Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATU)   Worlds most pretentious wedding cake baker refuses to create cake for same-sex couple   (katu.com) divider line 541
    More: Asinine, public accommodations, KATU, Oregon Attorney General, First Amendment, refuses  
•       •       •

11868 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Feb 2013 at 7:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



541 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-02 10:14:09 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: well, since I'm not a Republican, you need to re-think that out.

Lemme guess... a libertarian who just happens to vote republican and agrees with everything they do and say?

Who'd you vote for?


The guy that kept him homeless.
 
2013-02-02 10:14:16 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.


None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.
 
2013-02-02 10:14:28 AM  
Klein emphasized the importance of his religious beliefs, saying it outweighs his bottom line and the state law.

"My First Amendment rights allow me to practice my religion as I see it," Klein said. "And as the High Holy Cake Topper of the Church of Fondant, my religion requires me to make and sell cakes with pink ribbons and flowers of icing, marzipan blue birds, and campy figurines, but not to homos."
 
2013-02-02 10:14:35 AM  
What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?
 
2013-02-02 10:14:50 AM  
you can't just walk into McDonald's and demand a "butt" burger
they'll just look at you weird and throw you out.  that or give you a big mac
 
2013-02-02 10:15:35 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Yup
 
2013-02-02 10:15:53 AM  

truthseeker2083: The guy that kept him homeless.


He worked for Bain and had his job outsourced? Makes sense.
 
2013-02-02 10:16:36 AM  

Amos Quito: [img1.etsystatic.com image 543x435]

That dude needed a sign.

From God.


It's funny that the sign is written in the "old west" font.

/well not "Airplane!" funny
//maybe "Airplane! 2" funny
///before Shatner showed up, those scenes were gold
 
2013-02-02 10:17:20 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?



Or what if he agreed to make the cake on the condition that they make him the meat in their sammich?
 
2013-02-02 10:17:41 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.


No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.
 
2013-02-02 10:18:32 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Yup. I'd still think he was wrong and a bit of a douche for saying it out loud to them, but the freedom of speech allows him to say stupid shiat like that as long as he's not phrasing it as fighting words.
 
2013-02-02 10:18:52 AM  

ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Sure. Mind you, if he adds on a special surcharge, that'd be illegal. Or if he hints that he may have stuck his penis in the cake, then he might end up getting several investigations from the department of health.
 
2013-02-02 10:19:34 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


Would that same state law conflict if he refused service to the African-American community?
 
2013-02-02 10:20:40 AM  
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: Iam the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

media.katu.com
 
2013-02-02 10:20:50 AM  
BraveNewCheneyWorld:
No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

My religion, Farkyouism, requires the religious practice of "therapeutic beatings," so would you mind standing there while I get my baseball bat and beat you soundly around the head and shoulders? No?! How dare you infringe my sacred 1st amendment rights, fascist!
 
2013-02-02 10:21:01 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Society's first rule is the first amendment, if you don't like it, repeal it, but don't pretend a state law trumps it, because you're not fooling anyone.

LOL.  Freedom to practice religion = freedom to ignore the law.  You're a genius.  Why is it that the SCOTUS hasn't agreed with your analysis in slightest over the last 50 years?

Please cite this case that you must be referring to, where the supreme court made a non protected class's desire to be served trump someone's religious rights.

None ever has. There is no conflict here - he is free to practice his faith, but not to do that which is otherwise illegal under a claim of faith. just like you, me, and everybody else.

No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do.  If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.
 
2013-02-02 10:21:18 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.


Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.
 
2013-02-02 10:22:18 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!


AFAIAC the customer is always right. I suspect, however, that there are state health laws that might come into play. And also contamination issues.

Wife and I recently got a Pizza Hut pizza. I LOVE Canadian bacon, pineapple and cashews, but they don't have cashews, and would not agree to add them even if I supplied them with a can. Reason: potential cross contamination of another pizza (particularly bad with a nut-sensitive individual).

But then again, you were just being snarky, right?
 
2013-02-02 10:22:28 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,


No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.
 
2013-02-02 10:24:08 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.


So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Funny how these 1st Amendment crusaders weren't as loud when Bush Jr raped the 1st and 4th Amendment

/well not "Naked Gun" funny
//maybe "Naked Gun 2 1/2" funny
///Priscilla Presley was hot
 
2013-02-02 10:25:02 AM  

here to help: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

Segregation ROCKS!


Lordy, lordy, you really are an idiot.

>>>>>>Segregation ROCKS!

For purposes of having a competitive edge, then yes.
 
2013-02-02 10:26:31 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.


Please, do elaborate.
 
2013-02-02 10:26:39 AM  

Serious Black: You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.


Not making cakes isn't inherently a criminal act.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:08 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: Iam the LORD. (Leviticus 19:28)

[media.katu.com image 660x495]


I'm pretty sure there's also something in Leviticus about "thou shall not increase thou's douchebagginess by the wearing of a Vans t-shirt and the sporting of facial hair from 1991". I think it's in the appendix somewhere.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:50 AM  
If only he had a sign then he would have been able to break the law! Always make a sign.
 
2013-02-02 10:28:54 AM  

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: No law is being broken, the 1st amendment protects him, and trumps any state law if they conflict, which they do. If you don't like it, that's fine, but you need to repeal the 1st amendment, which isn't happening.

So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Funny how these 1st Amendment crusaders weren't as loud when Bush Jr raped the 1st and 4th Amendment

/well not "Naked Gun" funny
//maybe "Naked Gun 2 1/2" funny
///Priscilla Presley was hot



OJ ruined the memeories of the Naked Gun series.

I'll never forgive him.

For that.
 
2013-02-02 10:29:04 AM  

Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.


I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah
 
2013-02-02 10:29:36 AM  

Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"


Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.
 
2013-02-02 10:30:13 AM  

jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.


That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.
 
2013-02-02 10:30:58 AM  

truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.


I see your point, and am certainly in favor getting along with folks to the extent possible.  I'm sure you know there are times where people are going stand firm in their positions, so I would just agree to disagree and move on.  If I were in the customer's place, I would just vote with my dollars and go to another vendor.
 
2013-02-02 10:32:23 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.


How does that make it stupid? There are such things as "bloodless doctors" and they aren't very successful.

I've had two ex-girlfriends who were JWs. Don't try to argue with me about that cult.
 
2013-02-02 10:32:30 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Serious Black: You may want to check out the result of Employment Division v. Smith.

Not making cakes isn't inherently a criminal act.


Neutral laws of general applicability can only be statutes deeming something a crime?
 
2013-02-02 10:32:40 AM  

mr_a: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah


It's already started with the pharmacists who keep denying birth control to their customers.

That's going to be the determining case with these sort of things I think.
 
2013-02-02 10:34:20 AM  

Serious Black: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.

That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.


Actually, establishing that as a precedent in law would pretty well end civilization, if it were applied across the board.
These people always seem to think that their clever ideas will only work for THEM if they get them instituted.
 
2013-02-02 10:35:06 AM  

jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".


It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?

This baker may take financial hit but that is his choice as he is putting his beliefs before monatary considerations. In that respect good for him.
 
2013-02-02 10:35:14 AM  

Mugato: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Mugato: So a doctor can tell a mother, "fark you, I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Your kid isn't getting a blood transfusion! You're dying for the first amendment, kid!"

Your comparison is stupid, because the doctor would have always had to been against transfusions.

How does that make it stupid? There are such things as "bloodless doctors" and they aren't very successful.

I've had two ex-girlfriends who were JWs. Don't try to argue with me about that cult.



You sound like a slow learner.


;-)
 
2013-02-02 10:37:36 AM  

Mentalenemasquad: truthseeker2083: Mentalenemasquad: MayoSlather: I believe this is in fact breaking the state law. His personal freedom of religion isn't being infringed upon. He is attempting to push his religious ideas onto others through his place of business. Just because his interpretation of his religion is homophobic doesn't mean he can openly do homophobic things and hide behind freedom of religion as a defense.

Marriage is not purely a religious device contrary to what many Christians believe. It is secular in the eyes of the law, and thus the Christian definition of marriage and the US's definition are different things. He cannot dictate his bigoted definition to others via his place and call it his expression of religious freedom. It's discrimination pure and simple and seems to me to be in violation of Oregon state law.

I'm not sure I would see it as pushing his beliefs on others.  My view of that would be "If I make a cake for you, then it has to have certain details that only I approve".  On the other hand, it appears that the baker is saying "The work you are asking me to do conflicts with my beliefs, so I cannot help you this time around".  He may very well be running afoul of secular law, but he chose to follow his conscience...

He can deal with his conscience in the next life. In this one he gets to deal with secular law. I don't like having to deal with certain people, but I recognize that in a civilized society we must put certain beliefs and urges on hold to ensure that everyone can live their lives. 'Christians' (especially openly hypocritical ones like mr tatty mc tattoo) need to learn this lesson as well.

I see your point, and am certainly in favor getting along with folks to the extent possible.  I'm sure you know there are times where people are going stand firm in their positions, so I would just agree to disagree and move on.  If I were in the customer's place, I would just vote with my dollars and go to another vendor.


I would too, but the law is there for their protection. If it weren't there, people would still have 'No Coloreds' posted everywhere. Only by enforcing the law equally can we have true justice. Does the gay rights movement hang on a cake? No. Is it a step towards full equality? Yes. No matter what certain types of people think, one day, my marriage will be just as legal as everyone elses. (Including that interracial couple's, can you believe it! You'd think their marriage goes against federal law too! Or so we've been told in this thread...)
 
2013-02-02 10:39:32 AM  

Mrtraveler01: mr_a: Z-clipped: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Please cite this case that you must be referring to,

No, it's up to YOU to cite an instance of the SCOTUS ruling that states cannot further define the responsibility of business owners not to discriminate, or further define protected classes within their jurisdiction.

The notion that this is a first amendment issue is ludicrous.

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals. Does a pharmacist's right of free speech and/or religious freedom allow him to deny a customer a legally prescribed medication?

...small town, one pharmacy, patient without transportation, blah blah blah

It's already started with the pharmacists who keep denying birth control to their customers.

That's going to be the determining case with these sort of things I think.


It's all been tried - and failed - before:

"   In 1966, three African-American customers brought a suit against Piggie Park restaurants, and their owner, Maurice Bessinger, for refusal to serve them. Bessinger argued that enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits that type of discrimination, violated his religious freedom "since his religious beliefs compel[ed] him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."
•    In 1976, Roanoke Valley Christian Schools added a "head of household" supplement to their teachers' salaries - which according to their beliefs meant married men, and not women. When sued under the Equal Pay Act, Roanoke Valley claimed a right to an exemption. According to the church pastor affiliated with the school, "[w]hen we turned to the Scriptures to determine head of household, by scriptural basis, we found that the Bible clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the house, head of the wife, head of the family."•    In the 1980's, Bob Jones University, a religiously-affiliated school in South Carolina, wanted an exemption from a rule denying tax-exempt status to schools that practice racial discrimination. The "sponsors of the University genuinely believe[d] that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage," and it was school policy that students engaged in interracial relationships, or advocacy thereof, would be expelled. Did any of these attempts succeed? They really want to try to fight the sixties all over again. How they think they could win now, when they lost then, is beyond me.
 
2013-02-02 10:39:41 AM  

hasty ambush: jso2897: BronyMedic: BarkingUnicorn: Had one of these in Lakewood, Colorado, a while back.  The baker felt the Internet's wrath.  IDK if any legal consequences ensued.

Why is it always the bakers?  Are there no Christian butchers or candlestick makers?

I'm pretty sure that refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation or because of your religious convictions is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but IANAL, unless it's a "private club"

No. Federal law does not treat sexual orientation as a protected class (if it did, there could be no "DOMA"). Oregon law, however, does, so it's irrelevant.
Cue all the righties who will defend this lawbreaking criminal's "religious freedom".

It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?

This baker may take financial hit but that is his choice as he is putting his beliefs before monatary considerations. In that respect good for him.


I guess it does take balls to be that open about his bigotry I suppose.
 
2013-02-02 10:39:55 AM  

december: Where in the Bible does it say that in order to be a Christian you must not bake cakes for dykes?


It's right after the verses about no tattoos, piercings, shaving or adultery.You have to look past all the one's 'family values' voters overlook.
 
2013-02-02 10:40:06 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Jon iz teh kewl: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: You Idiots: So what.

I would suggest you libtards start your own business to serve these folks, but you'd rather rant and demand a government agency force businesses to provide politically correct services.

Put your money where your mouth is, instead of a foot for once.

You idiots.

That's actually a great idea. Hire a really competent head baker and staff. Pay over scale to attract and keep the best. Name it something like "GLBT Bakeries." Advertise as THE place to go for alternative lifestyle couples. Hire both tolerant straights and tolerant gays.

The reasoning: how many bakeries are there in a random large metropolitan area? Probably at least 30 or 40, including both chains and mom-and-pop shops. That means, on the average, any store gets maybe 3% of the total business. But the percentage of GLBT people in the population is probably 3.4% to 3.8%. http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/19/how_many_americans_ a re_gay_or_lesbian_gallup_survey_says_3_4_percent.html. If you offer quality product and huge service, you will have a definite competitive edge.

make cakes out of poop and semen and watch your sales go through the roof!!

AFAIAC the customer is always right. I suspect, however, that there are state health laws that might come into play. And also contamination issues.

Wife and I recently got a Pizza Hut pizza. I LOVE Canadian bacon, pineapple and cashews, but they don't have cashews, and would not agree to add them even if I supplied them with a can. Reason: potential cross contamination of another pizza (particularly bad with a nut-sensitive individual).

But then again, you were just being snarky, right?


i'm just doing what gays like.  they like poop.
 
Ant
2013-02-02 10:41:16 AM  

FreakyBunny: He has a tattoo. Leviticus 19:28 says "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. " I wonder if he serves his arm?


Living in Oregon with an attitude like that, I think it's more likely that his arm's gonna be serving him, if you get my meaning.
 
2013-02-02 10:42:28 AM  

mr_a: I am not a lawyer, but I suspect at some point this issue makes it to the Supreme Court-not over wedding cakes, but pharmaceuticals.


It's a bit of a different issue... a pharmacist refusing to stock the morning after pill would be like this cake dickhead refusing to stock pink icing. It doesn't deprive a single class of their rights.  (Women don't have a right to unilateral access to birth control) A pharmacist that refused to carry ANY medications that ONLY women use is in a gray area, and could be sued for sex discrimination.  A pharmacist refusing to sell aspirin to a gay couple while selling to straight couples would definitely run afoul of state anti-discrimination laws, if they protect sexual orientation.
 
2013-02-02 10:42:28 AM  

hasty ambush: It is not amatter of religous freedom. As long as no tax dollars are involved he should be allowed to refuse to do business with anyone for whatever reason he desires. Would you force a Black baker to work for a wedding where the bride and groom are members of the KKK?
How about a pro-aboriton baker having to work at a pro-life wedding and the cake had to have a choose life decoration on it?

People are entitled to their own ideas and prejudices as long as they do not use tax dollars to finance them and do not express those views in a manner that causes physical harm to others. (Getting your feeling hurt is not a reason) Who are you to force him to accept another lifestyle?


So in that case, would you be ok if a business was still allowed to discriminate customers based on race?
 
2013-02-02 10:43:06 AM  

december: Where in the Bible does it say that in order to be a Christian you must not bake cakes for dykes?



Actually the Bibbly Book comes down pretty hard on the gheyish...

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

But I've never seen anything specifically condemning lying with "womankind as with mankind".

Besides, how were all of those Biblical wives and concubines supposed to get their rocks off with only one husband?
 
2013-02-02 10:43:18 AM  

jso2897: Serious Black: jso2897: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Z-clipped: Having religious beliefs doesn't entitle you to ignore OSHA standards, pay less than minimum wage, sell poisoned food, or not pay taxes... why the ever loving fark would it entitle you to discriminate against people?

That is the worst comparison ever.

Why? It's one of the legal principles that make anti-discrimination law enforceable. One cannot justify or protect otherwise illegal activities on the supposed basis of "faith"  - or, indeed, any other "conviction".
What the first amendment forbids is any prohibition of OTHERWISE LEGAL activity on the basis of someone's faith.
It does not allow you to smoke weed, not pay taxes, or discriminate unlawfully because you claim your faith mandates it.

That's what a number of Christians keep angling for: the Supreme Court to say that religious beliefs mean that you do not have to abide by neutral laws of general applicability. If they do that and agree that the right also holds for corporate persons, say goodbye to any regulation of the economy whatsoever.

Actually, establishing that as a precedent in law would pretty well end civilization, if it were applied across the board.
These people always seem to think that their clever ideas will only work for THEM if they get them instituted.


Oh, I know. To wit, I looked up the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith. Here's a choice quote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

"Nor is it possible to limit the impact of respondents' proposal by requiring a "compelling state interest" only when the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion. It is no more appropriate for judges to determine the "centrality" of religious beliefs before applying a "compelling interest" test in the free exercise field than it would be for them to determine the "importance" of ideas before applying the "compelling interest" test in the free speech field. What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer's assertion that a particular act is "central" to his personal faith? Judging the centrality of different religious practices is akin to the unacceptable "business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims." As we reaffirmed only last Term, "t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretation of those creeds." Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim.

"If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service, to the payment of taxes, to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this."

 
2013-02-02 10:43:27 AM  
I thought cake making and the gay went hand in hand?
 
2013-02-02 10:44:15 AM  

Amos Quito: ACunningPlan: What if Cakey-boy said:   "I hate gays or I didn't vote for gay marriage" or whatever abomination is bothering him, but agreed to go through with the business transaction; would that be OK?


Or what if he agreed to make the cake on the condition that they make him the meat in their sammich?


Or watch the "you may kiss the bride" bit or wedding night vid...

truthseeker, serious black, theatatus:

Thanks, that's what I thought.  So he's either just really stupid or seeking publicity.

Personal rule; never irritate someone who prepares your food because the sum total of yuckiness in retaliation isn't worth the principle.
 
2013-02-02 10:46:03 AM  
I'm sure he also refuses service to any couples engaging in premarital sex...
 
2013-02-02 10:46:18 AM  
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
 
Displayed 50 of 541 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report