• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

MarineTpartier said:
Hatuey, if it's private, it's private. If it's public, it's public. Stop beating around the bush and make your friggin point. I've demonstrated the difference between a private entity and a public entity. You know the difference. I know the difference. We simply have different interpretations of what each should be allowed to do. Now, make your point or I'm going to move along to another thread. This 20 questions crap is getting old.
Click to expand...

My point essentially boils down to this: Can a business benefit from all the benefits provided through tax monies and still deny the tax payers patronship on the mere basis of race, gender, sexuality? If yes then it sets up the groundwork for an illogical society where a tax payer can choose to pay taxes depending on who it helps. As that premise is illogical and contrary to the notion of what it means to live within a society, there are only three options left for a business:

1) businesses completely stop using societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus freeing themselves from public accommodations status. (Unlikely)
2) businesses continue to use societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus maintaining public accommodations status. (Very likely)
3) businesses cease to exist if they do not conform to what it means to live within a society.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
My point essentially boils down to this: Can a business benefit from all the benefits provided through tax monies and still deny the tax payers patronship on the mere basis of race, gender, sexuality? If yes then it sets up the groundwork for an illogical society where a tax payer can choose to pay taxes depending on who it helps. As that premise is illogical and contrary to the notion of what it means to live within a society, there are only three options left for a business:

1) businesses completely stop using societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus freeing themselves from public accommodations status. (Unlikely)
2) businesses continue to use societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus maintaining public accommodations status. (Very likely)
3) businesses cease to exist if they do not conform to what it means to live within a society.
Click to expand...

So basically you impose taxes on them, you impose a contract on them, and then because of both of these things you imposed on them you get to control them. Nonsense. Shear and utter nonsense.

Go ahead though, try to convince me that because you imposed force on someone that other forces are warranted. You know it's nonsense I'm sure, but go ahead anyway.

The great thing about statism is that the foundation of the idea is a fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Btw, I love how statist believe society and governance are the same thing. It's laughable really.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
The ruling in is. Chalk another one up for the good guys
Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington TimesA Colorado judge ruled Friday against a bakery owner who refused to prepare a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, to “cease and desist from discriminating against complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product [he] would provide to heterosexual couples.”


Read more: Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter




Another ruling that bigotry will no longer be tolerated in America. If this baker is truly concerned about his religious beliefs....perhaps he should start by trying to be more "Christ-like" and try living the principles that Jesus Christ taught.
Click to expand...

You're right, they were pretty stupid about it. They should've been more subtle about it.... Like still putting a man and a woman on the wedding cake ;)
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

These "libertarian rights" arguments are what turned me away from the party as a whole. They always talk about how their rights are being infringed; whether it be the right to discriminate, pollute, exploit, oppress, etc.

And that is what these threads are always about, the right to hurt somebody else for their own "freedom".

Its such a silly thing, with all the big problems we have its a petty endeavor.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
So basically you impose taxes on them, you impose a contract on them, and then because of both of these things you imposed on them you get to control them. Nonsense. Shear and utter nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's only imposing if they choose to live in a society. If they don't choose to live in a society, like so many, they can simply operate outside the bounds. It's not unheard of. :shrug:
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Henrin said:
No. All types of property are only accessible to those that the owner of the property permits. Private property is owned by private individuals and thus those private owners have sole say on who enters and uses the property.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you are wrong. When you open your doors to the public, you cannot discriminate.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
It's only imposing if they choose to live in a society. If they don't choose to live in a society, like so many, they can simply operate outside the bounds. It's not unheard of. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Really, your abuse of the word society entertains me. The idea people must opt out of society to escape you is laughably absurd. Do you think your argument has any way to be legitimate?
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Sorry but you are wrong. When you open your doors to the public, you cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what the law says, doesn't it? I wasn't talking of such things of course.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

JJB3333 said:
not at all. You people think that the entire country wanted to segregate against black's, but many people did not. Can you imagine if every single black that was segregated against befor the 60's just decided to sue for the littlest things?

The blacks cant help being black so they should not be segregated against for something they cant change. But if you decide to deviate from the national standard of acceptance, you should be ready to get hit with an assault of segregation, even though it is technically illegal.

And yes, as most people in the world are straight or single, being gay/lesbian has not become nationally accepted. For us not to segregate against this the government would have t force every human being on the planet to be bi. Anything less will cause segregation.
Click to expand...
I am glad that the black population stood up for themselves. All bigotry is wrong and everyone is entitled to their civil rights. You are obviously living in the past century. Nobody is talking about forcing every human being to be bi...that is just a silly argument. What we are saying is that in 2013, it is no ok to be a bigot any longer...and the courts are going to continue to strike down discrimination every time it rears its ugly head. Welcome to the 21st Century JJB.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
Really, your abuse of the word society entertains me. The idea people must opt out of society to escape you is laughably absurd. Do you think your argument has any way to be legitimate?
Click to expand...

Escape me? You mean escape laws, taxes, regulations etc. Yes, people can opt out if they wish and shouldn't expect any of the protections, rights which come with said society. You've gone from ignorance of basic amendments to philosophical snobbery as per usual when you get obliterated in a debate. Now tell everyone here what friendship/partnership/membership you are forced to join through a 1 time transaction. You can't? No violation of freedom of assembly. This debate is done. :shrug:
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

It's already required by law that an establishment has to serve any race and that it has to be handicapped accessible, adding homosexuals to that list isn't the end of the world.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
No, business owners are bullied by the government and made into involuntary servants.
Click to expand...

You can have that opinion, I think differently and thankfully this Judge also saw that these business owners were disgusting bigots and that there is no place in business for such behavior.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I always get a kick how institutions are allowed to carry on until homosexuals enter them, then it's "tear down this institution!"

"You have to allow mixed races to marry now:
"Okay, fine, whatever."
"Now you have to allow gays to marry"
"Government out of marriage now!!"

"You have to serve black people."
"Crap. Okay, fine."
"Now you have to serve gay people"
"The government is trampling on my rights!"
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
Escape me? You mean escape laws, taxes, regulations etc. Yes, people can opt out if they wish and shouldn't expect any of the protections, rights which come with said society. You've gone from ignorance of basic amendments to philosophical snobbery as per usual when you get obliterated in a debate. Now tell everyone here what friendship/partnership/membership you are forced to join through a 1 time transaction. You can't? No violation of freedom of assembly. This debate is done. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That talk is done unless you wish to respond to my last post pertaining to it. As for this, society and governance are not interchangeable terms and this idea that you must opt of society to opt out of your control is laughably stupid. You're making it very clear that you believe in a falsehood as the basic foundation of your philosophy.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Cardinal said:
I always get a kick how institutions are allowed to carry on until homosexuals enter them, then it's "tear down this institution!"

"You have to allow mixed races to marry now:
"Okay, fine, whatever."
"Now you have to allow gays to marry"
"Government out of marriage now!!"

"You have serve black people."
"Crap. Okay, fine."
"Now you have to serve gay people"
"The government is trampling on my rights!"
Click to expand...

Libertarians always seem to be the only ones who are firmly in favor of discrimination. Even most conservatives will side against discrimination from time to time. But Libertarians? These are some of the same people who don't understand that demand for child porn causes it to exist in the first place.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
That talk is done unless you wish to respond to my last post pertaining to it. As for this, society and governance are not interchangeable terms and this idea that you must opt of society to opt out of your control is laughably stupid. You're making it very clear that you believe in a falsehood as the basic foundation of your philosophy.
Click to expand...

Kk Henrin, here you go again - I've made it into point form so you don't get lost:

1. Freedom of assembly does not apply to one time transactions which have no bearing on the beliefs of the individuals performing them. (5 of your posts)
2. You don't have a fictitious right to something you haven't paid for. (3 of your posts)
3. Laws moderate/limit/regulate rights as rights are not without limitations (2 of your posts)
4. In order to live within a society and be eligible to some rights/benefits/privileges one must comply with certain societal demands (your last 2 posts).

Don't like it? Too bad. :shrug:
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
Kk Henrin, here you go again - I've made it into point form so you don't get lost:

1. Freedom of assembly does not apply to one time transactions which have no bearing on the beliefs of the individuals performing them. (5 of your posts)
2. You don't have a fictitious right to something you haven't paid for. (3 of your posts)
3. Laws moderate/limit/regulate rights as rights are not without limitations (2 of your posts)
4. In order to live within a society and be eligible to some rights/benefits/privileges one must comply with certain societal demands (your last 2 posts).

Don't like it? Too bad. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're blending our talks together for little reason. I see that you are still confusing society and governance and making the absurd argument that they are one in the same. Hint: They're not.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
Libertarians always seem to be the only ones who are firmly in favor of discrimination. Even most conservatives will side against discrimination from time to time. But Libertarians? These are some of the same people who don't understand that demand for child porn causes it to exist in the first place.
Click to expand...

Who said they are in favor of discrimination? Do you not grasp the difference between protecting property rights and supporting people discriminating against others?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
You can have that opinion, I think differently and thankfully this Judge also saw that these business owners were disgusting bigots and that there is no place in business for such behavior.
Click to expand...

I don't honestly care what a judge thinks that was appointed by people that agree with him. His opinion means nothing to me.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
I don't honestly care what a judge thinks that was appointed by people that agree with him. His opinion means nothing to me.
Click to expand...

Well, that is your problem because for the law and the legal point of view what this judge thinks does matter. And I think it is good that this judge decided this because there is no place for anti-gay bigotry.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
Well, that is your problem because for the law and the legal point of view what this judge thinks does matter. And I think it is good that this judge decided this because there is no place for anti-gay bigotry.
Click to expand...

The legislator appoints those that approve of their legislation. Nothing about it could be described as a check or a balance.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
Well, that is your problem because for the law and the legal point of view what this judge thinks does matter. And I think it is good that this judge decided this because there is no place for anti-gay bigotry.
Click to expand...

My son is Gay and I know that he and I would both believe this guy to be a jerk. Letting people know this owners attitude though the internet, the media, etc. is the best way to handle people like this. Going through the courts is where one side rights is going to harm another sides rights. There are better ways to handle this than the courts.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:
Heres more articles on this win of equal rights:

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge rules wedding cake shop must serve gays, despite owner's religious beliefs - Long Island Top News | Examiner.com
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Colorado baker discriminated by denying gay couple wedding cake: judge - Chicago Tribune
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post

heres some quotes from the ruling/judge from the varies links

when i can find the actual rulling ill post it too


“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote.
Click to expand...

“Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”
Click to expand...


so theres lots of reading for everyone and it seems the fact remains the owner broke the law and illegally discriminated against others infringing on their rights

next time the shop owner will no better and wont break the law and violate peoples rights
Click to expand...

Just wanted to reply to this in case people missed all the articles and the ruling

Owner chose to play in the public realm and open a public access business, this requires a licenses and has rules and laws that regulated it
Owner chose to break the law, commit a crime and make himself a criminal which has consequences


The judge actually let the criminal off easy,he didn't fine him or anything, he just gave him a cease and desist order.

So all the owner has to do is stop breaking the law, committing crimes, illegal discriminating and stop infringing on peoples rights, seems easy to me.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
Well, that is your problem because for the law and the legal point of view what this judge thinks does matter. And I think it is good that this judge decided this because there is no place for anti-gay bigotry.
Click to expand...

yep when you break the law, do illegal activity and get caught you typically end up in some type of court room, the owner has nobody to blame but himself and the judge enforced the clear cut laws, rules and facts just like he is supposed to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom