The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

It wasn't even close at 7-2.  It has always seemed clear to me that the baker didn't refuse service to a gay couple but he refused to make a cake that violated his beliefs. He made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items like birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers but he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.

I bring this up because I truly believe that is where mainstream society has gone. We have lost all common sense in any area we do not agree. If you simply do not "believe and participate" that something is acceptable then you are a homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever intolerable title they want to give it.

With that said I think there is a case against a florist who refused service to a gay wedding that will get approved. I do think refusing service altogether is not acceptable.

The real truth is unless you actually treat someone badly then you are not guilty of anything.  Sadly this is where we have gone. It is no longer actions but the fact of even disagreeing with people that make you evil. That is a scary world and a gateway to a place where people who do not comply with mainstream will be removed.  Somehow extremism seems to be the only views we hear these days and I'm not sure how we are going to recover.

If a baker decides that putting two men on a wedding cake is offensive to their religion, then no problem.

If the same baker decides against selling the same gay couple "any" of the products in the bakery, then big problem.


I am curious on the flip though. Let's just say that an atheist owns a bakery, and a Christian customer comes in and wants a cake with crucifixes, angels and other religious imagery. Does the atheist have a similar right to turn down that customer?

Yes, atheist should have the same right. I seem to remember Walmart turning down making a Confederate Flag cake a couple years ago. You don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

Absolutely. If he refuses to serve me something he would serve you because I'm wearing a cross or a Jesus shirt then that's an issue. That's why I think the florist who refuses to provide flowers is going to lose.

Sounds reasonable.

What I never understand about these types of cases is Why would a person want to give business to a person/store that clearly doesn't like them or their beliefs?  Why sue to force them to take your money?  I could understand if say the electric company said we aren't going to supply your house with electric because your gay; but if a baker or florist doesn't want to serve you there are plenty of others that will.  It's the complete opposite of what is normally done, such as boycotting businesses or companies.

How would the electric company know you're gay? Normally most people wouldn't know you're gay unless you advertise it or force it on people. This is one of the few instances that I can think of that someone would know you're gay due to the product being purchased. The reason they are suing over it is because they want to force people to accept their way of life. I can't think of many other products that would apply in this situation.

I remember a bakery refusing to put a little boy's name on his birthday cake.  His parents named him Adolf Hitler Campbell

It's the same concept as black students sitting in a whites only diner in the 60s.

In this specific case, i think the ruling is fair. you can't force someone to produce a product they don't want to produce. My problem is that this is such a slippery slope when it comes to religion.
Going to a jewish deli and having them tell you that they can't make you a ham and cheese sandwich is one thing, if they keep kosher they obviously can't give you that product, but it doesn't single out an entire class of people. Would a muslim car dealer be able to refuse to sell cars to women because his deeply held religious beliefs tell him that women aren't permitted to drive? Seems to me to be the same principle argued in this case.

No, there's a fundamental difference, as also pointed out by Sunstroke above. The store doesn't have to provide every service or product, but the services and products that it DOES provide, it needs to provide equally for all.

I think a more contentious version of the Supreme Court case would have been if it the shop had been asked to make a cake with a non-white couple and saying that they only wanted to make white couples for the topper.

One of the Justices said yesterday that they would most likely clarify the law in the case of the florist. Obviously I don't know exactly how it will go but I see it this way. If you are Jewish and went to a restaurant then they couldn't force them to serve kosher. If that same Jewish person wanted something on the menu and was denied service because they were Jewish then it would be illegal. 

This seems to be the best interpretation of the ruling.  You can discriminate against the product, but not against the customer.

so if the gay couple asked for a generic wedding cake without a topper there's no grounds for the baker to refuse ?

^ Right.

Years ago my wife was contacted by a gay couple of out miami. they found her through word of mouth and asked her to make them a cake for their commitment ceremony (cause weddings were still illegal) They had tried 4-5 bakeries or individuals that were referred and were turned down by all of them.

She agreed and we delivered a cake to the ceremony. What they asked for was completely normal, it was a white cake with silver edible grape decorations (the family owned a vinyard) and flowers. It made no reference to the sexual orientation of anyone. Yet they had been denied service by multiple people. I thought it was wrong then, i think it's still wrong now. If there's a religious justification to discriminate against good people then the religion is morally corrupt. If the government allows it then we are all morally complicit in this.

Not sure why you think it is morally corrupt. It just goes against what they believe to be moral. They aren't forcing anyone not to be gay. The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. So is sleeping with your neighbors wife. I don't see a Christian baker making a cake celebrating homosexuality or adulatory but they would serve both the homosexual and the adulterer. I can't speak for all but in general I also think they would help either out if they were in need.

What about divorce?  If you think divorce is wrong, are you able to deny making someone a birthday cake that's been divorced?

What about interracial marriage?  Are you able to refuse to put a black groom with a white bride?  I mean...there are lots of related issues where it becomes tricky.

Divorce and interracial marriage are not protected so yes you could. I disagree with it but like someone else said ... when you have so many other options why would you want to force business on someone who doesn't appear to like you.  This isn't anything like Rosa Parks. There are typically tons of other options to use.  I know I wouldn't want to support or do business with someone who went out of their way to disrespect me.

You should try doing that to those who go out of their way to disrespect someone other than you...

Hey, now that's something to pray for!

We are jumping into examples that have no real life possibility. How would a birthday cake baker know anyone's marriage status unless they had a personal relationship and at that point if they refuse to make a cake then there are some serious issues between the two that go beyond a cake.

Again I'll ask, other than this cake situation or other very limited situations, how would anyone even know you're gay. You should keep your private life private. I'm sure that there were plenty of options for them to get the cake they wanted. That particular baker isn't the only one in the country to make wedding cakes. The reason this went so far is simply because they wanted attention and to force people accept their abnormal behavior. In life you can't make people accept you, that's where self esteem comes in.

Also, how is a cake any different from a menu item? If a Mexican goes into Burger King and orders a taco. Is Burger King racist for telling the Mexican that they don't serve Mexican food? The bottom line is that the government shouldn't be forcing people to do business with each other.

I tend to agree.  By analogy let us consider physical products rather than services. 

Can a hobby store refuse sell an African-American woman a superman figurine they have in stock? - NO.  But can that same store carry superman figurines but not Wonder women or Black Panther figurine?  Yes. 

There are plenty of stores that sell Christmas trees but not Hanukkah menorahs. 

There are plenty of stores that sell some Barbies but not Ballerina Nikki.       

I do expect follow up cases to clarify that this was a narrow opinion, with very specific facts and not an opening for blanket discrimination.

Off the top of my head I can think of; a couple buying a car, listing a spouse on a credit card or bank account, buying a house or renting a place and I am sure there are plenty more if I try to think of them.

My wife is a mortgage underwriter and she said with the exception of certain instances, she has no idea if the two guys are married, friends, business partners, relatives or Siamese twins with different last names.  I'd think that's the case most of the time.

If someone acts or sounds gay or orders with another man.  You can tell people are gay people sometimes.  It could be used as an excuse to discriminate.

Even if you can't and they refuse to serve you for no reason then I'd think being gay is a legitimate reason to file a complaint.

We were not discussing gay people in your birthday cake example. You asked about divorced people. Maybe one person in a million would over share about that when ordering a cake but for practical discussion, the bakery would never know someone is divorced when discussing a birthday cake.

I took it to mean in them not making a divorce cake. Like it says "Thank God for my divorce!! "  of "Divorces Rule" or something along those lines.

Hypothetical: 

Women goes into a bakery and orders a large cake with the words "Free at Last - Celebrating Freedom - Standing up to Tyrants" for next week. The woman doesn't offer why she is buying such a cake.  But the baker knows that on that day Kim Tony will be speaking at the local high school about being released from North Korea and he assumes that the cake is for that event.  He tells the women he likes her and is going to give her a 50% discount. 

When the women comes to pick up the cake the baker says he will see her tonight and he is excited to hear Kim Tony.  She responds, "what are you talking about this is for my brother who is getting out of jail tomorrow after spending time for throwing urine at a cop at a Trump rally." 

Baker refuses to sell her the cake. She demands the cake at the 50% off as she was promised.   

Who wins? 

^^ Customer wins...and the baker learns a lesson about assumptions.

Saw this elsewhere.....

If selling someone a cake is considered participating in someone's wedding, then isn't selling a shooter a gun participating in the murder?

He specifically said bday cake for a divorced person. It is a scenario that is so hard to imagine.

That would be a good argument except I haven't seen anyone make it. The baker hasn't said anything about being a participant in his argument from what I have seen.

Hahaha ... considering half the people getting cakes are most likely divorced then it would considerably cut down their business.

I was more thinking about small, religious towns, where a church would shun you for your divorce.  ...and then other members of that community would refuse you service, using the divorce as a blanket excuse. 

Sorry ... I missed this earlier. You are only a participant if he tells you he is going to commit murder. If you then sell or give him access then you are just as guilty. I'm guessing the baker sees him making the cake the same way.


That's a Hollywood movie. I don't think that happens too often in real life.

No....not anymore, with divorce.  But it would've been the case in the 50s in Mississippi.  My Dad married a Catholic and his Baptist town weren't cool with it.  Shit is weird.

I don't think much has changed in Mississippi. I have a friend who married a Baptist minisrer's daughter from there.

Things are fine here in Mississippi. Not much different from any other state in the deep south from what I can tell. But then again I don't really pay attention to religion, voodoo, or fairy tales too much, LMAO....

Ok ... so this didn't happen. The SC sent the case of florist who refused service for a same-sex marriage back to the lower courts and asked them to revisit the case.

"In an unsigned order, the court sent the case back down to a lower court and asked it to revisit the florist's case in light of the ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/supreme-court-flowers/index.html


I wonder what their view is of businesses who refuse service based on political affiliation ... and I'm not being a smart arse. I have to believe that since being a republican, democrat, communist etc. is not protected they are free to discriminate. If that is true ... can't a person just turn away a race and blame it on their political affilaition?

The person needs to be a publicly political person for them to come close to getting away with that though. SHS is in front of the press every day. Not many people in the world are not that publicly identifiable.

Legally though .... what would separate the rights of a politician versus a public citizen? Last week Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was forced to leave a Mexican restaurant in Washington because of protesters. Mexican is the second most popular restaurant in the US. Why can't people just deny all Republicans from eating Mexican because they won't let Mexicans in illegally?

On a moral basis I truly believe the more we separate ourselves ... either by name labeling or actual separatist groupings ... we weaken our country and society as a whole. It doesn't make anything better but easily makes things worse.

Kristen Neilsen is not comparable.  She was not refused service.  Other customers simply voiced their dislike of a government official.  Nor was this a matter of "all Republicans"  but one particular individual with specific responsibility for a specific policy. 

SHS is a closer analogy.  She was refused service because of her employment and political views.  Be interesting case if she sues. 

You are right  ... two different situations.  Considering the comments of people like Maxine Waters and Peter Fonda it just seems like they are encouraging hunting season on republicans in general. I don't think that is wise as the extremists on the right are going to start doing similar things and it won't be long until we are committing terrorist acts against each other. It seems like this thing is going to end badly before it ends.

It's not going to end. Get your affairs in order and be prepared for the new future of this country...

Sorry, the irony of complaining about SHS being unable to buy a meal in a thread about conservatives fighting to make sure they can refuse service to gay people is too much for me to even manage a sarcastic response.

If SHS were a normal citizen being thrown out of a restaurant because she was a lesbian, you would be cheering "religious freedom" wildly.

You mean those 2nd amendment people might try to do something? ;D Just joshing.

No, refusing SHS service is fine with me. It works both ways, anyone should be able to refuse service. However, it's the roving packs of liberals frothing at the mouth harassing people eating at restaurants and and trying to go to the movies. It's only going to be so long before one of those lefty nutballs puts their hands on someone and then gets totally fucked up in the process of their stupidity. Then they're going to be crying bloody murder like they usually do.

This thread is such a good read.

Long live Justice Gorsuch.

Just wanted to go back and point something out, since I have mostly ignored this thread:


CF, do you agree or disagree with the Civil Rights Act that forced business on white proprietors who didn't appear to like black patrons?

I thought I already clarified that. Yes I do. I think you should have to serve all races, all genders (both of them), all religions, all politics, and all sinners (that's all of us). I don't think you should be forced to serve something not on the menu to me, you, or to anyone else. I think the laws represent my way thinking although people want to distort them all the time.

So you're against this ruling?  I don't understand.

It seems like you're in favor of the government forcing public businesses to serve people of all races, yet your original post seemed to imply that you were in favor of the government NOT forcing public businesses to serve people of all sexual orientations.

I, like the Supreme Court, believe they should serve everyone whatever it is they serve. As well, I don't believe they should be forced to serve something they do not serve. Not sure how you don't understand that a gay wedding cake isn't something they serve to people. If the gay person wanted a typical wedding cake with a man/woman on top (which does not violate their religious freedom) I fully expect the courts to force them to serve it just as they would to anyone else. I also wouldn't expect them to serve me a gay wedding cake if I, as a straight white man, requested one. The baker stated numerous times they serve gay people but they couldn't make a cake that went against what they believed.

That's not how "religious freedom" works.  A baker may refuse service to any gay couple even if there are no figurines on the cake at all, or any reference to same-sex marriage.  See Fau's example below.

Spider there are bad examples of pretty much everything out there but that does not make it legal.  I can't believe there was a federal law that said only Nevada could do sports gambling but there was until a few weeks ago. That law should have never been put into place and as such ... it was struck down allowing states to dictate if they wanted sports gambling on their own. That seems pretty easy for me to understand but apparently not so for others as it had to be challenged by New Jersey in order to be corrected.

I keep laughing at the use of the term "gay wedding cake".   I saw that dirty, nasty, Jesus hating gay wedding cake giving a blowy to another cake instead of hammering a nice female pie like he is supposed to!"