Make Him Bake Cake?

Compelling participation in gay wedding celebrations turns the oppressed into the oppressors.

Because Colorado would not grant them a license, David Mullins and Charlie Craig got married in Provincetown, Massachusetts, 2,000 miles away. Because Jack Phillips would not bake them a wedding cake for their hometown reception, they bought one from another bakery in the Denver area.

The huge difference between the burdens imposed by those two refusals reflects a crucial difference in power that has been obscured by the campaign to compel social acceptance of same-sex marriage. You know something has gone terribly wrong with our reasoning about rights when the same state that forced Mullins and Craig to travel so far for their nuptials insists that Phillips had a legal obligation to bake a cake in celebration of the marriage it refused to recognize.

Mullins and Craig got married in 2012, two years before a federal appeals court decision forced Colorado to lift its ban on same-sex unions. They therefore had no choice but to leave the state for their wedding, since Colorado was stopping every county within its borders from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, has no such control over his fellow bakers. Mullins and Craig therefore had many choices when he turned down their business, saying his religious beliefs precluded him from baking a cake in honor of a gay wedding. They nevertheless argued that Phillips was legally required to bake them a cake, and last week a state appeals court agreed.

Upholding a 2014 decision by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Colorado Court of Appeals said Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which makes it illegal for a business to deny customers "full and equal enjoyment" of its goods or services "because of" their sexual orientation. The court rejected Phillips' argument that forcing him to bake gay wedding cakes violates his right to freedom of speech by compelling him to endorse a message with which he disagrees and his right to the free exercise of religion by requiring him to act contrary to the teachings of his faith.

The court said simply baking a wedding cake does not qualify as "expressive conduct" protected by the First Amendment, although it left open the possibility that inscribing the cake might. As for the religious freedom claim, the judges noted that the Supreme Court since 1990 has taken the position that "neutral laws of general applicability" are constitutional, even if they make it difficult or impossible for someone to practice his religion, unless there is evidence of an intent to target a particular sect.

Whatever you think of these constitutional conclusions, let's be clear about what's happening here: In 2012, according to the state of Colorado, Mullins and Craig had a "civil right" to a cake baked by Phillips, but they did not have a civil right to a marriage recognized by the state of Colorado. The truth is precisely the opposite.

Because of the special powers they wield, including the power to decide who qualifies for the various legal benefits of marriage, governments have an obligation to treat people equally, without regard to sexual orientation. Private citizens like Phillips have no such obligation unless legislators decide to impose one.

When they do, they are not, as Craig puts it, sending "a clear message…that freedom means freedom for all." They are saying the freedom of some must be sacrificed for the comfort of others.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country, as it should be. Most Americans welcome this development. Must the minority that doesn't be bullied into submission?

It is not hard to understand why Mullins and Craig, especially given their state's policy of discriminating against gay couples, were offended by Phillips' refusal to bake them a wedding cake. But their response—using the coercive power of that same state to make him violate his deeply held beliefs in the name of tolerance—turned the oppressed into the oppressors.

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Comments

[Bill Dalasio]

I agree that the best solution is to not compel Phillips to bake a cake. But, I can't help but wonder if there wouldn't be some justice in, if he is going to be forced to do so, forcing Mullins and Craig, as well as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, at gunpoint, to CONSUME. WHATEVER. CAKE. PHILLIPS. CHOOSES. TO. BAKE. THEM.

[Will4Freedom]

I like the way you think...

[some guy]

Groom: "This tastes awful!"
Baker: "I tried to warn you that I wasn't good at baking gay wedding cakes."

[Fist of Etiquette]

It wasn't for consumption. They planned to mount it on their wall as a trophy.

[randall]

Excellent analysis of true intent.

[Number 2]

Then the next case will be over the hostile wedding environment and emotional damages caused by the "harassing" and "homophobic" cake.

All in all, these cases illustrate the point that Caitlin Flanagan encapsulated in one sentence in her Atlantic Monthly article on campus speech codes and its effect on stand-up comedy: "But once you've won a culture war, free speech {and any other form of individual liberty} is a nuisance, and 'eliminating' language {and other disfavored conduct} becomes a necessity."

[Hidebehindyourcause]

lol

Sexual harassment cake

[bacon-magic]

"This cake tastes like shit" /gay activist
"I thought you liked that." /forced at gunpoint baker

[randall]

OUCH!!!

[Sevens]

Very interesting idea. Equality of compelled association. That's what's been overlooked in Brown. There's a neutral principle, at third one. Things are not limited to (1) A having to associate with B (doing school stuff) and (2) non-association. There's (3), B having to associate with A in some other way (dancing, painting, cleaning, sex, etc. -- things B may not like to do with/for A).

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Although I'm certainly against forcing someone to associate with another, I don't understand this notion that the Christian religion prevents someone from baking a gay wedding cake, or even photography the wedding.

Jesus himself was derided for hanging out with "sinners" and "drunkards." If he would hang out with prostitutes and tax-gatherers (the most hated sinners), then Christian bakers can bake a gay wedding cake.

[Mark6]

I'll become a believer when a Muslim caterer is required to offer pork chops on the menu and when a black photographer is forced to photograph a Klan rally,

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I'm not suggesting that anyone be forced to do anything or associate with anyone. All I'm questioning is where some (many) Christians get their orders to avoid the same kinds of "sinners" that Christ himself freely associated with and served. They don't get it from scripture.

[Eric]

Don't fret. I'm sure this god fearing man also turns away those unrepentant souls wearing garments made of more than one fiber as well.

[SDN]

Doesn't apply to Christians; it's not in the New Testament.

You could ask an Orthodox Jewish baker; they might just do that.

I love watching anti-theists talk about something they know nothing about.

[RKPHX]

So the old testament doesn't apply? Please show me a chapter and verse in the New Testament where Jesus specifically says anything against homosexuality.

[problematic]

If a baker believes ssm to be a sin, couldn't they feel that profiting from a sin is in itself a sinful act.

[randall]

VERY nice argument

[Eric]

It's only a nice argument if one agrees that the baker is applying his belief consistently...As opposed to cherry picking what he believes a sin to be in order to justify his bigotry.

What if a ceremony is held on the Sabbath? Does not refuse those too? Didn't think so. Let's face it. The guy's a bigoted asshole who deserves to be boycotted for being an asshole.

But we both probably agree that the market should deal with him rather than the government.*

*Evidence of Cosmo and Yokel harmony 🙂

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Yes, there's a difference between exercising one's religious convictions and using religion to support one's bigotry. See my point and its continuation up thread.

[(f)utile]

Many Christians do not believe that the Law of Moses and old covenant worship regulations apply to new covenant Christians. Paul writes in Colossians 2:16-17, "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

In addition, some Christians worship on Sunday and others on Saturday. Romans 14:5 says, "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

Christians are therefore not to judge one another on Sabbath keeping as there is freedom in Christ. Whether that freedom extends to SSM is way above my pay grade.

[(f)utile]

This just made me think of something. Christians bakers could sell cakes intended for SSM celebrations at cost - no profit involved. It would be a way, devoid of any hate, of demonstrating their discomfort with being involved in SSM celebrations. It's also in line with Christ's teaching of turning the other cheek.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I like this idea. Christianity is for the spiritual development of the individual and, consequently, society. Refusing to serve others--no matter the reason--is opposite of the teachings and fails to accomplish those goals. Christians should find a way to serve those they disagree with.

Nonetheless, government must keep its hand out of it.

[Moridin]

Hyperbolical, you are correct. The exact behavior by Yeshua (Jesus) that you pointed out is one of the reasons the religious "leaders" of His time, e.g. the Sadducees and Pharisees, looked down on and hated Christ. He was exposing their hypocrisy and corruption by actually teaching and practicing the message of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures which the leaders had long since parted ways with in exchange for riches and authority over their people.

Sadly, the self-proclaimed followers of Christ today do the same shit. It is tragic.

[gary47290]

Irrelevant (actually, stupid) comment. A Muslim caterer will not offer pork chops to anyone. It's not part of the menu. There is no discimination because the caterer is serving all equally.

Your photographer example has some merit. But if you defend the right of the bader

[gary47290]

(hit enter too fast.)

If you defend the right of the baker to not serve one class of consumers vs another, you need to address why all public accommodation laws must go. I think you will find, in an urban, wage based economy, that there is a value to general applicability non-discrimination laws to ensure civil society.

[Bill Dalasio]

I think you're kind of oversimplifying the argument. Jesus may have hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, but he did insist that they repent. He didn't say he was okay with their sins, rather that their sins would be forgiven on condition of repentance. If someone was inclined to continue sinning, all bets were off. I think the Christian bakers et al. think the demand to provide wedding cakes is a demand, not only that they accept the sin, rather than demanding repentance, but celebrate it.

I don't share their views. But, the contradiction you're claiming is a false one.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Point taken.

[Moridin]

I think you both have good points. I think there is a contradiction there for sure; having been brought up in a Christian home and in the church I have personally witnessed it from many self-proclaimed Christians. I think Bill's point is also correct, many people are genuine in their beliefs and feel they are being asked to condone the behavior, not just make a cake.

I don't think your points are mutually exclusive.

[PM]

If a lost scroll were unearthed describing in pornographic detail a gay orgy between Jesus and the 12 disciples, it wouldn't change the freedom of association issue, nor the religious exercise issue. People have been killed over trivial differences in the way that Martin Luther and John Calvin interpreted the scriptures - you're not going to settle a matter of religious practice for 2 billion people with a throwaway line. And the last thing on earth you should do is have the government decide which practices are theologically correct for any particular faith.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I agree--as a prefaced each comment--that no one should be forced to associate with anyone.

[PM]

Even removing that entirely we're still saying to a group of 2 billion people broken up into hundreds of denominations often based on little more than the accentuation of a particular syllable in a particular verse of a particular chapter of their holy book that they're collectively wrong about the way they're practicing their faith. Even if you're right, you're not going to convince them when their professional theologians can't even agree on basic doctrinal issues.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I think you've hit the nail on its proverbial head. The problem with all Abrahamic faiths (and likely other religions that I know very little about) is that they mostly follow what I call folk religion and look to scripture only for validation of it. And this is a good example.

[Harvard]

And this surprises you, how? What about ""enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it" do you think only applies to the ungodly? All indications are, it's not going to be a surprise who is in heaven, but who isn't. My reading indicates it's harder than a camel passing through the eye of a needle.

This is explained in the Romans, where God makes his case, first against the ungodly (homosexuals boldly illustrated), then the godly (sins are sins), then the religious (think you're exempt?), concluding with "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God".

Make an honest attempt to at least study the faith, rather than apply it's validity or success to the proclaimers, thereby professing it's illegitimatcy. We are all, as Paul admitted, the "chief of sinners."
And what better way to witness to a sinner than to point out his sin by politely declining to be a party to it, in any way. John the Baptist reproved Herod for divorcing his wife (Phasaelis) and unlawfully taking Herodias, ultimately costing him his life, not merely a bakery.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Wow. You have no idea what my background is but you trudge on judging me and preaching hellfire and brimstone, nonetheless.

There are many ways to sin. If a baker refuses to do business with sinners, his/her business would never get off the ground. Singling out one sin to rail about is not like the Christ--no matter what you preach.

[Harvard]

With all due respect friend, you have deftly deflected a position that I've not made. My reply was to your reference to the followers of "all Abrahamic faiths" and their adherents following "folk religion". I think I made my point clear and my suggestion to read the Book of Romans would have underscored what you suggest, that sin truly is sin. For easy reading that's illustrated in God's admonition to the godly in 2:1 that they are no different than the ungodly of Chapter 1.

The baker no doubt knows that he deals with sinners, just like himself, every day. What he evidently doesn't want to do is be perceived as endorsing the sin by the overt act of aiding in it's celebration.

As to what part of Scripture that I referenced was "fire and brimstone" I remain clueless.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I'm familiar with Romans, and the building point of the first three chapters. And I'm not disagreeing with your argument regarding it. My point is a bit more pragmatic in two ways: all are sinners, and; all sins are essentially equal such that choosing one out of the others as a reason to refuse business is not very Christlike--very Christian.

For example:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. --I Corinthians 6:9,10

Now you and I may well disagree on what the Kingdom of God is, but I think we can agree that it is the goal of every believer. As such, no practicer of these sins (and many more) will Inherit, or see, this goal. Therefore, if one is to avoid one sin, one must avoid them all. And if one is to avoid one sinner, then one is to avoid all of them.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Back to the bakers. If a baker wants to avoid supporting sin and sinners, then that baker should avoid all sins and all sinners according to I Cor 6:9,10. But that's not practical and Jesus himself railed against the Pharisees for their maltreatment of sinners while showing by example that loving sinners goes a lot farther to changing people's hearts than lambasting them. A baker who hopes to change hearts should not turn sinners away. That's my point.

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that monogamous homosexual relationships is what Paul was talking about in either Romans or I Corinthians. Love is the ultimate objective. Sin is typically something that stands in the way of love. If people love each other (or one another) it should be seen as a step in the right direction. Especially when one considers the high rates of divorce among heterosexual couples.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

The baker no doubt knows that he deals with sinners, just like himself, every day. What he evidently doesn't want to do is be perceived as endorsing the sin by the overt act of aiding in it's celebration.

I understand this but I think it's cowardly.

[Eric Bana]

If a lost scroll were unearthed describing in pornographic detail a gay orgy between Jesus and the 12 disciples

Isn't that what the Dead Sea Scrolls were about?

[Jackand Ace]

The more compelling example that supports you is the story of the Samaritan. Two supposedly religious men passed by the one in need, and only the Samaritan acted like a "neighbor" by helping him. The question being, what defines a neighbor? Rejection and walking away doesn't, according to Jesus. He concluded by saying, "Go and do likewise."

[Jackand Ace]

By the way, I might add that in Jesus' day, Samaritans were among those held in the most disdain. Hardly considered "good," until Jesus purposely painted a different picture.

[Inigo "Chip" DuBois]

True. Samaritans were considered outsiders and heretics. His point in that parable was that individual actions mean much more than group identity. The Samaritan was good in his example, while the two "proper" Jews who ignored the injured robbery victim were bad.

[Pig in a Poke]

By your logic then, the Good Samaritan is compared to the gay couple and the beaten traveler is the baker. This would be similar to the beaten traveler refusing help from the Samaritan and the Samaritan suing the traveler for refusing his help.

[Jackand Ace]

No, by my example the person who doesn't allow subscription to only his religious beliefs get in the way of acting neighborly is like the Samaritan, and hence the one Jesus held up as an example.

[kV]

See, now I'm thinking: maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here... he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness.

[Pig in a Poke]

No, by your example you attempt to define how one Christian defines their conscience according to their own interpretation of faith. Does acting neighborly condemn one to act in accord with another's sin? This is the matter of the fact, that perhaps saying "No" or not participating, is being a good neighbor. Defining or compelling another to act by your understanding of scripture or being neighborly condemns us all to become less neighborly.

[Jackand Ace]

That Samaritan, according to Judaic teaching of the time, was a sinner. In fact, one of the most reviled groups of sinners.

You'll have to point out to me where Jesus suggested that by helping him- even leaving money for him- was in someway endorsing that sin. No, in fact he specifically instructed to overlook that "sin" and act neighborly.

I said below that when he said "do likewise," you'll have to figure out what likewise meant. I know what it means to me.

[Pig in a Poke]

The Samaritan was the one helping not the other way around. The way that you wrote your last reply implies that the Samaritan was the one in need of assistance. Semantics. But when you say "I know what it means to me." , is the same that can be made by these bakers, and reinforces my statement from above, that your interpretation of Christ's teaching of this parable does not overshadow another's interpretation to the same. In fact, Christ allowed the one he was reaching to make their own conclusion to who was the neighbor.

[Brian]

I had no idea you were such a devout theologan.

I'm glad you've found some overlap between SJW anti-free association laws and bringing about a biblically correct theocracy, in accordance to your own interpretation of parables.

So, when do we start lynching the evolutionist crowd? You know, out of the pure anti-science of it all?

Or, perhaps they get more mercy then those horrible Christians who show no mercy to gay cake eaters?

[CampingInYourPark]

The more compelling example that supports you

No, it doesn't. Baking a wedding cake isn't the same thing helping someone that has been beaten and left for dead, and in the example you're giving nobody was asked nor coerced to do anything.

[Jackand Ace]

The point of his telling the story is no one is supposed to force you to act neighborly. Jesus instruction was for his flock to be neighborly of their own volition.

That Samaritan didn't subscribe to Judaic teaching and law, because he was a Samaritan. And yet he proved to be a better neighbor, even to the point of leaving money behind.

But fine, each Christian can decide for himself what Jesus' intention was.

[CampingInYourPark]

The point of his telling the story is no one is supposed to force you to act neighborly

No, that wasn't the point.

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."

I suppose you're going to assert that baking someone's wedding cake is a form of "having mercy" but here's hope that you aren't quite that ridiculous

[Jackand Ace]

See my answer to you below.

[mad.casual]

The question being, what defines a neighbor? Rejection and walking away doesn't, according to Jesus. He concluded by saying, "Go and do likewise."

The rub isn't the last sentence, it's the whole situation.

Just ask Marie Antoinette, baking a cake for someone is an entirely different proposition than willingly allowing people to starve, robbed and beaten half dead in the street.

[Mickey Rat]

There is a huge difference between hangong out with sinners and celebrating and congratulating their sin.

[Inigo "Chip" DuBois]

The problem with this reasoning is that it presumes that most contemporary Christians actually try to model their day to day behavior on the example of Jesus.

It's not like you frequently hear them refusing to judge others lest they themselves be judged, turning the other cheek, going out of their way to help those rejected by society, etc.

[Jackand Ace]

That last instruction in the Samaritan parable is the rib, isn't it? "Go and do likewise."

We're all deciding for ourselves what "doing likewise" really means.

[CampingInYourPark]

We're all deciding for ourselves what "doing likewise" really means.

Exactly how it should be. So, then, you're against forced accommodation?

[Brian]

See, progressives read the "go and do likewise" part and say "ok, let's change the law to require everyone to be a neighbor and help anyone who's had a bad time. Great. Now everyone's a neighbor. The parable can't even happen anymore. There. Fixed it."

[OneWingedShark]

See, progressives read the "go and do likewise" part and say "ok, let's change the law to require everyone to be a neighbor and help anyone who's had a bad time. Great. Now everyone's a neighbor. The parable can't even happen anymore. There. Fixed it."

Such people ought to read their bibles a bit more, in Galatians Paul says this:

Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

We see something clearly here: righteousness cannot come by the law.
Instead, for righteousness, we need something not imposed & external but transformative & internal -- we need God to give us a new heart, a new Spirit, a new life.

[Jackand Ace]

You should know that he also said "render unto Caesar..." Which was his recognition that there is a governmental entity out there that will do as it will. Which of course is meaningless in the Samaritan story. He was reminding his flock that they should show mercy and be neighborly, regardless of what government says, or religion.

And yes, I think that baking that cake is certainly neighborly, and even merciful. Surely it would show grace.

But if you do think baking that cake is doing likewise, and the Samaritan story only refers to someone who is beaten, have at it.

[Brian]

So, how much mercy should be extended to someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay couple? As expressed in $ fine amounts?

Or do we go with "eye for an eye" on that one?

[Brian]

I mean, it's kinda ridiculous, isn't it?

"Your Christian mercy should compel you to bake a gay wedding cake. And, if you don't, BY GOD WE'LL SHOW YOU!" 🙂

[CampingInYourPark]

And yes, I think that baking that cake is certainly neighborly, and even merciful. Surely it would show grace.

Baking a cake for someone that doesn't have anything to eat is mercy. Providing a service to someone that is paying for it isn't mercy. Mercy is undeserved favor, not favor that is bought, but I doubt you can tell the difference.

[Jackand Ace]

And so you have defined "likewise."

[mad.casual]

Although I'm certainly against forcing someone to associate with another, I don't understand this notion that the Christian religion prevents someone from baking a gay wedding cake, or even photography the wedding.

Quit questioning the narrative!!!!!

Nevermind that the pizzeria doesn't cater to ANYONE! They're small time and they refused a hypothetical gay something therefor ultra-christian neo-con shitlords. Remember all the doctors, nurses, paramedics, and firefighters who deliberately plotted and conspired to refuse homosexuals access to their loved ones while their partners suffered their final demise? Ultra-conservative shitlords then, ultra-conservative shitlords now, ultra-conservative shitlords always.

[ace_m82]

I don't understand this notion that the Christian religion prevents someone from baking a gay wedding cake, or even photography the wedding.

It doesn't, not directly. The issue here comes up with what the Christian seems to be endorsing. If I were to bake a cake for a gay wedding, many people would assume that I am therefore endorsing it (something I wouldn't do). It would cause many to either question if I were a Christian or come to the conclusion that Christians all ought to endorse this (and all who don't are "homophobes").

Either way, one of my biggest jobs as a Christian is to be an ambassador of Christ ("Christian" means "little Christ"), to act like he showed us we should. If I do this, I am likely betraying this calling.

And as the previous commenters showed, Christ did hang out with "sinners", but those who knew they were such and didn't endorse their actions ("Go and sin no more").

[CatoTheChipper]

Still, regardless of anybody's exegesis of scriptural accounts, government should recognize that the individual is sovereign to do as he pleases with his own property, which is in this case a bakery, as a matter of principle.

[ant1sthenes]

True, he said it was the sick most in need of a doctor. So, logically, Christians should absolutely go to gay weddings, and make sure everyone there knows that the Lord does not approve of the wedding and that homosexuality is an abomination in His eyes and whatnot.

[randall]

When Jesus broke bread with the tax collectors, prostitutes, etc., he did so to bear witness to them, NOT to condone what they were doing. He was not guilty by association because he was conveying the non-conditional love of God. Christ never once celebrated the life choices of the individuals he ate with. He was trying to save them from themselves. The baker is being forced into being guilty by association because his product is being used to celebrate a gay wedding. The icing on the cake (pun intended) is that by forcing the baker to write words with icing on the cake, the government is now forcing words into the baker's mouth, i.e. violating his right to freedom of speech. If more Libertarians had gone to Sunday school, maybe they would understand the implications of forcing Christians to violate their conscience. Maybe the next thing will be forcing Christian caterers to provide goods and services to porn film sets. Catering usually includes attendance to the function to ensure quality product and protect the Caterer's capital investment. If they object, the pornographer could sue based on the premise that "we were just asking them to serve us and the 'actors' food. We weren't asking them to participate in the filming". The logic used by the pornographer is EXACTLY the same as the logic used by gays.

[Tionico]

Read the long standing history of the two sodomites who'se flowers Arlene's Flowers in Tri Cities declined to provide. for TEN YEARS she had served them happily, KNOWING they were in a sodomite relationship. They had talked about it, yet a friendship grew up between them. Just as Jesus might wel have done. She SERVED them for years. Even then, when they asked her to do the flowers fof their "occasion", when she declined, graciouslhy, and offered to help them secure that service from one of her competitors, they welcomed the suggestion, and everyone left with no hard feelings at all. The two males were fine, even continuing to patronise her business, relating to her as they all had before the "cremony". As she told the court, it was not providing the flowers for them that she declined to do.. it was to come and PARTICIPATE in their "ceremony" by attending and doing the decorations at the venue for them.. thus becoming a key part of the event. They acknowledged that they iunderstood that fine line.. she even offered to design the arrangements and provide them, and let THEM come to the shop and pick them up, placeing them at the site. It was not RELATING to the sodomites that caused her to decline..

[Tionico]

it was to become a PARTICIPANT, much as the guy who drives the getaway car, or provides the shotgun, for the bank robbery has not simply provided the equipment to the user, who then determined how to use them, the equipment being neutral. That one has become an accessory to the crime of bank robbery, and as such is now fully co-liable and guilty with the main perpetrator. The car is only a car... until the owner/provider KNOWS the intended use of it and either provides it FOR THATPURPOSE or uses it himself to that intended purpose, thus PARTICIPATING in the bank robbery.

In the Arlene's Flowers case, neither of the males had any hard feelings, nor were they offended, upset, discriminated against. No, it was the newly crowned Attorney General of the State of Washington who took it upon himself the "duty" of persecuting this gentle and well liked old woman, immediately declaring (and convincing the local kangaroo court to agree with him) that her personal assets as well as those of the business are "on the hook" and available for his plunder through his assault on her.

[Tionico]

SO, if I comprehend your logic here, you would have the story of Jesus when the adulteress was brought before him "caught in the very act" change from His confronting her accusers (who ALL had dirty hands else someone of them could, and would, have cast the first stone..... and commanding her to "go and sin no more" when her dirty handed compolicit accusers all skulked off into the sunset.. no, you'd rewrite the story to have Him going off with her to participate further in her sin. But HE cannot do that, as HE was without sin. Yes, he asociated with sinners and worse.. but ALWAYS called them to repentance from their dead works, and called out the "goody two shoes" religious hooh hahs as they made a good show of "being righteous" but were filthy and corrupt inside, full of dead men's bones.... HUGE difference. Get it. It will make these incidents clear to you. Dealing with all manner of siners, no problem. PARTICIPATING in their perversions? NEVER.

[Mark6]

Colorado is forcing Phillips to participate in something in which Colorado refuses to participate.

[bvandyke]

I'm really sick of this entitlement attitude.

It seems that so many people have it today. Hmmm, is it related to the whole coddling debate?

[Mark6]

YES!

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Maybe coddling and entitlement both stem from the notion of positive rights issued by government.

It's amazing that feminists complain about the Patriarchy but yearn for paternalism.

[some guy]

Maybe they yearn for maternalism. It's different... somehow.

[Bill Dalasio]

We've produced a nation of cry-bullies. The fundamentals of their behavior is the same as that of any other bully - forcing their will onto others. Except, unlike the traditional bully who lords his strengths over others, the cry-bully lords his or her weakness over others. Because they are so weak, because they are so pathetic, because they are such delicate flowers, the rest of the world has to make allowance for them.

[wareagle]

cry-bullies. I am so going to steal that.

[Bill Dalasio]

I wish I could take full credit for the term. But, others have used it before me, although perhaps in a different context.

So, steal away. Ideas become more valuable when spread.

[Woodchipper Wilson]

Democracy is the system where the weak enslave the strong. Our culture has been thoroughly democratized.

[Tionico]

and they turn to the corrupt and out of control government to fight their battles for them, and to "right their hurts". And gummint, largely run by career politicians only in it for the money and/or power they get to woekd, are all too eager to play in the sandbox with them.

[Hidebehindyourcause]

I am entitled to cake. Maybe it's a non-libertarian view, but dammit I like it aite

[Agent Cupcake]

Another awesome gay cake post! YES! I live for these. I find them very entertaining. Never stop, Reason. Never stop.

[Radioactive]

Does dog shit count as one of the wet ingredients or one of the dry?

[FreeRadical*]

Like butter - one of the wet.

[John Galt]

Common sense dictates one should always extra polite and courteous when interacting with anyone involved in any way with the preparation of anything they intend to eat.

Hell, I even go out of my way to be extra friendly with the pimple faced kids taking my order in a drive thru. To do otherwise is basically begging for the "special" sauce.

[Chip Woodier]

I think it depends on how long it has been sitting in the back yard.

[John Galt]

The fact that the once oppressed as often as not, once freed of their oppressors, quickly become every bit as oppressive as those who once oppressed them; for myself has served as a lesson. The lesson being: Stay away from the problems and suffering of others so as not to be the cause of problems and suffering for still others.

And it's not like this is anything new. By the time I saw the movie Massacre at Central High in 1976 - a movie about a kid who avenges the victims of bullies at a fictional high school, only to witness the once bullied become equally as vile bullies - I had already witnessed enough similar real life experiences,, that I remember thinking to myself "whoever made this movie really understands real people."

Back when I was much younger, back when homosexuality was generally considered to be both criminal and abnormal psychology, I had stuck my neck out more than once to end the bullying of those individuals who didn't appear to be hurting anyone. Knowing what I know now, if I had to do it over, I'd probably just mind my own business.

Seems I learn slowly. May have taken me close to a half a century to grasp this lesson.

[Loki]

Back when I was much younger, back when homosexuality was generally considered to be both criminal and abnormal psychology, I had stuck my neck out more than once to end the bullying of those individuals who didn't appear to be hurting anyone. Knowing what I know now, if I had to do it over, I'd probably just mind my own business.

This is what a lot of people fail to grasp. By becoming petty vengeful bullies, a lot of people who might have otherwise been on their side and willing to stick their necks out to defend their rights, will instead either turn on them or at best just mind their own business instead.

[Win Bear]

The fact that the once oppressed as often as not, once freed of their oppressors, quickly become every bit as oppressive as those who once oppressed them

The "oppressor" in all these cases is the same: the state. Given that we have anti-discrimination laws, you can't blame homosexuals any more for using them than you can fundamentalist Christians for using them. People were forced by law to accommodate fundamentalist Christians in a lot of public settings no matter how repulsive they may have found their beliefs.

Seems I learn slowly. May have taken me close to a half a century to grasp this lesson.

You still haven't learned your lesson. You still think in terms of "us vs them" and still take excessive government power simply for granted.

Nothing has changed. Homosexuals and fundamentalist Christians are both oppressed the same way they always have been. The only difference is that homosexuals now have been granted privileges that fundamentalist Christians used to take for granted, and instead of working together to abolish the oppression (i.e., the restrictions on freedom of association), you get side tracked by squabbling about whose privileges are more valid.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I certainly hope Mullins and Craig's marriage isn't built on the struggle against the breeder oppression. I can't imagine that being a solid foundation, especially when the struggles are diminishing.

[Haskell_Hunter]

With the many freedoms the LGBT community has gained over the past few years, I see an equal amount of vindictive injustice coming from this community. The justification for this vindictiveness is, many times, "well, they did it to us, how do they like it now?" This story is just another example of that vindictiveness.

It's true that they could have found another baker, and they did, but rather than leave it at that and move on, they decided to vindictively stick it to one baker. This will become a very common theme now and over the next few years. It will also horribly backfire for the LGBT community because any sympathy they gained will be lost to petty vindictiveness. And, unfortunately, it's coming from a micro monitory within that vast group.

[Eric Bana]

It will also horribly backfire for the LGBT community because any sympathy they gained will be lost to petty vindictiveness.

I doubt this. I support business owners choosing to run their business how they want, but LGBT people using the law against people who don't accept homosexuality probably won't backfire on them in terms of public sympathy. Imagine if interracial couples were denied service by people who didn't support interracial marriage. The majority of people aren't against interracial marriage, so many would find it perfectly OK for interracial couples to react litigiously against a business owner who discriminated against something because he doesn't support interracial marriage. A growing majority (I think) doesn't find anything wrong with homosexuality or same-sex marriage and likewise doesn't perceive litigious reactions in a negative light.

For the masses who aren't libertarians, people who are against gay marriage support the discriminating bakers because they agree with the bakers; people who support gay couples reacting litigiously do so as they would interracial couples reacting litigiously. Importantly, I think many people who support bakers discriminating against cakes for same-sex weddings would ironically support penalties for bakers who discriminated against interracial couples celebrating a wedding. But maybe that's changing since they see how forced service can make you do something you don't morally support.

[Tionico]

there is a MAJOR problem with your attempt to equate interracial marriage and sodomite relationships. The former is NOT immoral, nor is it anywhere proscribed in God's Word or Law. The bible is replete with accounts of interracial marriages, all sanctioned by God, and most of the ones mentioned were fully blessed and accepted by all. Thus no God-fearing christian or jew will ever object to interracial marriage. Further, God's Word plainly declares that He, God, made ONE RACE in Adam. ALL men are of that one race. Since the murder of Jesus, even the Jews were no longer "the chosen race", because God by that act grafted in the gentiles, into the same tree as Israel.

On the other hand, many places in God's Word He declares sodomy and other forms of homosexuality to be "an abomination". Something He NEVER does with regards interracial marriage. Thus your argument is a false equality, and your entire case folds into nothing. Care to try again?

[Eric Bana]

To be direct, you didn't understand my point at all or even the issue at hand, but that's OK since that often happens when people are very passionate about something. I never suggested Christians should also be against interracial marriage. I suggest you read both posts in detail again.

In a nutshell though, people used to overwhelmingly against interracial marriage, but now they aren't. People refusing to bake cakes for interracial marriages is never an issue now because almost everybody is fine with interracial marriage. In the future, people will likely overwhelmingly not be against gay marriage (already a strong majority) meaning baking cakes for gay marriages won't be an issue.

Saying "my holy book/my deity says so" isn't a good reason for most people anymore to hate homosexuality.

[Eric Bana]

Specifically with that exchange above I said LGBT probably won't incur public ire by issuing lawsuits about denied cakes/services in the same way interracial couples wouldn't incur public ire by issuing lawsuits about denied cakes/services. Keep in mind I support businesses being able to run their business how they like and to associate with whom they choose, even if their motivations are tragically misguided.

More than likely, people who are against gay marriage are going to be on the wrong side of history just like people who were against interracial marriage. (Keep in mind I'm not saying Christians should also be against interracial marriage--just that both of these views are going to be rejected--as they should.)

[the other Jim]

"Must the minority that doesn't be bullied into submission?"

Is this a serious question? OF COURSE they must be bullied into submission. Progressive liberalism was never about letting people live their own lives as they choose. It's about forcing them to live "correct" lives; correct as deemed by the progressives. Which is why the progressives have been so busy banning this and mandating that for the last six and a half years. At this point, I'm waiting for the trend to converge toward some sort of universal "bandate" that bans everything the progressives hate and mandates everything they love.

[Win Bear]

Progressive liberalism was never about letting people live their own lives as they choose.

Neither was Christianity.

Which is why the progressives have been so busy banning this and mandating that for the last six and a half years.

That's after centuries of Christians "banning this and mandating that".

Progressives are simply exercising government power the same way Christians and conservatives have been for a long time. We'll get political change only if both sides realize that neither side can win in the long run, and that the only option is to adopt more laissez-faire policies.

[Hidebehindyourcause]

Not all Christians agree with the socon stupidity

[Eric Bana]

If they don't agree with socon stupidity, they likely agree with prog stupidity. Or, they are moderate and sometimes agree with socon stupidity and sometimes agree with prog stupidity. That's just how the majority of people are, which is why we have the politics we do. I guess I'm feeling very cynical today. I'd better lighten the mood somehow.

[Win Bear]

Not all Christians agree with the socon stupidity

It's not about who "agrees" with what. The point is that groups on the right have a long history of doing exactly what they accuse people on the political left of doing. Both the left and the right love to talk of "liberalism" or "individual liberties" (respectively), but in reality, they just mean that they want the freedoms they care about respected but don't think twice about imposing their will on others when it suits them. Nothing will change until both the left and the right recognize the beams in their own eyes.

[Azathoth!!]

Cite?

[Win Bear]

Are you seriously saying that you need a "cite" for the fact that much of Europe was governed by Catholic monarchies? That a lot of US laws was justified and is rooted in Christian ideology?

[Azathoth!!]

I want a cite of "groups on the right have a long history of doing exactly what they accuse people on the political left of doing"

[the other Jim]

I'm all for more laissez-faire. I certainly don't pine for any sort of theocracy. But I see no risk of a theocracy being imposed by the handful of evangelical Christian bakers who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes. (And I say this as a very secular person who doesn't want any religion imposed on him.)

[Eric Bana]

It's all along different spectrums. I'm sure there are some people who support making sodomy illegal again. On the other end, I'm sure there are some people who support removing children from homes where their parents teach them homosexuality is evil. Most people aren't at those extremes. It's fitting to remember that there were laws against sodomy in the U.S. Heck, few decades ago the Briggs Initiative would have banned gay and lesbian teachers from public schools.

It's important to remember that discrimination and prejudice against homosexuality doesn't only come from some Christians; it comes from conservative forms of many religions. Additionally, even people who aren't religious can still be prejudiced against people who are gay. Japan comes to mind as an example. However, in the U.S. it seems that negative attitudes toward homosexuality largely stems from Christian beliefs.

[Win Bear]

But I see no risk of a theocracy being imposed by the handful of evangelical Christian bakers who don't want to bake gay wedding cakes.

Indeed, the days of theocracy are over. However, we currently have laws on the books that strongly restrict private freedom of association, and those laws will only be changed if the left and the right come together and change them. People who are exempted from those laws will not have any incentive to change them.

And in terms of justice, given that a Christian fundamentalist can force a gay baker to bake a cake for him, it seems only fair that the reverse should also be enforced. The cause of liberty isn't helped by granting special interest groups exemptions to government coercion.

[Brian]

The cause of liberty isn't helped by granting special interest groups exemptions to government coercion.

The cause of liberty isn't advanced very far by simply ensuring equal access to arbitrary government coercion, either.

[Win Bear]

I think in formerly communist, socialist, or fascist societies, the communists, socialists, and fascists should lose their legally enshrined privileges. And the same principle applies to religions.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

I think in formerly communist, socialist, or fascist societies, the communists, socialists, and fascists should lose their legally enshrined privileges. And the same principle applies to religions.

Whyfor? Vengence? Doesn't seem like a good way to configure a solid, trusting society in which commerce thrives.

[Win Bear]

Whyfor? Vengence?

Justice and equality before the law.

Doesn't seem like a good way to configure a solid, trusting society in which commerce thrives.

Quite the opposite, justice and equality before the law are prerequisites of a "solid, trusting society".

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Justice: yes. Vengeance: no.

[Azathoth!!]

Can a christian fundamentalist force a gay baker to make a cake for him? Do you have proof of that?

[Win Bear]

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD.....rotoc.aspx

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

The law prohibits discrimination both based on religion and on sexual orientation.

[Azathoth!!]

You're citing a law--not showing that a christian fundamentalist forced a gay baker to make a cake.

[Spaceno42]

Actually they wouldn't. A fundamentalist Christian wouldn't want a gay baker to bake them a cake. They would go somewhere else, which is basically the whole point.

I'm sorry you feel you've been oppressed by Christians. I hear they are as bad as Islam...wait that was a 1000 years ago.

I'm not a fan of religion but religion is based on a structure. People try to follow that structure. Progressives today say something is bad because it hurts their feelings.

[Azathoth!!]

Win, are you operating under the idea that christians and conservatives have been controlling things for centuries?

[Win Bear]

I am operating under the idea Christian churches in the US are a collection of powerful special interests that get financial and legal privileges that they managed to acquire over the past couple of centuries that they shouldn't have.

[Bill Dalasio]

That's after centuries of Christians "banning this and mandating that".

Progressives are simply exercising government power the same way Christians and conservatives have been for a long time.

So the fact that 30 years ago some Christians acted like assholes means we should be okay with progressives acting like assholes today.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

[the other Jim]

Indeed, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Win Bear]

So the fact that 30 years ago some Christians acted like assholes means we should be okay with progressives acting like assholes today.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that over several centuries, Christians have carved out special privileges and exemptions from government coercion, and those special privileges and exemptions should be revoked. That is, Christians still are "acting like assholes", because they still insist on these special privileges and because they get angry when other people want the same privileges.

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

You should know.

[Tionico]

ytou forget what government IS.. it is the collective will of the people, ruling by the consent of the governed. Please riddle to me HOW less than two percent of the population can FORCE their perversion on the rest of us? THAT is not government by the consent of the governed. Remember too, that EVERY ONE of the Colonies were formed by charters negotiated with the King of England, and gave those colonies specific rights to self-govern as THEY SAW FIT on this side the Puddle. It went along all fine and dandy until King George Three decided the government would govern according to HIS terms and consent... violatingthose charters. Of COURSE the colonists built their governments the way THEY wanted to... THAT is why they left England and came HERE. The sodomites forcing anyone at the point of a gun to do as THEY demand will come down no better than when George Three tried it. You question "the point of a gun"? Watch what happens as Aaron and Melissa of Gresham Oregon refuse to pay the indame fine levied upon them by an unelected unaccountable adminsitrative law "court" and "judge" for declining to perovide the cake for a pair of female homosexuals. The guns WILL eventually show up.

[Sevens]

"ytou forget what government IS.. it is the collective will of the people, ruling by the consent of the governed. Please riddle to me HOW less than two percent of the population can FORCE their perversion on the rest of us? THAT is not government by the consent of the governed."

You're mistaken. Let's say there are no more than 2% homosexuals. Still, these anti-discrimination laws were passed by majorities. If you accept contemporary representative democracy, where's the alleged lack of "collective will"?

[Sevens]

"Christians have carved out special privileges and exemptions from government coercion, and those special privileges and exemptions should be revoked."

Rather: extended to non-Christians.

[Tionico]

WRONG. It is noe MY job as a follower of Christ to make others live this way or that. No, my job is to be salt and likght AMONG THEM. I'd have no problem with the quires doing whatever they like to do.. THEY wil reap the reward of their actions, and I won't be there to watch. Let THEM enjoy their reward... it will NOT be pleasant. Not MY problem. I am called to live amongst them, being salt and light, and doing what I can to reveal GOd's truth to them. If they hear and turn, great, If they won't.... as above THEIR problem.

It is the goal of the perverts to force the rest of us into agreeing with them, supporting them, enabling them, promoting them, serving them IN their perversion.... if ALL they wanted was to be left alone to live the way they want to, fine. But using government to persecute those who do not agree with them? THAT will not turn out well. There WILL come a time when blowback will begin. What form it will take I canot guess. But come it will. It MUST.
You forget that our war for Independence from England was forced by the Brits because they had a mind to tell us how we should live, and we had a mind that they wouldn't. That same spirit is alive and strong in America today.

[Loki]

Look at these two fucking hipsters.

[Adans smith]

Rules like this destroy the concept of private property.Can you still enfore 'no shoes no shrit no service'?

[Loki]

Nope, that's descriminatory against the shoeless and the shirtless.

[Win Bear]

Non-discrimination laws have forced people to serve others whose religious lifestyle they don't approve of for a long time and nobody cared. All of a sudden, when people with particularly rigid religious views are forced to serve others whose sexual lifestyle they don't approve of, this "destroys private property"?

Yes, we need to restore the right to private association. But we need to restore it for everybody, not return to the state where people can discriminate against everybody else based on religious ground, while others have to accommodate offensive behavior just because people claim that invisible spirits told them to behave that way.

[Zunalter]

Sure, why shouldn't a person be allowed to refuse service to a religious person in their business?

[Win Bear]

Under current Oregon law, you cannot refuse service based on religion, even if you find the other person's religion offensive.

I'm saying: if you want to get rid of, or be exempted from, anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation, then you should also be willing to get rid of anti-discrimination laws based on religion.

[Eric]

Wait? All he had to do was bake the cake? He didn't have to actually inscribe it with anything homo?

If that's the case, I'm kind of on the fence here. This is the same as asking a painter to sell you a canvas and some painting supplies, not actually "participate" in anything.

I fully agree that an artisan should not be forced to lend their talent, time, passion (or whatever), to a party in which they disagree. This baker should not be forced to decorate a cake depicting images that he finds blasphemous. But simply refusing to sell an undecorated cake?

Did I read this wrong?

[FreeRadical*]

What part of freedom of association don't you understand? You're willing to use force to make people interact that would otherwise not? You get to decide for other people what is an acceptable level of association? Geez.

[Eric]

I'm not an anarchist, and I agree with freedom of association up to an admittedly nebulous point. There should be some basic protections in my estimation. I think the law could be adjusted to accommodate the vast majority of parties. If you walk into an establishment that caters to the public, you should legally have the expectation that you will be treated as anyone else would. Slippery slope arguments well noted.

[B. Woodrow Chippenhaus]

What if you've merely opened your business to those with whom you wish to conduct business?

[Zunalter]

So, freedom of association sometimes in some cases under certain pre-agreed upon circumstances? How is that different than what we have right now?

Also, how is allowing the market to decide whether a person's business philosophy is viable considered "anarchy"?

[Eric Bana]

Well, if a Neo-Nazi group asked a black business owner to cater sub sandwiches what would clearly be a Neo-Nazi meeting, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the black business owner to not want to cater--even if he didn't write Neo-Nazi slogans or messages on the sandwiches.

I can see two things that will settle the issue: a. removing public accommodation laws or b. people accepting homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I think option b. is much more probable and is already happening. It seems similar to interracial marriage.

Interestingly, in 1958 only 4% of people supported interracial marriage. That number is now 87%. The percentage of people who support same-sex marriage is already a majority at 55% with 39% against. In 50 or so years it seems reasonable to imagine that about 87% of people will support same-sex marriage. Maybe it's a sign of the rapture coming (sarcasm).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/163.....hites.aspx

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/0.....-marriage/

[FreeRadical*]

Eric Bana, people accepting (or at least tolerating) homosexuality is a good thing. But only if it happens as a free choice by people according to their conscience. Using the force of government to compel such acceptance renders the word "acceptance" meaningless. I don't think you're advocating force, but your comment about it being an "option" gives me pause.

The only position that is compatible with libertarian thought is the abolishment of public accommodation laws, in my opinion.

[Eric Bana]

Let me clarify. It wasn't my intention to condone the use of force by using the word "option." I support business owners being able to make decisions about who they associate with, even if others disagree with their motivations. And of course, coerced "acceptance" ins't acceptance at all--it is coercion. The only way this will stop becoming an issue is by people gradually accepting same-sex marriage as with acceptance of interracial marriage. Also, generations who were against interracial marriage simply dying off has moved the needle. (I'm sorry that that sounds callous--it's just true.) Maybe longer lifespans will have same-sex marriage be an issue for longer. Looking at interracial marriage, a full 30% of the oldest generation does not support interracial marriage even today.

[Eric Bana]

*The only way this will stop becoming an issue is by people gradually accepting same-sex marriage as with acceptance of interracial marriage since public accomodation laws being repealed has a better chance than an ice cube on the sidewalk on a summer afternoon.

[FreeRadical*]

Yes, I agree with that, and with the thrust of your argument.

[Tionico]

interracial marriage finds NO opposition in scripture. Sodomy certainly does. Big difference, right?

Further, as long as GOd's Word has not changed "and it will NEVER change. get used to that) sodomy will remain an abomination and that will remain unchanged even as many "christian" denominations apostasise and "accept" it. When tnhey do, they reject God's plain word on the matter.. and, since they no longer "obey all My commands' they are no longer His people. They may fool some, but wil never fool Him.

[EMD]

What about lawyers that won't take a case, or the graphic designer who won't take a job? Do they have to give the State the reason they aren't accommodating someone? Are they not, on some level, discriminating?

What are the limits of public accommodation? Are physical storefronts actually the only recognition?

[Win Bear]

The whole article is a strained and fundamentally false analogy.

First of all, in both cases, the oppressor is the state .That is, the gay couple asking the state to force the bakers to bake a cake are asking the state to do something oppressive, but they aren't actually oppressing anyone by asking for special favors from the state. In a situation like ours, where the state grants lots of privileges to lots of different groups, choosing not to take advantage of a privilege you have may be a noble gesture, but a lot of time it's not feasible or even right. Since I'm forced to serve fundamentalist Christians by law, I don't see why I shouldn't use the same laws to force fundamentalist Christians to serve me, if not for any other reason than to make a political point, namely that it might be in both our interests to get those laws abolished.

Furthermore, refusing a marriage license per se isn't "oppression"; the "oppression" occurs when the state forces people to provide the money and accommodate people with marriage licenses. Saying that refusing a marriage license amounts to oppression would imply that being granted a marriage license is an essential liberty.

[Azathoth!!]

You keep saying that you're forced to serve fundamentalist christians by law. What law?

[EMD]

I CAN'T BUY FUCKING BEER AT KROGER'S ON SUNDAYS!

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

These laws are leftovers from prohibition. They have more to do with Progressivism than Fundamentalism.

[Tionico]

then get your stat'e's booze regulators to change it. Seimple...

[Win Bear]

Oregon (relevant to the "Christian" bakers):

Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/CRD.....rotoc.aspx

Every anti-discrimination law I know of that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation also prohibits discrimination based on religion.

You're welcome to try to find counterexamples.

[Tionico]

discrimination would extend to baking a cake... but NOT to actually participating in their event celebrating their lfiestyle. I would not participate in a witches' coven ceremony, either. I would sell them the cake, as long as the decorations they specify were not offensive to my faith. FORCING me to violate my strongly held tenets of faith, and the clear Word of God in His bible is not permissible. Because THAT crosses a line into "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" of my own religion.

[Hidebehindyourcause]

I'm Christian but I would bake them a cake. We're supposed to show them respect and love, not treat them differently. I don't understand what the big deal is with this. Even the whole marriage thing. I have my personal (faith-based) ideas as to what marriage is and isn't, but who has the right to tell two like-minded adults that they can't be together legally?

I roll my eyes at the stupidity of this argument. Only facists think that they should be able to force a certain moral world view upon others.

[Azathoth!!]

The worldview being forced upon someone is the one that says one must accept same sex marriage--or be punished with the force of law. The baker isn't trying to force anyone else to join him in his belief.

[Win Bear]

The baker isn't trying to force anyone else to join him in his belief.

That particular baker isn't. But Christians certainly can demand "public accommodations" under the same Oregon law that homosexuals can, and I don't see conservatives advocating eliminating anti-discrimination laws based on religion.

[Azathoth!!]

You keep going to the 'Oregon law' as your go to. And to public accomodations laws.

But those aren't what protects religion.

This protects religion--

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

The people who founded this country thought that keeping the State out of religion was so important that they made that point the first clause of the First Amendment.

Conservatives--and all people who wish to hold to the Constitution--advocate eliminating ALL laws that do anything in any way to religion--because every single one of them is, by law, unconstitutional.

What this means is that the state CANNOT make a law that punishes Joe Dickhead because his religion says no same sex marriage.

Because they said so, right at their beginning.

Because they had ample experience of the harm that can come when state intertwines itself with church.

[Tionico]

then try reading the Bible that forms the basis of trhe christian faith you claim to have. Read the part about wher eJesus commands His followers to go and make disciples.. TEACHING THEM to DO all I have commanded. And He spoke very plainly on the issue of marriage, what it is, and by exclusion, what it is not. If you "can't uderstand" all this fuss, perhaps you might consider acquainting yourself better with His Word.. which contains "all I have commanded". That which we are to TEACH others to DO. And sodomy is plainly declared, multiple places, to be an abomination, and we are commanded to stay away from that conduct.

[NL_]

The freedom to be a dick extends to KKK marches in the wake of church violence and to Aryan enthusiasts in Skokie, IL, so I don't see why it wouldn't extend to anti-gay bakers and cake decorators.

[NL_]

Also, it seems strange that you can launch a homophobic protest of straight solders' funerals as an exercise of free speech, but you can't engage in the comparatively less dick-ish move of telling gay people to take a hike. I get the distinction, the idea being that businesses open to the public must be open to the whole public. But it creates a weird space entirely predicated on the idea that people curtail their speech by engaging in business activity - something that Citizens United and Hobby Lobby both militate against.

I'm not sad that anti-gay businesses are suffering. But I worry that this makes it okay for future actions that will punish other opinions, just as past governments used to persecute abolitionists, civil rights activists, gay rights activists, and other counter-cultural groups. Making the law safe for Klansmen and Nazis is making the law safe for all of us. If the most extreme opinions are protected, that should broaden the space for everybody less extreme.

[Mindyourbusiness]

It strikes me that this is a case of the government taking rights from one group in order to give rights to another group. The question then becomes, what business is it of the government to bestow group rights?

I believe that anyone, anywhere, at any time has the right to associate - or to notassociate - with anyone they choose. And that government has no damn business interfering with that right, except to prevent the initiation of force by one party or the other.

Sadly, I don't think the current situation will change. Our country now seems to value group rights over individual rights, and I don't think about what that may lead to.

[Mindyourbusiness]

I don't like to think about what that may lead to.

[Zunalter]

I am fairly certain that the proponents of group rights aren't thinking about what it will lead to either...or much of anything else for that matter.

[reinadorothy]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

http://www.homejobs90.com

[Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.]

A business is not a church. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a bakery or a restaurant, a photo studio or a factory. They aren't in the business of providing spiritual guidance or enforcing moral doctrines. They are there to turn a profit. As such, they are obligated to abide by prevailing civil rights laws, whether those laws protect people from discrimination based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Conservative columnist Erick Erickson came to the defense of Christian business owners: "Committed Christians believe in a doctrine of vocation. They believe that their work is a form of ministry. Through their work, they can share the gospel and glorify God."

Oh, and also rake in as much money as possible. You can wax poetic all you want about "glorifying God," but at the end of the day these businesses wouldn't exist were it not for the profit motive.

Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has "moral objections" to race-mixing? Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run "a nice Christian workplace"? And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple's wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

If the answer to these questions is NO, what justification is there refusing service to a Gay couple who wish to get a wedding cake or celebrate their anniversary in a restaurant?

[FreeRadical*]

What does trying to turn a profit have to do with it? The only reason anyone is obligated to obey a law that creates a victimless crime is the threat that force will be used against them. And yes, public accommodation laws create victimless crimes.

The answers to your questions are easy: yes, yes, no. Of course, the first two questions involve reprehensible people. That doesn't matter.

It's none of the government's business, under threat of violence, to demand justification from someone for their beliefs or actions that violate no one else's rights.

[Bill Dalasio]

Should a restaurant owner be able to refuse service to Blacks because he has "moral objections" to race-mixing?

Yes, it's his restaurant.

Should an employer be able to fire a Muslim employee because he wants to run "a nice Christian workplace"?

If it's his company, absolutely. Although I might wonder why he'd hired the Muslim in the first place. .

And if a Christian florist agrees to provide flower arrangements at a Muslim couple's wedding, does it mean he is necessarily endorsing Islam?

I don't know, or particularly give a shit, if it does. As long as he feels it does, it's none of my business if he decides not to provide a flower arrangement.

Or yours. Or the Muslim couple's.

It's called liberty. Forcing people into relationships against their will is bullying. Pure and simple.

[Zunalter]

Thank you for being one of the only consistent voices of logic in this thread.

To extend this point:

Should an employer be able to fire a Christian employee because he wants to run "a nice Secular workplace"?

YES, DUH!

[Win Bear]

A business is not a church.

They are both forms of private association. I see no justification whatsoever to force one form of private association to conform to certain rules and exempt the other.

If you try to make such distinctions, then government ends up having to determine which private associations are religions in nature and which ones aren't. Is atheism a religion? Is materialism a religion? Is a gay sex club a religious institution if they call themselves "Worshipers of Baal"? Who gets to make that call, and based on what grounds?

Churches should be forced to comply with the same restrictions on private association as everybody else. Hopefully, that will cause them to join into a call for removing such restrictions from the law books as much as possible.

[Tionico]

denying service to folks coming into your venue is one thing. Declining to leave your venue and PARTICIPATE in an event off premises is rather a different critter, as yuo are now a participant in the activity. In other words, the sodomite pair enlist the guns of the state to FORCE me to DO what I cannot... when they come into my restaurant or flowershop ,make a purchase, consume it there or take it away and use it there, makes no matter to me, THEY are directing the use of my product, whether a steak dinner, a martini, or a birthday cake, or repairing their car. BUT.. when they come into MY venue and demand, at the point of a gun, that I attend THEIR venue and do certain things I hold to be prohibited me, that is an entirely different circumstance. It is, in essence, kidnapping and elslavement. And NO government hooh hah has the authorit to COMMAND me at the point of a gun to do that. You oblject to my mention of "the point of a gun"? Why? Just try not paying the insane fines levied upon me when I refuse to allow my kidnapping and enslavement. See how fast the government's guns come out and point themselves at ME.

[Notorious UGCC]

I don't think anyone can logically assert, at one and the same time, that

(a) A wedding ceremony is an activity protected by the First Amendment right to free expression, but

(b) *Assisting* at the ceremony - by catering it, photographing it, DJing it, etc. - is simply a neutral provision of a service with nothing to do with free expression.

So unless that Colorado court thinks a wedding ceremony is a non-expressive activity subject to being regulated (maybe even banned) by the state, then they can't deny 1st Amendment status to anyone who *assists* at the wedding.

And since the 1st Amendment protects both the right to express yourself and the right *not* to express yourself, then that means you get to choose whether to help out at a wedding feast.

[Win Bear]

And since the 1st Amendment protects both the right to express yourself and the right *not* to express yourself, then that means you get to choose whether to help out at a wedding feast.

The reasoning is that you are participating as a business, not as a private person. And if you do business, you have to do so subject to government regulations, regulations that restrict you in many ways. For example, you can't exercise free speech towards your employees either without the possibility of serious legal consequences.

Is that a good argument? I don't think so. But it's an argument that has forced people to associate with others for decades, no matter how much they may disapprove of their religion. It seems hypocritical to complain about that forced association now where it is starting to crimp the style of some religious nuts.

[Zunalter]

Geez, we get it, FFS, I promise I will keep my filthy Christian face away from your business so you aren't "forced" to serve me. Like a dozen comments of this whinging.

[Win Bear]

I just want your "filthy Christian face" to be subject to the same miserable rules as everybody else, so that you get off your lazy behind and actually join people in fighting for more liberty. If you prefer to be a hypocrite, don't expect any sympathy.

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Sounds more like you want to get revenge on Christians. Whatever issues you have there, in your background, are seeping through to sully your argument in current time space. Maybe you need to work through those issues before taking on the question of freedom of religion and thought.

[Migrant Log Chipper]

This^^^His whole argument is the Kristenz bad. (I'm not religious).

[Hyperbolical (wadair)]

Yeah, I read to the current bottom of the thread and found this comment that spelled it all out for me. I suppose that Win Bear has been ostracized by Christians and wants some sort of revenge. I don't blame him. But it does seem to cloud his view of religious freedom.

[Spaceno42]

+1 totally agree. Christians kept him in a well or something.

[virosohi]

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com

[Notorious UGCC]

I can certainly see a situation where a trolling Christian - not a nice gesture, but a possible one - could hold a party to raise funds for his church's anti-SSM efforts, under the theme that they're defending their religion, and then force a gay business to cater the event.

You're not in favor of religious discrimination, are you?

And religious identity and religious behavior, according to to Colorado precedent, are the same, so that expressing your religious identity through some distinctive ceremony is just as protected as any other part of your religion.

[Bill Dalasio]

You don't even have to go that far. If you accept the logic being posed by some here, every lesbian bar in the country should be compelled by law to admit and serve every gaggle of fratbros who decide they want to come in to gawk.

[lafe.long]

Well, I'm thinking that this must be the case, now. It'll be interesting to see this tested.

[Win Bear]

every lesbian bar in the country should be compelled by law to admit and serve every gaggle of fratbros who decide they want to come in to gawk.

Yes, that's the law.

[Win Bear]

You're not in favor of religious discrimination, are you?

I believe strongly that the government should not discriminate based on religion; that is, it should neither pass laws that interfere with the practice of religion, nor should it pass laws that favor or establish a religion.

But I most certain am in favor of the right of individuals and businesses to discriminate based on religion. That's the only possible libertarian position.

[alice567]

Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com

[JayWye]

the REAL question is;does a person have any right to the labors or property of another person or business if that other party doesn't freely consent to it? No.
Does a person lose their Constitutional rights (First,5th,and 13th amendments) when they open a business? No.
If one goes by the Constitution,"public accommodation" laws are unconstitutional,they force people into slavery,indentured servitude.
It's anti-freedom. it's Fascism.
Private property rights should always trump your feelings being hurt or your desire to do business somewhere.

[JayWye]

note that in today's Internet world,people who were refused service have the ability to wield great power against such a business,by spreading the news,inciting a boycott. (or to support a business in peril from a boycott,via fund-raising sites like GoFundMe.)
That power did not exist in Jim Crow days or earlier.
these days,it's very easy to drive a business out of business through social media. In essence,that is allowing the people to DIRECTLY "vote" their support or displeasure at discriminatory people/businesses.
It's TREMENDOUS power. It outweighs or negates any need for "anti-discrimination" or "public accommodation" laws. People now have the power to fight back on their own,no need for government to become involved.
That's FREEDOM,for -both- sides.

[FreeRadical*]

All very good points. These things seem so obvious to me. But I have to tell myself continuously that other people either don't understand these things, or are just amoral assholes who see no problem wielding a club against their fellow man to get what they want.

[Win Bear]

Does a person lose their Constitutional rights (First,5th,and 13th amendments) when they open a business? No. If one goes by the Constitution,"public accommodation" laws are unconstitutional

Odd how these arguments didn't come up when religion became a protected class half a century ago. Forcing an atheist or homosexual to accommodate a Catholic is apparently fine, while the reverse is not?

[Azathoth!!]

Religion was protected from the beginning-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Our problems started when the State started ignoring this.

[JayWye]

what have Catholics forced atheists or QRs to do to accommodate them,in their private businesses? let's have some examples.
I suspect you're being irrational. or you're confusing government "blue laws" with private businesses actions.

[Sevens]

"As for the religious freedom claim, the judges noted that the Supreme Court since 1990 has taken the position that "neutral laws of general applicability" are constitutional, even if they make it difficult or impossible for someone to practice his religion, unless there is evidence of an intent to target a particular sect."

Great. Make a law that says discrimination is illegal, and you have it general and neutral. Selectively restricting anti-discrimination law to sex, sexual orientation -- the classics -- actually means law is less general and less neutral. It looks like neither is acceptable. Total non-discrimination makes religion - which is not indiscriminate - pretty much impossible, selectively restricting is not neutral.

[Win Bear]

Great. Make a law that says discrimination is illegal, and you have it general and neutral. Selectively restricting anti-discrimination law to sex, sexual orientation -- the classics -- actually means law is less general and less neutral. It looks like neither is acceptable

"The classic" of anti-discrimination law is religion. Pretty much every federal and state anti-discrimination law lists religion, often as the first category of a protected special interest group.

And while businesses have been forced, by law, to accommodate every sleazy, offensive, and immoral religious belief under the sun, some religious nuts are now complaining when they are forced to do the same.

Total non-discrimination makes religion - which is not indiscriminate - pretty much impossible, selectively restricting is not neutral.

Forcing people into associations they don't want to be part of makes moral conduct impossible, for the religious as well as the non-religious. The solution is to eliminate all government coercion when it comes to who individuals and businesses associate with. What is not acceptable is to give "religion" a special status that everybody else is forced to accommodate, while giving "religion" the freedom to discriminate at will.

[Sevens]

A worthwhile addition.

""The classic" of anti-discrimination law is religion. Pretty much every federal and state anti-discrimination law lists religion, often as the first category of a protected special interest group."

I call it merely one of the classics. (Other constitutions include worldview/Weltanschauung, even genetic differences [see the recent EU Charta]. Fairly amusing, and highly problematic.) Regardless, it's covered by "selectively restricting [discrimination] is not neutral". Thus we certainly agree that these "religious nuts" are inconsistent. More importantly, however, the law is. I fully share your last paragraph.

[Sevens]

Article 20
Equality before the law

Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21
Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Within the scope of application of the Treaties and without prejudice to any of their specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

Article 22
Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity

The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.

Article 23
Equality between women and men

Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay.
The principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.

[Shamus]

So Reason would assert that store owners were oppressed when they were forced to allow African Americans to eat at their lunch counters?

[Win Bear]

Most segregation requirements were imposed by government in the first place. Store owners didn't need to be "forced" to integrate, they merely needed to be allowed not to segregate.

As for the few racist store owners that wanted to segregate, forcing them to integrate is of dubious value. If someone wants to discriminate against me, I want to know about it.

So, as a gay man, I think all forms of anti-discrimination laws are bad. I don't want others to be forced to accommodate me if they don't like me.

[Issue Ninja]

GoFundMe shut down the donation page for the first Christian baker to be targeted. So a new site has emerged and anyone inclined to do so can go there to contribute to support the baker in this story at

https://www.continuetogive.com/supportjackphillips

[Tionico]

and THIS sort of punishment, discrimination, abuse, persecution, wrought by the sodomite crowd upon those who chose to live by God's Word and laws, is precisely their goal, as decided at a meeting that took place in Laguna Beach, California, back in 1968 or 9. At that meeting, in response to protests against the death of a homosexual male (whose killing had NAUGHT to do with where he pokes his member) the chiefs of the sodomite crowd declared that they sill not stop until the ones who oppose their perversion suffer the consequances then brought against those who persist in the perversion. Seems their steady pressure toward that end has brought them the fruit they desired. But that fruit is bitter, and it WILL come back round and sicken them. Meanwhile, people like this baker, others in other states, florists like Kennewick's Baronelle, videographers, photographers, families who host events in their himes, etc, will suffer punishment for simply living as they know God requires them to live..... not to support, enable, promote, encourage, glorify, what God has labelled an abomination.

[JayWye]

the REAL question is;does a person have any right to the labors or property of another person or business if that other party doesn't freely consent to it? No.
Does a person lose their Constitutional rights (First,5th,and 13th amendments) when they open a business? No.
If one goes by the Constitution,"public accommodation" laws are unconstitutional,they force people into slavery,indentured servitude.
It's anti-freedom. it's Fascism.
Private property rights should always trump your feelings being hurt or your desire to do business somewhere.

note that in today's Internet world,people who were refused service have the ability to wield great power against such a business,by spreading the news,inciting a boycott. (or to support a business in peril from a boycott,via fund-raising sites like GoFundMe.)
That power did not exist in Jim Crow days or earlier.
these days,it's very easy to drive a business out of business through social media. In essence,that is allowing the people to DIRECTLY "vote" their support or displeasure at discriminatory people/businesses.
It's TREMENDOUS power. It outweighs or negates any need for "anti-discrimination" or "public accommodation" laws. People now have the power to fight back on their own,no need for government to become involved.
That's FREEDOM,for -both- sides.

[RockLibertyWarrior]

Just like Chris Rock calling gang banger blacks "Niggas" I call gay people who are whiny, sniveling little bullies who use the state to enforce their views or life style on other people "fags". What?! Did I hurt some politically correct feelings? If they fit the stereotype, the label sticks, I am also told other things stick on them but I digress, I don't want to throw up, I am eating breakfast.

[Yas]

What am I missing here? Can't you refuse anything that's commissioned? Including, but not limited to, "I don't like your face?" If someone asks for your services for a SPECIFIC service for which you tailor it to their needs, you need to be able to decline for whatever reason. For NO reason. I could be a photographer who only takes people that are beautiful, a quilter who only quilts for people who truly enjoy quirky cats... It goes on. Are they going to start policing Etsy and telling the crafters there that they need to take every single request no matter how vile, off-putting, or out of sync it is with that particular crafter's... hell, I don't know, vision? Why has no lawyer thought of this? It's so obvious I find it hard to believe that it hasn't been brought up yet?

[Ahmedrokba]

Thanks for sharing

Tanzanite Diamond Engagement Ring/a