Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

If a customer part of a hunting club wanted the depiction of a dead deer on his cake came into a bakery owned by vegetarians, should the vegetarian be compelled to honor that request or should they reserve the right to say that it goes against their beliefs and that by doing so potentially harm's their business?

The difference is the decoration.Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.Your scenario is considerably different. It requires the baker to use his talents to create a message. That makes it a free speech issue not a discrimination issue.

quote:

---

If a customer part of a hunting club wanted the depiction of a dead deer on his cake came into a bakery owned by vegetarians, should the vegetarian be compelled to honor that request or should they reserve the right to say that it goes against their beliefs and that by doing so potentially harm's their business?

---

See what I said above. In addition, consider the fact that hunters are not a protected class. Also consider the fact that there is no great tradition of cakes to celebrate dead deer, or dead deer as a decoration for cakes.Really, you should have been able to work that out without my help.

Where are you getting that information? The information I have seen is that Phillips offered other accommodations. His one stipulation was that he not bake a wedding cake in reference to the decorations.From a VOX article:

quote:

---

"Phillips appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. He argued that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for. His only issue is that from his perspective, baking the couple a wedding cake would force him to celebrate an act he’s opposed to ” and forcing him to do that, he argued, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.

---

Likewise, the distinction was brought up by Justice Kennedy:

quote:

---

"One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage”for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning”that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

​

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless."

---

If Phillips had said, "this store does not serve homosexuals" we wouldn't be having this conversation at it would be an incontrovertible civil rights violation of a protected class of people. Phillips offered his services, but stated that he would specifically not bake a cake supporting what he believes are contrary to his religious beliefs.But lets come to a consensus. Would we agree that Phillips could be compelled to bake a nondescript cake with no decorations? Would he be protected from being forced to decorate it in a manner that conflicts with his religious beliefs? Where's the line?

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law. There is, however, a long and storied tradition of traditional marriage which, while misguided in my opinion, formed the basis of his religious objections.

quote:

---

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law.

---

But there is a great tradition of wedding cakes. Singling out gay marriage in that respect is an aspect of discrimination.

quote:

---

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law.

---

There is also a long tradition of homophobia, and of opposition to gay rights which had far more to do with it. Indeed, gay marriage does nothing to threaten traditional marriage, so it doesn't seem much of a motivation.

Legally there is no "gay" marriage and separate "traditional" marriage. There is only marriage.

quote:

---

The difference is the decoration.
Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.

Where are you getting that information? The information I have seen is that Phillips offered other accommodations. His one stipulation was that he not bake a wedding cake in reference to the decorations.

---

If you read the quote it is quite clear that the “other accommodations” did not stretch to even a generic wedding cake A generic wedding cake is not a “non-wedding” good.Philips’ argument is that he is not prejudiced against gays because he would sell them other items but not any sort of wedding cake.

Customer wants a wedding cake. No talk of decoration. Baker refused because customer is gay. Offer of providing cupcakes or scones was not the order. Just a wedding cake. And the baker reused the order before any talk of decoration took place.Baker provides wedding cakes but refused to do business, offers cupcakes instead, because they were gay. Didn't want to appear to be supporting gay marriage. Is this any different then refusing a mixed race couple because he didn't want to appear to be supporting integration?Providing specific themed decoration, not just generic wedding but specifically gay motifs, is another matter altogether. He can be compelled to provided wedding cake with customary and usual decorations since that is what he advertises to the public he offers and it is what his public business licence expects. Yes. The decoration.Baker was not asked to perform anything special outside his normal business. He refused because the customer was gay. That is discrimination under the law.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

According to Ginsberg's dissent, William Jack's order including two grooms with an X and a hostile Bible verse was a message, and not one the baker was legally obligated to provide. I'm sure that it's the same for your swastika example in your next reply,If a customer went into Jack Phillips' shop and ordered a cake with the words "Gay Marriage Totally Rocks!", Phillips would be legally entitled to refuse.But a plain cake, even if it is obviously a wedding cake, is not a message. All by itself, it is not an expression in support of same sex marriage. And it doesn't magically turn into an endorsement just because it turns out to be intended for a same sex marriage.In the same way, if William Jack just ordered a Bible shaped cake with no text, it wouldn't magically turn into a message if it turns out he's bringing the cake to an anti-gay rights rally. I don't know, though, whether a refusal to provide this service would run afoul of Colordo's anti-discrimation statutes.

Me, I would agree with this with the understanding that "gay motif" would be something like rainbow-flag colored icing. Simply writing "Congratulations James and Frederick" or putting two generic wedding cake brides on the top wouldn't count as "gay motif"; it would just be part of what a wedding cake looks like.The courts might disagree, though. The cases haven't had a chance to get into that kind of specific detail, so we can't (yet) know how this would play out. Added by edit:Oops. Maybe that's what you were saying when you wrote: Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Now that is interesting, Chiroptera. A Bride/Groom topper is customary and usual. Is a groom/groom topper a special? Especially if no other gay motifs are present?I might think it would be, but that's what courts are for.

If you think I'm looking forward to Armageddon, which is a horrific war prophesied for the very end of time, no you do not know me at all. Yes I look forward to the Rapture. You don't seem to know what these things mean.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is the whole point to my mind and there is no other point to be considered. This isn't something a court or anyone else can decide, only the person put in the position of obeying or denying God according to his or her own understanding. Whether it's about a message on the cake, mannikins, decorations or just the fact that it is for a gay wedding, it's the baker's conscience that's engaged and nobody else can decide this.But it does need to be kept in mind that a wedding cake is a very special custom-made and often personally designed item, from the ingredients in the cake itself to the structure of it to the decorations on it. It's a creative work by the baker for a special purpose. If a cake off the shelf would do I'm sure there would be no problem, but this sort of special creation puts the baker in a particular dilemma. Melissa, who with her husband was the owner of the wedding cake business in Oregon, that was vandalized, fined and eventually put out of business, had been in business for years, had always wanted to make wedding cakes, considered it a calling. The law that brought all this grief down on her is a very recent thing so it's a little late to ask her to avoid the occupation. She and her husband were very polite to the lesbian couple who asked for a wedding cake but declined on the basis of their Christian belief. They had known the lesbian girls for some time and had no problem with selling them any other item they made.If the law stays as it is such people really have no option but to refuse and take the consequences.

That's alright. I admit my legal reasoning may be wrong. I admit that I may be an extremist when it comes to religious beliefs getting special privileges and I might come too reflexively down to the side: "Religious people just need to grit their teeth and obey the laws like non-religious people do."Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected the wrong typo.