Anonymous wrote:I felt badly for the photographer in CO. I can understand not wanting to photograph a gay wedding if it contravenes your belief system..gays have made leaps and bounds advances in recent years. I wish they would leave the livliehood and belief system of Christians involved in the wedding industry alone and allow them to follow their conscience. I'm betting most would come along with tine. Live and let live? Live and let love?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So someone clarify this....if selling a cake to a gay couple for a wedding is "participating", why isn't selling a gun to a murder "participating" in the murder?

Doh!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I woukd think that if the Supreme Court decreed that Hobby Lobby can pick and choose what parts of the ACA federal law that they can follow based on the company's right to align its business practices according to the owner's religious beliefs, then a very small family owned bakery or individual sole propretor wedding photographer has the exact same right to select which events the business participates in base off of religious beliefs.

How is this case in Oregon any different than the Hobby Lobby ruling?

You may be right at the Federal level (haven't actually considered the Hobby Lobby ruling in this context, but it's an interesting question). However, some state constitutions and state anti-discrimination laws may go further than Federal law.

And yet when Arizona and TX tried to enforce their immigration laws, they were told Federal law trumps State. Funny that....

Funny that you're displaying an ignorance about how the law works. Some Federal laws are drafted in ways that basically prevent states from acting in a given area. On the other hand, some Federal laws are set as floors, but the states may be more stringent, and some are set as ceilings, but states may be more lenient. You can't make a sweeping statement to say that Federal law trumps state law in all cases, unless you are talking about fundamental Constitutional principles.

Anonymous wrote:The gay men I know tend to be VERY picky about the products and services they choose. I can't imagine them doing business with anyone -- gay or straight -- who didn't share their enthusiasm that their wedding was going to be absolutely the most marvelous, wonderful, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious event ever!!! For that reason, I think that the plaintiffs against the Christian cake baker are just trying to harass and punish someone whose moral beliefs don't embrace their lifestyle. They're just nasty buggers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The gay men I know tend to be VERY picky about the products and services they choose. I can't imagine them doing business with anyone -- gay or straight -- who didn't share their enthusiasm that their wedding was going to be absolutely the most marvelous, wonderful, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious event ever!!! For that reason, I think that the plaintiffs against the Christian cake baker are just trying to harass and punish someone whose moral beliefs don't embrace their lifestyle. They're just nasty buggers.

This goes without saying..... no doubt about it.

Anonymous wrote:The gay men I know tend to be VERY picky about the products and services they choose. I can't imagine them doing business with anyone -- gay or straight -- who didn't share their enthusiasm that their wedding was going to be absolutely the most marvelous, wonderful, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious event ever!!! For that reason, I think that the plaintiffs against the Christian cake baker are just trying to harass and punish someone whose moral beliefs don't embrace their lifestyle. They're just nasty buggers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if someone asked you to bake a phallus cake for a gay weeding? Should you have The right to refuse?

That depends, do they sell phallus cakes to other customers? If so, then yes, the law would require them to sell one to their gay customers. If it's not a product they sell then they don't need to suddenly start selling it because a customer asked.

Similarly, if they were asked to make a fruitcake wedding cake, but they don't make fruitcake for anyone, then they could legally refuse.

Sell one out of the case is different than taking a special order.

There was nothing special about this order. It was for a wedding cake, like many other cakes the company had made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if someone asked you to bake a phallus cake for a gay weeding? Should you have The right to refuse?

That depends, do they sell phallus cakes to other customers? If so, then yes, the law would require them to sell one to their gay customers. If it's not a product they sell then they don't need to suddenly start selling it because a customer asked.

Similarly, if they were asked to make a fruitcake wedding cake, but they don't make fruitcake for anyone, then they could legally refuse.

Sell one out of the case is different than taking a special order.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Hobby Lobby can establish a National Museum of Wedding Cake Art adjacent to the new Binle Museum. I'd love to see the artistry of a cake depicting men riding dinosaurs through the Grand Canyon in 3000 BC.

Enjoy the photos - tell me this isn't an art:


https://www.google.com/search?q=wedding+cake+art&biw=1067&bih=849&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=z6idVaCsJMmjNqrClugJ&ved=0CCQQsAQ

Whether or not it's art is irrelevant. You could argue that the food served at lunch counters in the South in the 60's were art too. I once had a chef tell me that he couldn't serve my kid's Bison burger without the tomato slice because his cooking was "art" and needed to be appreciated in it's "original form".

If a gallery sold sculptures, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their religion, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

If a designer sold dresses, and someone came in to buy one at the advertised price, but was turned away because of their race, that would be discrimination and it would be illegal.

Once you offer something for sale in your business, you lose the right to discriminate against certain buyers. In Oregon, sexual orientation is one of the classes that is protected against this discrimination.

And the baker sold baked goods in the shop to the same individuals.

Race and sexual orientation are different. A dress designer should be forced to design a dress for a transvestite? No.

Muslims were allowed to turn away gay individuals who wanted wedding cakes. I've brought that up numerous times and it's been ignored. Wonder why? Because y'all consider Muslims a protected class too and now are completely perplexed as to which side to take. It's laughable.

I really REALLY want y'all to win though, because you will be forced to design t-shirts for the Klan with the words of their choice. Or T-shirts for Muslims that say something nasty about Jews.

Can you point to the Muslim bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple who subsequently brought a complaint? I'd be happy to read the link.

You can feel free to google yourself for the video of the Muslim bakeries who turned down the orders for the cakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if someone asked you to bake a phallus cake for a gay weeding? Should you have The right to refuse?

That depends, do they sell phallus cakes to other customers? If so, then yes, the law would require them to sell one to their gay customers. If it's not a product they sell then they don't need to suddenly start selling it because a customer asked.

Similarly, if they were asked to make a fruitcake wedding cake, but they don't make fruitcake for anyone, then they could legally refuse.

Sell one out of the case is different than taking a special order.