The Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” has won his case in the U.S Supreme Court. The court deemed that the baker had been subjected to an “anti-religious bias” by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Judges voted 7-2 that the commission had violated the baker’s rights. And, in a land where it is OK to talk about judicial bias, liberal (left wing) judges agreed.

However, other cases will be treated individually, and this one is not a precedent for anti-religious claims in general. In this case, one of the commissioners is believed to have disparaged religion.

Modern America, and it some times weird Christianity baffle me, along with the ever ready take any thing to court and this is such a case sell them the cake, even do a bad job if you must, but this?

The issue was sidelined and not addressed:

A baker refused to bake a cake. Period, so what? It should never matter at all what kind of cake it was and why because the baker should maintain his/her absolute freedom to abstain from providing a service in his private and unsubsidised bakery (of course there could be adverse commercial consequences, but that's besides the point).

The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favour of a
Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for
a gay couple for religious reasons.

The Court avoided a wider ruling on religious exemptions
for businesses and the baker was ordered to undergo
anti-discrimination training.

The Court did not address the wider principle of whether a
business can refuse to serve gay people saying this -
"must await further elaboration."

Now this case leaves open the question of whether anti-
discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in
future cases. And I'm sure there will be quite a few.

There are already some Doctors who will not prescribe birth control measures and a number of Chemists who will not sell them - on the grounds of religious belief.
It's legal and it's happening in Australia today.

I think it's fair enough for any business owner to legally determine who they will and will not sell to, but in order to avoid potential customer embarrassment they should be made to display prominent signage outside their place of business.

Signs like "Gays not welcome", like the "Whites Only" signs in previous times.

That will clearly show everyone who they are doing business with.

However, I suspect there are many who discriminate on personal grounds but hide behind the dodgey claim of religious belief.

Also, I would not like to eat a wedding cake that was made by somebody against their will.

Dear Foxy,

No court CAN address the question of "religious exemptions" because no earthly court has the capacity to determine which acts are religious and which acts are not.

On the one hand you have acts that are truly religious, but have no theoretical dogma or an established church to back them up, while on the other hand, you have acts that are falsely claimed to be religiously-based.

Same even for conscientious objectors: how could a human court possibly see into the genuineness or otherwise of one's conscience within one's inner heart of hearts?

Instead of this mission-impossible, the freedom of non-action should be respected as sacred. No one should ever be punished for refusing action and just staying in bed. Non-action harms no one (other perhaps than the abstainer him/herself).

---

Dear Rache,

I see that while I was writing to Foxy you already echoed my words.

Just one point: I would not use signs like "Gays not welcome" or "Whites Only" because they are likely to offend people. Instead I would place the sign: "Private business - all rights reserved to refuse admission or sale". For the same reason I would never specify why I deny a service (if I do), but just say politely: "sorry sir/madam, I cannot serve you at this time. Have you tried this other shop (providing name/directions)?".

---

The baker's case occurred in the USA: don't they have a clause against slavery in their constitution? Slavery consists of forcing one or more others to perform work for you against their will, thus where comes the need to invoke religious freedoms? what other protections do the baker's silly lawyers require?

I fail to see the religious connection between baking cakes and Jesus Christ! Is there a eleventh commandment; Thou shalt not bake cakes for poofters.

Where I get my hair cut, the hairdresser John is gay, always tells me about his partner Steven, so I assume Steven is male, John is male, I think he is, so you can put two and two together. Would it be reasonable the next time I go for a trim that John should refuse me a cut, because he's not sure if I'm not a redneck poofter basher, and he can't be too careful given his religious convictions in that regard.

We could extend this discrimination to the small town of Redneck where not only the baker is a member of the 'Church of the Holy Poofter Haters' so is the butcher and the candle stick maker, and everyone in between. Imagine John and Steve drive into town, firstly they try to fill up at the local servo, no petrol for poofters here the sign said. Draw a dollar out at the bank, no you can't! Feeling peckish, the boys want a burger from the Redneck Cafe, no we do not serve your types here, said Donna the waitress, who also plays the organ on Sunday nights at 'Poofter Haters' Church. This could go on all day, in fact for ever.

Rache, no people shouldn’t put up signs saying gays not welcome because that would be wrong in most cases. The baker in question was happy to serve his other goods to the gay couple, it was simply the wedding cake he objected to, not the gays themselves.
And most other businesses will say the same thing, they have no objection to providing service to gay people but in all conscience cannot promote a ceremony they don’t believe in.
As for people using religion to cover personal beliefs, well, are people no longer able to have deep personal beliefs?
In all these cases the free market would sort out the issue. The businesses who didn’t want to service gay weddings would lose that business, and others would gain it. Trying to force someone to do something that is truly objectionable to them hardly makes for good relations between groups.

Yuyutsu,

You're not much of a legal-type person, are you?

<<The baker's case occurred in the USA: don't they have a clause against slavery in their constitution?>>

Under no definition does forcing a baker to bake a cake they don't want to constitute slavery.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slavery
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slave

Get a grip.

Awkward question: should a Muslim baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ?

Surely anti-discriminations laws don't mean that somebody MUST do something they don't want to do ?

Joe

Dear Yuyutsu,

All a Court can do is go by the law.

If a person says that they're not able to do/or not do
because of their religious reasons - a court has to make
its decision according to the laws that exist at that time.
The court in Colorado avoided a wider ruling on
religious exemptions. They did not address the wider
principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay
people. This case left open the question of whether
anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious
beliefs in future cases.

What a pile of garbage. Don't you people have something more important to think about.

In the normal course of events, the baker or me or any one else should never know that a customer is a poofter as Paul so gently puts it. Hell no one should even know if a customer is stupid enough to be a greenie.

If some homosexual is stupid enough to go around shouting their homosexuality to the world, they are playing the part of some objectionable evangelist, & I & all others should have the right to ignore them, & infact ban them from a premises we control. Such people are always a pain to everyone else.

In this instance, unless specifically mentioned, or broadcast by some inscription on the cake, again the baker should have had no idea who was getting married to whom. At this stage the baker has the perfect right to decline the offered contract, whether offered by homo or heterosexual.

We should all be able to mix with homosexuals, & even greenies, without ever knowing it. If we can't the person in question is being objectionable, & not worthy of consideration.

"Under no definition does forcing a baker to bake a cake they don't want to constitute slavery."

Correct.

But it does constitute coerced speech, in violation of the First Amendment and any notions of freedom.

The bakers in question didn't decline to bake a cake for the SSM couple. They declined to bake a cake that had wording that ran contrary to the baker's beliefs. These same bakers had also declined do cakes for Halloween, adult-themed events, those that had an anti-American message AND a cake with an anti-LGBT message.

These were good people with strong convictions targeted because of their convictions. The same authorities that went after them had previously declined to prosecute bakers who'd refused to make a Christian themed cake.

This case doesn't decide the issue since the SCOTUS decided to judge it narrowly rather than broadly. The SSM warriors will be back. In some ways they've already won since, like so much in the culture wars, the prosecution is the punishment. Many service providers will have learnt that their government will prosecute them for their convictions and even when they win they still suffer the trauma of defending that which shouldn't have to be defended. So they'll hold their collective noses and compromise their convictions in the search to be just left in piece.

But the culture warriors have no intention of leaving them in piece.

We can understand Paul's derogatory feelings about homosexuals. At least a Baker or Chemist would not use that term about homosexuals, nor advertise it. Chemists do not need to stock certain products, and any inquiry just needs to be, "We do not stock ..." Maybe suggest they try .... Chemist.

I voted yes to same sex marriage, not to making and industry out of it, and hopefully, not finding new reasons every day for needless conflict buy the cake some other place!

Isaiah Berlin distinguished what he termed 'negative' from 'positive' freedom: in a political system in which negative freedom prevailed, all was permitted EXCEPT what was expressly forbidden. In a political system of positive freedom, all was banned EXCEPT what was expressly permitted or ordained. Democracies would be characterised by the first; theocratic, 'socialist' and fascist regimes would be characterised by the second.

That raises the question of whether or not a hypothetical Muslim baker would be REQUIRED to bake a cake with an explicitly homosexual message or image on it. Of course he wouldn't, since there is no law, yet, in Australia to compel such behaviour. We all have the right to refrain from doing something which may be quite legal, if we prefer not to. I don't catch every bus that passes me, simply because it would be legal to do so. I can't be compelled to, if I prefer not to. I have free will, in a democratic society, to do whatever is legal OR to forgo the pleasure, as long as I don't break any laws.

Of course, certain explicit acts may, on the other hand, be illegal in either regime: marrying off under-age girls, for example, or beheading people or cutting off someone's right arm and left leg for insulting someone's mythical heroes. Such vile offences would normally be forbidden in any decent civilised society. Hopefully, they will remain crimes in Australia for the foreseeable future.

Joe

Josephus, your many anti-gay posts indicate your real feelings, with your intolerance, based on your religious convictions, you hate gay people. No need to dress it up in niceties like you do. and pretend otherwise. "Us wonderful religious folk wouldn't use the word poofter!" No you just hate and discriminate instead.

In this State NSW; Proprietor's or their agent's, of retail store's have the lawful right to deny access and service to anybody.

Conversely they possess a right to 'inspect' a person's bags upon existing the store. Provided there is a notice prominently displayed and understood, at the entrance to the store, indicating the proprietor or their agent's, reserves the right to 'inspect' a persons baggage upon them exiting that store.

Should the customer deny the proprietor or their agent's, the right to inspect their bags upon request; the proprietor may withdraw any and all Leave, for that customer to enter that store again, for a period to be determined by the proprietor or their agents..

If after viewing the notice, the potential customer decides to continue to enter the store, he/she's is in fact, giving tacit approval and consent to the substance and requirements of that notice.

It should be noted herein; there's no 'power of search' given, with respect to a customers bags. Nor is there any such power conferred on the proprietor or their agent's. Only police have that power, and only then, pursuant to certain circumstance.

None of the above involves police, or the criminal law. In fact it's common law Contract, which is formed; between a potential purchaser and the proprietor; and gains currency, the moment the customer enters the Store.

Joe asks: “should a Muslim baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding ?”

An excellent question for exposing double-standards.

Here’s an ever better one:

Should a Muslim baker be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a bar mitzvah?

Or what about for a Christian confirmation?

The sheer level of cognitive dissonance triggered by both questions would be bound to make some heads explode.

I'd be fascinated to see if such cases would rack up 19 posts in as many hours. Somehow I don't think they would.

Dear Paul,

«I fail to see the religious connection between baking cakes and Jesus Christ! Is there a eleventh commandment; Thou shalt not bake cakes for poofters.»

This is a good theological question, which I will endeavour to answer.

I would consider such a connection between religion and refusal to serve quite rare indeed, certainly not mainstream, yet I can see three theoretically possible cases how that could happen:

1) If God told someone not to do it.
- homosexuals may be nice and wonderful people, but so could the pig's meat possibly be wonderful, tasty or even healthy, but if God said 'No', then it's a 'No'.

I don't recall any scripture (including the bible) where God said "don't serve homosexuals", but who knows, perhaps there's some scripture that I'm unaware of or perhaps S/He told someone personally - who can tell? certainly not the courts!

2) Avoiding to support evil.

Very commendable and religious, but are same-sex marriages evil?
Firstly,love and marriage are distinct from sexual acts.
Secondly, if homosexual acts are evil, then so are heterosexual acts (so the baker would then have to be celibate him/herself and serve only celibates).

But suppose someone is truly and genuinely convinced that SSM is evil. I believe them to be wrong, but they don't know it. The answer here is education and spiritual guidance, but until then one must never support what they genuinely believe to be evil.

Can an earthly court determine what one genuinely believes? No!

3) Keeping a vow.

The vow could have been made in error, perhaps even while drunk or under coercion - one may know better now and even regret it, but vows must be kept nevertheless.
(in this case, I as the baker would place a sign on the door saying: "Sorry, I made such-and-such vow which I cannot undo, I hope you understand")

Can an earthly court tell whether a person truly made a vow, what exactly it was and whether his/her intention was purely directed to God at the time? No!

Note how Paul has used "hate" above; when he it totally ignorant I have close friends homosexual living together, and another a cross dresser. Which he believes that because I do not consider marriage is sanctioned between homosexuals I hate them. In fact Paul expresses more hatred toward me than I do toward my friends. Under Foxy's terms of feelings I could be offended by Paul and that would be hate speech by Paul. However in my world, Paul has every right to express his opinion of me, because I know it does not represent me or harm, just identifies Paul's state of mind.

Hasbeen,

I suspect the nature of the nuptials would have been brought to the baker’s attention to provoke him; he was set up. Unfortunately for the ‘girls’, the baker was made of sterner stuff than they anticipated, he refused, and they slipped on their bums because the court found for the baker.

I agree that homos can, and will, get all the cakes they want by just ordering the bloody things and shutting their mouths. A few of the bitchier ones will make a fuss trying to have a win against society. There is no reason to believe the stirrers and activists will get any further than they did in this case. Hope they have to pay court costs,

Again, the baker wasn't refusing service to these gentlemen, he was refusing to make them a cake that celebrated something he didn't think should be celebrated. They could have bought a cake from his shop and stuck a couple of grooms on top, and he would have allowed that to happen. But they wanted to force him to compromise his values to satisfy their values.

Try this scenario...most Muslims think depicting Mo is a sin. Imagine there's a Muslim artist who does oil paintings on commission? Should that artist be forced to accept a commission to draw a painting of Mo?

Equally, what type of person would seek to, or even hope to, force him to do so by threatening his livelihood? A person who hasn't the faintest notion of civilised behaviour?

Mhaze,

To come back to Berlin's distinction between negative and positive freedom: in a 'positive freedom' regime, one would be forced to do whatever was legal, because it would be the law, prescribed behaviour; while in a negative freedom regime, one is penalised for doing what is illegal but can't be forced to do something just because it is legal, one has choice.

In repressive societies, such as theocratic, socialist or fascist [TSF] societies, where behaviour is prescribed and all else banned, one would be required to carry out functions regardless of personal likes. In democratic societies, a person can refrain from doing something which she doesn't want to do, even though it is quite legal. Choice.

In democratic societies, the law simply sets down what one can't do - all else is permitted. In TSF societies, what is permitted is set down, and almost nothing else is permitted.

In a TSF society, if it was so inclined, our baker would be compelled to bake that bloody cake with the two blokes/sheilas on top, or face punishment, or worse. It's notable that, in such societies, the thought police are pervasive.

We can make choices in our society. We can refuse to do what we don't want to do. So what society would each of us choose to live in ?

Joe

Although the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of a
Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake
for a gay couple for religious reasons. And the
Court avoided a wider ruling on religious exemptions for
businesses/ They ordered the baker to undergo
anti-discrimination training.

What does that tell us?

'They ordered the baker to undergo
anti-discrimination training.

What does that tell us?'

it tells us Trump has much further to go in draining the swamp.

Foxy,

"They ordered the baker to undergo anti-discrimination training."

Sorry but that's rubbish. I don't know whether you misread something or your normal far-left sources are still misleading you but the Supreme Court most definitely didn't order training. The lower court (the one that thought it was OK to refuse to offer service to Christians) had ordered training but this SCOTUS decision specifically overturned that.

What does that tell us? Well it tells me that,at least in the US, its still possible to gain protection from the totalitarians that inhabit most of the left leaning government appointed 'social justice commissions'. But I'm not so sanguine similar protection exists here.

Hopefully it tells you to not believe everything you read.

Another excellent question; this time from mhaze.

<<Imagine there's a Muslim artist who does oil paintings on commission? Should that artist be forced to accept a commission to draw a painting of Mo?>>

But I propose we spice things up a little more.

Let's say the Muslim painter was an asylum seeker. But not just any asylum seeker. No. This Muslim asylum seeker arrived on not a plane but - wait for it - a boat!

Does he still have the right to refuse his services? Will the left pressure him to if he refuses? If he's forced to, will the right be as vocal as they have been over a gay wedding cake?

Oh, we could have endless fun with this!

' Oh, we could have endless fun with this!'

yes AJ the sort of attitude tax payer funded employees have with others earning an honest living. Drain the swamp.

Drain the swamp! constantly amazes me that the creature from the black lagoon, Trump claimed he wanted to do that

As a society we seem to going backwards. Way back, to times where people were tortured and killed for their beliefs. Where to survive you had to hide your personal views and pretend to be what you were not. These days anyone who believes homosexuality isn’t natural or that euthanasia is wrong or casual abortion shouldn’t be allowed is subjected to a witch hunt in the media. Look at poor sports stars, past and present, who express a belief contrary to the current dogma.
Whatever happened to tolerance of someone’s personal beliefs? What sort of moral dictatorship are we heading for?
50 years ago, whilst training as a nurse I was caring for a newborn baby born with a severe heart defect, incompatible with life, especially without oxygen. The Policy at that time was to wait for 3 months to see if their condition improved, and if not, their oxygen was turned off and they were allowed to die. This was in the days before open heart surgery.
It was my misfortune to be on duty the day this baby was elected to have his oxygen turned off. I refused. Flatly refused. I had cared for him for three months and no way could I do what the hospital demanded I do. And when they got another nurse to do it, I immediate turned it back on. Several times in fact.
Fortunately my superiors were not SJWs demanding everyone follow their script. Instead of forcing me to accept the inevitable , threatening to sack me, or doing anything coercive, they simply sent me home for the rest of the day. And when I returned the next day, they sent me to another area to work for a while.
There is room in this world to accomodate people’s different beliefs, and so long as no one is greatly disadvantaged by those beliefs, we should all make those accommodations.

Josephus, I to have close gay friends living together, in fact legally married, and we attended their wedding. Unlike you, I believe all my friends have total equality with me in all aspects of their lives. Have you made it clear to your gay friends that you disapprove of their life style, believing in certain aspects they are not entitled to equality with you.
Like the slave owner who believed he had a genuine love for his slaves, yet he demonstrated his hate for them by keeping them as slaves. Hate does not necessarily manifest itself as anger, the gay bashers. In your case you would not see yourself as a hater, because you do not have any open hostility towards gays.

The thread is better for its forum wobble, that thing we do with threads here bonce of the walls of its intent and return or not to the subject, however I think, maybe I am wrong, it is about that bakers rights,and if his point of view is unwelcome, do any of us have such rights? like him or not, no view on that,should he have been forced to bake the cake? if we believe in personal freedom for any one our answer must be no!

One of the interesting things to come out of the ruling is that the bias of the original lower court was an important factor in ruling in the baker's favour ie that they'd overlooked prior instances where Christians had been discriminated against.

So its clear that future 'defendants' will have an incentive to find instances of bias. Therefore its likely that we'll see a lot more attempts to create this bias by, for example, doing the type of things we've jokingly mentioned here like asking Muslims to paint Mo or anti-Trumpite tailors to make a MAGA hat.

The left creates these anti-discrimination boards and laws in the expectation it'll only affect the right because they don't recognise their own bias. It is truly said that the left won't like living under the rules they created.

So Paul those homosexual friends are able to naturally of themselves to reproduce children, if so they are then fully equal to you. Children being born from the arse? Life and excreta from the same orifice?

Dear Josephus,

Life does not come from human orifices, only bodies do - life comes from God.

Some people's bodies are unable to reproduce for genetic, injury or age reasons. Are you saying that the souls of those who live through these bodies are worth less as a result? What about Isaiah 56:4-5?

In our age where human population exploded beyond reason, refraining from having children is a merit.

Some believe in Genesis literally, as a commandment rather than a blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth", but even if correct, that task has been fulfilled and completed already, the earth is full, we can tick that box!

Dear Big Nana,

In a world where everything is becoming increasingly
public we need to take more responsibility for what we
say and do. We need to be better judges on what is harmful
and gauging the difference between banning someone's
right to free speech but also avoiding the promotion of
hate speech. Everyone can say what they want but if you want
to promote something that's harmful, then don't get angry
if you're shut down by people who don't want to hear it.
It's dangerous.

Regarding the baker in Colorado? It was a peculiar case
with things not being resolved. The Courts chose not to
address the question of whether religious rights should
take precedence over anti-discrimination rights. They chose
not to deal with those questions. It will be interesting to
see how future cases pan out.

Imagine a coffee-shop owner refusing to serve a black
family because he regards them "inferior."
Even those who oppose political correctness would agree
that a teacher who refers in extreme derogatory
terms - to females (or males) or gays
shouldn't be in a classroom. Even the most expansive view
of free speech recognizes there are limits to it.

As for euthanasia? That's a very emotional topic for many
people. Many years ago I still remember the case of a
friend's mother who was in a nursing home having suffered
a series of severe strokes. She got to the stage where
her mind was substantially destroyed. And as a result she
was in a vegetative state - having lost all functional and
mental independence.

The preservation of her life helped no one. Her family had to deal
with the agony of her vegetation. And in those times her
doctors were not content to let her die in peace and serenity.
They pursued a vigorous therapy that benefited no one except
their own satisfaction in thwarting death, regardless of the
consequences. She lived in that condition for several years.
She would have been horrified if she would have known what
was going on. She had always been a very independent strong
lady.

//So Paul those homosexual friends are able to naturally of themselves to reproduce children, if so they are then fully equal to you.//

I didn't know you were able to reproduce children by yourself, Paul. That's quite a feat. What's your secret? And how has it failed to make headline news thus far?

Yes Toni, unfortunately poor Josephus has got it wrong again, I cannot reproduce on my own. If I could I'd sell my story.

Paul 1405, you do realise that it’s possible to like, or even love someone whilst still disliking or disagreeing with something they do?
Ask any parent with a drug addict child. They can still really love that child but hate what they are doing.
Same goes for homosexuality. Many people have homosexual friends they really like as people, just don’t agree with their sexual activities. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing you know.

//Many people have homosexual friends they really like as people, just don’t agree with their sexual activities.//

And do these people take such an interest in all their friend's sexual activities? Because that sounds a bit creepy.

Or do they only take an interest in their homosexual friend's sexual activities? Because that sounds a bit creepy, and like they're unusually interested in gay sex for somebody who claims not to agree with it. Just sayin'.

Dear Joshephus,

Interesting narrowing of the word to anus.

Excrete. To expel waste. When a women has her period doesn't she excrete unfertilised ova?

Toni, it’s exactly the opposite. Most people I know don’t have the slightest interest in their friends sexual activities. We don’t define people by their sexual choices but by their character. That’s how it’s quite possible to really like a homosexual person without agreeing with their private sexual activities. What people do in private is only a very small part of who they are as a person and unless someone is shoving their sexual habits down your throat, half the time you wouldn’t even know what orientation they are.
I know I have been quite surprised to find that long term friends are lesbians. Didnt make any difference to our friendship because I’m not there in bed with them so I dont care.

//Most people I know don’t have the slightest interest in their friends sexual activities.//

Well how can you disagree with something you have no interest in? I don't follow. Surely you must have some sort of interest in something in order to disagree with it?

Toni, you are being very disingenuous. I said I had no personal interest in the sex lives of my friends, that doesn’t mean I’m oblivious to the existence of homosexuality.
I have no interest in drug addiction either but I’m aware it exists and I’m not in favour of it.
As I have already said, I don’t measure my friends worth by their sexual activities, which I believe should be private. I value them for their character and behaviour. As any parent can tell you, at times your children do things you don’t agree with, that doesn’t stop you loving them.
People throw around the term” hate speech” when in actual fact most don’t hate those they disagree with. They just have different beliefs. The hatred actually seems to come from the opposite direction.

This matter could reopen the Kim Davis case where she refused to hand out a marriage licence to a gay couple for "religious reasons".

The cake baker is an independent operator but Davis was a government employee who refused to carry out her legal duty and the obligations of her employment.
The next step would be supermaket checkout operators who refuse to scan your pork or shellfish products.

As for my remark about the signs I think some customers would prefer not to waste their time going into a shop and being refused service and possibly publicly humiliated.
If the owner sincerely holds those beliefs, why not display them with pride?
Would he also refuse to bake wedding cakes for those having their second or third hetero weddings - considering divorce is not permitted in certain religions, or cakes for Bar Mitzvahs as well?

The sign is no different from those businesses who display "fish" symbols to infer they are somehow trustworthy Christians but in the end it it's just a marketting ploy to gain advantage over competitors. It guarantees nothing.

He's entitled to his personal bigotry but potential customers are entitled to know what sort of person they are doing business with.
He may even increase his business with like-minded people.

Down at my local 'Bigoted Bakery' store the proprietor, a very nice old German chap, Herr Schicklgruber, has a very extensive 500 questionnaire, checking for undesirable customers, which has to be completed each time before ordering... ANYTHING! Just the other day after I successfully, for the first in 5 years, completed the 'Bigoted Bakery' questionnaire in under 3 hours, I was over the Moon in anticipation of enjoying a delicious (so I am told) Schicklgruber delight. But unfortunately when I tried to order a FRUIT BUM, the shop was very busy at the time, seems a Gestapo convention was in town, I yelled "FRUIT BUM HERE!" can't pronounce my "n"'s properly, sound like "m"'s, that was misunderstood as me being a fruit, with that, the nice Gestapo gentlemen threw me out of the shop. I'll try again tomorrow, but this time I'll play it safe, and order a FINGER BUM!

As a customer, you have every right to decide which businesses you want to support, and which ones you don't. Surely as a business owner you should have the exact same rights, otherwise it is a clear case of bias towards one of the parties.

Freedom for one to do as they choose must surely go both ways.

Butch, would you be okay with an ex-customer standing outside your chop shop holding a placard which reads "THIS SHOP SELLS OVERPRICED ROTTEN MEAT", if the ex-customer sincerely believed that to be true, then it would be okay would it not?

"Would he also refuse to bake wedding cakes for those having their second or third hetero weddings - considering divorce is not permitted in certain religions, or cakes for Bar Mitzvahs as well?"

Why would he? His beef was with homosexual "marriage"' not a list you make up. You are clearly running out of silly things to say.

If someone held up sign outside a butcher shop claiming that the butcher sold rotten meat, the butcher would sue them for defamation and win, unless he was actually selling rotten meat. Some posters don't have to try very hard at all to prove that they are stupid.

ttbn,

The point of a hypothetical is really lost on you, isn't it?

Why would he?

Well, where second and third marriages are concerned, the clue was right there in the comment you quoted: because divorce is a sin.

I doubt he would refuse to bake a cake for a second or third marriage, though, and if this is the case, then it is yet another example of the hypocrisy in this whole sorry saga.

ttbn, I asked Butch if he would be okay with that, not if he would sue. That would indicate he is not okay with it. You can't answer the question for Butch. Some posters don't have to try very hard at all to prove that they are stupid.

Dear Rache,

«Davis was a government employee who refused to carry out her legal duty and the obligations of her employment.»

She was in the wrong and could be sacked for it.

«The next step would be supermaket checkout operators who refuse to scan your pork or shellfish products.»

If they accepted the job, then they too were in the wrong. However, it would also be wrong for centrelink to stop their pension if they refused to take such jobs to begin with.

«customers would prefer not to waste their time going into a shop and being refused service and possibly publicly humiliated.»

Wait: "Refused service" is legitimate, but not "humiliated"? The latter is legitimate only if the sign on the door reads "sado-masochistic club".

«If the owner sincerely holds those beliefs, why not display them with pride?»

Why with pride? Why not with humility?

«Would he also refuse to bake wedding cakes for those having their second or third hetero weddings»

I wouldn't advise it (nor to refuse SSM-cakes to begin with) - but that's his business, not mine or yours.

«He's entitled to his personal bigotry but potential customers are entitled to know what sort of person they are doing business with.»

They are only entitled to know all about the goods and services on offer as well as the quality of service, rather than about the person. No signs can convey the latter anyway.

---

Dear Paul,

«would you be okay with an ex-customer standing outside your chop shop holding a placard which reads "THIS SHOP SELLS OVERPRICED ROTTEN MEAT"»

As long as they don't demand wages... This could boost the sales (curiosity, you know), especially if the ex-customer was a young lady in bikini!

"I doubt he would refuse to bake a cake for a second or third marriage, though, and if this is the case, then it is yet another example of the hypocrisy in this whole sorry saga."

By all means let's decide what his views would be under various hypotheticals and then criticise him for those views. As I understand it, his particular sect doesn't oppose divorce. Few do.

Can I point out that he had previously said he'd refused to do cakes that had an anti-LGBT message.

But let's ignore that....it doesn't suit the narrative.

You are free to decide what the views of others are, mhaze, just as you are free to ignore details that are inconvenient to your narrative. I won't be joining you in either instance.

"You are free to decide what the views of others are"

Yes I know I free to do it.

I just choose not to since its fruitless in terms of the search for truth.

At least I try not to.

That’s good to hear, mhaze.

<<I just choose not to [decide what the views of others are] since its fruitless in terms of the search for truth.>>

Perhaps you should tell that to someone who sounds like they are in need of such advice?

<<At least I try not to.>>

Hmm, it looks like you might need to try a little harder.

In this day and age with the web the boys should just have advertised on social media that the cake man won't make em for consenting same sex adults who want to marry. Meanwhile, why can't the religious just own up and admit they are bigots. It's got nothing to do with any god - it's about ignorance and discrimination and using religion to justify it. Psychopathic god, that one.

What they have to decide in the US Courts is whether
a person's religious convictions take precedence
over anti-discrimination laws. That has not been dealt
with - especially as far a businesses are concerned.

Dear Foxy,

«What they have to decide in the US Courts is whether
a person's religious convictions take precedence
over anti-discrimination laws.»

But that's only one third of the issue - the other two thirds are:

2) Whether one's behaviour is a result of a true conviction (and not of hatred and pretence)?
3) Whether one's convictions are indeed religious (and not delusional)?

Well, how can the courts tell? Courts can neither read minds nor have a clue about what religion is and isn't.

I believe (and can explain why, but it would be long) that had the only question been #1 (what you presented: "whether a person's religious convictions take precedence over anti-discrimination laws"), then both legislators and courts would have ruled long ago that religion overrides anti-discrimination. However, it is the suspicions #2 and #3 that complicate the matter.

What I am saying is, give everyone the benefit of the doubt, so do not impose anti-discrimination laws on PRIVATE businesses altogether.
(such laws may still be imposed on businesses that receive any public benefits, including businesses that run as companies because incorporation is a public benefit)

Dear Yuyutsu,

The issues are more complex than what you're
suggesting - that's why the courts in this
instance chose not to go any further - yet.

"What they have to decide in the US Courts is whether
a person's religious convictions take precedence
over anti-discrimination laws."

No, what they had to decide was whether a free citizen can be forced to say/write/paint/design etc something that he/she fundamentally disagrees with.

The man wasn't refusing to serve these star-crossed lovers. He wasn't even refusing to make them a cake, only to use his expertise to put messages that would express support for SSM on that cake.

That you simply refuse to acknowledge these simple facts while asserting intellectual rigour is more than a little amusing.

mhaze,

Firstly get your facts straight - (no pun intended)
then you can distort them as you please.

Foxy,

I'm looking forward to you explaining which facts I got wrong. Supporting links would help your claim. I won't be holding my breathe but in the event that you do actually respond, I'll most definitely provide proof of anything I've said above.

mhaze,

There's plenty on the internet on this case.

Here's just one link:

http://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-620661

cont'd ...

Again - a typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661

Foxy,

So no errors of fact then?

Why did you admonish me to get my facts straight if they already were straight?

mhaze,

I'm only human after-all.

Dear Foxy,

«The issues are more complex than what you're suggesting»

Even more? What I suggested is not complex enough?

Even as I suggested, this is beyond the ability of any court to decide, so if it is yet more complex as you say, then how dare we throw this at the helpless courts?

Whatever they decide over this impossible task, is going to depend more on the weather than on anything of substance!

"I'm only human after-all."

Well if being 'only human' is getting facts utterly wrong (SCOTUS enforced training) and failing to acknowledge the error when its pointed out, while admonishing others to get THEIR facts right when they are already right (but inconvenient) then I'd agree you're very human.

mhaze,

Thank You - that's very generous of you.
A true gentleman.

mhaze,

I don't want you to get the wrong impression.
I'll now take my tongue out of my cheek and try
once again to show you the point that I was
trying to make in this discussion. Here's
another link that just might clarify:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/

Foxy,

As with most things, on this issue there are facts and there are opinions.

I gave a series of facts that you found uncomfortable and therefore ignored. I also gave an opinion ie that the case was about 1st amendment rights.

You claimed my facts were wrong when instead you actually meant that my opinions were wrong. That's fine as far as it goes.

But more disturbingly you acted as though your opinions (or more accurately the opinions of others that you liked) were facts - facts that I should get straight.

Now Foxy, it can be argued that the case might be about discrimination but that's an opinion, not a fact. But you want it to be a fact and assume that when I disagree then I'm missing the facts. On the other hand, it might be about free speech. That's also an opinion, not a fact. The court decided to treat the case as neither a free speech nor discrimination issue, instead treating it as a procedural fairness issue.

But the larger issue will come back with other similar cases working their way through the courts.

But where you went wrong and why I was 'ungentlemanly' toward you was that you confused mere opinion with fact merely because you liked that opinion. And the only way you could do that was to gratuitously ignore actual facts.

mhaze,

There certainly are facts and opinions.

And as I've been trying to tell you - the case before
the courts involved much more than wedding cakes and
it could have huge implications for all retailers and
service providers.

That's because the baker Jack Phillips owner of the
Denver area Masterpiece Cakeshop claimed that his first
amendment right of free speech and religion exempted him
from the state's anti-discrimination law. To Colorado however
he is a retailer and is barred from discriminating based on
race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

The narrow decision made by the courts chose to not deal
with the full implications - as my given links affirmed.
I have nothing more to add on this subject.