View Full Version : RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/06/judge-orders-colorado-cake-maker-to-serve-gay-couples/
DENVER (AP) – A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”
The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.
Rooskibar03
12-06-2013, 17:06
Un-freaking-believable.
This place is right around corner from my house, made my kids birthday cake.
Im gonna go buy something to support him.
RCCrawler
12-06-2013, 17:07
Wow, I guess just like the government can force you to buy insurance they can now force you to do business with people you don't want to.
I didn't see where the judge said how much it has to cost, or that it can't taste like dog shit.
Oh I would be more than happy to make them a cake,,,just use visine for the liquid mix and they will be shitting there pants for 2 days,,,,or there are many more combinations out there that would certainly enhance there wedding day.
He should have just told them he was booked and does not have time to fill there order by that date instead of turning them down because they like hersheys
I hope he fights this in court. Regardless of the issues, a private business can choose who they want to do business with, that has been established all the way to the SCOTUS.
Speechless- BULLSHIT.
And Denver County still sucks ass...
edit- please don't turn this issue into a gay bashing thread.
double edit, looks like bake shop is in Lakewood, Denver still sucks.
There is a rumor that these GUYS targeted the shop knowing the owner would not accommodate them. Add Judge Robert N. Spencer's name to the list of spineless progressive patsies.
Next move for the GUYS is to ask Fruit of the loom to manufacture whitey tighties with 2 fly's.
I hope he fights this in court.
It has been fought in court. He lost. This has been all over the legal blogs -- mainly about how the ACLU chose the wrong side of the fight.
Regardless of the issues, a private business can choose who they want to do business with, that has been established all the way to the SCOTUS.
Incorrect. This has been established by a LONG series of precedent to be quite the opposite. You cannot refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, color, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.. See anti-segregation laws, affirmative action, etc.
I wish it wasn't so, as I believe the market would/should force bigots out of business rather than the government -- but it is the current law of the land.
WADR, you are mixing "service" or "public accommodation" with "sale of a product".
WTF did they want - a cock-shaped cake covered with fudge? We happen to have several gay and lesbian friends, damn nice folks. Got nothing against them.
37713
THIS! Businesses still have rights... I wouldn't suggest tampering with the food or doing something like that, that could bring on civil liability- I would only say what Clark said- "Sorry guys, we are booked and cannot fulfill your order by the date specified."
Big Wall
12-06-2013, 18:39
That cake is going to have a high urine content.
Am I the only one that recalls this being discussed in a previous thread when it occurred?
It has been fought in court. He lost. This has been all over the legal blogs -- mainly about how the ACLU chose the wrong side of the fight.
That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.
buffalobo
12-06-2013, 18:59
This ruling is another step on the path...
Am I stepping back in time? I thought this happened last year and a shit ton of people bought cakes from the guy to support him.
That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.
Was trying not to get into this but this is not the first time this has happened. Wedding photographers, other bakers, wedding planners, and wedding locations (go find things like Elane Photography v. Willock, etc.) have all been targeted by a few idiots with chips on their shoulders and an agenda. The various cases have been going through various stages of court proceedings -- all coming with the same outcomes, all relying on anti-discrimination laws of the 50-70s as their fundamental basis - bolstered by various individual state laws.. The reason why it was an administrative law judge that ruled in this case was due to state law that is being claimed to be violated here (and the infancy of this particular case) - Colorado law prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. If you allow the public into your place of business - or are providing a service to the general public (individually or en masse) then you are a place of public accommodation.
Go read the ACLU briefs, they are quite insane in that it shows just how far out of whack we really are when it comes to 'free markets'.. then go read Employment Division v. Smith and see why the various 'bigots' in these cases are loosing.
The ruling on the Hobby Lobby case by SCOTUS is going to have some impact here since they are all arguing on the same basic grounds: First amendment free exercise protections.. Its not an exact match-up, but there will be some interesting fall out from it as it applies to the cases like the ones above.
If you want to read Eugene Volokh's take on a similar case then go read: http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/02/amicus-brief-in-elane-photography-v-willock-the-new-mexico-wedding-photography-case/ or for a more general set of discussions on the case: http://www.volokh.com/tag/elane-photography-v-willock/
Note that in this case Volokh's arguments were largely ignored in the rulings.. But the case isn't over yet.
spideyar
12-06-2013, 20:17
My best man at my wedding is gay. My wife and I both know and enjoy the company of several gay and lesbian couples. However..
Wedding cakes bakers and photographers are, at their sheer essence, artists to at least a certain degree. They are trying to capture the spirit of the couple on their 'big day'. I would fully expect an artist to have the ability to say "Sorry fellas, I am unable to do a cake that is YOU" without it being discriminatory. And if you don't think photogs and cake makers aren't artists, see some of of the really cool creations some of these men and women have.
Last thought. My wife and I both ride motorcycles. My wedding ring looks like a motorcycle tire in fact and I bought her a new motorpickle for her 1-year anniversary present. Heading into our wedding day, we found a cake maker who was willing to use our own molds that we provided to create a chocolate motorcycle wrap around the cake. If they had said "We can't do cakes with motorcycles on them because we are against them" we would have moved on to another place that was happy for our business and willing to do what we wanted for our wedding day. It wouldn't have been a matter for the courts. I understand motorcyclists aren't a protected class, but hopefully you get the gist.
Oh, and for the record, we still have some of the motorcycle cake decorations saved in our freezer 5-1/2 years later.
what a difference 20 years makes
No Protected Status for Sexual Orientation Amendment, Initiative 2 (http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_No_Protected_Status_for_Sexual_Orientatio n_Amendment,_Initiative_2_%281992%29)
BPTactical
12-06-2013, 20:49
The judge said he had to serve them.
He didn't say how much to charge or if you had to be a good baker.
The judge said he had to serve them.
He didn't say how much to charge or if you had to be a good baker.
Never a good idea to piss off your cook.
BPTactical
12-06-2013, 20:58
WADR, you are mixing "service" or "public accommodation" with "sale of a product".
And this is where I don't feel it would stand in a higher court. Non discrimination law is generally for accommodation and services.
I don't see how it could apply.
electronman1729
12-06-2013, 21:49
The judge said he had to serve them.
He didn't say how much to charge or if you had to be a good baker.
Just send them a cake from Wal-Mart
Jumpstart
12-07-2013, 08:30
Shouldn't good old American capitalism be in charge of this case? But no. I wonder how much tax payer money was spent to forward this case.
KestrelBike
12-07-2013, 08:43
37713
^^^^ The *ONLY* thing needed to understand in this whole bullshit story. That couple are a bunch of hypocrite assholes. If the owner makes the cake, I hope they choke on it.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2013, 08:51
With this ruling, does it mean ANYONE who chooses to light up a cigarette in a non- smoking area would receive the same treatment from the ACLU?
“cease and desist from discriminating”
Smokers are discriminated against everywhere. Should they not be afforded the same service?
With this ruling, does it mean ANYONE who chooses to light up a cigarette in a non- smoking area would receive the same treatment from the ACLU?
“cease and desist from discriminating”
Smokers are discriminated against everywhere. Should they not be afforded the same service?
"protected class"
BPTactical
12-07-2013, 09:03
"protected class"
Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.
This is one fucked up world......
Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.
This is one fucked up world......
Lol. Amen, brother Bert. Well said.
Glad to see you are a second class citizen and not one of the cool kids.
[Awesom]
killianak9
12-07-2013, 09:51
Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.
This is one fucked up world......
^^^^this !
Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.
This is one fucked up world......
And the argument is:
smokers are affecting others so can be limited. (wayyyy overblown but it is the justification)
gays are not affecting anyone so let em be.
One can justify a protected class when there is discrimination to the point of services not being available. That is not even close to the case here.
lowbeyond
12-07-2013, 10:16
you can have any justification that you want but the real reason is
FU, I said so now STFU or goto jail
But hey Mala Prohibita laws are fukkin' awesome ! Everyone loves them. Whacha want to live in Somalia ?
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-07-2013, 10:30
There is a rumor that these GUYS targeted the shop knowing the owner would not accommodate them.
I just don't understand this, personally. And here is reason #1 and reason #2 why:
Wedding cakes bakers and photographers are, at their sheer essence, artists to at least a certain degree. They are trying to capture the spirit of the couple on their 'big day'.
Never a good idea to piss off your cook.
Are they trying to make a political statement or get a cake?
If I'm forced to make a cake for someone I don't agree with, I'll do it and without the urine/semen/salt/whatever……but I won't bother trying to do a good job on it. I'd explain that I really don't want to do it, but if you insist, these are the terms. Likewise, if I'm a photographer, I'm just going to spray and pray half-assed and not bother cleaning anything up on photoshop later.
I just don't understand why, in any service industry, you'd force someone who doesn't want your business to serve you. I want someone who truly wants to do what I'm looking for.
So...can I go to a Muslim restaurant and force them to serve bacon? What other places can I go and force them to do things they don't want to do based on my feelings being hurt?
gays are not affecting anyone so let em be. Apparently the baker in question does not agree with that statement, but I guess this is no longer the America I was born in and our forefathers fought for.
I have had friends who were gay, but they did not force anyone else to agree with their choice, so it did not affect anyone but them. When any group becomes militant and forces the majority to accept minority opinion or choice as "approved", that is not right and that is exactly what is occurring. However, when the majority forces their opinion or choice on the minority, we call that Democracy. :)
There are many, even some on this forum, that have, or will, switch sides (regardless of topic) to move into the majority when it appears the tide has turned, those people have neither conviction nor integrity and are one type of person the founding fathers warned about.
So...can I go to a Muslim restaurant and force them to serve bacon? What other places can I go and force them to do things they don't want to do based on my feelings being hurt?
No because that is not what they serve. If they had a dish only served to Muslims, but not infidels, then you would have a case.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2013, 10:42
I just don't understand this, personally. And here is reason #1 and reason #2 why:
Are they trying to make a political statement or get a cake?
If I'm forced to make a cake for someone I don't agree with, I'll do it and without the urine/semen/salt/whatever……but I won't bother trying to do a good job on it. I'd explain that I really don't want to do it, but if you insist, these are the terms. Likewise, if I'm a photographer, I'm just going to spray and pray half-assed and not bother cleaning anything up on photoshop later.
I just don't understand why, in any service industry, you'd force someone who doesn't want your business to serve you. I want someone who truly wants to do what I'm looking for.
This. The same for business targeted by Jess' rainbow coalition. Its extortion, forcing someone to do something against their will, via the courts.
No because that is not what they serve. If they had a dish only served to Muslims, but not infidels, then you would have a case.
But they don't serve it based on religious beliefs and we can't limit others based off religious beliefs? I guess the difference would be the "official" reasoning for not serving it. If the baker just said he was too booked, he wouldn't be in this situation.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2013, 10:49
But they don't serve it based on religious beliefs and we can't limit others based off religious beliefs? I guess the difference would be the "official" reasoning for not serving it. If the baker just said he was too booked, he wouldn't be in this situation.
An agenda doesn't care how busy you are. They only care about their Agenda.
No because that is not what they serve. If they had a dish only served to Muslims, but not infidels, then you would have a case.
No, but why haven't gays gone to a Mosque (ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY) and demanded to be married? No Muslim caterers or bakers? How about Hasidic Jews?
Notice it's always the Christians they attack... And that is why I've had it with them. If they want to just live their lives and be left alone, that is fine (many do just this). But the activists will never be happy with that. They want to force their values on others and it's gotten to the point they sexualize and indoctrinate children.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-07-2013, 11:27
This. The same for business targeted by Jess' rainbow coalition. Its extortion, forcing someone to do something against their will, via the courts.
And I would agree, which is why if I were the cake-maker, I'd make my own subtle statement as noted above. :)
BPTactical
12-07-2013, 11:29
gays are not affecting anyone so let em be.
Really? Explain then the proliferation of HIV in our society.
You know, the majority of us enjoy our hobby (firearms) to the point where it is a "lifestyle". Some may view that as "abnormal".
But we do not demand to be accepted by society.
We do not demand "equal rights".
We do not demand that a retail establishment bow to our demands via an activist court.
We do not promote immoral and perverted behaviors.
No, gays don't affect anyone.[Bang]
We are watching the morals of our society be degraded at every level.
When we have no morals, we have no society (at least a civil society)
gays are not affecting anyone so let em be.
Really? Explain then the proliferation of HIV in our society.
You know, the majority of us enjoy our hobby (firearms) to the point where it is a "lifestyle". Some may view that as "abnormal".
But we do not demand to be accepted by society.
We do not demand "equal rights".
We do not demand that a retail establishment bow to our demands via an activist court.
We do not promote immoral and perverted behaviors.
No, gays don't affect anyone.[Bang]
We are watching the morals of our society be degraded at every level.
When we have no morals, we have no society (at least a civil society)
Took the words right out of my mouth. What other lifestyles do you see in our culture that are shoving their agenda and acceptance down our throats? Off the top my head, I can't think of any, except demonrats, which are usually one in the same or supporters of the "cause." I can't tell you how many Prius/Subaru (no offense to anyone here who drives a Subie) drivers have slapped on the Obama sticker with the little "=" right next to it that I've seen, but they appear to be EVERYWHERE. Gays are affecting everyone. When my friend tells me over a beer that he's worried his kid is being exposed to things he doesn't feel are age appropriate (6 years old) depicting the gay lifestyle on TV, news coverage of gays, Denver pride fest, and the guy is not exactly a choir boy, that's when you know you have a problem. This guy has even said he cannot go downtown during pride fest with his kid because of all the vile and disgusting crap that goes on. I'm not saying it's all gays, but you don't exactly see any of them checking the others and saying "hey, that's a bit much, tone it down." Meanwhile, if a guy is being a douche while open carrying, many of us here will put him in check. It just goes to show, the demeanor and behavior of the gay community (in general) is that we have to accept them for who they are. Well if you're walking around half naked in public with an outfit that would be blurred out on network TV you're not going for acceptance, you're going for shock.
Really? Explain then the proliferation of HIV in our society.
IV drug use perhaps? Once it was actually discovered what was going on this became the primary path.
Yes, let us hold people responsible for a disease proliferating before it was even discovered.
You know, the majority of us enjoy our hobby (firearms) to the point where it is a "lifestyle". Some may view that as "abnormal".
But we do not demand to be accepted by society.
Unless you happen to be an open carry activist.
We do not demand "equal rights".
And what is the reaction around here to "no gun" signs? This is exactly what we are demanding; accept guns as a normal part of American life. We want guns to be accepted as a non-issue, something that doesn't matter. Sound familiar?
We do not demand that a retail establishment bow to our demands via an activist court.
If we thought for a second it would win we'd be all over it. How often do we simply ignore the wishes of a retail shop and carry inside anyway?
We do not promote immoral and perverted behaviors.
Ahh now we see the problem. Your definition of immoral and perverted decide your actions, not others.
No, gays don't affect anyone.[Bang]
We are watching the morals of our society be degraded at every level.
When we have no morals, we have no society (at least a civil society)
What is moral is up to you. Actions that others take that do not affect you are not to be determined by your morality.
Everything you listed is activism designed to make being gay a non-issue, something that does not matter. The only reason it does matter is because it is "immoral and perverted" to you.
Now, this case, the couple could easily have gone to another source. They are not being totally denied a service. The judge should have told them to open yelp and find another baker.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-07-2013, 12:12
IV drug use perhaps? Once it was actually discovered what was going on this became the primary path.
Yes, let us hold people responsible for a disease proliferating before it was even discovered.
Not even close to the case. I've worked in two very large, separate health care systems right here in Denver.
The junkies count for typically around 10-15%. MSW and WSM in another small chunk. Predominantly, it is MSM.
Feel free to verify these stats nationally on CDC or whatever.
Abuse of needle drugs isn't safe, but it is a relatively minor contribution.
Edit x 1:
Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVFactSheets/Epidemic/Transmission.htm
37747
Edit x 2:
What is moral is up to you. Actions that others take that do not affect you are not to be determined by your morality.
Everything you listed is activism designed to make being gay a non-issue, something that does not matter. The only reason it does matter is because it is "immoral and perverted" to you.
I don't think anyone here is defining or inventing or developing their own morality. This country was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Are we so "progressed" and "civilized" to deny this?
[snip]
I don't think anyone here is defining or inventing or developing their own morality. This country was founded upon Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. Are we so "progressed" and "civilized" to deny this?
What you're hitting on here is so important merl will probably ignore it.
The country no longer has a single coherent values system. Liberals have created moral relativism where morality is defined by emotion and what "feels good" to liberally educated youth. This is why everything is falling apart. This is why Obama was elected twice--people think they can take from others.
And merl doesn't understand that he fell for it.
Demoralization was an important step in the destruction of America.
http://virginiamargaritalibertyblog.wordpress.com/how-communismsocialism-works-and-the-demoralization-process/
Why is merl being attacked now?
BPTactical
12-07-2013, 12:52
Up until about 30 years ago we as a society had a few values that for the most part, every walk of life respected.
Love of country.
A respect for something greater than ourselves.
A love of family.
Respect for our elders.
Care of the child.
A basic moral structure.
Respect for the schools.
Respect for authority.
With the onset of the entire "its not fair" mentality brought on mainly by the liberal mindset these things have been eroded into nothingness.
I do not understand the "gay lifestyle" and I am a pretty open minded and objective person. I can understand the drunken night in college or a wild party type scenario but as far as a fulltime life, it is sick.
It is a perversion and abomination.
Now you might say who am I to put my moral values on another.
I am nobody.
But there are basic values as humans we are bound by.
And homosexuality is not one of them.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do as a young father was explain to my then 6 year old son at the "Taste of Colorado" why two men were kissing.
One of my customers put it quite well and neither of us are religious people:
"If you set the Ten Commandments as an outline for life, you have a good format to live your life laid out."
Pretty well lays it out IMHO.
No attack on Merl at all, we have a different point of view on the subject and I respect his view. I was simply countering his view.
I know my view on the subject goes against the grain of what we are being fed on a daily basis. I think it is wrong and it is disgusting.
Up until about 30 years ago we as a society had a few values that for the most part, every walk of life respected.
Love of country.
A respect for something greater than ourselves.
A love of family.
Respect for our elders.
Care of the child.
A basic moral structure.
Respect for the schools.
Respect for authority.
With the onset of the entire "its not fair" mentality brought on mainly by the liberal mindset these things have been eroded into nothingness.
I do not understand the "gay lifestyle" and I am a pretty open minded and objective person. I can understand the drunken night in college or a wild party type scenario but as far as a fulltime life, it is sick.
It is a perversion and abomination.
Now you might say who am I to put my moral values on another.
I am nobody.
But there are basic values as humans we are bound by.
And homosexuality is not one of them.
One of the hardest things I ever had to do as a young father was explain to my then 6 year old son at the "Taste of Colorado" why two men were kissing.
One of my customers put it quite well and neither of us are religious people:
"If you set the Ten Commandments as an outline for life, you have a good format to live your life laid out."
Pretty well lays it out IMHO.
I don't see where the second part of your post fits in on the list in the first part.
Nevermind, I agree with Jumpstart's post.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-07-2013, 12:57
Why is merl being attacked now?
I do not feel like my particular post was an attack. The first part was a statement of fact from the CDC, the second was simply my own observations on morality and ethics.
There are clearly plenty of folks who agree and folks who don't, but there was no ad hominem to Merl and certainly none intended.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-07-2013, 13:02
I don't see where the second part of your post fits in on the list in the first part.
I do, personally. Part 1: What have our morals traditionally been?
Part 2: Why are our morals eroding and changing?
It is a fair question. I don't blame gays for this, but as a whole and for a variety of reasons, we are going away from the traditions and values that served us well for approximately our first 190 years or so.
Nevermind, I agree with Jumpstart's post.
I do too, but part of capitalism is being your own boss and deciding who you do and do not wish to business with.
What is moral is up to you. Actions that others take that do not affect you are not to be determined by your morality.
So as long as person A murders person B, neither of whom you have a connection with it is okay with you? That is end conclusion of your statement. That is just re-packaging of "Values Clarification" and in concert with the religion of "Humanism" which is in conflict with the founding principles of America. It is really just a "less progressed" version of the current liberal agenda. While I can understand some not liking it, the liberal mantra has been to change the moral compass in the USA so that there is no absolute, and no morality. I have plenty of friends who would never claim to be "Christian" but hold to a moral compass which is in line with Christian values. Once you toss that aside, the moral compass of the nation is now undefined. History is clearly in favor of a country WITH a moral compass and opposed to those nations who fall into deviant behavior that reduces the value of human life and or condones homosexual practices. The course has been set and the ship has sailed, so, IMHO, this is all just an academic discussion that only serves to differentiation those with whom you personally may agree, and those with whom you do not.
Fundamentally, you can not legislate morality. The "law" is only followed by those who value the law. Those who do not value the law will defy it, and in the case of America, change it so that the law no longer has integrity nor morality.
spqrzilla
12-07-2013, 14:09
I strongly support tolerance for LGBT persons. However, there is a boundary between tolerance and forced endorsement. One might argue where individual cases fall versus that boundary, but I think that these kind of cases are attempts to use the judicial system to force endorsement.
Kraven251
12-07-2013, 15:19
I hope he fights this in court. Regardless of the issues, a private business can choose who they want to do business with, that has been established all the way to the SCOTUS.
^^This
In some peoples' eyes it might make the guy an asshole, but it is his business and he can be that asshole if he wants to be. I wholeheartedly respect his right to choose who he serves. That judge overstepped his bounds as did the ACLU.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2013, 15:24
^^This
In some peoples' eyes it might make the guy an asshole, but it is his business and he can be that asshole if he wants to be. I wholeheartedly respect his right to choose who he serves. That judge overstepped his bounds as did the ACLU.
That has never stopped them before.
BlasterBob
12-07-2013, 15:35
37713
This pretty well takes care of the situation. My dad had a tavern many years ago and a similar sign was posted in plain view for ALL customers to see. Don't recall him ever refusing service to anyone but the sign was there IF a situation warranted it. If four drinks would make a certain customer drunk and if the old man had already served that customer his first three drinks, the customer would not get the fourth drink. If the customer created a "scene" due to the refusal, he'd get his ass kicked out promptly.
The GLBT agenda is moving under the notion that they are born this way and can not help what they like. That the general public needs to accept this and all that entails it. As long as they aren't committing a crime, everyone needs to tolerate it. Correct? Can't the same be said for our liking of firearms? I can not help what interests me and things I like to do. Yet they pass legislation limiting firearms. It should not matter as long as no crime is being committed. See, it's told to the public that being gay isn't a choice there fore you can't deny business because of it. But stores post "no firearm" signs all the time and some people rejoice. Imagine if a store said "sure, we'll bake your cake but leave your gay partner outside." After all, non-gay people arent as scared/offended/whatever you want to call it when the affection of same sex isnt visible.
What do gun people do when a "no firearm" sign goes up? They spread the news so pro-gun people don't support those business's. They don't take the business to court (as far as I know). The free market handles these issues. It's like the little sibling that cries to the parents when the other sibling isn't being fair or doesn't want him/her tagging along. Deal with it and move on. Don't cry about it.
Everybody wants to be special these days.
osok-308
12-07-2013, 18:20
I'm not anti- gay people. I may not agree with their practices, but that's part of freedom of religion, they can believe whatever they want, just as I can. However this is a total BS call. If gov can force people into situations like this, what's stopping them from forcing pastors to marry gay couples? This is an actual case where the man's own religious beliefs are being attacked because of his stances. This is quintessentially un-American.
If gov can force people into situations like this, what's stopping them from forcing pastors to marry gay couples?
This has been done. Many many times.
“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
BPTactical
12-07-2013, 18:53
“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
Sig line worthy.
Original article.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/
This sounds like "handicapped" people suing businesses over ADA violations.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131102/23512525109/team-prendas-paul-hansmeier-now-suing-companies-over-supposed-ada-violations.shtml
http://calwatchdog.com/2013/03/19/cracking-down-on-ada-lawsuit-abuse/
http://kut.org/post/alamo-drafthouse-threadgills-27-more-texas-businesses-sued-over-ada-compliance
This has been done. Many many times.
But no Imams, right?
buckshotbarlow
12-08-2013, 16:26
I am on the bakers side, but he should just buy a shitty cake from Safeway or king soopers, and just resell it after he marks up his percentage...
For all those on the bakers side... You do realize the exact same arguments were made in the 50's and 60's. It was wrong then... It's wrong now. No business (or person) has the right to discriminate. If you really believe in the Constitution, this should be a no brainer.
Great-Kazoo
12-08-2013, 21:27
For all those on the bakers side... You do realize the exact same arguments were made in the 50's and 60's. It was wrong then... It's wrong now. No business has the right to discriminate. If you really believe in the Constitution, this should be a no brainer.
Gay rights are not CIVIL RIGHTS.
IF we allow a section of society to push for Civil Rights status, why not everyone? Polygamist, should they not be granted the same right to "WED" who they want?
Gay rights ARE COLOR BLIND. We do not look at someone and see Hetro o,r Homosexual.
We can see a persons color, not their sexual orientation, most of the time.
sellersm
12-08-2013, 21:43
For all those on the bakers side... You do realize the exact same arguments were made in the 50's and 60's. It was wrong then... It's wrong now. No business (or person) has the right to discriminate. If you really believe in the Constitution, this should be a no brainer.
Not even close.
Sent from my fat fingers using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Rucker61
12-08-2013, 21:48
For all those on the bakers side... You do realize the exact same arguments were made in the 50's and 60's. It was wrong then... It's wrong now. No business (or person) has the right to discriminate. If you really believe in the Constitution, this should be a no brainer.
No person has a right to discriminate? You have to date or have sex with whomever asks you, regardless?
DavieD55
12-08-2013, 21:49
They should just contract the cake out to chinamart and let them pick it up at their shop.
Gay rights are not CIVIL RIGHTS.
IF we allow a section of society to push for Civil Rights status, why not everyone? Polygamist, should they not be granted the same right to "WED" who they want?
Gay rights ARE COLOR BLIND. We do not look at someone and see Hetro o,r Homosexual.
We can see a persons color, not their sexual orientation, most of the time.
It's still discrimination. If you believe in letting people be free to do what they want to do, this is no different. What you or anybody else is doing in their own home or lifestyle is their busisness as along as they are of age, consenting and not hurting anybody. Leave them and everybody else alone. I don't agree with it personally and obviously neither do you but I am not going to tell others how to live their lives. I don't smoke pot but it is the same principle, I put pot on the same level as alcohol (so do Colorado voters). I do 4x4 and hate it when people try to tell me I shouldn't or even can't. I shoot guns even though plenty of people want to discriminate that away (had one guy tell me he did not hire a guy because he found out they guy owned guns and thought he would shoot up the work place [idiot]). Leave people alone unless they are directly hurting somebody. I don't agree when any person thinks they can tell somebody else what to do with their lives. Not selling a cake to people because you don't agree with who they want to live with is discrimination, pure and simple.
So the .gov should make kosher delis sell ham, because Christians traditionally eat ham at Easter? And vegan health food stores should be forced to sell meat because it's discriminatory against carnivores not to? How about forcing the cake shop to make a giant penis cake for committed nudists?
Great-Kazoo
12-08-2013, 23:58
. Not selling a cake to people because you don't agree with who they want to live with is discrimination, pure and simple.
NO it's a BUSINESS DECISION. NOT UP TO THE .GOV TO tell me who i should do business with.
Tell you what, lets see if the ACLU will take on those pesky NO FIREARMS business'. AFTER ALL, They discriminate. IT will never happen, why? BECAUSE the ACLU and .gov cherry pick what they feel is discrimination.
As do jesse jackson, sharpton and of all places, the media.
I don't agree when any person thinks they can tell somebody else what to do with their lives. Not selling a cake to people because you don't agree with who they want to live with is discrimination, pure and simple.
Those are mutually exclusive assertions. Either you CAN'T tell people what to do, or you CAN. When you force the bakery owner to sell to a person who he does not want to, you have then discriminated against him, pure and simple.
Is it just me, or do the persons arguing against the baker all seem to be from Aurora? Is that you Rhonda?
Great-Kazoo
12-09-2013, 09:36
Those are mutually exclusive assertions. Either you CAN'T tell people what to do, or you CAN. When you force the bakery owner to sell to a person who he does not want to, you have then discriminated against him, pure and simple.
Is it just me, or do the persons arguing against the baker all seem to be from Aurora? Is that you Rhonda?
late 2012 and 2013 members. seems the newer members have somewhat of an entitlement air to their way of thinking. Baker discriminates, court, aclu and same sex couple are not.
White guy shoots black in self defense and acquitted, RACIST.
Marauding groups of blacks attack, maim and kill whites, NOT ON FUCKING PEEP.
light skinned shooter starts taking out co-workers. CLEARLY RACE MOTIVATED.
MUSLIM / ISLAMIST shoots up army base, Work Place Violence.
Terrorist blows up train station. LETS NOT JUDGE ALL OF ISLAM BY ACTIONS OF A FEW
Mentally unstable 20 somethings go on mass killings. ALL GUNS NEED TO BE REGISTERED AND ACCOUNTED FOR.
YEPPERS somethings wrong and it sure as shit ain't no Baker in CO.
PugnacAutMortem
12-09-2013, 10:14
late 2012 and 2013 members. seems the newer members have somewhat of an entitlement air to their way of thinking.
Seems some of the older members think they are better than the newer members just because they happened upon a website 1st.
StagLefty
12-09-2013, 10:27
Seems some of the older members think they are better than the newer members just because they happened upon a website 1st.
That's profiling [blah-blah]
hurley842002
12-09-2013, 10:31
Seems some of the older members think they are better than the newer members just because they happened upon a website 1st.
Pretty sure that's not the reason why..... By the way, why'd you leave out the rest of Jim's post? That pretty clearly addresses Jim's issue with newer posters.....
This thread is gay. I'm going to get a judge to order that I not read it.
This thread is gay. I'm going to get a judge to order that I not read it.
How about just a patch. Then you can read only the "left" or the "right" side. :)
Great-Kazoo
12-09-2013, 11:04
Pretty sure that's not the reason why..... By the way, why'd you leave out the rest of Jim's post? That pretty clearly addresses Jim's issue with newer posters.....
because then they would have to address the actual issue. Once more deflecting away from the subject at hand. it's what i refer to a victim mentality. Though not necessarily in this case, just a typical deflecting away from the topic .
You need rainbow colored glasses to see all sides.
ChuckNorris
12-09-2013, 11:13
Gay or not gay - the guy has a right as a private business owner to decide with whom he may or may not do business with, without the courts sticking their noses into it!
I am sick of the government / court system telling everyone what they can or cannot do because THEY say so!
PugnacAutMortem
12-09-2013, 11:29
Pretty sure that's not the reason why..... By the way, why'd you leave out the rest of Jim's post? That pretty clearly addresses Jim's issue with newer posters.....
Jim doesn't write in intelligible sentences, so it was just easier to leave all of it out than try to explain to him what was wrong about his post.
RblDiver
12-09-2013, 11:33
There was a great guest on the Mandy Connell show this morning (well, guest host, but that time block). He said he was a gay man and he and his partner had gone to that same baker for a cake for their wedding. He said the baker didn't say no, but that he was very clearly uncomfortable with the whole situation, thus the two partners went elsewhere. The guest was saying, why would you even want to support someone who didn't agree with your beliefs? He thought the whole issue was just a case of the gays bullying the baker. He had a similar experience at a flower shop and some of the venues they wanted to use, but when they were turned down/saw the discomfort level, they didn't sue the establishments, they went to someone who wanted their business!
That guest had a lot of good common sense.
BPTactical
12-09-2013, 11:42
There was a great guest on the Mandy Connell show this morning (well, guest host, but that time block). He said he was a gay man and he and his partner had gone to that same baker for a cake for their wedding. He said the baker didn't say no, but that he was very clearly uncomfortable with the whole situation, thus the two partners went elsewhere. The guest was saying, why would you even want to support someone who didn't agree with your beliefs? He thought the whole issue was just a case of the gays bullying the baker. He had a similar experience at a flower shop and some of the venues they wanted to use, but when they were turned down/saw the discomfort level, they didn't sue the establishments, they went to someone who wanted their business!
That guest had a lot of good common sense.
And this is the way it should be.
I also heard that the couple in question were actually married in Massachusetts some time before this occurred.
Hmm, a gay couple from Massachusetts coming to Colorado not long after civil unions were approved looking for a "wedding" cake.
They knew just what they were doing, an "activist" couple looking to stir the pot.
Despicable.
ChuckNorris
12-09-2013, 11:54
And this is the way it should be.
I also heard that the couple in question were actually married in Massachusetts some time before this occurred.
Hmm, a gay couple from Massachusetts coming to Colorado not long after civil unions were approved looking for a "wedding" cake.
They knew just what they were doing, an "activist" couple looking to stir the pot.
Despicable.
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!
Seems some of the older members think they are better than the newer members just because they happened upon a website 1st.
That's profiling
Those are mutually exclusive assertions. Either you CAN'T tell people what to do, or you CAN. When you force the bakery owner to sell to a person who he does not want to, you have then discriminated against him, pure and simple.
[B]Is it just me, or do the persons arguing against the baker all seem to be from Aurora? Is that you Rhonda?
StagLefty, shouldn't you have used your above reply in response to this^^^^^
Those are mutually exclusive assertions. Either you CAN'T tell people what to do, or you CAN. When you force the bakery owner to sell to a person who he does not want to, you have then discriminated against him, pure and simple.
Is it just me, or do the persons arguing against the baker all seem to be from Aurora? Is that you Rhonda?
Please don't judge all Aurora residents based on the words/actions of a few...[ROFL1]. I'm trying to move, really.
Please don't judge all Aurora residents based on the words/actions of a few...[ROFL1]. I'm trying to move, really.
Efforts duly noted. You are now "unprofiled". :)
DavieD55
12-09-2013, 12:37
And this is the way it should be.
I also heard that the couple in question were actually married in Massachusetts some time before this occurred.
Hmm, a gay couple from Massachusetts coming to Colorado not long after civil unions were approved looking for a "wedding" cake.
They knew just what they were doing, an "activist" couple looking to stir the pot.
Despicable.
Exactly. Coupled with an activist on the bench.
Great-Kazoo
12-09-2013, 12:43
Jim doesn't write in intelligible sentences, so it was just easier to leave all of it out than try to explain to him what was wrong about his post.
Instead of a personal attack , address any sentence i wrote regarding SELECT discrimination and debate what i wrote. Or stoop to personal attacks. One is so much easier than the other.
That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.
I worked at AG's many moons ago and the ALJs were called pretend court, which it is. I also once served on he Civil Rights a Commission, an agency in search of a problem if there ever was one. Meetings a tremendous waste of time, searching for how people' feelings were hurt.
Can only be worse now.
spqrzilla
12-09-2013, 13:15
I'm happy in Aurora.
So I'm gonna sue everyone that makes an insulting remark about this town.
ChuckNorris
12-09-2013, 13:17
I'm happy in Aurora.
So I'm gonna sue everyone that makes an insulting remark about this town.
. . . . and so it begins.
Efforts duly noted. You are now "unprofiled". :)
Whew... *wipes brow*
Sent via my Mobile Work Avoidance Device
BlasterBob
12-09-2013, 15:44
Seems some of the older members think they are better than the newer members just because they happened upon a website 1st.
Well dang if this doesn't sound kinda like discrimination against us old farts. [blaster][Sarcasm2] [LOL]
Great-Kazoo
12-09-2013, 16:14
Well dang if this doesn't sound kinda like discrimination against us old farts. [blaster][Sarcasm2] [LOL]
It's the common denominator when there is nothing someone has for a response.
I know you are but what am i , thing.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-09-2013, 20:31
There was a great guest on the Mandy Connell show this morning (well, guest host, but that time block). He said he was a gay man and he and his partner had gone to that same baker for a cake for their wedding. He said the baker didn't say no, but that he was very clearly uncomfortable with the whole situation, thus the two partners went elsewhere. The guest was saying, why would you even want to support someone who didn't agree with your beliefs? He thought the whole issue was just a case of the gays bullying the baker. He had a similar experience at a flower shop and some of the venues they wanted to use, but when they were turned down/saw the discomfort level, they didn't sue the establishments, they went to someone who wanted their business!
That guest had a lot of good common sense.
This is kind of what I was getting at before.
I seriously do not understand insisting on going where your business is not wanted. [Dunno]
There are two parts to this in that the client and supplier will be supporting each other.
How many other cake-bakers are out there in the world? Enough that you could likely find someone you might actually want to support.
Even if you force someone to make a cake for you that doesn't want to, now you're helping someone who doesn't agree with you at all stay in business.
spqrzilla
12-09-2013, 20:38
The original rationale for Congress extending civil rights laws to private business was that a "public accomodation" - like a restaurant or a motel - if it discriminated against minorities impeded their ability to travel and that impacted interstate commerce. Now obviously a state law need not claim a nexus to interstate commerce as they have general police powers that Congress lacks but really, the great "wrong" that is being solved by this is to prevent someone from being denied a decorated cake? Sheesh.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-09-2013, 21:35
Wickard v. Filburn made "interstate commerce" a total joke.
spqrzilla
12-09-2013, 21:49
Wickard v. Filburn made "interstate commerce" a total joke.
Heart of Atlanta Motel is the case, if memory serves. And it does not really rely on Wickard to that extent, as its based on actual people actually traveling. Hmmm, yep, my memory was right.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=379&invol=241
DavieD55
06-03-2014, 23:33
Update:
A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
Read on. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/)
Oh I would be more than happy to make them a cake,,,just use visine for the liquid mix and they will be shitting there pants for 2 days,,,,or there are many more combinations out there that would certainly enhance there wedding day.
He should have just told them he was booked and does not have time to fill there order by that date instead of turning them down because they like hersheys
If they do anything to the cake they could easily be paying for a LONG time.
He could probably make a fortune with fudge cakes.....
Wow, that "punishment" is a bit harsh... Welcome to the United Snakes.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
BPTactical
06-04-2014, 06:35
Being Black, Hispanic, disabled etc is what one IS.
Sleeping with a same sex partner is what one DOES.
Huge difference between the two....
Why the fuck is it less than 3% of the population that partakes in immoral and perverse behavior is such a player in the world of politics?
And like the anti gun movement is based on so many lies.
Look at the Matthew Shepard case. We were told he was killed because he was a pole smoker and it influenced what is very possibly the most sweeping "Hate Crime" laws in the nation.
All a lie.
He was a meth head, killed by a couple of meth heads, one of which he had a relationship with because he would not share his party favors with them.
Stop the ride, I want off.......
I wonder if he'll just close his bakery.
Dave Mulling and Charley Craig sought Masterpiece out specifically because they knew he wouldn't do what they wanted, there are plenty of bakeries that would have made them a cake. Then they found a judge who does not believe in the rule of law and ran their game. This was a setup from the get-go.
Welcome to the new normal where you work hard, open your own business and the state tells you who your customers are. I wonder if the judge is going to set the pricing too.
I wonder if the judge is going to set the pricing too.
Come on, they are not FFLs.
Rucker61
06-04-2014, 07:23
My initial impression is that I understand their big picture, to reduce/end discrimination against gays, but it seems counter-productive to force an artist to participate involuntarily, not giving their best results, when there are plenty of other service/product providers who would rather have your business.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot; say, if a religious group approached a gay owned video production company with the intent to produce an anti-gay message. Based on Volokh's writings, it looks like they would be required, under this ruling, to produce that message.
Come on, they are not FFLs.
Good one, and good point. Whatever business you have, especially if you're a Republican/Conservative/Christian, you are now a target. The IRS, the bank, the EPA, the gay agenda, the VA, all those factions are out actively hunting you for the slightest infraction.
My initial impression is that I understand their big picture, to reduce/end discrimination against gays, but it seems counter-productive to force an artist to participate involuntarily, not giving their best results, when there are plenty of other service/product providers who would rather have your business.
I wonder what the reaction would be if the shoe was on the other foot; say, if a religious group approached a gay owned video production company with the intent to produce an anti-gay message. Based on Volokh's writings, it looks like they would be required, under this ruling, to produce that message.
That is a good question, maybe someone will test it.
Stop the ride, I want off.......
You can check out any time you like,
but you can never leave.
This ride is just getting started.
Dick-head has 2.5 more years to rule.
This ride is just getting started.
Dick-head has 2.5 more years to rule.
Even when he's gone it's still not going to fix it... Remember, you don't mess with the gay mafia, they'll ruin your life. I'm actually more afraid of angry, litigious homosexuals (and offending their delicate sensibilities) than I am of the bloods, the crips, the hell's angels, etc. The ride will only get worse, and I have a feeling Chik-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are next.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Rooskibar03
06-04-2014, 10:54
I wonder if he'll just close his bakery.
Dave Mulling and Charley Craig sought Masterpiece out specifically because they knew he wouldn't do what they wanted, there are plenty of bakeries that would have made them a cake. Then they found a judge who does not believe in the rule of law and ran their game. This was a setup from the get-go.
Welcome to the new normal where you work hard, open your own business and the state tells you who your customers are. I wonder if the judge is going to set the pricing too.
The store is right around the corner from me so daughter and I stopped in yesterday to pick up some goodies and show support. They are all in very good spirits and when I told them we'd be back in a few weeks for Ava's birthday cake she told me to plan ahead more then normal.
The he phone was ringing off the hook the entire time we were there and she said they are so busy from supporters they are running much longer than normal timelines.
I doubt they they will close but I have heard they won't make wedding cakes anymore. I didn't ask about that specifically when I was there but I'm glad to see them thriving.
The store is right around the corner from me so daughter and I stopped in yesterday to pick up some goodies and show support. They are all in very good spirits and when I told them we'd be back in a few weeks for Ava's birthday cake she told me to plan ahead more then normal.
The he phone was ringing off the hook the entire time we were there and she said they are so busy from supporters they are running much longer than normal timelines.
I doubt they they will close but I have heard they won't make wedding cakes anymore. I didn't ask about that specifically when I was there but I'm glad to see them thriving.
Good to hear...thanks
I always stop by there and get a treat when I'm at Green Mountain Guns...throw some dough in the pot too for their legal expenses.
These are good people getting jacked around by a couple of open sores and POS judge.
Since when does one select their own judge?
So, they're forced to make you a cake when you're carrying a boyfriend, but you can't watch a movie if your're carrying a pistol?
Good to hear...thanks
I always stop by there and get a treat when I'm at Green Mountain Guns...throw some dough in the pot too for their legal expenses.
These are good people getting jacked around by a couple of open sores and POS judge.
Huh, just realized this place is right near my work. I'm right off Wadsworth just south of 285. I usually end up at Granny Scott's for pies or lunch, but I'm going to have to check Masterpiece out. I'm ok with gay marriage personally, but these guys could have taken their business elsewhere instead of making a huge production out of it.
So, they're forced to make you a cake when you're carrying a boyfriend, but you can't watch a movie if your're carrying a pistol?
And dont forget that you can't force a business to accept your money if you open carry. They can ask you to leave and people will celebrate.
Rooskibar03
06-04-2014, 12:01
Huh, just realized this place is right near my work. I'm right off Wadsworth just south of 285. I usually end up at Granny Scott's for pies or lunch, but I'm going to have to check Masterpiece out. I'm ok with gay marriage personally, but these guys could have taken their business elsewhere instead of making a huge production out of it.
I asked them about that once, Cake shop on one side of the street & pie shop on the other. Jack said they had both have been there for years, and close and neither hurts the others business.
Along with the Taste of Denmark pastry shop a few miles away these 3 places can fulfill all of your sweet tooth needs.
hollohas
06-04-2014, 16:52
I read the employees also have to take sensitivity training...sounds a lot like "reeducation" to me.
You don't want to make a gay cake? You just earned yourself court ordered "reeducation".
I read the employees also have to take sensitivity training...sounds a lot like "reeducation" to me.
You don't want to make a gay cake? You just earned yourself court ordered "reeducation".
Am I the only one who thinks this "Reeducation" is a bit... Orwellian?
ZERO THEORY
06-04-2014, 17:20
I knew I shouldn't have came back to this thread. I don't like being angry at the end of the work day.
I knew I shouldn't have came back to this thread. I don't like being angry at the end of the work day.
Me too, but probably for different reasons.
DavieD55
06-04-2014, 18:00
Am I the only one who thinks this "Reeducation" is a bit... Orwellian?
Nope.
BPTactical
06-04-2014, 18:00
So, they're forced to make you a cake when you're carrying a boyfriend, but you can't watch a movie if your're carrying a pistol?
Funny one is a Constitutionally protected right, the other is not.
I really wish they would stick to fucking their own instead of fucking all of us.
I really don't want Ghonnaherpesyphillaids.
BlasterBob
06-04-2014, 18:01
About fifty + years ago, my Dad had a tavern in a small town in Iowa. Posted where everyone could easily see it, was a sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE". Now it's probably be illegal to post such a notice. Damn shame what's going on here in our great Country.
[pileoshit]
I almost wouldn't hesitate to bet they have connections to this particular judge somehow through their gay network of friends.
Heh heh. You said "connections" heh heh [LOL]
Rooskibar03
06-04-2014, 18:54
He will not comply.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/04/the-bibleoverrules-all-that-govt-says-baker-must-make-wedding-cakes-for-gays-but-hes-not-backing-down/
I would say Fuck you Judge! This is MY business an until they NATIONALIZE cake making! I will serve what customer I want WHEN I want!
Simple solution, just make crappy cakes for Homosexual unions err weddings.
BPTactical
06-04-2014, 19:18
Simple solution, just make crappy cakes for Homosexual unions err weddings.
Butt even if you put extra "batter" in them they wouldn't mind.....
Butt even if you put extra "batter" in them they wouldn't mind.....
In this case the judge is the catcher...
theGinsue
06-04-2014, 22:25
I'm not advocating for or against gay marriages here, just addressing the Constitutionality of this decision.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The 1st Amendment mentions the limits on Congress to legislate any restriction on the free exercise of religion. This is because only Congress has the legal authority to legislate. This judges decision is de-facto legislation, not a Constitutional determination of Justice which is his legal realm.
Phillips also addressed Spencer’s December ruling, saying that the judge said he understood the baker’s constitutional rights, but said Phillips’ refusal to provide a cake didn’t qualify as ”speech” and that “discrimination charges overrule it.” The commission affirmed this stance May 30.
Sadly, this judge doesn't know, or care to understand that the 1st Amendment goes well beyond addressing the Right to Freedom of Speech; it is also supposed to protect ones Right to exercise their chosen religion as they see fit. Again, this judges decision violates this cake makers Right.
Some will say that this bakery is a "public business" and, as such, must abide by certain civil rights protections. I contend that this bakery is a private business - owned by a private citizen - and the owner ultimately has the right to refuse to serve any customer he chooses, particularly if doing business with them violates his religious beliefs. The Civil Rights rules were put into place because of discrimination based off of skin color which isn't something someone has any ability to change and isn't something that violates any (mainstream) religious tenants. Homosexuality is more of a behavior and mental ideology - something that one can choose to express or not. In my opinion, their choice(s) do not trump the right of a business owner to freely exercise his religion.
ZERO THEORY
06-04-2014, 22:32
Me too, but probably for different reasons.
Ah, you were looking to have some cakes made, were ya?
Funny one is a Constitutionally protected right, the other is not.
I really wish they would stick to fucking their own instead of fucking all of us.
I really don't want Ghonnaherpesyphillaids.
It's funny that when things don't go their way, it's unfair and un-American. God forbid everyone else doesn't bow down to their every demand in the name of "sensitivity" and "equality".
But shitting on our rights or someone else's interests, that's all fine and dandy. Gotta love double standards.
Just wondering here but would people have a problem with this baker if he refused to make a cake for a guy in a wheelchair or a black couple? Yeah, that would not be right, you can't do that. Handicapped people and races are protected classes. If you open a business you have to serve all. So the problem here is that gay people are considered a protected class just like if a white guy went into Jose's barber shop. Jose cant deny you service because of your race so he has to cut your hair.
If you want to disagree with something here, you can't scream "constitution!" and expect success. We can disagree with the ruling on this baker all day long but I think the only way of getting around it is to get the law changed so that being gay isn't a protected class. I have no doubt that whoever this gay couple is that is trying to get a cake, are just doing this to prove a point. Who the hell would want to eat something made by someone who does not like you? Being of a certain sex or race is a protected class, this is something that you can't do anything about. I just don't believe people are born gay. It is something learned over time and the ones that end up gay just don't go back to a hetero lifestyle. Look at all the girls in college who experiment with other girls and then come back around to being normal adults. Now I wish this baker would just bake a shitty cake for them and charge them properly and move on.
Some will say that this bakery is a "public business" and, as such, must abide by certain civil rights protections.
It is a public business. Anyone can walk in and exchange money for their product, no membership required.
The Civil Rights rules were put into place because of discrimination based off of skin color which isn't something someone has any ability to change and isn't something that violates any (mainstream) religious tenants. Homosexuality is more of a behavior and mental ideology - something that one can choose to express or not. In my opinion, their choice(s) do not trump the right of a business owner to freely exercise his religion.
Here we have the argument that homosexuality is not comparable to skin color because skin color is not chosen. We see this argument all the time. Quite nearly as often, this line of thought is carried over and applied to religion in the same respect to skin color. Why is that? Religion and skin color are no more comparable than skin color and homosexuality. Completely disregarding the debate of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, there is ZERO debate about whether religion is a choice. There will never be a valid argument for someone being born religious that wouldn't directly apply to homosexuality. So again, why is there such an enormous blind spot in this debate that allows people to continuously place religious choice on the same level as skin color, yet downgrade the choice of sexual preference? One person can choose to be a person of faith, can choose to embrace a "religion," regardless of the specifics of the religion, and their choice is all of the sudden Constitutionally protected.
"Homosexualtiy is more of a behavior and a mental ideology - something that one can choose to express or not."
"Religion is more of a behavior and a mental ideology - something that one can choose to express or not."
The second part of this statement is "In my opinion, their choice(s) do not trump the right of a business owner to freely exercise his religion." Homosexuality apparently must take a second to religion, because religion is in the Constitution, and homosexuality is not. This completely ignores the fact that religion in of itself is a choice.
This homosexuality vs religion argument is tired, but it is also flawed. The power of the First Amendment lies not in the fact that one can speak, or publish, or embrace religion. The power lies in the fact that one has the choice about what to speak, if at all. That one has the choice of what to publish, if at all. That one has the choice of which religion to embrace, if at all. To reflect on the main point, the argument that homosexuality some how violates the First Amendment right is flawed from the beginning; and every argument built on that flawed foundation doesn't stand under its own weight. The First Amendment guarantees that people are allowed to make a choice about how they feel about something, and then express it, publish it, or believe it. The First Amendment does NOT guarantee that anyone should be protected from being offended after they've made their choice, by the choices of others. The First Amendment does not declare a winner in which choices are the correct ones, only that the choice is even an option. It's not what you choose, only that you choose.
If you exercise your right to choose, and find yourself unable to cope with the choices of others, don't come crying to the Constitution for protection. Just keep arguing about whether .300 blkout or 5.56 will one-shot-kill a unicorn at 220 yards, and then whether the bed of a Chevy or the hood of a Ford is the better way to transport it back to town.
Some will say that this bakery is a "public business" and, as such, must abide by certain civil rights protections. I contend that this bakery is a private business - owned by a private citizen - and the owner ultimately has the right to refuse to serve any customer he chooses, particularly if doing business with them violates his religious beliefs. The Civil Rights rules were put into place because of discrimination based off of skin color which isn't something someone has any ability to change and isn't something that violates any (mainstream) religious tenants. Homosexuality is more of a behavior and mental ideology - something that one can choose to express or not. In my opinion, their choice(s) do not trump the right of a business owner to freely exercise his religion.
FFS- finally someone says it! I've been saying this from day one. "Open to the public" and a "Public establishment" are two separate things. If I own a gun store, I can refuse service because some shady looking individual comes in intent on buying a gun. I may assume he's up to no good even if he's not, but it's still MY right as a business owner to refuse service. It used to be that business could put up signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Guess that isn't the case now? What changed? I guess a lot of folks out there need to unwad their panties and stop crying to the courts when they don't get their way. Life is tough, get a dog.
I guess a lot of folks out there need to unwad their panties and stop crying to the Constitution when they don't get their way. Life is tough, get a dog.
I know right?
theGinsue
06-05-2014, 00:40
Irving, the Constitution is a legally binding document which established the foundation of our government and our nation. The courts were officially sanctioned in this new government by the Constitution - not the other way around.
Within the Constitution, again a legally binding document, the ability to freely exercise religion of choice was recognized as a fundamental right and it was protected with this document. Once again, this choice has been legally protected since the founding of this nation. The Constitution is the trump card; it outweighs any other document, law, or privilege within our system of government. No where in the Constitution is homosexuality addressed or given special protections. No where.
Your attempt to equate my statement to the expression of homosexual behavior does not hold up to a basic logic test.
Looks like I'll have to figure out a way to refine my point further. I honestly don't know that I will be able to do so.
hollohas
06-05-2014, 06:03
The baker didn't even refuse their business, he just refused to participate in their wedding that he didn't believe in. He offered to bake them other goods...but he just wouldn't bake them a WEDDING cake.
The whole argument is based on the premise he refused to serve them because they are gay. That is simply not true. He refused to participate in the wedding which Christians believe is a religious ceremony. So this 100% has to do with religion and like Ginsue said, is the trump card contained in contained in the constitution.
So, Irving, what other businesses or services should the courts force to participate in gay weddings against their religious beliefs? Should we force a Christian harp player to play at gay weddings? A Christian band? Should the courts mandate CHRISTIAN churches allow gay weddings on their property?
ZERO THEORY
06-05-2014, 06:32
Just wondering here but would people have a problem with this baker if he refused to make a cake for a guy in a wheelchair or a black couple? Yeah, that would not be right, you can't do that. Handicapped people and races are protected classes. If you open a business you have to serve all. So the problem here is that gay people are considered a protected class just like if a white guy went into Jose's barber shop. Jose cant deny you service because of your race so he has to cut your hair.
If I go in there and they say, "We don't serve coloreds," I'll just walk out and take my money elsewhere. I'm an adult and realize that not every other one of the 7 billion people is going to be my pal. What I won't do is cry and whine, then get the press and .gov involved. If being denied service because of someone else's beliefs in their own establishment is really that big of a deal, then you're living a pretty comfortable life.
speedysst
06-05-2014, 07:29
I still cant figure out why the couple didn't just go to another bakery other than they wanted to be bullies.
BPTactical
06-05-2014, 07:44
I still cant figure out why the couple didn't just go to another bakery other than they wanted to be bullies.
To push a minority agenda.
Whistler
06-05-2014, 08:18
Seems to me a homosexual is a man with the rights of a man in this country, I am a heterosexual man with the rights of a man in this country. By choosing to practice homosexuality why would that man suddenly have additional rights? You have the right to make the choice to practice homosexuality and there it ends. That baker could certainly refuse to make a cake for me with "Sheila is a slut" written across the top or if I told him I wanted a cake for "a blood letting ceremony" without repercussion but he can't refuse this cake? I do not grasp why one's choice to practice what to me amounts to a deviant lifestyle somehow affords them protections beyond any other man in our society. I can see that the right to choose is protected but just can't translate that to suddenly becoming a protected class - sexual persecution? Don't perceive that as exclusive domain of homosexuals and subsequently see no need for separate protections.
Just as that baker doesn't want to hear WHY Sheila is a slut or OC protests go too far when they carry AR15s in Chipotle, they put themselves in the position to be refused by their behavior not the choice (as fine a distinction as it might seem). To me this was clearly planned/orchestrated by two activist homosexuals to "punish" someone who didn't embrace their lifestyle with the intent to force acceptance of said lifestyle... and attention. For the record I do see a distinct difference between homosexuality and race - race is something you are and you have no choice. While homosexuality may be "something you are" sexual behavior regardless of type is exactly that, a behavior. I'll choose not to argue whether some folks are "born" homosexual but it's irrelevant to the fact you choose your behavior; heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, ad infinitum or even celibacy. Maybe I got it wrong but it doesn't look to me as though he objected because they were homosexual, he objected to the behavior - a same-sex marriage and I perceive that his right if it conflicts with his choices. I have the right and the choice to carry, a private business has the right not to accommodate my choice.
The right to choose exists and is protected but that conveys no right to accommodation of your choice as you see fit. In some cases exercising your choices may conflict with someone else's, it's the nature of liberty and we simply respect the right of the other to choose, agree to disagree and move on. Your rights end where another's rights begin, some choices just conflict. IMO the baker's religion or reason is not relevant simply his right to refuse to make a cake he objected to making.
I still cant figure out why the couple didn't just go to another bakery other than they wanted to be bullies.
Because they're fucking assholes...that is all we need to know.
Seems to me a homosexual is a man with the rights of a man in this country, I am a heterosexual man with the rights of a man in this country. By choosing to practice homosexuality why would that man suddenly have additional rights? You have the right to make the choice to practice homosexuality and there it ends. That baker could certainly refuse to make a cake for me with "Sheila is a slut" written across the top or if I told him I wanted a cake for "a blood letting ceremony" without repercussion but he can't refuse this cake? I do not grasp why one's choice to practice what to me amounts to a deviant lifestyle somehow affords them protections beyond any other man in our society. I can see that the right to choose is protected but just can't translate that to suddenly becoming a protected class - sexual persecution? Don't perceive that as exclusive domain of homosexuals and subsequently see no need for separate protections.
Just as that baker doesn't want to hear WHY Sheila is a slut or OC protests go too far when they carry AR15s in Chipotle, they put themselves in the position to be refused by their behavior not the choice (as fine a distinction as it might seem). To me this was clearly planned/orchestrated by two activist homosexuals to "punish" someone who didn't embrace their lifestyle with the intent to force acceptance of said lifestyle... and attention. For the record I do see a distinct difference between homosexuality and race - race is something you are and you have no choice. While homosexuality may be "something you are" sexual behavior regardless of type is exactly that, a behavior. I'll choose not to argue whether some folks are "born" homosexual but it's irrelevant to the fact you choose your behavior; heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, ad infinitum or even celibacy. Maybe I got it wrong but it doesn't look to me as though he objected because they were homosexual, he objected to the behavior - a same-sex marriage and I perceive that his right if it conflicts with his choices. I have the right and the choice to carry, a private business has the right not to accommodate my choice.
The right to choose exists and is protected but that conveys no right to accommodation of your choice as you see fit. In some cases exercising your choices may conflict with someone else's, it's the nature of liberty and we simply respect the right of the other to choose, agree to disagree and move on. Your rights end where another's rights begin, some choices just conflict. IMO the baker's religion or reason is not relevant simply his right to refuse to make a cake he objected to making.
Oh this is really good. Thank you.
Rooskibar03
06-05-2014, 10:04
Heard an interesting point this am. Gay marries is against Colorado law, in fact it was voted into the state constitution 8 years ago.
So this baker is being forced to make a cake for a marriage that is illegal under state law?
We are truly screwed as a nation.
Bitter Clinger
06-05-2014, 12:55
This situation sickens me, BUT it does set a precedent.......gun owners can now not be asked to leave a business while carrying right?
This situation sickens me, BUT it does set a precedent.......gun owners can now not be asked to leave a business while carrying right?
Incorrect. Protected class vs not-protected class. Kind of silly since the constitution allows it which pseudo protects it, in my opinion.
ZERO THEORY
06-05-2014, 13:14
Kind of silly since the constitution allows it which pseudo protects it, in my opinion.
It's 2014. Our Constitution is dead. It got shot through the heart when Bush signed the Patriot Act, and then just for good measure, Obama cut the head off with the NDAA.
Sharpienads
06-05-2014, 13:22
If I go in there and they say, "We don't serve coloreds," I'll just walk out and take my money elsewhere. I'm an adult and realize that not every other one of the 7 billion people is going to be my pal. What I won't do is cry and whine, then get the press and .gov involved. If being denied service because of someone else's beliefs in their own establishment is really that big of a deal, then you're living a pretty comfortable life.
Right? I think any anti-descimination law is bullshit. You have a policy of not serving "coloreds"? Fine, that's your choice, but I won't be utilizing your services and I'll be sure to let everyone I know how ignorant you are. I guarantee your business won't last long. No need to get the government involved. No need for re-education.
I just don't understand the attitude of the people that think the government needs to get involved in every aspect of our lives.
I just don't understand the attitude of the people that think the government needs to get involved in every aspect of our lives.
Its even funnier that people actually think laws will force people to change. If you don't let people learn from their own actions, they'll never change. The bully needs to get his ass kicked to learn it's not a good idea to bully people. Having a "mommy" come in to settle your disputes only makes those involved get mad.
I was discussing this issue with a friend today and I offered up an alternative view... Now I know Luigi will chime in if he reads this, and I welcome it, but what if instead of a couple of gay dudes it was a Satanic couple? They're apart of a religion, thus they are actually protected, however, same cake maker, same circumstances, just instead of gay insert Satanic (or Satanist, whatever moniker they choose) and would there still be the same outcome? Who's religion trumps who? Is it still wrong that this guy would refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding that didn't go with his beliefs? It would still be wrong in his eyes and it's still his choice to refuse to participate in something he believes is wrong. I understand the homosexual community has rights as well, but they need to realize that they aren't the only ones with rights, and not everyone's concept of right and wrong are the exact same, otherwise we'd all be boring and there would be nothing to start threads about in message boards.
Sharpienads
06-05-2014, 14:22
I was discussing this issue with a friend today and I offered up an alternative view... Now I know Luigi will chime in if he reads this, and I welcome it, but what if instead of a couple of gay dudes it was a Satanic couple? They're apart of a religion, thus they are actually protected, however, same cake maker, same circumstances, just instead of gay insert Satanic (or Satanist, whatever moniker they choose) and would there still be the same outcome? Who's religion trumps who? Is it still wrong that this guy would refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding that didn't go with his beliefs? It would still be wrong in his eyes and it's still his choice to refuse to participate in something he believes is wrong. I understand the homosexual community has rights as well, but they need to realize that they aren't the only ones with rights, and not everyone's concept of right and wrong are the exact same, otherwise we'd all be boring and there would be nothing to start threads about in message boards.
The bottom line is that the baker shouldn't be forced by law to bake a cake for anyone he doesn't want to for any reason. I don't give a fuck if your gay/straight, black/white, satanic/christain feelings get hurt. Go somehwere else to get your cake. Or better yet, open your own goddamn bakery that caters to gay weddings. Problem solved and no government intervention. The free market will take care of the real assholes.
My angry tone is directed at the situation, not at you Ronin.
RblDiver
06-05-2014, 14:28
Right? I think any anti-descimination law is bullshit. You have a policy of not serving "coloreds"? Fine, that's your choice, but I won't be utilizing your services and I'll be sure to let everyone I know how ignorant you are. I guarantee your business won't last long. No need to get the government involved. No need for re-education.
I just don't understand the attitude of the people that think the government needs to get involved in every aspect of our lives.
+1. I sort of understand how back in the day those sorts of laws were needed (if still in a definite gray area), but nowadays, hell, if they don't want to serve you give 'em a bad Yelp review and move on with your life.
(Still think the 13th Amendment would make for an interesting defense in these cases).
BlasterBob
06-05-2014, 14:44
Wedding cake for this couple???
[sheepshagger]
Like I'd really eat a cake that some judge forced someone to make for me... Mmmmm! Is that butter cream frosting?
BlasterBob
06-05-2014, 14:54
Like I'd really eat a cake that some judge forced someone to make for me... Mmmmm! Is that butter cream frosting?
But but your Honor, the cake he provided for us smelled like [pileoshit].
BPTactical
06-05-2014, 15:49
Like I'd really eat a cake that some judge forced someone to make for me... Mmmmm! Is that butter cream frosting?
Well if your THAT kind of couple, the taste for that particular brand of Buttercream is probably not too objectionable.
NSFW (F-bomb)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4wnyCRRi0o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H44ZLiOlN0A
They could have just gone here, but that wouldn't advance the agenda...
http://www.lebakerysensual.com/#P4015-angrybirds
Or here.
http://www.engaygedweddings.com/co/gay-wedding-cakes-co.html
or here.
https://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0505-06.htm
Human rights groups have condemned the "barbaric" murder of a 14-year-old boy, who, according to witnesses, was shot on his doorstep by Iraqi police for the apparent crime of being gay.
The baker didn't even refuse their business, he just refused to participate in their wedding that he didn't believe in. He offered to bake them other goods...but he just wouldn't bake them a WEDDING cake.
The whole argument is based on the premise he refused to serve them because they are gay. That is simply not true. He refused to participate in the wedding which Christians believe is a religious ceremony. So this 100% has to do with religion and like Ginsue said, is the trump card contained in contained in the constitution.
So, Irving, what other businesses or services should the courts force to participate in gay weddings against their religious beliefs? Should we force a Christian harp player to play at gay weddings? A Christian band? Should the courts mandate CHRISTIAN churches allow gay weddings on their property?
Sorry, not buying this one bit. The baker of a cake doesn't participate in a wedding any more than an 18 year-old waitress participates in the round of drinks she serves to a table; and at least the waitress is in the same room. The baker isn't sponsoring the wedding, isn't donating the cake, isn't signing "I approve this wedding" in frosting at the bottom.
Have you guys seen the cakes on the website? They are all the same cake, with different words, if any at all. This isn't like a cup cake show where the owner personally delivers the cake in front of a crowd of people.
The comment about hay marriage being illegal in Colorado? You can do better than that. Making cakes isn't illegal, and it doesn't matter what the end user users the cake for. If that was an issue, Solo cups would have been run out of business years ago.
To answer your second question about the courts, I don't think they should have been involved in this at all, from either side.
I have little issue about the Baker declining to bake the cake. I do have a big issue with either side claiming this is a rights issue when it very clearly is not. It wasn't too start with anyway.
RblDiver
06-06-2014, 10:39
Sorry, not buying this one bit. The baker of a cake doesn't participate in a wedding any more than an 18 year-old waitress participates in the round of drinks she serves to a table; and at least the waitress is in the same room. The baker isn't sponsoring the wedding, isn't donating the cake, isn't signing "I approve this wedding" in frosting at the bottom.
Bartenders are responsible if they serve drinks to someone who is clearly intoxicated. Even if they're not partaking of the drinks themselves, they're still participating in the inebriation.
Just wear your "I don't believe in gay marriage" shirt and go to every gay establishment you can.
Post your results.
Bartenders are responsible if they serve drinks to someone who is clearly intoxicated. Even if they're not partaking of the drinks themselves, they're still participating in the inebriation.
Absolutely, but not comparable to cake.
If it is part of the baker's practice to present cakes, then absolutely he should be able to refuse.
RblDiver
06-06-2014, 12:13
Absolutely, but not comparable to cake.
If it is part of the baker's practice to present cakes, then absolutely he should be able to refuse.
The bartender who knows the person is drunk is still liable even if he hands the drink to a waitress who ACTUALLY delivers the drink.
Irving, I see what you're saying, but put yourself in another's shoes and try and see that this baker has the point of view that by making a wedding cake for a gay couple (and his belief that gay marriage is wrong) he is directly contributing to a practice he views as wrong. I would agree with his right to want to not take any part whatsoever, much the same as if a micro brewery were asked by the kkk to provide beer for a rally and they refused- even if they are not in attendance and all they're doing is providing beverages.
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I stopped yesterday for lunch and grabbed a cupcake and a choc chip cookie. The woman behind the counter was very polite and the cupcake was one of the best I have ever had. She liked my Unapologetically American t-shirt too.
It'll be interesting to see how this goes:
http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes-legal-action-after-denver-baker-refuses-to-make-anti-gay-cake/
clodhopper
01-20-2015, 13:40
It'll be interesting to see how this goes:
http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes-legal-action-after-denver-baker-refuses-to-make-anti-gay-cake/
I had a hard time just getting past the opening sentence.... "love is spread one stroke at a time". My mind just has a reserved space in the gutter.
Chad4000
01-20-2015, 15:51
Apparently I was bored enough today to read the entire thread.
I think what we should do, is everybody here is responsible for getting a gay friend or two. make them open carry, and when they are harrassed, they can claim that it's because they are gay... then we at least win while they are winning lol
PugnacAutMortem
01-20-2015, 15:58
It'll be interesting to see how this goes:
http://kdvr.com/2015/01/19/man-takes-legal-action-after-denver-baker-refuses-to-make-anti-gay-cake/
All right, which one of you was this?
Not feeling the love.
Some anonymous twat waffle walks into a bakery wanting lude quotes in bible shaped cakes. Then a year later decides to sue. Good for you. GTFO.
I don't care about the shops religious beliefs. It's their shop and their rules (within the bounds of established law). Don't like it? Leave.
There are more than enough bakers (and other gay friendly business') that will gladly take your business. This is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit and, as usual, the bottom feeders pick it up and make it into news.
I have to ask - was this over a fudge cake?
BPTactical
01-21-2015, 05:51
I have to ask - was this over a fudge cake?
[facepalm]
RblDiver
01-21-2015, 11:05
Not feeling the love.
Some anonymous twat waffle walks into a bakery wanting lude quotes in bible shaped cakes. Then a year later decides to sue. Good for you. GTFO.
I don't care about the shops religious beliefs. It's their shop and their rules (within the bounds of established law). Don't like it? Leave.
There are more than enough bakers (and other gay friendly business') that will gladly take your business. This is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit and, as usual, the bottom feeders pick it up and make it into news.
In general, I'd agree with you. Shop owners shouldn't be forced to do squat they don't want to. However, so long as the Masterpiece case stands, I'm all for it. Perhaps it can get overturned.
Yeah, this is obviously just a troll trying to shake the apple cart. But after that first ruling against the baker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding (due to religious beliefs), this should be interesting. Lots of comments seem to take the bakers side on this one in the name of "A business can refuse service to anyone" mantra. We waded into some very interesting waters with the original ruling.
If this were my shop, I'd have given him a REASON to sue.
Thus why I will never be able to work in customer service...
wctriumph
01-21-2015, 17:21
Both are against Christian bakers for basically opposite reasons. Damned if you don't, damned if you don't.
WTF is wrong with people??
Aloha_Shooter
01-22-2015, 09:39
Sauce for the goose. I doubt this would ever have happened if the homosexual "rights" community hadn't pushed things with the first baker. The guy who did this must be a bit of an obnoxious arse but so am I and Azucar Bakery should blame the ACLU and the homosexual community for creating the situation for him to put her on the spot like this.
68Charger
01-22-2015, 09:41
Both are against Christian bakers for basically opposite reasons. Damned if you don't, damned if you don't.
WTF is wrong with people??
Seems to me there was some book that predicted this quite a few years back... oh yeah, here it is:
John 15:18-19:
18 “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20 Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+15%3A18-20&version=NIV#fen-NIV-26720a)] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.
I agree that they've created an interesting situation by forcing will upon a bakery for one situation- makes it difficult for them to not do the same thing in this situation, lest they are exposed as the hypocrites that they are. Maybe the ATF can help them to "redesign" their decision.
I'm also of the opinion that the baker should be able to tell anyone to pound sand... it's not like getting a cake is a constitutionally protected right- and even if it was, forcing somebody else to do it for you is where is breaks down.
Aloha_Shooter
01-22-2015, 09:47
I agree that they've created an interesting situation by forcing will upon a bakery for one situation- makes it difficult for them not to do the same thing, lest they are exposed as the hypocrites that they are. Maybe the ATF can help them to "redesign" their decision.
OTOH, it seems to me the liberals never cared much about being exposed as hypocrites. Somehow it rolls off their backs like water off a duck. They call Republicans racist then make a former KKK Grand Dragon their Senate Majority Leader, talk about income inequality and the rich operating by different rules while Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets special sole-source deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars for his company, make up BS "wars against women" while hiring fewer women and paying them less than the Republican opponent mocked for specifically looking for women to fill vacancies.
The mainstream media never holds them accountable or exposes the hypocrisy and they've taken over both the educational and judicial systems so why would they care?
68Charger
01-22-2015, 09:57
OTOH, it seems to me the liberals never cared much about being exposed as hypocrites. Somehow it rolls off their backs like water off a duck. They call Republicans racist then make a former KKK Grand Dragon their Senate Majority Leader, talk about income inequality and the rich operating by different rules while Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets special sole-source deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars for his company, make up BS "wars against women" while hiring fewer women and paying them less than the Republican opponent mocked for specifically looking for women to fill vacancies.
The mainstream media never holds them accountable or exposes the hypocrisy and they've taken over both the educational and judicial systems so why would they care?
You're right- you won't convince them, but there are moderate people that will see it for what it is. I wouldn't dream that they would give a crap what any of US think.
Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.
This is one fucked up world......
Nailed it. Could you imagine going back in time and telling John Wayne that this is how things were gonna be? He tell you it was a damn lie and shoot you.
Update: The US Supreme Court will be hearing this case this week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/gay-wedding-cake-controversy-heads-to-supreme-court.html
Instead of starting a new thread I figured I'd just add to one that was already going.
The implications of this are huge- as the left is clammoring that it will allow businesses to "deny rights" to gay couples. My question is: If the business is not in favor of your lifestyle/beliefs why would you patronize them? This whole fight was stupid to begin with. Instead of throwing a hissy fit about "they won't make my gay wedding cake" why not just leave and find someone who will? So now SCOTUS has to weigh in on the issue and decide if businesses have the right to refuse service or must make "public accommodations" against religious beliefs. That's my take.
StagLefty
12-04-2017, 12:02
Yup go somewhere else,that's been my standpoint from the beginning. But then that couple couldn't have made the news like they did [fail]
http://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder555/500x/66981555/wednesday-addams-cookies-heres-the-cake-lawyers-demanded-i-bake-go-ahead-eat-it.jpg
Update: The US Supreme Court will be hearing this case this week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/gay-wedding-cake-controversy-heads-to-supreme-court.html
Instead of starting a new thread I figured I'd just add to one that was already going.
The implications of this are huge- as the left is clammoring that it will allow businesses to "deny rights" to gay couples. My question is: If the business is not in favor of your lifestyle/beliefs why would you patronize them? This whole fight was stupid to begin with. Instead of throwing a hissy fit about "they won't make my gay wedding cake" why not just leave and find someone who will? So now SCOTUS has to weigh in on the issue and decide if businesses have the right to refuse service or must make "public accommodations" against religious beliefs. That's my take.
Kudos to resurrecting the original thread. It was a good re-read.
The "public accommodation" argument is an interesting one when the precious couple could have walked two blocks and found their accommodation. That requirement was created when black folks couldn't find anyone for services; doctors, groceries, etc... It was to prevent a person from being completely locked out of service/good. Clearly didn't happen here. I'm not gay and have known, thanks to Westword, where to get everything for a gay wedding in Denver since 1995.
Also hope it is considered how the baker, by providing a service for a wedding, was being forced to endorse it. It's a little different from most businesses and my own business where I can work with/for anyone without having to endorse what I may view to be immoral behavior. Frankly, it's none of my business (literally). But the precious couple made it the baker's and then tried to shove it down his throat (figuratively).
I think a hand has been overplayed here. If the baker loses it's still a win because it will open minds to perils of Libtardization. We're not even entitled to have a contrary opinion in our minds once we leave our homes.
BladesNBarrels
12-04-2017, 16:39
Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Baker's argument is that, as an artist, he should not be forced to create art that is contrary to his religion.
Nothing is simple.
Madeinhb
12-04-2017, 16:57
Deny rights? I didn't know being denied purchasing something was against any rights since I'm sure this bakery is not the only one around.
BlasterBob
12-04-2017, 17:29
When my dad had a tavern back in the 50’s he had a sign behind the bar that read, “We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE”. As far as I can remember this mainly applied to guys getting a “snoot full”.[Beer]
OtterbatHellcat
12-04-2017, 17:31
It's all such petty bullshit.
Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?
StagLefty
12-04-2017, 17:44
It's all such petty bullshit.
Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?
All I know is last time I went somewhere wearing just a shirt and shoes I was denied service [Sarcasm2]
OtterbatHellcat
12-04-2017, 18:52
Just the shirt and the shoes?
lol....I hope you were applying for a porno job.
It's all such petty bullshit.
Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?
I have...it said no firearms allowed.
OtterbatHellcat
12-04-2017, 20:39
Perfect.
Bastards.
RblDiver
12-05-2017, 03:31
I still think a 13th Amendment defense would be interesting.
I still think a 13th Amendment defense would be interesting.
What would that mean to the tax code? ;)
I have...it said no firearms allowed.
Yup.
If I even own a storefront, I want a sign like this...
https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3111425/383321134/stock-photo-no-guns-allowed-sign-no-weapons-sign-383321134.jpg
With the text
COMMIE SHIT GUNS PROHIBITED
AMERICA!!!
Or...
https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yellomello/yellomello1503/yellomello150300028/37826071-no-weapons-allowed--revolver-icons.jpg?ver=6
ANTIQUATED WHEEL GUNS PROHIBITED
PLEASE CARRY A MODERN FIREARM
What would that mean to the tax code? ;)
Yup.
If I even own a storefront, I want a sign like this...
https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/3111425/383321134/stock-photo-no-guns-allowed-sign-no-weapons-sign-383321134.jpg
With the text
COMMIE SHIT GUNS PROHIBITED
AMERICA!!!
Or...
https://us.123rf.com/450wm/yellomello/yellomello1503/yellomello150300028/37826071-no-weapons-allowed--revolver-icons.jpg?ver=6
ANTIQUATED WHEEL GUNS PROHIBITED
PLEASE CARRY A MODERN FIREARM
[ROFL1]
It boils down to this: Public Accommodation. The SCOTUS will have to base their decision on which is more constitutionally applicable- Private business owners reserving the right to conduct business how they see fit within religious freedoms, or if a business, open to the public MUST serve anyone without discrimination based on "protected class." This is more muddled as it's catering to special events, unlike a car dealership where they can't base their service on religious views (Can you really refuse to sell a car to a gay person because you disagree with their lifestlye?)
This will be interesting to see the result, which they anticipate the decision will be coming down in March.
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.
hurley842002
12-05-2017, 11:43
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.Great post!
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.
Amen! Well said. I agree completely, and we can only hope the SCOTUS agrees with this notion.
Singlestack
12-05-2017, 13:55
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.
+1. I actually believe there is a decent chance the SCOTUS decision goes against the !A and religious freedom. Kennedy is likely the swing vote and tends to side with the left on social issues. If the decision goes that way, the lefties won't like it either as Muslim photographers won't want to cover a gay wedding, etc. Unintended consequences are a bitch!
The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.
+1
hollohas
12-05-2017, 20:23
If the decision goes that way, the lefties won't like it either as Muslim photographers won't want to cover a gay wedding, etc. Unintended consequences are a bitch!
Nah. Muslims are always exempt from the bleeding hearts' dumb logic.
For whatever reason, liberals seem have social justice priorities that go in this order:
Muslims>LGBT>minorities>women
OtterbatHellcat
12-05-2017, 21:29
I'm really hoping the cake maker ends up defeating this horse shit.
This.........ACTUALLY IS THE PUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA.
.....and it pisses me off.
Jeffrey Lebowski
12-06-2017, 06:53
+1. I actually believe there is a decent chance the SCOTUS decision goes against the !A and religious freedom.
x2. I hope the Baker wins, but America hates religion, unless it is the “religion of peace.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-06/wedding-cakes-have-nothing-do-free-speech
...
The legal controversy vexing all these great legal minds is a classic example of what happens when the courts compromise (i.e., abandon) the principles of freedom. When that happens, it produces situations where lawyers are “vexed” and end up doing their best to pound square legal pegs into round legal holes.
The fact is that the wedding cake controversy has nothing to do with free speech. Instead, the issue is all about private property and the right to discriminate.
Let’s start with a simple example: the owner of a home.
I think everyone would agree that he has the right to decide who comes into his home.
He’s the owner, after all.
That’s part of what private ownership is all about — the right to exclude others from coming onto his property.
Suppose the homeowner throws a party in which he excludes blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people.
All of his 100 invited guests are rich white Americans.
Are there any First Amendment issues here? Would those lawyers in the wedding- cake controversy be vexed over whether the homeowner has the right to discriminate? Would they say that the issue turns on how “creative” the party is?
Of course not. Free speech and the First Amendment wouldn’t even enter the picture. Under principles of private property and liberty, the homeowner has the right to discriminate. If the state were to force him to invite blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people to his party, there is no way that he could be considered to be a free person. Freedom necessarily entails the right of the homeowner to discriminate on any grounds he wants when it comes to who enters onto his property.
The same principle applies to a person’s business. It’s his business. It’s his private property. He has just as much right to discriminate here as he does with his home.
Thus, by applying that principle, the wedding-cake controversy disintegrates. Bakers have the right to bake a cake for whomever they want and for whatever reason they want. It might well be that they hate blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people. Motive doesn’t matter. What matters is that under principles of liberty and private property, private business owners have as much right to discriminate as private homeowners.
By the same token, consumers have the right to boycott the business that is discriminating against others and to advocate that other people boycott it as well. That’s how the free market deals with businesses that people perceive are wrongfully discriminating against others. It nudges them to change their position through loss of sales revenues rather than force them to do so with the power of a government gun.
The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.
But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?
By abandoning those principles of liberty and private property, it has naturally left lawyers vexed on how to resolve the wedding-cake dispute. It has left them relying on the First Amendment to come up with entirely subjective and arbitrary conclusions that have no consistent underlying legal principle undergirding them.
Martinjmpr
12-06-2017, 17:40
The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.
I think the writer is confusing the application of FEDERAL civil rights laws (which only apply to those businesses that have some sort of nexus with interstate commerce as in the "Heart of Atlanta Motel" case) with STATE anti-discrimination laws.
State anti-discrimination laws apply because unlike the Federal Government, which is a government of limited and specified powers, the states have a "general police power." Under the general police power the State can regulate anything and everything unless regulating that would be prohibited by the State Constitution or by the US Constitution.
For example, the State cannot establish a state religion and force you go to church because that would violate the US Constitution's establishment clause.
But the state could require every person to buy health insurance, and that would not violate the constitution (some states, notably Massachussetts, have done exactly this.)
The reason (IMO) that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional is that while the STATE can legally require you to buy health insurance, the Federal Government does not have a general police power and cannot do so.
But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?
Because businesses are licensed and regulated by the state and are required to operate under state law. They are required to obey state laws including laws against discrimination. Don't like it? Change the law. That is exactly how our Constitutional system is supposed to work.
Leaving this here....
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/porn-star-commits-suicide-mob-hounds-refusing-partner-gay-sex/
Leaving this here....
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/porn-star-commits-suicide-mob-hounds-refusing-partner-gay-sex/
Looks like the left eating their own...?
It is a shame though, she's quite attractive. I saw this story posted on a Veteran's page on FB, and the comments were hilarious: "Is it necrophilia that I'm gonna go watch some of her videos tonight?"
Zundfolge
12-08-2017, 15:17
Looks like we'll find out if religious liberty still exists or not in June.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/gay-wedding-cake-supreme-court-case-could-be-influenced-by-past-litigation.html
Anyone heard anything about this claim, I saw it posted on FB by a very libertarian friend:
"Why did this gay couple drive over 40 miles out of their way, passed several secular bakeries, to go into this particular Christian baker for their wedding cake?" It appears that this couple lived on the clear opposite side of the Metro Area. If nothing, I think this baker was specifically targeted because they knew he wouldn't do it.
Zundfolge
12-08-2017, 16:40
"Why did this gay couple drive over 40 miles out of their way, passed several secular bakeries, to go into this particular Christian baker for their wedding cake?"
These faggots are hate filled bigots that were more interested in suing Christians than they were in getting a cake.
I wonder how many bakeries they went to and weren't turned down before the found one they could sue.
Martinjmpr
12-08-2017, 17:15
Anyone heard anything about this claim, I saw it posted on FB by a very libertarian friend:
"Why did this gay couple drive over 40 miles out of their way, passed several secular bakeries, to go into this particular Christian baker for their wedding cake?" It appears that this couple lived on the clear opposite side of the Metro Area. If nothing, I think this baker was specifically targeted because they knew he wouldn't do it.
It's not unusual for lawyers or plaintiffs to seek out a specific defendant in order to get a case in court for a definitive ruling.
In fact, sometimes a plaintiff and a defendant will agree to engage in a legal dispute in order to get a court ruling. The Scopes "Monkey trial" comes to mind here.
Anyone heard anything about this claim, I saw it posted on FB by a very libertarian friend:
"Why did this gay couple drive over 40 miles out of their way, passed several secular bakeries, to go into this particular Christian baker for their wedding cake?" It appears that this couple lived on the clear opposite side of the Metro Area. If nothing, I think this baker was specifically targeted because they knew he wouldn't do it.
You know, not every stupid thought that makes it's way onto the internet is worth investigating.
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, perhaps their event venue was closer to that shop, and they figured they'd go with a shop local to their "wedding".
Or perhaps before they decimated his business, he was someone with a stellar reputation for quality vs price.
However, it does seem fishy. It's not like they were driving in eastern CO. It's Denver Metro, which sucks to go 5 miles, much less 40.
BPTactical
12-08-2017, 20:41
An activist gay couple "shopping" an establishment?
No, that would never happen.
Let's look at a fact-they were "married" in Massachusetts well in advance to darkening the doors of Masterpiece bakery.
They decided to hold their "reception" at a later date in Colorado.
Now maybe it's just me but whodafuk holds their wedding reception at a later date? I could understand in the case of a couple that got married out of the country or something but gimme a break.
The real heart of this case?
Mental health deficiency vs a private business.
BladesNBarrels
12-09-2017, 11:08
This was discussed on Colorado Inside Out on Channel 12 last night.
A point was made that I did not know.
The whole thing happened before Colorado "legalized gay marriage".
Wonder if the US Supreme Court takes that into account.
This was discussed on Colorado Inside Out on Channel 12 last night.
A point was made that I did not know.
The whole thing happened before Colorado "legalized gay marriage".
Wonder if the US Supreme Court takes that into account.
Seems... pertinent.
KevDen2005
12-09-2017, 20:15
I think I read somewhere the case could be decided by June
Aloha_Shooter
12-10-2017, 14:19
The fact that the case is even a case or is in question is prima facie evidence of Sotomayor's, Kagan's, and Ginsberg's unfitness for the court and that Kennedy should have retired 12 or 14 years ago.
In the meantime, yet another case showing the "reasonableness" of the LGBTQXYZMIA community ...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/09/liberals-attack-doughnut-shops-good-deed-what-in-sweet-name-santa-claus-is-wrong-with-them.html
I'm going to commission a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Mohammad. When it refuses to paint the portrait, I will sue based on him discriminating against me because I am not a Muslim.
I should win, since you can't refuse to do work based on religious grounds.
But I would likely get shamed for trying to exercise my white male dominant priveledge.
But then again, how is this different from a cake artist refusing to create something he objects to?
I'm going to commission a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Mohammad raping a nine year old boy. When it refuses to paint the portrait, I will sue based on him discriminating against me because I am not a Muslim.
I should win, since you can't refuse to do work based on religious grounds.
But I would likely get shamed for trying to exercise my white male dominant priveledge.
But then again, how is this different from a cake artist refusing to create something he objects to?
FIFY
palepainter
12-12-2017, 09:56
I had a customer one when living in AZ. His was married to Jenna Jameson at the time. Getting some work done on his bike by Jim Nasi. Wanted an image painted on his bike of his wife performing oral on him. I told him no....I don't paint dicks. Should I be waiting for a lawsuit?
KevDen2005
12-12-2017, 09:58
I had a customer one when living in AZ. His was married to Jenna Jameson at the time. Getting some work done on his bike by Jim Nasi. Wanted an image painted on his bike of his wife performing oral on him. I told him no....I don't paint dicks. Should I be waiting for a lawsuit?
People are just weird.
KevDen2005
12-12-2017, 10:01
In the meantime, yet another case showing the "reasonableness" of the LGBTQXYZMIA community ...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/09/liberals-attack-doughnut-shops-good-deed-what-in-sweet-name-santa-claus-is-wrong-with-them.html
This is just absolutely ridiculous. We need to ban computers!
Someone said 70 percent of their clientele is LGBT? Really? That much?
I'm hoping that Ginsberg can be replaced before the next presidential race, but it' not looking promising.
Sensei Sriracha
12-14-2017, 11:44
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
BladesNBarrels
12-14-2017, 12:45
No doughnuts for you.
Zundfolge
12-14-2017, 12:58
I'm going to commission a Muslim painter to paint a portrait of Mohammad. When it refuses to paint the portrait, I will sue based on him discriminating against me because I am not a Muslim.
That's not how this works. "Justice" depends on your position on the "progressive stack"* ... a Muslim is going to outrank you so their rights are to be preserved, not yours.
Simple truth is, if the baker in Denver was a black woman, the fags would have lost their case at the local level.
*"Progressive Stack" explained by Sargon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCP-pH3JtWA
That's not how this works. "Justice" depends on your position on the "progressive stack"* ... a Muslim is going to outrank you so their rights are to be preserved, not yours.
Simple truth is, if the baker in Denver was a black woman, the fags would have lost their case at the local level.
The Pulse Nightclub shooting showed us who is at the top of the stack.
Muzzies are #1, because their totalitarian and religious government system is critical to the technological and spiritual advancement of mankind.
[hahhah-no]
There's an awesome write up on the Masterpiece Cake debacle at the Volokh Conspiracy:
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/03/06/dressmakers-bakers-and-the-equality-of-r
Yhea it's long, but it's a good read!
O2
Masterpiece (Phillips) wins USSC case!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html
CNBC tries to lie and say it was narrow. But it was 7-2!!!!!
The Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The butthurt is going to be strong on this one. It isn't going to be so much about the poor repressed gays as it is the Constitution still meaning what it plainly says.
I hope Phillips also wins a significant civil case against the state.
Aloha_Shooter
06-04-2018, 09:03
Indeed, the fact that Kennedy, Breyer, and Kagan voted to uphold the Constitution is big. As expected, Ginsberg and Sotomayor were doctrinaire liberals, forget their oaths or the actual words of the Constitution or English language.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-against-gay-wedding-exemptions/1052989001/
Go figure, USA Today also lied and said the ruling is on narrow grounds -- the First Amendment and right to genuine religious convictions is NOT a narrow ground.
Hooray for rights! Only cost the guy an unknown amount of money in lost revenue and who knows how much in legal fees, pain and suffering, mental anguish, etc.
BPTactical
06-04-2018, 09:10
Good.
This will make the snowflakes melt a bit[Muaha]
Let then eat cake......NOT!
Surprising verdict. Glad it went that way.
Rooskibar03
06-04-2018, 09:33
I still believe this was never about the cake. I think These two guys picked that shop based on the knowledge Jack wouldn’t make them a cake.
I’m incredibly surprised but pleased. If I was still back in CO I’d hit up his shop and buy something today.
UrbanWolf
06-04-2018, 09:36
Good, if they don't make cakes for gays don't buy from them and STFU, simple as that.
Thank you all. This group is the place that alerts me to things otherwise lost in the MSM. I watched the new this weekend, saw the FBI video on channel. Didn't hear anything of this.
Good for him winning.
68Charger
06-04-2018, 09:52
There's hope yet...
if y'all want a less biased write up on the decision (or just don't want to give hits to the leftist media websites)
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/
There's an opinion that the word "narrow" is being used to describe the scope of the ruling and not the overwhelming 7-2 win.
I haven't read the whole majority opinion. Many seem to think this is not an affirmation of freedom of religion or association but a rebuke of Phillips' being denied due process in a proceeding that was openly hostile to his religion.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.