• 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

But there is no religious ground or any other basis for the refusal other than their skin color. The baker in this case has a legitimate religious basis.

1. Actually, religious grounds were argued in interracial marriage cases. The Commonwealth of Virginia argued Biblical principals in it's defense of the anti-miscegenation Loving v. Virginia.


2. "Legitimate religious basis", so now the government is supposed to determine what is a "legitimate" religious morally held principal? You really sure you want to give that power to the government?



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

Nope. The baker would be happy to sell any cakes to anybody gay or straight, just not a gay theme wedding cake which he wanted no part of due to religious ground.

Incorrect. He wouldn't sell any cake to any customer. He would sell wedding cakes to straight couples only. Wedding cakes are a subset of "Any" cake.


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

Incorrect. He wouldn't sell any cake to any customer. He would sell wedding cakes to straight couples only. Wedding cakes are a subset of "Any" cake.


>>>>

Wedding cake is certainly a subset of Cake....you do know what cake is, yes?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

That's what we're talking about, a friggin cake. Then go to another store and get a generic friggin wedding cakes and stop clogging up the court with frivolous lawsuit already.


If it was a frivolous lawsuit, the case would have been dismissed. Since the couple won the case, it is a priori evidence that the case wasn't frivolous.

BTW - it wasn't a "lawsuit", the couple did not file in Civil Court. They logged a complaint with Colorado equivalent of the EEOC.


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

Its a friggin cake....no one was asking him to attend the wedding....geeeessh!
But you are demanding him to create something with his bare hands that will be used for something he is morally against. From the rulings coming from different parts of the country forcing cake decorators, florists and photographers, all artists, will be forced to produce anything a person off the street demands of them. Say a couple wants a photographer to take pictures of their wedding. The photographer is a Christian and the couple is holding their wedding ceremony at the First Church of Satan. According to your thinking, he should be forced to take the pictures because the photographer does wedding ceremonies. Or say a Jewish catering service who specializes in kosher food is asked to prepare the chicken and fish dishes for a wedding and finds out that there will be other caterers there preparing shrimp cocktails, bacon wrapped fillet mignons and pork chops in the same kitchen. According to you he has no right to refuse his services to those who ask them of him because that would be discrimination. A Muslim florist, who covers her head out of modesty, wears dresses that completely cover her legs and arms is asked to do the flowers for a wedding. The theme of the wedding is Adam and Eve. She is asked to provide decorative fig leaves as the attire for the bride and groom to wear during the ceremony which she finds offensive and according to you she has no right to deny this request. An atheist goes into a print shop run by take your pick (Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Christian) wanting fliers printed that are titled "God is Dead". According to you, this printer is not allowed to deny his service and must print the fliers and the printer is forced to sign his name to the work through his company name misrepresenting and violating his belief system. In other words what you are claiming it is perfectly alright for a person to be forced to violate their conscience, THEIR VERY BEING, in the name of so called discrimination. In other words you see people not being allowed to live their moral conscience if they have a public business. Unbelievable.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I see what you mean regarding my take on discriminating the baker's religion, sorry was in hurry trying to do several chores at one time.

I should say violating his religious belief through the judicial power. I think it's totalitarian tactics for the judicial branch to force a private business owner to cater to an event that runs contra to one's religious principle.

The baker was NOT discriminating the gay customers. He just just refused to be a part of the event. Event is not a person.

With regards to female bodies, as a professional photographer or artist I would serve the ladies, gay or straight, no difference. Just no men, gay or straight. Can the court force me to do otherwise?

I think I need to take a break and get busy with my other chores.

I have to go pick up my kids soon too... in a way the government violating his religious belief through judicial power. But it is with his consent. He consented to opening a business knowing full well that discrimination is illegal. :shrugs:

No, he was discriminating against the gay customers. He was not a part of any event. He was baking a cake for the event. Ever see Tanked or Cake Boss or any of those shows? Could you imagine an episode of Tanked where they show them NOT making a fish tank when part way through the interview they find out they are gay? Sure we will build you the best tank eva! Oh! You are gay. Sorry... we won't build you the tank now.

With regards to photography? I am not sure, to be honest. If you were a female photographer only, for some reason, I can't see how or why you should have to. A photographer takes wedding photos only and you go up and say, hey take a picture of me and my dog. He says, that is not my business... that is fine. You make wedding cakes and say no to one person for the reason of sexual orientation then that is discrimination.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Please quote me from the Bible regarding your claim.


The claim wasn't that it was accurate, the claim is that people used the Bible as justification to discriminate against interracial couples.

" At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Richard Perry LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

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

If it was a frivolous lawsuit, the case would have been dismissed. Since the couple won the case, it is a priori evidence that the case wasn't frivolous.

BTW - it wasn't a "lawsuit", the couple did not file in Civil Court. They logged a complaint with Colorado equivalent of the EEOC.


>>>>

What are you talking about? Frivolous lawsuits get through once in awhile.

You know, Colorado doesn't even recognize gay marriage, and y'all are worried about cake. Denying gay marriage IS government force against right (marriage contract is a government issued and recognized contract), and we're going to cry over some cake? Priorities people!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Actually you do. So why say that?

You are calling me a liar.

I don't remember you being a prick...

Have a nice day.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Like I said, there is no legitimate basis for that. So why are you beating a dead horse?

Are the moral convictions of a racist who wants to discriminate against black people to be held as less valid than the moral convictions of someone that wants to discriminate against gays as long as they claim it's because of their personal religious beliefs?


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

That certainly is the law. Not exactly just since one has no right to another's property or labor, but laws don't always have to be just.

Many people seem to not realize that what they think the law should be and what in reality the law is are two different things.

I discuss what the law is. Would it surprise you to learn I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws on the basis that the usurp the property rights of the owner? Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in their entirety as they apply to customer service for private business.

However I don't support "special privileges" for someone to be able to claim a religious exemption to the law which narrowly targets only homosexuals. Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and apply equally to all.

Justice Scalia points out in Emloyment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. 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.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Wedding cake is certainly a subset of Cake....you do know what cake is, yes?

Why yes I do. The claim was the baker would sell any cake to any customer. When in fact the baker would only sell any cake to straight customers, he would sell any cake **OTHER** than a wedding cake to gay customers.

Logically speaking then the baker would not sell any cake to any customer because if that were true he would have sold a wedding cake to the gay customer - and this thread wouldn't exist.


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

Many people seem to not realize that what they think the law should be and what in reality the law is are two different things.

I discuss what the law is. Would it surprise you to learn I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws on the basis that the usurp the property rights of the owner? Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in their entirety as they apply to customer service for private business.

However I don't support "special privileges" for someone to be able to claim a religious exemption to the law which narrowly targets only homosexuals. Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and apply equally to all.

Justice Scalia points out in Emloyment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. 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.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

Are they? Curves allows only women, but because men are not protected class it's OK. I'm really fine with it in general, but it's not an equal application of government force.

I can respect the desire to move the law to reflect a proper use of force that is equally held to everyone, I want the same thing. But I argue that the law is innately unjust and that for proper use of government force, we can only protect the rights and liberties of the individual; not make up more. Religion should be protected as it is necessary to do so, a persons religious beliefs respected...or rather endured, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. And since one has no right to another's property or labor, I cannot accept it as proper use of government force.

Free is not easy, it's not quick, it's not safe. We bear the responsibility of upholding societal morals through our own actions. We can't cry to government for everything, we won't be able to do anything if we do. We are responsible to our fellow Americans and to accept their rights and liberties, to do what's necessary through personal action and will to uphold what is right, and to turn to government only in the protection of rights. There's no other way to remain free.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Are the moral convictions of a racist who wants to discriminate against black people be held as less valid than the moral convictions of someone that wants to discriminate against gays as long as they claim it's because of their personal religious beliefs?
You can not legislate racism or bigotry toward certain groups away. People will always have a belief or an opinion that others may find bigoted. That's life. But when you have discrimination laws that recognize only one group's so called rights while denying another their rights protected under the Constitution then you have bad law.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Are they? Curves allows only women, but because men are not protected class it's OK. I'm really fine with it in general, but it's not an equal application of government force.

When a Public Accommodation law includes "Sex" men are included. Male is one of the two sexes ya know. :)


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

You can not legislate racism or bigotry toward certain groups away. People will always have a belief or an opinion that others may find bigoted. That's life. But when you have discrimination laws that recognize only one group's so called rights while denying another their rights protected under the Constitution then you have bad law.

I agree it's a bad law and would like it repealed. Repeal is the only avenue as the laws have been tested in State courts and Federal courts all the way the Supreme Court of the United States and consistently found to be within the Federal and State powers (under the 10 Amendment) to regulate commerce. However just because it is within their powers, does not mean that power should be exercised.


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

When a Public Accommodation law includes "Sex" men are included. Male is one of the two sexes ya know. :)


>>>>

While that is true, Curves still exists. There are, what some people would deem "public" business, openly discriminating along lines of sex. But it's ok so long as that discrimination goes the right way.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

And here I thought we were getting close.

The basis for the discrimination was a product normally provided which was denied based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

Here is the law again: "(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,..."

Providing some goods to straight couples and refusing those same services to gay couples is not "full and equal" conduct of the business.



>>>>
The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.

He was willing to bake any gay customers, including the gay couples in question, any cakes beside the gay wedding cake which violates his religious belief. There are many gay customers who are single and never intend to get married. So, with regards to all non-marrying gay customers, tell me where is the discrimination due to sexual orientation?


There are businesses that truly discriminate customers based on sex or marital status. For instance, the ladies' night in bars and night clubs which some state supreme courts have upheld. How about singles' night and singles' events? And then there are also swimming pool facility that offers swimming hours for muslim women only or gyms that cater only to women or obese people.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.

Sure he did.

He was willing to bake any gay customers, including the gay couples in question, any cakes beside the gay wedding cake which violates his religious belief.

Exactly, because of their sexual orientation he denied them the "full and equal" treatment of the business.

That is the very definition of discrimination under the law. That's why the judge found the baker in violation.


There are businesses that truly discriminate customers based on sex or marital status. For instance, the ladies' night in bars and night clubs which some state supreme courts have upheld. How about singles' night and singles' events? And then there are also swimming pool facility that offers swimming hours for muslim women only or gyms that cater only to women or obese people.

Report them to the appropriate authorities.

But I can tell you what, I've been to ladies nights at bars, they can be wild. BTW - I'm a guy.


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

The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.

He was willing to bake any gay customers, including the gay couples in question, any cakes beside the gay wedding cake which violates his religious belief. There are many gay customers who are single and never intend to get married. So, with regards to all non-marrying gay customers, tell me where is the discrimination due to sexual orientation?


There are businesses that truly discriminate customers based on sex or marital status. For instance, the ladies' night in bars and night clubs which some state supreme courts have upheld. How about singles' night and singles' events? And then there are also swimming pool facility that offers swimming hours for muslim women only or gyms that cater only to women or obese people.

Not responding to your post, but do you like dolphins? Those gang-raping baby killers?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Sure he did.



Exactly, because of their sexual orientation he denied them the "full and equal" treatment of the business.

That is the very definition of discrimination under the law. That's why the judge found the baker in violation.




Report them to the appropriate authorities.

But I can tell you what, I've been to ladies nights at bars, they can be wild. BTW - I'm a guy.


>>>>
Gays wanting wedding cake for their weddings do not represent the whole class.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Gays wanting wedding cake for their weddings do not represent the whole class.

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.


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

So people are entitled to the property and labor of others is what you're saying.

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

But you are demanding him to create something with his bare hands that will be used for something he is morally against. From the rulings coming from different parts of the country forcing cake decorators, florists and photographers, all artists, will be forced to produce anything a person off the street demands of them. Say a couple wants a photographer to take pictures of their wedding. The photographer is a Christian and the couple is holding their wedding ceremony at the First Church of Satan. According to your thinking, he should be forced to take the pictures because the photographer does wedding ceremonies. Or say a Jewish catering service who specializes in kosher food is asked to prepare the chicken and fish dishes for a wedding and finds out that there will be other caterers there preparing shrimp cocktails, bacon wrapped fillet mignons and pork chops in the same kitchen. According to you he has no right to refuse his services to those who ask them of him because that would be discrimination. A Muslim florist, who covers her head out of modesty, wears dresses that completely cover her legs and arms is asked to do the flowers for a wedding. The theme of the wedding is Adam and Eve. She is asked to provide decorative fig leaves as the attire for the bride and groom to wear during the ceremony which she finds offensive and according to you she has no right to deny this request. An atheist goes into a print shop run by take your pick (Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Christian) wanting fliers printed that are titled "God is Dead". According to you, this printer is not allowed to deny his service and must print the fliers and the printer is forced to sign his name to the work through his company name misrepresenting and violating his belief system. In other words what you are claiming it is perfectly alright for a person to be forced to violate their conscience, THEIR VERY BEING, in the name of so called discrimination. In other words you see people not being allowed to live their moral conscience if they have a public business. Unbelievable.

Bigoted white restaurant owners were required to go against their "moral conscience" and serve black customers. Sorry....but that is the price you pay if you want to own a business in America, you aren't free to discriminate and impose your bigoted views on our community. I'm sure that there are a LOT of people who would prefer that blacks not be able to use the same drinking fountains or same restrooms as them, but we as a community have a right to say, Sorry, your bigoted views are not welcome outside your front door.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

never said it did another strawman and lie destroyed by facts, if you disagree simply quote me saying that
nothing has changed the point that your statement was factually wrong
let me know when you have anything that changes this fact

Your argument is based off one opinion in one state. When you can base your arguments on the nation as a whole you will actually have an agrument, until then you have presented nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom