Not to debate the merits of the case but....

[Boomboom521]

why would the gay couple even want the guy to make the cake after knowing he disapproves of homosexuality?

Shouldn’t it be as simple as the gay couple saying “fine, we will take our business somewhere else”?

I understand the larger question of discrimination versus the freedom to refuse business to whom you choose, but I really don’t get why this made it all the way up. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[TarHeelEer]

why would the gay couple even want the guy to make the cake after knowing he disapproves of homosexuality?

Shouldn’t it be as simple as the gay couple saying “fine, we will take our business somewhere else”?

I understand the larger question of discrimination versus the freedom to refuse business to whom you choose, but I really don’t get why this made it all the way up. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Been saying since day one, they don't want equality, they want universal acceptance.

 

[eerdoc]

why would the gay couple even want the guy to make the cake after knowing he disapproves of homosexuality?

Shouldn’t it be as simple as the gay couple saying “fine, we will take our business somewhere else”?

I understand the larger question of discrimination versus the freedom to refuse business to whom you choose, but I really don’t get why this made it all the way up. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

You apply logic and reason. These folks seem ONLY interested in making a fuss and proving they can be a pain in the A$$, They seem to get their jollies from being disruptive.

 

[wvu2007]

why would the gay couple even want the guy to make the cake after knowing he disapproves of homosexuality?

Shouldn’t it be as simple as the gay couple saying “fine, we will take our business somewhere else”?

I understand the larger question of discrimination versus the freedom to refuse business to whom you choose, but I really don’t get why this made it all the way up. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I'd imagine any reasonable gay couple would do just that. I think it's a direct cause of being painted as a victim by politicians. The same reason you see many groups that have also been placed in the victim group create hoaxes such as anti-gay graffiti

 

[Billy the real Kid]

Same reason gay couple from OH were driving into KY to get marriage licenses from what's her face. Their just being assholes.

 

[MountaineerWV]

Using your logic, why did blacks in North Carolina go in to Woolworth's knowing that they could not sit at the counter?

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

I'd imagine any reasonable gay couple would do just that. I think it's a direct cause of being painted as a victim by politicians. The same reason you see many groups that have also been placed in the victim group create hoaxes such as anti-gay graffiti

I agree but I also see the dangerous precedent it could set. Who defines what my religious beliefs are? What if a small town cafe in Wyoming refuses to serve a mixed race or Muslim family? What if I do not serve a child of a gay couple? A public golf course won't let a black man play.......

 

[mule_eer]

I agree but I also see the dangerous precedent it could set. Who defines what my religious beliefs are? What if a small town cafe in Wyoming refuses to serve a mixed race or Muslim family? What if I do not serve a child of a gay couple? A public golf course won't let a black man play.......

The main difference is that race is a protected class. Sexual orientation is not protected. An employer can legally fire someone for sexual orientation in many states - that point came when the marriage issue was resolved. The reason for this case going to the Supreme Court is trying to gwt a ruling that sets the groundwork to protect sexual orientation. At least that's what I think the reasoning is.

 

[Boomboom521]

You apply logic and reason. These folks seem ONLY interested in making a fuss and proving they can be a pain in the A$$, They seem to get their jollies from being disruptive.

I hope it’s not as bad as that

 

[wvu2007]

I agree but I also see the dangerous precedent it could set. Who defines what my religious beliefs are? What if a small town cafe in Wyoming refuses to serve a mixed race or Muslim family? What if I do not serve a child of a gay couple? A public golf course won't let a black man play.......

Yeah it's definitely not an easy clear cut answer. I see both sides of the argument.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'd imagine any reasonable gay couple would do just that. I think it's a direct cause of being painted as a victim by politicians. The same reason you see many groups that have also been placed in the victim group create hoaxes such as anti-gay graffiti

Good point about the political enabling. Equality is important, but you can’t force acceptance. This type of thing doesn’t help, imo.

 

[Boomboom521]

Same reason gay couple from OH were driving into KY to get marriage licenses from what's her face. Their just being assholes.

Now, I think she was wrong. But yeah, that’s a little bit ridiculous.

 

[Boomboom521]

Using your logic, why did blacks in North Carolina go in to Woolworth's knowing that they could not sit at the counter?

Now see, I get that point. But really, there is a point when it just shouldn’t matter though, imo. If a baker wants to refuse service to someone, I’d hope the community would rally and sink his/her business through boycott. We are at a place now when trying to force acceptance isn’t going to help.

Besides, do they really want to give this guy their business? It’s not like it’s the segregated South. They can find another baker with talent.

 

[wvu2007]

Now see, I get that point. But really, there is a point when it just shouldn’t matter though, imo. If a baker wants to refuse service to someone, I’d hope the community would rally and sink his/her business through boycott. We are at a place now when trying to force acceptance isn’t going to help.

Besides, do they really want to give this guy their business? It’s not like it’s the segregated South. They can find another baker with talent.

And legally I think that's a big factor. I would guess that most cake bakers are probably gay lol

 

[Boomboom521]

The main difference is that race is a protected class. Sexual orientation is not protected. An employer can legally fire someone for sexual orientation in many states - that point came when the marriage issue was resolved. The reason for this case going to the Supreme Court is trying to gwt a ruling that sets the groundwork to protect sexual orientation. At least that's what I think the reasoning is.

In most cases, and this might just be my opinion, homosexuality is a private thing and won’t be seen by most businesses, employers, etc...

A wrongful termination, due to a person’s sexual orientation, would be liable to litigation?

 

[Airport]

Now see, I get that point. But really, there is a point when it just shouldn’t matter though, imo. If a baker wants to refuse service to someone, I’d hope the community would rally and sink his/her business through boycott. We are at a place now when trying to force acceptance isn’t going to help.

Besides, do they really want to give this guy their business? It’s not like it’s the segregated South. They can find another baker with talent.

What if the majority of people agree with the baker? People tried to rally against Chi fil a and it helped their business because the owners religious beliefs corresponded to what the majority of people believed.

 

[mule_eer]

In most cases, and this might just be my opinion, homosexuality is a private thing and won’t be seen by most businesses, employers, etc...

A wrongful termination, due to a person’s sexual orientation, would be liable to litigation?

I guess that depends on the state. Orientation is not federally protected. I became aware of it after the USSC ruling that said states had to recognize same sex marriages. In sme states that meant a same sex couple could get married one day and lose their jobs the next when their sexual orientation became a matter of public record.

As far as being able to fire people, lots of states are "at will" states where you can be fired essentially without cause. In those states, they would have to be dumb enough to state a specific reason for termination.

 

[Boomboom521]

What if the majority of people agree with the baker? People tried to rally against Chi fil a and it helped their business because the owners religious beliefs corresponded to what the majority of people believed.

I respect Chic fil a for being closed Sundays, still pissed they are, because I love chicken biscuits in the am....but respect it nonetheless.

But that’s my point really. Acceptance can’t be forced. I know people want to make this change happen faster, but it’s happening. I mean, how many people really care about homosexuality anymore? If it’s not changing fast enough, an action like this will only cause backlash, imo. Either way they rule.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

why would the gay couple even want the guy to make the cake after knowing he disapproves of homosexuality?

Shouldn’t it be as simple as the gay couple saying “fine, we will take our business somewhere else”?

I understand the larger question of discrimination versus the freedom to refuse business to whom you choose, but I really don’t get why this made it all the way up. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I honestly am torn on this from a constitutional standpoint. I don’t believe gays should be discriminated against. It’s not a choice to be gay, it’s only a choice to openly accept yourself.

However, the baker is claiming religious belief. That is also and should be protected. I truly hope he is sincere in this and he is not wrapping bigotry in the cape of religion.

How do you determine what takes precedence....religion vs sexual orientation.

 

[atlkvb]

Been saying since day one, they don't want equality, they want universal acceptance.

and promotion if not outright adulation for having found a freer superior way of sexual expression.

 

[atlkvb]

I honestly am torn on this from a constitutional standpoint. I don’t believe gays should be discriminated against. It’s not a choice to be gay, it’s only a choice to openly accept yourself.

However, the baker is claiming religious belief. That is also and should be protected. I truly hope he is sincere in this and he is not wrapping bigotry in the cape of religion.

How do you determine what takes precedence....religion vs sexual orientation.

It's easy to me. OP called it saying they have the Freedom to take their businesss elsewhere to someone willing to serve them with no guilty conscience. You can't force the guy who has his Religious reasons for not baking the cake to bake it...why would they (Gay couple) even want him to knowing how he feels about their chosen way of Life? I wouldn't.

I do not believe they should be discriminated against simply because of who they choose to sleep with, but that's the issue. It is their choice, not a condition of birth, and with that free choice comes consequences. They can't demand special status for simply making a sexual choice many folks believe is deviant. If they don't feel that way...that's fine too. However they cannot force folks who do think it is deviant to accept it as normal because it is not. It is a choice, and to many it is an unnatrual choice. They are free to make that choice, as others are equally as free to reject them. Freedom, choices, decisions, consequences. It isn't any more complicated than that.

 

[atlkvb]

I guess that depends on the state. Orientation is not federally protected. I became aware of it after the USSC ruling that said states had to recognize same sex marriages. In sme states that meant a same sex couple could get married one day and lose their jobs the next when their sexual orientation became a matter of public record.

As far as being able to fire people, lots of states are "at will" states where you can be fired essentially without cause. In those states, they would have to be dumb enough to state a specific reason for termination.

To me it's as simple as hot and cold running water. On one side the water comes out hot. On the other side it comes out cold. You can blend it and mix it, and that's fine but at the end of the day you still either have hot water or cold water and there is no third facuet spigot.

When little Babies are born they are either Male or Female. There is no "gay" sex or "gay gene" so that makes it something beyond normal or not normal. Normal is little boys or little girls. That's the way we were put together and I don't see the provision for "gay" babies. That's something we (humans) choose to do after the basic fact of our birth Sex.

 

[atlkvb]

Using your logic, why did blacks in North Carolina go in to Woolworth's knowing that they could not sit at the counter?

I can answer that. Because they were still human beings. There was no reason to ban them simply bewcause of the color of their skin which they have no control over. They couldn't turn themselves White and be allowed to sit at that counter, but they were still human beings who didn't seserve to be banned just because their skin pigment has a little more melanin.

That's not the issue with Gay folks. If they simply change their behavior (not their preferences, their behavior) They stop being Gay overnight. They can't be "gay" unless they do what gay folks do. That is a choice, not a condition of birth. They have no choice but to breathe oxygen...that is normal as a condition of their birth. They do not have to sleep with people of their same Sex even if that is their preference. That is still a choice, and to many an unnatural one since Men sleeping with Women is the natural order of how we are put together. You (they) are certainly free to choose differently, but that doesn't make it normal and it doesn't remove the consequences or the stigma of making that unnatural choice.

 

[atlkvb]

A wrongful termination, due to a person’s sexual orientation, would be liable to litigation?

True. That is arbitrary and special treatment based on a behavior which the business has no right to dictate. But equating the sexual choice to a class status like race is equally wrong. A business cannot discriminate based on that class true, but Gays cannot demand that their sexual preferences be granted the same social status as race because they have control over who they sleep with, people of color cannot change the pigment in their skin. If a business believes Sexual behavior to be a deteriment to their operations, they most certainly have right to restrict that behavior. They cannot discrminate based soley on behavior because the employee can change. However, they can and often do restrict certain types of sexual practices in the workplace...for instance no Supervisor/subordinate relationships...or Husband Wife relationships. They can limit certian behavior but they cannot discriminate soley on how one chooses to express themselves sexually. That's a violation of a person's privacy.

 

[Boomboom521]

I honestly am torn on this from a constitutional standpoint. I don’t believe gays should be discriminated against. It’s not a choice to be gay, it’s only a choice to openly accept yourself.

However, the baker is claiming religious belief. That is also and should be protected. I truly hope he is sincere in this and he is not wrapping bigotry in the cape of religion.

How do you determine what takes precedence....religion vs sexual orientation.

I agree. My fear is that this case, whatever the decision, will be a step back for gay rights. If the decision is for the couple, I fear it will push the religious right into a place where they feel and claim that their religious freedom is being attacked. And even those devoted Christians that accept homosexuality will feel the need to lash out against it. I understand Mule’s point about getting protection on the books, but I’m not sure sexual orientation can ever really get the same support legally (evaluating discrimination is much tougher for example).
If the decision goes for the baker, then I think it reaffirms to many devoted religious Americans that this nation is inherently Christian.....and the stick in their collective ass jams even more tightly.
I just don’t know why the couple wants this guy to make their cake. If it tastes sweeter because he was forced to....the only thing that makes sense to me, is that the couple feels their government protects them. And that’s a positive. But that baker is still going to feel the same way about homosexuality. It’s the perception and knowledge about homosexuality that needs to change. And that doesn’t happen in courtrooms, imo that happens through bonding, discussion, and education. Anger and resentment prevent those things from occurring.

Maybe the national discussion is what the court wants, because it’s the right time for it? Most Christians on here are far more accepting than I thought they were originally.

 

[mule_eer]

I agree. My fear is that this case, whatever the decision, will be a step back for gay rights. If the decision is for the couple, I fear it will push the religious right into a place where they feel and claim that their religious freedom is being attacked. And even those devoted Christians that accept homosexuality will feel the need to lash out against it. I understand Mule’s point about getting protection on the books, but I’m not sure sexual orientation can ever really get the same support legally (evaluating discrimination is much tougher for example).
If the decision goes for the baker, then I think it reaffirms to many devoted religious Americans that this nation is inherently Christian.....and the stick in their collective ass jams even more tightly.
I just don’t know why the couple wants this guy to make their cake. If it tastes sweeter because he was forced to....the only thing that makes sense to me, is that the couple feels their government protects them. And that’s a positive. But that baker is still going to feel the same way about homosexuality. It’s the perception and knowledge about homosexuality that needs to change. And that doesn’t happen in courtrooms, imo that happens through bonding, discussion, and education. Anger and resentment prevent those things from occurring.

Maybe the national discussion is what the court wants, because it’s the right time for it? Most Christians on here are far more accepting than I thought they were originally.

I agree that this is a tough question for the court. I've heard reasonable arguments for both perspectives.

I don't think this couple wants or is waiting for a cake from this baker. I think this is about the principle for the couple, and I think their intent is to get the court to rule for protected status. That's not going to happen though. They may win, but this will be a narrowly defined decision, IMHO. That's probably true no matter which way the decision falls. Good analysis that I heard said that it looks like Kennedy decides this. His history is to champion gay rights and first amendment rights. Those seem to be at odds in this case. That's why it's probably a coin flip at this point.

The story of this cake case, as I heard it is that the baker denied them from the outset. He came to them and said that he doesn't make cakes for same sex marriages before they gave him any details of the cake. They left the bakery and filed suit later. A case people are citing as similar in Denver was a person asking another baker for a cake shaped like a Bible with 2 grooms on it in icing with an iced red circle with a line through it. That baker said she would bake the cake and provide the icing, but she wouldn't red circle the grooms out.

 

[Boomboom521]

I agree that this is a tough question for the court. I've heard reasonable arguments for both perspectives.

I don't think this couple wants or is waiting for a cake from this baker. I think this is about the principle for the couple, and I think their intent is to get the court to rule for protected status. That's not going to happen though. They may win, but this will be a narrowly defined decision, IMHO. That's probably true no matter which way the decision falls. Good analysis that I heard said that it looks like Kennedy decides this. His history is to champion gay rights and first amendment rights. Those seem to be at odds in this case. That's why it's probably a coin flip at this point.

The story of this cake case, as I heard it is that the baker denied them from the outset. He came to them and said that he doesn't make cakes for same sex marriages before they gave him any details of the cake. They left the bakery and filed suit later. A case people are citing as similar in Denver was a person asking another baker for a cake shaped like a Bible with 2 grooms on it in icing with an iced red circle with a line through it. That baker said she would bake the cake and provide the icing, but she wouldn't red circle the grooms out.

Surely they aren’t actually awaiting a cake. But my point is more to what they want established from this case. That people should be forced to accept homosexuality? I think there would be a better case to get the protection of sexual orientation solidified by the courts (A case of discrimination in the workplace). This brings the rights of a vendor to refuse a job into the mix. If I was a baker, I think I should have the right to refuse a job for whatever reason I want. I understand this baker wanted to make the statement, but I just don’t understand the reasoning behind the attempt to take that freedom away.

If it was a interracial couple, I wouldn’t think differently here, is what I’m saying. If Hobby Lobby or Chic Fil A chose to not hire an candidate or fire an employee due to their sexual orientation (stating religious freedom), I would call it discrimination and say that the protection should be implemented. But if Chic Fil A chose to not cater a homosexual wedding, I don’t think the same thinking applies.

Maybe that’s just bs thinking? But in my gut, I just don’t think this was a good case to go to the bench for gay rights.

 

[atlkvb]

Surely they aren’t actually awaiting a cake. But my point is more to what they want established from this case. That people should be forced to accept homosexuality? I think there would be a better case to get the protection of sexual orientation solidified by the courts (A case of discrimination in the workplace). This brings the rights of a vendor to refuse a job into the mix. If I was a baker, I think I should have the right to refuse a job for whatever reason I want. I understand this baker wanted to make the statement, but I just don’t understand the reasoning behind the attempt to take that freedom away.

If it was a interracial couple, I wouldn’t think differently here, is what I’m saying. If Hobby Lobby or Chic Fil A chose to not hire an candidate or fire an employee due to their sexual orientation (stating religious freedom), I would call it discrimination and say that the protection should be implemented. But if Chic Fil A chose to not cater a homosexual wedding, I don’t think the same thinking applies.

Maybe that’s just bs thinking? But in my gut, I just don’t think this was a good case to go to the bench for gay rights.

Sexual choice, or preference, or orientation is not a "class" status because participants have options on whether to engage in that behavior or not?

Race or Gender have no such options so discriminating against those classes is easier to adjudicate. Sexual preferences do not belong in that category so choices are available for both those who decide to engage in their preferred behavior and those who choose to defer from it.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Sexual choice, or preference, or orientation is not a "class" status because participants have options on whether to engage in that behavior or not?

Race or Gender have no such options so discriminating against those classes is easier to adjudicate. Sexual preferences do not belong in that category so choices are available for both those who decide to engage in their preferred behavior and those who choose to defer from it.

I’m not in agreement that it’s a choice or at least the choice you say it is. In my opinion, the choice is whether they accept how they were born.

 

[Boomboom521]

Sexual choice, or preference, or orientation is not a "class" status because participants have options on whether to engage in that behavior or not?

Race or Gender have no such options so discriminating against those classes is easier to adjudicate. Sexual preferences do not belong in that category so choices are available for both those who decide to engage in their preferred behavior and those who choose to defer from it.

I’m not in agreement that it’s a choice or at least the choice you say it is. In my opinion, the choice is whether they accept how they were born.

I agree with Dog on this. It’s not your place to define what homosexuality is for homosexuals. From my interaction with those that are homosexual, I don’t believe it to be a choice at all, and further more most of the homosexual community have faced terrible emotional abuse from family and friends as they struggle to be true to themselves.

 

[mule_eer]

Sexual choice, or preference, or orientation is not a "class" status because participants have options on whether to engage in that behavior or not?

Race or Gender have no such options so discriminating against those classes is easier to adjudicate. Sexual preferences do not belong in that category so choices are available for both those who decide to engage in their preferred behavior and those who choose to defer from it.

You could argue that inter-racial marriage is also a choice. I don't support discrimination based on that behavior.

 

[atlkvb]

You could argue that inter-racial marriage is also a choice. I don't support discrimination based on that behavior.

It's a fair analogy but falls short because race is involved. And as I mentioned, folks can't change the color of their skin. They can change who they sleep with. So it's close...I do understand the "choice" aspect of your analogy, but interracial couples can't make themselves match each other's race. Gay couples do not have to sleep with folks of their own sex they simply prefer to. Big difference.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree with Dog on this. It’s not your place to define what homosexuality is for homosexuals. From my interaction with those that are homosexual, I don’t believe it to be a choice at all, and further more most of the homosexual community have faced terrible emotional abuse from family and friends as they struggle to be true to themselves.

OK boom...I can certainly accept they go through Hell not being considered "normal". But tell me boom...preferences aside...how is one "homosexual" unless they actually do what homosexuals do? (ie: have sex with someone of their own gender?)

Am I "transgender" unless I dress up and act like a Woman? Am I a Comedian unless I'm telling jokes? How gay can I be unless I'm taking a sword where the good Lord split me?

 

[atlkvb]

From my interaction with those that are homosexual,

I'll be kind boom and let the board make of this quote from you whatever they prefer...it's their choice but your words

 

[atlkvb]

I’m not in agreement that it’s a choice or at least the choice you say it is. In my opinion, the choice is whether they accept how they were born.

All I can argue against that Dvl is if they're born that way, why do OB/GYNs only call them little Boys or little Girls? Where's the "gay gene"?

"Oh Hi Mr & Mrs so and so. Congratulations, you just gave birth to a little gay baby"!

or try this....

"Hey Honey...guess what? I'm Pregnant. The ultra sound confirmed it! Isn't that great?"

"Sure it is Sweetie? That's terrific! So tell me what did the ultra sound show you? Are we having a little Boy or a little Girl?"

"Oh neither Honey...we're having a little "gay", isn't it wonderful?"

??????

 

[MountaineerWV]

So, is it a person's choice to be right or left handed?

 

[MountaineerWV]

Since we are talking about discrimination based on a person's "choice", I guess that we should allow people to stop serving you because you are Christian.......or someone's an atheist..........since that is a "choice" too.........

 

[atlkvb]

So, is it a person's choice to be right or left handed?

Well let me give you a real life example.

When I started playing hoops in H.S. I was a Southpaw. My Coach made me work on my game to switch to my right hand because he said I was faster and got better elevation moving left to right and pulling up with my jumper shooting off my right hand. I worked on it, got pretty good with my right hand, and at times when I felt it was to my advantage I'd switch up and drill a defender with my Left.

You've heard of switch hitters in baseball right? So I'd say it's a preference, a comfort level but definitely something you can change if you work at it.

 

[atlkvb]

Since we are talking about discrimination based on a person's "choice", I guess that we should allow people to stop serving you because you are Christian.......or someone's an atheist..........since that is a "choice" too.........

Yes it is, and as far as I know it's not illegal to choose not serve me because I'm Christian. I'm not allowed to speak in some places in this country by recalcitrant Leftists so whats the difference?

 

[atlkvb]

Since we are talking about discrimination based on a person's "choice", I guess that we should allow people to stop serving you because you are Christian.......or someone's an atheist..........since that is a "choice" too.........

So I'm Black right, I mean that's how I was born. Suppose I wanted to step up in the World and become a White Socialist Liberal. I can certainly get stupid and change my mind and start following that discredited ideology but what about my skin color? How would I change that if it's my choice to also be a snowflake? I was born Black...so I guess I'd have to remain this way like most of my Black Democrat shill friends still are right? We were born to vote Democrat I guess?

Consequently someone who is "born" Gay has no hope or chance of ever coming out of that lifestyle right? They're born that way....it's as natural as breathing right? Well then explain these folks:

Stories of Hope...coming out of the Gay Lifestyle:
http://www.focusonthefamily.com/soc...-of-stories-of-hope-and-transformation-part-1

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/soc.../homosexuality-real-hope-and-real-change-part 2

Celebrities who have left the Gay lifestyle
http://www.josephnicolosi.com/collection/celebrities-who-have-left-a-gay-lifestyle

Ex gay man: homosexuality is just another human brokenness
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ex-gay-homosexuality-is-just-another-human-brokenness