RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[Irving]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Irving]

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]

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.

[Irving]

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]

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]

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]

I still cant figure out why the couple didn't just go to another bakery other than they wanted to be bullies.

[BPTactical]

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]

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.