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

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

No, it simply mean get a clue... simple.

Click to expand...

still have no facts to support you strawman huh?

all you can do is become uncivil, try failed insults and try to deflect huh?

well when you are ready to stay on topic we'd love for you to present any facts that back up your false claim.

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

CriticalThought said:

So...does he deny people of other religious faiths of having wedding cakes?

The problem here is you are trying to make a ludicrous case for the guy, when the only people he was discriminating against in this matter was a gay couple. If he had made cakes only for fellow Christians then he might have had a case, but it was pretty clear that he was discriminating against these customers because they were gay, not out of religious principle.

Click to expand...

No, what you are for is discriminating ONLY on the behalf of gay people... that is what you advocate without the slighted concern for another's religious beliefs. Yours are not just ludicrous, it is arrogant and it is unconstitutional, whether you like it or not. You don't get to decide when they bake a cake, they get to decide... take your bigotry elsewhere, please.

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

Wow, looks like you are kinda getting a clue. One is definitely against the beliefs of some religious people, the other clearly is not... so I am glad you can discern a difference, you are coming along nicely now.

Click to expand...

yes the BS, hypocrisy and lies are easy to see

religious beliefs are meaningless to legal marriage, illegal discrimination and equal rights

facts destory your post again

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

No, what you are for is discriminating ONLY on the behalf of gay people... that is what you advocate without the slighted concern for another's religious beliefs. Yours are not just ludicrous, it is arrogant and it is unconstitutional, whether you like it or not. You don't get to decide when they bake a cake, they get to decide... take your bigotry elsewhere, please.

Click to expand...

1. I don't live in Colorado so I have no voice in the matter.

2. The law that was violated by the baker was the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act, not a law that I made or proposed in any shape, way, or form.

3. The baker chose to obtain a business license in Colorado and run his business in Colorado under that state's laws. I did not make that choice for that baker.

4. The baker chose to deny ONLY gay customers of a wedding cake and to base his decision on religious sensibilities. I was not that customer.

5. The court decided that the baker violated the state law. I was not the judge.

So how am I involved? What exactly did I do?

I certainly want to protect religious beliefs. But do I want to do so to the expense of others? Did you ask at any point what the religious beliefs of the customers were? Did you care? Or because the baker's religious views aligned with your own did you feel his discrimination was justified?


All those personal attacks revealed a lot about your psychology and paranoia. You, you, you! I find it sad when people resort to assumptions about what people intend. The moment you jump into pretending you know another man's intentions, you lose any credibility you have in a discussion and embarrass the hell out of yourself. It is childish, immature, and self effacing.

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

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...

Click to expand...

Jesus Christ would never give or sell cake to some people and refuse to give or sell cake to other people.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

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

Duh he discriminated...and there is nothing wrong with it.

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

Bigfoot 88 said:

Duh he discriminated...and there is nothing wrong with it.

Click to expand...

Except for the part where he violated state law.

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

Discrimination is against the law? WTF? You mean I cannot go into a shoe store and buy which sneakers I want, or when I choose one car over another at the lot...I cannot discriminate? Discrimination is what we all do when we choose one thing over another, that is not inherently evil, my man. That is being smart.

You think we don't "discriminate" against murderers, pedophiles, rapists, thieves... sorry, they do not all just willy-nilly get their way... and what you are advocating is that we discriminate in favor of the homosexual over the one standing up for their religions rights... it is just plain absurd the idea that anything anybody wants they just get or its considered "discrimination".

Come on, you are more intelligent than that.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean and diluting it with unlikely examples (sneaker choices?) doesn't alter reality. I'm not advocating anything. I'm simply citing laws that are already established, well established, and have endured the tests of time and the courts. It may offend your sensibilities - after all it's your business, these are your employees, these are your customers - but despite that, you can not legally refuse to hire or service people based on your personal beliefs or prejudices. You don't have to like someone. You don't need to be friends with them, you can pray for their destruction in your heart. But what you can't do (legally) is refuse to hire or sell to them. I had very, very, very little to do with this legislation. I was in Vietnam when the Civil Rights Act passed. In the nearly 50 years that have gone by since, this has been more and more refined. Not by me - by the courts.

Why has this happened? What brought on these laws? Anecdotally, 2 things influenced me. One, I got off a bus from NYC in Kansas City MO. I saw WHITE and COLORED restrooms. The other thing I remember was that in NYC, a bastion of progressiveness:roll:, it was illegal to serve alcohol to a homosexual.

Sure, my anecdotes are pithy but I'm trying to say that there was a great deal of injustice not all that long ago. So, you may see extreme responses as the pendulum swings. In another 100 years, nobody will remember that only men and women could get married. Or Old Black Joe still picking cotton.

The laws of the land. Not the laws of Specklebang. I'd make a marvelous dictator but I can't figure out how to get the job.

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

CriticalThought said:

Except for the part where he violated state law.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't care. Law doesn't determine right and wrong.

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

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...

People generally ought to have the right to refuse to do business with anyone, for whatever reason they choose with no obligation to disclose their reasoning, and the government should have no say in the matter whatsoever. If we are free, then we should have the right to discriminate for such reasons as seem good to us in our private and business matters.

A case could be made I suppose for greater restrictions on the actions of incorporated businesses, which require a charter.

But a privately run bakery should definitely have the right to refuse to engage in a transaction with people that they deem to be perverts. And no one else should have any say other than whether or not they wish to do business with them in future.

We're free or we aren't. Leftists of course, are contemptuous of actual freedom for people that they adjudge to be serfs at best. A category that most people naturally fall into.

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

digsbe said:

The bigotry lies in forcing someone to go against their beliefs via their private business to provide you with a service for something they believe is wrong.

This goes beyond gay "rights" and gets into bullying through the courts.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

As others have said on this forum: Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry and if it violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act it's not going to continue in the USA.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself.' ~ Robert green Ingersoll

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

CriticalThought said:

You are kidding, right? Colorado has a nondiscrimination law that protects people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. That was the law that the baker violated. The baker had baked cakes for dog weddings, but he would not bake a cake for a gay wedding because the people who requested it were gay. That is pretty clear cut.

What does a penis cake have to do with denying people services because they are gay? And do you think Nazis are protected under Colorado's nondiscrimination law?

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

1.) what does an obscene cake have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?
2.) also what does swastikas have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?

there is no legal precedence between the things mentioned above and illegal discrimination and or equal rights.

Click to expand...

I would argue that the bakers refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the customer but, rather, on the purpose to which they were going to put the cake. The customer didn't ask for just any cake. They wanted a cake to commemorate a wedding. It's perfectly reasonable that a heterosexual individual requesting such a cake would also be refused that service under some circumstances. The objection was not, as far as I can tell, based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

the pertinent part of the statute is here -

(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.

Click to expand...

Colorado Revised Statutes

I don't see anywhere in that statute where a "public accommodation" can't refuse goods or services based on what they will be used for. Now, if a homosexual walked into the bakery and said "I am getting married to an opposite sex partner and want a cake" and that request was refused simply on the basis that the individual was a homosexual that would be a different story.

Is that splitting hairs? Yep, but it's the way things are supposed to work.

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

CriticalThought said:

So...does he deny people of other religious faiths of having wedding cakes?

The problem here is you are trying to make a ludicrous case for the guy, when the only people he was discriminating against in this matter was a gay couple. If he had made cakes only for fellow Christians then he might have had a case, but it was pretty clear that he was discriminating against these customers because they were gay, not out of religious principle.

Click to expand...

One would rationally guess that would depend on what his/her religious faith declares...is there someplace in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc... that would indicate to you that this is the case, that one can only make cakes for fellow Christians... or are you just making something up, just a superfluous nonexistent hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality? If so, don't waste our time.

Listen, sorry, we all have religious freedom, and that is certainly is not unimportant and far from ludicrous... you should not denigrate so...and one most assuredly cannot force another to do something in complete conflict and contravention of their faith... what would be the logical basis for that?

And your last statement, speaking of ludicrous, is particularly specious.

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

shrubnose said:

As others have said on this forum: Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry and if it violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act it's not going to continue in the USA.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself.' ~ Robert green Ingersoll

Click to expand...

There is a right to be served?

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

Bigfoot 88 said:

Oh, I don't care. Law doesn't determine right and wrong.

Click to expand...

True. In that regard I agree with you. I don't see anything wrong with discrimination. I just think that if people are going to be free to discriminate then it should be the whole deal. Race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc. businesses should be able to discriminate on the basis of all of them.

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

Bigfoot 88 said:

There is a right to be served?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Read the 1964Civil Rights Act which outlawed discrimination against Blacks and other people in the USA.

If you sell to other people, you have to sell to me and anyone else who comes along whether you like my race, my religion, my sexual preference or anything else about me.

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

since nothing changed ill just repost what was said earlier


The bottom line this guy CHOSE to participate in the PUBLIC REALM which has rules and laws that regulate it and they are the same for us all.

He ran a public access business and he was NOT allowed to ILLEGALLY discriminate and violate rights of people just like every other public realm/ public access businesses is not allowed to either.

he choose to break laws and rules and violate rights

there is a price to pay for this

seems the perfectly right decision was made


illegal discrimination loses, thats a good thing

next time dont break this dip**** will think twice before breaking the law and violating peoples rights :shrug:

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

One would rationally guess that would depend on what his/her religious faith declares...is there someplace in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc... that would indicate to you that this is the case, that one can only make cakes for fellow Christians... or are you just making something up, just a superfluous nonexistent hypothetical that has nothing to do with reality? If so, don't waste our time.

Listen, sorry, we all have religious freedom, and that is certainly is not unimportant and far from ludicrous... you should not denigrate so...and one most assuredly cannot force another to do something in complete conflict and contravention of their faith... what would be the logical basis for that?

And your last statement, speaking of ludicrous, is particularly specious.

Click to expand...

When is the religious freedom of the customer going to come into play here?

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

shrubnose said:

Read the 1964Civil Rights Act which outlawed discrimination against Blacks and other people in the USA.

Click to expand...

I wasn't questioning legality, but the basis of your quote. No new rights magically came into existence in1964.

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

Lutherf said:

1.)I would argue that the bakers refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the customer but, rather, on the purpose to which they were going to put the cake. The customer didn't ask for just any cake. They wanted a cake to commemorate a wedding. It's perfectly reasonable that a heterosexual individual requesting such a cake would also be refused that service under some circumstances. The objection was not, as far as I can tell, based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

the pertinent part of the statute is here -

Colorado Revised Statutes

I don't see anywhere in that statute where a "public accommodation" can't refuse goods or services based on what they will be used for. Now, if a homosexual walked into the bakery and said "I am getting married to an opposite sex partner and want a cake" and that request was refused simply on the basis that the individual was a homosexual that would be a different story.

Is that splitting hairs? Yep, but it's the way things are supposed to work.

Click to expand...

and you would be factually wrong because that is what the discrimination was based on :shrug:
you also mentioned precedence the ruling was not based on illegal discrimaintion

so i ask again

1.) what does an obscene cake have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?
2.) also what does swastikas have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?

there is no legal precedence between the things mentioned above and illegal discrimination and or equal rights.

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

AGENT J said:

"customs" are now religious significance thats awesome (except in cases of dogs)

wow thats desperation at its finest, sorry that false statement and strawman is still complete failure and factually wrong

Click to expand...

Yeah, I would have guessed you might have already known that customs might have some significance before, but I guess not...you seem never to fail to disappoint in that kinda way, it seems.

Speaking of desperate, calling something desperation, a false statement or straw man is simply not a substitute for actually proving it...maybe you might for once try to debate and give something more than your usual fluff there AJ, old boy... just about to get simply ignored as I can tell you are slipping into your "fail" this "fail" that mode that is just soooooo boringly vapid...

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

MaggieD said:

So a guy who owns a bakery has to sell to anybody who walks through his door.

Who's this a victory for again?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right, those businesses shouldn't have to serve those darkies and sand niggers either right? :roll:

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

AGENT J said:

and you would be factually wrong because that is what the discrimination was based on :shrug:
you also mentioned precedence the ruling was not based on illegal discrimaintion

so i ask again

1.) what does an obscene cake have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?
2.) also what does swastikas have to do with illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights?

there is no legal precedence between the things mentioned above and illegal discrimination and or equal rights.

Click to expand...

My understanding of this case is that the baker offered to make the couple any other kind of cake that they wanted but refused to do a wedding cake because he considers marriage to be a matter of religion. It isn't homosexuals that he's refusing service to, it's ceremonies that violate his religious beliefs. From what I understand he also refuses to make Halloween themed items for the same reason.

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

Gaugingcatenate said:

1.)Yeah, I would have guessed you might have already known that customs might have some significance before, but I guess not...you seem never to fail to disappoint in that kinda way, it seems.

2.) Speaking of desperate, calling something desperation, a false statement or straw man is simply not a substitute for actually proving it...
3.) maybe you might for once try to debate and give something more than your usual fluff there AJ, old boy...

4.) just about to get simply ignored as I can tell you are slipping into your "fail" this "fail" that mode that is just soooooo boringly vapid...

Click to expand...

1.) they factually do not, and rights dont care about them nor in this case do they matter to religion, facts defeat your statement again, if you disagree please please present ONE fact that shows otherwise

2.) i agree but it doesnt change the fact that what your posts are and that you were proven factually wrong, denying this only further exposes the your failed posts

3.) you mean besides facts which you have provided NONE, not one, me and others have been asking for PAGES now and you havent provided any while we have.

again if you disagree simply provide the facts that support your post and that prove the facts provided by men and other wrong we are waiting

ill take bets you dodge this and never do it, your next post will be more deflections, failed insults and fallacies

4.) good move running away when you cant beat facts and your posts are getting destroyed

BUT if you are interested in being civil and provide FACTS, please do so we'd love to read them, one simple fact that support your failed statments

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

AGENT J said:

yes the BS, hypocrisy and lies are easy to see

religious beliefs are meaningless to legal marriage, illegal discrimination and equal rights

facts destory your post again

Click to expand...

blah blah blah .... good bye...

Your next post = translation: you have no arguments, you cannot counter... fail

So banal, so predictable...

NO. The real translation is that you have such inane and unsupported opinions that I basically cannot muster the interest, any interest, to even continue.