RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[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.

[roberth]

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.

[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.

[roberth]

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]

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]

This situation sickens me, BUT it does set a precedent.......gun owners can now not be asked to leave a business while carrying right?

[Dave_L]

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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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]

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.