Texas Bakers Receive Death Threats for Offering Referral Rather Than Making Cake...

[Jose Fly]

sure there is

the law should apply equally, shouldn't it?

Not across broad categories with significant legal differences, such as customer and business, unless you want to start requiring customers to be licensed, get permits, etc.

if a "public" business is owned by the public, i'd tend to agree

but we're talking about a privately owned business

Then we'll just have to disagree.

that's what i'm insisting on

if a privately owned business owner is forced to enter into a contract against his will, then so should the homo

Well, have fun with that.

if i was the baker, i'd make the cake for him and charge him a couple thousand dollars

Good for you.

 

[genuineoriginal]

They only became aware of that because they went out of their way to ask who the cake was for.

They did not go out of their way, it is expected that the people being asked to fill a custom order ask for details.

That raises an obvious question...have they refused to make cakes for other people who violate these "godly values", such as cakes for adulterers, drunkards, or money lovers? Or do they not even ask about those things?

You seem to be some kind of special snowflake type of moron.
If they are willing to sell cupcakes to the couple, then it is obviously not the people that are the problem, it is the custom order that is the problem.

I'd bet they've baked cakes for all sorts of people who don't uphold their "godly values". It's just that they've singled out this one thing as worth asking about.

That is exactly the point.
It is the custom order that is the problem, not the people.

 

[Jose Fly]

You and I must be talking about different cases or something. From the OP...

“We just went in there to get a quote,” Valencia told the Longview News Journal, explaining that he and Marmolejo talked with co-owner Edie Delorme for some time without issue. “Then she says, ‘Who’s this for?’ We looked at each other.”

That’s when Delorme, who attends a Baptist church, explained that because of her faith, the bakery could not be involved with the event.

Notice the baker didn't ask about the event, he asked "Who is this for". In case you didn't know, "who" refers to people, not events. :duh:

 

[genuineoriginal]

You and I must be talking about different cases or something.

Maybe you didn't read the OP?

From the OP...

“We just went in there to get a quote,” Valencia told the Longview News Journal, explaining that he and Marmolejo talked with co-owner Edie Delorme for some time without issue. “Then she says, ‘Who’s this for?’ We looked at each other.”

That’s when Delorme, who attends a Baptist church, explained that because of her faith, the bakery could not be involved with the event.

Notice the baker didn't ask about the event, he asked "Who is this for". In case you didn't know, "who" refers to people, not events. :duh:

In case you don't know, event refers to the event, not the people.
From the OP

That’s when Delorme, who attends a Baptist church, explained that because of her faith, the bakery could not be involved with the event.

“It’s not against people or what they choose to be part of,” she told the men.

 

[Jose Fly]

Looks like the baker is trying to cover a bit. She didn't ask "What kind of event is this for", instead she asked "Who is this for".

That says it all.

But really, it's a distinction without much difference. I don't know too many heterosexuals who have same-sex weddings. Christians have tried this "we're not discriminating against gays, just gay weddings" argument in courts before and it's been rejected.

 

[ok doser]

-

"we're not discriminating against gays, just gay weddings" argument in courts before and it's been rejected.

yeah, but what these guys are saying is "we discriminate against all sorts of people - whiny homos shouldn't think they're special"

 

[genuineoriginal]

Looks like the baker is trying to cover a bit. She didn't ask "What kind of event is this for", instead she asked "Who is this for".

That says it all.

But really, it's a distinction without much difference. I don't know too many heterosexuals who have same-sex weddings.

I see you are now identifying that it is the event that is the issue.

Christians have tried this "we're not discriminating against gays, just gay weddings" argument in courts before and it's been rejected.

If the event wasn't a new type of "wedding", then there wouldn't be much problem with selling a cake for an event, would there?

The traditional wedding between a man and a woman is an event with deep religious significance for many people, a fact easily proven by the number of weddings sanctified by a clergyman and held in churches,

 

[Jose Fly]

I see you are now identifying that it is the event that is the issue.

As I said, it's a distinction without a difference, no different than saying "We're not discriminating against Christians, we just refuse to sell a cake for a Christian wedding".

If the event wasn't a new type of "wedding", then there wouldn't be much problem with selling a cake for an event, would there?

Not sure where you've been lately, but same-sex weddings aren't "new".

The traditional wedding between a man and a woman is an event with deep religious significance for many people, a fact easily proven by the number of weddings sanctified by a clergyman and held in churches,

No one is arguing otherwise.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Not sure where you've been lately, but same-sex weddings aren't "new".

I have clothes hanging in my closet that I bought many years before there was any such thing as a "same-sex" wedding.

 

[ok doser]

Not sure where you've been lately, but same-sex weddings aren't "new".

not sure where you've been lately, but man embracing perversion isn't new

Gen 6:5 and GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 

[Jose Fly]

I have clothes hanging in my closet that I bought many years before there was any such thing as a "same-sex" wedding.

I guess we should inform the public that the criterion for "new" revolves around your wardrobe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The traditional wedding between a man and a woman is an event with deep religious significance for many people, a fact easily proven by the number of weddings sanctified by a clergyman and held in churches,

No one is arguing otherwise.

What you are arguing is that people should accept a same-sex wedding as if it is the same thing as a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

The abomination of a same-sex couple makes a same-sex wedding a defilement of the sacrament of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Your same-sex couple may get their special snowflake feelings hurt for a short time if refused, but to the couple running the bakery the request is asking them to forfeit eternal life in order to accommodate this perversion.

 

[Jose Fly]

What you are arguing is that people should accept a same-sex wedding as if it is the same thing as a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

Nope, not at all. You guys can believe whatever you want, including that same-sex marriages are abominations. You can refuse to attend such weddings. You can speak out against them. You can make faces and sneer. If you want to do all that, knock yourself out.

But when it comes to public accommodation, discrimination isn't acceptable.

The abomination of a same-sex couple makes a same-sex wedding a defilement of the sacrament of a marriage between a man and a woman.

That's what you believe, which is only meaningful to you. No one else is beholden to your religious beliefs.

Your same-sex couple may get their special snowflake feelings hurt for a short time if refused, but to the couple running the bakery the request is asking them to forfeit eternal life in order to accommodate this perversion.

If they can't serve the public, then they should probably re-think their decision to open a public business.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nope, not at all. You guys can believe whatever you want, including that same-sex marriages are abominations. You can refuse to attend such weddings. You can speak out against them. You can make faces and sneer. If you want to do all that, knock yourself out.

But when it comes to public accommodation, discrimination isn't acceptable.

Custom orders are not public accommodations.

That's what you believe, which is only meaningful to you. No one else is beholden to your religious beliefs.

Which is why it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to take a custom order that causes one to be beholden to someone else's religious beliefs.

If they can't serve the public, then they should probably re-think their decision to open a public business.

They didn't open a public business, they opened a privately owned business.

 

[Jose Fly]

Custom orders are not public accommodations.

*sigh*

Here, educate yourself: http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enfo.../discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

Which is why it is perfectly acceptable to refuse to take a custom order that causes one to be beholden to someone else's religious beliefs.

I have no idea why you think "custom orders" removes a business from the category of public accommodation.

They didn't open a public business, they opened a privately owned business.

See the link above. Educate yourself.

 

[ok doser]

yeah, we've had this discussion already

civil rights laws went too far and are unconstitutional when they benefit one class of citizens to the detriment of another

 

[genuineoriginal]

I have no idea why you think "custom orders" removes a business from the category of public accommodation.

Maybe you can explain why you think the people trying to custom order a wedding cake were planning on eating it in the bakery.

_____
The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

OOO)(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
_____​

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe you can explain why you think the people trying to custom order a wedding cake were planning on eating it in the bakery.

All right....this conversation has jumped the shark. I'm out.

 

[genuineoriginal]

All right....this conversation has jumped the shark. I'm out.

It did that when you tried to call a privately owned business a "public accomodation" as if it was owned by the government or met the legal definition in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wait...you were serious? You actually think the criterion for a public accommodation is whether you get your order to go or not? Kinda makes you wonder where doggie bags fit in. :chuckle:

Or with clothing stores, does it matter whether you put the clothes on in the store, or if you just take them out in a bag? :chuckle:

And what about rental stores, where you take the item out, but bring it back later? :think:

Honestly...your response was so ridiculous, I didn't think you were serious. Apparently I really, really overestimated you. But, rather than get more laughs at your expense, I'll once again see if you can be educated.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181

(7) Public accommodation--The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce—

(A) an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
(B) a restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
(C) a motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
(D) an auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;
(E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;
(F) a laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
(G) a terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
(H) a museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;
(I) a park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation;
(J) a nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education;
(K) a day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment; and
(L) a gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.​

Well look at that....bakeries are specifically mentioned in the law as an example of "public accommodation". Huh. :think: