Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If I understand your argument Dog, you are saying that if the baker refused to inscribe the cake with the verse that proclaims homosexuality as an abomination that would be a violation of the law, but to refuse to decorate the cake in the manner wished wasn't.

Your argument suggests that if a member of the Westboro Baptists walked into that bakery and requested a cake shaped and decorated to resemble a Bible with the phrase "God hates f***" on it that the baker would be free to refuse because they considered it hate speech. Talk about an absurd argument. Whether or not one agrees with the religious beliefs of another isn't relevant. That the cake requested was to be a representation of the Bible establishes that the person requesting the cake was intending it to be an expression of their religious beliefs. Whether or not the baker agrees or disagrees with those beliefs is immaterial.

Don't kid yourself Dog, the man who is bringing this suit planned it out just as thoroughly as the homosexual couple who targeted Masterpiece bakery planned their assault.

Nobody that matters wrote: If you force a business to make a cake for a gay couple, you set a precedence to force a business to make a cake for an anti-gay person as well.

It's wrong. There are other bakeries. Go to one that will make the cake you want.

Although I like the posts made by Dog and PS alike, I have to agree with the above statement and add to it. If, in your travels to find a bakery you in fact DON'T find one (a private business I'll remind all of you), suck it up and make your own damned cake. Private business implies what it IS, PRIVATE! If I ever had/have a business, yer damn skippy I can run it however I want and refuse service to whoever I want, and you can tweet tweet tweet that shyte all the way home.

Furthermore, that brings up another point. Seems to me over the last fifteen years, the media has turned into a giant pack of feeding sharks that can't WAIT for the next little outrage to blow out of proportion and make it uber political, IMO.

Why would you want to give money to a bakery that doesn't want your business?
You want to trust them to make food for you? Can you say mystery ingredient? If you don't like their rules, support a same sex bakery instead.

Good question, Fred. There's even been speculation the individuals that do these sorts of things have "agendas" of their own when doing them. I'd kinda sorta speculate that's what this might, in fact, be all about.

This legal effort is a direct result of the homosexual community targeting Masterpiece Cakeshop. You can bet your last shiny Roosevelt fiat dime that the purpose here is to force the society to adhere to the rules it has created in every instance, not just the instances which are politically popular at the moment.

The man walked into Azucar Bakery requesting a cake that resembled a Bible, not any book, not a round cake, or a rectangular one, but a cake which was a confectionery representation of a religious symbol. According to the article linked to by the OP, one of the requests which was refused was the biblical verse which proclaims homosexuality an abomination. By Dog's own reasoning, that opens the door to the argument that the refusal was made based on the creed of the purchaser.

From the article linked to in the OP:

An anti-gay activist has filed a religious discrimination complaint against a bakery that refused to decorate a Bible-shaped cake with words describing homosexuals as 'detestable'.

Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, agreed to the order last March but said they would not inscribe the incendiary words.

They also refused the elderly man's request for a design featuring two men holding hands with an 'X' over them, followed by the words 'god hates homosexuality'.

Unperturbed, he suggested, instead, icing on anti-gay scripture and the ghostbusters logo.

Their refusal enraged the man, who threatened to involve his attorney.

When owner Marjorie Silva explained they could provide the man with icing and a piping bag to design his own decoration, he stormed out and took action.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915147...e.html#ixzz3PZcfjf23

So yeah, Z, this is every bit the pushing of an agenda that the instance involving Masterpiece Cakeshop was and the same adjudicators in the first matter are going to have to do one of two things. Either they are going to have to slap Azucar Bakery with the same conditions imposed upon Masterpiece Cakeshop or they are going to have to admit that they made an error and that bakers cannot be made to accept every contract to produce a one off cake simply because they accept some contracts to produce one off cakes.

My guess is that the man who tried to order the cake from Azucar would prefer the latter decision, but would find the first an acceptable consequence as well.

So, an agenda, then......

No amount of wordsmithing will change that fact, P.

Yes, Z, an agenda to hold all to the same set of standards with regards to dealing with the public regardless of how politically popular, or unpopular, it might happen to be. Don't you think an agenda of having the government hold all to the same standard is one that is worth pursuing?

Printsmith, you assume that one is able to hide their hate speech behind a claim of religious expression. Based on your logic, the baker is unable to refuse to ice a cake with expressions such as "God hates N*****s", or "God hates Jews", if the purchaser claims those are expressions of their religious beliefs. If the purchaser wanted a cake iced with an image of Christ engaging in bestility with a donkey and claimed that was an expression of their religious beliefs, then is the baker required to provide it?

Since the baker did provide reasonable accommodations to the bigot wanting create this controversy, that is what the law expects. There is no comparison with a bigot wanting to hide their hate speech behind a claim of religious expression, and the direct refusal to sell a wedding cake based solely on the sexual orientation of the purchasers.

PrintSmith wrote: This legal effort is a direct result of the homosexual community targeting Masterpiece Cakeshop. You can bet your last shiny Roosevelt fiat dime that the purpose here is to force the society to adhere to the rules it has created in every instance, not just the instances which are politically popular at the moment.

The man walked into Azucar Bakery requesting a cake that resembled a Bible, not any book, not a round cake, or a rectangular one, but a cake which was a confectionery representation of a religious symbol. According to the article linked to by the OP, one of the requests which was refused was the biblical verse which proclaims homosexuality an abomination. By Dog's own reasoning, that opens the door to the argument that the refusal was made based on the creed of the purchaser.

From the article linked to in the OP:

An anti-gay activist has filed a religious discrimination complaint against a bakery that refused to decorate a Bible-shaped cake with words describing homosexuals as 'detestable'.

Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, agreed to the order last March but said they would not inscribe the incendiary words.

They also refused the elderly man's request for a design featuring two men holding hands with an 'X' over them, followed by the words 'god hates homosexuality'.

Unperturbed, he suggested, instead, icing on anti-gay scripture and the ghostbusters logo.

Their refusal enraged the man, who threatened to involve his attorney.

When owner Marjorie Silva explained they could provide the man with icing and a piping bag to design his own decoration, he stormed out and took action.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915147...e.html#ixzz3PZcfjf23

So yeah, Z, this is every bit the pushing of an agenda that the instance involving Masterpiece Cakeshop was and the same adjudicators in the first matter are going to have to do one of two things. Either they are going to have to slap Azucar Bakery with the same conditions imposed upon Masterpiece Cakeshop or they are going to have to admit that they made an error and that bakers cannot be made to accept every contract to produce a one off cake simply because they accept some contracts to produce one off cakes.

My guess is that the man who tried to order the cake from Azucar would prefer the latter decision, but would find the first an acceptable consequence as well.

I am unaware of any biblicial verse wherein God proclaims his hatred for "h***s" or "gays" or "f*****s". Please provide us with such verse. The "agenda" here is where individuals are attempting to hide their bigotry and hate speech behind claims of religious expression.

The two cases are quite distinct, one where an individual attempts to create a controversy by trying to force a public accommodation to perform a detestable act using hate speech that the individual tries to hide as "religious expression" and the baker provides a reasonable accommodation to ensure that the individual receives his desired cake, and the other where one refuses to sell a wedding cake to individuals solely based on the sexual orientation of the purchasers.