Mind sharing what he generally charges for a simple cake? Need to know how much I should budget for.Quote:
Originally Posted by rxgremlin
Printable View
Mind sharing what he generally charges for a simple cake? Need to know how much I should budget for.Quote:
Originally Posted by rxgremlin
Right around the corner from my house. I'm going to head over and order a cake on my way home from Chick Fil A tomorrow.
I'm done with the progressive agenda.
Your Freedom to be you, Includes my freedom to be free from you
Whoa, sounds like somebody else here listens to The Wilkow Majority!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooskibar03
You know it. In fact I met him on Saturday night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...h_IMG_6397.jpg
A two layer cake about 10-12" in diameter is approx $28.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
He said he would do custom cakes for everyone just not gay wedding cakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by armstrong001
for the wedding cakes he can make an extensive book to order from with no "customizations" such as rainbows or two men or two women on the cake.
I didn't notice, is this a government funded agency that is prohibited from discriminating against protected classes or is it a private business owner who has the right to do business with or not do business with anyone who he feels like for ANY reason or no reason at all?
You're personal beliefs don't matter.
/thread
The law does, however, and in this case, neither of your examples fit. As posted earlier:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.
please tell me you are kidding....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
my sarcasm meter is borked
That big part I highlighted is where I think the argument that it is "illegal" may not be accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Isn't a private business a PRIVATE business? Its not a park, or a court house, or a state owned university, etc.
Similar to a business being able to "ban" firearms on their property, even though it is a right in this state with the proper permits, or OC'ing if allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mevshooter
Public Accommodation. Unless he is a diner, restaurant or a place where patrons sit sip coffee, cake and wi-fi he does not fall under that guideline. Probably doesn't offer a public rest room either.
FWIW: i read a story how NY is now going to lock up baby formula in hospitals. Reason being they want every mother to nurse vs formula feed the kid. Not that i am opposed to BF, we did it until she had aged a few months.
It's the constant intrusion the .gov [state & federal] trying to nanny us how best to live. The Chic fil A, and cake place trying to force them to bow to 1 special interest group. Something the left constantly complains the NRA / BIG MONEY lobby is doing.
I think the problem he may run into is the part at the beginning where it says A PERSON cannot do this, GOV is not a person. The Government however does issue Business licenses. I still fall to see how this is any different than not serving a different race or religion. Everyone here would be insane with anger if the shoe was on the other foot, but some how the other side is the crybaby when they don't get their way. I'm sure the anti-gun people say the same thing about us when we complain about not being able to CC in certain places.Quote:
Originally Posted by mevshooter
Just to be clear if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still be on the side of those that were refused service, be they Christian, Gay, Black, Manbearpig, or Infantry (luckily I can refuse service to Infanty[Flower]).
I'd support ANY business that refused service to the infantry. The rest of the military is ok, just not the infantry [Tooth]
It is right there in the statuteQuote:
Originally Posted by mevshooter
Quote:
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
Hey! I like the infantry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
The self described "Queen of Battle". DADT.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
The only thing I see if you are forced to serve someone against your will, then that is slavery.
Yeah, me too just busting the infantry's balls a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
Fixed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by tonantius
Do infants enjoy infantry as much as adults enjoy adultery?
Ha, how long have you been waiting to use that one? [ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
All my life...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
Okay, I must have missed that part.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
With that said, as was previously mentioned, he didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to make a wedding cake. They could have ordered a generic cake if it HAD to be this guy, and dressed it up themselves.
So this guy needs to violate his religious rights to serve their consumer rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordanls19
It's not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.
I think that's the detail that puts the high ground under the baker.Quote:
Originally Posted by mevshooter
Good point. It doesn't exactly fit this case, but how much legal precedence is there in case law for religious beliefs vs legal rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by mevshooter
Agreed. I'm not claiming any side or who is right "legally" speaking. This is an incredibly convoluted situation when all sides are considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Technically his religious rights take precedence over someone's right to shop there because they can shop elsewhere. It's HIS shop so he can't just have a shop elsewhere. So in the case of conflicting rights I would guess that his right to practice his religion freely supersedes someone's right to buy a wedding cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I think this whole thing is stupid actually. If he doesn't want to sell something to someone in his own store he shouldn't be forced by anyone to do so. Especially when it's not a retail establishment where an item is in a package on a wall and just needs to be handed over in exchange for money. he has to actually craft the item from scratch so if someone doesn't want to put forth that effort for whatever reason I don't see how the government can make him. To me this is a bit absurd that this is even something the government get involved with. Next time I go to a BBQ place that refuses to serve me because their out of brisket I'm suing.
Why doesn't the couple just go someplace else? Seems like the easiest solution for everyone involved. No federal rulings required.
Easiest, yes, but I would say that perhaps they're tired of being told that they are second class citizens. In this case, I don't feel that their rights were violated, as they were offered other other fare. Even that may not be enough, though. Anyone else here remember when blacks weren't served in the front of restaurants? Same food, but not the same service, and that practice was brought to a halt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
Yeah, unfortunately you're talking about self government and free market solutions... As if those actually work. (/sarcasm)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
I mean, if they're upset that the baker won't make them a wedding cake, they have every right to complain and tell their friends about it. If enough people agree with their point of view, the baker will go out of business. If people appreciate the baker standing up for what he believes in, he will stay in business.
The rights of the recipient do not outweigh the rights of the provider. He should not be forced to bake them a cake, and his reason for not doing so is perfectly legitimate.
I knew someone was going to say that as I was typing it but I fail to draw a parallel between blacks being denied basic necessities (food, water, employment, transportation, etc) with a homosexuals desire for a fancy cake. That's not to say that I don't think blacks and homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights because I actually think they should even though that may not be the popular stance on this site. I'm all for their rights and even think they should be allowed to get married... that being said I just don't put this guy's plight with wanting a wedding cake on par with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus. I don't get people clamoring to call this a huge case for gay rights because as far as I'm concerned... it isn't. Hell, my wife and I didn't even have a cake on our wedding and that didn't change shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Does that make more sense? I'm not anti-gay rights I just don't see this as being a gay rights issue I guess.
I'd say that I agree with you. Had he refused them service entirely, discrimination raises its ugly head and runs afoul of state statutes. I also agree this case isn't directly comparable to Jim Crow. I'm not a lawyer, though. My parents were married, you see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
I can agree with the bulk of this statement. Why would they even want to do business with an outfit like that? I know if I went into a place that didn't do business with fat people I wouldn't cry a river over it I would go to another place and make sure everyone I knew knew what a shitty place that was. I sure as shit wouldn't feel the need to get the media, government and (eventually) the supreme court involved over a gawt damn cake. It's a cake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
IMHO, I don't agree with the gays are the new blacks argument. I'm not fully convinced being gay is natural. Being black is. Furthermore, the government that they want to involve is the same government that upheld slavery, separate but equal, and putting Americans of Japanese decent in internment camps. When will people learn that government is not the answer? Hell, if the gay movement wasn't such a liberal movement that seeks to centralize power whenever possible, they probably wouldn't have to go to MA to get married because instead of asking the government for permission, they'd tell the government to go eff themselves, you can't tell me who I can or can't marry. I think a lot more people would be behind the movement if it took that approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Government can be the answer. Blacks wouldn't have civil rights, especially in the South, if the Feds hadn't gotten involved. That's also the same government that gave women equal rights and established guidelines to limit the ability of private companies to poison our environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
I wish it was as simple as telling the government that they don't have the ability to allow gay marriage, but too many partner benefits require the force of law.
While I don't agree with the first part of your statement that I made bold I can agree with the rest. People depend on the govt for WAY too much these days. You want to get married? Go do it. Since when does the govt decide who gets married and who doesn't? Wasn't it WE THE PEOPLE who invented getting married anyway? I wasn't aware that was a privilege that the government allowed us to have if they thought us fit to receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
All of that was prior to the government being out of control with power and it's only getting worse. I mean they tell us what light bulbs we can and can't buy now. Seriously? There was a time when the government needed to step in when the majority was wrong on something but those days are over. The government doesn't step in on this meaningful and required (immigration for instance) yet feels the need to create tens of thousands of new laws telling us what we can and can't eat or buy. It gets to the point where if the government did rule on something important I wouldn't pay much mind to it because I've learned such a lack of respect for government decisions over the years. There was a time when the government said 'Blacks get equal rights' or 'Women get the right to vote' and people took notice. Now so many things are passed and so much of it is BS.. does anyone even care anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Everything you mentioned there were movements that were started by individuals or groups of people. Maybe the government codified those beliefs into law, but it wasn't their original idea to begin the movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
What benefits require marriage? I really don't know the answer to this. But taxes shouldn't be one. That's a whole other discussion.
Exactly. Take away tax advantages and what not to getting married (government's failed attempt to legislate morality just like the failed war on drugs and many other things I could mention) and let people get married if they want to get married. Life is too short to focus your energy on preventing two individuals who love each other the ability to get married. I see too much of the ugly side of people every day to care about those who actually love each other. Good for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
There is this thing called The Constition that dictates what the Government can and cannot do. I'll give you a moment to find me the section that says they have any authority on marriage at the federal level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Being gay is a lifestyle choice. Being black is not. Everyone is afforded life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing about gay marriage or equal rights based on choices you make in life.