# Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill



## Warrigal (Dec 3, 2017)

Members who have read something on this topic may know that Australia is on the brink of making marriage between two adults, regardless of gender, legal in every state and territory.

A nationwide postal survey was conducted and the YES vote prevailed in every state and territory with a 62% majority overall. 

Now a clean bill has passed the Senate. There were a number of attempts to add various amendments but this was seen as simply a delaying tactic and all were rejected.

Today the unamended bill was presented to the House of Reps and the PM has promised that it will be passed and in effect by Christmas. He has told the members that they won't be breaking at the end of this week unless it is. Amendments will be rejected on the numbers.

Today was a first. One MP, a Mr Tim Wilson, proposed to his long term partner Ryan from the floor of the House.
Here he is blowing a kiss to Ryan who is watching from the gallery.







This has taken a long time but very soon the whole of Australia will take a big leap forward. In my lifetime we have gone from arresting and gaoling homosexual men to finally treating LGBTI people  equally under the law.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 3, 2017)

One of the arguments against the SSM bill is one of religious freedom. Nonsense about wedding cakes and florists was raised in the NO campaign. Proposed amendments to allow discrimination against same sex couples on the grounds of 'conscience' have been attempted and all have been defeated. 

This is a statement by a number of Anglican bishops, supporting the current version of the SSM bill 



> *Anglican bishops break ranks to support Dean Smith's same-sex marriage bill
> *
> A group of Anglican bishops has split with some of the church's top leaders to declare support for the current version of the same-sex marriage bill before Parliament, publicly calling on lower house MPs to resist the conservative push to insert stronger religious protections.
> 
> ...


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 4, 2017)

We've had a lot of the wedding cake/flowers, etc. nonsense over here, too.  

I have very strong feelings that if a business sets itself out as a business to serve the public, it cannot refuse service to a member of a group/religion/minority or whatever else of which the owner of the business does not approve.  That would be a VERY slippery slope backwards and could quickly lead back to such things as "No (whatevers) need apply" and the like.  I certainly agree that ministers/rabbis should not have to perform marriage ceremonies of which their sect does not approve, but that's a whole different thing than a wedding cake or flowers.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 4, 2017)

Religious freedom does not include freedom to discriminate. We have laws now against discrimination because of race, gender, ethnicity and ****** orientation and religious organisations are allowed to refuse certain services even though they are lawful. For example a Catholic hospital will not perform abortions nor will they allow a new born to die behind a door if they are severely deformed. Religious schools can choose to only employ staff who follow church teaching re marriage and ****** morality. These exemptions are allowable and no minister, priest, iman or rabbi etc will be forced to marry a same sex couple but I know that in my denomination it will not be hard to find one ready and willing to do so. 

I am Uniting Church and we thrashed out the issue of same sex attracted clergy about 20 years ago. Their orientation is not a barrier to ordination but it must still be discerned that they have a calling to ministry and are spiritually, psychologically and temperamentally suitable. The other condition is that they are in 'right relationship' with their partner. Promiscuity is not right relationship, nor is infidelity. Same sex couples have not until now been able to publically declare their commitment and have it recognised as a legal marriage. The first same sex marriages in the Uniting Church will probably be of clergy couples. 

However, the argument being put forward by opponents of SSM is freedom of conscience. A florist, wedding organiser, venue manager or cake decorator under this extension would be able to refuse service because they object to homosexuality or same sex marriage if an amendment along these lines is successful. Right now this is not a right and it will not be when the bill is passed because the majority of MPs are determined to vote down all amendments. Only a clean bill will be passed. This will confer all rights and obligations of marriage as we understand it on couples who identify as LGBTI without any quibbles.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 4, 2017)

We have had same sex marriage for over a decade. There has been no uproar whatsoever. Individual church congregations
retain the right  to refuse to marry a same sex couple if they wish. Civil ceremonies are open to all. It has become mainstream.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 6, 2017)

The wedding cake thing is before our Supreme Court right now.  I hope they make the right decision.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 6, 2017)

The _wedding cake thing _was upsetting to me when I first started hearing about it but I've decided that it is better to deal with an old school in your face bigot rather than one that will greet you with a big smile and then do something nasty or underhanded behind the scenes.  I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business.  I am still very interested in the arguments and final decision of the Supremes on this issue.


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The wedding cake thing is before our Supreme Court right now.  I hope they make the right decision.



 And I hope that decision is that each has a right to their own way. I hope the baker retains the right to say no. And not participate in the wedding in any way. And  the couple retains the right to go to any other baker....{there are thousands} and obtain their wedding cake.

I do not believe that one persons rights should be pushed aside to grant another's.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 6, 2017)

> .  I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be  quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for  their bottom line or be out of business.



Good point, Aunt Bea.  I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.

Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker?  In these crazy times, it could happen.


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Good point, Aunt Bea.  I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.
> 
> Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker?  In these crazy times, it could happen.





 So the guy is a bigot, just because he does not believe in same sex marriage, and chooses not to participate in said union ?

As for the "marketplace" ?  I think he'll do just fine.

Oddly, just announced that this will be the topic on the 9:00 o'clock hour radio talk show.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 6, 2017)

He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.

I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them.  Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.

About "not believing in same sex marriage,"  since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding?  What if he is, say, an atheist?  Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

Sunny said:


> He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.
> 
> I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them.  Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.
> 
> About "not believing in same sex marriage,"  since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding?  What if he is, say, an atheist?  Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?



 I never said he "had" to believe. I just said {as he does} that he doesn't...and he should not be forced to participate in any manner. 

 Why are we so quick to push aside his rights , to observe theirs? They can go to any other baker. IMO their goal is not to have a wedding cake but only to have their way.


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

Sunny said:


> He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele.
> 
> I think this is an old, time-tested way of dealing with businesses or professional people who are "outed" as having extreme political or religious views. Some people go along with them anyway, others refuse to have anything to do with them.  Their bottom line suffers, no question about it.
> 
> About "not believing in same sex marriage,"  since when does a provider of wedding cakes have to "believe" in the principles behind that wedding?  What if he is, say, an atheist?  Should he refuse to provide a wedding cake to anyone who is having a religious ceremony, because he doesn't believe in it?




   "He'll do just fine with the bigot clientele."

  I see you're very quick to sling insults , start name calling . Yet try to profess a diverse approach....interesting.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 6, 2017)

> If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.



So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. 

And my comment that he'll do just fine with the bigot clientele was a response to YOUR comment that in the marketplace, "he'll do just fine."  Depends on your definition of fine, it would seem.  If losing half of his potential customers is "just fine,"  that's a very strange business model.

Seems to me all the "insult slinging" is coming from you.  Why are you personally so incensed about this, anyway?


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

"So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. "

 Well its...rgp...but anyway.....bigot being introduced by who...is not the matter. The matter is you used it in direct reply to me.

 Please point to where I slung any insults...?

 And I am not incensed by any of it... I merely do not believe in pushing aside one persons "rights" so that another's can be "granted" .

 As I indicated earlier, all they need do is go to another baker that may indeed be willing to fulfill their wishes.

No one is attempting to impede their nuptial's . This man only chooses not to participate commercially.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 6, 2017)

rgp said:


> "So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.
> 
> Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. "
> 
> ...


Back when a business owner could legally refuse service to anyone for any reason there were no problems.  Now, in these days when the government apparently shares business ownership, problems are continual.

The purpose of constitution rights is to safeguard everyone's rights, not just the rights of those who share the views of the entertainment media.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2017)

An update,



> A final parliamentary vote on a bill to legalise same-sex marriage could come as early as today.
> 
> The bulk of speeches wrapped up in the lower house late on Wednesday night, after sitting hours were extended for a second day to allow extra debate.
> 
> ...



I have listened to several of the speeches on the radio and I was impressed by the standard of debate. I have not heard all 120 of them but that number indicates how seriously the members are taking this issue. If the bill does not pass today, with or without amendments, the PM has said that he will recall parliament next week and they will continue to sit until it does. The Christmas break will be delayed. After that it will go to the Governor General for royal assent and it will become the law of the land that same sex couples will have the same rights as everyone else. This is a turning point in the history of Australia.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 6, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> The _wedding cake thing _was upsetting to me when I first started hearing about it but I've decided that it is better to deal with an old school in your face bigot rather than one that will greet you with a big smile and then do something nasty or underhanded behind the scenes.  I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business.  I am still very interested in the arguments and final decision of the Supremes on this issue.


This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.

Seinfeld. No soup for you.


----------



## JaniceM (Dec 6, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> We've had a lot of the wedding cake/flowers, etc. nonsense over here, too.
> 
> I have very strong feelings that if a business sets itself out as a business to serve the public, it cannot refuse service to a member of a group/religion/minority or whatever else of which the owner of the business does not approve.  That would be a VERY slippery slope backwards and could quickly lead back to such things as "No (whatevers) need apply" and the like.  I certainly agree that ministers/rabbis should not have to perform marriage ceremonies of which their sect does not approve, but that's a whole different thing than a wedding cake or flowers.



I agree with you.
Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'  

Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'-  made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.


----------



## rgp (Dec 6, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.
> 
> Seinfeld. No soup for you.



 I agree....not to mention, why would someone insist on spending their money , with a merchant that *doesn't want* their business in the first place?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 6, 2017)

Camper, I agree, and I do think the case before SCOTUS was probably set up as some sort of test case. 
It was a political, rather than a commercial transaction. There is bad blood on both sides IMO.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 6, 2017)

This is a bad situation no matter which way it's resolved. If a business is forced to provide products or services, no matter to whom, or else get fined or whatever, there is still no way of ensuring that they will provide
_good_ products or services. What if a Jewish baker feels compelled to provide a cake with a swastika to the local White Supremacists?  What if a black baker is compelled to provide a cake to the KKK in the shape of a burning
cross?  The only thing the merchant can do is provide the cake or whatever, but it can be a truly lousy cake, with the swastika nearly unidentifiable, etc.

And I guess this guy who is against gay marriage could do the same thing.

And if the Supreme Court sides with the merchant, it can be a very slippery slope back to the bad old days. In a big city, customers do have a lot of choices, but that's not so easy in sparsely populated areas.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 6, 2017)

Well, I believe that in our personal lives, we all have the right to bake cakes or whatever, for whomever we wish (or not).  BUT, if you are in a commercial business serving the public, that changes the rules.  You can't just decide you are going to refuse to trade with certain groups.  It's commerce, not a religious act.  I do not think the Bible addresses wedding cake baking (but it does address how we should treat other people), and I think the whole wedding cake/flower, etc., thing is just thinly veiled homophobia, anyway.  Even if it were not, remember that in one European country many years ago one of the first acts of a rising government was to encourage people to refuse to trade with a certain religious group . . . .

Besides which, if the guy really just didn't want to bake the cake, why couldn't he just say he was booked up that weekend, or some such.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 6, 2017)

JaniceM said:


> I agree with you.
> Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'
> 
> Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'-  made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.



This guy baker is an artist type baker. He does 'themes'. And he is saying it's against his religion so he doesn't want to do it.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

The bill passed the House of Reps this afternoon by an almost unanimous vote as members honoured the result of the postal survey. 



> *Same-sex marriage bill passes House of Representatives, paving way for first gay weddings*
> 
> Thu 7 Dec 2017, 6:10pm
> 
> ...



All that is needed now  is the signature of the Governor General for the process to be complete.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

Here is how the chamber voted


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 7, 2017)

Good for you!!  I've supported gay marriage (in all of it's various forms) for a long time, because, hey, why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us...


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 7, 2017)

Congratulations, Warrigirl! I just woke up to see it passed.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 7, 2017)

We have had it in Canada for a long time.

I'm waiting for the first divorce.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 7, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> We have had it in Canada for a long time.
> 
> I'm waiting for the first divorce.



I think that Canada was the first country in the world to grant a same sex divorce in or around 2004.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 7, 2017)

We've had lots of divorces in the U.S., including the first legal gay marriage.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 7, 2017)

Wonderful news Warri.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 7, 2017)

I wonder about this whole "against his religion" thing, anyway. "Religion" has been used as an excuse to commit every level of atrocity down through history. Horrifying crimes have been committed supposedly in the name of religion. Maybe it's time for this country to grow up and keep religion within the sphere of our private lives, but adhere to a set of laws requiring common decency in the public sector?

Having said that, I do think this issue is a real can of worms. Maybe the best solution is to just let the marketplace deal with it. Someone refuses to provide their goods to a certain segment of the population? Fine. There's always boycotting, adverse publicity, picketing the business, etc.  

Even that isn't foolproof. What is to stop someone from lying about some act of discrimination that never actually happened?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

We have a Human Rights Commission that people can complain to if they feel they have been discriminated on the grounds of race, sex and ****** preference, disability or age. The process aims for conciliation before resorting to the courts.



> *What can I complain about?*
> 
> The Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment and bullying based on a person’s:
> 
> ...


----------



## rgp (Dec 7, 2017)

Sunny said:


> I wonder about this whole "against his religion" thing, anyway. "Religion" has been used as an excuse to commit every level of atrocity down through history. Horrifying crimes have been committed supposedly in the name of religion. Maybe it's time for this country to grow up and keep religion within the sphere of our private lives, but adhere to a set of laws requiring common decency in the public sector?
> 
> Having said that, I do think this issue is a real can of worms. Maybe the best solution is to just let the marketplace deal with it. Someone refuses to provide their goods to a certain segment of the population? Fine. There's always boycotting, adverse publicity, picketing the business, etc.
> 
> Even that isn't foolproof. What is to stop someone from lying about some act of discrimination that never actually happened?





 Depending on what "stat" ya read & who compiled it, the homosexual community is somewhere between 1 & 4 % of the population.  
 So, even if ALL  , homosexuals & those compassionate to their cause boycott him....he'll do just fine.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

One of the many photos showing rejoicing in the parliament after the marriage equality vote
The woman is Linda Burney, an indigenous MP. I listened to her speech and it was awesome.
The man who swung her off her feet is Warren Entsch, a conservative politician from north Queensland.
Neither is gay.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 7, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> One of the many photos showing rejoicing in the parliament after the marriage equality vote
> The woman is Linda Burney, an indigenous MP. I listened to her speech and it was awesome.
> The man who swung her off her feet is Warren Entsch, a conservative politician from north Queensland.
> Neither is gay.


What joy!


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

More joy. Three members of the cross bench  showing their delight at the result.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 7, 2017)

Sunny said:


> So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.
> 
> Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me.
> 
> ...



If he is going to lose half of his potential customers as you put it, he is willing to take that risk.

He does artistic themes on his wedding cakes.  I have no idea what they asked for but apparently he didn't want any part of it.

I remember one barber refusing to cut hair one day.  He was in the barber shop.  Just told everybody that walked in "I'm not cutting hair today because I just don't feel like it".

That was in the days when there were no appointments.  You just walked in and waited.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 7, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> We've had lots of divorces in the U.S., including the first legal gay marriage.



When this first started out I saw it as a great huge financial advantage.

For instance.  Tax breaks as a couple.  Pension plans.  Medical coverage from employers for both.

Even if I wasn't in love with a guy or gal I lived with I would marry for the financial benefit. 

What have I got to lose?

What I don't like about the whole thing is this "in your face" stuff.  Do as you wish but do I have to accept it or am I free to disagree?

I really don't get 'gay parades' and if the mayor doesn't show up he's discriminated against?  And must I fly the 'rainbow flag" next to the Union Jack or I am being discriminatory?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 7, 2017)

Back to Wedding Cakes and the First Amendment.

https://usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html


The Supreme Court heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado  Civil Rights Commission. In 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and  David Mullins, were denied a wedding cake by Longwood, Colo., baker Jack  Phillips. The baker said he would sell them other kinds of cakes but  that he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, because  same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 7, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> More joy. Three members of the cross bench  showing their delight at the result.


Good for Oz!


----------



## Sunny (Dec 7, 2017)

Great pictures, Warrigal!


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

This has been a long time coming. We are the 26th country/state to legalise SSM.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 7, 2017)

In sickness and in wealth.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 7, 2017)

Cynic !!


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 8, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Cynic !!




You are just too nice.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 8, 2017)

:lofl: Aren't I just.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Dec 8, 2017)

> And I hope that decision is that each has a right to their own way. I hope the baker retains the right to say no. And not participate in the wedding in any way. And  the couple retains the right to go to any other baker....{there are thousands} and obtain their wedding cake.



   Yes. I listened to a fairly long discussion on this topic recently. It really is far more complex than people think. Many of us support equal rights, but that is the question: _What is equal so that both parties retain their freedoms?_ I am one of those people who is 'anti-fundamentalist', but I understand (at least intellectually, not at a gut level), their religious beliefs. The 'rights' issue is just so complex. It's individual rights on both sides with religious freedom as part of the mix. Can the fed mandate behavior that goes against religious beliefs when we're supposed to have separation of church and state?

    And, many people may not understand a fundamental part of the baker's argument. He stated he would sell the couple anything in the store. But he considers his custom cake design as artistic expression. And he believes he should not contribute his artistry to celebrate something he considers an affront to his religion. That is what makes the case so difficult. He didn't kick these people out of the store --- he just would not customize something for their ceremony which he believes is an affront to God.

The thought process, along with the legal process,  that the court has to go through, is above my pay grade.....


----------



## Sunny (Dec 8, 2017)

I haven't been able to find an answer to this question:  What if the court rules against the baker?  What would be the result in this case?  Would he be compelled to bake a cake for them?  (Which they obviously don't really want; this whole case is symbolic.)  If so, would there be a judge or a committee as to whether the cake was "good enough?"  

What if he still refuses to bake the cake?  Is he subject to imprisonment, fines, or what?  How on earth could any of this be enforeced, no matter which way the ruling goes?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 8, 2017)

Sunny said:


> I haven't been able to find an answer to this question:  What if the court rules against the baker?  What would be the result in this case?  Would he be compelled to bake a cake for them?  (Which they obviously don't really want; this whole case is symbolic.)  If so, would there be a judge or a committee as to whether the cake was "good enough?"
> 
> What if he still refuses to bake the cake?  Is he subject to imprisonment, fines, or what?  How on earth could any of this be enforeced, no matter which way the ruling goes?



He will be sued if he refuses if the case goes against him.  He will simply shut the store down or just sell no theme  plain cakes like everyone else.

Maybe just put a flag on them?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 8, 2017)

I think our system of a Human Rights Commission to take care of these sorts of complaints is a good one. 
The aim is to sort it out by conciliation, without lawyers.


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 8, 2017)

Why can't people just mind their own business?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 8, 2017)

This thoughtful article does not give a definitive answer but it does provide a different perspective when considering the apparently conflicting right of the cake maker and the same sex client.



> *Legislation is no substitute for respect*
> 
> Support for human rights often depends on the issue under discussion. When the Human Rights Commission defended the human rights of asylum seekers, government supporters vilified the commissioner.
> 
> ...


----------



## Iodine (Dec 9, 2017)

So if I guy comes in your bakery and you know he's committed adultery or something else that you don't approve of, you don't bake him a cake??


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 9, 2017)

That is very unlikely to happen so to refuse the gay couple or the woman of colour is just plain discrimination tather than an exercise of rights. IMO and in the opinion of our anti discrimination lawyers.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

You are all forgetting the key issue here which you wont find in a lot of other countries. All laws must obey the constitution of the United States.
So what might seem on the surface simple is not simple when a ruling comes from the Supreme Court and referencing the Constitution. In my humble amateur opinion this will all come down to artistic expression. The justices will have to determine if creating cakes are "art" and if that "artist" can refuse to perform that art because it violates his rights under the Constitution. The Constitution doesnt like to force anyone to do anything. The final ruling will be some sort of compromise.Buy a plain cake and get someone else to decorate it. If I am selling art I can sell it to whoever I want to.
D. Final answer!


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> Why can't people just mind their own business?


The law is everyones business.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 9, 2017)

I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking  all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition  for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking  all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition  for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.



So it's all money in Australia and morals and religious convictions are out the window?

Question.  Did the U.S. have a Revolutionary War and overthrow the British Government who was ruling them and made their own Constitution to avoid the nonsense and give individual freedoms?

If a customer is a devil worshipper and wants  to celebrate Lucifer and the cake maker is a staunch Catholic, does he have to make the cake for him or can he refuse on religious grounds in Australia.

Can a Catholic be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?  

In the U.S. can a Republican be forced to make a cake celebrating abortion?

Can a barber refuse to give a mohawk cut if he is indigenous because he believes it is racist and demeans his race?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 9, 2017)




----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

Iodine said:


> So if I guy comes in your bakery and you know he's committed adultery or something else that you don't approve of, you don't bake him a cake??



Depends what he wants on the cake I guess.

If he belongs to the KKK and wants a swastika and a burning cross do you do it?

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

Warrigal said:


>



So why do you do that?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 9, 2017)

Because you did not address my post but went off one some fanciful tangent. There is no way I want to follow you.

Here is my post 



> I doubt we will see any of this fuss in Australia. For one thing we do not have a bill of rights attached to our constitution. Secondly the wedding cake makers have already altered their order forms asking  all clients to specify a bride/groom, bride/bride or groom/groom combination on the cake. They are in fierce competition  for customers. Apparently we are about to have a wedding led boost to the economy.



and this is how you responded



> So it's all money in Australia and morals and religious convictions are out the window?
> 
> Question.  Did the U.S. have a Revolutionary War and overthrow the British Government who was ruling them and made their own Constitution to avoid the nonsense and give individual freedoms?
> If a customer is a devil worshipper and wants  to celebrate Lucifer and the cake maker is a staunch Catholic, does he have to make the cake for him or can he refuse on religious grounds in Australia.
> ...



I spoke about a current reality. You left the planet altogether.


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 9, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> That is very unlikely to happen so to refuse the gay couple or the woman of colour is just plain discrimination tather than an exercise of rights. IMO and in the opinion of our anti discrimination lawyers.



Yes -- it is discrimination!


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 9, 2017)

The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity.  BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services.  Otherwise, we are back to deciding who can and cannot sit at a lunch counter or the front of the bus or use which drinking fountain. It's really a pretty simple concept.  If a businessperson in a public business doesn't think he can provide services to any member of the public because of some personal feeling, he should not be in that public business.


----------



## Stormy (Dec 9, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity.  BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services.


That's the way I feel about it too


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 9, 2017)

Stormy said:


> That's the way I feel about it too



Sure. And the store owner offered to sell anything in the store except his artistic talents. 

Does a portrait painter or a photographer have to accept every client that comes to him?

I do think you get to pick and choose if that is the case.

The bakery isn't refusing to sell cakes to anyone.

What if you asked for a obscene motif.?

Now I got you.  Obscenity is unique in being the only type of speech to which the Supreme Court has denied First Amendment protection without regard to whether it is harmful to individuals.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Warrigal. Now you are "clutching at straws".


----------



## rgp (Dec 10, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> The point, I believe, is as I said above -- you can bake or not bake whatever you want in your personal capacity.  BUT, when you are operating as a business offering services to the public, you don't get to pick and choose a portion of the public to whom you refuse services.  Otherwise, we are back to deciding who can and cannot sit at a lunch counter or the front of the bus or use which drinking fountain. It's really a pretty simple concept.  If a businessperson in a public business doesn't think he can provide services to any member of the public because of some personal feeling, he should not be in that public business.




 I disagree completely....a business owner puts his/her blood & sweat into a business...he or she should be permitted to do business with whom they choose. And yes this goes all the way back to the lunch counter . If I as a business owner choose not to accept your money in return for my service/product....how is that wrong ? You are not being denied any essential service or need.

   The drinking fountain & the bus are two entirely different scenarios / issues. 

  They are public , tax-payer funded . As such no one should be denied them. 

  My money, my business. 

  In America, some folks believe that they can 'force' other folks to like everyone. That fly's in the face of human nature, and it is never going to happen. Why people just can't accept that is beyond me.

I would never harm anyone except in the need for self defense. I would never vote to legislate against anyone , for any reason. But there are those I avoid if possible , just because i do not care for them for reasons that are my own..... that is my right, and i will never relinquish it.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 10, 2017)

Just wondering:  What if an "artist" selling custom-decorated cakes simply turns down a customer because the cake they are requesting is beyond his artistic talents?

What if the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it, the baker just doesn't like them, or their race, religion, ****** preference, political beliefs, etc.?

But what if it really is about artistic talents at times, other times not?

Gadzooks.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Just wondering:  What if an "artist" selling custom-decorated cakes simply turns down a customer because the cake they are requesting is beyond his artistic talents?
> 
> What if the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it, the baker just doesn't like them, or their race, religion, ****** preference, political beliefs, etc.?
> 
> ...


 
Well this is all about artistic talents.  He has offerered to sell any cake in the store other than the ones he claims that if he creates it it violates his rights due to his religion.  Now it's going to the Supreme Court for a decision.

What's your opinion on it?

If the customer suspects that artistic talents have nothing to do with it?  Well then that's what this case is all about.

When you ask for a 'theme' cake and tell the artist what you want on it.  Then I think he has the option of accepting or refusing, don't you if it's a privately owned business?

For instance what if he wanted a Nazi swastika on it and he is Jewish?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Because you did not address my post but went off one some fanciful tangent. There is no way I want to follow you.
> 
> Here is my post
> 
> ...



I asked a series of worldly questions which you refused to answer and pulled the strawman out of your bottomless bag of tricks.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 10, 2017)

Not absolutely sure about how I feel about this, Camper; as I said before, this is a real can of worms. I've seen religion misused too many times to get all misty eyed when someone tries to justify something on "religious" grounds. But I also don't like the idea of someone being forced to create a work of art when he doesn't want to, for whatever reason.

I guess the best solution would be to allow him to refuse to create the cake. Word of mouth would get out quickly, his reputation would suffer, and he would obviously lose a certain amount of business.  That may really be the only "solution" available in a case such as this. Unfortunately, King Solomon is long gone.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Not absolutely sure about how I feel about this, Camper; as I said before, this is a real can of worms. I've seen religion misused too many times to get all misty eyed when someone tries to justify something on "religious" grounds. But I also don't like the idea of someone being forced to create a work of art when he doesn't want to, for whatever reason.
> 
> I guess the best solution would be to allow him to refuse to create the cake. Word of mouth would get out quickly, his reputation would suffer, and he would obviously lose a certain amount of business.  That may really be the only "solution" available in a case such as this. Unfortunately, King Solomon is long gone.



He doesn't care if he loses business. Why are you hoping he will? Terrible to see a self employed business suffer.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 10, 2017)

Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper?  A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
and he is supposed to be honored for it?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 10, 2017)

My reaction is that this is a squabble that should have been sorted out long before being elevated to the highest court of the land.
It has become a lawyers' picnic. How would King Solomon have handled this dispute, I wonder.

I know how my mother would have dealt with it. 

She would have said to one, "You need to find another cake maker" and to the other, "You need a lesson in humility. You make cakes but you are not as special as you think you are. Now both of you go away and have a good think about your own behaviours."


----------



## Sunny (Dec 10, 2017)

Amen, Warrigal!


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper?  A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
> and he is supposed to be honored for it?



I love individual freedoms. This is not Walmart or Safeway.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 10, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I love individual freedoms. This is not Walmart or Safeway.


One person’s freedom is another’s tyranny. Joyeux Noel.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> One person’s freedom is another’s tyranny. Joyeux Noel.



Canada does not have freedom of speech.

Canada has freedom of expression.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 10, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Because he deserves to lose business when he is throwing his bigotry around. What would you suggest, Camper?  A baker refuses to sell a cake to black people, or Jewish people, or whoever he chooses not to do business with,
> and he is supposed to be honored for it?



No one 'deserves' anything. It's not a nationality thing or a racist thing.  It's a religious thing or we wouldn't be talking about it.

If I am not comfortable with doing something that is against my religion I should have the freedom to express it.

For instance.  In wartime there are conscientous objectors who will not fight because of their religion.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 11, 2017)

And there are some people who claim to be religious but if they found themselves in ancient Rome would avoid being thrown to the lions for lack of evidence.

Conscientious objectors in war time were never given an easy ride. They had to  establish themselves to be members of a faith or sect that was implacably pacifist. Only a sects like the Quakers have the clear track record to prove that. Larger Christian churches, while preaching peace, do not have the consistency to allow blanket covering of all members as pacifists. They even have theologies of "just war". Then the adherent must prove himself using his own history, with witnesses etc or suffer the consequences such as time in a military prison as a draft dodger.

If the cake maker is a long time member of a Biblical fundamentalist church he might be successful but it can't be a pick and choose situation. If a Christian fundamentalist, this should be apparent in all of his moral choices including his marriage, religious observances,  and business hours. For example, does he close for the Sabbath? Does he tithe? In other words, can he justify his decision to refuse service based on a religious belief? An observant Jew might have a good chance of establishing his bona fides. How about the cake maker? Do we know anything about his  religious affiliations?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

No Warrigal.  This is the United States.  The Bill of Rights. This is not Australia.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

No Warrigal.  This is the United States.  The Bill of Rights. This is not Australia.

Prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


*First Amendment*

 Congress shall  make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the  free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the  press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to  petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You guys are leaning toward the litigants.  Well most of you.  

I'm looking at the law and favor Phillips. 

The Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of Phillips.  I can't see it going any other way in the United States.

No shoes, no service.  Constitutional?

Can a same sex couple insist on getting married in a church that doesn't want them?


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 11, 2017)

My responses in blue



Camper6 said:


> No Warrigal.  This is the United States.  The Bill of Rights. This is not Australia.
> I am aware of the difference. Our rights are clarified in legislation, not in our constitution.
> However Section 116 does address the issue of religion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Good point, Aunt Bea.  I don't think this case has been decided yet, but just in case Kennedy goes along with the religious conservatives (not too likely) and the bigots "win" this one, the public still has the power of the marketplace. There should be well-publicized notices listing those bakers, and any other providers of products or services, who refuse to do business with particular groups.
> 
> Of course, this could be a tricky issue. What if a prominent white supremicist wants to order a cake with a swastika from a Jewish baker?  In these crazy times, it could happen.



 Yes.  Well what about it?  Finish the analogy.  Can the baker refuse?


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 11, 2017)

This thread has drifted way past the original topic.  But, it seems to me that if you give the baker the right to refuse to bake said cake, then the young punk working at McDs will have the same right to not sell a burger to a police officer, because it offends him to do so. 

Commercial activity is not covered by BofR, etc.  Jeebus.  Just bake the f'ing cake.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> This thread has drifted way past the original topic.  But, it seems to me that if you give the baker the right to refuse to bake said cake, then the young punk working at McDs will have the same right to not sell a burger to a police officer, because it offends him to do so.
> 
> Commercial activity is not covered by BofR, etc.  Jeebus.  Just bake the f'ing cake.



Unfortunately that analogy is not quite accurate.

Number one.  Mc D's is a public corporation, not a private one.  The laws are applied differently.  

Number two.  There is no religion connotation for the police officer.  What would he base his refusal on quoting the Bill of Rights?

Take any old cake in the store.  Take it home and decorate it yourself.  It's not rocket science.  

They need to tone down the high pitched whine.  The world is not obligated to convert to your way of thinking.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 11, 2017)

> Yes.  Well what about it?  Finish the analogy.  Can the baker refuse?



Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already, if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.
This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers:

a. We'll just give our business to the other baker a few blocks away, who will make the cake with his blessings.
b. We agree with the baker, our religion teaches us that it's sinful, so when my (opposite gender) fiance and I hire the people for our wedding, we will go out of our way to use this guy.
c. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I wouldn't dream of giving this sanctimonious SOB any of my business.
d. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I admire this baker's sincerity about his religion, and will deliberately use him for my next cake.

That is the only outcome I can see to this mess of a situation. There is no way to force the baker to bake a cake for them.  And it would be horrifying for this country to lurch into a dark ages mentality and have religion-imposed
sanctions on a legal marriage that is harming no one. So the only solution is to let the marketplace be the ultimate court of appeal.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

> Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already, if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.
> This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers:


He has already stated he is prepared to pay the price.  That's not an issue with him.



> a. We'll just give our business to the other baker a few blocks away, who will make the cake with his blessings.
> b. We agree with the baker, our religion teaches us that it's sinful, so when my (opposite gender) fiance and I hire the people for our wedding, we will go out of our way to use this guy.
> c. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I wouldn't dream of giving this sanctimonious SOB any of my business.
> d. Even though my occasion is not a wedding and has nothing to do with this issue, I admire this baker's sincerity about his religion, and will deliberately use him for my next cake.





> That is the only outcome I can see to this mess of a situation. There is no way to force the baker to bake a cake for them.  And it would be horrifying for this country to lurch into a dark ages mentality and have religion-imposed
> sanctions on a legal marriage that is harming no one. So the only solution is to let the marketplace be the ultimate court of appeal.



And for all this we have to go to the Supreme Court for a ruling?


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 11, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Yes, Camper, I believe the baker can refuse. But that should not be the end of the story. As I've said several times already,* if he refuses he has to be prepared to pay the price for it, in having his refusal known far and wide.*
> This could mean anything from quiet word-of-mouth discussions to widespread internet publicity. It could cut many different ways, either harming or helping his business, depending on the inclinations of the prospective customers...


Most people won't care if he refuses.  Of those who do, most will agree with the baker.  Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 11, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> Most people won't care if he refuses.  Of those who do, most will agree with the baker.  Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.


 Generally despised? I think the results of the plebiscite might call that into question.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 11, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> Most people won't care if he refuses.  Of those who do, most will agree with the baker.  Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.



As Shalimar indicated, times have changed as recent events in Australia have demonstrated. If anything, Australia lags many other countries, including US in this regard. As our generation dies off, so will most of the despising that remains.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 11, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> Most people won't care if he refuses.  Of those who do, most will agree with the baker.  Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.



_The generally despised minority_ all have family, friends and coworkers that will at some point want to purchase a cake so it is my thought that each time a merchant refuses he stands to lose many, many, transactions and will eventually put himself out of business.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> _The generally despised minority_ all have family, friends and coworkers that will at some point want to purchase a cake so it is my thought that each time a merchant refuses he stands to lose many, many, transactions and will eventually put himself out of business.



I doubt that would be a major part of his business. Never wish Ill on anyone for revenge.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 11, 2017)

> Most people won't care if he refuses. Of those who do, most will agree with the baker. Homosexuals are a tiny and generally despised minority.



Not at all, Big Horn. You are generalizing from the point of view of your own locality, I suspect. And I don't exactly know how many gay people there are, but I get the feeling that they are anything but a tiny minority. Most educated people do not "despise" them at all.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I doubt that would be a major part of his business. *Never wish Ill on anyone* for revenge.



Including people who just want a nice cake for a very special event.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 11, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Unfortunately that analogy is not quite accurate.
> 
> Number one.  Mc D's is a public corporation, not a private one.  The laws are applied differently.
> 
> ...



Camper, God bless your heart, you are wrong on all accounts.  I am surprised that a Canadian is licensed to practice law in the US.  And the only "high pitch whine" I hear is coming from north of the US border.  

Peace and love
Hoot


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> Including people who just want a nice cake for a very special event.



Think about it. This guy runs a business and probably hires employees.

Your wishes that he suffers makes others suffer. Over a lousy cake?

This isn't all about a cake and you know it.

Its the Colorado Rights People trying to force their will on others.

When you enter a privately owned business you are an invited guest. I f I tell you to leave you have to go. But these guys weren't told to leave. They stormed out of the store.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 11, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> Camper, God bless your heart, you are wrong on all accounts.  I am surprised that a Canadian is licensed to practice law in the US.  And the only "high pitch whine" I hear is coming from north of the US border.
> 
> Peace and love
> Hoot



Uh oh? What do we have here.  Wrong on all counts? Hmmn? Talk is cheap. Evidence and facts are not.

And now what else do we have.  Someone is cheesed off so decides to play the 'foreigner' card?

I have news for you.  This is an international forum.  I don't need a license to post.

Peace and love?

:yeahright:


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 11, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Not at all, Big Horn. You are generalizing from the point of view of your own locality, I suspect. And I don't exactly know how many gay people there are, but I get the feeling that they are anything but a tiny minority. Most educated people do not "despise" them at all.


I lived in Colorado for thirty-five years.  People discussed it continually.  Homosexuals kept pushing and pushing.  Others kept resisting.  It was really unpleasant.

During my fifteen years in Wyoming I don't recall a single conversation with or about homosexuals.  That's far better.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Uh oh? What do we have here.  Wrong on all counts? Hmmn? Talk is cheap. Evidence and facts are not.
> 
> And now what else do we have.  Someone is cheesed off so decides to play the 'foreigner' card?
> 
> ...



Nice try to deflect, but fact is most Americans and most Australians support same sex marriage, and the right for LGBT folks to be treated like everybody else. SCOTUS will soon confirm that right.   Why is that so much to ask?  

Next.

Peace and love
Hoot


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 12, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> Nice try to deflect, but fact is most Americans and most Australians support same sex marriage, and the right for LGBT folks to be treated like everybody else. SCOTUS will soon confirm that right.   Why is that so much to ask?
> 
> Next.
> 
> ...



Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business.  I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of.  Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.

To be treated like everybody else?  Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.



There are some that come here with a rational argument supported by the facts. Others come here to attack the poster for having their own opinion and then fake it with a Peace and Love signature.

Businesses are within their rights to establish their own rules for admitting or banning people from their property.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.


----------



## rgp (Dec 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business.  I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of.  Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.
> 
> To be treated like everybody else?  Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.
> 
> ...





   ^5+1


----------



## Sunny (Dec 12, 2017)

> Think about it. This guy runs a business and probably hires employees.
> 
> Your wishes that he suffers makes others suffer. Over a lousy cake?



Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.

Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?

What if (hypothetically) he was actually committing a crime?  Should that be overlooked also, to preserve his employees' jobs?

Of course that would be unfortunate, especially if the employees had no knowledge of his attitudes. Or even if they did; many of us have had bosses who were outright [fill in the epithet], but hey, the job was OK anyway and it provided a living. But that would be part of the "collateral damage," to use a favorite expression of the military. Life is hard sometimes. 

If their boss is being offensive enough to antagonize a substantial number of people and lose business as a result, they just might be hurt by it.

BTW, I have no desire to see anyone "suffer."  I do believe that actions have consequences. Since there is probably no way that the courts can satisfactorily solve this tangled mess, the marketplace results are probably the only outcome. And this will happen, inevitably, whether you think it's fair to the employees or not.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 12, 2017)

> Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.



Hardly.  A poster is wishing the business ill and closing down.  The business is defending themselves at the Supreme Court.  So why not wait for the Supreme Court decision?



> Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?



Well no.  Let's talk legal rights here. Yes if he is innocent and people will lose their jobs then it's a tragedy.



> What if (hypothetically) he was actually committing a crime?  Should that be overlooked also, to preserve his employees' jobs?



Nope.  Once again. Let's talk legality and the law.



> Of course that would be unfortunate, especially if the employees had no knowledge of his attitudes. Or even if they did; many of us have had bosses who were outright [fill in the epithet], but hey, the job was OK anyway and it provided a living. But that would be part of the "collateral damage," to use a favorite expression of the military. Life is hard sometimes.



You are going too far afield in your argument.  You are assuming the baker is wrong in this case.  That has yet to be determined and you are making purely theoretical arguments.  



> If their boss is being offensive enough to antagonize a substantial number of people and lose business as a result, they just might be hurt by it.



Of course.  But is that the case here?



> BTW, I have no desire to see anyone "suffer."  I do believe that actions have consequences. Since there is probably no way that the courts can satisfactorily solve this tangled mess, the marketplace results are probably the only outcome. And this will happen, inevitably, whether you think it's fair to the employees or not.



But that's what one poster stated here.  That they wish him ill and to suffer because of his stance.  Maybe his employees agree with him and don't want to lose their jobs.  That's allowed under the Constitution is it not?


----------



## rgp (Dec 12, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Well, that argument is so absurd that it's hard to take it seriously enough to even answer it. And it smacks of desperation.
> 
> Following your logic shown above, no business owner should ever be accountable for anything he does, because if his business suffers as a result, some innocent people working for him might lose their jobs or suffer a loss of income?
> 
> ...




He covered all this with......

     "_Over a lousy cake?"_


----------



## Sunny (Dec 12, 2017)

It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.

Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 12, 2017)

Sunny said:


> It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.
> 
> Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.



He's willing to take the chance.  He obviously knows the marketplace.  I admire people who start and maintain their own businesses.  It takes guts to meet all the challenges and the competition. Statistically the odds are in his favor.


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 12, 2017)




----------



## rgp (Dec 12, 2017)

Sunny said:


> It's not over a "lousy cake," rgp, and you know it.
> 
> Camper, as I've said, but you are choosing to ignore, the rules of the marketplace could go either way. If enough local people agree with the baker, this could boost his business. It could go either way.



   Ah but it is...they wanted a cake, & he said no....It's just that simple...now if one chooses to make more out of it, as it appears you do, then it becomes a whole new issue.


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 12, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Well I'm not against same sex marriages. It's none of my business.  I am against forcing someone to have to bake a cake for the wedding under the Constitution which I am a fan of.  Even though I am not a citizen of the U.S. I study the Constitution every chance I get because my family lives in the U.S.
> 
> To be treated like everybody else?  Well under the Constitution I don't have to treat anyone like everybody else.
> 
> ...



lol - more "high pitched whine".  You are still wrong on all accounts.  Try running a small business here in the States, cause it ain't that simple.  No shoes, no service??  Try putting a "Whites Only" sign in your shop window. Really. 

You keep trying to make this about me, but it isn't. 

Peace and love
Hoot


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 12, 2017)

Hoot N Annie said:


> lol - more "high pitched whine".  You are still wrong on all accounts.  Try running a small business here in the States, cause it ain't that simple.  No shoes, no service??  Try putting a "Whites Only" sign in your shop window. Really.
> 
> You keep trying to make this about me, but it isn't.
> 
> ...



No you can't put whites only. Because the Supreme Court ruled on it. It's against the Constitution.

Your constant wrong on all counts is your opinion but not based with facts and evidence.

No shoes, no service does not violate the constitution. I can put that sign up. Businesses can set standards for their premises that don't violate the Constitution.


I just copy over your posts and reply to them. You can't see where you are the one that is wrong.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 18, 2017)

So anyway, getting back to the wedding cake issue, which we appear to have forgotten about for the moment, today's paper had an article about the long lines of people outside of the Supreme Court, hoping to get in to hear the arguments in this case. There are actually two lines, one for lawyers and one for everyone else. The lawyers are not allowed to engage in paid line holders, but in the everything else line, that still prevails. People are paid thousands of dollars to hold a place. Many of the people in line have been out there for 4 days!  They've formed a sort of community, and help each other out by holding each other's place in line while they go to a nearby Walmart to get bedrolls, food, etc., and in the case of one guy, to go to a friend's home for a shower.  It didn't say which side of the issue they are on, so I imagine it's mixed.

The reason for this silliness is that the Supreme Court does not allow televised broadcasts of their proceedings, and not even tapes of their sessions until days later.  They say the media's presence would affect the court's goings on.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 18, 2017)

I heard there wouldn't be a decision until June.

Is it going on now?


----------



## Sunny (Dec 18, 2017)

Not sure, Camper. It said the case was heard Dec. 5, and the audio released Dec. 8.  But probably they have not reached a verdict on this yet.  Here's the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.fd50d5b4a6d0


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 18, 2017)

I happened to see these two questions asked by someone at  https://www.deseretnews.com/article...ece-cake-case-will-be-difficult-decision.html

What happens if a Jewish baker is asked to do a cake symbolizing Nazi symbols and beliefs? 
What about a black baker is asked to do a cake decked out with KKK symbols and lynching pictures? 

I don't have much to say about the gay wedding cake except I personally would have baked it because my customer's sex life is none of my concern, even though it's not for me.

If I were the customer and the cake was refused to me because of the baker's religious beliefs, it would annoy me as would dropping an egg on the floor.  I would go elsewhere, what's the big deal?

Could the big deal possibly be money won in a lawsuit?


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 18, 2017)

I'm with the cake guy.  He has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason just as every business owner does in a constitutional republic.  It's time to stand up to get our rights recognized again.


----------



## RadishRose (Dec 18, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> I'm with the cake guy.  He has the right to refuse to serve anyone for any reason just as every business owner does in a constitutional republic.  It's time to stand up to get our rights recognized again.



So, Big....just to be clear,  you would protect the right of a black baker to refuse to create a cake featuring a figure of a Klansman standing over a kneeling black slave?

You would also protect the right of a Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake and decorate it with figures of Hitler standing over kneeling Jewish prisoners ?

The person who asked those questions in the link I provided went on to say-

 "As we wade into restrictions of our daily conducts, we find that we are giving away our liberties to satisfy the designated behavior of the day. The gay couple could have gone to another bakery. But as they want to force their right on another person's right, we are in this situation. The High Courts will never satisfy everyone."

It does seem a stalemate; each side has their rights. Maybe the only way to resolve this is to find for the party who sustains the biggest injury?


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 18, 2017)

RadishRose said:


> So, Big....just to be clear,  you would protect the right of a black baker to refuse to create a cake featuring a figure of a Klansman standing over a kneeling black slave?
> 
> You would also protect the right of a Jewish baker to refuse to bake a cake and decorate it with figures of Hitler standing over kneeling Jewish prisoners ?
> 
> ...


The last is easy.  Just find the person who is forced to do what he doesn't wish to do.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 18, 2017)

Here is why the baker is going to win.

The case:

_Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission _

See it's not just an ordinary cakeshop.  This baker designs and creates a work of art.  A masterpiece.

As such he can refuse as he sees fit.  It doesn't have to be a same sex couple.  It could be anyone wanting something he doesn't want to do because he is not comfortable with it.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.  As long as it's not against the constitution he is perfectly within his rights.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 18, 2017)

The Supreme Court is split 4-4 between constitutionalists and statists.  The other justice, Anthony Kennedy, tends to be a constitutionalist, but one never knows in his case.


----------



## Elsie (Dec 20, 2017)

rgp, you make common sense.  No bigotry from you that I could see.  That cake baker, being the owner of his business, has every right to say no to decorating a wedding cake decorated with words that represent marriage between two men.  If I was he, I couldn't/wouldn't -- I'd have a sad feeling deep inside me that I would be ignoring, letting down God's(I AM) Word if I did. 

I've recently come to think being homosexual/Lesbian is not a sin, however homosexual ****** acts definitely are.  Celibacy can be tough, but that's one of the difficult consequences.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 20, 2017)

Sex between couples  who are not married to each other is also a sin but no-one is allowed to refuse them services because they have a moral objection.

I have enough trouble curbing my own sinful nature, an example of which is a tendency to judge others. My moral code is for me to follow and I am not supposed to impose my code onto others. We have laws that apply to all but private morality is just that, private.

Personally, I detest the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras because I disapprove of the blatant public display. For that reason I do not watch it. Paul was onto something when he said, "It is better to marry than to burn," because he recognised that celibacy is too hard for some. 

I have recently come to believe that these words are true for gay and lesbians too. A committed marriage relationship is much better than a life of promiscuity and casual sex. For this reason I now approve of same sex marriage. Some of the couples who will be marrying soon have been faithfully together for 40 years. Society needs to recognise stable, loving relationships such as these.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 21, 2017)

Warrigal, lots of good common sense in your post.

Bighorn, 





> The last is easy.  Just find the person who is forced to do what he doesn't wish to do.



Um - what if he/she is a bus driver forced to allow the black person to sit wherever he wants on the bus?
What if he/she is a teacher forced to teach an integrated class? (He doesn't wish to).

Although I would personally find for the baker if I were the judge, mainly because this issue really is a moral stalemate, I think your solution would not work at all. 

Why the difference? Well, the baker is not committing an atrocious insult against the gay couple by quietly declining to design the cake. They can always go to another baker, and if they feel the need to punish the guy, let word of mouth in the marketplace take care of it.

In the case of the bus driver and the teacher, they are committing inexcusable and public insults, which of course cannot be tolerated. So yes, sometimes people are forced to do what they do not wish to do.


----------



## Big Horn (Dec 21, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Warrigal, lots of good common sense in your post.
> 
> Bighorn,
> 
> ...


Have those offering "atrocious insults" had their unalienable rights alienated?

Suppose that what you call an atrocious insult is what I call sound judgement?


----------



## Butterfly (Dec 21, 2017)

To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people.  To me, the answer is a resounding "NO."  This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a *business* can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele.   I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.  

If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity.  I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.   

The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 22, 2017)

Butterfly, but what about the Jewish baker being approached by a Nazi group to create a cake with a big swastika on top?


----------



## Buckeye (Dec 22, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people.  To me, the answer is a resounding "NO."  This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a *business* can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele.   I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.
> 
> If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity.  I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.
> 
> The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.



QFT - It really is that simple.  Thank you.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 22, 2017)

> The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has  to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than  others.



Well actually it does.  The objection to making a cake from the baker is that it violates his moral standards as an artistic expression.

That's what the Supreme Court is going to decide.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 22, 2017)

Artist? Phooey!!

Does this imply that every cake he produces is a unique artistic creation commissioned by the client?
Or do people just order a cake from his catalog of different versions?

Methinks the baker is guilty of sinful pride.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 22, 2017)

Ah but you are not reading properly.

He specializes in 'theme' cakes like wedding cakes while selling all kinds of cakes.

He will sell any cake in the store to anyone regardless of faith or color.

So what he is challenging is being forced to design a special cake for a special occasion .

He doesn't want to.

Should he be forced to because it would violate someone's rights under the Constitiuion of the United States?

Should he be forced to design a cake that says 'child pornography is o.k.'?

I picked that because you can look it up.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 22, 2017)

Here is a similar case In California.

The judge ruled in favor of the baker.

https://www.ktnv.com/news/national/...ia-baker-who-refused-to-serve-same-sex-couple


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 28, 2017)

The appeals court has up held the decision against the Oregon bakers and awarded the lesbian couple $135,000 for damages. Most likely that will be used us in legal costs.

These are the reasons for the latest decision:



The bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated a law that bans discrimination based on ****** orientation in places that serve the public.
A panel of state appeals court judges agreed that the bakers did, in fact, deny the couple because they were lesbians. The justices also rejected the argument that the previous ruling violated state and federal free speech protections.
In the ruling, Judge Chris Garrett wrote that the previous court order does not violate the baker's free speech rights because it simply "requires their compliance with a neutral law."
Also the bakers "have made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs."

A similar case in Colorado is still to be resolved.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/12/appeals_court_upholds_fine_aga.html


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 28, 2017)

How does one prove they are lesbians?

I mean I could fake it just to cause trouble couldn't I?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 28, 2017)

Butterfly said:


> To me, the issue boils down to whether a business that puts itself out there to serve the public in general -- and is subject to business licensing, labor rules, civil rights rules, etc. -- should be allowed to refuse to serve a particular group of people.  To me, the answer is a resounding "NO."  This isn't a question of a person's faith, it's a question of whether a *business* can legitimately exclude certain persons from its clientele.   I strongly believe that in America, the answer has to be no, or what precludes businesses from suddenly deciding to exclude Catholics, or people of whatever color, or people from certain areas in the world.
> 
> If a person is acting as a private person, he can serve whomever he wishes, but once he opens a legitimate business purporting to offer services to all, he is no longer acting in a personal capacity.  I believe that a businessman/woman must leave his/her prejudices at the door or we are headed back to the 1950s lunch counter or 1930s Germany.
> 
> The question doesn't have anything to do with a moral stalemate, it has to do with what the law allows, and some of us are not more equal than others.



Once again.  You are being asked to design a cake to fit a specific function.  Therefore there is artistic license involved.

That's the difference.  You can have any cake on the shelf in the store.  Just don't ask me to design one for you if I don't feel like it.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 28, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> How does one prove they are lesbians?
> 
> I mean I could fake it just to cause trouble couldn't I?[/QUOTE
> Why? Would you enjoy it?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 29, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Camper6 said:
> 
> 
> > How does one prove they are lesbians?
> ...


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 29, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Shalimar said:
> 
> 
> > Sure if I could sue for $150,000. I just thought of a new scam. Now tell me what I would have to do to prove it.
> ...


----------



## Elsie (Dec 29, 2017)

What a nightmare  for the bakers.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Dec 30, 2017)

And the "it's against my religion" defense was the same " defense" used by restaurant owners, who refused to serve Black patrons. While the owners gave Biblical passages as proof, the judges upheld that passages of the Constitution were the Law of the Land. No one's religion is above the law.


----------



## Elsie (Dec 30, 2017)

God(I AM) of the Bible...His Word is above the law.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 30, 2017)

fuzzybuddy said:


> And the "it's against my religion" defense was the same " defense" used by restaurant owners, who refused to serve Black patrons. While the owners gave Biblical passages as proof, the judges upheld that passages of the Constitution were the Law of the Land. No one's religion is above the law.



Big difference between black patrons.  The Consitituion changed all that.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this one.

It's not a question of refusing to serve.  The offer is there to buy any cake in the store.

It's the creation of a cake for a theme that is in question.  Am I forced to create a theme I am not in favor of?


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

Hopefully gay people will begin to only patronize businesses that support them. That won't be hard to figure out. I've noticed an uptick in advertising businesses as being gay friendly and I'm sure baking will be part of that. I don't support people who don't support me, simple as that.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Here in coastal BC, these homophobic attitudes won’t fly. Canada has had same sex marriage for over a decade, most people could care less. Those that do, tend to be older. Like the legalising pot question, opinions often stack up re age demographic. 
Perhaps living in a very secular country affects this also. Allies of the queer community, such as myself, would never patronise such establishments.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 30, 2017)

We had a local photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding. It wasn't long before he went out of business. No sympathy.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> We had a local photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding. It wasn't long before he went out of business. No sympathy.


Awesome, the people have spoken. Voted with their feet. D’accord!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Dec 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> *Big difference between black patrons.  The Consitituion changed all that.
> 
> The Supreme Court has yet to rule on this one.*
> 
> ...



I don't understand why we need to wait for the Supreme Court to rule when it comes down to a simple question of how we treat each other, very sad.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 30, 2017)

Aunt Bea said:


> I don't understand why we need to wait for the Supreme Court to rule when it comes down to a simple question of how we treat each other, very sad.


Post of the day.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> We had a local photographer who refused to photograph a gay wedding. It wasn't long before he went out of business. No sympathy.


The odds that most of his customers where same sex are remote.

Since the invention and use of digital cameras you don't see photography studios much anymore.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Post of the day.



On the contrary. The Supreme Court has to rule on how much we have to tolerate people forcing themselves on your freedom to run your own business .

This case should never have gone to the Supreme Court without people trying to force their beliefs on you.

If I'm a barber and someone wants a Mohawk haircut can I refuse?


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 31, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> The odds that most of his customers where same sex are remote.
> 
> Since the invention and use of digital cameras you don't see photography studios much anymore.


Given that you don’t live in that town, your statement is conjecture. Besides, it is not necessary for the individual to have a predominantly gay clientele, there are many heterosexuals who are staunch allies of the queer community.


----------



## Warrigal (Dec 31, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> If I'm a barber and someone wants a Mohawk haircut can I refuse?



Why would you? A customer is a customer.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> Given that you don’t live in that town, your statement is conjecture. Besides, it is not necessary for the individual to have a predominantly gay clientele, there are many heterosexuals who are staunch allies of the queer community.



Not conjecture.  I was in the photography business part time.  It has changed drastically and mostly for the better.

Now you can take myriads of pictures and have them printed out at Walmart or a drug store in just about any size you want.

I just printed out some 4 x 6 prints at 19 cents each while I waited for them.

Queer?  That's a term I never heard for a long time.

Isn't that a derogatory insult?


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> Why would you? A customer is a customer.



Here's my point.  If I liked it I would do it.  But if I hated the look?  Why can't I refuse?

I have my reputation to uphold.  Many consider a Mohawk haircut racist.


----------



## Elsie (Dec 31, 2017)

Ah how the term "LOVE" is used to make dandy homosexual ****** acts in homosexual "marriage".  My girl friend was in LOVE with a married man & so I guess because LOVE makes everything beautiful and right, she was free to have an affair with him  without criticism against it.

Imo, homophobia, homophobic are two misnomers that are ridiculous and childish and ignorant to use against anyone who thinks of homosexuality/lesbianism acts are a perversion of human nature.  Shees, you disagree with that lifestyle and you're accused of being a bigot or one of the above, even though you're not but just have a different view on the subject.


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 31, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Not conjecture.  I was in the photography business part time.  It has changed drastically and mostly for the better.
> 
> Now you can take myriads of pictures and have them printed out at Walmart or a drug store in just about any size you want.
> 
> ...


No. It is the term of choice for many non heterosexuals. LGBTQI


----------



## Shalimar (Dec 31, 2017)

Elsie said:


> Ah how the term "LOVE" is used to make dandy homosexual ****** acts in homosexual "marriage".  My girl friend was in LOVE with a married man & so I guess because LOVE makes everything beautiful and right, she was free to have an affair with him  without criticism against it.
> 
> Imo, homophobia, homophobic are two misnomers that are ridiculous and childish and ignorant to use against anyone who thinks of homosexuality/lesbianism acts are a perversion of human nature.  Shees, you disagree with that lifestyle and you're accused of being a bigot or one of the above, even though you're not but just have a different view on the subject.




I fail to see the causal link between adultery, and a monogamous marriage between two people of the same sex. As for being targeted with the bigoted label for calling loving intimacy between these married couples perverse, well that is quite likely to stick. By the way, many of these acts are also enjoyed by heterosexual spouses.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Dec 31, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> The odds that most of his customers where same sex are remote.
> 
> Since the invention and use of digital cameras you don't see photography studios much anymore.



It had nothing to do with the kind of photography equipment he used. The story was heavily publicized and he said a number of regrettable things, all of which are likely to have hurt his cause. 

People decided they would prefer not to do business with a bigot. Obviously there weren't enough like-minded customers to keep his business afloat. It doesn't help that he was at best a mediocre photographer.

You can keep throwing weird analogies around but it accomplishes nothing. If your business relies on the public, it's probably a good idea to keep the public happy. Remember, it's not all about you and what you want.


----------



## Elsie (Dec 31, 2017)

LOVE is the causal link.  Because you love another does not turn committing sin with the other not a sin.  You're correct, from what I've read some homosexual ****** acts are done by heterosexual spouses.  Yes, bigotry, name calling/opinions come from both sides of the issue to the other.  And only fires up excuses to blast one another.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Shalimar said:


> No. It is the term of choice for many non heterosexuals. LGBTQI



Not where I come from.  Queer is fighting words.


----------



## Camper6 (Dec 31, 2017)

Smiling Jane said:


> It had nothing to do with the kind of photography equipment he used. The story was heavily publicized and he said a number of regrettable things, all of which are likely to have hurt his cause.
> 
> People decided they would prefer not to do business with a bigot. Obviously there weren't enough like-minded customers to keep his business afloat. It doesn't help that he was at best a mediocre photographer.
> 
> You can keep throwing weird analogies around but it accomplishes nothing. If your business relies on the public, it's probably a good idea to keep the public happy. Remember, it's not all about you and what you want.



Well not really if you own your own business.  You pay for the dishes, you say how they are going to be washed.

If I don't feel like cutting hair today and it's my own business, I'm not cutting hair.

It's different if I work for magicuts and I am an employee.

Photography studios are passe now.  It has nothing to to with the type of clientele.  I has everything to do with being outdated.

I mean you would like to see it as a type of revenge but that's not the case at all.

Big funerals are passe now as well.  It's the sign of the times.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 2, 2018)

How is it any different to give Biblical verses that allowed restaurants to not serve Blacks, and  give Biblical verses that allow bakers to not bake for Gays. Same Bible. And while you may believe the Bible is a law for you, it has no authority over those of another religion.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 2, 2018)

Fuzzy Buddy, your take on religious beliefs is fuzzy.  There is nothing "fuzzy" about Christianity -- God's Word.  Huh....Bible verses that allow restaurants to not serve blacks?  Which Bible scripture is that found in???  Screwy interpretation of some 
'religion' has been going on from the beginning of human's creation.  I don't consider Christianity a religion, but a way to live one's life once one has excepted Christ Jesus--God's Word -- the holy Son of God(IAM), and followed as best as possible.  However humanity is fallible, and Christians sometimes misinterpret some of God's Word.  Very tragic.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 2, 2018)

A gentle  old man who had spent the majority  of his life in the East as a missionary once said something to me which still resonates after thirty years. “As Christians, we are commanded to love one another, if we do that, the rest will take care of itself.” I am not a Christian, but I incorporated that statement into a mantra which became  the benchmark  my belief system. He was the most loving and compassionate person I have ever met, and my life was blessed by his presence.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 2, 2018)

Some details about the court decision might be enlightening.


> Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer sought a cake for their impending nuptials, and when owner Aaron Klein refused to sell them a wedding cake for their ceremony –before any discussion about the design of the cake could even take place — the couple filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)..
> 
> 
> …nder the distinction proposed by the Kleins, owners and operators of businesses could continue to oppress and humiliate black people simply by recasting their bias in terms of conduct rather than race. For instance, a restaurant could refuse to serve an interracial couple, not on account of the race of either customer, but on account of the conduct — interracial dating — to which the proprietor objected...
> ...




I can't find the source right now but I have read that the Kleins had no objection to making cakes celebrating divorce. There is a similar case now before a District Court that will rule on the constitutional aspect of situations like this.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 2, 2018)

Fascinating.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 3, 2018)

The court's reasoning for the ruling:  Oh puh-lease.  All that talk and it still ends up lacking realistic common sense justice. 

Only my opinion, obviously.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 3, 2018)

For the record, Elsie, what would you consider a common sense outcome?

Mine would be that this matter should have been resolved by mediation rather than going to court but is that an option in US for issues relating to discrimination complaints?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 4, 2018)

Aren't these court cases  tests to see that  religion is above the secular law? If  God's law is above secular law, and as such, one can adversely effect others; because of a 'religious belief". For centuries,  slavery was condoned, because verses in the Bible proved God accepted slavery. Those same verses are still in the Bible, so why can't I have slaves?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 4, 2018)

An excellent point Fuzzy.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 4, 2018)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Aren't these court cases  tests to see that  religion is above the secular law? If  God's law is above secular law, and as such, one can adversely effect others; because of a 'religious belief". For centuries,  slavery was condoned, because verses in the Bible proved God accepted slavery. Those same verses are still in the Bible, so why can't I have slaves?


Wow. Makes excellent sense. Men had multiple wives also.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 4, 2018)

Read the New Testament, it tells of Christ Jesus birth and how laws of the Old Testament were ended by Him.  Slavery was mans' chosen sin.  God only allowed it, and other sins, while sending out apostles to teach His Word to all people of living in accordance to what would be the best way for them.  I haven't read the scripture verses on slavery for years so have forgotten most of what He said against it.    

One verse that comes to mind is "Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's."  In another words, follow human leaders' set laws.  Some of the laws may not be according to God's Word, but we, whatever "religion", are to follow those laws.  None of us are to go by our own laws--God knows if we did, we'd destroy society.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 4, 2018)

Without questioning anyones beliefs, we have four people, A B,C,D. B is the only female. A&B decide to live together, in a legal way, called  civil "marriage". They receive tax breaks, lower insurance rates, etc., etc. etc. C & D decide to live together in the same  way as A & B. They do not receive tax breaks, lower insurance rates,etc., etc., etc. C & D are denied the civil perks of marriage, because of their sex. The Supreme Court has already ruled that discrimination due to sex is unconstitutional. Thus, gay civil marriage.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 5, 2018)

I don't believe the comment in the ruling that a wedding cake is 'just food' .  

Wedding cakes traditionally  are a big part of the celebration.  Many people take a piece home and keep them as mementos.

_Here, although we accept that the Kleins imbue each wedding cake with  their own aesthetic choices, they have made no showing that other people  will necessarily experience any wedding cake that the Kleins create  predominantly as “expression” rather than as food._


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 5, 2018)

Are you buying an "artistic creation" or a wedding cake?  Since the purpose of a wedding cakes is to be eaten, it is a food. And the bakers have shown no other reason their "creative artistry" is thwarted; other than their religious belief. So, if their religious belief would not allow them to bake cakes for N+g+rs; that would be okay with you?


----------



## Elsie (Jan 5, 2018)

Suing someone because they won't give you what you want the way you want, if successful it could even be considered having  'blackmailed' that someone, or company.  But that's okay cuz the person/company hurt your feelings?


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 5, 2018)

I think it speaks to the separation of church and state. Any person has the right to their religious views until they impinge on the rights of society. Denigrating groups of people because their lifestyle, (and refusing them services,)  does not conform with 

a particular religious view, is, in my humble opinion, a form of bigotry, and violates their human rights. To reduce such actions to the level of hurt feelings, well, that seems very dehumanising to me. To any student of history, the past, and present are full of attempts to prevent certain people from being treated as equals, based on gender, race, colour, creed, socio economic 

postion etc. Either all of us matter, or none of us do. The fight for equality by LGBQTI people, is all too reminiscent of the struggle of Suffragettes, Unionists, Civil Rights advocates, et al. I believe far more is at stake than feelings. It comes down to what sort of society we have? Inclusive, or otherwise? Partitioning human rights according to Scripture, even in violation of law, well, to me, that is a slippery slope.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 5, 2018)

Following God's Word as taught in the New Testament Bible scriptures benefits ALL persons.  Some persons may have to make some difficult changes in how they live their lives, (it can be so very painful to give them up) but none of us are going to stay alive forever and, for me, I'd rather struggle (unhappily, groan, through some difficulties), live this life the best I can manage according to God's Word (always asking God in all sincerity to forgive the sins I continue to commit in my weakness), and attain a forever life God has for all, minus all troubles.  And for those people who turn to Him and in all honesty haven't interpreted any scripture of His in such a way to mean that what they want it to mean excuses their sin(s), sins which they refuse to give up to suit themselves.

My belief, no offense meant to anyone who believes differently.


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 5, 2018)

No offence taken Elsie.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 5, 2018)

"My beliefs are the only true ones, not yours. I believe you have sinned before my God. I don't want any of you sinful, disgusting, filthy, Bible thumping Christians in my store."
That is akin to what Christians are saying when you won't bake a cake for everybody.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 5, 2018)

Wow, fuzzybuddy, sadly you have some very hateful misconceptions of Christians.   Ah well.


----------



## RadishRose (Jan 5, 2018)

I think Fuzzy was just using an analogy, albeit a bit powerfully worded.

That may be one analogy Fuzzy,  But another might go like this-
"Although I can't in good conscience assist you in committing what I believe personally to be a sin, I love you and wish you the best."

Life is not fair. IMHO, I'd be ok baking the cake but I believe $$$$$'s was the motive behind the couple making  (literally) a federal case out of it.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 5, 2018)

My problem would be being forced to do something I don't want to do in my own business. It's different if I'm working for the Safeway bakery.

If I don't feel like cutting hair today I shouldn't be forced to do it .

The U.S. prides itself on freedom.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 5, 2018)

Camper6 said:


> My problem would be being forced to do something I don't want to do in my own business. It's different if I'm working for the Safeway bakery.
> 
> If I don't feel like cutting hair today I shouldn't be forced to do it .
> 
> The U.S. prides itself on freedom.



Same here.   And I can't get my head around why the customers have "rights" but the baker doesn't???   What's the deal there?   As others have said, there are plenty of bakeries that will do it, so just move on.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 6, 2018)

Well, I'm not being forced to do anything. You, Christians, dishonor my God.  I just don't want you sinful Christians in my store.
What this country stands for is freedom. And I freely don't cut no N*G**R's hair!
God bless America.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 6, 2018)

Let's step back for a moment and look at the bigger picture. What if the proprietor of a store just doesn't want to do business with a customer because he/she doesn't like the customer's attitude?  Or finds the customer's attire offensive?  Or he's just in a lousy mood that day and is picky about which people he is waiting on? Is he violating the customer's rights by refusing to do business?  Does he even need an excuse, or can he just refuse to wait on someone?

Obviously, this would be very odd, for anyone who is in business to make a living. But would it be a legal violation to refuse customers for whatever reason?


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

No, IMO.  But would be poor business ethics.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

No, IMO.  But would be poor business ethics.
When I say, “I am aChristian”               
I’m not shouting, “I’ve been saved!”
I’m whispering, “I get lost sometimes
That’s why I chose this way”
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t speak with human pride
I’m confessing that I stumble –
needing God to be my guide
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong
I’m professing that I’m weak
and pray for strength to carryon                       
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success
I’m admitting that I’ve failed
and cannot ever pay the debt
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t think I know it all
I submit to my confusion
asking humbly to be taught
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect
My flaws are far too visible
but God believes I’m worth it     
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartache
which is why I seek God’s name
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I do not wish to judge
I have no authority
I only know I’m loved.
©1992 Carol Wimmer All Rights Reserved


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

No, IMO.  But would be poor business ethics.
When I say, “I am aChristian”               
I’m not shouting, “I’ve been saved!”
I’m whispering, “I get lost sometimes
That’s why I chose this way”
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t speak with human pride
I’m confessing that I stumble –
needing God to be my guide
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong
I’m professing that I’m weak
and pray for strength to carryon                       
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success
I’m admitting that I’ve failed
and cannot ever pay the debt
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t think I know it all
I submit to my confusion
asking humbly to be taught
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect
My flaws are far too visible
but God believes I’m worth it     
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartache
which is why I seek God’s name
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I do not wish to judge
I have no authority
I only know I’m loved.
©1992 Carol Wimmer All Rights Reserved


----------



## Shalimar (Jan 6, 2018)

Very poignant poem, Elsie.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

No, IMO.  But would be poor business ethics.

When I say, “I am aChristian”               
I’m not shouting, “I’ve been saved!”
I’m whispering, “I get lost sometimes
That’s why I chose this way”
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t speak with human pride
I’m confessing that I stumble –
needing God to be my guide
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not trying to be strong
I’m professing that I’m weak
and pray for strength to carryon                       
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not bragging of success
I’m admitting that I’ve failed
and cannot ever pay the debt
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I don’t think I know it all
I submit to my confusion
asking humbly to be taught
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I’m not claiming to be perfect
My flaws are far too visible
but God believes I’m worth it     
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I still feel the sting of pain
I have my share of heartache
which is why I seek God’s name
When I say, “I am a Christian”
I do not wish to judge
I have no authority
I only know I’m loved.
©1992 Carol Wimmer All Rights Reserved


----------



## Sunny (Jan 6, 2018)

How did this turn into a Christian poetry thread?  And why all the repetitions?  Are you having trouble posting on this forum?

Let's get back to the subject, please. This has been a very interesting discussion, and I don't want to see it sabotaged.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

Sorry.  I've been going nuts trying to figure out how to delete the repeats.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 6, 2018)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Well, I'm not being forced to do anything. You, Christians, dishonor my God.  I just don't want you sinful Christians in my store.
> What this country stands for is freedom. And I freely don't cut no N*G**R's hair!
> God bless America.



Well no the complainants were welcomed in the store and the offer was to be able to buy any cake in the store.   
The point was that they wanted a creation of their own that the baker did not want to make.

If you don't feel like cutting hair you shouldn't have to regardless of who wants a haircut.

And if I am hair stylist and I don't do the type of haircut you want then I shouldn't have to.

Next question.  Should I be forced to ?

For instance I don't do mohawk haircuts because I think they are racist.


----------



## Elsie (Jan 6, 2018)

If I owned a business,  I, who put it together through hard work & expense have the earned right on how I choose to run my business, not the customers.

I will not take on the guilt of those racist doings in the past, or are still being done.  I see most as ignorant actions--whoever the person who's doing it or what their race is.  BTW, P C has turned into a monster of ridiculous restrictions.  

The Mohawk hair cut (on a white male, or girl), I just thought of as goofy.  Nothing to do with any Native American tribe.  If those Native Americans see the cut as offensive to their traditions, then I guess leave the cut to them, no one else.  But would that be another of the P Cs going overboard?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 6, 2018)

If I own a business I should be able to say who I want to serve.  You are there by invitation. There is an unwritten contract. We can make a deal or we can't make a deal.

No shoes, no shirt, no service.   Should I be forced to serve you?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 6, 2018)

Sunny, you are totally correct. If the baker, FOR ANY REASON, did not want to bake a cake for a customer, he could come with some lame excuse- he's over booked, etc. He does not say, "According to my religion, God denounces you as sinners. And because you are such deviants sinners, my religion prevents me from using my talents to bake you a cake". That is what you say when you want a Supreme Court case.
The short version of this is "my religion allows me to discriminate against you"


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 6, 2018)

And once again, does the proprietor have no rights??   Why do some people have rights while others do not?  

And I agree, political correctness has gone way too far.   My opinion, of course.


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 6, 2018)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Sunny, you are totally correct. If the baker, FOR ANY REASON, did not want to bake a cake for a customer, he could come with some lame excuse- he's over booked, etc. He does not say, "According to my religion, God denounces you as sinners. And because you are such deviants sinners, my religion prevents me from using my talents to bake you a cake". That is what you say when you want a Supreme Court case.
> The short version of this is "my religion allows me to discriminate against you"



Is that what he said.  Or did he just say it's against my religion.  Don't embellish.  State the exact facts.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 6, 2018)

This issue is such a can of worms that I think the only solution is the one I originally proposed:  Let the guy turn down the customers if he wishes. But let word of mouth go out about it, and he will pay the price in lost business.

Of course, this could backfire. Some people might start using his shop just because he turned down the gay couple.  The end result would depend on which group is in the majority in that area.

And pitting the "religious" beliefs of one person against the civil rights of another?  Sometimes hard to answer.  If the "religious" person is, say, driving a public bus and refuses to allow gay people to sit together, he is clearly violating their civil rights.  But what if he is, for instance, a cab or Uber driver?  Who gets to make the rules?


----------



## Camper6 (Jan 6, 2018)

I think the couple could have got a cake somewhere else or decorated one themselves.

There is no special exemption just because they want to complain about it.


----------



## hearlady (Jan 6, 2018)

I say let the court hash it out and make a decision. That's what they're for.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 6, 2018)

The fact that you own a business does not entitle you to discriminate others. Tell me why, if you own a business; you can't put up a sign, which says, "We don't serve no N*g**rs. It's against my religion." Don't you own the business?


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 9, 2018)

The baker won. Doesn't have to bake the cake. Artistic expression under the first https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/08/us/wedding-cake-ruling-trnd/index.html


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 9, 2018)

Thanks, Camper, for the resolution to this story.
I hope that is the end of it.

As for Australia, the law permitting SSM is now operational and one of the first weddings was of Christine Forster, a Sydney City Councillor and the sister of former prime minister Tony Abbott who was a strong campaigner for the No vote.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-...ne-forster-virginia-flitcroft-wedding/9370278


----------



## Camper6 (Feb 9, 2018)

Why is that story such a big deal?  They can't have kids.  I hope.


----------



## Warrigal (Feb 9, 2018)

Not together but between them they already have four children from previous marriages.

The wedding is a big deal because Christine Forster and her brother Tony Abbott are both high profile politicians and campaigned on opposite sides of the SSM debate. They are newsworthy in their own right and everyone was wondering whether Tony would even attend the wedding but, as you can see from the article, he was there with his wife and mother, who was also the mother of one of the brides.


----------



## Elsie (Feb 10, 2018)

Unpleasant news.  Ah well.


----------

