I think the owner of any business has the right to decline service to who ever the hell they want. It's their business.

At the end of the day, freedom of religion and belief goes both ways.

What if I think the color of your shoes is morally wrong, and on account if that, won't serve you? The only way moral beliefs can be consistently recognized by the law of the land is if there's an agreed-upon morality, an agreement on what morals deserve that recognition, deserve to have their practice protected. The problem is that people don't agree on morality, therefore they don't agree on what the law should be. And as a society we don't want to fix this, to solve the problem of ethics, because as a society we don't seem to care about philosophy.

Ultimately, to a religious person, separation between church and state is folly because they see their religion as the basis for morality, and therefore the ultimate basis for any law that is legitimate. The problem shouldn't be trying to separate church and state, but gradually eliminating the church.

If you open a business you should be prepared to obey the rules of the land. And unless you live in a backwards country, those laws will be that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, age, gender, race, etc.

Stuff your religious beliefs and keep that for your private time.

I COMPLETELY agree. I also really liked the point you made about the KKK. Well said, sir.

And OP is really dense if he is comparing a same sex couple to a fascist militarized organisation like the KKK.

I believe every business knows there are laws against discrimination though a lot of employers seen to know or remember that.

I guess you missed my point then

@arcus1: Your point is backwards and does not hold any water.

A homosexual couple does not have anything against you and your straight relationships. The KKK is racist at best and in favor of genocide of poc at worst. Comparing the two is morronic.

Anyone who has any grain of moral fiber would not serve a member of an organisation that promotes hate. I would not help out the KKK, the PKK, neo nazis, Erdogan, or any other organisation or individual that actively dabbles in mass murder, discrimination or other hate crimes.

A gay couple does none of those things, unless they are also maniacs outside of their marrital activities.

So if you refuse to serve a gay couple just based on the belief that heterosexuality > homosexuality, you need to take your time machine back to 1516. You do not belong here.

It should be the bakers' decision and that's final. I have nothing against gays, but I support the peoples' rights to.

@depinhom: In the majority of the USA, there is no legal right to discriminate, period.

If anyone would not sell me anything based on my race, gender or sexual orientation, I would sue, and I would win.

Except I'm not even talking about refusing to serve a gay couple.

If a baker does not want to participate in a gay wedding, they shouldn't be forced to. That is not the same as not allowing a gay couple in your business simply because they're gay

None of the cases that I know of have involved the bakers simply refusing to sell to a gay couple. I've heard of some instances where that clearly wasn't the problem as the gay couple in question were previous customers at the bakery

It's up to the baker.

It's his shop.

Make church's pay taxes.

@arcus1: Except it does not matter whether you are selling or catering, the comparison KKK vs gay couple does not fly for reasons I already stated. It is a vile comparison and it shows a lack of integrity. It really grinds my gears that people are siding with the bakers because a baker would never discriminate against heterosexuals. If I was a pastry chef and I refused to do someone's wedding because they were straight, you people would be posting articles here complaining about vile lgbt people. It is beyond belief.

Ffs, the USA put a man on the moon 5 decades ago, but some of you cannot get over the fact that some people are not heterosexual? It is 2016, it is against the law, just deal with it.

1. I never said that the KKK=homosexual couple. I thought I made that clear, I apologize if I didn't
2. If a baker doesn't want to cater a straight wedding, that's his choice, and he has a right to make it. The same arguments in favor of the bakers in this scenario can be applied there too (except maybe the religious aspect)

Those two things aren't really related. Scientific advancement does not change morality

@arcus1:

By making the comparison you implied as much, if you did not mean to imply it, you should not have said so.

You and I both know there hasn't been a baker out there who has denied service to straight people, so your hypothetical holds no meaning over the real life scenario of gay people being denied service. It is like comparing a restaurant who denies black people entrance vs white people. Black people were denied basic rights for decades in the USA, white people were never barred from establishments based on their skin color. So it is not the same, simple as that.

There is also no active law making in progress to uphold the beliefs of that baker who wants to deny heterosexual people. The same cannot be said for conservatives having wet dreams about screwing over lgbt people.

And no, he does not have that right. Show me a law that states one can deny service to someone based on sexual orientation.

No they are not related, and that is exactly my point. The USA leads the western world in terms of science and also in terms of bigotry. Your morals haven't caught up to your tech.

I did say that the hypothetical examples were not the same as the case with the bakers and gay weddings. I assumed it would be understood that I was taking the idea of being forced to participate in something you disagree with to the next level

When did I say gay people should be denied entrance anywhere? When did I say they should be denied any basic rights?

This is not an issue of denying service based on sexual orientation.

So...your point is making two unrelated statements?

@arcus1:

This is not an issue of denying service based on sexual orientation.

You believe people can just decide whoever they want to serve, basically overriding the law of the land as well as the laws of common decency, because of their personal backwards beliefs. How am I to interpret your OP any other way?

It does not matter if it is selling cake in their shop or catering, both are part of their service

My point is that a considerable part of the USA is backwards and primitive when it comes to morals.

Actually I never said that. I was quite clear on that matter

There's a difference between not wanting to serve gay people and not wanting to be involved in a gay wedding. How else am I supposed to phrase it?

...which is still completely unrelated to the moon landing. And why are you the authority on what morals are primitive or backwards? Are you an authority on morality?

@arcus1:

There's a difference between not wanting to serve gay people and not wanting to be involved in a gay wedding.

What is the difference?

And why are you the authority on what morals are primitive or backwards? Are you an authority on morality?

I never said I was an authority, but I know it is backwards to discriminate based on something people have no power over.

One is discrimination

The other is not wanting to participate in a ceremony the owner finds immoral

And you would be correct. So it's a good thing I never said we should discriminate against gay people

@arcus1:

If you find a loving marriage between two people immoral, you are twisted in the head. Also, gay marriage is allowed by national law, suck it up.

So it's a good thing I never said we should discriminate against gay people

If you consider people's unfounded bias against gay marriage as more important than national law AND a person's right to purchase a legal service as mandated by the state, that is discrimination.

There really is no end to the twist and turns homophobes will go through to try and rationalize their beliefs. You can try to rationalize it every way you want, if you do not support discrimination against gay people, you would not advocate in favor of people not doing their job based on someone's sexual orientation.

It's out right discrimination. It's considered illegal since 64.

Difference is not wanting to perform your job because of your homophobia..making you a terrible worker. It brings a bad reputation to you and your business. Possible backlash to you business. Costumers could fear you or your employees have other discriminatory practices. Others might not want to associate with your business. Especially if there are other convenient options.

Not wanting to go to a wedding you're invited to because of homophobia just makes you a cappy person. Why they ever invited you to begin with is a mystery.

@cpt_nice:

So by your logic a business owner has to assist with a KKK event, otherwise they're denying the KKK member's right to purchase a legal service. KKK and similar organizations have a right to free speech, right? They have a legal right to have gatherings. Should a business owner be forced to attend a gathering or cater it? For the sake of argument let's assume there's nothing violent or even racist actually going on at this event, just a social or something

Quick question. What if I hired a transgender baker to a party where we discuss the problems of becoming and being a transgender. Would they still have to come even though they didn't want to?

@arcus1:

So by your logic a business owner has to assist with a KKK event, otherwise they're denying the KKK member's right to purchase a legal service.

Oh so you ARE comparing a fascist paramilitary organisation to a gay couple? Gotcha.

KKK and similar organizations have a right to free speech, right?

They don't actually, not if they advocate some of the things their clan stands for. The supreme court has ruled that threats of violence and hate speech are not protected as free speech. Unless these clan members are of the kind that do not hate poc (are there people like those) and openly advocate the things I just mentioned, they do not have a right to say the things they say.

Same goes for an organisation of gay people seeking to eradicate straight people. Except there isn't one.

Should a business owner be forced to attend a gathering or cater it?

No they should not, and I explained why several posts ago: because a fascist paramilitary organisation is not the same thing as a same-sex couple. You yourself said you weren't comparing gay people to the KKK, yet you keep making that comparison. This is what I mean when I say twist and turns.

For the sake of argument let's assume there's nothing violent or even racist actually going on at this event, just a social or something

The KKK is still considered a domestic extremist group. Unless these people publicly distanced themselves from the kkk and then choose to gather, they still adhere to the philosophy of the clan.

If some ex-kkk members were to gather for cake and refreshments, I would happily go there and cater, as long as they did not spout any hate.

I hate people who were their socks in sandals, but I still do my job. And homophobes shouldn't be given special rights (against national law, I add again), because they aren't special. If anything, they are mentally ill.

I'd be on the baker's side.

They could also be sued for not making a cake for a black couple or an interracial couple, gay couple should not be an exception. Fair is fair, of course, unless the laws allow discrimination to everyone, I don't see why people only make the line when it comes to gay couples.

Hello. From what we know and understand of society, scientific advancement does actually contribute significantly to groups and individuals awareness, understanding, perspective, and other things that contribute to ethics and morals. Naturally its contextual and not the only factor. Access to that technology and how its applied is very important as well. There are studies that show young children, who interact with and see a variety of different peoples faces, in neutral situations are less likely to hold closely racist views. Thus living in modern times where many many young children will see many many different types of people in neutral situations on television and a computer, is going to have a greater affect on their and societies ethics, specifically attitudes and ways of treating racism. The wise spread availability and development of televisions and computers are to do with science. Thus modern time, we still have racism, however society and individuals in general are much more understanding and tolerant than generations of 100 years ago and earlier. This is just one example, there are many. Even around homosexuality. When homophobic individuals or people opposed to or uncomfortable with homosexual people, are set up to spend some time with homosexual people, allowed to be direct, blunt, ask questions, majority of times, they end up with different views, perspectives and opinions. This also explains how on average, more young people also tend to be okay with homosexuality, and generational changes.

There are even bigger theories and hypothesis including scales and greater periods of time and how morality and ethics in societies and individuals change.

I do not know about the other user, but i know a lot about ethics and morality, its a really interesting subject. Of course, the nature of the internet, anyone can claim anything, but when people ask me questions I am pretty good about answering them and pointing to sources where they can find out more.

As for the thread, well, its a type of conflict. Like another user mentioned, if individuals morality included them refusing service to you because of the color of your shoe, how would that make people feel? How about color of skin? How about facial hair? How about their criminal status? Or how aggressive they? Whether they are officially listed as belonging to a hate group? How threatening a customer is? How people feel about each one of those examples will differ, how the law works will be different. Your example with the KKK is a bit tricky in that many countries and places have laws to designate hate groups, and it could contribute to the legal/law enforcement situation if say an individual walks into a bakery wearing full KKK regalia and seems like he is there for violence and trouble. As opposed to appearing like any other customer. If an owner feels physically threatened, and such a threat can be reasonably identified its different than if an owner just feels physically threatened. Looking at one of your more recent posts, actually well, yes its just not a good comparison. Business owners of cafes don't have to accept absolutely everyone, depending on where they are and the law, its not a yes or no situation, and some groups lack certain legal rights that others have. I am personally not sure on the specifics with the KKK, otherwise I would be more specific. Scientifically as far as generalizations, homosexuality would be grouped in with ethnicity, nationality, hair color, aspects of people that are, as opposed to generalized groups based on peoples actions, willingness to commit crime, or ideologies formed around hate. Many other ways to group people too, profession, medical conditions. Some businesses can refuse individuals the ability to do something based on height, but more to do with safety. Certain short or tall people can't ride certain amusement park rides for safety reasons. Except that 'belief' is usually concrete, and objective. Not as personal as some other beliefs.

Some countries and places point of contention is well, its how some view religion, and where some people think ethics and morals originate from and their understanding of government and authority. Why many places attempt to be secular, how other people attempt mental gymnastics to make one thing song like a different thing. It sucks for a lot of people now, but in a few decades this won't matter as much, as society will advance to a point where our attention will be elsewhere, homosexuality will be understood, accepted more widespread and laws will reflect this and then eventually bakers themselves, won't care what orientation their customers are, as long as they pay and hopefully are friendly/polite.

I still don't understand what's the point of bringing moral into it when it's never universal. In some countries, murders may even be morally encourage or acceptable in the past, gay marriage was legal in some culture throughout history, incest is actually culturally accepted in some countries at some points in history. I'm not sure when people talking about moral, they're talking about their moral or some kind of universal morality I'm not aware of that exist.

Some of you are missing the point. If a gay couple walks into a bakery and wants to buy a cake then turning them away is discrimination.

The current situation is whether or not a religious baker should be forced to bake a special cake celebrating a gay wedding. Gay marriage is still immoral in the eyes of many religions and to respect the freedom of religion (which might I add has higher priority than discrimination laws) the baker shouldn't be forced to celebrate something that their religion is so deeply against.

If you don't like OP's KKK analogy I have another one for you.

Let's say we have a Christian walk into a Muslim restaurant. They have nothing against him so he can walk in there and order whatever he liked. If they turn him down for being a Christian there is a problem with discrimination. This is analogous to a gay couple walking into a bakery and picking up a cake.

The current situation is more akin to the following: A Christian walks into a Muslim restaurant. He demands they serve him pork. They say no because their religion prohibits the consumption of pork so they will not condone this. They have no issues if it is done elsewhere but they will take no part in it.

Actually, you can't demand what's served outside the menu, you don't order ramen at the McDonald's. The Muslim can't really put it in the menu that serving a Christian is against his religion belief.

@poeticwarrior: and Christian owned bakeries don't have specialized cakes for gay weddings on their menu.

@johncena69swag: I think your analogy with the Muslim and Christian is a much better way of describing this than the KKK way. Only issue though is they could say we don't make that here has we only sell halal and pork is haram, where a bakery can't say we don't sell "gay" cakes. But that little bit aside you made a much better analogy! :D

And they didn't order a specialized cakes for gay wedding, they order a specialized cake for a wedding. What the bakery discriminated against are the people ordering them, not what they order.

Do gay people have different digestive systems than heterosexuals? Or even diets? Are gay wedding cakes different from straight wedding cakes? Like, more sugar?

The stupidity by the conservatives in this thread is unbelievable.

There is a difference.

A gay couple could walk in and buy a generic cake and have no issues. There is absolutely no reason to turn down something like this:

The problems come when we have cakes such as these. If it goes against the baker's personal beliefs then they should have every right to turn this down:

@johncena69swag said:

Never had a Muslim employee sell you a Bacon Cheeseburger at McDonalds? If they refused to, what do you think their management should do? What if all the servers just happen to be Muslim but the type that won't give you a bacon cheeseburger? What if when they are hiring, there is a Muslim who is willing to put aside their personal beliefs to accommodate other people? Your new analogy struggles in a few ways, for example, you introduce the element of demanding. Presumably if there is a Muslim restaurant that doesn't want to sell pork for religious or cultural reasons, they won't have pork on the menu. Asking for it politely, requesting it or demanding it, (because we all know those flamboyant gay people always aggressively demand things) won't matter because its not there to give. How about water? Something they would have? Except only Muslim customers are allowed it and non Muslims aren't?

That being said I am not even sure why we need an analogy. Analogies can be hard to get right. We can just focus on what it actually is, which is a conflict and clash of the rights people hold and think others can hold. Am I allowed to reserve service to individuals I disapprove of? Why and how? How strong and objective are my reasons? There are many many many Christian and general religious people who are homosexual or gay friendly. Such conflict doesn't exist for them, and then there are some individuals who cite religious reasons for justifying their own stance and rights here.. but here's the question? How reasonable, fair and objective are they? Laws over time attempt to do certain things, and they often revolve around attempting to be reasonable and fair and objective (and other things, that involve practical implementation, enforcement and take into mind limited resources so on) oh and one important part, consensus. Which is what the problem is here, because the topic is so polarizing in many places.

Except its more akin to growing pains. Eventually the demands of the gay army will be too much and in the future everyone will gay and the new conflict will be between flamboyant gay cafe owners refusing service to customers who aren't fabulous enough. All the people who think my sentence there is a realistic scenario and not sarcasm will be dead in a few decades anyway… well unless AI and robots and mind transfers, but then the conflict will be between androids/cyborgs and fleshy people and I already know what side I am on. 0100100001100101011011000110110001101111

@johncena69swag:

So now you imply that every gay couple orders rainbows cakes exclusievely and that non-gay people never order rainbow wedding cakes?

If it goes against the baker's personal beliefs then they should have every right to turn this down:

Actually the law disagrees, and thus this don't have that right. Sorry.

Saying personal beliefs are the be all end all of things is idiotic

I can't wait for the day until the lgbt's join forces with the feminists and imprison every cis straight male. It will be glorious.

I personally think the bakery owners were short sighted, bigoted, and financially stupid to boot. However, in the United States, in a PRIVATE business, if an idiot decides to not serve a customer for whatever reason, the business doesn't have to. It's really just that simple. There are lot's of reasons why this is a good thing, and lots why it can be bad. This is one of the bad ones.

This post kinda remind me of a manga with a female dominated country where they imprisoned all the guys and only use them for breeding purposes. All the characters have to crossdress as females in order to stay alive.

That's a valid point

Thank you for the well thought out response and not simply assuming I was saying I hate gays. I appreciate it

Do you see the distinction I see? How not wanting to participate in a gay wedding isn't the same as simply refusing to serve homosexuals?

@cpt_nice: Yes, it will be like Mass Effect, except the Reapers will be rainbow colored and have two little ornate figures of humans perched on top of their heads!

Also I am not gay, but I would want a colorful wedding cake like in the pictures above, that looks pretty badass. People won't sell me colorful cakes no more? I guess Jojo themed cakes are out of the question too now. Hmm, superheroes have a lot of colors as well, guess I will have to go with black leather X-Men movies look so it doesn't seem like I want a gay cake. Yes thats a joke within a joke.

::blinks:: I've known and had a good deal of really cool interaction with cpt nice for awhile now. I'm being serious, and hopefully defending his sense of humor. Trust me folks...that last part is a joke.

The Baker's wishes should be respected. We are kinda moving into a society norm where we run over one persons rights so the next guy can have his "rights" and it's not just exclusive to a "do you support gay people or not" situation. I'm not so sure how I feel about that.