• 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]

Unitedwestand13 said:
if they were denied service because they were bad customers that is understandable. if they were denied service because they regular harassed the business, that is understandable.

what did the couple do to the baker to refuse them service?
Click to expand...

Why does that couple have ownership of another person's property and labor?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

disneydude said:
But you DON'T have the right to discriminate....that is just plain and simply the law. So there is no "government force" against a right that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You have the right to deny anyone access to your property. It's just that we use government force currently to suppress that to some degree, and make it more outrageous as time passes.

It's a cake. We're not talking free speech here, we're not talking assembly, we're not talking expression or privacy or any of it. It's a cake. You do not have the right to other people's property and labor. That's it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

ttwtt78640 said:
The answer, when the rights of one conflict with the rights of another, should be decided by a judge. Your right to freely swing your arm ends where my nose begins. ;)
Click to expand...

Is it your 'right' to buy a wedding cake that someone else doesn't want to prepare? I suppose they missed that in the Constitution.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

disneydude said:
Exactly why religion is not the basis of our society or our Constitution.
Click to expand...

What part of the First Amendment don't you understand? It protects the very rights such as freedom of religion and property that you are so willing to deny another in the name of discrimination.

You have on several posts claim those who do not support gay marriage as being discriminating bigots. Yet you would be hard pressed to find many that would support incest relationships or pedophilia even though some people don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. And if these folks don't support those types of relationships even though they support gay marriage, are they discriminating? Are they being bigots too? Since you brought up the Constitution, it is not unlawful to be bigoted against groups of people. But it is unlawful when you pass laws that violate any citizen's constitutional rights such as right to property and freedom of religion.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.) What part of the First Amendment don't you understand? It protects the very rights such as freedom of religion and property that you are so willing to deny another in the name of discrimination.

2.) You have on several posts claim those who do not support gay marriage as being discriminating bigots.

3.) Yet you would be hard pressed to find many that would support incest relationships or pedophilia even though some people don't think there is anything morally wrong with it.

4.) And if these folks don't support those types of relationships even though they support gay marriage, are they discriminating? Are they being bigots too?

5.) Since you brought up the Constitution, it is not unlawful to be bigoted against groups of people. But it is unlawful when you pass laws that violate any citizen's constitutional rights such as right to property and freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

1.) nothing is factually being denied to them, the owner, his religious freedom is in tact as i asked before if you think its not gives us the facts as to why its not

2.) well i cant answer for him and dont remeber his content
but "personal not supporting them" is fine by me but if you discrimnainte against them or try to stop them from having equal rights you are in fact a bigot.

3.) two things that have NOTHING to do with equal rights and illegal discrimination

4.) 3 answers your question

5.) which factually did not happen, the owners rights are intact
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

JJB3333 said:
OK so slight thing your not understanding. I believe that they should have equal rights, just not that they should sue because they haven't grown up enough to realize discrimination happened to everyone.

That being said my frist part of your quote im commenting on is "And gays do not decide to be gay." You do realize everything we do is regulated by decision making parts of our brain. We control those regions meticulously. Saying they don't have a choice in the matter is like saying murderers had no choice but to murder. (i know not the best comparison but you see what im saying)

And second "And the bold is one of the craziest things I've ever read on this topic." Is it really though? consider the most basic cause of all discrimination and segregation in the world. Differences. black people were segregated for no other reason then they were black. The middle and lower classes throughout history were discriminated against for the singular reason that they didn't have as much money as the higher classes.
Click to expand...

This case is about civil rights...where a class of people is *recognized* as being discriminated against...by definition, not being treated equally. Sexual orientation is protected class in that state. Legal action is *one way* that that people fight for their civil rights. Civil disobedience, like Rosa Parks' not obeying local laws, is another way. Petitioning their legislators is another.

Discrimination can happen to anyone for just about any reason I suppose, but the laws are not applicable unless that discrimination affects a protected class. Are you understanding this now? Or you just object to the creation of protected classes?

And regarding being born a certain way...and then expecting a person to suppress it their whole lives? They are not breaking any laws (anymore, altho some sodomy laws are still on the books.) Never be happy? Never be fulfilled....*for something that harms no one else nor infringes on anyone else's rights?* Why on earth should they have to? They deserve their right to pursue happiness just like everyone else.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
What part of the First Amendment don't you understand? It protects the very rights such as freedom of religion and property that you are so willing to deny another in the name of discrimination.

You have on several posts claim those who do not support gay marriage as being discriminating bigots. Yet you would be hard pressed to find many that would support incest relationships or pedophilia even though some people don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. And if these folks don't support those types of relationships even though they support gay marriage, are they discriminating? Are they being bigots too? Since you brought up the Constitution, it is not unlawful to be bigoted against groups of people. But it is unlawful when you pass laws that violate any citizen's constitutional rights such as right to property and freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

The great difference is that morality is based on many things. In this country, it is not based on religious beliefs, but rights.

Homosexuality harms no one, it is between 2 consenting adults. It infringes on no one's rights.

Incest with minors and pedophilia infringe on the rights of others, as children cannot consent. And as far as I'm concerned, incest among adults is immoral but I dont care what they do...they are consenting adults. Just like people who cheat on their marriages...I consider that immoral. Neither is a protected class and as a business owner OR personally, I can refuse to associate with them.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
1.) nothing is factually being deny to them, their religious freedom is in tact as i asked before if you thnk its not gives us the facts as to why its not

2.) well i cant answer for him and dont remeber his content being that because "personal not supporting them" is fine by me but if you discrimnainte against them or try to stop them from having equal rights you are in fact a bigot.

3.) two things that have NOTHING to do with equal rights and illegal discrimination

4.) 3 answers your question



5.) which factually did not happen, the owners rights are intact
Click to expand...

That is a lie! To not allow a person to live their life in harmony with their moral conscience is denying them the right to live their faith. By forcing them to partake and create things that will be part of something they are morally against is a violation of their religious rights.

Under your rules, any man/woman of moral uprightness, can not deny any order for a cake even though it goes against their beliefs. When someone creates something it is a piece of art and the artist's signature is in the name of the bakery that created the piece of work. If someone came into a bakery wanting to have a cake made in the form of an erected penis, or a boob cake, or cats licking a vagina, under your rules they have no right to deny anyone of what they want because it is discrimination while their artistic signature is in the name of the bakery that is forced to create it. This is forcing the witness of the man and his faith to be violated. Shame on you or anyone else that has encouraged this to happen. Shameful.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.)That is a lie!
2.)To not allow a person to live their life in harmony with their moral conscience is denying them the right to live their faith.
3.) By forcing them to partake and create things that will be part of something they are morally against is a violation of their religious rights.
4.) Under your rules, any man/woman of moral uprightness, can not deny any order for a cake even though it goes against their beliefs.

5.)When someone creates something it is a piece of art and the artist's signature is in the name of the bakery that created the piece of work.

6.) If someone came into a bakery wanting to have a cake made in the form of an erected penis, or a boob cake, or cats licking a vagina, under your rules they have no right to deny anyone of what they want because it is discrimination while their artistic signature is in the name of the bakery that is forced to create it.

7.)This is forcing the witness of the man and his faith to be violated.
8.) Same on you or anyone else that has encouraged this to happen. Shameful.
Click to expand...

1.) sorry facts prove you wrong, theres nothing you have that supports your false claim, nothing
2.) good thing this strawman factually is not happening, repeat it 5 more times it wont make it reality. The owner isnt being denied anything.
3.) this never happened sorry and you are factually wrong. We are talking about facts not fantasy
4.) its not my rules and what is factually happening is people are not allowed to break the law and infringe on others rights, criminal are punished and thats what happened to this guy he choose to break the law and infringe on rights and illegal discriminate. Let me know when you have any facts that change this.

5.) subjective opinion that is completely 100% meaningless to anythign that matters

6.) 100% wrong the cake would be legally obscene and has nothing to do with illegal discrimination and violating rights. Facts destroys this point also.
Seems you have no understanding of the law/this topic at all, this is not my fault. There is nothing legally in anti-discrimination laws that would force you to make a penis cake.

Try to research the facts and topic first it will help.

7.) as already proven with facts this never happened

8.) well since it factually never happened nothing to be shamed about


do you have any facts that support your false claims? any?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
That is a lie! To not allow a person to live their life in harmony with their moral conscience is denying them the right to live their faith. By forcing them to partake and create things that will be part of something they are morally against is a violation of their religious rights.

Under your rules, any man/woman of moral uprightness, can not deny any order for a cake even though it goes against their beliefs. When someone creates something it is a piece of art and the artist's signature is in the name of the bakery that created the piece of work. If someone came into a bakery wanting to have a cake made in the form of an erected penis, or a boob cake, or cats licking a vagina, under your rules they have no right to deny anyone of what they want because it is discrimination while their artistic signature is in the name of the bakery that is forced to create it. This is forcing the witness of the man and his faith to be violated. Shame on you or anyone else that has encouraged this to happen. Shameful.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, using the bakery example, religious bakery owners choose to defy their religious beliefs daily. So why the big fuss over a specific 'sin?' It's a choice that "they make", to be offended or not.

Regarding creating genitalia on cakes....they can choose not to do that...artists are not a protected class. A business owner (in most states) can choose not to serve ANYONE they dont want to....as long as the reason is not covered under state discrimination laws. (There may be other reasons as well, like if they are minors or health/safety issues, etc) And some communities have laws against indecency which might cover that. Dont know.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
You have on several posts claim those who do not support gay marriage as being discriminating bigots. Yet you would be hard pressed to find many that would support incest relationships or pedophilia even though some people don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. And if these folks don't support those types of relationships even though they support gay marriage, are they discriminating? Are they being bigots too? Since you brought up the Constitution, it is not unlawful to be bigoted against groups of people. But it is unlawful when you pass laws that violate any citizen's constitutional rights such as right to property and freedom of religion.
Click to expand...

I seriously question the intelligence of people who compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Please help me understand how you could honestly believe it is appropriate to compares actions between consenting adults to molesting children? That is beyond insulting. It says a lot about you as a person that you perceive gay people in that way.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

CriticalThought said:
I seriously question the intelligence of people who compare homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. Please help me understand how you could honestly believe it is appropriate to compares actions between consenting adults to molesting children? That is beyond insulting. It says a lot about you as a person that you perceive gay people in that way.
Click to expand...

Because I dare bring up the FACT there are people who do not see pedophilla as being wrong, that makes me insulting? Well get a grip pal because the truth of the matter there are those who think it is alright no matter how disgusting it may seem to the rest of us.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Because I dare bring up the FACT there are people who do not see pedophilla as being wrong, that makes me insulting? Well get a grip pal because the truth of the matter there are those who think it is alright no matter how disgusting it may seem to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

logical that still doent make them comparable

its still complete illogical to compare them to each other both legally and intellectually they are factually different.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Because I dare bring up the FACT there are people who do not see pedophilla as being wrong, that makes me insulting? Well get a grip pal because the truth of the matter there are those who think it is alright no matter how disgusting it may seem to the rest of us.
Click to expand...

No, because you apparently can see no discernible difference between molesting children and consensual sex between two adults of the same sex! I quote...

And if these folks don't support those types of relationships even though they support gay marriage, are they discriminating? Are they being bigots too?
Click to expand...

That demonstrates clear as day that YOU do not recognize the difference between being a gay person and being a child molester. That is truly sad.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
1.) sorry facts prove you wrong, theres nothing you have that supports your false claim, nothing
2.) good thing this strawman factually is not happening, repeat it 5 more times it wont make it reality. The owner isnt being denied anything.
3.) this never happened sorry and you are factually wrong. We are talking about facts not fantasy
4.) its not my rules and what is factually happening is people are not allowed to break the law and infringe on others rights, criminal are punished and thats what happened to this guy he choose to break the law and infringe on rights and illegal discriminate. Let me know when you have any facts that change this.

5.) subjective opinion that is completely 100% meaningless to anythign that matters

6.) 100% wrong the cake would be legally obscene and has nothing to do with illegal discrimination and violating rights. Facts destroys this point also.
Seems you have no understanding of the law/this topic at all, this is not my fault. There is nothing legally in anti-discrimination laws that would force you to make a penis cake.

Try to research the facts and topic first it will help.

7.) as already proven with facts this never happened

8.) well since it factually never happened nothing to be shamed about


do you have any facts that support your false claims? any?
Click to expand...

Because you or I may think they are obcene doesn't necessarily mean they are obscene to another person. And because they don't find it obscene and a baker refuses to create them that is discrimination pal in the way you have framed it.

I was a cake decorator for years. My shop was off the house. I was good at it and it was a way for me to generate income while my husband worked a fulltime job and earned his degree at nights. It also allowed me the opportunity to stay home with my children while they were young. I experienced over the years sitting down with customers, as they described to me what they wanted on the cake. And I have to tell you there were times I had to refuse because I wouldn't want my name on that piece of trash they were asking for. Wedding cakes were the most stressful of all. After you incorporate all that the couple wanted to express in their cake, the transportation of the cake to its destination and setting it up was one of the most stressful things I have ever done. You fight the elements, pot holes and railroad tracks. Today under all the new so called "discrimination" laws I would have been facing court time myself if some asshole wanted to file charges against me for not wanting to provide them with a cake that I didn't want my name associated with.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
That is a lie! To not allow a person to live their life in harmony with their moral conscience is denying them the right to live their faith.
Click to expand...

You do not have the right to live your life in harmony with your moral conscience.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.)Because you or I may think they are obcene doesn't necessarily mean they are obscene to another person. And because they don't find it obscene and a baker refuses to create them that is discrimination pal in the way you have framed it.

2.)I was a cake decorator for years. My shop was off the house. I was good at it and it was a way for me to generate income while my husband worked a fulltime job and earned his degree at nights. It also allowed me the opportunity to stay home with my children while they were young. I experienced over the years sitting down with customers, as they described to me what they wanted on the cake. And I have to tell you there were times I had to refuse because I wouldn't want my name on that piece of trash they were asking for. Wedding cakes were the most stressful of all. After you incorporate all that the couple wanted to express in their cake, the transportation of the cake to its destination and setting it up was one of the most stressful things I have ever done. You fight the elements, pot holes and railroad tracks.

3.)Today under all the new so called "discrimination" laws I would have been facing court time myself if some asshole wanted to file charges against me for not wanting to provide them with a cake that I didn't want my name associated with.
Click to expand...

1.) notice i said LEGALLY which in some places it factually is and notice that a penis cake has NOTHING to do with equal rights and illegal discrimination. what facts are you not getting?

so no it factually is not illegal discrimination, law and facts prove you wrong again

if you disagree by all means post the links/facts that make it illegal discrimination.

2.) all meaningless to rights, laws and facts

also depending on what you mean by "shop off your house" the law can becomes different. You clearly have no understanding of this topic.

3.) all the new laws? what are you talking about, are you 200 years old? these laws are not new by any means, sexual orientation is new in some areas but thats about it.

also what you are describing is NOT illegal discrimination, do you know what illegal discrimination is?

if the answer is yes please tell us, tell us what it is.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

CriticalThought said:
No, because you apparently can see no discernible difference between molesting children and consensual sex between two adults of the same sex! I quote...



That demonstrates clear as day that YOU do not recognize the difference between being a gay person and being a child molester. That is truly sad.
Click to expand...

Bull ****! What I claimed is there is a certain number of people in our society that do not think pedophilla is wrong! You and I have gone around on this point before. The very man that was a pioneer for the gay rights movement, Harry Hay, was also a supporter for NAMBLA.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Bull ****! What I claimed is there is a certain number of people in our society that do not think pedophilla is wrong! You and I have gone around on this point before. The very man that was a pioneer for the gay rights movement, Harry Hay, was also a supporter for NAMBLA.
Click to expand...

comparing them is completely illogical, legally and intellectually they are factually different.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

AGENT J said:
logical that still doent make them comparable

its still complete illogical to compare them to each other both legally and intellectually they are factually different.
Click to expand...
The hell it doesn't! You wanted to redefine marriage, well you got it. And now who knows what marriage will evolve into.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
1.)The hell it doesn't!
2.)You wanted to redefine marriage, well you got it.
3.) And now who knows what marriage will evolve into.
Click to expand...

1.) factually different, if you disagree then please explain your failed proven wrong comparison.
2.) this has nothing to do with me are you reading the thread? nobody is redefining marriage this is about equal rights.
3.) again its equal rights that has nothing to do with child rape, if you disagree again simply supply the facts that prove protecting equal rights will lead to legalizing child rape.
fact is its still completely illogical to compare them to each other both legally and intellectually they are factually different.
facts defeat your post again.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Bull ****! What I claimed is there is a certain number of people in our society that do not think pedophilla is wrong! You and I have gone around on this point before. The very man that was a pioneer for the gay rights movement, Harry Hay, was also a supporter for NAMBLA.
Click to expand...

You are trying to cover your butt but nobody is buying it. The questions YOU posed to the people on this board only makes sense if taken in the context that pedophilia is comparable to homosexuality. But hey, if I am wrong then simply state that you don't believe homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia. I am far more willing to bet you will try to defend that statement than admit that the two are not comparable.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

CriticalThought said:
You are trying to cover your butt but nobody is buying it. The questions YOU posed to the people on this board only makes sense if taken in the context that pedophilia is comparable to homosexuality. But hey, if I am wrong then simply state that you don't believe homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia. I am far more willing to bet you will try to defend that statement than admit that the two are not comparable.
Click to expand...
Again more bull****. The comments were made to show the different types of relationships that many in society would not support. Not even those who support gay marriage. Sooo, if they are not willing to support other forms of relationships such as incest, poligamy and pedophilia then by their own standards they are discriminating and are bigots themselves.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Again more bull****. The comments were made to show the different types of relationships that many in society would not support. Not even those who support gay marriage. Sooo, if they are not willing to support other forms of relationships such as incest, poligamy and pedophilia then by their own standards they are discriminating and are bigots themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't care what "other" people think. Do you believe that homosexuality is comparable to pedophilia?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

vesper said:
Again more bull****. The comments were made to show the different types of relationships that many in society would not support. Not even those who support gay marriage. Sooo, if they are not willing to support other forms of relationships such as incest, poligamy and pedophilia then by their own standards they are discriminating and are bigots themselves.
Click to expand...

which is factually not true proven by laws and rights

comparing them is complete illogical and there no support to compare them there will be no argument you can present to make the compassion logical and rational they are legally, intellectually and factually different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom