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

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

Hey, if they don't want to sell a cake to someone, they just plain don't have to. Good example of the left using judges to circumvent the Constitution. Isn't this the same business that was boycotted and ending up closing their doors? If so, it is proof positive that the courts shouldn't even be involved, as the free market took care of it without the iron fisted (liberal) government. Though, if I were a liberal, I would say that the shop owners should be bring suit against the community for not buying their products. After all, if the government can force them to sell a cake, then of course they can force someone to buy it.

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

Hatuey said:

For example, say you live in town X. In town X, all the food selling venues (markets, restaurants, farms) decide to not sell food to group Y. Is that harming the public? Or is it permissible because they're harming only group Y's ability to feed itself?

Click to expand...

In that case, yes, gov't would have to take action. I'm not someone who's going to let ideology take precedence over the welfare of a whole group of people. However unrealistic that scenario is, if it did happen, I believe the local gov't would have to take action. If they refuse, it would have to work it's way up the levels of gov't above it's jurisdiction. One thing to think of though, by the time the pain of getting this moved through all of those levels of gov't occurred, I think group Y probably would have moved on from town X.
To be fair, that isn't the case in this particular situation. Not by a long shot.

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

MarineTpartier said:

In that case, yes, gov't would have to take action. I'm not someone who's going to let ideology take precedence over the welfare of a whole group of people. However unrealistic that scenario is,

Click to expand...

So at what percentage of the businesses denying services to X group should the government take action? For example, should the government take action when it's 10% of businesses? Or 30%? Or 50% +1? Who sets these arbitrary standards for government action? It's not unrealistic at all. Many businesses have historically denied service to minorities (blacks, whites, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Asians, Mexicans etc.) To the point where these occurrences have actually become part of the oral history of these groups.

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

MarineTpartier said:

And they're wrong for it, as has been proven by the evolution of most Christian's stances on things.

Click to expand...

That is what we define as a "moral majority". When there is disagreement on a particular interpretation of scripture or the times demand a reevaluation of traditional interpretations, it eventually falls to the majority to determine the moral stance. Genocide of Native Americans, slavery, segregation, restricting women's rights, etc. have all been issues that people used the Bible to support but which the moral majority eventually decided were immoral. The legitimacy of same sex relationships is the most recent and drastic shift in the moral majority. Of course, I am not saying that the majority actually determines right or wrong because that would be a fallacy, but rather that the demographics of the moral majority shape the attitudes that eventually form policy. Gay rights have advanced in the United States because of Christianity, not in spite of it.

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...

I disagree, this certainly does not go beyond gay rights. The owners are not being bullied by the court, they have been judged to have broken the law of the land by refusing these gay men service. There is no "right to discriminate" but there is a right to get service without being discriminated for something as basic as a food item.

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

Hatuey said:

So at what percentage of the businesses denying services to X group should the government take action? For example, should the government take action when it's 10% of businesses? Or 30%? Or 50% +1? Who sets these arbitrary standards for government action? It's not unrealistic at all. Many businesses have historically denied service to minorities (blacks, whites, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Asians, Mexicans etc.) To the point where these occurrences have actually become part of the oral history of these groups.

Click to expand...

It should be situation dependent. No set number should be set by some all powerful authority.
Yes, some ethnic groups have a history of being denied the SAME service as others. But not every single business in the area they live in DENIED them that. For instance, the example be set forth in this thread over and over is the Jim Crow south. Sure, blacks weren't given the SAME service as whites but they were not DENIED it universally throughout the towns they lived in. That's the scenario you laid out and it's just not realistic.

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

Hatuey said:

So at what percentage of the businesses denying services to X group should the government take action? For example, should the government take action when it's 10% of businesses? Or 30%? Or 50% +1? Who sets these arbitrary standards for government action? It's not unrealistic at all. Many businesses have historically denied service to minorities (blacks, whites, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Asians, Mexicans etc.) To the point where these occurrences have actually become part of the oral history of these groups.

Click to expand...

Considering that no group has been starved, because of discrmination, it's a moot point.

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

CriticalThought said:

That is what we define as a "moral majority". When there is disagreement on a particular interpretation of scripture or the times demand a reevaluation of traditional interpretations, it eventually falls to the majority to determine the moral stance. Genocide of Native Americans, slavery, segregation, restricting women's rights, etc. have all been issues that people used the Bible to support but which the moral majority eventually decided were immoral. The legitimacy of same sex relationships is the most recent and drastic shift in the moral majority. Of course, I am not saying that the majority actually determines right or wrong because that would be a fallacy, but rather that the demographics of the moral majority shape the attitudes that eventually form policy. Gay rights have advanced in the United States because of Christianity, not in spite of it.

Click to expand...

As I stated to others, the difference in this case is that all of the other instances you mention of the Bible being cited as justification for action had no direct scripture to back them up. Nowhere does it say that Native Americans should be eliminated, that slavery is ok (remember slavery in the Old Testament isn't the slavery we think of), that we should segregate blacks and whites, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. The Bible does say, however, that homosexuality is a sin. Any Bible scholar could shoot down every single argument for the first few things you mentioned. However, no Bible scholar can say that homosexuality is not prohibited as according to the Bible. It is stated numerous times in both testaments.

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

MarineTpartier said:

It should be situation dependent. No set number should be set by some all powerful authority.
Yes, some ethnic groups have a history of being denied the SAME service as others. But not every single business in the area they live in DENIED them that. For instance, the example be set forth in this thread over and over is the Jim Crow south. Sure, blacks weren't given the SAME service as whites but they were not DENIED it universally throughout the towns they lived in. That's the scenario you laid out and it's just not realistic.

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that a massive denial of services is acceptable as long as it's not all the services? Fair enough. Is it okay to sit certain groups at the back of the bus, because that still gives them seats somewhere on the bus? If yes. Would you have no objection to this treatment being given to Christians? Okay. Skip the bus argument. Would you have no objection to a quota of whites (say 10%) at school as long as they are given a place within that school?

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

MarineTpartier said:

As I stated to others, the difference in this case is that all of the other instances you mention of the Bible being cited as justification for action had no direct scripture to back them up.

Click to expand...

They certainly did. Go look it up. People have been quoting the Bible to support their views on those very issues. They still do. Here is an example of a rebuttal.

Interracial Marriage | Segregationists Are Ignorant Bigots, Not Christians

And here is an article on how slave owners used the Bible to justify slavery.

How the Bible was used to justify slavery, abolitionism – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

And it isn't hard to see how the Bible was used to limit women's rights like the right to vote just by looking at many of the commonly used verses.

What the Bible says about women's rights

If you need more than that, then just go look up what was said by anti suffragists.

There are already many, many Christians who argue there is no direct scripture that speaks about the legitimacy of same sex relationships and many others who go so far as to argue that Jesus affirmed a same sex couple in the story of the Roman centurion. It is not unforeseeable that someday people will view your attempts to interpret scripture as supporting your condemnation of homosexuality as the same as the historical examples of people trying to use it to justify limiting women's rights and supporting slavery and segregation.

That is how scripture has always worked. Attitudes change and with them so do the interpretations, to the point that it becomes inconceivable to people that the Bible was ever directly quoted to justify certain actions. It is not hard to argue that the alleged Biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior need to be read in context of their times and are in reference to rape, exploitation, and sex outside of marriage. The latter of those is negated by same sex marriage.

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

Hatuey said:

So what you're saying is that a massive denial of services is acceptable as long as it's not all the services? Fair enough. Is it okay to sit certain groups at the back of the bus, because that still gives them seats somewhere on the bus? If yes. Would you have no objection to this treatment being given to Christians? Okay. Skip the bus argument. Would you have no objection to a quota of whites (say 10%) at school as long as they are given a place within that school?

Click to expand...

There's massive paranoia involved to think that massive denial of services is even a reality. That's fear mongering.

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

MarineTpartier said:

As I stated to others, the difference in this case is that all of the other instances you mention of the Bible being cited as justification for action had no direct scripture to back them up. Nowhere does it say that Native Americans should be eliminated, that slavery is ok (remember slavery in the Old Testament isn't the slavery we think of), that we should segregate blacks and whites, that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. The Bible does say, however, that homosexuality is a sin. Any Bible scholar could shoot down every single argument for the first few things you mentioned. However, no Bible scholar can say that homosexuality is not prohibited as according to the Bible. It is stated numerous times in both testaments.

Click to expand...

The same sections of the bible say that it is an "abomination" to eat shellfish and wear clothing made of two different fibers. This is why our Constitution is not determined by biblical interpretations.

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

MaggieD said:

Homosexuals are not a protected class under Federal Law:

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colorado has a state law that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

In my opinion, (what do I know?) not wanting to supply a wedding cake to a homosexual couple getting married is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. *shrug* It's a discrimination against gay marriage. I think there's a fine line here that could easily be challenged.

Click to expand...

If a gay couple came into my bakery and began picking their noses -- and I asked them to leave -- am I discriminating against them because they're gay? Or because they're picking their noses?

Click to expand...

If you want to hire some lawyers and go to court, get after it.

Judging from the outcome of recent court cases I believe that you would be wasting your time and your money.




"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]

MaggieD said:

Homosexuals are not a protected class under Federal Law:

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colorado has a state law that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

In my opinion, (what do I know?) not wanting to supply a wedding cake to a homosexual couple getting married is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. *shrug* It's a discrimination against gay marriage. I think there's a fine line here that could easily be challenged.

If a gay couple came into my bakery and began picking their noses -- and I asked them to leave -- am I discriminating against them because they're gay? Or because they're picking their noses?

Click to expand...

Let's treat it as an interracial couple since Colorado law acts as if sexual orientation and race are protected classes.

If an interracial couple were married and were denied a wedding cake, would it be discrimination on the basis of race or interracial marriage? Would it even matter?

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

Peter King said:

I disagree, this certainly does not go beyond gay rights. The owners are not being bullied by the court, they have been judged to have broken the law of the land by refusing these gay men service. There is no "right to discriminate" but there is a right to get service without being discriminated for something as basic as a food item.

Click to expand...

No, business owners are bullied by the government and made into involuntary servants.

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

shrubnose said:

That is your opinion, which you are entitled to, and which I will ignore.

Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted, all over the USA millions of Black citizens were denied service at many locations.

Maybe you are not aware of that.

I know about it because I lived through it .

Click to expand...

Who cares? Property owners have the right to deny entry to anyone they please and everyone has the right to provide service to only those they desire.

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

disneydude said:

No...it simply means that seeing that you believe that the Constitution stops at Article 12 clearly shows your ignorance and explains in full detail why you cannot fully participate in this debate and why it is futile to spend any more time trying to intelligently debate the issue until you educate yourself a bit more.

Click to expand...

Lol! I love people that desire to make the 14th amendment apply to private citizens and at the same time don't want to pay any mind to the 1st and 13th amendment. You're not only being selective in your argument, but basically ignoring the entire document to make up your own little fairytale.

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

Henrin said:

Who cares? Property owners have the right to deny entry to anyone they please and everyone has the right to provide service to only those they desire.

Click to expand...

In theory, I agree. But where specifically are those rights defined?

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

disneydude said:

Ever heard of the Equal Protection Clause? You might want to read it sometime.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Click to expand...

Notice anything? I was unaware a business was a state and could pass laws.

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

Oftencold said:

1.)As so often the case with similar topics the point here is missed. It matters not an atom what you or I think about what constitutes sexual orientation or pornography, or rights, or discrimination. It matters solely what an individual in the form of one judge or anther thinks at a given moment. A few years ago, scarcely a judge anywhere in the country would have entertained a case like this. Law didn't change, political fashion did. And tomorrow, it might change in a way that you don't like at all, and you'll be just as powerless as the baker.

Click to expand...

correct and what determines that is precedent and there is none here thats no connection between porn and sexual orientation sorry you are factually wrong


if you disagree by all means show us the law that factually links sexual orientation with porn, you wont be able to do it because your strawman is a complete failure

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

Soupnazi630 said:

Every person with a religion applies their beliefs selectively and yes the first amendment protects the right to do so.

Click to expand...

My human sacrifice cult religion will be happy to hear this.

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

Oftencold said:

Obviously, it is. Please refer to the original post for a clear example.

Click to expand...

nope theres nothing in the OP that FACTUALLY realates to the fallacy, if you disagree again simply post the FACTUAL connections

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

Henrin said:

Ok, lets read it.



Notice anything? I was unaware a business was a state and could pass laws.

Click to expand...

You mighta missed something.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

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

Henrin said:

Who cares?

Property owners have the right to deny entry to anyone they please and everyone has the right to provide service to only those they desire.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Not according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other U.S. laws they don't.




"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]

specklebang said:

Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. Jewish law states that you must follow the law of the land with only 2 exceptions. Murder and Adultery.

Interestingly, over the years, adultery has become no BFD although murder is stil illegal.

So, Jesus would have said "bake the cake and respect the law of the land".

Click to expand...

I asked my niece one time, she was around 12 years old, what religion Jesus was.

She naturally said Christian.

I asked her if she thought Jesus had such a huge head that he would name a religion after himself.

I just had to laugh.