"Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year. In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. [...]

"According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs. Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.

"The judge's decision states in its Finding of Facts that Phillips believes creating same-sex wedding cakes would be "displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible. In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women. [...]

"Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for. He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. [...] Philips is currently considering an appeal of the judge's order."
(source)

------------

So, a cake for hetero dog marriage is no problem. But a cake for homosexual human marriage is an outrage before God and America; one that is holding poor Philip hostage for a paycheck.

Well, the solution is simple and obvious. Now that marriage equality has made the cake business so clearly against Philip's religion, it's time to either switch religions or get out of the cake business.

Tags: equality, marriage

Views: 890

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

As Marie Antoinette supposedly and famously said in her mixed French and English statement "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, unless they are married and gay."

 

Hi guys ,there are many situations similar to this action,religion versus the gays.But as long as religion has the majority of the power base in most countries.there is no ending to the crass stupity of these people.

Religious belief does not trump State Law.

I always describe myself as a libertarian at the liberal end of the spectrum. I think business people (especially small business people) should have latitude to turn away business they don't want. I see atheist rights as just as tied to Freedom of (from) Religion as the rights of religious people.

If I were to start a cake shop specializing in gay wedding cakes, why shouldn't I have the right to turn away someone who wants me to do a heterosexual cake?

Likewise, I feel that if a clinic has the right to perform abortions or dispense morning after pills, which it should, a pharmacist down the road should likewise have the right to not stock morning after pills.

If I were to start a cake shop specializing in gay wedding cakes, why shouldn't I have the right to turn away someone who wants me to do a heterosexual cake?

Because of civil rights laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and (in this case) the laws of Colorado. These are the same federal laws that ended "whites only" signs in the south. Colorado has expanded them to include sexual orientation as a protected class characteristic.

Likewise, I feel that if a clinic has the right to perform abortions or dispense morning after pills, which it should, a pharmacist down the road should likewise have the right to not stock morning after pills.

That isn't likewise. Likewise would be stocking morning-after pills but refusing to sell them to Hispanics, or offering abortions but refusing to perform them on Christians.

----------------

Civil Right
"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class." (source)

----------------

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal protection: An overview
"The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right." (source)

You're totally missing my question, which was basically SHOULD there be a difference? In other words, I'm calling the laws into question. Do we actually need laws that make a baker put a pair of men on top of a wedding cake if he doesn't want to do that, or is that a case of the law overreaching a bit?

I suppose there are two different points of consideration I would give here.

If the issue here was simply not doing a gay-themed wedding cake, perhaps I would have some sympathy. I may find the objection to same-sex marriage repugnant or perhaps just naïve myself, but it is a baker's right to hold that view. If cake decoration is viewed as a form of artistic expression, I can see how the baker may view it as being forced to express a concept with which he disagrees, and also to provide a service which he does not provide. Legally, I doubt there would be a case in that, but like I said: I have some sympathy. 

If the issue is that he would not sell them any cake to be used in a wedding, then yes, there need to be legal protections against that. By his profession, he does want to be making cakes. He cannot force moral considerations on clients by dictating how his cakes are used or by whom merely on the basis of prejudicial discrimination. If you allow that, then you allow subclasses of citizens to be shut out from society. We don't cater gay weddings. We don't rent honeymoon suites to gay married couples. Tuxedos, wedding gowns, food, space, whatever.

Hell, I won't sell groceries to anyone who won't pray before dinner, neither will I sell vegetables to anyone who uses them to support a vegan diet. Withholding services to enforce unrelated moral values infringes on the freedoms of others. If the resulting discrimination is pervasive, the infringement on freedoms can dramatically degrade the lives of those affected. If the discrimination is isolated, well, maybe it's just a wedding cake from one of many bakers, but the same principle is there and wrong for the same reasons, even if the damages are quite minor.

Withholding services to enforce unrelated moral values infringes on the freedoms of others.

What freedom? The freedom to get a cake baked by me rather than the baker down the road?

Bullshit! ;)

You are securing the right for the cake baker down the road to also refuse service, and the cake baker in the next county as well. America has been down this road before with racism. 

But that's beside the point. One has both the right to buy cake and to use that cake, within legal limits, as they deem fit. The baker, of his own will, has agreed to sell cake as is his right, but to dictate the use of a product which one owns is overreaching. If you accept the responsibility of providing a service, grow the fuck up and provide that service.

You are like those generals who are always fighting the last war. You seriously can see a day when America could relapse into a situation where blacks, Jews, or even Arab-Americans would be unable to find a place to buy a cake?

Bwahahahaha!!!

I know you struggle when reading longer posts, but that one was quite short, so I am a little baffled by this response.

I commented on 

America has been down this road before with racism. 

I should have quoted. 

We no longer live in the 1800's or even 1900's. 

RSS

Blog Posts

Invictus

Posted by Marinda on September 11, 2014 at 4:08pm 0 Comments

Ads

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service