First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Justice Dept sides with Baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17
The justice department is right with this one. Just imagine if a gay couple had an Islamic bakery make a cake for them with a picture of Mohammad on it, this is blasphemy in Islam. If they didn't make the cake they would lose their business and if they made the cake they would be committing blasphemy against Mohammad.

You shouldn't be able to compel artists to make stuff they don't agree with. If one artist won't make it for you then you can find one that will.




The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.

The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.
671 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:

The supreme court ruled well with this one. Just imagine if a gay couple had an Islamic bakery make a cake for them with a picture of Mohammad on it, this is blasphemy in Islam. If they didn't make the cake they would lose their business and if they made the cake they would be committing blasphemy against Mohammad.

You shouldn't be able to compel artists to make stuff they don't agree with. If one artist won't make it for you then you can find one that will.




The Department of Justice on Thursday filed a brief on behalf of baker Jack Phillips, who was found to have violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to created a cake to celebrate the marriage of Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012. Phillips said he doesn’t create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it would violate his religious beliefs.

The government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.

“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.


NO- The SC did NOT side with the Baker yet. The DOJ sided with the Baker
671 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17
Since you seem to be lacking some information. The Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch while the Supreme Court is the head of the Judicial Branch.
15198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17
Good. It's his business. Let him run it how he wants to.
27138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17
To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.

23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/11/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.



I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.

Now if he banned them from buying a pre-made cake because they were gay that would be different.
27138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.



I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.

Now if he banned them from buying a pre-made cake because they were gay that would be different.


That is closer to what I am thinking, for now. I think generic cakes should not pose a problem. Of course, I have no experience with Wedding Cakes, and thus do not know if they are usually bought custom made, and if beforehand is an option in general, and to what extent.

I imagine they are highly custom made, quite large and expensive, and are not usually made beforehand due to said traits.

I do not believe in the concept of religious discrimination, because it is ridiculous to need religion to discriminate. Bigotry is an idea, and that justifies certain expressions of it like any other I imagine. I imagine if someone were told to make a Nazi cake, they would refuse, and I think they are perhaps in their right. However, I would admonish them from an outright denial of service, which I am wholly against.
Humms 
13201 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / CAN, ON
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/11/17
Maybe he thought his cake wouldn't be fabulous enough.

It may have been a little intimidating for him.

Understandable. Gays can be very anal about these kinds of things......................................

I'll just leave now oh look cake!
671 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.



I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.

Now if he banned them from buying a pre-made cake because they were gay that would be different.


If you look at his website, it states custom cakes are his specialty. I cannot find anywhere on the website where he offers premade wedding cakes. Thus, your point is offering up a non-existent option and saying if he had done that you would question it.
-OlE- 
1613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Online
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/11/17



That is closer to what I am thinking, for now. I think generic cakes should not pose a problem. Of course, I have no experience with Wedding Cakes, and thus do not know if they are usually bought custom made, and if beforehand is an option in general, and to what extent.

I imagine they are highly custom made, quite large and expensive, and are not usually made beforehand due to said traits.

I do not believe in the concept of religious discrimination, because it is ridiculous to need religion to discriminate. Bigotry is an idea, and that justifies certain expressions of it like any other I imagine. I imagine if someone were told to make a Nazi cake, they would refuse, and I think they are perhaps in their right. However, I would admonish them from an outright denial of service, which I am wholly against.


i think the baker even said he would be happy to bake them a cake or other baked goods, just not a wedding cake
i don't agree with his beliefs on the topic, frankly i think they are dumb, but he doesn't seem hateful about it at all
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17
Bad business practise but perfectly in their right or at least it should be. I can deny people service over the phone or in person for my mowing rounds based on anything I want. Is this a rational business choice? No, it's fucking stupid but it makes sense for other reasons that aren't money related.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.



I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.

Now if he banned them from buying a pre-made cake because they were gay that would be different.


That is closer to what I am thinking, for now. I think generic cakes should not pose a problem. Of course, I have no experience with Wedding Cakes, and thus do not know if they are usually bought custom made, and if beforehand is an option in general, and to what extent.

I imagine they are highly custom made, quite large and expensive, and are not usually made beforehand due to said traits.

I do not believe in the concept of religious discrimination, because it is ridiculous to need religion to discriminate. Bigotry is an idea, and that justifies certain expressions of it like any other I imagine. I imagine if someone were told to make a Nazi cake, they would refuse, and I think they are perhaps in their right. However, I would admonish them from an outright denial of service, which I am wholly against.


I knew one baker and everything was made to order. She just had a small business she ran out of her home. She would be ruined by this.

Really this gay couple could have gone to walmart and they would give them a pre-made one or make it how they want. They are doing this for vengeance and attention. They waited 2 years for vengance... idk if they are still together at this point.

I agree with the general concept of what you just said. I wouldn't make a NAZI cake because I don't like NAZI's and someone would spin that to say that I am a NAZI.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

Humms wrote:

Maybe he thought his cake wouldn't be fabulous enough.

It may have been a little intimidating for him.

Understandable. Gays can be very anal about these kinds of things......................................

I'll just leave now oh look cake!





tomas123987 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

To add more info, this appears it is less a refusal of service than a refusal an exact service, that being to design a customized cake concerning a gay couple, where otherwise he did not appear to discriminate by refusal of service and entry. This makes the case a much more complicated to me on what to believe.

I normally hold by that laws should be consistent, but this may not violate the consistency of hanging a "no blacks sign". Not sure. My factual information may be wrong.


It seems Thomas' claims check out. It is one of the departments making up the Federal Branch, to which president Trump is the head of.



I look at this the same as trying to commission a devout Christian to make a Satan cake for a satanic wedding. The Christian shouldn't be compelled to forcibly make the cake when it violates his beliefs. It's just wrong.

Now if he banned them from buying a pre-made cake because they were gay that would be different.


If you look at his website, it states custom cakes are his specialty. I cannot find anywhere on the website where he offers premade wedding cakes. Thus, your point is offering up a non-existent option and saying if he had done that you would question it.


Go to Walmart, Kroger, Piggly Wiggly, Dairy Queen, Target, Marsh, Meijer, or any other place with cakes to get a pre-made one instead of waiting to sue this guy for 2 years while waiting on their cake.
27138 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

-OlE- wrote:




That is closer to what I am thinking, for now. I think generic cakes should not pose a problem. Of course, I have no experience with Wedding Cakes, and thus do not know if they are usually bought custom made, and if beforehand is an option in general, and to what extent.

I imagine they are highly custom made, quite large and expensive, and are not usually made beforehand due to said traits.

I do not believe in the concept of religious discrimination, because it is ridiculous to need religion to discriminate. Bigotry is an idea, and that justifies certain expressions of it like any other I imagine. I imagine if someone were told to make a Nazi cake, they would refuse, and I think they are perhaps in their right. However, I would admonish them from an outright denial of service, which I am wholly against.


i think the baker even said he would be happy to bake them a cake or other baked goods, just not a wedding cake
i don't agree with his beliefs on the topic, frankly i think they are dumb, but he doesn't seem hateful about it at all


I think there is an inherent discrimination, no kidding, but I would not dehumanize him for it, call him a nazi, or anything like that. To reference another case, I believe there was a freelance photographer for hire who refuse the same thing, and after mulling it over, I mainly sided that since he himself was he business, and that since he had no place of business, and was still very much an individual, that he was well within his right.

It seems he himself may have been a single individual running the entire place, with the concept tying in closely to artistic expression and all that.

I had to look up the case under my guise that it was an outright denial of service, but it appeared much complex, and I hope people would give it more thought. Wedding cakes are hard.
-OlE- 
1613 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Nebraska
Online
Posted 9/9/17 , edited 9/10/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:

Bad business practise but perfectly in their right or at least it should be. I can deny people service over the phone or in person for my mowing rounds based on anything I want. Is this a rational business choice? No, it's fucking stupid but it makes sense for other reasons that aren't money related.


idk man i think there is a crowd out there who will love this guy for "taking a stand." of course that might not help much if those people don't live in his community and buy his products lol
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.