I agree...and I also know that those who are in favor of legalizing discrimination were (or would also have been) the same people who thought that only white people should sit at lunch counters, or use "white" drinking fountains, or enter through the main entrances of the stores along the country's Main Streets...
...or have the legal right to marry [other] white people.
To these (and to those) people who believed this, their stance was very often religiously-based: there were several passages or admonishments in the Bible which were regularly cited as their RELIGIOUS justification for their racially-based beliefs, and these biblical "directives" were preached from the pulpits of the churches they went to, and quoted in newspaper articles, and used in neighbor-to-neighbor talks as "proof" of the religious correctness of their positions on these issues.
The current "cake issue" is another iteration of the same civil equality dynamics their grandparents or great-grandparents were attempting, unsuccessfully, to halt.
Long-term, discrimination isn't going to succeed this time, either.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2017 11:18PM by Tevai.
So a gay couple and their adopted children go to a photography studio run by a baptist/evangeical/jewish/lds/muslim artist who has always decided to accept some clients and reject others based on his own selection criteria- canhe reject the gay family?
or case two same gay couple decides it realy wants to become mormon/catholic/baptist/muslim because it is the faith of their own childhood-let em in or tell them no ?
go to court in either case?
finally scruffy white guy goes into 7-11 and the late nite female clerk is scared and calls security because he demands a hurricane (heavy alcohol based beer) and is afraid to sell it to him-discrimination?
help me out with it- you are an artist and you take pride in your creation so a person says i demand you paint a picture of hitler stomping on a crucifix. turn him down and you go to jail is that it?
If you cannot see the difference between making something hateful vs. making something for a joyous, loving wedding ceremony then you have serious issues.
Cakes for same-sex weddings are no different than any other wedding cake you've ever seen. Occasionally there are groom/groom or bride/bride toppers, but the bakers don't provide those. So the baker isn't being asked to make a b*ttf*ck buttercream, just a design they already do. It's not the product that's the problem, it's the customer.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court. I kind of feel like the baker shouldn't HAVE to bake the cake. It just seems wrong to force him to do so.
I used to think that, but now I disagree. If a business is open to the public, it needs to serve everyone equally. If not, how long before we go back to black people not being able to sit at the counter?
There is discrimination every where every day. Tbms don't allow others in the temple,Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to take communion, the KKK doesn't allow black preachers to give an opening prayer, and the list goes on and on.
Why haven't there been award winning bakers that make cakes for anyone the Christians turn down and refuse cakes to those who discriminate against others.
anon2day Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is discrimination every where every day. > Tbms don't allow others in the temple,Catholics > don't allow non-Catholics to take communion, the > KKK doesn't allow black preachers to give an > opening prayer, and the list goes on and on. >
None of those are open to the public. They are private "clubs". The law has been very clear on that for a long time.
Where the law is less clear is if same sex couples are protected even though they are not called out specifically in civil rights laws. That's what's being decided now.
This baker will gladly sell a cake to anyone. He simply will not create one with a message that celebrates gay marriage. A gay couple could buy a cake at his shop and they could do whatever they wanted with it and put any message they wanted to put on it. It is a free speech issue.
So the couple asked for a cake with a message that celebrates gay marriage? Or did they merely ask for a cake for their wedding?
It turns out that there was not even a discussion about a design for the cake, let alone any kind of "message". The baker simply refused to create a cake for a gay wedding at all.
This is not about "messages". This has nothing to do with the first amendment. It is simply about discrimination. It is no different than refusing to make a cake for an inter-racial marriage. Anybody want to claim that that should be legal?
I agree with the idea that artistic expression should be up to the artist. If I owned a t-shirt company, cake company, portrait painting business, etc. I would not want to be forced to paint, draw, or represent something I was uncomfortable representing. If someone just wanted a plain or familiar design on a t-shirt, cake, or canvass they could buy one from me and accept whatever image I was willing to represent but I wouldn't wish to be ordered to compromise my reputation or ethics by supporting a belief or cause I found uncomfortable and it has nothing to do with religion. I wouldn't much like drawing images of Hitler or Skin Heads, Etc. But if my reputation hinges on the work I do, I should be able to choose my work style. If the cake baker has a book of designs he has done many times before and frequently does, then why not just do a familiar design? I don't think he should be doing the same style cake and yet saying he won't sell it to one couple but will to another. That's different. And there really isn't anything a person can do about having their work corrupted after it has been purchased. That's just a risk one takes with their art.
It becomes problem in areas where the prevailing sentiment is to exclude certain groups. In New York a gay couple could always go to the bakery down the street. In many parts of the US all the bakeries might share the same antipathy toward gay people, and then the couple would have nowhere to turn to. They then become outcasts from what should be their havens and refuges. So they get rejected by everybody around them. Does that sound like something Jesus would do?
"Let the go to another bakery." ---People who just don't want to get it.
Why is it the people who have no problem with denying people cakes are always part of the group that can easily buy a cake anywhere they want to?
Even as a gay man my company sells our product to whoever wants to buy it, even the religious right clients who hate gays. This brash new idea is called, "Open for Business--to the Public."
(The word public is in the dictionary if anyone wants to check it out.)
Is this where we are headed: "Good day sir. Yes that is a beautiful sofa you've picked out. Now, could I just see verification of your lifestyle before we continue the sale?"
Buying a new vacuum is going to become the equivalent of a Bishop's interview of a twelve year old if we aren't a little more kind to each other and a helluva lot less judgmental.
"“That sounds like to me, John, that sounds like indentured servitude. You have no choice in the matter. Yes, they’re compensating you, they’re giving you something, but you have no say as to what you do with your talent, your ability and your skills,” Perkins said.
Scruggs agreed, adding, “And even worse, not just that type of servitude based off of something that’s irrelevant, but something that cuts against the core of who you are.” And Mat Staver, the dumbest lawyer in America not named Larry Klayman, agrees:
Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver joined Florida radio host Joyce Kaufman yesterday to discuss the Supreme Court arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which Staver said dealt with whether a baker, Jack Phillips, would be “basically enslaved” to be a spokesperson for views he disagrees with by being required to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple."
The cake baking business should photograph every cake they do for a while, and then put together a catalogue of cakes that they do. Then they should show potential customers the catelogue and give everyone a choice of cakes from the catelogue. When someone asks for a cake that goes against the beliefs of the owner, they tell them that they only do cakes that are found in the catelogue. When someone has a new idea for a cake that does not offend the business owners and that they like, they do the new cake design and add it to the catelogue. But as a policy, they don't disclose publicly, the criteria for what goes in to the catelogue. The decision to do sell cakes from the catelogue is a business decision, like whether or not McDonalds chooses to offer a new sandwich to their menue, or not. Does McDonalds have to explain why they do or do not add new items to their menue? Adding designs to the catelogue is a matter of artistic expression and the business does not have to explain to potential customers, the criteria for a new design being added to the catelogue. When under scruteny, the business owners sticks to their right to limit sales to what is in their catelogue.
As with most things, this case is all about how the issue is framed. To those who support the bakery, the issue is the right to not serve people who they believe to be sinners. To those who oppose the bakery, the issue is whether or not businesses should serve everybody, regardless of status or sexual orientation.
To those that argue that the First Amendment applys here, I say no. This is because the bakery is not an entity of the government; rather, it is a private business, and the first words of the U.S. constitution's first amendment are that government shall not abridge the rights of free speech, free assembly, etc. It says nothing about the ability of nongovernmental entities (businesses and individuals) to abridge those rights.
Is this discrimination? You bet! And, as a totally blind person (since birth), I damn well know it. But the wheels of government are now moving in the opposite direction of those (like me) who oppose discrimination, including discrimination by businesses.
I was going to predict that the U.S. Supreme Court would side with the bakery in this case, and then I remembered that one of the Justices (Anthony Kennedy), who usually sides with conservatives, was instrumental in the 5-4 decision that extended marriage rights to homosexuals. Since Mr. Kennedy is still on the court and since the other conservative/liberal compositions have not changed between when gays were given the right to marry, I now predict that the bakery will lose in a 5-4 decision. However, if one of the liberal Justices passes away or retires (Ruth Bader Ginzburg is a good bet here) and the current POTUS gets to name her replacement, then the next time a similar case is argued, the decision will go the other way.
I remember a time when I was in the picture framing business. We had all kinds of things from all kinds of people brought in for framing. Once we had a picture of a Nazi officer in full uniform brought in by his daughter. She was a bit nervous about taking out the picture not knowing how I would react (perhaps sharpened by my English accent) and she explained that it was the only photograph of her father who was captured by the Russians and together with tens of thousands of others never seen again that she had. I was reared as a child in London during and after WW2 and German soldiers and the bomber pilots of the era were very much the devil to us. We gladly took care of the framing and to date I have not taken up the goosestep as a result. Speaking for myself, I am defined by who I am and not by the beliefs, actions or life styles of others. I can't speak for this baker but no one asked him for his judgement...only for him to bake a cake much like all the others he baked each day.