Bakery Faces Boycott for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Do infants enjoy infantry as much as adults enjoy adultery?

---

Ha, how long have you been waiting to use that one? [ROFL1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

Ha, how long have you been waiting to use that one? [ROFL1]

---

All my life...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newracer

It is right there in the statute

---

Okay, I must have missed that part.

With that said, as was previously mentioned, he didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to make a wedding cake. They could have ordered a generic cake if it HAD to be this guy, and dressed it up themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordanls19

I think the problem he may run into is the part at the beginning where it says A PERSON cannot do this, GOV is not a person. The Government however does issue Business licenses. I still fall to see how this is any different than not serving a different race or religion. Everyone here would be insane with anger if the shoe was on the other foot, but some how the other side is the crybaby when they don't get their way. I'm sure the anti-gun people say the same thing about us when we complain about not being able to CC in certain places.

Just to be clear if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still be on the side of those that were refused service, be they Christian, Gay, Black, Manbearpig, or Infantry (luckily I can refuse service to Infanty[Flower]).

---

So this guy needs to violate his religious rights to serve their consumer rights?

It's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mevshooter

Okay, I must have missed that part.

With that said, as was previously mentioned, he didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to make a wedding cake. They could have ordered a generic cake if it HAD to be this guy, and dressed it up themselves.

---

I think that's the detail that puts the high ground under the baker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mevshooter

So this guy needs to violate his religious rights to serve their consumer rights?

It's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

---

Good point. It doesn't exactly fit this case, but how much legal precedence is there in case law for religious beliefs vs legal rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Good point. It doesn't exactly fit this case, but how much legal precedence is there in case law for religious beliefs vs legal rights?

---

Agreed. I'm not claiming any side or who is right "legally" speaking. This is an incredibly convoluted situation when all sides are considered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

Good point. It doesn't exactly fit this case, but how much legal precedence is there in case law for religious beliefs vs legal rights?

---

Technically his religious rights take precedence over someone's right to shop there because they can shop elsewhere. It's HIS shop so he can't just have a shop elsewhere. So in the case of conflicting rights I would guess that his right to practice his religion freely supersedes someone's right to buy a wedding cake.

I think this whole thing is stupid actually. If he doesn't want to sell something to someone in his own store he shouldn't be forced by anyone to do so. Especially when it's not a retail establishment where an item is in a package on a wall and just needs to be handed over in exchange for money. he has to actually craft the item from scratch so if someone doesn't want to put forth that effort for whatever reason I don't see how the government can make him. To me this is a bit absurd that this is even something the government get involved with. Next time I go to a BBQ place that refuses to serve me because their out of brisket I'm suing.

Why doesn't the couple just go someplace else? Seems like the easiest solution for everyone involved. No federal rulings required.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Why doesn't the couple just go someplace else? Seems like the easiest solution for everyone involved. No federal rulings required.

---

Easiest, yes, but I would say that perhaps they're tired of being told that they are second class citizens. In this case, I don't feel that their rights were violated, as they were offered other other fare. Even that may not be enough, though. Anyone else here remember when blacks weren't served in the front of restaurants? Same food, but not the same service, and that practice was brought to a halt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Technically his religious rights take precedence over someone's right to shop there because they can shop elsewhere. It's HIS shop so he can't just have a shop elsewhere. So in the case of conflicting rights I would guess that his right to practice his religion freely supersedes someone's right to buy a wedding cake.

I think this whole thing is stupid actually. If he doesn't want to sell something to someone in his own store he shouldn't be forced by anyone to do so. Especially when it's not a retail establishment where an item is in a package on a wall and just needs to be handed over in exchange for money. he has to actually craft the item from scratch so if someone doesn't want to put forth that effort for whatever reason I don't see how the government can make him. To me this is a bit absurd that this is even something the government get involved with. Next time I go to a BBQ place that refuses to serve me because their out of brisket I'm suing.

Why doesn't the couple just go someplace else? Seems like the easiest solution for everyone involved. No federal rulings required.

---

Yeah, unfortunately you're talking about self government and free market solutions... As if those actually work. (/sarcasm)

I mean, if they're upset that the baker won't make them a wedding cake, they have every right to complain and tell their friends about it. If enough people agree with their point of view, the baker will go out of business. If people appreciate the baker standing up for what he believes in, he will stay in business.

The rights of the recipient do not outweigh the rights of the provider. He should not be forced to bake them a cake, and his reason for not doing so is perfectly legitimate.