Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple (page 14)

freemindfade

Lets reverse it a little, what if a gay couple owned a restaurant and they saw a two priests sit down at a table and asked to be served and the owners knowing these people are against gay relationships refused serving the priests and asked them to leave.

You are still on the wrong track, one more time:

Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it. If he decides against, he is not denying or rejecting a person.

A gay catering company would be totally in their right to not cater a Catholic event, get it yet???

Finkelstein

The point is that a business owner is free to think it good or bad and decide, based on that equation, whether he wants to be associated with it.

Or course that is his right but the question here in debate does he have the right to selective do business "Legally" whoever he wants to do business with him based upon a religious affiliation or sexual identity, with emphasis on Legal. ???

freemindfade

He didn't break any laws. If you told them to get out of his store because they were gay, I am sure he'd have some problems. Choosing not to work for someone is not illegal in American thank god.

Finkelstein

To put in focus , a person has the constitutional right to their own opinion toward prejudice upon another person's activity being religious or sexual in nature but in a publicly held licensed business activity do they have the legal right to uphold their prejudice and discrimination ?

cofty

in a publicly held licensed business activity - Fink

What does that mean precisely?

Finkelstein

If you told them to get out of his store because they were gay, I am sure he'd have some problems

What is the difference ?

He's refusing to do business with these people ... ie. like the restaurant analogy

freemindfade

Gay marriage is an event/activity, a thing you do. Not a person...

Phillips never turned any customer away due to their sexual orientation.
The two gay men, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were welcome to purchase any item in the store.
They could have bought all the brownies and cookies and pies that their hearts and stomachs desired. They could have even bought a wedding cake.
Their romantic interests were of no concern to Jack Phillips.
He was not discriminating on that basis or any basis.

Jack Phillips did not refuse service to gay people. He refused service to a gay wedding. He declined to make a special cake — a work of art — for a particular occasion that he determined to be morally objectionable.

I don't know how to make that more plain

This guy also:

Wouldn't make lewd bachelor party cakes.
He wouldn't make Halloween cakes.
He wouldn't make cakes for divorce parties.

Does that mean he was discriminating against divorced people? Would it be fair to say that he "refused to serve the divorced"? Of course not. He just didn't want to direct his creative energies towards making something that would celebrate divorce.

freemindfade

What is the difference ?

oh my sweet lord, please see above, jesus christ

LoveUniHateExams

the question here in debate does he have the right to selective do business - if he's an independent baker, if he owns the equipment and premises then he has every right to throw someone off the premises without giving a reason, and that's before we even come to refusing to bake a fag-cake.

If he refuses to bake a fag-cake or arbitrarily throws someone off his premises, then it's the baker's loss. He loses at least one customer and typically more.

The free market will punish his odd, outdated views and behaviour.

Finkelstein

in a publicly held licensed business activity - Fink

Well most modernized countries when you want operate a public business you have to apply for a business license by the local laws and regulatory authorities.

That usually doesn't include certain stipulations devised by the owner to refuse people of color, sexual identity or religious affiliation

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

Share this