• 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]

It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

shagg said:
It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
Click to expand...

Get serious. Its not even CLOSE to the analogy you claim. A better analogy would be for a Jewish Baker to bake a wedding cake for a Christian customer. Its not like these guys asked the baker to bake a cake depicting erect penises and one guy performing oral sex on the other. They asked for the same type of wedding cake that this baker normally provides. It ABSOLUTELY had to do with the customers.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

shagg said:
It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
Click to expand...

They can't recognize the concept of adults refusing to do what they are told. Many aging adolescents prefer to spend their lives in a 'nanny state', and want everyone else to do the same.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

shagg said:
It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
Click to expand...


What it sounds like is something that was made up.

The baker and the couple never even got to the point of deciding what cake or how it would be decorated. As soon as the couple introduced themselves and indicated that the cake was for their wedding the conversation ended. (On this the baker and the couple agree.)

Any discussion of "rainbow" cakes, and "overtly gay wedding cake", or "hyperbolized" cake are fictitious and made up.

shagg said:
If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
Click to expand...

Hitler is not a race, creed, marital status, sex, sexual orientation of ethnicity. Refuse the cake order all you want.

shagg said:
If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
Click to expand...

In correct, the law requires "Full and Equal" treatment. A restaurant would also be in violation if they presented a menu to the white patrons and said order anything you want. To the black customers they gave a menu with only Fried Chicken.

They didn't unilaterally refuse to serve the black customer, but they would still be in violation.



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

WorldWatcher said:
Thank you. That's pretty obvious, not sure why you said it. But thank you anyway.

Here is one for you. I like Dell computers, I don't represent all computer users.


>>>>
Click to expand...
If it's pretty obvious to you then you should know that your argument about discrimination based on sexual orientation is without merit.

Ya, great that you like Dell. Do people have problem against Dell or all computer users? NOPE. So, what's your issue?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
If it's pretty obvious to you then you should know that your argument about discrimination based on sexual orientation is without merit.

Ya, great that you like Dell. Do people have problem against Dell or all computer users? NOPE. So, what's your issue?
Click to expand...


It's not "my" argument that the discrimination was based on the sexual orientation of the customers in the Colorado case. That was the ruling of the presiding judge. Just as it was the ruling of the presiding Judge in the New Mexico case, the appellate judges in New Mexico, and the New Mexico Supreme Court. It was also the decision of the presiding Judge in the similar Washington case. In all three cases (two bakers and one photographer), at different levels, the recognition was that the basis of discrimination was sexual orientation in violation of that state Public Accommodation laws.


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

WorldWatcher said:
It's not "my" argument that the discrimination was based on the sexual orientation of the customers in the Colorado case. That was the ruling of the presiding judge. Just as it was the ruling of the presiding Judge in the New Mexico case, the appellate judges in New Mexico, and the New Mexico Supreme Court. It was also the decision of the presiding Judge in the similar Washington case. In all three cases (two bakers and one photographer), at different levels, the recognition was that the basis of discrimination was sexual orientation in violation of that state Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>
Click to expand...
I don't know about the other cases. Just this baker case, the judge is clearly wrong. In my first post here I had already pointed his basic flaws.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
I don't know about the other cases. Just this baker case, the judge is clearly wrong. In my first post here I had already pointed his basic flaws.
Click to expand...


Your first post in the tread was an appeal to emotion by use of taking a small snippet out of context -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...le-w-113-123-292-647-a-39.html#post1062652946

The law however is available here -- COCODE

The Judges full ruling is available here -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf



The ruling was fully correct based on the law, the arguments, and the precedents from higher courts. That doesn't mean the ruling can't be appealed and eventually the SCOTUS allowed to update the precedent applicable to the lower courts.

However that doesn't mean the Judge was "wrong" given the confines of his position. Just because we may disagree with Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses, that doesn't mean that he was "wrong" either.


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

WorldWatcher said:
Your first post in the tread was an appeal to emotion by use of taking a small snippet out of context -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...le-w-113-123-292-647-a-39.html#post1062652946

The law however is available here -- COCODE

The Judges full ruling is available here -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf



The ruling was fully correct based on the law, the arguments, and the precedents from higher courts. That doesn't mean the ruling can't be appealed and eventually the SCOTUS allowed to update the precedent applicable to the lower courts.

However that doesn't mean the Judge was "wrong" given the confines of his position. Just because we may disagree with Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses, that doesn't mean that he was "wrong" either.


>>>>
Click to expand...
There is nothing emotional about my position. It is your position that is an appeal to emotion. For instance, the judge talked about "hurt" but there's no constitutional right to protect your emotion from being hurt. He also talked about discrimination against gays due to their sexual orientation but he ignored the fact that the baker was willing to bake the gay couples any other cakes just not the one for the gay wedding that he wanted no part of due to his religious belief. Besides that the baker didn't discriminate the particular gay couples or the majority of the whole class of gay people who never intended to settle down with only one partner in a marriage. What the baker refused to have any part of was the "event" to which the lifestyle must not be compelled upon someone who want no part of it let alone an antithesis to his religious conviction, which is protected by the Constitution and triumphs any state laws or your misinterpretation thereof. Clearly the judge misinterpreted the state law to include particular "event".
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
There is nothing emotional about my position. It is your position that is an appeal to emotion. For instance, the judge talked about "hurt" but there's no constitutional right to protect your emotion from being hurt. He also talked about discrimination against gays due to their sexual orientation but he ignored the fact that the baker was willing to bake the gay couples any other cakes just not the one for the gay wedding that he wanted no part of due to his religious belief.
Click to expand...

Which if you review the law is irrelevant. The baker refused to provide the "full and equal" array of goods and services as required by the law. The Judge was not "wrong" about that. Selling all cake types to straight customers and all **but** wedding cakes to gay customers is not in compliance with the law.

dolphinocean said:
Besides that the baker didn't discriminate the particular gay couples or the majority of the whole class of gay people who never intended to settle down with only one partner in a marriage.
Click to expand...

What?

Ah - ya the baker did discriminate against this particilar gay couple. He refused to provide them the same goods and services.

What this whole "majority of the whole class of people" is I'm not understanding. The law doesn't require that he discriminate against every gay person in the United States before being in violation of the law. It only take one customer (or in this case couple).

dolphinocean said:
What the baker refused to have any part of was the "event" to which the lifestyle must not be compelled upon someone who want no part of it let alone an antithesis to his religious conviction, which is protected by the Constitution and triumphs any state laws or your misinterpretation thereof. Clearly the judge misinterpreted the state law to include particular "event".
Click to expand...

Psst - Again, stop trying to make it about "me" and "my interpretations". This is the application of the case law from multiple states (Washington, Colorado, New Mexico) and the SCOTUS which have ALL upheld Public Accommodation laws in which they have been found Constitutional.

Here again is the law:

"(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."​


There is no "event" exception that I see in the law. If there is please point it out.

The law clearly states that businesses must provide "Full and Equal" access to goods and services. It does not say there are special exceptions for this "event" or that "event".



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

WorldWatcher said:
Which if you review the law is irrelevant. The baker refused to provide the "full and equal" array of goods and services as required by the law. The Judge was not "wrong" about that. Selling all cake types to straight customers and all **but** wedding cakes to gay customers is not in compliance with the law.



What?

Ah - ya the baker did discriminate against this particilar gay couple. He refused to provide them the same goods and services.

What this whole "majority of the whole class of people" is I'm not understanding. The law doesn't require that he discriminate against every gay person in the United States before being in violation of the law. It only take one customer (or in this case couple).



Psst - Again, stop trying to make it about "me" and "my interpretations". This is the application of the case law from multiple states (Washington, Colorado, New Mexico) and the SCOTUS which have ALL upheld Public Accommodation laws in which they have been found Constitutional.

Here again is the law:
"(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry."​


There is no "event" exception that I see in the law. If there is please point it out.

The law clearly states that businesses must provide "Full and Equal" access to goods and services. It does not say there are special exceptions for this "event" or that "event".



>>>>
Click to expand...
There's no denying the judge is completely wrong. There was no discrimination against the gay couples or any gays for that matter. You keep refusing to acknowledge that it was the event that contradicts the baker's religious belief that was the core of the matter. Your misinterpretation of the law was laid out for you to see, but as always you refused to acknowledge it and thus we are just going in repeat circles on and on and getting nowhere.

If I bring my foreign car to some car repair shops where the shop owners told me they don't service or repair foreign cars, are they discriminating me because of my nationality? Of course not.

All I have to do is bring my car to a car repair shop which service and repair foreign cars. I can't dictate to any particular car repair shop and insist they repair my foreign car whether they like it or not.

BTW, how long does it take for the case to wind up in court? And were these gay couples just not getting any wedding cake elsewhere for their wedding or did they just post-pone their wedding until this case is all settled all the way to the supreme court? So that they could get this particular baker to bake them some friggin gay wedding cake?
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
There's no denying the judge is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah - ya there is. According to the law the Judge made the correct decision.

dolphinocean said:
There was no discrimination against the gay couples or any gays for that matter.
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight (no pun intended).

The baker would sell any cake to straight customers (couples), but would not sell the same cake that he would sell to a straight couple - and you claim there was no discrimination? Now that's just being obtuse.

dolphinocean said:
You keep refusing to acknowledge that it was the event that contradicts the baker's religious belief that was the core of the matter.
Click to expand...

That's because the "event" is irrelevant. The baker sold wedding cakes, weddings are an event the baker supplied cakes for, the customers wanted to purchase a wedding cake. It wasn't the "event" that was the reason for the no sail, it was the customers that weren't allowed to purchase the wedding cake. "Events" don't purchase cakes.

dolphinocean said:
Your misinterpretation of the law was laid out for you to see, but as always you refused to acknowledge it and thus we are just going in repeat circles on and on and getting nowhere.
Click to expand...

Again it's not "my interpretation of the law", its what is written in the law, applied by multiple courts at multiple levels in multiple states and by the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems to be you do not want to acknowledge that Public Accommodation Laws have been around for over 100 years, they have been reviewed by lower courts, state courts, state Supreme Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States and been found to be valid exercise of the States (and in some cases Federal) governments powers to regulate commerce. Banking on the SCOTUS overturning the laws is not a good bet, instead we need to work to repeal such laws.

dolphinocean said:
If I bring my foreign car to some car repair shops where the shop owners told me they don't service or repair foreign cars, are they discriminating me because of my nationality? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Let's assume you are Irish, just for the sake of your analogy.

I agree they aren't. Because the domestic car dealer does not repair foreign cars. Public Accommodation laws do not require that a business provide goods or services that are not normally supplied. The foreign car shop (if it) dosent repair domestic cars is not required to provide such a service to any customer. However if the car shop you take the foreign car to does repair foreign cars and refuses to repair your car because you are Irish, then that is discrimination based on National Origin which is in violation of the law.

dolphinocean said:
All I have to do is bring my car to a car repair shop which service and repair foreign cars. I can't dictate to any particular car repair shop and insist they repair my foreign car whether they like it or not.
Click to expand...

Correct. However you have ignored the reason they refused to repair your foreign car.

If the shop refuses because they are backed up, because they are closing for the holidays and everyone will be on vacation, or for any other of a variety of reasons - that's it. However if the shop tells you they won't repair your car because you are Irish that is in violation of the law. You can then report them for violating the law after having your car towed to a different repair shop.

dolphinocean said:
BTW, how long does it take for the case to wind up in court?
Click to expand...

Usually months.

dolphinocean said:
And were these gay couples just not getting any wedding cake elsewhere for their wedding or did they just post-pone their wedding until this case is all settled all the way to the supreme court? So that they could get this particular baker to bake them some friggin gay wedding cake?
Click to expand...

They probably did get a cake at another location.

That does not preclude them reporting the bakery for unlawful discrimination. You are under the misunderstanding that the report of offense is intended to make the business to fill that specific order. Usually it's not, it's simply to report the violation of the law.


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

disneydude said:
People are entitled to live in a society where businesses are not free to discriminate, yes...absolutely. That is one of the foundations of this country. We do not support bigotry and discrimination. Sorry...but that's the American way.
Click to expand...

That is not one of the foundations of this country, it was to create a government which held our rights and liberties. Freedom. There are bigots in a free society and a man has no right to another man's property or labor. It's not the American way.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

It's nice to know that so many people here support compulsory sales.

In all the business/accounting/contract law classes I've taken, which are multiple, a contract made under duress is voidable. My professors forgot to tell me that it's not the case when the government is the party forcing the duress.

It goes to show what I've said for the longest time - the only true monopoly is the government.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Ikari said:
That is not one of the foundations of this country, it was to create a government which held our rights and liberties. Freedom. There are bigots in a free society and a man has no right to another man's property or labor. It's not the American way.
Click to expand...

You have a rather distorted view about the foundations and values of this country (then again you sit in your house thinking that the big bad government is around every corner with their guns drawn.....so it kinda explains it).


Our rights and liberties involve being free of discrimination and bigotry. Sorry...but that's life.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

WorldWatcher said:
Ah - ya there is. According to the law the Judge made the correct decision.



Let me get this straight (no pun intended).

The baker would sell any cake to straight customers (couples), but would not sell the same cake that he would sell to a straight couple - and you claim there was no discrimination? Now that's just being obtuse.



That's because the "event" is irrelevant. The baker sold wedding cakes, weddings are an event the baker supplied cakes for, the customers wanted to purchase a wedding cake. It wasn't the "event" that was the reason for the no sail, it was the customers that weren't allowed to purchase the wedding cake. "Events" don't purchase cakes.



Again it's not "my interpretation of the law", its what is written in the law, applied by multiple courts at multiple levels in multiple states and by the Supreme Court of the United States.

It seems to be you do not want to acknowledge that Public Accommodation Laws have been around for over 100 years, they have been reviewed by lower courts, state courts, state Supreme Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States and been found to be valid exercise of the States (and in some cases Federal) governments powers to regulate commerce. Banking on the SCOTUS overturning the laws is not a good bet, instead we need to work to repeal such laws.



Let's assume you are Irish, just for the sake of your analogy.

I agree they aren't. Because the domestic car dealer does not repair foreign cars. Public Accommodation laws do not require that a business provide goods or services that are not normally supplied. The foreign car shop (if it) dosent repair domestic cars is not required to provide such a service to any customer. However if the car shop you take the foreign car to does repair foreign cars and refuses to repair your car because you are Irish, then that is discrimination based on National Origin which is in violation of the law.



Correct. However you have ignored the reason they refused to repair your foreign car.

If the shop refuses because they are backed up, because they are closing for the holidays and everyone will be on vacation, or for any other of a variety of reasons - that's it. However if the shop tells you they won't repair your car because you are Irish that is in violation of the law. You can then report them for violating the law after having your car towed to a different repair shop.



Usually months.



They probably did get a cake at another location.

That does not preclude them reporting the bakery for unlawful discrimination. You are under the misunderstanding that the report of offense is intended to make the business to fill that specific order. Usually it's not, it's simply to report the violation of the law.


>>>>
Click to expand...
It's getting very tiresome for me to have to repeat myself over and over again to the same old points you kept recycled ad nauseam.

Bottom line is:

1. gay couples committing to marriage is a small percentage of the whole gay community and therefore do not represent the whole calss.

2. Refusal to bake wedding cake for gay couples planning to get married does not constitute discrimination against the whole class of gay people and since the baker was willing to bake any other types of cakes to any gay people including the gay couple in question, it is therefore not a discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation.

3. The baker's refusal to bake gay wedding cake for gay couples was due to the sole reason of not wanting to be compelled to participate or contribute to any part of the gay lifestyle that runs antithesis to his religious belief. The couples being gay is just incidental.

4. Per #2 and #3 above, there is therefore no violation of the state law you cited, which was about discrimination against the whole class of protected class of people and not particular event.

5. The judge and you are wrong.

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
It's getting very tiresome for me to have to repeat myself over and over again to the same old points you kept recycled ad nauseam.

Bottom line is:

1. gay couples committing to marriage is a small percentage of the whole gay community and therefore do not represent the whole calss.
Click to expand...

Amazing ain't it considering gay marriage has only been recognized by a handful of states in the last ten or so years.

2. Refusal to bake wedding cake for gay couples planning to get married does not constitute discrimination against the whole class of gay people and since the baker was willing to bake any other types of cakes to any gay people including the gay couple in question, it is therefore not a discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Why is a wedding cake any different? They make cakes for a living.

3. The baker's refusal to bake gay wedding cake for gay couples was due to the sole reason of not wanting to be compelled to participate or contribute to any part of the gay lifestyle that runs antithesis to his religious belief. The couples being gay is just incidental.
Click to expand...

No. the couples being gay is the whole deal


That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

I'll leave it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

The baker had no problem whatsoever of baking cakes for gay people, therefore it isn't being gay the issue. It is not being forced into being a contributing part to something against his religion being the issue. Good that you will leave it since you people aren't really interested in reason anyway.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
The baker had no problem whatsoever of baking cakes for gay people, therefore it isn't being gay the issue. It is not being forced into being a contributing part to something against his religion being the issue. Good that you will leave it since you people aren't really interested in reason anyway.
Click to expand...

What are the bakers contributing? They are getting paid.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Do I even have to spell it out for you? And I thought you gonna leave it? Guess not.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

dolphinocean said:
Do I even have to spell it out for you? And I thought you gonna leave it? Guess not.
Click to expand...

Fine spell it out
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

winston53660 said:
What are the bakers contributing? They are getting paid.
Click to expand...


the problem with your argument is that if you use it to defend one group you have to use it to defend ALL groups. Meaning, Winston, if a bakery had owners who were black and refused to bake something for a KKK rally then(following the logic of your argument) you would have to defend the KKK group's right to be served. After all, the bakery is getting PAID, isn't it?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

JoeTrumps said:
the problem with your argument is that if you use it to defend one group you have to use it to defend ALL groups. Meaning, Winston, if a bakery had owners who were black and refused to bake something for a KKK rally then(following the logic of your argument) you would have to defend the KKK group's right to be served. After all, the bakery is getting PAID, isn't it?
Click to expand...

As much as the KK repulses me I do think the bakers should bake the cake within the normal course of business and products offered.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

winston53660 said:
As much as the KK repulses me I do think the bakers should bake the cake within the normal course of business and products offered.
Click to expand...

you're just saying that so you don't sink your own argument. If that was a real situation there is no way you would force a black owner to do business with the klan. come on, be honest with yourself for one second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom