"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: 943

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?

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 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 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. 

I don't think forcing people to ACT in a way we want them to act is a real solution. After all, if I were an anti-gay baker I could just make them a crappy cake. Mission not accomplished.

Do we also have the right to FORCE a Christian baker to bake an atheist oriented cake? If so, they have the right to force an atheist baker to bake a "Stop the war on Christmas" cake.

The government should stay out of this sort of thing.

You're totally missing my question, which was basically SHOULD there be a difference?

Oh.

Then, no. I don't think discrimination against a minority group, especially based on an immutable quality such as race or sexual orientation, should be legal.

I'm with the Constitution on this one. I think equality under the law, as form of social justice, is essential in a free society. Institutionalized inequality is a form of oppression.

If your religion says "no cakes for blacks" it confers no right to forbid blacks from buying your cakes, it disqualifies you from the cake business (in addition to meaning you're a racist prick).

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,

We need laws that make anti-gay bigots serve gay couples at their businesses, yes.

or is that a case of the law overreaching a bit?

Not at all. Being gay isn't the problem. The anti-gay bigots who openly discriminate against gays are the problem. The law served its purpose.

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service