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?
Printable View
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZERO THEORY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Nope.
Funny one is a Constitutionally protected right, the other is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00tec
I really wish they would stick to fucking their own instead of fucking all of us.
I really don't want Ghonnaherpesyphillaids.
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]
Heh heh. You said "connections" heh heh [LOL]Quote:
Originally Posted by DavieD55
He will not comply.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...-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.
Butt even if you put extra "batter" in them they wouldn't mind.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Drucker
In this case the judge is the catcher...Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
I'm not advocating for or against gay marriages here, just addressing the Constitutionality of this decision.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Ah, you were looking to have some cakes made, were ya?Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
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".Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
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.
It is a public business. Anyone can walk in and exchange money for their product, no membership required.Quote:
Some will say that this bakery is a "public business" and, as such, must abide by certain civil rights protections.
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.Quote:
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.
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by theGinsue
I know right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
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.
Because they're fucking assholes...that is all we need to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
Oh this is really good. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whistler
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter Clinger
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave_L
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZERO THEORY
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
My angry tone is directed at the situation, not at you Ronin.