RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[CS1983]

it's not the product that matters really, it's the fact that a business is open to provide a service.

Until today's abomination of a ruling, the right to refuse service only applied to no shoes, no shirt no service/lack of proper attire, customers who got unruly/disorderly/violent, customers who disrupted the normal flow of business (i.e. were extremely filthy, contagious or smelling foul).

Anything else was considered discrimination.

This man's religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with baking a cake for a gay couple.

You're in business to provide a service. not pick and choose who you want to serve based on your mentally delusional sky daddy belief system that the majority of the public doesn't buy into.

Now if his business had been a membership only business, he could pick and choose who he wants to serve. SCOTUS dropped the ball big time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He wasnt forced to endorse anything. He was asked to bake a cake! He wasnt asked to ordain the wedding ceremony. He wasn't asked to join them in matrimony.

He refused them only because they were gay and that is the definition of discrimination.

His religious bs has no place being used to decide which customer to serve or place limitations upon which services he will render to whom based on their sexuality.

His religious views are his and his alone. Not to be imposed upon anyone else.




The right to religious freedom is a personal one. You can worship as you please, choose your religion, your God, place of worship (church), whatever.

But it should not be allowable to weaponize your religion to the point where you deny someone a service at a business that is open to the general public.

In the case of the Colorado baker. he weaponized his religion and used it to discriminate against a couple only because they were gay.

What do you on your own time is your business. Forcing your belief system others is bovine scatology and that's exactly what happened in this case.




it's not quite that simple.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/t...-of-appearance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Separating one's religion and other parts of life is a sure sign one has no actual belief in said religion.

That's like saying you're only married when you're physically with your spouse. Other than that, game on. Spiritual adultery, or an "open relationship", indicates no true love, no true belief, and you do not want to have anything to do with a person who operates in such a manner.

There are many businesses which operate solely on the basis of religious convictions, despite not refusing to sell to people from outside that religious belief so long as that sale does not entail the forced violation of their deeply held religious convictions. I'm not Jewish, but I can walk into a kosher deli tomorrow, obvious in my status as a goy, and they'll sell me all the kosher food I want. But I should not expect them to put cheese on my roast beef sandwich. Why? Because that's against the principles of kashrut law. Moreover, I should not expect a Jewish bakery to bake me a cake with a swastika on it (not that I'd want one), or the unedited name of God.

I should also not expect an Islamic bakery to make me a cake with decoration depicting a US Soldier taking a shit in Mohammed's mouth. Nor a cake that says, "Happy 3rd Anniversary/9th birthday Aisha!"

And I dare say that if those two guys had gone to a strict orthodox Jewish bakery, or a strict Islamic bakery, they'd have received the same answer they got from the Christian baker: no. I would bet that this would be a non-issue in such a case, too.

They wouldn't have dared do it. Not because they would foreknow the answer, but because they'd foreknow their petty little agenda-driven scheme wouldn't fly.

[TheGrey]

Are you joking?
You're teasing, right? The answers to each one of your questions are in everyone else's posts. If you're deliberately igoring them, then I'm not ging to waste any more time on it. You've already insulted religious people, business people, and who knows who else. Was that your aim?

And if you're going to be a lawyer, you'd better wise up as to how businesses really work. Businesses aren't immediately relegated into the "you'd better give me this service because I'm demanding it," zone that you're believing it to be.

Really, this is all beside the point, because the Supreme Court ruling was about this single businessman, and the deliberate infringement upon his religious freedoms.

I really can't understand why they would insist he make them a cake. You don't piss off the person prepaing your food.

[Mazin]

Liberal meet Conservative

Liberal: everyone should cater to my beliefs even if it's against thier "religious beliefs (except Mormons, Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduism and anyone else except Christian's).

Conservitive: Christian's have as much right to have a stance on an opinion based upon thier beliefs just as any other religion.

New montra: Christian Beliefs Matter

[Gman]

New montra: Christian Beliefs Matter

Unless they're white Christian male beliefs. Then you're an oppressor, misogynist, racist, and the butt of all jokes which you may not even respond to. Just accept it.

[Mazin]

Oh I not only accept but I embrace it, for my skydad told me this was coming

[WETWRKS]

I don't care what anyone's beliefs are personally. They do what what they want, just leave me out of it.

Oddly enough...you want to be left out of others beliefs...yet demand that this baker be forced to participate in the beliefs of these 2 getting married. Why isn't he allowed that same "just leave me out of it" that you demand for yourself?

[DavieD55]

Oddly enough...you want to be left out of others beliefs...yet demand that this baker be forced to participate in the beliefs of these 2 getting married. Why isn't he allowed that same "just leave me out of it" that you demand for yourself?

Exactly.

[GilpinGuy]

Haven't seen the ol' hammer come down in a while.

[Great-Kazoo]

In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.


It's a one time ruling based on state law as it existed at the time

It was / is a case where the "couple" shopped for a baker they could challenge.

It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.

[Rucker61]

In case some missed the ruling and it wasn't clarified in this thread, here's the crib notes.


It's a one time ruling based on state law as it existed at the time

It was / is a case where the "couple" shopped for a baker they could challenge.

It was also a decision based on the CO Civil rights commission's blatant discriminatory actions towards the baker.

^^This.