RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[68Charger]

OTOH, it seems to me the liberals never cared much about being exposed as hypocrites. Somehow it rolls off their backs like water off a duck. They call Republicans racist then make a former KKK Grand Dragon their Senate Majority Leader, talk about income inequality and the rich operating by different rules while Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets special sole-source deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars for his company, make up BS "wars against women" while hiring fewer women and paying them less than the Republican opponent mocked for specifically looking for women to fill vacancies.

The mainstream media never holds them accountable or exposes the hypocrisy and they've taken over both the educational and judicial systems so why would they care?

You're right- you won't convince them, but there are moderate people that will see it for what it is. I wouldn't dream that they would give a crap what any of US think.

[ben4372]

Suck a smoke and your a second class citizen.
Suck a c#%k and you are one of the cool kids.

This is one fucked up world......

Nailed it. Could you imagine going back in time and telling John Wayne that this is how things were gonna be? He tell you it was a damn lie and shoot you.

[Ronin13]

Update: The US Supreme Court will be hearing this case this week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...eme-court.html
Instead of starting a new thread I figured I'd just add to one that was already going.

The implications of this are huge- as the left is clammoring that it will allow businesses to "deny rights" to gay couples. My question is: If the business is not in favor of your lifestyle/beliefs why would you patronize them? This whole fight was stupid to begin with. Instead of throwing a hissy fit about "they won't make my gay wedding cake" why not just leave and find someone who will? So now SCOTUS has to weigh in on the issue and decide if businesses have the right to refuse service or must make "public accommodations" against religious beliefs. That's my take.

[StagLefty]

Yup go somewhere else,that's been my standpoint from the beginning. But then that couple couldn't have made the news like they did

[TFOGGER]

[Skip]

Update: The US Supreme Court will be hearing this case this week.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...eme-court.html
Instead of starting a new thread I figured I'd just add to one that was already going.

The implications of this are huge- as the left is clammoring that it will allow businesses to "deny rights" to gay couples. My question is: If the business is not in favor of your lifestyle/beliefs why would you patronize them? This whole fight was stupid to begin with. Instead of throwing a hissy fit about "they won't make my gay wedding cake" why not just leave and find someone who will? So now SCOTUS has to weigh in on the issue and decide if businesses have the right to refuse service or must make "public accommodations" against religious beliefs. That's my take.

Kudos to resurrecting the original thread. It was a good re-read.

The "public accommodation" argument is an interesting one when the precious couple could have walked two blocks and found their accommodation. That requirement was created when black folks couldn't find anyone for services; doctors, groceries, etc... It was to prevent a person from being completely locked out of service/good. Clearly didn't happen here. I'm not gay and have known, thanks to Westword, where to get everything for a gay wedding in Denver since 1995.

Also hope it is considered how the baker, by providing a service for a wedding, was being forced to endorse it. It's a little different from most businesses and my own business where I can work with/for anyone without having to endorse what I may view to be immoral behavior. Frankly, it's none of my business (literally). But the precious couple made it the baker's and then tried to shove it down his throat (figuratively).

I think a hand has been overplayed here. If the baker loses it's still a win because it will open minds to perils of Libtardization. We're not even entitled to have a contrary opinion in our minds once we leave our homes.

[BladesNBarrels]

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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.

The Baker's argument is that, as an artist, he should not be forced to create art that is contrary to his religion.
Nothing is simple.

[Madeinhb]

Deny rights? I didn't know being denied purchasing something was against any rights since I'm sure this bakery is not the only one around.

[BlasterBob]

When my dad had a tavern back in the 50’s he had a sign behind the bar that read, “We reserve the right to refuse service to ANYONE”. As far as I can remember this mainly applied to guys getting a “snoot full”.

[OtterbatHellcat]

It's all such petty bullshit.

Come to think of it....I haven't seen a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign in a long time....that illegal now as well?