• 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]

Yep, because Jesus has a long history of denying people baked goods. Oh...wait.
Nor did he have a history of excusing, justifying, or tolerating sin. And you know...its funny...but when people that typically vilify religious belief then begin to cite religious figures to attempt to prove their point, they invariably leave off that 'other' part.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.)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.
2.) It isn't homosexuals that he's refusing service to, it's ceremonies that violate his religious beliefs.
3.)From what I understand he also refuses to make Halloween themed items for the same reason.

1.) which is factually wrong and on what opinion was he relying on to come to the decision that their marriage isnt religious?
2.) nobody honest believes this including the judge, it was in fact the homosexuals and what violates his religious beliefs? not weddings
3.) him being an idiot isnt a defense and not doing Halloween isnt illegal discrimination

also if true what about the cake for dog weddings? though i dont know if its true


but the bottom line is all in the question in #1

what opinion was he relying on to come to the decision that their marriage isnt religious?

it was sexual orientation discrimination as the judge determined and thats what the precedence was on. We cant just make things up, so i will ask a third time


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

Nor did he have a history of excusing, justifying, or tolerating sin. And you know...its funny...but when people that typically vilify religious belief then begin to cite religious figures to attempt to prove their point, they invariably leave off that 'other' part.

Well since we are in the realm of personal, subjective interpretation of what Jesus would or would not condone, I am going to argue that Jesus actually affirmed a gay couple in the story of the Roman centurion. And since faith works by just believing, I am going to state you are wrong.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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.

Called it, you got nothing, thats what i thought

Facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence all prove you wrong, remind us what do you have supporting you?

facts destroy your post AGAIN

again when you are ready to be civil and support your failed posts with facts we will be here
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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.

He's wrong.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Called it, you got nothing, thats what i thought

Facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence all prove you wrong, remind us what do you have supporting you?

facts destroy your post AGAIN

again when you are ready to be civil and support your failed posts with facts we will be here
blah blah blah...:2wave:
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Well since we are in the realm of personal, subjective interpretation of what Jesus would or would not condone, I am going to argue that Jesus actually affirmed a gay couple in the story of the Roman centurion. And since faith works by just believing, I am going to state you are wrong.
Hey...as long as you can cull through the literature to find something...ANYTHING to justify your personal choices...more power to you.

I think religion is the wrong argument here (and why I wasnt the one to bring it up). I would no more force the baker to sell to a gay couple than I would force a gay bar owner to serve obnoxious rednecks that were verbally denigrating gays. But if you (you in this case being DD et al) ARE going to bring it up in the argument...well...you kinda have to live with ALL the rhetoric...not just the pieces you like to pick and choose that make you feel all better about yourself. And when we talk about a Christlike life...true enough...he would not expect individuals to pronounce "judgement" (God has already done that if you are inclined to believe in the Bible) but he also did not say "go forth, and hey...just ignore that whole sin thing...do whatever you want."
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

blah blah blah...:2wave:

Facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedence all prove you wrong, remind us what do you have supporting you?

again when you are ready to be civil and support your failed posts with facts we will be here, your post loses again.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.) which is factually wrong and on what opinion was he relying on to come to the decision that their marriage isnt religious?
2.) nobody honest believes this including the judge, it was in fact the homosexuals and what violates his religious beliefs? not weddings
3.) him being an idiot isnt a defense and not doing Halloween isnt illegal discrimination

also if true what about the cake for dog weddings? though i dont know if its true


but the bottom line is all in the question in #1

what opinion was he relying on to come to the decision that their marriage isnt religious?

it was sexual orientation discrimination as the judge determined and thats what the precedence was on. We cant just make things up, so i will ask a third time


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.

The only facts of the case I've seen are in various articles and some of those articles have said that he did, in fact, offer to make them any other kind of cake. If you have information showing that's not part of the facts I'd like to see it.

As far as the obscene cakes...what I was getting at is that rulings like this set a precedent for other things to be considered "discrimination". As far as "equal rights", well, if I can legally be discriminated against because I'm not a member of a "protected class" then that isn't very "equal", is it?
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

all the owner had to do is not break the law, he choose to break the law so now he pays some type of penalty, its that simple
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.)The only facts of the case I've seen are in various articles and some of those articles have said that he did, in fact, offer to make them any other kind of cake. If you have information showing that's not part of the facts I'd like to see it.

2.)As far as the obscene cakes...what I was getting at is that rulings like this set a precedent for other things to be considered "discrimination".

3.) As far as "equal rights", well, if I can legally be discriminated against because I'm not a member of a "protected class" then that isn't very "equal", is it?


i see you keep dodging my questions

1.) meaningless to your statments

here is the judges ruling hence precedence:

"In a ruling issued Friday, an administrative law judge in Denver, Robert Spencer, ruled that by rebuffing the couple's attempt to buy a cake, Masterpiece Cakeshop violated a state law banning discrimination in a public place on grounds of sexual orientation."

this is the ruling and precedence so you cant just make one up

this is about discrimination of sexual orientation (homosexual orientation)

this fact cant be changed im not sure what you dont get

2.) see #1 thats false, the precedence goes no further than illegal discrimination and equal rights.

3.) weird you don't have have sexual orientation? you dont have a race? a gender? seems you are protected to me.

so yes its equal, just as a gay baker couldnt deny service to straights based on thier straight wedding

so back to the facts

illegal discrimination and or violation of equal rights has NOTHING to do with swastikas and obscene cakes
there is NO precedence here set that would relate to swastikas and obscene cakes only to one cant illegal discrimination and or infringe on equal rights.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

Moderator's Warning:
And this means stop the personal attacks. Simple.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

Basically, you're making a religion out of the 1964 Civil Rights. Bigotry is a free choice. You might mistakenly believe that attempting to control how people express their bigotry somehow magically makes it go away, but it does not.

But here, try this experiment. See if you can get your elected officials to denounce the Islamic dictates which command a war of extermination against Jews and pagans, and the subjugation or death of everyone else who isn't a Muslim. Or better still, why not make up an adorable little placard with such a denunciation and parade up and down in front of your local Mosque some Friday afternoon, then report on how the police and government supported you right to do that. *snicker*

The lesson for those who don't want to be compelled by the State to support perversions such as same same "marriage," is to defy them, the way we used to with bullies in general.
 
Last edited:
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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.

I personally do not think it's right, but, unfortunately, if the baker is making wedding cakes, he is also legally obligated to make wedding cakes for gays. It's discriminatory and a violation of rights not too.

I am quite libertarian in that regard, though, and believe the government should allow a business to do as they please and refuse any business they do not want to engage in.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I personally do not think it's right, but, unfortunately, if the baker is making wedding cakes, he is also legally obligated to make wedding cakes for gays. It's discriminatory and a violation of rights not too.

I am quite libertarian in that regard, though, and believe the government should allow a business to do as they please and refuse any business they do not want to engage in.

I think that people acquiesce too easily when it comes to this stuff. The state already excludes churches from any requirement to perform gay marriages so, for all practical purposes, that precedent has already been set. Religious convictions are protected in that case but not when it comes to "public accommodations". Well, why not? Why does the church, protected by the same amendment as the baker, get a pass while the baker doesn't? Why is the baker no longer free to exercise his religious practices once he steps into the public domain? Furthermore, where is the harm caused to this couple? Was this the only bakery available to them? Were they prohibited from making their own cake because of the actions of this baker? If they were I don't see how.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I personally do not think it's right, but, unfortunately, if the baker is making wedding cakes, he is also legally obligated to make wedding cakes for gays. It's discriminatory and a violation of rights not too.

I am quite libertarian in that regard, though, and believe the government should allow a business to do as they please and refuse any business they do not want to engage in.
So what if some freak came in and demanded a pornographically themed wedding cake. Porn is legal. Are going for force the baker to decorate the cake with frosting dildos?

It seems that by this reasoning we must.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I think that people acquiesce too easily when it comes to this stuff. The state already excludes churches from any requirement to perform gay marriages so, for all practical purposes, that precedent has already been set. Religious convictions are protected in that case but not when it comes to "public accommodations". Well, why not? Why does the church, protected by the same amendment as the baker, get a pass while the baker doesn't? Why is the baker no longer free to exercise his religious practices once he steps into the public domain? Furthermore, where is the harm caused to this couple? Was this the only bakery available to them? Were they prohibited from making their own cake because of the actions of this baker? If they were I don't see how.

I agree with you. But the courts do not and I just don't see that being changed. I would vote for people that would try, though.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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.
1. Dude, you are the one arguing the case from that side, not me... so either stick to your side or cave if you are unwilling to stand by your arguments.

2. I posit that the Colorado law is unconstitutional in this instance... I am in no manner required to trust in what some liberal Colorado judge decides, especially when it goes directly in contradiction to one of our original and guaranteed rights. If those in Colorado want to amend the US Constitution... well, they will just have to go about it in the prescribed manners. Until then their laws in this area are total bunkum.

3. See 2 above

4. See 2 above

5. See 2 above.

Listen, don't know if you have really thought this out at all, but whether you like it or not this is going to be at the expense of one side or the other. There is no win win... and it appears you want gay rights to win over all others. Religious rights trump, sorry, they just do. Now, if this were the only baker in Colorado, maybe we could have an actual debate over the matter... but to sue to force these folks to go against their stated religious principles is a complete travesty and, I would suspect, an agenda driven move to intimidate others.

Did I ever ask the "religious beliefs of the customers"? What would be the relevance of that, exactly? They can pick and choose who they want to based on whatever their criteria might be... as long as who they choose accepts their commission to bake this special cake. If their religious beliefs don't match, they go someplace else. They would not in any way be forced to get their cake from that bakery or any other. Right? Apples and oranges.

Listen, I hope you don't charge for your consults, because you would owe me at this point...and perhaps have a malpractice suit. What it should have revealed is that I, as have others, have had just about enough with government telling me what I they think I MUST believe, by force of law. Your pop psychology assessment, tho, does tell us a lot about you. In the end, I think I would say take your juvenile pablum, that you might actually be able to persuade others as mimicking actual intelligence, elsewhere please... I am in no need such libertarian pseudo-psychological analysis.

What a laugh there guy, do you actually read what you write? :lamo

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

So what if some freak came in and demanded a pornographically themed wedding cake. Porn is legal. Are going for force the baker to decorate the cake with frosting dildos?

It seems that by this reasoning we must.

I would say that if a bakery does not make porn cakes, they could not be forced to... but if they do make porn cakes for some, they wouldn't be able to deny a porn cake to a different customer.

MMM... Porn cake sounds delicious, btw.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I would say that if a bakery does not make porn cakes, they could not be forced to... but if they do make porn cakes for some, they wouldn't be able to deny a porn cake to a different customer.

MMM... Porn cake sounds delicious, btw.

But, I'm fairly sure that most people like it or not find the idea of homosexuality more objectionable than porn. (Think of how much quicker one would find themselves all alone at the company picnic for telling homosexual dirty jokes versus heterosexual dirty jokes.) And this dictatorial judge wants to force the baker to make a wedding cake celebrating something he finds revolting and obscene. I still think that under this precedent if any couple wanted a porn themed wedding, the despotic state would have to force him to create confectionery genitalia to adorn the cake. It's all really serfdom shading to slavery by other means and names.
 
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

But, I'm fairly sure that most people like it or not find the idea of homosexuality more objectionable than porn. (Think of how much quicker one would find themselves all alone at the company picnic for telling homosexual dirty jokes versus heterosexual dirty jokes.) And this dictatorial judge wants to force the baker to make a wedding cake celebrating something he finds revolting and obscene. I still think that under this precedent if any couple wanted a porn themed wedding, the despotic state would have to force him to create confectionery genitalia to adorn the cake. It's all really serfdom shading to slavery by other means and names.


no the precedent doesnt lend to that in anyway what so ever, porn is not sexual orientation nor does it have antyhign to so with illegal discrimination and equal rights
 
Last edited:
re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Moderator's Warning:
All personal attacks need to stop.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.)Listen, don't know if you have really thought this out at all, but whether you like it or not this is going to be at the expense of one side or the other. There is no win win...
2.)and it appears you want gay rights to win over all others.
3.)Religious rights trump, sorry, they just do.
4.)Now, if this were the only baker in Colorado, maybe we could have an actual debate over the matter... but to sue to force these folks to go against their stated religious principles is a complete travesty and, I would suspect, an agenda driven move to intimidate others.
5.)Did I ever ask the "religious beliefs of the customers"? What would be the relevance of that, exactly? They can pick and choose who they want to based on whatever their criteria might be... as long as who they choose accepts their commission to bake this special cake.
6.)If their religious beliefs don't match, they go someplace else.
7.)They would not in any way be forced to get their cake from that bakery or any other. Right? Apples and oranges.
8.) Listen, I hope you don't charge for your consults, because you would owe me at this point...and perhaps have a malpractice suit.
9.) What it should have revealed is that I, as have others, have had just about enough with government telling me what I they think I MUST believe, by force of law.
10.) Your pop psychology assessment, tho, does tell us a lot about you. In the end, I think I would say take your juvenile pablum, that you might actually be able to persuade others as mimicking actual intelligence, elsewhere please... I am in no need such libertarian pseudo-psychological analysis.

What a laugh there guy, do you actually read what you write? :lamo

.

1.) what wins is equal rights and law
2.) nope the law protects ALL sexual orientation, this case just happens to involve a gay couple
3.) this is factually wrong, facts laws and rights already prove your statement wrong, so no they just dont.
4.) they arent forced , they chose to break the laws the laws they new that were in place they CHOSE to break them
5.) the cake isnt "special" its normal, this strawman is silly
6.) nope they dont have too
7.) correct you example is apples and oranges
8.) what does this have to do with the topic?
9.) good thing the government is factually not telling you what to believe this baker is still free to believe what he wants, this is another failed strawman
10.) more off topic ranting


aagain please stay on topic and let us know when you have any facts to back up your claims
then tell us why your OPINION trumps the facts, laws, rights, court cases and court precedent already established?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Religious rights trump, sorry, they just do. Now, if this were the only baker in Colorado, maybe we could have an actual debate over the matter... but to sue to force these folks to go against their stated religious principles is a complete travesty and, I would suspect, an agenda driven move to intimidate others.

Baking a cake is not a religious practice. It is not protected by the law.

What it should have revealed is that I, as have others, have had just about enough with government telling me what I they think I MUST believe, by force of law.
.

The law doesn't require the baker to think anything. It does require that he not discriminate against LGBT's. The difference between forcing someone to believe something and forbidding someone from doing something is pretty obvious. Not sure where you are having a problem distinguishing between the two.
 
Back
Top Bottom