"I baked it special"
Posted on 01/09/2014 2:37:09 AM PST by markomalley
Several recent court cases have resulted in small business owners, who create the wares and services that they sell, being ordered by a judge to sell their custom-made products (e.g., wedding cakes and floral arrangements) or services (e.g., wedding photography) to gay couples despite the small business owners' refusal to do so based on their religious principles.
If the business in question sold standard, mass-produced items, such as rings, then denying gay couples the right to purchase such things would be clearly discriminatory in the same way that a realtor would be discriminating if they refused to show a house that was for sale to any and all interested potential buyers. The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction.
However, the sensitivities of gay couples who claim to feel slighted is not the real issue. The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:
Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.
While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs' request.
Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Bake them a Mexican sheetcake.
In a culture guaranteeing freedom of conscience and the privacy of personal transactions that would be the case. Tragically we do not live in a society that validates personal choice in commercial matters.
We have politicized social transactions to the point that conscience is disallowed as justification for refusing to participate in a transaction when said conscientious objection conflicts with politically correct interests. Thus has a standard of political influence supplanted personal choice.
When I read a story like this I start to realize how understandable it is for people to turn to brutal measures to rid their country of depraved freaks.
Sadly, though, the 5th section of the 14th Amendment gives Congress very wide berth to legislate in this matter.
Having said that, I agree that "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" should be the law of the land.
That sounds pretty smart to me.
What if an atheist baker refused to bake a Christmas cake? Or a Jewish restaurant refused to serve a take out dinner to a KKK party celebrating the Holocaust? Do lawyers even use these arguments?
That's about the size of it. Or announce the entire shop is closing for "vacation" the week of the blessed event.
It becomes a matter of What Would the Marx Brothers Do
A friend of mine recently got into this business, and I asked him how he might handle this kind of situation. He says that during the phone consultation, you can figure out what kind of couple you’re dealing with. If the names are “Adam and Steve,” then he’s already booked on that date.
The problem is that behavior is treated as race, and your suggestion would be seen as saying "no blacks served." But in the application at issue here means a Jewish baker must bake a cake for KKK party celebrating a pork fest, or the Holocaust as said. They just need to assert aversion to pork is due to an (elusive) gene.
Post a sign:
“WE RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYBODY”
Bingo!
I know exactly what you mean by the yes or no response when based on a biblical admonition to do harm to no one and to do all to the glory of God. I have no problem with that.
So far as the religious rights being stomped on, I think that’s taking place now. This baker — and I read it in one of the articles at the time — said that he WOULD sell them a cake, a cookie, etc....just not a “gay wedding cake”. Since he sold wedding cakes to others, the judge said, he has to sell to these 2 gay guys even though it violated his religious beliefs.
Now, what if he said that doing that cake was the government requiring him to participate in another person’s religious faith? That would, in fact, be true.
"I baked it special"
“In this situation, the only thing that bakeries, florists, or whatever can do is to immediately go out of business”
I think they shold go the “poison pill” route and make it plain that all profits will be donated to the FRC or similar organization. Ther could even be a logo that woould be displayed on the door next the the credit card stickers making it plain that’s what’s going to happen.
And even in this queer State of Colorado “we the people “ voted in legal ballot to elevate the definition of “marriage” as the legal union between a man and a woman to Constitutional status.The Reprobates could NOT legally “marry” in Colorado.Also our State Constitution recognizes the rights of conscience-and protection of religious sentiment. Every Judge in this State is sworn to support the Constitution. Article VI of the US Constitution declares This Constitution(the US Constitution) and Laws made in pursuance to it. (Note under English construction the laws made in pursuance to to it subjects those laws to our Constitution.... and all the rest of that clause likewise is subject to the Constitution — and the judges in every State bound by it (it being an article that refers back to the primary source (the Constitution) this Judge He/she/ it (to be inclusive ) has violated not merely the Colorado State Constitution but the Rule of Law and US Constitution all in one drug induced queer opinion.
I would just bake the cake and sell it to them. Taking their money is like supporting gay marriage. It’s called business.
Where does the Constitution say we have a right not to be offended?
“Maybe filling said cake with super powerful “baking ingredients” (exlax would be good) may stop the homos from asking for our buying any cakes from said baker, at least for a while.”
Purposely adulterating a cake with a laxative would be a good way to get sued and lose a large settlement. It would also destroy the reputation of your business.
Seems to me that forcing anyone to perform a task against their will is somewhat akin to...
could it be...
slavery?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.