bbauska wrote:Thank you for your attempt at open discourse.

Re the dog/bone comment. I feel the same about others and the push for more and more tolerance of "progressive" positions w/o tolerance for an alternative opinion.

If there are many bakeries in the Portland area who will gladly make a cake for a homosexual wedding, why the need to go where to this specific baker?

is there something distinct about this cake that makes them refuse to provide it?

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you for your attempt at open discourse.

Re the dog/bone comment. I feel the same about others and the push for more and more tolerance of "progressive" positions w/o tolerance for an alternative opinion.

If there are many bakeries in the Portland area who will gladly make a cake for a homosexual wedding, why the need to go where to this specific baker?

is there something distinct about this cake that makes them refuse to provide it?

Being a wedding cake would be the only thing. If it is not that distinct, why not find a supportive vendor...

JimHackerMP wrote:I did say there were 22,000 plus Christian sects did I mention that?

And, I did say it was rubbish. Read this. http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm

freeman3 wrote: Of course opponents of Kennedy's decision have argued that he made up a right.

No, he found a "right to dignity." http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... riage.html

danivon wrote:They can choose not to hold gay marriages in their churches and temples.

Maybe, maybe not. If that building is rented out for other purposes, good luck explaining why it can't be used for a homosexual wedding. Lawsuit will follow.

They can choose not to go to someone's gay marriage ceremony.

Unless they specify "why." Charges of "hate speech" to follow.

They cam choose not to run a business where discrimination against homosexuals might be a problem.

It's not the people; it's the activity.

When those lesbians walked into the bakery, did they wear shirts that said, "We're gay"? Probably not. In fact, they were served by these bakers before. The issue was an activity, not the persons. Failing to participate (albeit indirectly) in the wedding was deemed discrimination.

Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest. Message to the Christians in the US: either do a bad job, lie, or get out of business.

What the radical left wants is to limit "free exercise of religion" to the confines of your church and your home. Any views in the public arena must conform to the official church of the State.

bbauska wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:Thank you for your attempt at open discourse.

Re the dog/bone comment. I feel the same about others and the push for more and more tolerance of "progressive" positions w/o tolerance for an alternative opinion.

If there are many bakeries in the Portland area who will gladly make a cake for a homosexual wedding, why the need to go where to this specific baker?

is there something distinct about this cake that makes them refuse to provide it?

Being a wedding cake would be the only thing. If it is not that distinct, why not find a supportive vendor...

I can see why a Christian baker would not want to make this particular cake, and although I am more concerned about the rights of the gay couple, I can certainly sympathize with the hurl feelings of the baker. But I don't think they have a constitutional right here.

A tattooist can not refuse to serve a segregationist, but he can certainly refuse to tattoo a Confederate flag on the bigot's arm.

RJ,
Are you saying that you think a baker cannot refuse service to a homosexual couple, but can refuse to make a cake? I think that was what your example with the tattooist is saying.

bbauska wrote:RJ,
Are you saying that you think a baker cannot refuse service to a homosexual couple, but can refuse to make a cake? I think that was what your example with the tattooist is saying.

If it is a normal wedding cake I don't see how they can refuse. if it shows two individuals engaged in indecent acts (regardless of genders) they can. Although I appreciate this is hard for certain people of certain faiths, the overwhelming state interest is to avoid business from being able to say "we don't serve your kind".

If they are in the wedding cake business, they have to make wedding cakes.

Thank you.

Dr Fate:

Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest.

It's good that they are honest. I presume they are good people. Are the gay couple similarly honest? I assume they didn't say the cake is for a straight friend's wedding.

Justice Kennedy did not create a right of dignity, DF. The right infringed upon was the right to marry. The Supreme Court had already found this right. The question is whether there are any legitimate reasons to bar gays from marrying. There are none. Reasons based on religious belief cannot serve; there needs to be non-religious reasons to bar gays from marrying. The court in its justification for finding a right to marry, rested it on four principles:

(1) right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in personal autonomy;
(2) right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals;
(3) Protecting the right to marry safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child-rearing, procreation and education;
(4) marriage is key to our social order.

Kennedy held that these four principles underpinning the right to marry all apply to gay marriage.
It should be noted that this analysis limits the extension of marriage. Polygamy would fail this test. All the nonsensical extensions of marriage being bandied about would fail this test.

Relying on external sources to interpret the decision is not necessary (and of course subject to errors due to interpretation or bias). Kennedy's reasoning is very clear and his decision is relatively short.

As RJ indicated (with the wedding cake example)when you are providing a service or product to the public you cannot discriminate even when that infringes on your religious beliefs. Now when someone requests political speech or in some sense modifies the product or service provided then you may be able to refuse because is not a product or service that you are willing to provide. A wedding cake is not a product that is changed by its use in a gay wedding. There is a fundamental change in a service provided when someone asks for a tattoo of a Confederate flag. You cannot refuse to provide a product or service to a suspect class and provide it others; you can refuse it if is a service or product you will not provide to anyone.

As to the argument the Christian baker is involved indirectly in the gay wedding by baking a cake, what if a Muslim-owned auto dealership refused to sell cars to women because they don't believe women should drive ? It appears an exactly analogous example to me-- a business owner refusing to provide a product because it will be used in activity that goes against their beliefs. Would that be ok? And if not how would you distinguish it from the Christian baker example?

As a society we have determined that it is best that people be able to buy goods and services on an equal basis with everyone. This trumps a person's religious beliefs. If infringement on Christians is having to bake the occasional wedding bake for a gay couple...that does not appear to be a major infringement on religious freedom. We all have to make accomodations for dealing with each other in the public space.

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the odd thing: they could have simply made a horrible cake, but instead they were honest. Message to the Christians in the US: either do a bad job, lie, or get out of business.

That's what I would do if I was in their shoes. I would make a cake that tasted like sawdust, or the florist give them a bunch of wilted centerpieces. You want to force me to do something I don't want to do. Fine, I'll do it but you will get the crappiest job I can contractually get away with.

Luckily for me,as a divorce attorney, I applaud the decision. It means in about 6 months to a year business will explode for my industry. Anecdotal evidence says that once same sex marriage because legal, couples run out and get married without thinking about all that it entails. Then a year later, many of those quick to marry couple realize it was a mistake and file for divorce.

The difference is, they want tolerance for their sexuality. You want to keep talking about tolerance for bigotry.

I'm done with the bakers. If you want to know why specific couple went to a specific bakers, ask them, not me.

archduke

That's what I would do if I was in their shoes. I would make a cake that tasted like sawdust, or the florist give them a bunch of wilted centerpieces

.

Purposely providing poor quality products accomplishes two things.
1) It demonstrates their bigotry to some
2) To others it just demonstrates the quality of their products.

Either is likely going to be detrimental to business. Imagine the newspaper stories that will be published showing how the bakery sabotaged the ceremony ?
Imagine the comparisons between the behavior of these "Christians" and the ethic of reciprocity?
They wouldn't come off as looking anything but hateful. And that won't be good for business. Younger people of marrying age are the most likely to accept gay marriage. And less likely to accept bigotry. And there goes the customer base...
Nose to spite face.

If baking the odd cake for a gay wedding is going to be that corrosive to the Christian bakers, they should get out of the business and any and all service industries. In the modern world they have to interact with Gays and lesbians as equals, and they have to accept that means in every way... Not just as they choose.