Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

A California county superior court judge has ruled in favor of an anti-gay Christian baker who refused to sell a same-sex couple a custom wedding cake, citing her religious beliefs. Last August Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries bakery told a couple she would not bake them a cake and referred them to another baker.

 

. . . . . In December Judge Lampe refused to grant California a temporary restraining order barring Miller from selling any item to a different-sex couple she would not sell to a same-sex couple.

 

"The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

New Civil Rights Movement - Pre-Made Wedding Cakes vs Custom Cakes for Same Sex Couple Couples

 

read more at the link -

 

Guess the SCOTUS needs to hurry with their decision - expected in June.

454 Views
155
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

And most of that's based on Scripture," 

 

If her conscience won't allow her to sell cakes based on scripture then that should apply to all Scripture not just the parts she cherry picks.

 

For example

 

The Bible doesn't allow divorce, any man or woman who engages in sex outside of marriage is an adulterer, and so her conscience should not allow her to bake a cake for anyone who is not married ( for the first time) or who can not pass a virginity test, and I have no idea how you would test men for that.

 

Sound ridiculous doesn't it.

 

Well it is, this isn't about Scripture, because she doesn't want that, she doesn't want to follow Scripture, she just wants to be a bigot and hide behind the Bible and the Constitution while doing it.

 

 

280 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@gruffstuff wrote:

 

The Bible doesn't allow divorce, any man or woman who engages in sex outside of marriage is an adulterer, and so her conscience should not allow her to bake a cake for anyone who is not married ( for the first time) or who can not pass a virginity test, and I have no idea how you would test men for that.

 


 

 


Where do you get all of that as applies to operating a bakery?  And she wasn't asked to design, create and bake cakes to honor any of those occasions. The comments here has been going completely off the scale in arguements against her beliefs.

 

It comes down to the fact that there are those who would take away another's constitutional and civil rights in order to force their beliefs on others.  This does bear a resemblance of the Romans persecuting the early Christians for their beliefs.

 

 

0 Kudos
292 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Where do you get all of that as applies to operating a bakery? 

 

Scripture, her religious beliefs, and the Constitution is the basis for her legal argument.

 

I have legal rights under the Constitution based on my religious beliefs, which are based on Scripture.

 

EXCEPT

 

She wants to cherry pick Scripture, pick the parts she wants, ignore the parts she wants to and make a legal argument which is based on her beliefs not the text of Scripture.

 

Reality is people can believe anything they want and incorporate that into religious belief, and claim that is protected by the Constitution.

 

The question is can they believe anything they want and use that as a basis for a legal argument.

286 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@gruffstuff wrote:

 

She wants to cherry pick Scripture, pick the parts she wants, ignore the parts she wants to and make a legal argument which is based on her beliefs not the text of Scripture.

 



I don't believe she is cherry picking the scriptures and apparently you are not a biblical scholar because those pertaining to being a Christian are all inclusive...  Plus she is basing her position more so on the Constitution in the secular world. 

 

That basis is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"  Requirements for the federal government is also applicable to the states.

 

Her right to religious beliefs should hold up in the Supreme Court even though she owns a business.   Did the ownership of Hobby Lobby give up their rights not to provide insurance covering abortion because of their religious beliefs?

 

The ones cherry picking is the ones who want to force owners to abrogate their religious principles.

0 Kudos
247 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@gruffstuff wrote:

Where do you get all of that as applies to operating a bakery? 

 

Scripture, her religious beliefs, and the Constitution is the basis for her legal argument.

 

I have legal rights under the Constitution based on my religious beliefs, which are based on Scripture.

 

EXCEPT

 

She wants to cherry pick Scripture, pick the parts she wants, ignore the parts she wants to and make a legal argument which is based on her beliefs not the text of Scripture.

 

Reality is people can believe anything they want and incorporate that into religious belief, and claim that is protected by the Constitution.

 

The question is can they believe anything they want and use that as a basis for a legal argument.


Exactly, and that is why I do believe that the Supreme Court will be a little clearer on the position of Religion vs State and what place any of this has  in our lives, and businesses.

no name
0 Kudos
246 Views
0
Report
Reply
Esteemed Social Butterfly

The strangest part of this whole issue is that California has a conservative judge.

215 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Soomehow (probably from not caring about the whole affair) I missed the part about it being a "custom" wedding cake, and that is a very different matter then just selling the couple a "wedding cake". Now you've gotten into the area of "personal services contracts" which for a very long time have been held to be unenforceable - basically you cannot base a contract on YOUR interpretation of what the "artist" produces. In short, you hire someone to perform Italian Opera in your restaurant, whatever he sings is what you get AND PAY FOR. You cannot compel the artist to produce his/her "art" to your specifications, so it seems the baker has a very valid point.

 

If I understand the bizarre machinations of "personal service contracts"  she could produce a cake with the little figures on top burning in the (artistically rendered) Fires of Hell and the couple would have to pay for it because that would(might?) be her interpretation of the union, which is what they paid for.

 

I would suggest the happy couple find another baker.

233 Views
0
Report
Reply
Silver Conversationalist

Just for the record I'd like to say if it were up to me, I'd rule in favor of the baker.  I've explained why ad nauseam so I'm done now

Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Donald Trump
252 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

I guess I don't see this so much as some sort of discrimination as it might be how far government can force someone using their specific talents in a business setting to do something they don't want to do or even feel (talent wise) that they can perform such using their talents.

 

Many of our discrimination laws have allowances -

A single landlord who has a duplex or quad unit, lives in one and rents out the others has more flexibility in choosing their neighboring tenants.

A business has to supply only reasonable accommodations to an employee with some sort of special needs, be that a disability or handicap or a woman which has a breast feeding infant.

 

As the linked article pointed out, this ONLY involves custom work not the selling of items that are already on the shelf. Custom, to me, coming from an Art business, means something unique and special just for a particular person, in this case, a couple.  I do not consider some reproduction created as a complete custom item.

 

In this case, the subject baker, also made arrangement for another baker to help out the couple with their request.

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.  

 

I believe that the current case before the SCOTUS is a case much like this one, if I remember correctly and that is the one which should have a ruling this summer.

 

 

305 Views
10
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

I guess I don't see this so much as some sort of discrimination as it might be how far government can force someone using their specific talents in a business setting to do something they don't want to do or even feel (talent wise) that they can perform such using their talents.

 

Many of our discrimination laws have allowances -

A single landlord who has a duplex or quad unit, lives in one and rents out the others has more flexibility in choosing their neighboring tenants.

A business has to supply only reasonable accommodations to an employee with some sort of special needs, be that a disability or handicap or a woman which has a breast feeding infant.

 

As the linked article pointed out, this ONLY involves custom work not the selling of items that are already on the shelf. Custom, to me, coming from an Art business, means something unique and special just for a particular person, in this case, a couple.  I do not consider some reproduction created as a complete custom item.

 

In this case, the subject baker, also made arrangement for another baker to help out the couple with their request.

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.  

 

I believe that the current case before the SCOTUS is a case much like this one, if I remember correctly and that is the one which should have a ruling this summer.

 

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.

no name
0 Kudos
287 Views
8
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

  

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


To me, this seems to be a hard decision because it involves a business persons talent, ability and DESIRE to perform a service as opposed to an already made object.  How could the SCOTUS ever force them to do it?

 

I will again quote what the Ca.county superior court judge said in his ruling on this matter - from the link in my intial post starting this thread.

 

The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.

 

It is one thing to require one person to do the same thing to every individual when that item is real but here we are talking about something that isn't real yet but has to be created and creations are always based on the abilities, talents and desires of the maker or refused for whatever reason.

 

I am not sure that it is within the ability of even the SCOTUS to determine how this could be forced.

 

 

288 Views
5
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

  

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


To me, this seems to be a hard decision because it involves a business persons talent, ability and DESIRE to perform a service as opposed to an already made object.  How could the SCOTUS ever force them to do it?

 

I will again quote what the Ca.county superior court judge said in his ruling on this matter - from the link in my intial post starting this thread.

 

The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.

 

It is one thing to require one person to do the same thing to every individual when that item is real but here we are talking about something that isn't real yet but has to be created and creations are always based on the abilities, talents and desires of the maker or refused for whatever reason.

 

I am not sure that it is within the ability of even the SCOTUS to determine how this could be forced.

 

 


Gail  your opinion on this subject, Is one that I don't know if I am ready to agree with.  I see two issues that the court will have to decide. One is discrimination of a business against a particular type of customer. and the other how much in this particular case is Religion imposing themselves into the secular life of this country.  So, again, I do see the Supreme Court dealing with this issue and then they will clarify, the limits of how much Religion  is separate from the State. and clarify as to how much can a business discriminate  a certain type of customer.

 

no name
0 Kudos
326 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:

  

 


Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


To me, this seems to be a hard decision because it involves a business persons talent, ability and DESIRE to perform a service as opposed to an already made object.  How could the SCOTUS ever force them to do it?

 

I will again quote what the Ca.county superior court judge said in his ruling on this matter - from the link in my intial post starting this thread.

 

The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

The way I am interpreting this, it is the uniqueness of the item and the way the baker feels about doing it using their own talents which is the question at hand and whatever the decision may have other far reaching legal consequences.

 

It is one thing to require one person to do the same thing to every individual when that item is real but here we are talking about something that isn't real yet but has to be created and creations are always based on the abilities, talents and desires of the maker or refused for whatever reason.

 

I am not sure that it is within the ability of even the SCOTUS to determine how this could be forced.

 

 


Gail  your opinion on this subject, Is one that I don't know if I am ready to agree with.  I see two issues that the court will have to decide. One is discrimination of a business against a particular type of customer. and the other how much in this particular case is Religion imposing themselves into the secular life of this country.  So, again, I do see the Supreme Court dealing with this issue and then they will clarify, the limits of how much Religion  is separate from the State. and clarify as to how much can a business discriminate  a certain type of customer.

 


rker321 - Think you're missing the point. The Judge is not saying the baker can discriminate over what customer she serves based on their sexual orientation, he's just pointing out that she's an "artist" and there is no reasonable way to force an "artist" to produce "art" according to the customer's specifications - it's a very well established tenet of law relating to "personal services contracts". If she had cakes for sale on display, and refused to let the gay couple take one off the shelf, that would be unconstitutional discrimination. But to refuse to make one to their specifications is another matter entirely, and there is no way she can be compelled to product a "work of her art" that will satisfy the gay couple's specs, which is what the Judge said in the later ruling.

328 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

@Olderscout66

I completely agree with you here.  I cannot even phantom why the baker would have even given any explanation since a "No, can't do it" should have been good enough.  A contract is between two forces, either can say no.  Any reason would just be secondary and not really important unless the two parties want to continue negotiations and then again, it is up to them ONLY.

 

I do not see that any court of whatever hierarchy would get in the middle of this.

 

Refusing to sell or rent something is a completely different thing than agreeing or not to create a specific thing.

 

 

318 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66

I completely agree with you here.  I cannot even phantom why the baker would have even given any explanation since a "No, can't do it" should have been good enough.  A contract is between two forces, either can say no.  Any reason would just be secondary and not really important unless the two parties want to continue negotiations and then again, it is up to them ONLY.

 

I do not see that any court of whatever hierarchy would get in the middle of this.

 

Refusing to sell or rent something is a completely different thing than agreeing or not to create a specific thing.

 

 


By George, I think she's got it!

0 Kudos
293 Views
0
Report
Reply
Moderator
Moderator

Hello everyone,

Please remember to post according to the community guidelines, and refrain from insults and inflammatory comments.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

0 Kudos
307 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:



Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


Rker, you and I are both familiar with the intrusion of government into private business and life in several other countries.  Do you think that the government has a right to do so here by dictating social issues therein?

 

Or would you think that in a democracy the customers of these businesses should do the dictating by taking their business elsewhere?  Shouldn't the government compensate business owners for any loss caused by their dictating social policy for private business owners?  They have taken a position of being quasi-partners in their business.

 

How did the lyrics go... Freedoms not just another word for nothing left to lose?

 

 

0 Kudos
244 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Roxanna35 wrote:



Gail like you, I do believe that this will be resolved by the Supreme Court. I also believe that unlike TX and his arguments it has to do with the definition of discrimination in the workplace. and the place that religion needs to be in a private business.


Rker, you and I are both familiar with the intrusion of government into private business and life in several other countries.  Do you think that the government has a right to do so here by dictating social issues therein?

 

Or would you think that in a democracy the customers of these businesses should do the dictating by taking their business elsewhere?  Shouldn't the government compensate business owners for any loss caused by their dictating social policy for private business owners?  They have taken a position of being quasi-partners in their business.

 

How did the lyrics go... Freedoms not just another word for nothing left to lose?

 

 


Tx,,  I am going to answer you in the best way that I can.  too much intrusion in government has never been good. That is why I say that we should wait for a decision to be made by the Supreme Court.

They need to define as to what constitutes  the Separation of State and Religion. they need to make clear what constitutes  discrimination  and interference in the work place.

I believe that those answers will come when they rule in this specific case.

no name
0 Kudos
247 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

I guess I don't see this so much as some sort of discrimination as it might be how far government can force someone using their specific talents in a business setting to do something they don't want to do or even feel (talent wise) that they can perform such using their talents.

 

Like having to be concerned that their customers might be armed and dangerous?  The government has FORCED that on all of us, haven't they?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
316 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

And in other custom cake news.....

 

'What, you don't like the labia pink?' Minnesota bakery goes viral after sharing a photo of a geode-inspired cake that ended up looking VERY similar to a **bleep**

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5359641/Minnesota-bakery-goes-viral-sharing-**bleep**-cake... 

 

 

Really?  Ouch!


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
299 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

@Centristsin2010

Now I would call that a custom work but the concept has been done many times before to get the "geode" look.

 

Art always has interpretation from the viewer. 

 

 

309 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

@Centristsin2010

Now I would call that a custom work but the concept has been done many times before to get the "geode" look.  First time I've seen a "geode" look cake, but many here have a few years more experience on me.  I'll keep my eye open.

 

Art always has interpretation from the viewer.  Yes it does and that's why, IMO, it's so precious. 


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
326 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

Some Cake Art - Yummmmm, Ohhhhhh, Awwwww, Wow -


Stunning, indeed.


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
154 Views
0
Report
Reply
Silver Conversationalist

What if it was just someone he didn't like. Say a person whose kid had beaten up his kid at school. Could he say, "No, I'm not baking for you. Get the h** l out of my store."  I would hope he could.

 

In the case of the same-sex couple the problem is one that pits the rights of the individual's religious freedom and freedom of speech, against the rights of a group which cannot be legally discriminated against.

 

The baker contends that a custom wedding cake celebrating a gay marriage is a work of art. The government cannot force a painter to paint, a singer to sing, a sculptor to sculpt.  If a gay couple wants a wedding band and that band does not want to perform for a same sex marriage reception, can the government make them take the stage? I sure hope not.

 

I'm for gay marriage. I'm for gay couples adopting kids. Gay married couples are entitled to all the rights an employer grants to straight couples, such as the spouse of the employee being covered by company health insurance.

 

But if the business owner finds himself morally unable to create for something his religion forbids, he should be able to say no. It's his business, his store. Maybe the best thing for the gay couple to do is walk down the street to the next bakery. If the gay couple want to protest and boycott the bakery that wouldn't serve them, they can. 

 

I usually come down on the side of the individual. In this case, the baker; a small business owner trying to stand up for what he believes. I think what he believes is ignorant and wrong -- but I wouldn't take away his right to believe it. The ACLU is representing the gay couple. I was a big fan of the ACLU until United Citizens v. Federal Elections Commission. They picked the wrong side on that one and I cancelled my membership. I was steamin'. I think the ACLU is on the wrong side again.

 

 

Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Donald Trump
450 Views
48
Report
Reply
Esteemed Social Butterfly


@Loulit wrote:

What if it was just someone he didn't like. Say a person whose kid had beaten up his kid at school. Could he say, "No, I'm not baking for you. Get the h** l out of my store."  I would hope he could.

 


This is not a simple your kid hit mine. This is discrimination. This is a business owner who chose to ignore the laws against discrimination. If the owners are open for business, they are open for business to everyone. Good for ACLU! Very bad ruling on part of judge who over turned original order. A review of non-discrimination statutes might be in order. 

It is people like these bakers who make me wonder what the heck is wrong with people. I own a small business myself, and not only would I never decide non-discrimination laws didn’t apply to me, I would never be so disgustingly narcissistic or ignorant as to think I shouldn’t cater to someone due to  their choice of a mate. 

I liked the idea of the poster who said people should boycott the business until the bigoted and ignorant owners go out of business. 

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

0 Kudos
449 Views
47
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@phyllisc6781 wrote:


This is not a simple your kid hit mine. This is discrimination. This is a business owner who chose to ignore the laws against discrimination. If the owners are open for business, they are open for business to everyone.


If the state is going to dictate to an owner of how to run their business, requiring them of what sort of customer it is geared to, etc., then perhaps the state should also furnish the owner with funds and time to invest into the business.   The owner is the one who stands to lose for their business decisions, not the state per se.

 

Further, does anyone here have the right to dictate to an owner how to run their business?


0 Kudos
318 Views
16
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@phyllisc6781 wrote:


This is not a simple your kid hit mine. This is discrimination. This is a business owner who chose to ignore the laws against discrimination. If the owners are open for business, they are open for business to everyone.


If the state is going to dictate to an owner of how to run their business, requiring them of what sort of customer it is geared to, etc., then perhaps the state should also furnish the owner with funds and time to invest into the business.   The owner is the one who stands to lose for their business decisions, not the state per se.

 

Further, does anyone here have the right to dictate to an owner how to run their business?



Discrimination is not a State issue. It is a Constitutional issue.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
151 Views
15
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


ChasKy53 wrote

Discrimination is not a State issue. It is a Constitutional issue.


It is in this instance because at the Federal level, sexual orientation is not a "protected" class.

It is a protected class in the state of California.

 

Miller's stance seems to have put her and Tastries at odds with California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal for businesses to discriminate against people based on a number of factors including sexual orientation.

 

The state of California in 2017 tried to restrict this baker from doing business stating that if she didn't make a cake for this gay couple, she could not make a cake for anybody.

 

This California Superior Court judge heard the case and stopped any restriction on the baker until he reviewed the case.  

 

As I referenced in my intial post which started this thread - he ruled for the baker.

(See the link in my initial post or read it on just about any news outlet)

California county superior court judge has ruled in favor of an anti-gay Christian baker who refused to sell a same-sex couple a custom wedding cake, citing her religious beliefs. Last August Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries bakery told a couple she would not bake them a cake and referred them to another baker.

. . . . . In December Judge Lampe refused to grant California a temporary restraining order barring Miller from selling any item to a different-sex couple she would not sell to a same-sex couple.

"The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

The problem here is that we have a disconnect between selling something and providing a service - especially when the services is the creative ability of the owner.

 

Interesting case.

166 Views
1
Report
Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png