Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[k9bfriender]

@adaher

Does he refuse to cater to gay customers, or just refuse to help them celebrate gay weddings?

An equivalent case with race would be serving black customers, but being unwilling to do a cake for a Black Lives Matter meeting.

Good point, and do you think that that would be protected? I’ve done a fair amount of catering, and we never discriminated based on the group receiving the food. Is that something that you should be allowed to do in a public accommodation, punish someone for their association?

I ask becuase I don’t know. Can you refuse to cater an event because you disagree with something about the group?

@Bricker

Then you need better eyesight. It’s perfectly possible to believe that the Bible is not inerrant in every particular, and that the particular rules it contains that must be followed are a subset of the entirety of the Bible.

A moment’s thought would make this clear, since you must know of many people who profess belief in the Bible but fail to adhere to the rule that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors herself, or at least her head

Yeah, I did know quite a few people like that. It was that exact hypocrisy of only following the rules that were convenient to you, and trying to enforce the rules that inconvenience others that drove me from the church in the first place, suspect I’m not the only one.

Yeah, I get that Paul tried to come up with a justification, but his specific justification for allowing gentiles to not follow mosaic law was because he knew they would refuse to. He said that the parts that were inconvenient didn’t apply. The whole “yoke” thing an all that. Cafeteria christian before anyone knew what a cafeteria was.

@adaher

I’m not an observant Jew anymore, but when I was, I did do my best to keep all the commandments. Jews still won’t wear blended fabrics if they are observant.

The question is, does this baker that claims to follow the laws laid out in the bible ever wear mixed fabric.

@Bricker

Sure.

Christians – well, most Christians – no longer regard all the Pentateuch laws as binding, because Acts 15 shows that we are released from most of those laws (excepting, inter alia, “…things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”)

Often I hear people declare in tones of self-satisfaction, “Well, if you believe in the Bible, why do you cut your hair and shave? Do you stone to death your stubborn and rebellious son? Huh? Huh?”

And my answer to that is Acts 15. Which they seem to not be aware of, mostly.

Right, when Paul realizes that he’s not gonna get many converts if he is asking them to start by circumcising themselves, and then go on to follow all the arbitrary laws, so he says, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

It is only a matter of convenience, not of faith or of belief that releases those laws.

@John_Mace

And Leviticus doesn’t say anything about lesbian sex, right?

@cmkeller

John Mace:

That is correct.

It also doesn’t say anything about male gay sex. Just that they not lie with each other as they would a woman.

So, standing sex is perfectly fine.

[k9bfriender]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The protestant religious right came to terms with divorces a long long time ago.

Yeah, I know. And they should use the same double think that allowed them to change their belief structure in order to accommodate cultural changes and prevent themselves from becoming irrelevant, and change their beliefs about SSM.

It’s all pick and choose. So, if they pick beliefs that make them bigots, it was only their own idea to choose that.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ElvisL1ves

I’m gonna guess you aren’t Christian, or you wouldn’t say that. Christ had exactly nothing to say on the subject (but was pretty voluble about loving everyone else as yourself etc.), and Leviticus decrees a whole lot of other things that even Roy Moore wouldn’t cop to. There are many, *many *Christian denominations and congregations that take that “All are welcome” stuff pretty seriously.

So, the suggestion that he’s using religion as a cover for bigotry, and may not even be aware he is doing so, is on much more solid ground than your assertions about what that religion actually says.

There are even a few Christian denominations with gay clergy. Its still mostly considered a sin by most denominations.
List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality - Wikipedia

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@ElvisL1ves

You are badly misinformed.

Here is a cite.

List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality

Several mainline denominations permit their clergy to marry homosexual couples including Presbyterian, Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Baptist denominations. Some of them are pretty mainline Christian denominations.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

Seems pertinent enough to this thread, so explain. I did a quick check to see which denominations don’t regard it as sinful, and they are almost all European Protestant. The congregations that regard it as a sin:

Catholic Church: 1.2 billion
Baptists: 75 million
Methodist: 60-80 million
Presbytyrians- 40-50 million
Pentecostals-280 million
Calvary Chapel-25 million
Seventh Day Adventists-20 million
Eastern Orthodox-270 million
Mormons-16 million
Jehovas Witnesses-8 million

Do you have a cite, because a lot of those denominations seem to permit gay marriage and I don’t see how you perform gay marriage if you think homosexuality is a sin.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@D_Anconia

They did. They said No.

They expended a lot of effort to avoid saying no. They couldn’t afford to vote this guy down because they would have lost senators.

I frankly don’t understand the Alt Right’s view that McConnell isn’t doing right by conservatives. He is breaking the goddam institution to eke out every partisan advantage.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

nm

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

I’m gonna guess you aren’t Christian, or you wouldn’t say that. Christ had exactly nothing to say on the subject (but was pretty voluble about loving everyone else as yourself etc.), and Leviticus decrees a whole lot of other things that even Roy Moore wouldn’t cop to. There are many, *many *Christian denominations and congregations that take that “All are welcome” stuff pretty seriously.

So, the suggestion that he’s using religion as a cover for bigotry, and may not even be aware he is doing so, is on much more solid ground than your assertions about what that religion actually says.

That might be an interesting debate if the thread were about Christianity and gay sex. But for the purposes of this lawsuit, the SCOTUS justices will not be asking that question. It will be a given that the baker holds sincere beliefs that gay sex (and gay marriage) is sinful, or contrary to his religious beliefs. The question will be whether those beliefs override the CO state law or not.

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

Yeah, I did know quite a few people like that. It was that exact hypocrisy of only following the rules that were convenient to you, and trying to enforce the rules that inconvenience others that drove me from the church in the first place, suspect I’m not the only one.

Yeah, I get that Paul tried to come up with a justification, but his specific justification for allowing gentiles to not follow mosaic law was because he knew they would refuse to. He said that the parts that were inconvenient didn’t apply. The whole “yoke” thing an all that. Cafeteria christian before anyone knew what a cafeteria was.
. . .
Right, when Paul realizes that he’s not gonna get many converts if he is asking them to start by circumcising themselves, and then go on to follow all the arbitrary laws, so he says, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”

It is only a matter of convenience, not of faith or of belief that releases those laws.

Not correct.

It’s my position, and the position of the Roman Catholic Church, that when Jesus said to Peter, “You are the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church,” not only was Our Lord and Savior making a pun (Peter is Petrus and rock is petra) but He was also speaking of a literal plan: He intended to found a Church, and that Peter would be its first leader. Moreover, He intended that the Church would grow and Peter’s death would mean a successor to him would assume those duties. We regard Peter as the first Pope, and Linus who succeeded him as the second Pope, and so on down through the ages to the present day.

We regard the Church as divinely founded and divinely inspired, and the truths she teaches as divinely confirmed. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from errors that would vitiate its essential doctrines.

So, no: it’s not merely a matter of convenience. The Church, in the divinely inspired exercise of her universal teaching authority, is right.

Now, you may protest that the answer is also convenient.

So what? How is that relevant to its rightness?

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Do you have a cite, because a lot of those denominations seem to permit gay marriage and I don’t see how you perform gay marriage if you think homosexuality is a sin.

To take one example: his claim is that “Baptists,” are among the groups that regard homosexual behavior as sinful.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the most populous of the Baptist denominations, does not permit same-sex marriage.

But the Alliance of Baptists, roughly 65,000 strong, do recognize and perform same-sex marriages.

So in my view, it’s not useful to say “Baptists,” because there are a kajillion different Baptist denominations.

[The_Tooth]

@Damuri_Ajashi

This baker offered to sell them other cakes. So it was not a refusal to serve gay customers.

Bollocks.

“I’d like you to do something.”

“No.”

“You’re refusing me.”

“No I’m not.”

He didn’t refuse to serve gay customers, he refused to sell them a cake for a gay wedding.

He didn’t refuse, he just refused. Got it.

Are there other cases surrounding commercial discrimination against gays?

At the moment? Don’t know. There have been in the past.

[Morgenstern]

What if Joe was a male dancer who performed, professionally, in front of females at Chippendales? It’s known that Joe will perform for bachelorette parties after hours, if his fees are paid. 2 gentlemen ask Joe to dance at their bachelor party the night before their wedding. Joe refuses saying he just couldn’t do that, even if he tried, he just couldn’t make it work. He wishes them well, but refuses to dance for them. Do they sue Joe?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

Not correct.

It’s my position, and the position of the Roman Catholic Church, that when Jesus said to Peter, “You are the rock, and upon this rock I will build My Church,” not only was Our Lord and Savior making a pun (Peter is Petrus and rock is petra) but He was also speaking of a literal plan: He intended to found a Church, and that Peter would be its first leader. Moreover, He intended that the Church would grow and Peter’s death would mean a successor to him would assume those duties. We regard Peter as the first Pope, and Linus who succeeded him as the second Pope, and so on down through the ages to the present day.

True, but it was Paul that unilaterally decided to upend mosaic law for the sake of getting more converts, not Peter.

Some of Paul’s other great hits:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Yay Paul!

We regard the Church as divinely founded and divinely inspired, and the truths she teaches as divinely confirmed. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from errors that would vitiate its essential doctrines.

So, no: it’s not merely a matter of convenience. The Church, in the divinely inspired exercise of her universal teaching authority, is right.

So, if the current pope were to unilaterally declare that homosexuality is no longer a sin, then it would no longer be a sin, right?

Now, you may protest that the answer is also convenient.

So what? How is that relevant to its rightness?

Rightness and convenience are rarely a positive correlation.

[Bricker]

@The_Tooth

Bollocks.

“I’d like you to do something.”

“No.”

“You’re refusing me.”

“No I’m not.”

This is an example of the fallacy of equivocation.

Often illustrated by: Stale breadcrumbs are better than nothing. And nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak! Therefore, stale breadcrumbs are better than a thick juicy steak.

In your example, “something,” is used to generically cover both that which is being refused - a custom wedding cake - and that which is not being refused: sales of other, stock merchandise.

With that fallacy exposed, we can easily answer this:

He didn’t refuse, he just refused. Got it.

He didn’t refuse [all service], he just refused [a custom wedding cake].

Got it?

[k9bfriender]

@Morgenstern

What if Joe was a male dancer who performed, professionally, in front of females at Chippendales? It’s known that Joe will perform for bachelorette parties after hours, if his fees are paid. 2 gentlemen ask Joe to dance at their bachelor party the night before their wedding. Joe refuses saying he just couldn’t do that, even if he tried, he just couldn’t make it work. He wishes them well, but refuses to dance for them. Do they sue Joe?

Seems there are two questions there to ponder.

Is dancing a form of artistic expression? I would argue yes, certainly much much more so than baking a cake.

Is he doing this “after hours”, non-professionally, as a private person? Or is he advertising his services and making himself a public accommodation?

[Iggy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

What if the couple said, “Look, we’re gay, but we don’t need a cake that celebrates a gay wedding. Make us exactly the same kind of cake you make to celebrate a straight wedding. Your ‘speech’ will be exactly the same.” In that case, can he be compelled to the same speech he’s publicly given before–or compelled to stop offering public accommodation?

As far as I can tell your hypothetical has not been specifically asked. But applying the principles of the baker’s attorney’s argument I think they would say that government should not be allowed to compel the baker to make any cake of any design which has not already been made, even cakes of generic design that have previously been made on speculation and offered for sale to the general public.

Their argument seems to be that making a cake is artistic expression and that government cannot compel artistic expression. So if the cake is already made and is sitting on the shelf then the baker can be compelled to sell that cake to anyone. But if we are talking about any cake of any design which has not already been made then government cannot compel its creation as that would be tantamount to compelled speech.

This isn’t an easy case. The justices clearly struggled with how to distinguish various scenarios. It is entirely possible they will come up with a ruling on narrow grounds that will not really inform the overall debate on the matter, leaving these big issues for a future case.

[doreen]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its not the customer, its the event.

If he will sell them an off the rack wedding cake but not gay themed wedding cake its not the customer, its the event (I don’t know if he would sell them an off the shelf wedding cake, he offered to sell the other cakes but it was not clear if his meant other “wedding” cakes).

There is no such thing as an “off the shelf” wedding cake. He didn’t refuse to sell them a gay themed wedding cake as he refused before they got to the point of discussing the design.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[k9bfriender]

@Iggy

As far as I can tell your hypothetical has not been specifically asked. But applying the principles of the baker’s attorney’s argument I think they would say that government should not be allowed to compel the baker to make any cake of any design which has not already been made, even cakes of generic design that have previously been made on speculation and offered for sale to the general public.

Their argument seems to be that making a cake is artistic expression and that government cannot compel artistic expression. So if the cake is already made and is sitting on the shelf then the baker can be compelled to sell that cake to anyone. But if we are talking about any cake of any design which has not already been made then government cannot compel its creation as that would be tantamount to compelled speech.

This isn’t an easy case. The justices clearly struggled with how to distinguish various scenarios. It is entirely possible they will come up with a ruling on narrow grounds that will not really inform the overall debate on the matter, leaving these big issues for a future case.

So, you cannot compel them to make a cake, even a non-custom cake?

Gay couple comes in, right behind a straight couple. Straight couple buys the last cake off the wall, can the baker then say that he doesn’t have to bake the gay couple a cake?

[Morgenstern]

@k9bfriender

Seems there are two questions there to ponder.

Is dancing a form of artistic expression? I would argue yes, certainly much much more so than baking a cake.

Is he doing this “after hours”, non-professionally, as a private person? Or is he advertising his services and making himself a public accommodation?

Okay, assume his business card reads; “Professional dancer, Available for bachelorette parties 7/24.”

[k9bfriender]

@Morgenstern

Okay, assume his business card reads; “Professional dancer, Available for bachelorette parties 7/24.”

Then that only leaves the one, is it a form of artistic expression.

I don’t know the law on that, but I would think so. It requires interaction with the audience, ever performance will be substantially different based on attendees and venue.

The dancer doesn’t just “make a dance”, and give it to the customer for them to dispose of as they please.