tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post6676557213462949449..comments2024-03-28T13:08:26.494-04:00Comments on Religion & American Law: The Refusal of a Colorado Baker To Write Anti-Gay Message Brantley Gasawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02894338478934982958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-35797026072836983442015-01-28T00:00:11.763-05:002015-01-28T00:00:11.763-05:00I agree with the writer and the commenters in that...I agree with the writer and the commenters in that refusing to write the hateful message on the cake for Jack did not negatively infringe on his freedom of religious expression. Silva made him the cake in the shape of a bible and provided him with the means to write the message as she was uncomfortable writing it herself. I think that it was a completely appropriate response to a difficult issue. In the case of the wedding cake, I think the line between discrimination and freedom of religious expression is blurred. The news article stated that the baker violated the anti-discrimination laws which to me makes sense. He did discriminate against the customer on the basis of sexual orientation. That being said, the homosexual customer could have found another bakery. I think that the case regarding the baker is an extremely difficult one to make judgments on. Courtney W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16315571330181883561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-27084479628901752012015-01-27T19:56:48.199-05:002015-01-27T19:56:48.199-05:00I also agree with Adam and the opinions of the oth...I also agree with Adam and the opinions of the other commenters. The Church’s stance on homosexuality is not a central tenant of Christianity. Therefore, Silva’s decision to not write “God hates Gays” on a cake does not seriously impede Mr. Jack’s religious exercise or interfere with his religious practices. Mr. Jack should not impose his religious beliefs on Silva if she finds them morally objectionable. Silva has the right to freedom of conscience too. Tommy Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14268443852314596568noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-84932904314189057092015-01-27T13:21:02.267-05:002015-01-27T13:21:02.267-05:00I agree with you on this case on the basis that th...I agree with you on this case on the basis that the man asking Silva to bake the cake is asking her to create a product containing hate speech. Denying service on the grounds of preventing discrimination and hate speech is justified and acceptable. Silva’s aim was not to prevent free exercise of religion, but rather to prevent discrimination. The man has every right to make discriminatory cakes in his own home if his “creed” calls him to do so, but when he goes into the public sphere and tries to demand others become linked and create products with his discriminatory views, a line is crossed. The distinction between this case and the Phillips case is that Phillips was denying business and discriminating based on sexual orientation, while Silva is denying business based on a mans malicious intent to discriminate a group of people based on their personal affairs. Silva has the right to prevent hateful messages from being printed on her products. Phillips does not have the right to deny service to a particular group of people just because of their sexual orientation. Phillips said essentially that he is refusing service because the couple requesting a cake was gay, Silva is not saying she will not make the cake because of the mans religious beliefs, she is saying she will not make the cake because it is offensive and discriminatory regardless of any religious affiliation. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07956077085522120308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-34320479823953925932015-01-27T12:17:19.668-05:002015-01-27T12:17:19.668-05:00I also agree with the idea that Silva should not b...I also agree with the idea that Silva should not be forced to write a hate message on a cake, especially when it would be promoting discrimination of a large community of people. Just as Jack is allowed to have his beliefs, so is Silva, so it is not right to force her to do something she feels uncomfortable with. This is a privately owned bakery, so she has the right to decide for herself the business she would like to take on. It is also true that Jack has the option of finding another bakery, but I also believe that Silva's offer to provide materials to write the message was a sufficient solution to solving the problem. I do not think in this case that Silva is necessarily discriminating against Jack's beliefs, but rather limiting hate speech and further discrimination.Libby Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12710061480560241013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-606201113344523885.post-44266748165965554832015-01-27T10:41:14.219-05:002015-01-27T10:41:14.219-05:00I agree with your sentiments in regard to these tw...I agree with your sentiments in regard to these two cases. To me, it seems clear that a person should not be forced to write hateful and discriminatory remarks on a cake if he or she does not want to. If anything, I could see the case against Jack in that he is promoting hate speech. If he wishes to promote that type of message in his own home, that is one thing. But to force those beliefs on the public is another issue. I think the Colorado case involving Jack Phillips is a bit more difficult. Though I recognize that it is his own private business and that he can accept customers based on his choosing, this is clearly sexual orientation discrimination. I believe that the courts did the right thing by preventing him from discriminating against a large portion of society. These are both tricky issues that shed an important light on how much say the government should have in religion and discrimination.Liz Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12158115742624195708noreply@blogger.com