RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[TFOGGER]

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2013/12/0...e-gay-couples/

DENVER (AP) – A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.
The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”
The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

[Rooskibar03]

Un-freaking-believable.

This place is right around corner from my house, made my kids birthday cake.

Im gonna go buy something to support him.

[RCCrawler]

Wow, I guess just like the government can force you to buy insurance they can now force you to do business with people you don't want to.

I didn't see where the judge said how much it has to cost, or that it can't taste like dog shit.

[clark]

Oh I would be more than happy to make them a cake,,,just use visine for the liquid mix and they will be shitting there pants for 2 days,,,,or there are many more combinations out there that would certainly enhance there wedding day.

He should have just told them he was booked and does not have time to fill there order by that date instead of turning them down because they like hersheys

[Hound]

Oh I would be more than happy to make them a cake,,,just use visine for the liquid mix and they will be shitting there pants for 2 days,,,,or there are many more combinations out there that would certainly enhance there wedding day.

He should have just told them he was booked and does not have time to fill there order by that date instead of turning them down because they like hersheys

If they do anything to the cake they could easily be paying for a LONG time.

[MarkCO]

I hope he fights this in court. Regardless of the issues, a private business can choose who they want to do business with, that has been established all the way to the SCOTUS.

[asmo]

I hope he fights this in court.

It has been fought in court. He lost. This has been all over the legal blogs -- mainly about how the ACLU chose the wrong side of the fight.

Regardless of the issues, a private business can choose who they want to do business with, that has been established all the way to the SCOTUS.

Incorrect. This has been established by a LONG series of precedent to be quite the opposite. You cannot refuse to serve someone based on race, creed, color, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.. See anti-segregation laws, affirmative action, etc.

I wish it wasn't so, as I believe the market would/should force bigots out of business rather than the government -- but it is the current law of the land.

[MarkCO]

It has been fought in court. He lost. This has been all over the legal blogs -- mainly about how the ACLU chose the wrong side of the fight.

That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.

[asmo]

That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.

Was trying not to get into this but this is not the first time this has happened. Wedding photographers, other bakers, wedding planners, and wedding locations (go find things like Elane Photography v. Willock, etc.) have all been targeted by a few idiots with chips on their shoulders and an agenda. The various cases have been going through various stages of court proceedings -- all coming with the same outcomes, all relying on anti-discrimination laws of the 50-70s as their fundamental basis - bolstered by various individual state laws.. The reason why it was an administrative law judge that ruled in this case was due to state law that is being claimed to be violated here (and the infancy of this particular case) - Colorado law prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of, among other things, sexual orientation. If you allow the public into your place of business - or are providing a service to the general public (individually or en masse) then you are a place of public accommodation.

Go read the ACLU briefs, they are quite insane in that it shows just how far out of whack we really are when it comes to 'free markets'.. then go read Employment Division v. Smith and see why the various 'bigots' in these cases are loosing.

The ruling on the Hobby Lobby case by SCOTUS is going to have some impact here since they are all arguing on the same basic grounds: First amendment free exercise protections.. Its not an exact match-up, but there will be some interesting fall out from it as it applies to the cases like the ones above.

[CO Hugh]

That is not true either. The order was from an administrative judge in Colorado's Civil Rights Commission, not a court. He has the right to appeal and or take his issue to a court if he so chooses. I've testified in front of Administrative law judges, and while it has some of the trappings of a trial, there are some limitations.

I worked at AG's many moons ago and the ALJs were called pretend court, which it is. I also once served on he Civil Rights a Commission, an agency in search of a problem if there ever was one. Meetings a tremendous waste of time, searching for how people' feelings were hurt.

Can only be worse now.