- Nov 2005
The Colorado issue regarded not making a cake for a gay wedding, as they were offered any cake without a message regarding gay marriage because it violated their Christian beliefs.
"Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement.
The gay couple wanted a cake made with a message. The baker refused. That was one of the questions before the Supreme Court. Same scenario as the U.K.
“I serve everybody. It’s just that I don’t create cakes for every occasion,” Jack Phillips told NBC’s Today show Tuesday – one day after he prevailed at the Supreme Court.
In this case, he said he offered to make Mullins and Craig other desserts for their wedding, but refused design a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.
“A wedding is an inherently religious event, and the cake is definitely a specific message,” Phillips said.
Another quote demonstrating the important factor was the gay marriage cake.
I acknowledge the baker would be happy to sell gays a birthday cake, but the law puts forth that there can be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Selling a wedding cake to a straight couple but refusing to do so for a gay couple is a violation of the law, as written.
Do you deny this?
Neither me or the baker mentioned text. The gay coupled mentioned an artistic message, which is equal to text under the Constitution.
And I welcome you to document the founding father's explicit statements which put forth that "artistic message" is "equal to text".
The argument was not that the baker would not sell a gay wedding cake and that is no where in the ruling.
They ruled for the baker on the prejudice angle. Which was not present in the UK case.
It's funny how the UK case specified text, which was absent in the U.S. case.
The US case specified prejudice, which was absent in the UK case.
But you want to talk about how these arguments are supposedly the same???