The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, despite state law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The 7-to-2 decision was on the narrowest grounds and left the issue unresolved. The case involved Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owners’ religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case under the states anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
The high-profile dispute began in 2014 when the bakery refused to make a cake with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage.” The Supreme Court ruled that a baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a gay couple with no legal ramifications in many parts of Indiana. In some Indiana cities and towns, including Indianapolis and Indianapolis, the high-profile dispute began when the bakery refused to make a cake with the slogan Support Gay Marriage.
The Supreme Court absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The baker at the center of a Supreme Court ruling that he cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding told “Today” on Tuesday that he doesn’t “discriminate” against anybody.
📹 Supreme Court says baker OK to refuse gay wedding cake
Reaction to the court’s ruling was mixed, with some protesting the decision and others cheering it as a victory for religious liberty.
What is the significance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop?
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is about more than cake. It made people think about whether other businesses would be allowed to discriminate against customers. This decision did not remove Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. We still don’t have universal protections. Should discrimination be legal? We don’t think so either. You may have heard about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. But what’s the big deal about a cake? What’s the deal with cake? This case is about a bakery that refused to serve a gay couple. The bakery said it shouldn’t have to follow the state’s anti-discrimination law because of the owner’s religious beliefs. The couple sued, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court announced its ruling. The court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not treated the baker fairly. It also said that states can protect LGBT people from discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop did not allow for widespread discrimination. However, there is still a long way to go.
What was the outcome of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case?
This case looks at a big issue in constitutional law: the clash between the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. A gay couple wanted a baker to make their wedding cake, but the baker refused because of his beliefs. The couple sued and won. The baker appealed the ruling. He said the ruling went against his First Amendment rights by forcing him to make a cake that went against his beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the state commission was hostile to the baker because of his religious beliefs. The commission’s approach was seen as religious discrimination that violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court also decided not to rule on how to handle situations where the First Amendment and civil rights conflict. In 2012, a gay couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to ask about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop owner said he wouldn’t make the cake because of his religious beliefs. At the time, same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized by the state. The case raises questions about how to balance two principles. The first is whether states can protect gay people who want to get married from discrimination. The second is the right of all people to exercise their freedoms under the First Amendment.
What is the purpose of the rule of 4?
The Supreme Court only grants a petition for review if there are at least four votes to do so. The rule is an internal one, not written down. It isn’t in any law or the Constitution. The court can grant review and hear oral argument even if most of the justices don’t want to. Even if four justices want to hear a case, they might not vote to grant review if they think the full court will make a decision they disagree with. The rule also applies to other court actions, like delaying a review until another case is resolved.
What is the significance of the wedding cake?
The cake symbolizes good luck. Wedding cakes were originally symbols of prosperity, luck, and fertility. The cake was meant to ensure a long and happy life with many children. The tiered wedding cake style was first created in London. The tiered wedding cake style was inspired by St Brides church in London. William Rich, an apprentice baker, fell in love with Susannah Prichard, his boss’s daughter. Rich made an elaborate cake for his wedding to impress his future father-in-law. He looked around for ideas and saw the steeple nearby. That’s how it all started.
Cake cutting. The cake cutting is the first thing a couple does together, but in the past, the bride did it alone to symbolize losing her virginity. I’m glad this tradition has changed over time.
What happened to Kate’s cakes?
CSM Bakery Solutions told staff at Kates Cakes in West Sussex and Surrey that the outlets will close by the end of 2017. John Lindsay, vice president of modern trade Europe for CSM, told British Baker: “We are now consulting with the workers about closing the Ashington and Esher sites.” Both the Sussex and Surrey sites will close by the end of 2017. CSM employs about 425 people at Ashington and 170 at Esher.
What was Justice Kennedy’s masterpiece decision?
The court reversed the decision. Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the U.S. Supreme Court said that gay people and gay couples should not be treated as inferior. Kennedy also said that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage cannot be forced to perform a wedding ceremony.Phillips didn’t refuse to sell to gays, but he said he shouldn’t be forced to make a political statement.
The Civil Rights Commission said negative things about Phillips’ religion. One board member compared Phillips’ reasons to justifications for slavery and the Holocaust. No one on the Commission said this was wrong.Some justices said that lawmakers’ statements weren’t relevant. But in this case, the information was relevant because the Commission was deciding a case. The Commission had treated Phillips differently than it had treated other bakers who had refused to make cakes with offensive messages about same-sex unions. Commissioners had refused to accept that the customer would be blamed for the message in those cases. But they tried to do so in the case of Phillips.Also, the Commissioners said that the bakers were willing to sell other products to customers, but they forgot that Phillips said he would sell non-custom creations to gays. Justice Kennedy said that the government cannot choose which opinions are “orthodox” and which are not. He also said that the government cannot even “subtly depart from neutrality on matters of religion.” The Commission showed it was not neutral but hostile to Phillips’ beliefs.
Who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop?
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshops, refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. Phillips sells baked goods to anyone. But this time he was asked to express a viewpoint he disagrees with.
What is the Supreme Court side with the Baker?
(Reuters) – A Colorado baker who won a U.S. Supreme Court case over refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple lost an appeal over a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake for a gender transition.
Why is Masterpiece Cakeshop important?
The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is not just about cake. It raised the question of whether a broad range of businesses would be given a license to discriminate against a wide range of customers. While this decision did not strip away Colorado nondiscrimination laws, we still do not have universal protections for all. *Should discrimination be legal?. We don’t think so either.You may have heard about the Supreme Court’s ruling in theMasterpiece Cakeshopcase.But you may still be wondering…what’s the big deal about a cake? *What’s the deal with cake?. This case involves Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery that is open to the public, refusing to serve a gay couple in violation of Colorado’s non-discrimination law. The bakery claimed it should be exempt from the state’s nondiscrimination law due to the religious beliefs of the bakery owner. The couple sued, and the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. On June 4, 2018 the highest court in the landannounced its ruling in the case. While the court ruled narrowly for the baker on the grounds that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not acted impartially when originally considering the case, it also affirmed the importance of nondiscrimination laws and made it clear that states can protect LGBT people from discrimination in the marketplace. *BOTTOM LINE:The Supreme Court’s ruling inMasterpiece CakeshopdoesNOTpermit widespread discrimination.BUT, we have a long way to go.
What happened to sweet cakes by Melissa?
The Kleins refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding because of their Christian beliefs. The state of Oregon fined them $135,000 and ordered them to keep quiet. In June 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Oregon court’s decision, sending the case back to Oregon. In 2007, Aaron and Melissa Klein opened a bakery in Gresham, Oregon, called Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Melissa loved to express herself creatively, so opening the bakery was a dream come true. Aaron and Melissa ran Sweet Cakes as a Christian business. The Kleins made wedding cakes to celebrate marriages as a sacred union of one man and one woman. They served everyone, but wouldn’t make cakes with messages that conflicted with their faith. These included cakes with profanity, cakes celebrating divorce, or cakes advocating harm to others.
Who bakes the Kardashians cakes?
Hansens Cakes in Los Angeles has been making cakes for the Kardashian-Jenner family for over 30 years.
Yahoo is part of the Yahoo family of brands. When you use our sites and apps, we use cookies to: We provide our sites and apps to you, authenticate users, apply security measures, and measure your use of our sites and apps.
What is Baker’s main argument for which he has appealed his case to the Supreme Court?
Baker said that because of population changes in the state, his vote in an urban area was less important than that of a voter in a rural district. Charles Baker, a Tennessee resident, sued Joe Carr, then Secretary of State of Tennessee, in federal court. Baker asked the court to delay the elections until the state redrew its legislative districts, which it hadn’t done since 1901. The Tennessee Constitution said reapportionment should happen every ten years. Baker’s claim was based on the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Baker said that because of population changes in the state, his vote in an urban area was less important than that of a voter in a rural district. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case. The Court said the plaintiffs could sue, using Colegrove v. Green as a precedent. This said that voters who say they are being hurt can sue. The Court reversed Colegrove and said that courts could provide relief for cases involving malapportionment. The Court had to decide whether the issue of reapportionment was a political question. The district court and the Colegrove court had ruled it was not. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that the claims weren’t about the Guaranty Clause of Article IV. They were about the 14th Amendment, so the implication of political rights didn’t make the issue inappropriate for judicial review. The Court created a six-part test to determine if a case presented a political question. The most important fact for redistricting purposes was that the voting inequities presented satisfied these requirements. The Court also said that courts can provide “discoverable and manageable standards” for granting relief. Baker v. Carr opened the door to judicial review of the redistricting process. It also prompted a cascade of lawsuits and sent shockwaves through the redistricting community. The opinion didn’t say how to fix malapportionment, but it recognized unequal districts as real problems. This led to the “one-person, one-vote” principle. By 1964, 26 states had redrawn their legislative districts. By 1966, that number had risen to 46.
📹 Supreme Court Gives Victory To Baker Who Refused To Make Cake For Same-Wedding | NBC Nightly News
NBC News is a leading source of global news and information. Here you will find clips from NBC Nightly News, Meet The Press, …
I can fix this problem with this alternative scenario: -Gay Couple: Excuse me, sir. We’re getting married and we’d like you to make us a custom wedding cake. -Cakeshop Owner: Sorry, I can’t do that. It contradicts with my faith as a Christian, but I’ll be more than happy to sell you something else. -Gay Couple: No thanks. We’ll just go somewhere else that will make us a cake. Boom! Problem solved.
There’s an important thing to remember here He didn’t refuse service because they were gay He refused to make a product for an event he didn’t agree with This is about the product not the people, and so is not discrimination He didn’t tell them to get out of his store because he didn’t like gays, he merely refused to make a custom made cake. Which he has every right to do
Hate to say this but based on the comments I’ve seen in the article majority of the LGBT community does not want to respect the faith and religious belief of the baker. I have a high respect to the community but with regard to this matter, they should know how to give respect to other people. LGBT wants equality and respect, thus, they should also give it to other people.
If you have the right to refuse giving your body to someone sexually, then you should have the right to deny your labor for anything else involving your body. His hands make the cakes. He didn’t want to use his hands / his body for their services. If a hooker can say no to money, regardless if it hurts your feelings, why can’t he refuse your money? No means no means no. No reason should even have to be given. “No” why? “Don’t want to”. He’s not enslaved to anyone. You can say no to a date, why can’t say no for services without calling it hate? He’s self employed. Why does it matter his reason for declining an order?
We’ve all seen the signs that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” in businesses. That sign use to mean “anyone” in the literal sense. Unfortunately, now that sign is basically useless thanks to all of the exceptions that have been tacked on through the government. I’m sorry, but I think that any business should be allowed to serve whoever they want to, as well as not being forced to serve someone they don’t want to,
They did it specifically so they could sue for discrimination & blackmail him. Otherwise they would have gone to a baker who would accommodate them. Notice they didn’t go (through 3 states) to a Muslim Baker (and they would never do it). It’s not a vital service that you are obligated by law to provide. He offered the cake but not the customization (artistic freedom) Imagine if you sue a Muslim to paint an Muhammad portrait, same here: you violate his freedom to act, artistic freedom & religious freedom.
No ABC,as usualy you got it wrong yet again. The supreme court didnt rule in favor of the baker because the lower court “went about it the wrong way” the supreme court ruled in favor of the baker because it was a case of him exercising his religious belief . He did NOT refuse service to them and politely told them they could have any other cake in his store or any other goods available,but since his faith was in direct conflict with same sex he could not bake a WEDDING cake for two men. That is not discrimination,the gay couple did not have grounds to sue on since their rights were not violated or denied,and THAT is why the supreme court ruled in the bakers favor.
Here’s my philosophy on this A business, by default, can refuse anyone they want. Customers are using their property, services, and resources before any investment is done by default. The business can refuse anyone, let the invisible hand of economics determine if they succeed or not. This isn’t a problem for the government, go to another bakery. This isn’t legal discrimination that denies basic human rights, it’s his religious beliefs so just accept his terms and go somewhere else. However, which didn’t happen in this case but I will state anyway, when a customer invest its capital resources into said business and expect a returned service, you cannot take the money and deny them then and there because it is an unequal exchange of value.
I do not agree with the baker or with discriminaton in generall. I will defend his right to disagree with me though. Thus, i will defend his right to not create something that goes against his beliefs. The only case one has not the right to deny service is a doctor. Because in this case no service means physical harm.
I like how they tried to victimize themselves in regards to their rights being trumped by the First Amendment in this case. The reality however would have been true for any other instance. If anybody had asked this Baker to make anything else that went against his beliefs would have been turned down, not just their same sex marriage. This wasn’t about gay rights, this was about the baker’s freedom of expression, and religion.
Seriously all these people should leave the baker alone. If they demand others to respect their rights, they should respect others too. They could just find another baker to do it. I think they purposely find a devoted Christian person to target. No shame at all. Are you so proud to destroy someone else livehood for your own selfish belief? Everyone has their own beliefs.
Why would you want to force this man to bake you a cake or threaten to sue him if he doesn’t?? Was he the only baker in town, or was it that he was just an easy mark to go after and sue him?? and, furthermore, would you actually want to eat a cake after he was forced by the court to make one for you? Why is it he gets attacked and threatened for following his religious lifestyle, but the Muslims in this country can do whatever they want and wear whatever they want in the name of religion, but, an American baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple because of his religion and beliefs and all hell breaks loose on him, being sued, loss of business and threatened by the LGBT community and their friends, meanwhile the Muslims have openly said that they despise the LGTB community and nothing is said to them.
I like that they clarified in the end that the supreme court’s decision was not to support the baker’s right to discriminate against gay couples, but that the their decision was based on the fact that the civil courts did not deal with the situation correctly. This makes me feel better. While our country strives to prevent discrimination by creating anti-discrimination laws, this goes both ways. People should not support religious exercises that are pro-discriminatory, thereby allowing others to be discriminated against.
I don’t mind that he refused to make the cake. I problem that he did not publicly post a notice in front of the shop that he a religious person and he would not perform certain services. That would avoid embarrassment for certain groups of clients. I guess he is too afraid to do it! What if the reverse scenario happens to religious people? How would a religious person react if a baker says, “My personal belief tell me that I should refer religious customers to somewhere else”? Would that be fair?
As a man who is gay, I couldn’t agree more with this ruling. You cannot force a private business to do something against their own beliefs. The alphabet squad needs to stop these frivolous actions. Not everyone is going to hold your same beliefs/values, and that is ok. Find another bakery, or whatever and move on. You do a disservice to the rest of us. I have never been more ashamed of being gay than I have been these last few years bc of the amount of victimhood mentality that is so prevalent in the lgbt community.
One part first amendment allows the practice of religious freedom. The case violated his rights of the first amendment and since his refusal was based on his religion he was within his rights to refuse them the wedding cake. He even said that he’s not going to make them a WEDDING CAKE, he didn’t say he wouldn’t make them a cake, like a custom happy birthday one for example. He still treated them with human decency and didn’t act like they were anything less just because of their sexual orientation. However, I will agree that the couple’s reasoning that they didn’t want anyone else to go through what they did was noble, because there may be some cases where a gay couple or person is discriminated not due to religious reasons and trying to prevent that sort of thing is a noble endeavor.
Gay Karen’s! Seriously if your business is not wanted, go somewhere else! As a gay man I would never subject anyone under that pressure. They could’ve easily found another baker in town or with the amount of lgbt resources out there they could’ve found an lgbt baker and call it a day. All of this was so unnecessary
As the homosexual couple feel betrayed, how about the baker? All I see homosexual this, homosexual that, homosexual here, homosexual there, I’m burnt out because the homosexual community is pushing and pushing and pushing and pushethat there seems to be no breathing room. If you are homosexual marriage or homosexuality in general, they leave you alone, if you do not agree, they go after you, threaten you and bully you, harass you all because you see things differently.
Would you go into a Jewish kosher bakery and tell them to make you a non kosher cake? I’m glad the baker won. He has rights and beliefs that he holds dear. He’s not out chopping heads off people for not believing what he does. He just wants others to respect his beliefs and convictions. There are other bakeries out there. Why do alternative lifestyle people go out of their way to complain and throw fits when others don’t except their lifestyle. You want to live that way that’s on you. You can’t go around wanting everyone to except what your doing. In your eyes it may seem right in anothers eyes it’s not.
The correct solution is to respect the RIGHTS of your fellow citizen, realize you are in a support role and not directly participating. Bake the Cake! Do NOT sign your name, or write ANY words that you are NOT in agreement with, simply leave the cake surface empty! Baking a cake for your fellow citizen is your support for their freedom. Writing an ideology that you are not in core alignment with is a violation of YOUR freedom!
“It’s not just about us, it’s about our community as a whole”… Wait a fucking minute…. How does buying a cake for a wedding involves your community? As far as I know you(and your partner) get to decide what your cake will be not your “supposed whole community”. But I supposed if a bakery says its out of stock these couple will sue the shop under the guise of moral virtue signalling.. . . This group politics is getting way out of hand..
Would the baker try and force them to go to his church no because he would respect there rights not to go,, I am in the printing business and would not print Gay wedding invitations for the same reason but there are plenty of other printers that would. To the gay couple please respect the rights of others to beleive as they wish NB My nephew is gay and I love him to bits
To this day, there are establishments that display signs like “We reserve the right to deny service…” or “No shirt, no shoes, no service”. This baker would have sold them any cake in the place, but he wouldn’t design a custom wedding cake because it went against his faith. The gay couple’s rights ended where the owners began. If this couple had strolled into a bakery run by Muslims or Orthodox Jews, they might (and I’m saying “might” not definitely) not have walked away with a custom-made cake either.
This is disgusting because you can’t force someone to do something. This couple is too entitled. Someone can decline your offer if they want. Doesn’t matter if they are religious or not. Too much entitle people going around these days. All the couple had to do is simply move on and go find someone else who would do it.
You have the right to religious freedom the same as sexual freedom in America. Ones freedom shouldn’t trumps another. Its better to deal with like-minded people to avoid trivial issues like who’s going to make your same-sex cake. Something as simple as going somewhere else that respects you is the path of least resistance.
It’s the bakers choice who he wishes to serve and who not to serve, yeah it’s too bad that he doesn’t agree with gay marriage but it’s not like he harassed them about it, he just wants nothing to do with it. They should’ve just told him that he should be more open minded and left peacefully without causing a commotion and getting lawyers involved….
I’m sure the ruling in USA would’ve been different if it was in England, however very interesting case, I had a debate with my friend on this discussion our views were very different, please do check it out on my website titled ‘gender and sexuality’ if interested, it means so much, thank you ❤️❤️❤️
Finally things are going in the right direction. I want a business I can hire whoever I want to hire I can have people come in that I want to come in if I don’t want people there or don’t want to hire specific people that’s my decision if I have my own business. That’s the freedom of having your own business.😅😅 They cried together after what a wimpy guys.😂
It’s sad that the flower shop lost her case but in the New testament of the Bible, Jesus says your reward will be great in heaven for not denying Jesus. The apostles never denied Jesus, they were all murdered for never denying Jesus. It’s also a sign of the end of times, that Christian’s are being pusecuted to this point, for being taken to court for not denying Jesus. Jesus said these things will happen before he commes back. Your reward will be great in heaven. Jesus said, fear god more than people. The baker’s reward will be great in heaven for not denying Jesus. Hes loosing money, but that’s earthly stuff, it is still sad but Jesus said great reward in heaven aways those who do not denying Jesus.
It’s kind of an example of the false dilemma fallacy because two extremes: they should bake the cake or it’s discrimination or If they bake the cake it hinders their rights and they’re being forced by the government to bake the cake at that point. It’s kind of asking if it’s racist to refuse to date someone of a certain race at the end of the day it is preference and you cannot force someone to date someone else it’s just not ethical. Sure it can be seen as racist if they are going off of racist stereotypes but what can you do why would you want to date someone who thinks like that about your race/culture anyway. Back to the cake, why would they bother to get a cake from someone who is forced to make the cake anyway? The quality will most likely not end up good because they don’t want to do it they won’t want to make a cake. Same thing with the relationship if one doesn’t want to be with someone because of race it will most likely not end well for them since one would not want to be with them. That is why I believe the baker shouldn’t have to make the cake.
This is a complex issue. When we establish rules we have to realize it’s impossible to carve out exceptions. So you have to ask yourself should a baker have to make a cake for a nazi rally. While I obviously don’t think you can equate a nazi rally with a gay wedding, from a legal point can you really create a set of rules that allows you to refuse under one set of circumstances and not others –too complex. I think a simpler standard would be based on if you are making the product for a person or for an organization/function. If it’s simply for a person then you cannot discriminate ever for any reason but if it’s for a function or organization then I think you should have the right to refuse.
I think the baker has the right to refuse and to give his opinion. However, this works as a two way street. If he has the right to refuse, then the other ppl have to right to protest. If your going to take action or put ur opinion out there, don’t expect ppl not to react to it. Don’t be surprised if u lose customers or business, bcs u decide to discriminate. I think everyone should have equal treatment and service, u should put aside your religious beliefs to serve ur customers. It’s no big deal, honest to god it’s just a cake 😂. In this situation, it’s pretty unbiased and both sides have the right to their opinion. Sure u can refuse, but I have the right to say it’s not fair just saying. 🤷♀️
My 2cents I personally would go some place else. BUT if they are not wanting to sale them a cake because of religion then to validate that reason they should put up a big sign that says we only sale Wedding cakes to sinless one man, one woman couples due to our religion. Keeping in mind if some one gets married a 2nd time that’s another woman or another man, divorced or not “if the vowels were til death do us part” its still ANOTHER its no longer ONE man or One woman some one is marrying a 2nd man or woman and the fist one is still living. Then people that disagree also can pass up the shop and go elsewhere. And people that they don’t sale to will not waist their time with them anyway.
Jake did not get to gave his cake, and eat it too. Jake had to deal with hate mail, death threats, loss of some business and had to end up stop making wedding cakes. What is interesting, is that Jake was willing to help them find another bakery who do cakes for homosexuals. There was / is another bakery that his going through the same as Jake, if I’m not mistaken that homosexual couple wanted written on the cake that God accepts this marriage (along those lines). I find it interesting that a homosexual person who works as a hairdresser, is allowed to refuse to cut a person’s hair because they do not agree with homosexuality. Marriage is sacred to the Christian beliefs. I know many will not agree with me on that. OK God eve said, for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling unto his wife. Yes, we are to live one another, yet we are not to condone that which God did not create nor bless.
“We don’t want other couples to go through the same thing…” BS! You are not the victim here. You tried to force someone to comply with your own beliefs by taking them to court. Instead of moving on, and going and getting your cake somewhere else, you decided to make a pig-headed stand on one person’s ideals. You can’t change other people to suit your world view. That’s not how you build harmony. If the roles had been reversed …
I am a christian and even tho I believe we need to defend our faith in Jesus Christ, I think both the baker and the gay couple did wrong. 1) I am pretty sure the gay couple investigated about the bakery before going there to gay their cake made. If they found out the owner was a Christian, why didn’t they go to another bakery? I understand, they wanted to get in trouble. 2) The baker should have made their cake. It was just a cake. If Jesus were the baker I am sure he had made the cake for them. It has nothing to do what my beliefs are with making a cake for a customer.
I don’t like gay marriage, but at the same time its call discrimination. How do you feel if they discriminate you because of your difference. Theirs a difference between the laws of the lord and the government of this country. We live the laws of the country we should except them of who they are whether we like it or not. For me, I want make a decision of not having a gay marriage. Its part of my Christian beliefs and will
But where’s the line? Can you refuse to provide a service based on your religion? If so alot of people could be refused if the service provder didn’t agree with something in your life. You could have a Jehovas Witness mechanic refuse to fix your car because you use it for racing and that’s a sport. Or a baker refuse to put merry Christmas on a cake because he doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Like is this something that sets a precedent or is it just something that applies to gay people?
No one should be forced to violate their religious beliefs, or their freedom of speech. it wasn’t just a case of religious beliefs it was also a case of freedom of speech. the bakers should be allowed to deny their services to any one whom they choose. the gay couple are fascists who would have the government put a gun to the heads of any business persons who refuses to promote homosexuality and deny their own religious beliefs.
I hate how they showed more emphasis on the gay couple as if we’re supposed to be more emotional towards them. I’m so much more comfortable with the fact that my religious freedoms haven’t been taken away. The first amendment is there for a reason, a$$holes.This couple should be ashamed and so should the democrats for putting this harmless baker through this. Jack Philips has a gofundme for anyone willing to help out.
Would you agree with the baker if he was a doctor who’s the only available one in the area and refuses to tend to homosexual couples on account of their religious beliefs? Refusing service because youre clearly a bigot cannot be excused. But looking at the comments, so many middle aged karens and kyles, im certain that this would be an unpopular opinion.
Are you serious? The baker was in his religious rights. Just go to another frickin baker. It shouldn’t have been this big of a deal in the first place. At least he politely said no to them. I’m a Christian. I don’t support homosexuality or anything like that. I believe that God created us man and woman. When a man and woman are married they become one flesh. If God wanted Adam to be gay he would’ve given him a man. Same with Eve. But he didn’t. Because that’s not what he intended for humanity. I may be against homosexuality but it is important that I am respectful to them as well. They have their views and I have mine. We can all still be friends. They are human beings too. Jesus Christ loves everyone. No matter who you are, no matter your sexuality, no matter your religion, no matter what you have done. He still loves you. I may not agree with homosexuality, but I still love you. As it is written in the Bible, “Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” 1 John 4:8.
Professional or not it is still his business and he should be able to serve who he wants to if they don’t like that they can just go to a different business and buy a cake there but they had to sit there and whine and cry and act like the victim even though the man was the victim because they were forcing there beliefs onto him
I am on the baker’s side. I used to look up to your country for the development (of different factors) you have been showing the world but now, I find it too much freedom of speech for every group, etc. Freedom when it gets to much creates a chaotic society or system. Look at the discussion and debates about “pronouns” in your country, it is too much freedom of speech already from the people. Well, in my opinion and observation only.
If bakers say gay marriage conflicts with their beliefs then to avoid being hypocritical, these bakers should not use any ingredients or equipment made by companies who employ any LGBTQ married people. They should behave in ways that are 100% consistent with their values if it’s that important to them, instead of picking situations/times that suit their whim.
Idk man this has been on my mind for three years. Like if the guys didnt tell the baker that it was for a gay wedding he would of done it. Or I mean, the couple could of just made a post “baker refused service cause we are homosexual”. Taking it to like court seemed ridiculous, and again the owner of that business does have the right to refuse service. So I mean as long as the baker didn’t treat you in a harassing way just turn the other cheek and go somewhere else. Idk man. This case just has still been in my mind all these years. It’s a very gray area. Also how is baking a cake going against your religion? It’s not like he’s the one getting married. He would never see that couple again. Never. It’s not like he was gonna go to hell for baking a cake for a gay couple.
You only see that in the US. What that couple did was unbelievable. If the baker didn’t want to make the wedding cake because of his beliefs, it’s his right. The couple should have understood and gone to another bakery. Luckily, the supreme court took the right decision and frankly the court should have forced the couple to pay a compensation to the baker for dragging him into this ordeal.
Relgion s people like to discriminate people what his book says they should go to defrent baker just all gay people should never go to him if kicked out cause they were gay but he did not thats if form of discrimination. but luckily not everyone feels that way against towards gay people so they have free will to go people that will make any cake they want I see people do Halloween cakes not religious none not gay friendly. Places but none religious none bis gay friendly places. Sum bakers are artist and are willing to make a cake for you guys besides that guy but other people will they can make a Halloween cake with blood and gore or any type cake I think they’re willing to do it or comedy
The baker’s holding his right of refusing service to anyone. It may be discrimination but it is not illegal, it was an unfair trial. The couple was even offered a regular priced cake to decorate as a halfway point. I can’t really blame the guy, 2010 – 2018 has been a changing point for LBGTQ+ rights, and he’s grown up in a generation where it was looked down upon. You outta just think about the baker’s is seeing things by stretching his right.
It’s not even about religion imo, businesses should be able to say no to if they want to for whatever reason they want. Then guess what? Customers themselves can hold you accountable for that. It’s pretty simple. People vote with their wallet. Word will get around and people will simply not buy from that business if they don’t agree with it. With that being said, I’m a gay guy, and if I were in the position of the gay couple, I’d just tell people not to go there if they want a gay wedding cake. Easy. If they end up going out of business, then whatever. If they end up still being successful, whatever, I don’t care either way. I will say though, the amount of homophobic comments in here are pretty sad. You all who partake in that are honestly not that different from liberals/femnazis who man-hate. Truly, as someone who hates SJW’s and feminism… the homophobic people are pretty similar just on the flip side. Discrimination is discrimination, period.
Finding love and acceptance in this world is rare and difficult… Picking out a wedding cake should be an occasion of joy, instead it was a day of ridicule and pain. I appreciate these men and their willingness to fight and to face the wrath of bigoted short-sighted bullies that seem to GET OFF on kicking people while they are down. Happy gay pride to all the lovers and the allies.
I’m just curious what this bakers religious beliefs are…is he a Christian? A Muslim? A Buddhist? Does he practice Judaism? So let’s just say he is a Christian…has he EVER made cakes for Bar Mitzvah?! I would be very interested to find out just how MANY cakes he has made that go AGAINST his religious beliefs…jus sayin.😳 It’s a thought right? If I was a lawyer, I would make that my main priority…to go back and see ALL the different occasions he made cakes for….And if he has made cakes that DONT support his religious beliefs, then his choice not to make this wedding cake for a gay couple, comes down to one and only ONE reason…HATE and DISCRIMINATION.
It should not be so hard to understand. Groups such as the LGBT community can not force people to participate in their ceremonies. Simple as that. Genuinely held religious beliefs are not to be discriminated against. Seems to me the courts ruled correctly, not providing any basis for discrimination towards either side.
I’m glad that the religious discrimination going on in this country is finally being noticed. You can’t just protect and promote lgbt and bash other groups. America is the land of the free. Your free to be lgbt, but also free not participate in any way, shape or form if you don’t want to. Why didn’t the couple just go to another bakery?
Idk the person personally more of an acquaintance, as I only met her a couple of times. She lives in Colorado and has been to this baker many times. She said he’s a very man and when she wanted a bachelorette cake for our mutual friend. He kindly declined because of the sexual innuendos. So she just thanked him and left. End of story
I am all for equality. If people are racist, or rude or demeaning then yes, we can be offense and we have to fight for our rights. But if the person is polite and he is explaining why he is doing something, because of his strong religious conviction, then he has the right for that as well. His rights should also been respected. Now a days instead of us accepting that sometimes we just have different views, beliefs and opinion, we just automatically get offended and angry.
LGBT community are behaving like NAZI’s, forcing people to participate or embrace their life style. I care NOT what you do to with life but please STAY OUT OF MINE and my family. You have the freedom to live your life, please have the decency to allow others to live theirs. Or is this vocabulary beyond you? SELFISHNESS has no bound.
When you own a business you keep your beliefs to yourself. Your here to provide a service to the public, not let everyone know you are a bigot and homophobic. What if he had beliefs against a persons race or age. Its called intolerance, inequality, discrimination. I feel sorry for this man and pity anyone who takes this opportunity to post hateful comments.