Yes, it is dedicated for that purpose. Which is why it is called a "wedding cake," and normally costs so much and must be contracted in advance to obtain. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Both, the buyer imbues it with meaning, buying it as dedicated for that purpose, and which purpose the seller recognizes. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
Right? Amazing what lengths people will go to to defend their argument. Reality is that the cake is not that important beyond the cake cutting photo op.
It is amazing what lengths people will go to to defend their argument. Reality is that the cake is so important that is it distinctively called a wedding cake and usually costs hundred$ and must be contracted in advance to obtain. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
It is amazing what lengths people will go to to defend their argument. Reality is that the cake is so important that is it distinctively called a wedding cake and usually costs hundred$ and must be contracted in advance to obtain. Why is this so hard to comprehend?
It's just a cake. It doesn't matter that it is called a wedding cake. It has no religious significance and is not part of the ceremony. It is a just fancy desert that has become a tradition.
It's just a cake. It doesn't matter that it is called a wedding cake. It has no religious significance and is not part of the ceremony. It is a just fancy desert that has become a tradition.
Listen to yourself. You want to argue it is "just a cake" but the very fact is that it is a special creation since it signifies the celebration of marriage - which traditionally had rooted in religious meaning - and thus as said, it is distinctively called a wedding cake and usually costs hundred$ and must be contracted in advance to obtain.
It is the significance of it that is the issue. Do not tell your spouse that your wedding ring is "just a ring" that has no significance. If you want to debate then at least be reasonable and not resort to such nonsense as arguing "It's just a cake" as if its significance means nothing.
Listen to yourself. You want to argue it is "just a cake" but the very fact is that it is a special creation since it signifies the celebration of marriage - which traditionally had rooted in religious meaning - and thus as said, it is distinctively called a wedding cake and usually costs hundred$ and must be contracted in advance to obtain.
It is the significance of it that is the issue. Do not tell your spouse that your wedding ring is "just a ring" that has no significance. If you want to debate then at least be reasonable and not resort to such nonsense as arguing "It's just a cake" as if its significance means nothing.
The cake may have significance to the couple but why should it matter to the baker? I'm trying to point out how ridiculous it is to assign religious significance to a cake. It is a traditionally multi-tiered, decorated cake. The same basic design could be ordered for any occasion if that is what the customer requests. Why does the occasion matter when all the customer is asking for is the cake and not presenting an invitation to participate in the occasion?
Stop resorting to sophistry such as by making the issue that of signing a contract rather than entering into an oral agreement.
The average wedding cake costs $582 [delivery is extra]. Some bakers prefer to charge by the slice. Today, couples pay anywhere from $1.50 to $12 per slice. A wedding with 150 guests could cost you as much as $1,800!...You should order your wedding cake at least a few months before your special day - .Study: Average Cost of a Wedding Cake
Custom cake orders require two weeks notice. Your deposit of 30% is due at the time of ordering. Buttercream flowers and an inscription are the standard decoration that comes with the price of the cake. - Main Street Bakery & Gift Shop | Columbia, SC
“Refunds are not provided for any reason. Due to our full schedule and our attention to detail we spend many hours planning and preparing before even beginning on a cake.” - How to Establish Policies for Success with A Cake Business
Without a doubt, the wedding cake has always been one of the central parts of the reception....Some modern wedding cakes are now so elaborate that they are more sculpture than pastry. More: A Brief History of Wedding Cakes - Traditional to Contemporary
A wedding cake is the ultimate centerpiece of your reception, and it should be beautiful. But just as important is taste. ..
When designing a cake we bring together elements that make your wedding cake one of a kind. Your wedding cake should be a combination of personal style and the most luscious ingredients imaginable that leaves your guests wanting more!..
Not for all intents and purposes identical with any old cake.
Wrong. The purpose for which the item is to be used marks it as special. A ring can be just a ring, but when dedicated for a special purpose is means something more than just being a ring, signifying something, and treasured for that reason. And if you create and provide something for an expressed purpose then you are facilitating it, and are complicit in whatever it is used for, whether it be a knife to kill your wife or a cake to celebration union with her.
Phillips has gone on record saying that he doesn’t judge anybody for how they live their lives. He just doesn’t see why he needs to be a part of it. He has said that if Craig and Mullins wanted to buy anything else from his shop, he would have been happy to sell it to them. Phillips just didn’t feel like he should have to create something for an occasion that he doesn’t want to be a part of, as it conflicts with his personal religious principles.
If Phillips refused to sell any kind of cake to a gay person because they were gay, I’d agree that this was an open and shut case of blatant unjust discrimination. It’s not though, which is why I’m on Phillips’ side, even though I’m pro-marriage equality and sympathetic to Craig and Mullins. When you boil it down, this case is much bigger than just whether or not it’s okay to discriminate. It’s about whether or not the government should be able to exert control over people and their businesses by forcing them to devote time and resources to something they don’t want to be a part of.
If a customer walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop and wanted a cake with Jake Phillips’ face on it, with text that says “Jake Phillips is the Worst,” should he be forced to do that? No, of course not. The current case isn’t much different, except it involves sensitive issues of gay discrimination and religious beliefs. Despite What the Left Says, Masterpiece Cakeshop is About Much More than Gay Discrimination
It can hardly be irrelevant when the baker is punished by the state for not recognizing homosexual marriage -which refusal is why he was charged with discrimination - when the state itself did not recognize homosexual marriage, in-state or out-of-state.
In the eyes of the law, one may not be held responsible in such a case, however morally the one who knowingly facilitates celebrating what is not a legal arraignment is complicit in it. The range of behaviors “complicit” encompasses is vast. Senator Chuck Schumer recently denounced Trump’s behavior on the world stage as “puerile” and accused Republicans who fail to speak out against him of “complicity in the degradation of the presidency,..”
“Complicit” traces back to the French complice (a partner or associate), which derives from the Latin complex — which means “folded together,” as in the ingredients of a cake. It also means “complex.” There are so many ways to be complicit that you could make trading cards and never collect them all. You can be complicit through action or inaction, speech or silence, association or omission. You can engage in outright collusion, aiding in wrongdoing and lying your way through the cover-up. You can take advantage of an immoral situation to promote your book or your brand. But you can also feel coerced into complicity, intimidated or brainwashed. You can look the other way because you fear for your job or your reputation, or because you refuse to feel responsible for the systems around you....
If we take everyday life “as a moral and social space” in which “our common humanity is created and sustained,” then we must take responsibility not only for what we produce and put into the world but also for how we consume — passively and mindlessly, or actively and critically. - Behind Every Villain Stands Someone ‘Complicit’
CO banned same-sex marriage, and its state constitution prohibited the legal recognition of same-sex marriage and defined marriage in Colorado as only a union between one man and one woman, and thus by knowingly facilitates celebrating what is not a legal arraignment the baker would be recognizing and sanctioning what the state did not recognize.
A baker agreeing to provide a cake for the expressed purpose of a KKK celebration is complicit in it, though KKK members right to freedom of speech is protected.
Which is more sophistry, for it need not be a product nor sold, nor is the case simply that of selling a product. Knowingly providing anything for the express purpose of doing something makes one a party to it, whether moral or immoral, whether it be Ahimelech helping David by providing food and a sword (and with Saul killing him for it) or Judas merely providing information in betraying Christ.
It is hard to believe that you cannot, or will not see this. For even legally...
Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus
In order to obtain a conviction of a defendant for being a principal or an accessory before the fact, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an act that either encouraged or actually helped the criminal, that he had the requisite intent of encouraging or helping the criminal, and that the criminal who was encouraged or assisted by the defendant actually committed the crime...
In order to demonstrate that the defendant committed the requisite actus reus, the prosecution must show that the defendant either directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the crime. A person has facilitated a commission of the crime if he provides the criminal with the means that the criminal uses to commit the crime...
Other jurisdictions only require the prosecutor to show that the accomplice knew that his actions would either assist or encourage the commission of a crime. The difference is that, in jurisdictions that require the prosecution to prove only that the accomplice acted while knowing that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, the accomplice can be convicted even if he did not actually want his actions to aid or encourage the commission of a crime. In these jurisdictions, even if the accomplice was dead-set against his actions being used to encourage or aid in the commission of a crime and even if he did not intend for his actions to aid or encourage the commission of the crime, so long as he knew that his actions would aid or encourage the commission of a crime, he can be convicted as an accomplice. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus - LawShelf Educational Media (emp. mine)
No court, to date, has accepted this reasoning as a valid defense of breaking anti discrimination laws. Why is that do you suppose? Are the courts stacked against Christians? Or is it possible that Mens Rea does not apply to selling someone a cake for a wedding and that the legal status of the wedding is superfluous to anti discrimination laws?
And that worked for him right up to the point where he broke the law. The courts have been consistent in their interpretation that baking cakes is not a religious expression and is not covered under the first amendment. If his religious convictions are of such paramount importance then it would seem he will need to take the responsibility to ensure he is not put in a position where he must choose between the law and his conscience.
Ah. So you do need me to explain it to you. Very well. Simply because you limit your discrimination to specific circumstances does not change that it is discrimination. Treating someone well 90% of the time does not alter the 10% you do not. The specific circumstances of the example are irrelevant to the point being made.
Law school and med school are special. They are gatekeepers for a profession, and hard to get into. Prospective doctors and lawyers often go to any school that will admit them. Also, about 50% of gays are Christian. Some of them might well like the idea of a Christian university.
He did break the law. He was not performing a marriage he was selling a cake. He refused to sell a cake based on the sexuality of his customers. The marriage is a red herring.
You are not even going to acknowledge my point but simply move on to the next argument I take it?
This is settled law. Your religious beliefs are not a get out of jail free card. You still get to pay taxes no matter how much you claim it violates your beliefs. Selling a cake is not an expression of religious liberty. Therefore if it is an issue for this individual he needs to ensure he is not put into the position.
I guess you have your talking points straight. But no, the faith travels around in a person's head. And no doubt influences their daily life in many different ways. But the right to free exercise is not unlimited. In the US, "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."
Practices such are harmful to the general public. As in a practice which may bring loss of life or limb or be a danger to the general health of the public. Like having a butcher shop not following government standards of health yet citing religious causes. Not a wedding cake celebrating a union which is against the moral and religious conscience of persons.
It's just a cake. It doesn't matter that it is called a wedding cake. It has no religious significance and is not part of the ceremony. It is a just fancy desert that has become a tradition.
If it was just a cake then the couple would have ordered just a cake and Phillips would have sold it to them just as he sells just a cake to all customers.
Law school and med school are special. They are gatekeepers for a profession, and hard to get into. Prospective doctors and lawyers often go to any school that will admit them. Also, about 50% of gays are Christian. Some of them might well like the idea of a Christian university.
He did break the law. He was not performing a marriage he was selling a cake. He refused to sell a cake based on the sexuality of his customers. The marriage is a red herring.
If it was just a cake then the couple would have ordered just a cake and Phillips would have sold it to them just as he sells just a cake to all customers.
