Baker forced by the court to bake wedding cakes for gay couples


#1

"Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge’s finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.

“I can believe anything I want, but if I’m going to do business here, I’d ought to not discriminate against people,” Commissioner Raju Jaram said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. “I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down,” he told reporters after the ruling."

bigstory.ap.org/article/panel-baker-must-make-cakes-gay-weddings


#2

SAVINGRACE, I notice you are from Australia. This decision is to be expected and pretty standard fare in the US in states which have adopted sexual orientation as a protected class for purposes of antidiscrimination law. Is the same true in Australia, or does Aussie law take a different approach?


#3

Slightly different in Australia. A couple of States here attempted to enact their own laws allowing ‘same sex marriage’ laws however the High Court (the highest court in the land) decided last year that the States are subject to the Federal law and held that the Federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same-sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same-sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the Federal Parliament.

The Australian Federal Marriage Act does not provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same-sex couples.

The end result being the new State laws allowing ‘gay marriage’ was quashed by the High Court. Gay couples have legal protection and are recognised in regards to things like spousal support, wills, paid parental leave, adoption, banking etc. Basically all the legal rights of a spouse. They’re just not allowed to get married.

Having said that, I do think the American case above is Orwellian. Your Constitution says you have freedom of religion but in reality you are not allowed to practice it freely.


#4

Yes we can practice it freely we just cannot justify hurt someone with our beliefs. So if this baker saw a gay person dying in the street and he doesn’t call 911 because of his religious beliefs about gays that would be OK. No that would not be justifies using religious freedom.

Has or would this baker turn down Jews or Atheist from service? Does he make sure Catholics have had an annulment before he bake a cake for their second wedding?


#5

He should be allowed to “reserve the right to refuse service” to whoever he pleases. I see that sign in almost every shop I enter.


#6

“so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.” - Revelation 13:17


#7

Do you think that’s really a valid comparison?


#8

I am sure it isn’t for you. These are human beings doing nothing legally wrong. Really, it is none of his business who the wedding cake is for, is it. They are not fighting to get married in his Church and the law there says they have a right to marry and live out their lives together. Does he find out if a married man is buying something for his mistress before deciding to serve him? Does he find out if a woman who is buying a birthday cake for her boyfriend is having premarital sex? Like I said, would he refuse an atheist customer? If he really want to practice his religious freedoms he should be serving those people either should he.
[/quote]


#9

This baker has now stated that he will not do anymore wedding cakes.

What i see is that the freedoms for some are more important than the freedoms of others. Business owners are being asked to leave their religious convictions at home, the Church is being told to keep their religious beliefs in their church. Religious conservatives are attacked as being racists and hate groups. It is indeed becoming a sad state of affairs in the US.


#10

You are conflating “hurt” and “harm”. They are very different. Perhaps we may “hurt” the homosexual couple’s feelings by refusing to bake them a cake, but this is not comparable to the “harm” we would be causing them by not calling 911 if they were injured.

Has or would this baker turn down Jews or Atheist from service? Does he make sure Catholics have had an annulment before he bake a cake for their second wedding?

Would you be comfortable baking a cake for a “wedding” that is gravely contrary to Church teaching?


#11

I occasionally see that sign in small family-owned shops and restaurants. However, in the US, the sign has no legal standing. You can not invalidate a law simply by declaring that you will not follow it.


#12

There are multiple examples of homosexual orientated businesses refusing people based on their sexual orientation and/or gender. Somehow they can do this, but Elaine photography and other businesses can not refuse service based on not wanting to provide a service for types of ceremonies:

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12043811&postcount=671


#13

Correct, they were doing nothing legally wrong, but in Colorado, same sex marriages were not legally endorsed at the time, so the baker was under no legal obligation to endorse their “marriage” as a legal entity. He was doing nothing legally wrong, either.

It is “none of his business” who the wedding cake is for, so why are these two gay men forcing him to make it his business? He wanted no part of the enterprise and wanted it not to become his business. So why are you saying it should be?

Again, the “law there” at the time of the incident did NOT say they “had a right to marry” and he wasn’t interested in stopping them from indulging themselves, he merely did not want to take part in a ceremony endorsing their relationship as a “marriage” which is his right as a human being not to be forced to compromise his moral beliefs merely to indulge someone else’s libertarian fantasies.


#14

The baker should be able to refuse services when providing them would be a violation of his religious belief. I question the intentions of the gay couple. Why would anyone want a baker, photographer, etc. that doesn’t celebrate the “joy” of your occasion but rather finds it in conflict to their religious convictions? Had I been forced to bake this cake, it definitely wouldn’t have received my best effort. I’m shocked at the loss of freedom we recently are experiencing, here in the U.S. How self-absorbed and needy we have all become! How sad that this gay couple felt justified in taking this baker to court! The world is a much worse place when we think that the religious beliefs of others no longer deserve respect.


#15

:thumbsup:


#16

:thumbsup:


#17

I wonder how Catholics here would answer these questions: should a baker be permitted not to serve those having premarital or extramarital sex by not baking a cake for them?

On the flip side, what do you think about a baker who refuses to bake a cake for a neo-Nazi, Ku Klux Klan, or Satanist wedding? Should the baker be permitted to refuse on religious or even personal grounds?
[/quote]


#18

“Right to refuse service” is more directed at customers who may be behaving in a disorderly or disruptive fashion–example, being drunk and staggering around, small children running around the store screaming and bothering other customers, people having a screaming match with each other, or people making physical threats to the staff. This gives the business to right to have such people removed for the comfort and safety of the workers and other customers.

“Right to refuse service” does not cover the right to refuse service to the black couple, the Jewish couple, or the same-sex couple (providing their behavior doesn’t fall under the above criteria). That falls under discrimination.

Regards,
Indigo


#19

This is unfortunate, I wonder why the same sex couple just didn’t go elsewhere. This is sick


#20

Outstanding. The only common sense comment on here. :thumbsup:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.