• 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:113:123:292:647

Um you are not very educated on the subject. Many people, including 'good Christians' thought it was indeed an abomination to treat blacks the same as whites. (And again, some still do :( )

How old are you? Do you have any memories at all of the civil rights newcasts during the 60s? The racist rhetoric..."on the news" was an embarrassment to human beings in general IMO. And I was just a child.

this is what i was guessing that maybe age was a factor
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.

I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it, no matter how inconvenient. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.

Edit: IMO the fact that many in this thread cannot even see that this is an issue of discriminating against a group of people when compared against those previous civil rights battles is evidence that those earlier battles succeeded...because acceptance in society has become so commonplace. Just IMO of course.

id agree its actually baffling
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I have covered that in-depth in many posts. What I believe takes *precedence* is anti-discrimination laws.

I realize you disagree. So be it. If you want my reasoning, feel free to read back in the thread. (But I wont hold my breath)

Out of curiosity - your view on Affirmative Action?

I just wanted to gauge your opinion on discrimination laws as well as anti-discrimination laws.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Thank you for pointing out my grammar error, I went back and changed it.
But as far as the rest of your post and comparing this to Blacks and the discrimination they endured is bogus.
Did the baker have a shingle or sign in the window that stated "NO GAYS ALLOWED"?
Or did he have two separate bathrooms one marked Straight people and the other Gay People?
Did he call them fags, queers or any other derogatory name?
Did he deny them all services/goods from his bakery?

The answer to all the above would be a big NO!
Blacks were forbidden to enter some establishments and treated less than second class citizens. The baker sold his goods to everyone. He specialized in wedding cakes, but he did other types of all occasion cakes that he would be glad to offer his services. The one thing his moral convictions did not allow him to participate in was to create a cake for a gay couple. His religious beliefs are that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, holy matrimony. And because of those convictions he is hauled into court and painted as some bigot equal to a KKK member. Unbelievable!
But according to the legislation I discovered today, HR 3133, it looks like there is relief on the way for those of moral convictions, where they will find protection under the law.

Nope. Blacks were allowed in the same theaters, restaurants, etc, except they had to sit in different (less choice) areas. So they were indeed served, in the same establishment...just not **equally**. (And how many bakeries even have public bathrooms?)

Somehow, you still dont see that by denying them a service that was offered to all others, they were treating them like 2nd class citizens. I doubt you ever will.

The legal repercussions for the bakery owner were minor. I cant help public reaction. It seems like an over-reaction to me but that is not the gay couple's or the court's fault.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

... but they asked him to perform FOR a gay wedding.


No they didn't. Wedding cakes are not part of the wedding, by the time the wedding cake is involved the wedding has already occured.


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

Out of curiosity - your view on Affirmative Action?

I just wanted to gauge your opinion on discrimination laws as well as anti-discrimination laws.

I didnt want to go there in this thread. I supported it for the same reasons I discussed for anti-discrimination laws however I think it has achieved it's goals (as much as it ever will) and it's time to wrap it up. I also dont like the idea of that, but again....see the greater societal good for the targeted groups AND society in general.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Actually, I don't think you understand the issue... its not a black v white discrimination; it was an offense to the shop owners moral sensibilities, similar to abortion.

Now, I certainly appreciate the civil law aspect to this. It is, in fact, a civil law conflict with moral law. What is somewhat reprehensible are posters that do not understand this. It is nothing at all like discrimination based upon race, color, creed, sex or national origin. It is a discrimination based upon a criteria that mainstream religions find morally wrong.

This was not a simple sale of goods. It was a matter of specific artistic performance; they asked the baker to apply his artistic skills to create something to celebrate something he found abhorrent. Its not that he found this abhorrent because of some sort of unsubstantiated personal bigotry, but because of a moral conviction based upon the Bible, a book a significant group of American's believe is the moral law (and many believe trumps civil law).

The closest controversy we have to this is abortion. The only thing wrong with my abortion analogy, however, is that abortion doctors chose to be in the profession. That said, there are OB/GYN's that will not perform abortions under any circumstance based upon moral conviction.

I can appreciate the civil side of this argument. The intellectually honest need to appreciate the moral side of this as well. It is an interesting case.


So if the shop owner says that providing services to blacks and claims it violates their moral sensibilities, you think there would be the same call for special privileges to be applied?


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

Yeah, I know that individual freedom is an enemy to you, since you so easily toss around words like "compel" and "force".

No, I just don't believe "freedom" to be the nebulous and boundless concept that Libertarians seem to hold. Freedom cannot be separated from the obligation to use it responsibly and, generally speaking, it ends when it threatens the freedom of others. As I said, there is no First Amendment right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and I have no problem with the government enforcing law to that effect. What you conceptualize as freedom is about as useful and beneficial to society as the Reign of Terror was to France; mob rule with no mechanism to thwart tyranny of the majority.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I didnt want to go there in this thread. I supported it for the same reasons I discussed for anti-discrimination laws however I think it has achieved it's goals (as much as it ever will) and it's time to wrap it up. I also dont like the idea of that, but again....see the greater societal good for the targeted groups AND society in general.

So is it safe to say that your views on discrimination are subjective, as opposed to absolute?

For instance, forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding is okay...what if some skinhead wanted 6 dozen fresh cookies shaped like swastikas for the annual Mississippi White Power Festival? Is that okay?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You don't inspire change by force. You're no better than prostelyzing Christians that you hate.


So we can assume that you disagree with those who used government to ban marriage equality in their state constitutions a decade ago?



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

you really need to read up on history, your statements are factually wrong about religion being used to view minorities as lessers, it also applies to women too.

are you just claiming that YOUR personally dont see the relation because you feel their arguments of religion and woman cant be justified and were stupid to you? but you feel it can be justified against sexual orientation.

i dont understand how you separate them at all, when the reality is they are the same please explain

also moral convictions are meaningless when they break the law and infring on legal/civil/equal rights

You are confusing religion, an institution of man, with the Bible. They are not same thing. I am not trying to tell you that people did not hide behind the church or their warped view of God as those issues were fought. This is not about the history of man nor the history of the church... this is about what the Living Word actually says. Again, the Bible is pretty explicit about homosexual behavior. No where in the Bible does it tell you that being black is an abomination, but it says such about homosexual behavior many times. Homosexuality is a moral issue; being black is not. Since you do not know what the Bible says on the subject, this is lost on you.

My point is that the court should respect mainstream moral conviction that has strong Biblical foundation (the guy has a reasonable moral basis to believe what he does.. and therefore, the courts are trampling on his moral convictions... particularly when asking for specific performance ... making him bake the cake). If the Holy Bible flat out said that homosexual marriage is against the will of God (a verse in its own)... would you concede his moral basis? If so, then it simply becomes an issue of how explicit? If you would not concede his moral basis, then... God help ya.

US law generally respects legitimate moral convictions and often allows latitude to full variance of the civil law when it conflicts with moral conviction (the draft being one such example).
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

OK... now we have to resort in insult and insolence. There goes the adult discussion.

So, apparently you are not very well educated on the Bible or you would get what I am talking about. Yes, there are many (uneducated in the Bible) that use it to support their warped views of the world. I understand that, but this argument is not about that. Its about having a world view based upon the Bible rather than a worldview that you try to justify by the Bible.

That said, I dare you to find a substantive biblical defense for bigotry towards blacks. While you will find no references to God or his prophets declaring the black man an abomination, you can rather easily find such references about homosexual behavior. Now, I could appreciate various interpretations of this; I certainly respect the interpretation that the owner of the Masterpiece Cake (which, by the way is about 200 yards from my office) had on this....

In this, I am not personally making any moral judgments about gays; nor would I do the same thing as this gentlemen. For the record, I have openly gay friends, clients and employees. This is not my personal worldview. However, as a strong Christian, I absolutely understand (and support) this guy's convictions.

????

Anyway, are you saying that a 'religious' moral objection is more important or has more legal standing than any other type of moral objection? That something can only be an abomination for a religious person? Are you specfiying Christians?

The point is....the bakery owner objected based on his moral objections...it was religious based. Religious or not, there are people that have moral objections against gays and *they may not discriminate against them based on that.*

(And I'm a Christian and didnt see anything insulting towards my religion in my post.)
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

It should relate only to government and public services, not private. If the government bakery didn't want to supply them with a cake, OK I'd understand the argument. If a private business doesn't want to supply them with a cake well that's their prerogative. Stupid as it reduces income, and if people protest and boycott you could go out of business. But that's also part of the point.

Any business that opens to the public is a public business, not a private one. If they don't want to abide by public policy then don't open a business to the public. Pretty simple.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

No, I just don't believe "freedom" to be the nebulous and boundless concept that Libertarians seem to hold. Freedom cannot be separated from the obligation to use it responsibly and, generally speaking, it ends when it threatens the freedom of others. As I said, there is no First Amendment right to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and I have no problem with the government enforcing law to that effect. What you conceptualize as freedom is about as useful and beneficial to society as the Reign of Terror was to France; mob rule with no mechanism to thwart tyranny of the majority.

First "compel" and "force"...now "obligation". Yeah, you're not Nazi-like at all.

The gay wedding had no freedom denied. They could've went down the road and found a non-judgmental baker to bake a cake identical to the one they wanted this guy to bake.

The business owner made a business decision based on his belief - probably to the detriment of his own business, both in that transaction and possibly due to negative PR backlash.

Yours is a position of persecuting those guilty of thoughtcrime. It honestly wouldn't shock me if you strenuously objected to a "jury of your peers", and would prefer to dish out your own form of oppressive law that you think, for some strange reason, is beneficial and benevolent to all.

All you're doing is supporting a cult of personality, much like your Bavarian idol of 85 years back.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So we can assume that you disagree with those who used government to ban marriage equality in their state constitutions a decade ago?



>>>>

Damn right, but my opinion of government intrusion into marriage (all marriage, not select ones) is well documented on DP.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So is it safe to say that your views on discrimination are subjective, as opposed to absolute?

For instance, forcing a baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding is okay...what if some skinhead wanted 6 dozen fresh cookies shaped like swastikas for the annual Mississippi White Power Festival? Is that okay?

It's based on the state or federal protected classes. Would the skinhead cookies fall under any of them?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

It's based on the state or federal protected classes. Would the skinhead cookies fall under any of them?

Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm a straight white male. I have no rights.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Bovine feces.

The baker was ORDERED to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

No he didn't order them to make a cake... it said:

A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples

He can not make them a cake and close his doors. IF he wants to stay in business he must serve all people equally.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm a straight white male. I have no rights.

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

Oh yeah, I forgot. I'm a straight white male. I have no rights.

You didnt answer my question.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue. The Bible is reasonably explicit about homosexual acts.. (though, it make no mention of homosexual marriage, which was not an issue 1800 to 3500 years ago)... Now, many have interpreted the Bible inclusions in a variety of ways, including self serving ways. One of the mainstream interpretations, however, is that homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage is morally wrong.


Ummm...

In the 60's and 70's you damn sure straight would have found many that argued that equal treatment of blacks was a "moral issue". As a matter of fact one of the rulings that Loving v. Virginia overturned cited Biblical justification for upholding anti-miscegenation laws.

Then of course we have, just as one, the Constitution of the State of Alabama which included language barring interracial marriage (one of the states that had their laws overturn by loving in 1967). In 2000 Alabama finally got around to removing the language (BTW - Just because a law is struck down as unconstitutional does not mean the text of the law is removed, that still requires legislative or constitutional action), the sad part is that 41% of the vote was to keep the language.


My point, so I am clear, is I believe the shop owner has a very defensible position. I believe the courts should have respected his moral convictions here. Again, we have an issue where civil law encroaches on moral law. (God's law).

While of course each of us has our own opinion, historical precedence doesn't lead one to believe that the Courts would rule that a law of general applicability warrants special privileges just because one object to complying with the law.

As Justice Scalia wrong (somone not known for being a liberal leaning judge) in Employment Divisiion v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​


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

DING DING DING DING correct


the owner wasnt even fined he was just given a cease and desist order to stop breaking the law and conducting illegal discrimination.

I don't understand the people defending discrimination. Some of the people doing so on this thread are surprising me, to be honest. I doubt that they are bigots. I just think that they think they have some zinger case.... but it is stupid.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647


Am I wrong? Gays get denied cake and it's a huge deal. What if a black barber refuses to give me a haircut? That's okay because I'm some "white privilege prick", right?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You didnt answer my question.

Yes I did. I mocked your desire to let Washington pick winners and losers in the "equal rights" game.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

1.)You are confusing religion, an institution of man, and the Bible. They are not same thing.
2.) I am not trying to tell you that people did not hide behind the church or their warped view of God as those issues were fought. This is not about the history of man nor the history of the church... this is about what the Living Word actually says. Again, the Bible is pretty explicit about homosexual behavior. No where in the Bible does it tell you that being black is an abomination. Homosexuality is a moral issue; being black is not.

3.) Since you do not know what the Bible on the subject, this is lost on you.

4.) My point is that the court should respect mainstream moral conviction that has strong Biblical foundation
5.) (the guy has a reasonable moral basis to believe what he does.. and therefore, the courts are trampling on his moral convictions... particularly when asking for specific performance ... making him bake the cake).

1.) no im not i simply pointing out factual history. You or me "disagreeing" with how people viewed, practiced or used their religion doesnt change history
2.) and this is the point who says they were hiding? who gets to determine that fact? i may agree with you but what im asking is how do our opinions make it fact? what about morons before 1976 i think it was? what about religion in general view women as lesser? what about infidels? etc etc Heck i could start a religion tomorrow and put in my bible "upsideguy" is the devil, its my religion so i should have the right to treat you as a lesser cause its in my bible and my religion right?

sorry that doesnt work, as a christian i see this guy as a complete moron and idiot who had horrible foresite and IMO its an excuse a cloak to hide behind.

theres nothing about me making a cake and selling my cake the bible condemns thats stupid but regardless even if it did my religion doesnt allow me to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.

3.) lol i know the bible thanks and nothing is lost on me, nice deflection though. i just understand the fact that you trying to seperate them is a factual failure as per the examples i provided and per how the law and rights work.

4.) they do

5.) his moral convictions were not trampled on thats a complete crock lol and they are meaningless to law and legal/civil/equal rights
also they did not make him back the cake

let me know what you have for my examples, you are just making things up to give false logic and that logic doesnt pan out to facts, reality, laws and rights. Thank you for your answer.
 
Back
Top Bottom