quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
The baker also refuses to make Halloween, adult themed cakes, things he deems offensive or anything anti American. Like any other business he has had homosexual customers before. It’s not the case the media made it out to be.

But those refusals are not tied to prohibited categories, race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

So, for the sake of argument, if a devoutly Muslim follower member of ISIS walked in, and wanted a 'Death to Infadels' cake with a map of the US on fire...given their belief system is based on a 'religion', with most practitioners coming from a majority Middle Eastern race and the baker refused to bake the cake, it would be OK for the government to force him to do that in the guise of anti-discrimination legislation?

I have some friends that are in this LGBT community and they said the fellows had heard specifically that this baker was a very strict christian and he wouldn't be involved in all the special things these boys want to do. They INTENTIONALY targeted him for the reason to be the test case and maybe make some Cash as a settlement.
The people I know feel that is completely despicable. But they did a lot of planning on social media.

So I thought:
hello islamic Bake Shop?
I would like a cake with a Mohamed cartoon on it as well as bacon bits in the icing.
Oh Yes, You have to!


same thing.

Hmmmm!

About Michelangelo. It seems his bozzetto of Pietà has been found.

He might have baked it.

quote:

Originally posted by NK402:
Took me awhile to figure out they are both husbands and both wives. Previously, I just assumed they flipped for it .

Eeeeew!

quote:

Originally posted by NK402:
Took me awhile to figure out they are both husbands and both wives. Previously, I just assumed they flipped for it .

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
The baker also refuses to make Halloween, adult themed cakes, things he deems offensive or anything anti American. Like any other business he has had homosexual customers before. It’s not the case the media made it out to be.

But those refusals are not tied to prohibited categories, race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

Neither is his refusal to decorate the cake, he was willing to sell it to them so it has nothing to do with any protected class. You know much better than I do the legal aspects but they are focusing on his artistic choices on what he decides to decorate.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
Remember the case between a baker and a gay couple in Colorado? What the mass media reported was that the couple tried to buy a wedding cake from the baker in 2012 and were turned away because the baker said that same-sex marriages conflict with his religious beliefs.

Here's what really happened.

At the Supreme Court hearing on the case, it was noted that the baker refused to plan, design, and bake the special order cake requested by the gay couple. But that the baker told them that they could buy one off-the-rack.

When prodded by Justice Kennedy about the distinction, it is reported that the gays' counsel had a deer-in-the-headlights look. And they couldn't figure out the distinction.

"All the news fit to create."

Aren't there obvious parallels to "separate but equal" that they could have drawn? I don't have a horse in this race at all, and I think it's the obvious angle.

This case was BS when it began, and its BS today at the SCOTUS. What a country we live in where freedom has become nothing more than a buzzword used by politicians and lawyers when they want something.

This pair of nitwit homos could have gone to any number of other bakeries and had a cake made to their heart's content. But no, they went to this guy instead and drove the knife in deep, because he wouldn't embrace their abnormal lifestyle and cater to their whim. So in the world we live in today, a man puts everything on the line, his money, his time, and his life, to build his version of the American dream, and the government comes in and tells him what he can bake and who he can sell to (and before long I'm sure, how much he can charge said 'protected' class for it). Freedom? I think not. Nope, just complete and utter BS.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
I have some friends that are in this LGBT community and they said the fellows had heard specifically that this baker was a very strict christian and he wouldn't be involved in all the special things these boys want to do. They INTENTIONALY targeted him for the reason to be the test case and maybe make some Cash as a settlement.
The people I know feel that is completely despicable. But they did a lot of planning on social media.

So I thought:
hello islamic Bake Shop?
I would like a cake with a Mohamed cartoon on it as well as bacon bits in the icing.
Oh Yes, You have to!


same thing.

This is the same BS that took place with the Memories Pizza fiasco here in Indiana.

When the religious freedom law was enacted, a local news station sent out a reporterette "hunting" for a "reaction". Translation, creating a news story.

Well, guess what? They found the owner's daughter at Memories, asked her a few loaded questions, got a sound bite on camera, and then raced back to the South Bend studio with their scoop to post the story on the evening news. The story was presented as "first business to publicly deny same-sex service".

As of a result of this fraud by local news, the restaurant owners received numerous death threats and someone (a local lesbian high school coach and activist) even suggested burning the place down. That coach later lost her job.

Complete and utter BS.

The LGBT Mafia....

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
I'm not sure I see this as an issue. Outside of the shock value.

If they bought an off the shelf cake, it is just a generic cake. If he had to make them a specific cake, he would have to tailor to a gay couple and for a gay wedding. The difference is providing a cake, vs. providing one specifically made that would glorify gay marriage.

The law prohibits you from refusing to serve people on the basis of their being a member of a protected class.

The distinction Masterpiece Cakes is trying to make is that the government cannot force them to make a gay-themed wedding cake, because that would be compelled speech (i.e. the gov't is controlling/mandating your 1st amendment expression).

The fact that Masterpiece Cakes was willing to sell the gay couple an off-the-shelf cake proves that they did not discriminate against the gay couple by refusing to serve them.

It narrows the issue down to compelled speech (gov't forces you to say something you don't want to say) and removes the case from 14th Amendment territory (as a place of public accommodation, you cannot refuse service to someone based on their being a member of a protected class).

I read the transcript yesterday. I’m not sure if oral argument did anyone any good. There were mostly distinctions without differences, confused analogies, and almost no sure path through the maze.

It may have been the poorest example of high court advocacy I can recall.

I heard some excerpts of the argument. I agree - neither counsel was a shining star. Counsel for those supporting the baker was especially bad, but that reflects that lawyer's inadequacy more than the merits of the case.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:
The baker also refuses to make Halloween, adult themed cakes, things he deems offensive or anything anti American. Like any other business he has had homosexual customers before. It’s not the case the media made it out to be.

But those refusals are not tied to prohibited categories, race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.

Neither is his refusal to decorate the cake, he was willing to sell it to them so it has nothing to do with any protected class. You know much better than I do the legal aspects but they are focusing on his artistic choices on what he decides to decorate.

That is the whole nut of the problem. Is it more a freedom of expression case, or more an equal protection case. Those threads of the law are in tension in this case, and which should predominate is the question. It is one of those cases where deciding which question is the more important IS the decision.

One counsel really foundered when asked to distinguish between hypothetical "expressions" that should be protected and expressions that weren't worthy of protection. Or, another way to look at it is whether they were protected speech or not.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
I have some friends that are in this LGBT community and they said the fellows had heard specifically that this baker was a very strict christian and he wouldn't be involved in all the special things these boys want to do. They INTENTIONALY targeted him for the reason to be the test case and maybe make some Cash as a settlement.
The people I know feel that is completely despicable. But they did a lot of planning on social media.

No one gets involved in these over money. No one makes any money on these. These cases are all about principle and making new law. The people in these cases are all crusaders - on both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The people in these cases are all crusaders - on both sides.

Yeah, in the same sense Michael Brown and his daddy were crusaders. These 'people' simply want to stir the pot in a world that has somehow lost its damn mind when it comes to truth and appropriateness. People like me are the textbook definition of "live and let live" types. But when the LGBTYUIOZXMENQUPOL community trots out this BS and weaponizes it, they turn me from a quiet supporter to a loud and adamant opponent. These nitwits are overplaying their hand, and I wish the SCOTUS would simply offer them a backhand from the bench, along with a staunch warning to start acting like adults.

From what I read yesterday in our quite liberal paper, at the time of the incident, gay marriage was NOT yet legal in CO. The plaintiffs had already publicly announced their intentions to get married in MA, where it was legal. Nobody, surely, would want to transport a wedding cake from CO to MA. Buy it locally after you get there. So, it was a setup, rather like the bathroom bill crap we had here a while back in NC. I don't care what anybody does in private, but don't rub my nose in your mess.

My judgement of their future after reading the posts in this thread is that they are going down.

quote:

Originally posted by Watergoat:
From what I read yesterday in our quite liberal paper, at the time of the incident, gay marriage was NOT yet legal in CO. The plaintiffs had already publicly announced their intentions to get married in MA, where it was legal. Nobody, surely, would want to transport a wedding cake from CO to MA. Buy it locally after you get there. So, it was a setup, rather like the bathroom bill crap we had here a while back in NC. I don't care what anybody does in private, but don't rub my nose in your mess.

They were supposedly having the reception in CO.

quote:

Originally posted by mr kablammo:
My judgement of their future after reading the posts in this thread is that they are going down.

Who are you talking about?

quote:

Originally posted by mr kablammo:
My judgement of their future after reading the posts in this thread is that they are going down.

I see what you did here....

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

Makes you go hmmmmmm, agenda much?

For all we know, you and me are now classified as conspiracy theorists.

Welcome to the group!

I'll bring the whisky

I'll stop by the bakery and see if I can get a cake.