The Supreme Court just ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, citing religious objections to participating in a gay wedding. The news reports are all referring to it as a "narrow ruling" but it was a 6:2 decision.
Although I don't know the whole story behind this case I am happy the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Baker. In most of the past cases like this that I have read the Bakers don't have a problem baking a Wedding Cake for anyone...they have a problem with what the gay couples want written on that cake...which goes against what they believe to be true according to their belief in God and His Truth in the Bible. It is in my opinion just as discriminating to the Christian to be made to do something that goes against their beliefs and then have to pay a large fine and possibly have to shut down their business because they will not go against their beliefs. What makes me mad is that a person has the right to make any choice they want...but no one in my opinion has the right to make others make that same choice too. And to me that is exactly what these gay, etc, rights groups are doing is trying to force everyone to accept the lifestyle they have chosen. One of the couples told the gay couple they would bake their wedding cake but that they could not inscribe that cake with what the gay couple wanted it to say...but that they would be happy to let the couple inscribe their cake or they could get someone else to inscribe it for them. But none of that was good enough and it should have been to me. I'm glad to see the Supreme Court at least heading in a less discriminating direction with this ruling.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" While I could care less if anyone is gay, I don't believe someone can push how they live on anyone else. There were probably other bake shops that would have made the cake for them. I can't imagine the time and money this took. I will say also, I watched this on the news, and this bakery has some expert decorating skills. Is this a set back? I don't think so. People can go to places that will accommodate them. This shop could have very well refused to decorate a cake for a white supremacist group. Or many other things they didn't agree with.
Having read the court ruling, it is clear that the issue of whether the baker should have or shouldn't have baked the cake... was avoided. The issue was on the record comments, from the commission that were deemed in violation of the baker's rights. Saying something on public record, can and will be used against you. The court provided guidance on what not to say on public record. "Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."
Yeah, the fact that the Commission didn't properly consider the baker's religious convictions is what turned the case.
I'll swear, I heard the ruling. On the news either yesterday or today and I thought the ruling went the other way.
Although I believe it to be likely that they chose this cake artist because they knew that he would refuse and they would have a court case, if we take them at their word, then they chose this baker rather than going to the local grocery store or another baker because he was known to be an artist at cake making. Let's consider another type of art. Suppose that a Christian artist specializes in depictions of Jesus. He offers his own inspired artwork for sale, but also does custom work for people. So if you wanted a painting of Jesus speaking to a group of children, he'd do that. If you wanted a painting of Jesus walking along the banks of the sea, he would do that for a price. But if you wanted him to create a painting of Jesus in a homosexual relationship, he might refuse because he is a Christian artist and that is not something that he believes Jesus would be involved in. Should he be required to paint a picture of Jesus in a gay relationship?
I agree with you @Ken Anderson Had this ruling gone for the couple, then people could possibly be forced to do all kinds of things with their business that they did not agree with. I too was thinking of different scenarios and how this could play out. What if someone who makes handmade items received a custom request to put a curse word on something and they did not want to. Would they be required to. When this person wanting the curse word could find someone else that wouldn't be offended. This could go on and on. And if this couple wanted that 5 year fight, what a waste of time not to mention money. I'll be there were donations received to cover all the money this took.
If laws moved in every direction, a gay sign maker could be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church, or a Muslim restaurant owner might have to serve ham or bacon. People who advocate for laws favoring whatever they support never consider whether the same laws could be used against them. With the understanding that we will never live in a world that is perfect for everyone, the free market pretty much handles these things. When a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that opens up business for another baker who would gladly take on that job.
When I told my wife the problem the baker was having, she said "Since he owns the bakery, why can't he run it the way he wants to?" I told her, "Unfortunately, that's not the way society thinks today. People really need to think before opening a business of their own, because they definitely may not have the control of what they can/can't do as the Proprietors." If I remember right, the baker told media that he lost some 40% of his business due to refusing to make the cake. Think he has shut down his bakery...….right? Denver, and apparently the area the bakery is/was located in, has a fairly large GLBT population. Wife and I are glad about the courts decision, but the GLBT community will continue pushing everyone in society to believe in their sexuality, no matter what religion people are.
Agreed. I also heard on the news this morning the same baker doesn't do Halloween cakes either. I guess no one got upset about that as they can get those easily everywhere. And it's not a hot button issue. And Ken is right, people do not consider how something like this could bite them back.
The Gay community wants to feel normal and be accepted as such. That is why they want their unions called "Marriage", not "Civil Union", even though the rights would be the same. It is not a Civil Rights issue, it is a Normalcy issue. I have my own definition of "normal", and that is: if everyone in society did it, society would survive. Normal isn't good or bad to me, it is just a definition. Celibate priests are not normal by my definition, but that doesn't make them bad (or necessarily good). This couple selected this bakery to have the fight, and it was a fight they eventually lost, but the fight will continue until society gives in...that is the liberal mindset--name calling and court battles until they get their way. I don't believe that government should dictate to ANY private business how to run the business or who they cater to, as long as they don't directly affect others outside their business or harm society (squishy there), or are the only source of a good or service that can not be obtained elsewhere conveniently. In other words, a government banning smoking inside an establishment shouldn't be allowed as long as all those in the establishment agree to be in that environment. If there is another restaurant or bar, or other places of employment in the community, the proprietor should be allowed to cater to whatever group he/she wishes without government interference.
@Cody Fousnaugh "When I told my wife the problem the baker was having, she said "Since he owns the bakery, why can't he run it the way he wants to?" Because we have reached the brink of Socialist Control, where Big Brother rules. Frank