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

by Simon 252 Replies latest social current

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    too bad if they believe that b—llsh-t about Hamm.

    Courts have upheld other religious BS -- ie, what JWs believe about God banning blood transfusions.

  • LoveUniHateExams
    LoveUniHateExams

    I'm not sure I see the difference - ok here's the difference ...

    It would be illegal for a baker to refuse to serve a gay customer because the customer is gay.

    "I'd like a sausage roll and an iced bun, please"

    "No - we don't serve gays here"

    This is clearly different from a gay couple asking a baker who's religious to bake them a wedding cake for their same-sex wedding.

    "We want a wedding cake for our upcoming same-sex wedding party"

    "Well, I don't believe gay marriage is right, so no"

    "You bake us our gay wedding cake, or we'll ruin you financially"

  • Hisclarkness
    Hisclarkness

    It should be pointed out that the decision was a “narrow” one in that this decision applied specifically to this Baker in this case. The court made it a point to say that this case would not necessarily set any precedent and that future similar cases might possibly swing a different way.

    This case should not not be taken as opening the door for people to refuse services to gay people based on religious beliefs. As was pointed out earlier, the baker did not refuse services to the couple; he only refused the custom wedding cake.

    Also to be pointed out is that this took place in 2012 before gay marriage was legal, so the court had to take in to consideration all of the context and laws in 2012. This is why the court emphasized that future similar cases could potentially be different.

  • humbled
    humbled

    Thank you, hisclarkness.

    You hit every question l might have and then some.

  • redvip2000
    redvip2000
    Nobody should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience even if we disagree with their opinions.

    I think i'm nearly alone on this one, but i don't understand the position many of you are taking. In principle, nobody should be allowed to act contrary to their conscience - agreed there.

    Now the question: What if you provide a service to the public? Well then, in that case, I don't agree, because it really could hurt folks who are at a disadvantage for no other reason than who they are.

    In other words, if you have a private club and you want to restrict access to gays, blacks, mentally challenged folks, immigrants, then by all means, go ahead and do so. (and go fuck yourself).

    But if you provide a service to the public, then you are compelled to service everybody equally. Unless you do this, you are on a slippery slope to chaos.

    But if i'm wrong, and you are saying that "Nobody should be compelled to act contrary to their conscience even if we disagree with their opinions.", then logically you should be ok with a police officer refusing to help a Mexican being robbed because he hates Mexicans.

    (now wait for the special pleading)

  • steve2
    steve2

    The outcome does seem morally selective. Would they refuse to bake a cake for a straight couple who did not have Scriptural grounds for divorcing their previous spouses? Or would they even inquire to ascertain whether they should?

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus

    Sigh.... this is being misrepresent in some of the finer details.

    The baker refused to make a custom cake. The customers could have bought any premade cake or even a custom cake that didnt require the owner to apply his artistic talent to something he morally objected to. It is in no way annalogous to police or ems responding. It is analogous to requiring a Muslim baker to bake a with crosses or ‘f**k mohamed’.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Re: Violating Conscience

    Seems I recall a case where a JW school teacher refused to lead the class in the Pledge of Allegiance because it violated his/her conscience and thus the teacher was discharged. Not sure how far up the ladder it went, but there was a decision that the discharge was legal because the teacher (for whatever reason was not important) was unable to fulfill their duties as a teacher. Conclusion: the teacher could not be compelled to violate their conscience, however the teacher had no right to the job if he/she could not perform the stated work required.

    Similar hypothetical situations were discussed in some businesses over the "morning after" birth control pill. Could a doctor/nurse/pharmacist refuse to dispense the legal drug because it violated their personal conscience. Most companies made allowances (allowing other staff to dispense) so as to allow the employees' personal decisions to be honored, thus allowing the employers to avoid the court challenges.

  • sparky1
    sparky1

    God dammit, _Morpheus..................I've told you already, STOP trying to be a voice of reason and moderation! I am beginning to think that you are not a very nice person.

  • cofty
    cofty
    logically you should be ok with a police officer refusing to help a Mexican being robbed because he hates Mexicans - Revip

    Except it is absolutely NOTHING like that at all. But this fact has been explained multiple times on this thread already.

    There is nothing to suggest the bakers hate gays. They have a moral objection to gay marriage and prefer not to offer their services to a gay wedding ceremony.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit