EXCLUSIVE: Colorado Baker Asked to Make ‘Birthday Cake’ for Satan

I can see this extending into many other businesses until everyone conforms, unless it is stopped now.

Stopped how?

By ruling in favor of Jack Phillips. He doesn't bake Halloween cakes either. This whole fiasco was a set up from the beginning because Phillips had declined to decorate a cake for a lesbian couple at an earlier time. The happy gayly weds, who flew in from back East and went directly to this out of the way bakery,  would have never tried to pull a stunt like this at a Muslim owned bakery, they would have been tossed out. They could have easily had one of Jack's cakes "decorated" with a two man topper somewhere else, but they wanted to make a legal case out of it, which I believe they will lose.

By ruling in favor of Jack Phillips.

Not likely to happen.

He doesn't bake Halloween cakes either.

He wasn't asked to bake one. He was asked to bake a religious themed cake. Since he's all about religious freedom, he cannot refuse.

would have never tried to pull a stunt like this at a Muslim owned bakery, they would have been tossed out.

Pure conjecture. But then, I'm not aware of any cases involving Muslim bakeries.

So any retailer should be able to deny service to any patron for any religiously ambiguous reason they want?

I wouldn't be surprised if there are those who say 'yes.'

It's where this will go if taken to its logical conclusion.  This is why conservatives fail at governing.

He doesn't bake Halloween cakes either.

Why not, Halloween has nothing to do with his religion.+

  Peter Tokofsky, an assistant professor in the department of folklore and mythology in UCLA states, "The earliest trace (of Halloween) is the Celtic festival, Samhain, which was the Celtic New Year. It was the day of the dead, and they believed the souls of the deceased would be available" (Navarro).

      Samhain (pronounced sah-win or sow-in) means "summer's end" by the Celts. In old Germanic and Celtic societies, what we call equinoxes and solstices marked the middles of the season, not the beginnings." (Chamberlain) Therefore if there exist an autumnal equinox, winter solstice, spring equinox and a summer solstice, there are also the beginning of autumn, winter, spring and summer. All of these eight dates were important. Summer's end which meant the beginning of winter was an important time for people who survived on plants grown in the field and animals that were kept in pastures. (Chamberlain) "This day marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death" (The History Channel Exhibits- History of Halloween) It is most likely this reason that the Druids (Celtic pagans) believed that the spirits of those who died the preceding year roamed the earth the night of Samhain (MSN Learning & Research- Halloween)

It's where this will go if taken to its logical conclusion.  This is why conservatives fail at governing.

And they only have themselves to blame.

By ruling in favor of Jack Phillips. He doesn't bake Halloween cakes either. This whole fiasco was a set up from the beginning because Phillips had declined to decorate a cake for a lesbian couple at an earlier time. The happy gayly weds, who flew in from back East and went directly to this out of the way bakery,

He doesn't have the right to use his religious views to discriminate in a for-profit public business. This idea was settled with the Public Accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  He knew those ideas existed when he applied for a business license so he can't now claim that his religious views are in jeopardy when he has an LGBT customer.

His customers don't care about his religious beliefs and he cant ask his customers what their religious beliefs are because baking a cake is not in any way religious. Nobody has yet explained to me how a cake is religious or threatening to his views? Is it the 4" plastic same-sex couple on top .that scares him?

The Civil Rights Act forces him to bakes for people regardless of their religion and that doesn't threaten his religious views so how exactly does baking a cake for an LGBT couple threaten his religious freedom, especially when 75% of LGBT couples are also Christian?  Does baking a cake for a heterosexual atheist couple also threaten his religious freedoms? Does baking a cake to celebrate the end of Ramadan threaten his religious views, despite the fact that he cannot refuse to do it on religious grounds without violating the Public Accommodation protections of the civil rights act. Does he also oppose baking a cake for a twice divorced and remarried couple, because divorce is banned in the bible? Does he ask parents for proof that they were married when their children were conceived before he will make a birthday cake?

This guy and those like him are just bigots who are doing everything they can to attack the Obergefell v. Hodges decision because of their bigotry.  Their arguments are the very same that we used to oppose serving black and interracial people before the Civil Rights Act. There is nothing in the bible where Jesus tells his followers to do as he is doing because Jesus wasn't a bigot.

Is it the 4" plastic same-sex couple on top .that scares him?

Probably.

 He knew those ideas existed when he applied for a business license so he can't now claim that his religious views are in jeopardy when he has an LGBT customer.

Indeed. It's like a contract: he applies for a business license, he agrees to abide by all public and non-discrimination laws. And when he violates that agreement and breaks the law, he is whining when he gets called out on it.

 Nobody has yet explained to me how a cake is religious or threatening to his views?

I have yet to hear any rational explanation either. Neither has anyone explained what a "gay wedding cake" is, as making one seems to be a complaint.

The Civil Rights Act forces him to bakes for people regardless of their religion and that doesn't threaten his religious views so how exactly does baking a cake for an LGBT couple threaten his religious freedom

What's funny is that people like him equate baking a cake with participating in a same sex wedding.

would have never tried to pull a stunt like this at a Muslim owned bakery, they would have been tossed out.

You can't prove that claim because it has never happened. I am atheist and I have never been tossed out of numerous Muslims restaurants or grocery stores.  The only religious bigotry that I have ever received has been from Christian conservatives.

His customers don't care about his religious beliefs

Bull! They knew exactly who he was an chose him specifically. 

The "person" that sent this Email did not do it for any religious purpose either. The Email was sent for political and propaganda reasons. 

Bull! They knew exactly who he was an chose him specifically. 

The "person" that sent this Email did not do it for any religious purpose either. The Email was sent for political and propaganda reasons. 

And you base that on what, exactly?

yep...he has a target on his back.  they are going to try and harrass him out of business.

that is what the left does these days.  they don't just oppose you, they destroy you.

Sad truth.   The message the left wants to convey is comply OR ELSE!

Oh please. He just happens to send it to the same bakery? And how many times have some lefties tryied to bring satan ans satanist ideas into the equasion. Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

You can't prove that claim because it has never happened. I am atheist and I have never been tossed out of numerous Muslims restaurants or grocery stores. 

That is because for some reason you don't seek to bash them like you do Christians.  You have never asked them to make a gay wedding cake, or a cake depicting Mohammad as a pedophile.  Go ahead.  Try it.   See what happens.  Tell us about it if you are able.

that is what the left does these days.  they don't just oppose you, they destroy you.

yes, we understand you have conspiracy theories and paranoia running through your head about the "evil left" that lives rent-free in your head... *sigh*

The message the left wants to convey is comply OR ELSE!

the message of "comply OR ELSE!" seems to be a religious message - since if you don't comply you are doomed to burn in a lake of fire for all eternity after you pass on and constantly condemned everywhere you turn by the religious while you are still alive, correct ?

I always wondered which side a Liberal would take, if a Muslim Hairstylist....or Barber....refused to cut the hair of an LGBT person, due to religious beliefs.

He was asked to bake a religious themed cake. Since he's all about religious freedom, he cannot refuse.

That's not the point at all. It's not the customer's religion that matters. It's about the baker's religion. He's not discriminating against them based on their religion. They may not even be real satanists, for all he knows. He is being asked to create an expression glorifying something he finds offensive. Freedom of speech also means you cannot force people to express themselves.

The government can't force football players to salute the flag and it also can't force bakers to wish Satan a happy birthday.

Pure conjecture. But then, I'm not aware of any cases involving Muslim bakeries.

Actually there was a set up to go into Muslim bakeries and see if they would bake a gay wedding cake. Some would and some wouldn't. 

Read here:

washingtontimes

So any retailer should be able to deny service to any patron for any religiously ambiguous reason they want?

It depends on the service. If you want a cake, he'll sell you one. If you want him to write "Happy Birthday Satan" on it, you can't force him to do it. If you want the cake to say that, write it yourself.

Why not, Halloween has nothing to do with his religion.

That's not your call and the Supreme Court has already said it won't engage in that kind of assessment of a person's religion.

Can't say I'm Liberal but I would be on the side of the law and he/she would either do his job or be sued, not unlike this baker, and the coffee shop owner and the florist.

he cant ask his customers what their religious beliefs are

He hasn't. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant. He has already said he will sell to anyone the baked goods he creates. But we can't force him to create something he doesn't want to create.

Nobody has yet explained to me how a cake is religious or threatening to his views?

The cake is not religious. He has made this clear. Want a cake? He's happy to sell you one. If you want to put something on it that he finds offensive, you are welcome to do that on your own. But if you want him to write it, you are compelling his expression and no one has the right to do that.

The Left wouldn't try this garbage with Muslims, yet they want us to take them serious when their hobby is to bash Christians and America.

Spare us the persecution complex! I don't see Muslims discriminating or violating the law like some Christians do! Maybe if Christians don't want to be "bashed," they should follow the law like they agreed to do when obtaining a business license or not discriminate against others.

Actually there was a set up to go into Muslim bakeries and see if they would bake a gay wedding cake. Some would and some wouldn't.

Interesting. Those that did not are in the wrong then and someone should complain. The question is, were those that were not willing to bake a cake actually willing to make a cake, but just not write a message on it? Or was service flat out refused based on the customers sexual orientation? If the later is the case, then those particular bakeries are just as wrong as the Christian ones who did the same thing.

The "person" that sent this Email did not do it for any religious purpose either. The Email was sent for political and propaganda reasons.

He isn't being persecuted by his customers and he is being targeted for his views, despite your paranoia and persecution complex. He should be happy he has paying customers.  Bake the cake and take their money.

Bake the cake and take their money. If he hates LGBT customers so much then donate part of the profits to a bigoted religious  PAC.

He hasn't. Their religious beliefs are irrelevant. He has already said he will sell to anyone the baked goods he creates. But we can't force him to create something he doesn't want to create.

He can be forced to bake a cake because of the public accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He either bakes the cake or he forfeits his business license as well as opens himself up for a civil suit. 

His religious beliefs do not supercede the secular law in the US. His business is not religious unless he didnt incorporate it. 

It's not the customer's religion that matters. It's about the baker's religion.

The bakers religion is not more important than the customers religion.

He's not discriminating against them based on their religion.

How do you know? If the customer wants a religious themed cake (including Satanism) and the baker refuses on those grounds, then he is discriminating based on the customers religion.

They may not even be real satanists, for all he knows.

Irrelevant.

He is being asked to create an expression glorifying something he finds offensive. Freedom of speech also means you cannot force people to express themselves.

Baking or decorating a cake is not speech. He doesn't have to actually write a message on the cake that he might find offensive. But he cannot refuse to make it either.

Oh please. He just happens to send it to the same bakery? And how many times have some lefties tryied to bring satan ans satanist ideas into the equasion. I know you arent that ignorant.

Are you going to answer my question or not?

You have never asked them to make a gay wedding cake, or a cake depicting Mohammad as a pedophile.

Forcing someone to comply with the law and the normal proprietor-customer relationship is not bashing them, despite your persecution complex. 

LGBT copuples were taking part in religious-based commitment ceremonies before the 2015 SCOTUS decision on LGBT marriage so he is not attacking that decision with this attempt. 

In the video, Mr. Crowder asks for a wedding cake with the message, “Ben and Steven forever.” Some employees refer him elsewhere. One baker shakes his head and says, “No, no, I don’t want it,” apparently referring to the cake-baking job.

washingtontimes

I always wondered which side a Liberal would take, if a Muslim Hairstylist....or Barber....refused to cut the hair of an LGBT person, due to religious beliefs.

Has that ever happened in the US?

Some of us agnostics are more leery of your Muslims than we are of your Christians

One baker shakes his head and says, “No, no, I don’t want it,” apparently referring to the cake-baking job.

Like I said before, if that is the case, then the baker is in the wrong.

Actually there was a set up to go into Muslim bakeries and see if they would bake a gay wedding cake. Some would and some wouldn't.

That's the hoax video by Steven Crowder.    Not only was it made in a state which has no relevant public accommodations laws but as he admits NONE of the Muslim-owned bakeries which make wedding cakes denied him service.   The bakeries he showed in the video didn't even make wedding cakes or offer custom services.

huffingtonpost

.

In fact I'm unaware of any legitimate claim of denial of service to gays by a Muslim-owned business anywhere in the US, much less in a state where that denial would be unlawful.    And there have been no civil rights claims or lawsuits with Muslim defendants, every single case to date has involved owners who are Southern Baptists.

The cake is not religious. He has made this clear. Want a cake? He's happy to sell you one. If you want to put something on it that he finds offensive, you are welcome to do that on your own. But if you want him to write it, you are compelling his expression and no one has the right to do that.

You're correct that the baker has no obligation to put a message which he finds offensive on a cake, and you're right that a cake itself is not religious.    That's one reason why he'll lose his appeal regarding his refusal to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.

In the video, Mr. Crowder asks for a wedding cake with the message, “Ben and Steven forever.” Some employees refer him elsewhere. One baker shakes his head and says, “No, no, I don’t want it,” apparently referring to the cake-baking job.

The entire video is a hoax.    Right wingers are so easily duped.

huffingtonpost

very much so

He is being asked to create an expression glorifying something he finds offensive. Freedom of speech also means you cannot force people to express themselves.

The "compelled speech" doctrine has limits but I don't know whether that doctrine extends just to graphics or messages which the general public would find offensive or which the business owner personally finds offensive.   

.

It's not the customer's religion that matters. It's about the baker's religion. He's not discriminating against them based on their religion. 

In general it is the customer's religious affiliation which is protected under public accommodations laws.   For example a traditional Southern Baptist might find a Star of David offensive because his cult is historically quite antisemitic, but it's very unlikely a court would permit a denial of service on that basis.    I believe the legal question is whether the public would confuse the customer's speech with that of the baker, so a baker who makes such custom messages would have an attenuated interest in a message which isn't generally offensive to the public (like a Nazi Swastika or a Dixie Swastika).

And HuffPo proves it?

The video itself proves it, and Crowder himself admits it.    None of the bakeries which made custom wedding cakes denied him service.    The ones shown in the video either didn't make cakes or didn't offer any custom services.

Moreover a denial of service where the video was made would have been perfectly legal, unlike the states where the bigoted Christians denied service.    The other aspect is that Crowder is both homophobic and Islamophobic, so his interest was in smearing both groups.   So it was a hoax on multiple levels but right wingers simply aren't smart enough to understand that.

If "Queers For Palestine" were in Palestine they would have to move to Israel.

You mean where they might be stabbed to death by a Jewish extremist?

bbc

You love to throw the word "bigot" around it seems. He never chose to not sell them a wedding cake, it simply declined to decorate it the way they wanted.

Why are the LGBT crowd so happy to sue, when they have multiple choices to purchase elsewhere??

So...go to the next shop down the street.

Hypocritical to the utmost extreme they are.

You don't see Muslim throwing homosexuals from rooftops or massacring 49 in a night club? Are you sure you don't know about these things?

That's illegal here. And there are many people who voiced outrage over such incidents. What's your point?

But gay cakes you care about?

I care when someone violates the law and discriminates. That's one thing that your examples and the baker have in common: their actions were illegal. And what exactly is a "gay cake?" Is it made with different ingredients?

The LGBTQ2AAIP community shouldn't be using the government as a cudgel against their fellow citizens.

Then "fellow citizens" shouldn't be in business if they think they need to violate the law! And why shouldn't such violations be addressed? Violators should just get a free pass?

The entire video is a hoax.

I did not realize that. Thanks for the clarification.

So...go to the next shop down the street.

Why? Why should I let discrimination or violations of the law go unopposed?

It depends on the service. If you want a cake, he'll sell you one. If you want him to write "Happy Birthday Satan" on it, you can't force him to do it. If you want the cake to say that, write it yourself.

The problem is, the baker refused to even provide a service.

The best way to stop this nonsense is to quote the email sender a price of somewhere around 25,000. He is not refusing to make a cake, he just put a price on it. Let's then see if the emailing idiots will fork out the cash.

My guess is he won't hear another word.

Because that is how Americans resolve problems, they sue someone.  To try and say only the LGBT community do so is ludicrous.

He never chose to not sell them a wedding cake, it simply declined to decorate it the way they wanted.

False.    You're obviously not familiar with this case since you're repeating a totally bogus right-wing meme - the baker himself admits he denied service as soon as he learned the cake was for a same-sex wedding.    None of the specifics of the cake were ever discussed.

Moreover none of the facts of the case are in dispute.....the baker admitted exactly why he denied service.

Bull! They knew exactly who he was an chose him specifically.

So pointing him out as a bigot is bad, but as long as he isn't exposed as a bigot, his bigotry is ok? Really? LOL

Wait, so you are saying it's ok to bash Muslims but not Christians? Really?

so you are saying religious people should not be free to conduct business.

because SCOTUS has decided to hear this case, we should be wondering what the lower court missed?

it should be interesting

because SCOTUS has decided to hear this case, we should be wondering what the lower court missed?

What you've missed is that only 4 votes are needed for SCOTUS to hear a case and Gorsuch is now on the court.    When Scalia was on the court there weren't 4 votes to hear the Elane Photography case even though it had a far stronger argument.

The other reason a ruling for the baker is very unlikely is because the consequences of such a ruling would effectively void every non-discrimination law in the country and make superstitious beliefs superior to the law of the land.

Sounds like your only defense for this homophobic Southern Baptist is to deflect to something worse which a homophobic Muslim did.

Aren't homophobes and religious extremism the underlying problems in both cases?

I'm saying your outrage and criticism should be balanced. You care more about gay cakes being baked by Christians  against their will than you do when Muslims massacre 49 homosexuals in Florida or are throwing them off rooftops in the Middle East.

I saw plenty of outrage about what Mateen did but that isn't the topic of this article even though you obviously want to deflect the topic to Muslims.    Your comment is entirely off-topic.

Sounds like a rather desperate effort to deflect the topic to something entirely irrelevant.

And there's the truth about the Left. Do it our way or we'll use the government against you.

So now you're whining that the "left" thinks that duly enacted public accommodations laws should be enforced?

LOL.    You're really desperate.

It doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion.  Surely you don't think they just sent it to him out of the blue, although it wouldn't surprise me if some of these people have sent out the same request to a bunch of bakeries hoping to cash in on the possibility of finding someone who will not bake a cake for their homosexual wedding.

Actually what he did was refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding because at that time homosexual weddings were illegal in Colorado and he believed marriage was between a man and a woman like Obama and Hillary believed until it became more beneficial to change their beliefs because it was just one thing more they could do to destroy the foundations this country was built on and a way to destroy religion.

because it was just one thing more they could do to destroy the foundations this country was built on and a way to destroy religion.

Sounds like both your country and your cult are quite fragile.

I understand the Southern Baptist Cult was utterly destroyed in 1967 after the court ruled for mixed-race marriage.

Of course they care about homo cakes, but not anything that is really important like the treatment of women around the world.

And Skrekk assumes a whole lot that is not evident in the video as well.  Liberals read things from their imagination into everything they see and hear to make it out to what they want it to be.  Can't help them.  Liberalism is a mental disorder and they haven't found a cure for it.

Wait, so you are saying it's ok to bash Muslims but not Christians? Really?

See what I mean.

Liberals read things from their imagination into everything they see and hear to make it out to what they want it to be.

You mean like evangelical Christians?

Not all people who identify as Liberals are actually Liberals.  They may vote for the Liberal candidate, but they live their lives more conservative and I don't mean right wing.

But these sick Liberals who are attacking every foundation this country has every day are different and are pretty sick.  It's not a sickness you can catch by getting to close to them.  It's a sickness that develops after years of indoctrination by their parents, teachers and friends who have been part of their lives.  Most people are strong enough to think for themselves, but these sickos are more of a collective bunch and have been behind every downfall of a nation since the beginning of time.  Nip em in the bud would have been the thing to do, but as Yuri Bezmenoz said, you can't get through to them.

One doesn't want to participate in a gay wedding against their will; the other wants to throw them off rooftops.

I don't recall that being thrown from rooftops was mentioned in the article nor does it seem even remotely relevant to the topic, but if you're trying to compare levels of violence between Muslims and Christians this video is a good example of what Christians do when they aren't constrained by secular government, where Eastern Orthodox priests in the Republic of Georgia recently led a violent mob of 20,000 rabid Christians who were trying to stone to death 50 gay rights activists:
americablog

Islam and Muslims was already brought up before I came here.

Where and in what context?    How would they be even remotely relevant to these repeated violations of public accommodation laws by radical Christian extremists, much less to the legal questions in this case?

Liberal does seem just too nice, like gay.  How about Radical Left.  I may not seem so, but I'm a little left and right on different things.  I can understand both sides of this wedding cake situation.

But, that's not what bothers me.  It's the continual slap in the face by the Far Leftist that never slows down or stops.  They are obsessed with tearing down everything about this country.  They really seem to hate this country.  I wonder why so many people want to come here with this country being such a bad place.

All I can say is I wouldn't want to have such hate in my life everyday as some seem to have.

That's a possibility.  Anyone who gets so obsessed in anything including religion can suffer mental illness in my opinion.

You know what Skrekk, I don't attend church very often but the last time I went to the little old church I went to as a child here in the south had quite a few black members.  You should really get over this hatred and delusional opinion of people you don't even know.

All I can say is I wouldn't want to have such hate in my life everyday as some seem to have

What generated this hatred?

You tell me moco.  I don't have any hate in me.  The only thing I hate is staying up too late and then having to work all day tomorrow.  Sleep well, I'm gone.

I don't attend church very often but the last time I went to the little old church I went to as a child here in the south had quite a few black members.

I take it that you're a Southern Baptist?   You must not know much about why your cult was founded or even its recent history.

You tell me moco.

From what I gather, people find it painful to be called insulting names and denied civil rights by their fellow human beings.

Yep, those gay folks were pretty lucky to escape serious injury or death.   The cops who rescued them weren't quite so lucky, but that video does reveal the primitive and violent nature of Christians.    Seriously, who else in the 21st century tries to stone people to death?    How pathetic is that?

Illegal yes

Glad you agree.

And happens elsewhere, where it is legal. 11 Islamic nations execute people for the "crime" of homosexuality.

We have no say over what other nations do. only what happens here. But those that discriminate against gays here seem to share one characteristic with those that would harm gays: their religion.

And there are many people who voiced outrage over such incidents. But only people on the Right voiced outrage.

Is that supposed to be serious?

The Left stopped caring when they learned it was a Muslim and then said it was bigoted to mention Omar Mateen's religion.

I'm not aware of anyone who stopped caring.

That your fake outrage against Christians over gay cakes is greater than any sense of real outrage over massacring 49 homosexuals in a night club.

I'm outraged against both. But the issue is over a baker violating the law, not the massacre incident. So try and stay on topic.

and that's the problem.

No, the problem is your continuous disingenuousness with attempts to create a divide by turning the issue into a left vs. right thing, while ignoring the heart of the matter, or by trying derail.

What you've missed is that only 4 votes are needed for SCOTUS to hear a case and Gorsuch is now on the court.    When Scalia was on the court there weren't 4 votes to hear the Elane Photography case even though it had a far stronger argument.

so what?...you seem to be missing something!

SCOTUS has a reason to hear THIS case, and the case and ruling will be interesting.

They really seem to hate this country.

Enlighten me, how is expecting businessmen to obey the law the same as hating our country?

Enlighten me, how is expecting businessmen to obey the law the same as hating our country?

its amazing to me that some people seem to advocate that personal unverified religious beliefs should be able to violate secular laws and give reason for people to not do their jobs - yet some people cheer that these people shouldn't have to do their jobs or run the business the people voluntarily opened.. yet in another breath will chide and chastise those on welfare who don't have jobs. do they just want people to get a job and just not do it due to personal unverified religious beliefs ?

why do the religious feel the need to have special privileges/rights to violate our secular laws (which by definition makes them criminals) ? 

SCOTUS has a reason to hear THIS case, and the case and ruling will be interesting.

The only "reason" is that Gorsuch is on the court and he's apparently a whole lot dumber than Scalia.   When Scalia still roamed the earth there weren't even 4 votes to hear a far more compelling case which makes the same "free exercise" and "artistic expression" claims.    No surprise that the same anti-gay hate group represents the bigot in both cases.

Why are the LGBT crowd so happy to sue, when they have multiple choices to purchase elsewhere??

I know, right?   Why couldn't those black folks just find another lunch counter to sit at?   And why couldn't they stay in the back of the bus where they belonged?   All the passengers arrived at their destination at the same time regardless of where they sat, right?

By the way the state of Colorado is also one of the plaintiffs against the bigoted baker but you don't seem to be whining about that.    Why aren't you doing so?

So...go to the next shop down the street.

That's exactly what white supremacists told black folks to do.

You tell me moco.  I don't have any hate in me.

So where did your comment about "homo cakes" come from?    That sure sounds like it originated in hate and insecurity in your own sexual orientation.    In fact most of your comments reveal a hetero supremacist world view.

Why are the LGBT crowd so happy to sue, when they have multiple choices to purchase elsewhere??

Such as telling black people to patronize a different lunch counter or ride on a different bus? 

Why should we have to rehash this situation of discrimination just because other generations of conservatives need someone to hate?  You wouldn't want someone to tell you that you can be served equally at their store so don't do it to someone else.

You don't see Muslim throwing homosexuals from rooftops

Did that happen in the US?

or massacring 49 in a night club? Are you sure you don't know about these things?

During the shooting, Mateen made a 9-1-1 call claiming it was an act of retaliation for the killing of, among others, ISIL militant Abu Waheeb in an airstrike the previous month.

Key word there is "Force". The LGBTQ2AAIP community shouldn't be using the government as a cudgel against their fellow citizens. And why are they not going after Muslim shop owners? If "Queers For Palestine" were in Palestine they would have to move to Israel.

I'll change LGBTQ to African-American and see how it changes the meaning.

When did Muslims in the US deny equal service to LGBT people based on their gender or sexuality?  This is a US civil rights issue so stop trying to defect and bring in incidents outside the US. Our constitution is irrelevant outside of our borders.

I bet you were never denied service at a Christian owned business.

I was raised Catholic so I can easily fake being Christian. I am white, blonde and female, so they think that I am Christian.

I am an atheist but I have designed additions to 2 conservative churches.

I bet you were never denied service at a Christian owned business.

Straight white folks very rarely are.    Generally that only happened if a Protestant or Baptist-owned business somehow knew the customer was Jewish or Catholic.

OH, so you took money from the bigoted conservative Christians that you despise, I'm shocked.

They approached me for my abilities as an architectural designer. I was paid for services rendered, unless you believe that I should have worked for free? 

Of course not my point was you traded your principles for the all mighty dollar.

When you are in business you serve the customer, regardless of opinions or good taste. It would have been a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if I had refused. 

Black people are a more reliable Christian demographic than whites. 

News Flash for you Baptist and Catholics are Christians. Christians don't discriminate against Jews

Tell that to the protestant Christian KKK. 

We don't hate people because of their race. We are a Christian organization," Frank Ancona, the imperial wizard of the Traditional American Knights of the KKK, told NBC 12 , distancing himself from the Klan's violent history, asserting that he is seeking to "set the record straight."

By ruling in favor of Jack Phillips. He doesn't bake Halloween cakes either. This whole fiasco was a set up from the beginning because Phillips had declined to decorate a cake for a lesbian couple at an earlier time. The happy gayly weds, who flew in from back East and went directly to this out of the way bakery, would have never tried to pull a stunt like this at a Muslim owned bakery, they would have been tossed out. They could have easily had one of Jack's cakes "decorated" with a two man topper somewhere else, but they wanted to make a legal case out of it, which I believe they will lose.

Your post illustrates the fact that you know absolutely NOTHING about the actual FACTS of the case. Why come here with totally unfounded ideological opinion when this case has clear, cogent documented facts on the record? 

Your using extremes to make an invalid point.

Groups that support discriminating against others usually hold extreme beliefs

The 1964 Civil Rights Act didn't cover white Christian conservatives so quit the BS. You could have turned down the job for any number of legitimate reasons the reason you took it was to rip off a group you despise by overcharging them. You said yourself you could easily pass as a Christian conservative and I'm sure you used that to get the job.

The 1964 Civil Rights acts apply to all people. It forbids discrimination or denying service on the basis of race, creed, color, sex or age. That was later expanded to include disability. 

Who said I overcharged them?

It is a cake that is religious in theme, and since religion is a protected class, I am hoping that you will gladly bake this cake. As you see, the birthday cake in question is to celebrate the birthday of Lucifer, or as they [sic] are also known Satan who was born as Satan when he was cast from heaven by God.

isn't this whole case based on religious freedom ? wouldn't that include all religions ? where does one religion's freedom end and the other begins ? those who have the religion of worshiping Satan should have religious freedom as well, right ? how can we verify someone's sincerely held "religious beliefs" ?

should business owners post a sign on their business stating their sincerely held "religious beliefs" so people know whether or not to patronize them ? should businesses send out surveys to all potential customers to find out if those potential customers will violate the business owner's sincerely held "religious beliefs" ?

i guess when you introduce religion into government - it seems things get a bit sticky.... i guess that's why they wanted them separate..

should business owners post a sign on their business stating their sincerely held "religious beliefs" so people know whether or not to patronize them ? should businesses send out surveys to all potential customers to find out if those potential customers will violate the business owner's sincerely held "religious beliefs" ?

The Left would love that, posting signs saying the business caters to people of faith.  Every SJW or Left Wing Radical in the country, if they didn't live nearby, would be booking flights to wherever there was a business like that so they could make the owner conform to the collective.

You see, most of these people who put so much emphasis on diversity are seeing diversity as difference in color or ethnic origin, but not in thought or personal beliefs.  In other words if you believe like the collective these SJW believe in you can be any color in the rainbow, but you do not have the freedom to believe the way you want to believe or practice your beliefs the way you want to practice them.  And you will conform or else, plus these people are always game for taking someone else money if they don't have to work for it.

The Left would love that, posting signs saying the business caters to people of faith.  Every SJW or Left Wing Radical in the country, if they didn't live nearby, would be booking flights to wherever there was a business like that so they could make the owner conform to the collective.

i do not see that as exclusively to the "left", it seems the "right" has issues with religion as well - it just depends on the religion in question i suppose huh ?

You see, most of these people who put so much emphasis on diversity are seeing diversity as difference in color or ethnic origin, but not in thought or personal beliefs. 

you don't think people of different ethnic origins have different thoughts or different personal beliefs ? how interesting... or maybe they do and it invalidates your statement ?

In other words if you believe like the collective these SJW believe in you can be any color in the rainbow, but you do not have the freedom to believe the way you want to believe or practice your beliefs the way you want to practice them. 

that's an odd statement since religious beliefs are apart of both parties and not exclusive to one or the other. maybe its not the religious beliefs that are in question - maybe the application of the beliefs infringing on secular laws and being held to supersede our secular laws ?

its odd that the "right" will make such statements and then in the same breath just state that the "left" protects Muslims even tho the "left" has many Christians in its ranks - interesting huh ? according to your statement - the "left" wouldn't be protecting Muslims huh ?

And you will conform or else, plus these people are always game for taking someone else money if they don't have to work for it.

that's not exclusive to just one party either

Actually, the left would love it if business owners just did their fucking jobs.  If this homophobe would have just baked the fucking cake, and put the fucking rainbow on it like he would do for any little girl wanting a rainbow on her birthday cake, then nobody in America would even know who this ass clown is.  But instead, he played your crowd like a fiddle and made a bunch of money from you all.  Yes, he knew he was bound to lose and would end up with a hefty bill for the ordeal, but he also knows there's a million religious nutjobs out there who will jump at the chance to donate money to his cause, to the point where he is going to get a nice payday from a big swath of suckers.  Maybe he's smarter than everyone is giving him credit for. 

Maybe he's smarter than everyone is giving him credit for.

Or maybe everyone else is dumber than we realize?

In other words if you believe like the collective these SJW believe in you can be any color in the rainbow, but you do not have the freedom to believe the way you want to believe or practice your beliefs the way you want to practice them.

An intelligent business owner is smart enough to both keep their religious and political views out of a business and only be interested in happy return customers and the color green. A for-profit business is about making money to support yourself or your family, so you don't want to insult your customers by bringing either politics or religion in a place where they don't belong.

If you have strong views on either religion or politics then use the profits to support the groups of your choice, but keep your business and your relgious/political views separate.  

 the left would love it if business owners just did their fucking jobs.  If this homophobe would have just baked the fucking cake, and put the fucking rainbow on it like he 

Sort of like the butthole coffe shop owner in Seattle huh. He should have just kept his mouth shut and served them their coffe drinks. 

mmmmm .... cake

I agree.  He should have told those Christian homophobes that Jesus is so hot that he wants to fuck him in the ass, and then he should have taken their order.

No according to you and how the baker and flowershop owner or photographer should just have kept their mouth shut and their opinions to tbemsel es and served anyone, he should have just kept his trap shut and served them coffee. But then that would have been out of character for those like him. 

No according to you and how the baker and flowershop owner or photographer should just have kept their mouth shut and their opinions to tbemsel es

And you're basing that on what?  Obviously not anything I actually said.

But that's different./s

The Left would love that, posting signs saying the business caters to people of faith.

Actually....it would save me a lot of trouble. I would avoid those businesses if I could

Actually....it would save me a lot of trouble. I would avoid those businesses if I could

I agree.

I don't believe in supporting religious zealots who turn around and use their profits to discriminate and fight against civil rights because their supernatural being tells them to.

Phillips knew he was being set up from the very beginning, that's why he turned them down.

Phillips knew he was being set up from the very beginning, that's why he turned them down.

Legally he should have made the cake. A business doesn't have the right to refuse a customer service because of the customer's religious beliefs. 

I don't believe in supporting religious zealots who turn around and use their profits to discriminate and fight against civil rights because their supernatural being tells them to.

There is nothing in the gospels that Jesus supports discrimination. Leviticus is part of the Old Testament and I doubt that this guy is living by the teachings of Leviticus. He looks well shaven, among other things. 

There is nothing in the gospels that Jesus supports discrimination

It depends on the sect and their interpretation of what Yeshua supports.

Some say that Yeshua affirmed the old laws instead of destroyed them.

Christianity is a smorgasbord of differing beliefs on the rules that Yahweh/Yeshua expect followed to the letter in order to save a person's soul from being eternally damned and tormented for not following the rules laid down by Yahweh/Yeshua for things that did not happen in the Garden of Eden because there was no Adam and Eve and therefore no original sin to be atoned for.

If you find all of this confusing, just ask 10 Christians from 10 different sects of Christianity and I am confident that it will be even more confusing after they answer.

Some say that Yeshua affirmed the old laws instead of destroyed them.

This supposed Jesus said something along the lines of "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."    That sounds a lot like support for a separation of church and state, and an order for his followers to obey secular laws.

Legally he should have made the cake. A business doesn't have the right to refuse a customer service because of the customer's religious beliefs.

I'd be interested to see the satan cake case go to court due to the competing federal claims.

We already know from "Newman v Piggie Park" that the customer's protected class of race trumps the business owner's religious views.    That should hold true regardless of which protected class the owner infringes, but I think there's a difference between religious affiliation (which is definitely protected) and religious content which infringes the "compelled speech" doctrine.    I don't know where that line is but I'd compare this case to a situation where an antisemitic Southern Baptist baker refuses to put a Star of David on a cake.    I suspect it would be illegal because that symbol isn't generally offensive even if it offends the baker.  

Similarly the same-sex wedding cake denial could be directly equated to a denial for a mixed-race marriage or a denial  of a cake for a bar mitzvah, none of which would be legal.

an order for his followers to obey secular laws.

I agree.

I was referencing the Leviticus passages that believers cherry pick to justify their fear of homosexuality.

You haven't seen any Christians going into a business that is obviously LGBT and asking for something that is without a doubt a cut to the LGBT's beliefs, have you?

Basically all the people I know who are not LGBT let the LGBT go about their lives without interference from them.  They don't search out LGBT businesses to make them bake cakes or anything else.

I want to know where all that money that has been mentioned is.  Someone should be able to provide a legitimate source for that accusation and so far all I've seen is the accusation.  Now we're talking about this case in this article.  I know the pizza place received quite a bit of money.

I don't think this was the bakers intention anyway, but I do feel very strongly about the claimants intentions.

By the way, I'd be happy to bake you a cake Hal, but I don't bake cakes.  I do make mud pies though.

I have to agree with you epistte.  I'm not a very religious person, so I can do that.  If it was me I would just bake the cake, but at the same time I see where this is going and where it has been and it's not about the cake, it's about the rights of the baker in this case, but tomorrow there will be something else.  Just like the statues and so forth, it never ends with the Cultural War from the Left.

Then you're not participating in the Cultural War from the Left.  Neither am I.  If you don't want my business, just tell me so and I'll easily find someone who does, but not so with the Cultural Marxist.

If it was me I would just bake the cake, but at the same time I see where this is going and where it has been and it's not about the cake, it's about the rights of the baker in this case, but tomorrow there will be something else.

The baker's religious rights are absolutely irrelevant in a for-profit public business and the more that they make an issue of this the more that they will be targeted. Our religious rights under the First Amendment are the right to believe in the god(s) of our choice and worship as we please or not to believe.  In a place of public accommodation, we don't have the right to refuse service to the public because of our religious beliefs.

The fact that the act of incorporation legally separates the owners as a person from the place of business, so he cannot then claim that he is legally separated and then also try to claim that the business is him and his religious views trump the customers right to equal service.  I don't see a majority of the SCOTUS supporting this attempt to find a loophole for bigotry.

I understand that many conservatives don't like LGBT marriage, but making a stand in a public business will likely cost them their life savings. He is a baker and not a minister and your customers are not asking for your approval of their marriage.

The business owners have multiple avenues to change this sitation;

1.)He can make the business not open to the public where he can pick and choose who he will serve as a private club. 

2.)He can stop baking wedding cakes for anyone and everyone.

3.) He can sell the business.

4.) He can be an adult and treat people as he would want to be treated and keep his religious views to himself.

LOL.....I think you folks already lost the culture war.    The vast majority of Americans not only support marriage equality but they also support non-discrimination laws.

5.)  He can move to any confederate state, bible-babble state or other red state since none of them have statewide public accommodations laws which protect sexual orientation.    Freedum!

If you don't want my business, just tell me so and I'll easily find someone who does, but not so with the Cultural Marxist.

There is no lefty cultural war, despite what you want to believe.

If this baker wants to dress like a monk, play religious music, have a Xmas tree, nativity scene or an Easter cross in his business that is his nickel, as long as it doesn't violate the health code. What he cannot do is to use his religious beliefs to deny service to a class of customers.  

The supposed lefty cultural war just wants to treat everyone as being equal and stop trying to enforce your religious views on others. We understand that you don't like certain people but would it be too much to ask not to try to kill them, deport them, deny them the same rights that you enjoy or to hang them from trees?  Jesus told his followers to do to others what they would also do to Jesus so I don't think that lefties are asking for something outrageous.  Is it really too much to ask to expect an adult to work and play well with others? 

Keep your religious beliefs at home or in church and everyone will be fine. If you respect the religious beliefs of others most people will do the same for yours. Life is hard enough and hating people only makes it more difficult, so treat others like you want them to treat you. Your god doesn't give you special civil rights or extra rights.

If you don't want them to convert you then don't try to convert them.

If you don't want them to take your rights away then don't try to take theirs away.

If you don't want them to treat you as less than equal then don't do it to them.

And so do I.  But it would be impossible to get through to you since you seem too far gone in my opinion.  The baker didn't express hatred, nowhere near the hatred you seem to possess.

I knew that had to be you.  Damn man, your picture is about to run off the right side of my screen.

The baker didn't express hatred, nowhere near the hatred you seem to possess.

Right, he merely illegally denied service based on the sexual orientation of the customers.    He's totally not a dumb bigot.

You haven't seen any Christians going into a business that is obviously LGBT and asking for something that is without a doubt a cut to the LGBT's beliefs, have you?

Basically all the people I know who are not LGBT let the LGBT go about their lives without interference from them.  They don't search out LGBT businesses to make them bake cakes or anything else.

Wow, that sounds just like treat your neighbor as you would wish to be treated. Wonder who said that?

Wow, that sounds just like treat your neighbor as you would wish to be treated. Wonder who said that?

Who knows what wacky amoral leftist would support that idea?

i guess that means LGBT public businesses are doing their job and serving the public

Guess you didn't hear about the douche bag, slimeball butthole coffee shop owner that refused service to a christian group. Or at least that is what you'll claim. 

I don't fear homosexuality to me its disgusting, but I don't discriminate against gays either.

What is it about homosexuality that you find disgusting? Is it the fact that 2 people of the same gendered are attracted to each other or is it viewing the sex act itself? 

Do you find 2 gay men as disgusting as 2 lesbians?

Guess you didn't hear about the douche bag, slimeball butthole coffee shop owner that refused service to a christian group. Or at least that is what you'll claim.

i absolutely heard about it, you seem rather upset over that business owner not serving customers but not upset over this article of this business owner not serving customers... its rather interesting...

for the record - i do think that coffee shop owner should have served the christian group, even if i understand his reasons not to, the law applies to him as well. so would you like to try to pigeon hole me any further and make more erroneous assumptions about me ?

I would have loved to have a Satan cake at my wedding.   Then i could have cut my mother in law a Satan piece as a fitting tribute.  

She is a life sucking broad that knows no boundaries .....

mmmmm...well ok then

is she perhaps living with you?  I couldn't stand an in-law living with me.

No thank god.  

I would be in jail if that happened and i think my wife would be right beside me as an accomplice. 

Wow, that's harsh. Understandable, but harsh.

You wouldn't say that if you knew her ..... in fact, i might have just insulted satan.

You wouldn't say that if you knew her ..... in fact, i might have just insulted satan.

no offense to you, but i'm honestly kind of glad i don't know her from the way you describe her. doesn't sound like a pleasant person to be around

You wouldn't say that if you knew her .....

Heh heh.

in fact, i might have just insulted satan.

Could she be Satan? Just asking.

The jury is still out my friend, the jury is still out ....

Took it years ago diving in Truk Lagoon.   Flash didn't fire so the vibrant colors don't show but it is one of those pics that got framed almost perfectly so i like it.

  Sparty On     13 hours ago

I would have loved to have a Satan cake at my wedding.   Then i could have cut my mother in law a Satan piece as a fitting tribute.  

She is a life sucking broad that knows no boundaries .....

 

10

  

We finally have bi-partisan support!!!

The bakers excuse is that decorating a cake for gays, (and evidently for Satanists) forces him to participate in the occasion. If the court rules in his favor, wouldn't it logically extend to a gun seller that sells a gun to someone who intends to commit murder? Wouldn't he be participating?

The bakers excuse is that decorating a cake for gays, (and evidently for Satanists) forces him to participate in the occasion.

Which is hilarious. That's like saying if he bakes a birthday cake, he must be participating in someone's birthday. Somehow, I doubt he would be on the invite list or bother to give a gift.

Which is hilarious. That's like saying if he bakes a birthday cake, he must be participating in someone's birthday. Somehow, I doubt he would be on the invite list or bother to give a gift.

If the couple is married by a justice of the peace or a cross-dressing Elvis impersonator then he doesn't have to be worried about being part of the ceremony. 

This guy is just a bigot is both looking for a loophole in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a judge who is dumb enough to buy his lawyers arguments. 

If the couple is married by a justice of the peace or a cross-dressing Elvis impersonator then he doesn't have to be worried about being part of the ceremony.

But somehow, baking a cake for a reception is part of the ceremony? It boggles the mind.

This guy is just a bigot is both looking for a loophole in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a judge who is dumb enough to buy his lawyers arguments. 

Indeed.

Actually the Colorado public accommodations law, not the federal CRA.    But if SCOTUS were somehow to rule for the bigot it would unwind the CRA too.

Mark your calendars....the oral arguments are Dec 5th and they should be a hoot.

I looked the word up "bigot"and it closely describes the people calling Phillips a bigot.

I looked the word up "bigot"and it closely describes the people calling Phillips a bigot.

Expecting someone to obey the law and live by the spirit of the anti-discrimination laws does not make them bigots. A business is not the same as the opinions and beliefs of the owner unless they were ignorant enough to operate unincorporated.

Where in does the Bible does it tell Christians to act in this manner?

The bakers excuse is that decorating a cake for gays, (and evidently for Satanists) forces him to participate in the occasion. If the court rules in his favor, wouldn't it logically extend to a gun seller that sells a gun to someone who intends to commit murder? Wouldn't he be participating?

it would also be akin to saying that the fashion designers for the dresses and/or suits (tuxedos) are also participating in the wedding and should be consulted first before anyone purchases their attire for the wedding (after all, it is an "artistic expression" for them too, correct ?). it would also be akin to stating that the car manufacturers that made the cars for the couple getting married (and the guests) would be participating in the wedding so they could be consulted too, along with the construction company that built the building for the ceremony (if the the ceremony is being held in a building) and the landscaping company too (that can easily be considered artistic - especially if they plant flowers or arrange things for a pleasing aesthetic).

i wonder how far they would want to take this....

it would also be akin to saying that the fashion designers for the dresses and/or suits (tuxedos) are also participating in the wedding and should be consulted first before anyone purchases their attire for the wedding (after all, it is an "artistic expression" for them too, correct ?)

Not correct if it's an ordinary suit. However if the suit somehow required special manufacturing that glorified something the manufacturer found offensive, there's no reason to force him to make it. In most cases, the only customization of a suit is in the tailoring, which is not really an expression of anything. 

Not correct if it's an ordinary suit. However if the suit somehow required special manufacturing that glorified something the manufacturer found offensive, there's no reason to force him to make it. In most cases, the only customization of a suit is in the tailoring, which is not really an expression of anything.

many suits are "artistic expressions" of the designer - not all suits look exactly the same nor designed to look exactly the same, there are different styles, the same applies to dresses as well (outside of the "ordinary dresses")

((but i do agree that usually tailoring a suit is not really an expression of anything, just adjusting sizes or lengths of sleeves or something of that nature))

many suits are "artistic expressions" of the designer

Of course they are, but no one gets to tell the designer how to design his suits.

no one gets to tell the designer how to design his suits.

I did.   Why else got to a well known Hong Kong tailor to have him make something you otherwise can buy off the rack and have altered?

Isn't there a difference between a designer and a tailor?

It seems to me that a tailor is much like the baker - both are in the business of using their talents to make slightly customized products to "suit" the needs of a specific customer.    Their products are merely works for hire.

But an independent clothing designer might design a product line in the hopes that some company might buy it.   In that regard he's far more like a painter who creates a work of art and then tries to sell it.    No wedding cake baker does that.

Not correct if it's an ordinary suit. However if the suit somehow required special manufacturing that glorified something the manufacturer found offensive, there's no reason to force him to make it. In most cases, the only customization of a suit is in the tailoring, which is not really an expression of anything.

What makes you think that the tailors' views don't apply if the bakers and the florist's views are relevant?

Let me put it to you this way.  If you want to stay in business you service all the people you can.  So in saying that, these claimants could have gotten their cake baked at another bakery, but that wasn't good enough for them.  They wanted to make a case out of this and maybe get some money for free in doing so.  I would have told the baker to shove the cake where the sun doesn't shine if I had been them and told everyone I could about the incident.  And then I would have gone to another bakery that wanted my business.  In time people will change.  That's the way the Muslims look at it, in time.

these claimants could have gotten their cake baked at another bakery, but that wasn't good enough for them.

Actually they did get their cake from a better and more ethical bakery.    Then they filed a complaint with the state so that other couples wouldn't experience the same sort of illegal discrimination.    Kudos to them!

What makes you think that the tailors' views don't apply if the bakers and the florist's views are relevant?

It might. Where we draw the line on this is going to be tricky. Maybe you get a tailor who thinks that God hates a full break in men's slacks. But at least it's about the pants and not about the person buying them. In the same way, you might go to a restaurant that refuses to make substitutions and you'll take your steak done rare and like it!

It seems to me that craftsmen, religious or not, should have some say in the quality of work they turn out. And if they refuse to bend to the will of the customer, they'll just lose that customer. I kind of doubt this will turn into a national crisis.

"Wouldn't he be participating"

Not if he didn't know or had any reasonable way of knowing that. 

This man is not refusing to bake a cake for a Satanic wedding.  He refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because he believes marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  If you looked at the video or did any other investigating he said he didn't have anything against gays.  He just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

I understand the legal ramifications of this and it is still up in the air as to what the outcome will be at the Supreme Court level at this time.

Like I said, I'd bake the cake, but this is just one more thing designed to make people comply with the collective and there will be something else tomorrow.

He refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because he believes marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  If you looked at the video or did any other investigating he said he didn't have anything against gays.  He just believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Sounds exactly like a traditional Southern Baptist baker who claims not to be racist but denies service because the couple is mixed-race and he believes that marriage should only be between people of the same race.

Like I said, I'd bake the cake, but this is just one more thing designed to make people comply with the collective and there will be something else tomorrow.

Obeying the law is complying with the collective? Sounds like you would be happier in a nation with no laws. Don't think that we would try to stop you from moving.

People really don't get it, I guess. Or they're being deliberately obtuse, but I can't read minds or hearts, so I don't know. I'll try to explain:

Being a religious theme does not obligate the baker to produce the cake. It's not the religion of the customer we are concerned about - it's the religion of the baker that matters. The customer is asking the baker to make an expression that violates his religion. In this way, the Satanic birthday cake is no different than the gay wedding cake.

As has been explained many times by now, the baker has no problem baking and serving a cake to gay people or satanists (I assume). So, the baker is not discriminating against the customer because of the customer's religion.

The problem is in the baker's expression in a special artistic creation. When it comes to actually decorating a cake, the baker ceases to be merely a cook or a server of food to the public. Now, he is being asked to create art. You can't go forcing him to create something that celebrates gayness or satanism or nazism or anything else he might object to. You can't force a painter or a sculptor to create something he would find offensive. The baker is a sculptor, but his medium is frosting instead of marble.

The baker is not obligated to make the Satan cake because it's religious.

Yes, he is!

It's not the religion of the customer we are concerned about - it's the religion of the baker. The customer is asking the baker to make an expression that violates his religion. In this way, the Satanic birthday cake is no different than the gay wedding cake.

Satanism is considered a religion. So if the baker refuses, he is discriminating based on another's religion.

The problem is in the expression in a special artistic creation.

It's not an "artistic creation." It's a product made for consumption. That's it.

Now, he is being asked to create art.

See previous statement.

You can't force a painter or a sculptor to create something he would find offensive. The baker is a sculptor, but his medium is frosting instead of marble

Your bad analogy aside, it doesn't matter. he already makes cakes for weddings. So he can't refuse to make one for someone based on sexual orientation.

So if the baker refuses, he is discriminating based on another's religion.

No he's not. He has clearly said he would sell a cake to a gay person. I don't know about a Satanist, but I assume it's the same policy. So he isn't discriminating against anyone based on the customer's practices or beliefs. He is refusing to perform an expression he finds offensive. That's not discriminating against anyone.

It's a product made for consumption. That's it.

No, it's not because he doesn't make gay wedding cakes or satanic birthday cakes. He makes cakes. Period. And again, he is happy to sell his cakes to anyone.

He also performs another service - cake decorating. Again, he will serve anyone, but you can't force him to express himself in a certain way. That violates the First Amendment.

He has clearly said he would sell a cake to a gay person.

Not according to the article (emphasis mine): "Phillips gained nationwide attention after declining to make the wedding cake for the gay couple, and eventually being found guilty of discrimination by a Colorado state agency and the courts."

So he isn't discriminating against anyone based on the customer's practices or beliefs.

Yes, he is! Also from the article: "Phillips has told The Daily Signal and others that his Christian faith not only doesn’t allow him to design and make cakes celebrating same-sex unions, it prevents him from designing cakes that involve such elements as witchcraft..."

He is refusing to perform an expression he finds offensive. That's not discriminating against anyone.

Wrong! he's refusing to provide a product flat out based on someone's religion or sexual orientation.

No, it's not because he doesn't make gay wedding cakes or satanic birthday cakes. He makes cakes. Period. And again, he is happy to sell his cakes to anyone.

Making a cake, period is exactly what he's being asked to do.

He also performs another service - cake decorating. Again, he will serve anyone, but you can't force him to express himself in a certain way. That violates the First Amendment.

He didn't even get that far in the process.

And he isn't refusing to sell anyone a cake.

See first statement and read the article. he clearly did refuse service! And he violated Colorado state law in the process.

And my analogy is not only spot-on,

Not even a little.

you will see the Supreme Court use something very similar when they rule in his favor.

Good luck with that.

he's refusing to provide a product flat out based on someone's religion or sexual orientation.

Cake does not have religion or sexual orientation as an ingredient, but expression does.

He didn't even get that far in the process.

Because they didn't want a plain cake. If they were just gay people who wanted dessert, he would have been happy to help them out.  They wanted a cake decorated for a gay wedding .

“The cake, which serves as the iconic centerpiece of the marriage celebration, announces through Phillips ’s voice that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated,” reads the legal brief . “The government can no more force Phillips to speak those messages with his lips than to express them through his art.”

Being a religious theme does not obligate the baker to produce the cake. It's not the religion of the customer we are concerned about - it's the religion of the baker that matters.

so where does "religious freedom" for one begin and "religious freedom" for another end ? should the Satanists not get their religious themed cake so it won't offend the baker's religion ? which religion takes precedence and what are the boundaries ?

certainly interesting questions...

The customer is asking the baker to make an expression that violates his religion. In this way, the Satanic birthday cake is no different than the gay wedding cake.

how can we prove that this is the baker's actual religious belief ? what if he wakes up tomorrow and professes to be a Buddhist or changes his "sincerely held religious beliefs" to something else ? i could choose to state i'm a member of 5 different religions for all 5 weekdays - would you want proof ?

so where does "religious freedom" for one begin and "religious freedom" for another end ?

The customer's religious freedom is just fine. They get to go right on being satanists. They can even have a cake to celebrate the occasion. But if they want it to say "Happy Birthday Satan" they will have to write that themselves or find someone else to do it.

Baking is not expression, but decorating a cake (or anything else) is. If you and I both bake cakes, we will use the same ingredients and procedures and the cake will come out exactly the same. But if we decorate the cakes, each will reflect our own individual styles and talents. It's the difference between being a cook and being a chef. It's art, and therefore expression protected by the First Amendment.

how can we prove that this is the baker's actual religious belief ?

We can't. The same goes for the customer. We can never be 100% certain about these things. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not in the business of interpreting people's religious beliefs. Although I don't know why else he would refuse. What would be the point? Why go to all this trouble?

The customer's religious freedom is just fine. They get to go right on being satanists. They can even have a cake to celebrate the occasion. But if they want it to say "Happy Birthday Satan" they will have to write that themselves or find someone else to do it.

so if they wrote "Happy Birthday Satan" on the cake - then the business owner's religion wouldn't be just fine and he wouldn't be able to go on being a Christian or go to Church to worship or anything ?

Baking is not expression, but   decorating   a cake (or anything else) is. If you and I both bake cakes, we will use the same ingredients and procedures and the cake will come out exactly the same. But if we   decorate   the cakes, each will reflect our own individual styles and talents. It's the difference between being a cook and being a   chef . It's art, and therefore expression protected by the First Amendment.

odd... Masterpiece cakes covered this in there court case:

Masterpiece argues that the AUJ wrongly considered whether the conduct of creating a cake is expressive, and not whether the product of that conduct, the wedding cake itself, constitutes symbolic expression. It asserts that the AUJ wrongly employed the test for expressive conduct instead of that for compelled speech.

and:

The ALJ rejected Masterpiece's argument that preparing a wedding cake for same-sex weddings necessarily involves expressive conduct. He recognized that baking and creating a wedding cake involves skill and artistry, but nonetheless concluded that, because Phillips refused to prepare a cake for Craig and Mullins before any discussion of the cakes design, the AUJ could not determine whether Craig and Mullins desired wedding cake would constitute symbolic speech subject to First Amendment protections.

from:  courtlistener

so it looks like they didn't even get as far as designing it - he wouldn't even bake the cake to begin with... and he's claiming that even just baking the cake is artistry and he can't even bake a basic, plain, no design cake for the same sex couple...

We can't. The same goes for the customer. We can never be 100% certain about these things. The Supreme Court has already ruled that it is not in the business of interpreting people's religious beliefs. Although I don't know why else he would refuse. What would be the point? Why go to all this trouble?

they are very interesting questions and it'll be interesting to see the ruling from this. I guess i figure that if you voluntarily open a public business and voluntarily submit yourself to serving the public under our secular laws - then you should do just that (outside law breakers etc obviously)

They get to go right on being satanists.

And the baker gets to go on being Christian, regardless if he makes a cake or not.

Baking is not expression, but decorating a cake (or anything else) is.

When the baker actually bakes the cake to reach that level, let us know.

But if we decorate the cakes, each will reflect our own individual styles and talents.

Bakers decorate cakes according to the customer's request.

It's the difference between being a cook and being a chef.

The only difference between a cook and a chef is salary.

so if they wrote "Happy Birthday Satan" on the cake - then the business owner's religion wouldn't be just fine and he wouldn't be able to go on being a Christian

He would have committed what he believes to be a sinful expression. Consider that the customer is not being asked to do or say anything - the baker is.

To my mind, it's all about compelling expression, be it artistic or not. If you rent out a billboard, for example, (or even if you own the land on which a billboard sits) you can control what messages are or are not allowed on the billboard.

The cake is a kind of delicious billboard. 

Everything I have heard about this case is that the baker will - and has already - sell a cake to a gay couple. He just doesn't want to create a gay wedding cake. I see no reason to force him.

Bakers decorate cakes according to the customer's request.

If they want to. Usually, it's not a problem.

The only difference between a cook and a chef is salary.

Try telling that to Gordon Ramsey.

Everything I have heard about this case is that the baker will - and has already - sell a cake to a gay couple. He just doesn't want to create a gay wedding cake. I see no reason to force him.

do you believe that religious beliefs should supersede secular law and be allowed as a reason to break the secular laws ?

He would have committed what he believes to be a sinful expression. Consider that the customer is not being asked to do or say anything - the baker is.

but that wouldn't stop him from practicing his religion and his religion would be just fine (just like the customer's religion in this article as you pointed out), he'd still be able to go to Church and worship, he'd still be able to believe in his God, correct ?

religious exemptions are not something new

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/?utm_term=.8eb5032e41aa

religious exemptions are not something new

thanks for pointing out what many already knew (including myself) but it didn't answer the questions. would you like to try answering the questions ?

that did answer your question. judges have given religious exemptions over secular law.

it is up to the judges....not you or me.

The only difference between a cook and a chef is salary.

That and the embroidery on the jacket or apron. Chefs wear jackets and use $200 knives. Cooks wear aprons and wield $60 Forschners.   Been there, done that.

Try telling that to Gordon Ramsey.

Ramsey isnt taking home just $60K per year. He is a typical loudmouth chef with an ego 3x too big for his toque. 

that did answer your question. judges have given religious exemptions over secular law.

it is up to the judges....not you or me.

it absolutely did NOT answer my question. My question wasn't about what judges have given or not given over secular law. Let's look at my question again:

do you believe that religious beliefs should supersede secular law and be allowed as a reason to break the secular laws ?

do you see the word "judges" in there ? do you see anything about previous rulings about by judges in my question ? do you see anything about religious exemptions in my question ?

my question was asking YOU for YOUR beliefs (or thoughts or opinions) and not about what the judges have previously done. 

Now, would you like to answer my question ? i understand if you don't, it does seem like a tough question apparently.

Everything I have heard about this case is that the baker will - and has already - sell a cake to a gay couple. He just doesn't want to create a gay wedding cake.

Irrelevant.   Any service he offers to the general public is covered under public accommodations laws.

If they want to. Usually, it's not a problem.

If a customer wants and pays for a certain decoration, that is part of the product transaction.

Try telling that to Gordon Ramsey.

Is that supposed to mean anything? It doesn't really address anything I said.

Very relevant. Designing custom art allows the artist to approve the content.

you asked my opinion and I gave you my opinion, if my answer is not satisfactory to you, well that is your problem.

my opinion again is that it is up to our courts to decide not you or me.  the reason we have a court system, not a Phoenyx13 gets to decide system.

you asked my opinion and I gave you my opinion, if my answer is not satisfactory to you, well that is your problem.

my opinion again is that it is up to our courts to decide not you or me.  the reason we have a court system, not a Phoenyx13 gets to decide system.

thank you for the clarification - you have no personal opinion or would rather leave it up to the courts.

there is no Phoenyx13 gets to decide system (as in court system) - nor did i ever state there was, i only asked a question, i'm sorry if that question was a bit hard to understand, i'll know to make it easier next time

i'm sorry if that question was a bit hard to understand

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

ah yes, personal attacks, gotta love them, thanks for showing how well you debate how very "christian" of you, have a great day !

your are a funny one

no personal attacks here /s

i'm sorry if that question was a bit hard to understand, i'll know to make it easier next time

you have a very blessed day

your are a funny one

no personal attacks here

yes you are since you did:

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

you can lie to others verbally, but your words are recorded for all to see, you've been caught

i'm sorry if that question was a bit hard to understand, i'll know to make it easier next time

ah, mine was simply that my question could be interpreted incorrectly, so i'll know next time to make it more clear to whomever is reading it to make it better understood the first time - i never mentioned your IQ or anything of that nature, unlike you.

like i said - how very "christian" of you, have a great day

I know what I said, apparently you don't.

your comment was a personal attack, just admit it.

be honest, God is watching you.

I know what I said, apparently you don't.

i know what you said too:

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

this is a personal attack, directly suggesting i'm too stupid to comprehend your answer which is violation of the COC:

Address issues and arguments, not individual members

try again

your comment was a personal attack, just admit it.

sorry for your luck, my comment was that i should clarify my question - it is a tough question because it questions beliefs vs secular law - which is the very crux of the situation, so i stated i should clarify it better so its not misinterpreted. I didn't state you had a low IQ or even suggest you were stupid, i did question the words that were in my question tho so in your own words:

be honest, God is watching you.

and for future reference - i would appreciate if you didn't try a veiled attempt at pressing your religious beliefs on me by threatening me with your god, thanks

have a great day

come on now...be honest and just admit you where implying that I was too ignorant to understand your question.

have some integrity.  here it is so you can read it again.

i understand if you don't, it does seem like a tough question apparently.

Just admit, you didn't like my answer...so you replied with an insult. 

come on now...be honest and just admit you where implying that I was too ignorant to understand your question.

have some integrity.  here it is so you can read it again.

i understand if you don't, it does seem like a tough question apparently.

i'm sorry, i can't admit to what's not true. it IS a tough question since it questions beliefs vs secular law, the whole crux of the situation. Do your beliefs supersede the secular law or should secular law supersede religious belief ? that's the whole question and its a very tough question - so i would understand if you don't answer or don't wish to answer, its not an easy question to answer nor easy to explain your position (depending on your position). my statement never directly suggested you were ignorant or stupid - it addressed the question, unlike your statement:

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

which directly addressed me as stupid and a violation of COC. 

and now you are stating i have no integrity - please stop personally insulting me, i'd appreciate it, i have no problems debating but have no wish to engage in personal insults as you have been doing to me. have a great day

(p.s. its not that i didn't like your answer, but i didn't realize your stance is that the courts should decide - it wasn't very clear to me so i questioned it since i was looking for a personal opinion on the matter)

just admit it.

just admit it.

i'm sorry, i can't admit to what's not true. it IS a tough question since it questions beliefs vs secular law, the whole crux of the situation. Do your beliefs supersede the secular law or should secular law supersede religious belief ? that's the whole question and its a very tough question - so i would understand if you don't answer or don't wish to answer, its not an easy question to answer nor easy to explain your position (depending on your position). my statement never directly suggested you were ignorant or stupid - it addressed the question, unlike your statement:

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

which directly addressed me as stupid and a violation of COC. 

you can't squirm your way out of this nor justify it - you violated COC and stated i was stupid - then you tried lying about it, its all recorded since it's what you posted.

oh stop...you are just burying yourself deeper in doodoo.  now your are accusing me of lying.

Your violations just keep piling up.

Have a Blessed Day!

oh stop...you are just burying yourself deeper in doodoo.  now your are accusing me of lying.

this is the comment you posted:

no it was very understood, seems the answer is above your IQ.

when confronted you stated:

your are a funny one

which is denying you made a personal attack, instead of admitting it you tried just sarcastically pawning it off and then deflected by stating i made one instead.

i even proved you made the personal attack by posting the words YOU wrote and where it violates COC.

any other questions ? have a great day

Your violations just keep piling up.

please list my violations i have done with yours to prove your assertion, thank you

and the wheels on the bus go round and round.....

and the wheels on the bus go round and round.....

just as i suspected - you cannot prove your accusation

i wish i could say i was surprised.

Wow ..... now that was an interesting exchange.

It was helpful though.   Helpful to begin understanding how that mind takes it's owner to the opinions he/she holds.

Wild, wild stuff!

"Interesting" is hardly the word that came to mind when I read it, especially considering Sunshine's personal attack against Phoenyx -- which I have flagged as inappropriate.

Thats good and since you are in such a righteous mood i'm sure you flagged the insult by Phoenyx that started it all right?

Thats good and since you are in such a righteous mood i'm sure you flagged the insult by Phoenyx that started it all right?

please point out where i personally insulted the other poster - i hadn't stated the other poster had a low IQ or anything of that nature.

good grief.....nothing like irrational reasoning.  

which I have flagged as inappropriate.

oh I am sure you did.  that is what "your ilk" do.

It's already been pointed out to you at least once.   You're obviously not going to cop to it so why do you need it pointed out again? 

Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension understood your intent to insult.

For you to infer otherwise is disingenuous  as hell.

But by all means, carry on ..... it speaks to character.

It's already been pointed out to you at least once.   You're obviously not going to cop to it so why do you need it  pointed out again? 

ah yes, i've already explained that one - it wasn't directed at that poster, it was directed at my question (which is the question i asked) because it can be considered a very tough question (as previously explained). I'm sorry you were personally offended by it.

Anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension understood your intent to insult.

ah, so are you stating i don't have a modicum of reading comprehension since i didn't read it that way ?

For you to infer otherwise is disingenuous  as hell.

i'm not inferring anything - i'm flat out explaining it to you. Please point out where it directly insulted the other poster - on the other hand i can point out where the other poster directly insulted my IQ.

But by all means, carry on ..... it speaks to character.

oh it absolutely speaks to character have a wonderful day

BS!! ..... and you have yourself a fantastic day as well.

BS!!

this is your response ? 

so you didn't prove your assertion...  i wish i could say i'm surprised... but have a great day 

When a comment is spot on, nothing more need be said.   In this case one word worked.

Oh and work on that passive aggressive problem you seem to be exuding today.   You will have a much better day if you can get that under control.

When a comment is spot on, nothing more need be said.   In this case one word worked.

Oh and work on that passive aggressive problem you seem to be exuding today.   You will have a much better day if you can get that under control.

so you can't prove your assertion and are now trying to belittle me by claiming i'm "passive aggressive" so you can "win"   this is nothing less than amusing, thank you for that btw - thanks for the well wishes, but my day can't get much better its already great i hope yours is too 

No, because I didn't see any insult by Phoenyx; only by Sunshine.

do you believe that religious beliefs should supersede secular law and be allowed as a reason to break the secular laws ?

There should be some allowance for honestly held religious beliefs. I don't claim to know where the exact line should be.

Oregon v. Smith is the current standard. If a law is applicable to the general public, it overcomes the Free Exercise of religion. The case was about two men who had been fired and were denied state unemployment benefits because they were doing drugs. However, the drug in question was peyote and the men were native Americans who used the peyote in religious ceremonies. They lost.

I think people were right to be outraged by the outcome of this case and it led to the federal - and later, state - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statutes. By the way, that law was written by Chuck Schumer, of all people. What are the chances he'd defend it now, I wonder?

Personally, I think the baker could - and probably should - make the cake. I understand not wanting to take part in something sinful and in not wanting to encourage sinful activity. But baking a cake doesn't make him a homosexual and his cake will likely have no influence on whether or not the couple remains gay. 

On the other hand, I think reasonable concessions could be made by the gay couple. Like maybe the baker makes the cake, but he doesn't put two grooms on the top (or some similar accommodation) and they take care of that themselves.

I imagine T-shirt printers go through this every day. A lot of them probably pass up orders for shirts that glorify all sorts of things they are uncomfortable with. I think they should have that right. I see decorating a cake in the same vein as the t-shirts or other creative forms of expression.

The Civil Rights Act rightly made it illegal for places of accommodation to discriminate. It's not only fair, but it's practical. If one hotel won't rent to black people, then no one will and they're forced to sleep in the car. Who wants that, really? Same thing with restaurants. Why make people starve?

But those things are necessary services. A wedding cake is a luxury and one that is usually a custom design. That kind of thing should be more discretionary for the provider in terms of what he creates.

The key is that the choice to discriminate be not about the customer, but about the creation itself. For example, let's say you want a cake that says "Being Gay is the Best!" The baker should be able to refuse this project whether it is being bought by a gay or straight person because it's the message that is offensive to him, not the customer.

first off, thank you for the intelligent and well reasoned response, i appreciate it

There should be some allowance for honestly held religious beliefs. I don't claim to know where the exact line should be.

i'm not sure i whole-heartedly agree, i think it would depend on where the line is drawn..

Oregon v. Smith is the current standard. If a law is applicable to the general public, it overcomes the Free Exercise of religion. The case was about two men who had been fired and were denied state unemployment benefits because they were doing drugs. However, the drug in question was peyote and the men were native Americans who used the peyote in religious ceremonies. They lost.

I think people were right to be outraged by the outcome of this case and it led to the federal - and later, state - Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statutes. By the way, that law was written by Chuck Schumer, of all people. What are the chances he'd defend it now, I wonder?

i don't know of Chuck Schumer would defend it, i don't know him that well. i'm divided on the ruling for that case. It almost seems to me to say "even tho its illegal to do <insert act here, like drugs for example>, we will suddenly make it legal because its apart of your religion" which could be interpreted as legally allowing ritual sacrifices/murders etc just because of someone's "religious beliefs", thus allowing religion to supersede our secular laws. it seems to me that may effectively render us a theocratic society since then religion would rule.

Personally, I think the baker could - and probably should - make the cake. I understand not wanting to take part in something sinful and in not wanting to encourage sinful activity. But baking a cake doesn't make him a homosexual and his cake will likely have no influence on whether or not the couple remains gay. 

i completely agree.

On the other hand, I think reasonable concessions could be made by the gay couple. Like maybe the baker makes the cake, but he doesn't put two grooms on the top (or some similar accommodation) and they take care of that themselves.

from what i read (i could be wrong) - the baker didn't even get that far in the discussion of designing the cake. I think if he did - then the gay couple could have made a reasonable concession as you stated, out of kindness.

I imagine T-shirt printers go through this every day. A lot of them probably pass up orders for shirts that glorify all sorts of things they are uncomfortable with. I think they should have that right. I see decorating a cake in the same vein as the t-shirts or other creative forms of expression.

The Civil Rights Act rightly made it illegal for places of accommodation to discriminate. It's not only fair, but it's practical. If one hotel won't rent to black people, then no one will and they're forced to sleep in the car. Who wants that, really? Same thing with restaurants. Why make people starve?

But those things are necessary services. A wedding cake is a luxury and one that is usually a custom design. That kind of thing should be more discretionary for the provider in terms of what he creates.

The key is that the choice to discriminate be not about the customer, but about the creation itself. For example, let's say you want a cake that says "Being Gay is the Best!" The baker should be able to refuse this project whether it is being bought by a gay or straight person because it's the message that is offensive to him, not the customer.

i think another poster already covered compelling speech and legally compelling speech (probably on another article) - i think it might have been Skrekk. i agree with your sentiment that discrimination should not be about the customer. I'm not sure on the exact laws on compelling speech in that instance, but i don't think in that case the baker could be legally compelled to write that on a cake - and if that's the case then the customer could just write it themselves, no harm no foul. Anyway, thank you very much for your thoughtful response - i appreciate it 

The problem is in the baker's expression in a special artistic creation. When it comes to actually decorating a cake, the baker ceases to be merely a cook or a server of food to the public. Now, he is being asked to create art. You can't go forcing him to create something that celebrates gayness or satanism or nazism or anything else he might object to. You can't force a painter or a sculptor to create something he would find offensive. The baker is a sculptor, but his medium is frosting instead of marble.

The cake is designed by the couple so the baker cannot claim artistic impression if he is following orders from the customer. A cake is not commissioned art because if the cake is not what the customer ordered they can refuse to pay for it.

It's not the religion of the customer we are concerned about - it's the religion of the baker that matters. The customer is asking the baker to make an expression that violates his religion. In this way, the Satanic birthday cake is no different than the gay wedding cake.

That's the EXACT same claim made by the bigoted baker's fellow Southern Baptist, Maurice Bessinger, who made that claim in 1964 when he continually denied service to blacks in his whites-only "Piggie Park BBQ", stating that "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."  He lost his argument in the courts, and when SCOTUS reviewed the case in 1968 they said his religious claim was "ludicrous."

In fact such religious claims have been consistently rejected since 1878 when SCOTUS said: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

SCOTUS is exactly right.....to permit religion to be an excuse to violate the law in these cases would undermine every non-discrimination law in the country regarding housing, employment and public accommodations.

I agree Tasco, but in this case he didn't use that as his excuse.  He just believed marriage was suppose to be between a man and a woman and he didn't even want to bake a cake with or without any additional artwork on it for a gay wedding between two individuals of the same sex.

Now if the courts look at it the way you are looking at it then that will be good in my opinion, which is just that, my opinion.  I have to say picking and choosing what things you are taught in your religion to be for and against is rather hypocritical, but I realize who he is dealing with.  He received death threats for doing what he did.  He didn't do it for money as some have suggested in my opinion.  He truly did it for the one thing out of all the things the Bible teaches are wrong, he chose same sex marriage to be against.

Some have said divorce which the Bible is against.  That's why I don't get into the Bible like some people do.  I'm a sinner and always will be, but no one but me will find out if it made any difference one day.

I can see both sides of this argument and it's just disgusting on both sides.

If he was smart he would set his price for gay wedding and Satan cakes at one billion dollars.

I think that "smart" idea has been addressed about a million times now.  Turns out it's not such a smart idea after all.  You need to catch up.

Within reason.  Does one billion sound reasonable to you?

He could CERTAINLY charge more to people special-ordering cakes. That has never been against the law. It isn't a cake off the shelf, which most bakeries have and you can just walk in and buy.

Would he refuse to custom decorate that stock cake, that most bakeries do for birthdays, anniverseries and retirements for a nominal fee?

Nobody has wedding cakes pre-baked and displayed in a display case.

Just curious as to WHY someone who already knows this bakery would want to do business with someone they find to be discriminating.

How was the couple to know that?   While the baker admits to illegally denying service to 6 other same-sex couples, none of them filed a complaint with the state.    The baker didn't even have the common decency to post a sign stating which persons his SBC cult traditionally teaches him to hate......Jews, women, gays, blacks and mixed-race couples.

The story is about a B-day cake for Satan.

That is a 20-minute decorating job. Just stop whining about who has the best sky fairy and be an adult while you do your job. People should be happy that they have a job doing what they like to do.

LOL!!!!  I think if he did that it would pretty much solve the problem though.  They'd be rattled so much and think do we really want a cake from this crazy idiot?

Gay cakes, Satan cakes ...... next thing you know they'll be asking for Dogs living with Cats cakes ...... my Dog just  growled at me for that one.

next thing you know they'll be asking for Dogs living with Cats cakes

Oh the humanity. That would lead to