’s sympathetic response towards the baker.

Swing, Justice Kennedy!

[cowboy]

at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?

Short answer-it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't want to work for someone else, they shouldn't be compelled to do work they don't want to unless it is a basic, necessary service.

[smokymountainrain]

Short answer-it shouldn't matter why someone doesn't want to work for someone else, they shouldn't be compelled to do work they don't want to unless it is a basic, necessary service.

in short, a business should be allowed to discriminate, even racially, as long as said business isn't providing a basic or necessary service?

[MartyFunkhouser]

This gets at what I think is the true underlying issue. Do they really care about having that specific baker bake them a cake? Probably not. Would you really want somebody who believes what you are doing violates their most deeply felt beliefs participating in your big day? I doubt it. This isn't about the cake. It's a challenge to the propriety of believing that gay marriage violates your religious beliefs.

That belief might be wrong and it might be right, but I don't like government force being used as the vehicle to fight that battle.

You are right it isn't about the cake. I think you are wrong about what it is about though. It is about finally establishing the level of protection that sexual orientation is going to get as a class. It isn't about religion. Although many religious people want to make this about religious freedom being under attack.

It isn't under attack. This has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whether or not a business owner can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. No one is going to challenge this guys right to believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

Why I liked the result of Obergefell, I really hate that decision. It was such a punt on actually establishing the level of scrutiny for sexual orientation. Hopefully, it will finally get addressed this time.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It's funny how people can't draw a distinction between offering housing, food, banking access, etc and baking a wedding cake.

[MartyFunkhouser]

If someone walks into a bakery and the baker says, "Sorry, we don't serve gays here" then I would agree that it is indistinguishable from racial discrimination and should be banned. But this baker in Colorado says that he has zero problem selling products to gay people and he does it all the time. Cakes, cookies, bread, etc. But when it comes to preparing a product specifically targeted at a gay marriage celebration, he has moral qualms with that.

Most folks here are on record as saying that baking a cake in such circumstances shouldn't violate someone's religious sensibilities. But the fact that you and I think it is dumb is irrelevant. This is arguably a rather narrow niche. Do you really feel comfortable employing the hand of government to force compulsion in this case? Should religious sensibilities not be given any weight in the public sphere? Are you comfortable with that balance (or lack thereof) going forward?

Here is where my cynicism comes out, the only reason he is willing to sell to gays and doesn't discriminate against them from coming into his store and buying something is because that is clearly settled as a public accommodation and he is being forced to do so. If he had a choice, I'm pretty sure he would refuse to sell anything to the gays. Sorry, I'm just not willing to give people seeking to restrict rights based on sexual orientation the benefit of the doubt here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

at one point in time the LDS church was against interracial marriages - if I'm an LDS cake baker in that era, asked to bake a cake for an interracial couple, you think religious sensibilities should be considered?

That is not really an answer to my question. Or maybe it is. You are essentially arguing that a religious objection should be ignored if it is an unpopular religious opinion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is where my cynicism comes out, the only reason he is willing to sell to gays and doesn't discriminate against them from coming into his store and buying something is because that is clearly settled as a public accommodation and he is being forced to do so. If he had a choice, I'm pretty sure he would refuse to sell anything to the gays. Sorry, I'm just not willing to give people seeking to restrict rights based on sexual orientation the benefit of the doubt here.

I doubt this logic would hold up in court, funk. Sorry.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I doubt this logic would hold up in court, funk. Sorry.

I agree it wouldn't hold up in court. This is a personal belief, not a legal argument.

Your belief in God wouldn't hold up in court either. It is a personal belief, not a legal argument.