danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Not really. A wedding officiant knows what participating is. A person getting married knows what it is. If the Baker is in the room, they may be "participating". Otherwise, they really are not.

So, baking a wedding cake is no different than baking something in your kitchen? You have first hand information on this? You know what making wedding cakes entails?

Yes, dear, it is different from home baking. But how, pray, is it different from a professional baker making any other kind of celebration cake? Is there something magical about having tiers? Are the cake toppers massively different to any other kind of decoration?

If a baker makes me a birthday cake, they are not actually "participating" in my birthday party. Unless they are invited, of course.

No, I won't pardon you. You're being a dope.

Whatever, kidda.

So, you really know nothing.

Okay.

So tell me, and everyone else here who is so ignorant - how is baking a wedding cake so different to baking any other kind of celebration cake?

I would have to say that if they did not want to participate in someone's birthday party, they shouldn't make the cake for them.

Perhaps it is the ceremony that is the issue, not the type of cake, or the people.

That being said, if the cake is not that different as you say, why go to that baker, when there are other bakers in Portland who would make the cake?

Why this bakery?

bbauska wrote:I would have to say that if they did not want to participate in someone's birthday party, they shouldn't make the cake for them.

Sorry, but that is a case of bakers puffing up their importance into something it is not.

Perhaps it is the ceremony that is the issue, not the type of cake, or the people.

And this affects the Baker how? The ceremony is not in their bakery, and they are not forced to attend.

DF was saying that the cake is different. Well maybe it was, he seems to be alternating between blank assertions and personal sneers as if combined they make cogent argument, so it is hard to discern his actual point.

That being said, if the cake is not that different as you say, why go to that baker, when there are other bakers in Portland who would make the cake?

Why this bakery?

Perhaps because they had used it before and liked the product and service. Do you have reason (or evidence) to suggest they targeted the bakery?

danivon wrote:So tell me, and everyone else here who is so ignorant - how is baking a wedding cake so different to baking any other kind of celebration cake?

Go ask a baker.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So tell me, and everyone else here who is so ignorant - how is baking a wedding cake so different to baking any other kind of celebration cake?

Go ask a baker.

No, you are the one asserting a fundamental difference, and telling me I am ignorant for not knowing. If you know, please educate us. Or point me to the baking literature that I may discover for myself.

Go ask a baker.

If you don't like that, well, then go ask a baker.

You asking this is like asking what's the difference between a regular dress and a wedding dress/gown.

Doctor Fate wrote:Go ask a baker.

If you don't like that, well, then go ask a baker.

You asking this is like asking what's the difference between a regular dress and a wedding dress/gown.

Is the latter made from unobtainium?

If it is so obvious, you can tell us. The one difference I note is that if you ask for an Wedding X, the markup is much more than for just a plain X.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Go ask a baker.

If you don't like that, well, then go ask a baker.

You asking this is like asking what's the difference between a regular dress and a wedding dress/gown.

Is the latter made from unobtainium?

If it is so obvious, you can tell us. The one difference I note is that if you ask for an Wedding X, the markup is much more than for just a plain X.

I'll tell you what. You tell me all the particulars and I'll tell you the difference.

How many guests?

Will the cake be picked up or delivered?

Will it be outside?

This is just dumb. Do you know how long it takes to make a wedding cake versus a regular cake? If you don't, google it. If you can't do that, then take a class.

You're being your typical jerk-self. This is not hard to figure out, but you'd rather not even THINK about it, so you just keep being an obstinate rump.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll tell you what. You tell me all the particulars and I'll tell you the difference.

How many guests?

Will the cake be picked up or delivered?

Will it be outside?

This is just dumb. Do you know how long it takes to make a wedding cake versus a regular cake? If you don't, google it. If you can't do that, then take a class.

So no other functions entail this kind of thing? I've seen Cake Boss and Ace of Cakes and Choccywoccydoodah on TV and you know what? When they produce a signature commissioned cake for a large occasion these questions are common, whether it is for a wedding, anniversary, corporate event etc. They are just as attentive to detail for non-weddings as for
for weddings. So sorry, I still do not see the essential difference between a wedding cake and non-wedding cakes.

You're being your typical jerk-self. This is not hard to figure out, but you'd rather not even THINK about it, so you just keep being an obstinate rump.

Whatever, kidda.

Interesting position, Fate, that we'd be burning down our local businesses and each others' homes because of a setback like that. Now that IS a trifle offensive to me that we're of such low moral quality that we'd start throwing molotov cocktails through windows because of a legal setback. We haven't done it so far during more than several setbacks in some states (albeit temporary setbacks in the end) have we? Now where did my cigarette lighter to ignite the fuse, go....one sec please....

OK I understand your position on "states' rights". (Though I cannot entirely agree with it.) And I have often reminded fellow gays that it's almost like the converse of the 60's civil rights movement: this time, we've been actually relying on state legislatures and state referenda to achieve our legal goals. Unlike in the 60's where that would have been impossible.

But in some states that would have been impossible. Is your position, "Oh well! So be it!" to that fact?

No, marriage is not federally defined. But the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution *is*. And many states announced that they would actually refuse to enforce it for the purposes of same-sex marriages from other states.

How's that for shredding the Constitution?

JimHackerMP wrote:Interesting position, Fate, that we'd be burning down our local businesses and each others' homes because of a setback like that. Now that IS a trifle offensive to me that we're of such low moral quality that we'd start throwing molotov cocktails through windows because of a legal setback. We haven't done it so far during more than several setbacks in some states (albeit temporary setbacks in the end) have we? Now where did my cigarette lighter to ignite the fuse, go....one sec please....

OK I understand your position on "states' rights". (Though I cannot entirely agree with it.) And I have often reminded fellow gays that it's almost like the converse of the 60's civil rights movement: this time, we've been actually relying on state legislatures and state referenda to achieve our legal goals. Unlike in the 60's where that would have been impossible.

But in some states that would have been impossible. Is your position, "Oh well! So be it!" to that fact?

No, marriage is not federally defined. But the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution *is*. And many states announced that they would actually refuse to enforce it for the purposes of same-sex marriages from other states.

How's that for shredding the Constitution?

They would have to win in the USSC. Good luck to them.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll tell you what. You tell me all the particulars and I'll tell you the difference.

How many guests?

Will the cake be picked up or delivered?

Will it be outside?

This is just dumb. Do you know how long it takes to make a wedding cake versus a regular cake? If you don't, google it. If you can't do that, then take a class.

So no other functions entail this kind of thing? I've seen Cake Boss and Ace of Cakes and Choccywoccydoodah on TV and you know what? When they produce a signature commissioned cake for a large occasion these questions are common, whether it is for a wedding, anniversary, corporate event etc. They are just as attentive to detail for non-weddings as for
for weddings. So sorry, I still do not see the essential difference between a wedding cake and non-wedding cakes.

You're being your typical jerk-self. This is not hard to figure out, but you'd rather not even THINK about it, so you just keep being an obstinate rump.

Whatever, kidda.

Ever been to a wedding?

Ever been to a wedding scene just before the wedding?

So, the cake, most likely, would have to be delivered by the bakers. (there's no other reasonable way to ensure the cake arrives as intended)

If it is a matter of religious conscience as this couple claims, what might they be walking into?

THAT is why they are "participating."

What sort of decorations and/or inscriptions might be requested on the cake?

THAT is why they are "participating."

I know this is all nothing to you. It's not my fault your conscience is rarely afflicted.

And......you dodged my question, Dr Fate, although I admit I asked it indirectly.

Do you not think the states that announced they refused to recognize out of state marriages even though they should have via the full faith & credit clause, are equally trampling on the constitution?

It isn't just the Left that tramples on it for convenience, buddy; both sides do it.

JimHackerMP wrote:And......you dodged my question, Dr Fate, although I admit I asked it indirectly.

Do you not think the states that announced they refused to recognize out of state marriages even though they should have via the full faith & credit clause, are equally trampling on the constitution?

It isn't just the Left that tramples on it for convenience, buddy; both sides do it.

The difference, buddy, is the USSC defines what is the law of the land.

If a State defies the USSC, it will, eventually, get slapped down. Are they "trampling the Constitution?"

That's wrong question. They could be right on the Constitution and wrong on the response.

On a similar note, Arizona lost re immigration law. I think it was right to want to enforce the law, but it had to yield to the USSC. Federal law trumps State law when the two conflict. Similarly, sanctuary cities that defy Federal law are wrong and should be held to account by the Federal government.

A State cannot "trample" the Constitution. It doesn't have the power. It can be in violation--there's a chasm of difference.

Obama trampled the Constitution with the Iran deal by labeling it as less than a treaty and by going to the UN before Congress. He has that power. The Court also has that power.