46 Comments on “Religious Freedom or Discrimination? The Gay Wedding Cake Case”

  1. Shame on you! He NEVER said he wouldn't sell them a cake or that he wouldn't do business with them.  He offered to sell them an already made cake off the shelf. He just would not apply his artistic talent to convey a gay marriage message.  There is a big difference.  You liar. Shame on you! Masterpiece Bakeshop  should sue you  for defamation.

  2. People should not be compelled legally to do business with anyone they refuse to do business with for any reason they see fit. I'll give you a short, and sweet example that proves that this view is a defense of civil rights, and not an attack upon it.

    Suppose that there is a small town. In this small town there is a 1 church. There is also 1 highly skilled carpenter. The carpenter is a black man. Easter is coming, and the church has decided that it would like to put up a new cross outside in the field for an easter scene. They get into contact with the black carpenter. The carpenter should not be forced to put build a cross for the church if he objects to it. Perhaps he is a Muslim, and that would not be consistent with his religious beliefs. However the black carpenter happens to be a good christian man. So morally he sees no objection to building a cross for this church. In fact he does the best darn job he can, and he makes a very beautiful cross for this church.

    That should be the end of the story, but it isn't…

    Suppose that a handful of the church parishioners are members of the Ku Klux Klan. As part of what their traditions they sure do love burning a cross. They view it as "spreading the light of jesus". Well, most people don't view it that way, but that is their view. So the Ku Klux Klan members, none of them being a skilled carpenter, decide to ask the priest who made them this fancy cross. They find out it is the black carpenter. They go to the black carpenter now dressed in Klan robes, and request for him to build a cross just like the one he made for the church. I believe that the black carpenter should not be forced to build a cross for the KKK. Nor should the Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    Freedom of association, and freedom of speech are both at stake here.

  3. This is the argument: I have freedom of religion so I can do blank. Are we really going to let people with the "freedom of religion" argument to get away with anything?

  4. A government representative of the people is great, did we really want it representing us one at a time? Governance wasn't to be the delineator of rights as they were inalienable, unquestionable and such.
    Simply we have a tug a war over the right of infliction.
    As a gay man I don't wish to be limited by this bakers beliefs. Nor would I want him limited by mine. That would be hypocrisy.
    Besides seriously are they going to win and then make this man bake a cake and take it to their wedding and have all of that energy bound up in it?
    Certainly this isn't popular but it's my truth.

  5. When twitter, Facebook, YouTube and the social medias passed policies against users' conservative beliefs, they are a company and have the rights to do as they please but the same does not apply to a Christian baker.

    The hypocrisy of the left

  6. Phillips was not denying them his service on the sole fact that they are gay. If they wanted to buy a birthday cake, he would have gladly provided them one. He didn’t want to participate in their gay wedding. You can’t discriminate based on someone’s identity, but you can discriminate based on behavior.

  7. this is my opinion on this thing I've known quite a few religious people in my lifetime and they all think that they're better than you are if you're not religious then you don't stand up to their standards it doesn't have so much to do with being prejudiced it has more to do with him thinking that they're better than you are he said he didn't do adult themed cakes or Halloween cakes either because stuff like that is beneath them that's what it really boils down to

  8. The easiest way to understand this is to separate the for profit company from the actual baker. The for profit company must provide a reasonable public accommodation to the same sex couple. If the for profit company was only involved in core religious activity it would have received an exception from the law. Baking birthday cakes, cupcakes, regular cakes and other non religious bake goods leaves him out of that legal exemption.

    The working baker does not have to bake anything he doesn't want to and a company can usually discharge you without giving a reason. Since he, the company, claims to have had to laid off 5 workers and lost 40% of his business that points to him not doing all the wedding cake work. Since he no longer bakes wedding cakes at all did he ask those laid off employees if they held the same views as him and also didn't want to bake those cakes either?

    He was offered a compromise of having either an outside contractor do the work or assigning a worker without his views which he rejected.

  9. People like you continue to equate gay behavior with being born African American .Unil the day comes they find that gay gene they have been searching for for 40 years and have not found you better stop equating he two they are not the same .You cannot choose to not be black you can choose not to take it in the ass and mouth

  10. Jack should no more have been forced to create a cake that he otherwise does not provide (even has it posted that he does not), than should a Muslim operated Mexican taco restaurant be required to provide "pork" tacos that it otherwise does not provide.

  11. In California a court just ruled in favor of the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying the baker’s actions were protected by the First Amendment, because making a cake can be considered an act of artistic expression. See e.g., http://www.IOMRAS.info, their Status page.

  12. If I own my own business I should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason . . . even bad reasons. Why? Because a government that has the power to FORCE this guy to make a cake for these guys has the power to force YOU to serve racist, homophobic, ignorant ass holes. This baker is free to believe whatever he wants and operate his business however he wants . . . just as his entire community is free to take their business elsewhere and put this guy out of business.

  13. I think the court needs to define what "participate" means. I do believe that freedom of speech through artistic expression is valid. You can not force a landscaper to make a custom garden in your property. I use landscaper because if your property is not maintained you will be fined by the city.

  14. you are all fouls, you are chasing monster where shadows exist. this entire argument is idiotic for four reasons; A. this country is a free country which means that he can have the ability to refuse business to anyone he pleases. you people are just reacting to this situation with emotions without reasoning, yes you think you are sound but you need to always challenge your standpoint. judges in any court have to do the same so if you cant do this get off the chat. B. since our country is a capitalistic country which means that there are more cake shops. they decided to make an issue form this specific incident as a type of gender shaming or revenge. I am not going to go into motive in this argument because I am not a psychologist and this is not sociology.

  15. Come to think of it. It could be that "Employment Division v. Smith" won't even apply in this case and the whole religious argument should be disregarded.

    This case involves a for-profit corporation. I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision stating that for-profit corporations can even have religious rights pursuant to the 1st Amendment at all. Hobby Lobby was an interpretation of a federal statute (RFRA, which doesn't govern state law) – not the 1st Amendment.

  16. I'm so tired of gays bullying Christians and trying to impose their lifestyle onto others. They talk about love all the time, but they're are the most hateful and intolerant group in the USA.

  17. It's completely wrong for the state to claim that someone cannot act according to their conscience. Would anyone have forced a Muslim to make the cake? If a Muslim has a right to his conscience why not a bible believing Christian?

  18. Here is a fact where this man have his shop it was against the law to practice this discrimination against lgbt people!
    It's also supposed to be against the law when you have a business open to the public to discriminate against people.
    I get sick and tired of seeing people say just go to another shop, well why don't you do that, and but if it was a hospital and not a take shop!
    These people don't get the bigger picture, and instead of saying why don't you just go to another take shop why doesn't he moved to a southern state where they don't have laws protecting lgbt-nobody stopping him from moving!!!!!!

  19. Not gender identity, gender confusionNot sexual orientation, sexual dis-orientationNot trans-gendered, trans-pervertedNot Gay marriage, sodomy marriageNo one should be forced to participate, with or without compensation, in the baking of a cake celebrating sodomy–this would be evil.(The anus is a exit point, not a entry point)

  20. This is an old vid and the case was settled but imma comment anyways lol

    First of all, I’m gay and dating someone of the same gender so just putting that out there don’t say I’m homophobic lol

    I think I side with the baker. I believe that he should have religious freedom and since he agreed to sell them anything else in the store it’s fine. Yes, he’s kind of discriminating by refusing to sell them the cake that they want because of their sexual orientation, but like he wasn’t rude about it and he’s like u can legit buy aaanything else (except a Halloween cake lol) I just can’t sell u a wedding cake.
    That’s the over simplified version of what I think. Honestly if I was the couple I’d b like oh ur a homophobe whatever I’ll go find another cake person who’s not gunna b rude and refuse to sell me a cake

  21. They did not refuse to sell them a cake. They offered to sell any cake they wanted but said that they would not customise it themselves. Stop spreading lies

  22. You can be as "queer as a three dollar bill" and no one will deny you pancakes. No one will even ask . Now when you want a baker, who is a christian, and his belief is against homosexuality, want him to bake a cake for two homo's. You should ,from the onset, realize no one has a right to anyone's services. If it is against his beliefs, the "militant homo's" need to go to another cake shop.
    Imagine if it were a gay baker, who was asked by a regular straight couple to bake a cake with a bible scripture condemning homosexuality. None of the crying, screaming and protesting liberals, would not utter a peep. Since these people think it would be ok to discriminate against christians.
    The real issue is , rights are like cars driving down the road, everyone can not go at once, so we have traffic rules. When someone gets to go, someone else has to stop. Some times you have to "yield right of way" to another car. no matter how much you want to go or how big a hurry you're in. YOU STILL HAVE TO STOP.
    The is the problem with the "militant homo's" and all the others who think only their rights count and everyone else must always " yield right of way " to them. What the "militant homo's " don't comprehend and are not mature enough to deal with, is YOUR RIGHTS END WHERE SOME ONE ELSE'S BEGINS. This is the lesson , the "militant homo's " and everyone else, who thinks they are special, needs to learn.
    Most people don't care if they're as "queer as a three dollar bill" as long as they don't try to ram it down everyone else's throats.

  23. There have been alot of cases recently where the exact point of discrimination is not being clarified. Refusing to bake a cake based on learnt behaviour is insulting to the customer as the customer cannot change who they are, the choice is to discriminate. If it were a gay Baker and an anti gay customer in this case the insult taken is not from a learned behaviour it is a reaction therefore the appropriate response is refusal of service. In the case of parents objecting to lgbt lessons based on learnt behaviour from religious teaching this is discrimination based on prejudice, a gay student refusing to attend a religious motivated lesson on homosexual morality is the correct choice as they cannot change their sexuality, religious opinions are not unchangeable and are adhered too this is a choice. If you don't fit into reality make a choice, reject the religion and reject the company of religious people who have prejudice, sexuality is here to stay.

  24. I know this video's old, but here's my take on it. Religious freedom is deeply ingrained in our nation's history. Many people came here specifically for religious freedom. That being said, my religion does not give me the right to discriminate against someone. If the baker refused to serve gay people at all, that would be discrimination. As it was, if they were just asking for a wedding cake and there wasn't anything expressly gay about the cake, I see no reason why he should have been allowed to refuse, even if it was for a gay wedding. If, however, they were asking him to make a cake that was expressly gay, then they are, in effect, saying that he needs to design a cake that violates his religious belief. To protect the rights of this gay couple, is it really okay to violate the religious rights of another? I doubt anybody would try to force a Catholic priest to facilitate a gay wedding. I know that's not the same as what's happening here, but it would still involve violating a man's religious rights.

    Religion is one of the protected areas. Should sexual orientation be as well? Of course, but there would still be conflicts when the two collide, like in this case. If religion and sexual orientation are both protected, then which one wins when they butt heads? I believe that needs to be decided on a case basis. It's not like race. The Bible says nothing about one race being superior to another, and it's only Jews who are "banned" by their God from marrying outside of their race. There's no reason why anyone should be allowed to discriminate against a black man or an interracial couple. Homosexuality, unfortunately, is mentioned in the Bible, hence the reason for this dilemma.

  25. For a FACTS show your Video is full of Holes… You need to do some research before you make your show… They went into his shop and asked for Jack to do a custom wedding cake he said sorry BUT you can buy other cakes and cookies from me. Because it goes against his religion.. He doesn't do custom cakes for KKK, anti American, same sex marriages.. BUT thanks for your Swiss cheese video

  26. I'm under the assumption that the actual CEREMONY (where the couple were legally/civilly married… back in Massachusetts) did not occur in the state of Colorado. The RECEPTION (or wedding "after-party") happened in Colorado. I think that the cake maker should make them their cake or be convicted of discrimination. By providing the public service of making them a celebration cake, he is NOT explicitly endorsing their gay marriage. By refusing to make them a cake for their wedding reception party, he is denying them a cake because they're gay. Of course, if he's willing to break the law then he should suffer any penalty that follows….

Comments are closed.