• 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]

I would argue that the bakers refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the customer but, rather, on the purpose to which they were going to put the cake. The customer didn't ask for just any cake. They wanted a cake to commemorate a wedding. It's perfectly reasonable that a heterosexual individual requesting such a cake would also be refused that service under some circumstances. The objection was not, as far as I can tell, based on the sexual orientation of the customer.
·
·
·​
I don't see anywhere in that statute where a "public accommodation" can't refuse goods or services based on what they will be used for. Now, if a homosexual walked into the bakery and said "I am getting married to an opposite sex partner and want a cake" and that request was refused simply on the basis that the individual was a homosexual that would be a different story.

It seems that this almost, but not quite, makes a point I was trying to think of how to make.

If a wedding cake were just a generic sort of cake, that you could walk into a bakery, grab one off the shelf, pay for it, and walk out with it, then there'd be no issue. There'd be no reason for the baker to ask, or for the customer to tell, any details about the wedding in which that cake was going to be used.

But wedding cakes are usually an individual, customized item. Traditionally, there are figured of a bride and a groom on top, and the names of the bride and groom somehow worked into the decorations. The cake is specific to the wedding in which it is to be used.

Now, if a customer walks into a bakery,and he wants the baker to make a “wedding cake”, but instead of a bride and groom on the top, he wants two grooms; and the names to be put on the came are “Jonathon” and “George”, then it obvious that the cake is not intended for an actual wedding, but for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding. There is good reason why most people would find it immoral to have any part in such a sick mockery, and it is certainly both immoral and unconstitutional to use the power of government to force or coerce someone into doing so.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

It seems that this almost, but not quite, makes a point I was trying to think of how to make.

1.) If a wedding cake were just a generic sort of cake, that you could walk into a bakery, grab one off the shelf, pay for it, and walk out with it, then there'd be no issue. There'd be no reason for the baker to ask, or for the customer to tell, any details about the wedding in which that cake was going to be used.

2.) But wedding cakes are usually an individual, customized item. Traditionally, there are figured of a bride and a groom on top, and the names of the bride and groom somehow worked into the decorations. The cake is specific to the wedding in which it is to be used.

3.) Now, if a customer walks into a bakery,and he wants the baker to make a “wedding cake”, but instead of a bride and groom on the top, he wants two grooms; and the names to be put on the came are “Jonathon” and “George”, then it obvious that the cake is not intended for an actual wedding, but for a disgusting homosexual mockery of a wedding. There is good reason why most people would find it immoral to have any part in such a sick mockery, and it is certainly both immoral and

4.)unconstitutional to use the power of government to force or coerce someone into doing so.

1.) this can factually be done, a wedding cake CAN be grabbed off the shelf paid for and walked out with.
But some times you want a specific cake, same rule applies for ALL cakes.

I had to ask for a specific BIRTHDAY cake.

so this point completely fails.

2.) see #1
3.) this is nothing but your meaningless, hilarious, hateful, bigoted "opinion" that cracks me up

4.) this part i made separate simply because its factually untrue as already proven

anything else?
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

So much for that whole freedom of association part of our Constitution.


Yes, it is true

Equality and Injustice are synonyms
 
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.

Perhaps there's another point to be made here, as well.

If I walk into a Kashrut or Halal butcher shop, and ask for pork chops, would the proprietor be illegally discriminating against me by not offering them for sale? He's not telling me I can't eat pork; just that if I want pork, I'm going to have to buy it somewhere else.

What if I have some odd religious belief that requires me to eat pork? Would a Kashrut or Halal butcher be violating my religious rights by refusing to sell me pork?

What if I bring a pig into such a shop, and want it butchered for me? If the butcher will butcher a cow, is he required to butcher a pig as well?


It would be one thing for me to walk into a shop seeking to buy a product that is there being offered for sale, and have the proprietor refuse to sell it to me because he disapproves of my race, my religion, my political beliefs, or whatever.

I think it is an entirely different thing altogether for a proprietor to refuse to produce a custom product or service, where that product or service itself violates his sincerely-held beliefs and morals. It doesn't even have to be religious-based.

Should a conservative print shop owner be compelled to print up posters for a liberal cause that he opposes?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

So much for that whole freedom of association part of our Constitution.

Although that's widely-held to be a basic right, I don't think it's explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. At best, it is loosely implied from the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, and held to be among the unnamed rights covered by the Ninth Amendment.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Although that's widely-held to be a basic right, I don't think it's explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. At best, it is loosely implied from the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, and held to be among the unnamed rights covered by the Ninth Amendment.

United States Constitution

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.[4]


Freedom of association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Perhaps there's another point to be made here, as well.

1.) If I walk into a Kashrut or Halal butcher shop, and ask for pork chops, would the proprietor be illegally discriminating against me by not offering them for sale? He's not telling me I can't eat pork; just that if I want pork, I'm going to have to buy it somewhere else.

2.) What if I have some odd religious belief that requires me to eat pork? Would a Kashrut or Halal butcher be violating my religious rights by refusing to sell me pork?

3.) What if I bring a pig into such a shop, and want it butchered for me? If the butcher will butcher a cow, is he required to butcher a pig as well?


4.) It would be one thing for me to walk into a shop seeking to buy a product that is there being offered for sale, and have the proprietor refuse to sell it to me because he disapproves of my race, my religion, my political beliefs, or whatever.

5.) I think it is an entirely different thing altogether for a proprietor to refuse to produce a custom product or service, where that product or service itself violates his sincerely-held beliefs and morals.

6.)It doesn't even have to be religious-based.

7.) Should a conservative print shop owner be compelled to print up posters for a liberal cause that he opposes?

1.) does he have pork for sale? what is the reason he refuses to sell it to you? he must follow the law

2.) see 1#

3.) see the ;ast part 2 parts of #1

4.) correct and thats whats happening here its discrimination based on sexual orientation which is illegal

5.) well this fallacy simply isnt true

6.) the law must be followed

7.) see #6
 
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.

It's also a reverse-violation of the freedom of expression (more explicitly named as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but by popular interpretation and common sense, extended really to nearly all means of communication or expression).

A right to express what one believes would seem—at least—to include a right not to be forced to express what one does not believe.

To be forced to create a work—be it a cake, a flower arrangement, a document, or any other decoration—that expresses support for and participation in an immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding is certainly a violation of the right of someone who does not consent to express such support or participation.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

It's also a reverse-violation of the freedom of expression (more explicitly named as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but by popular interpretation and common sense, extended really to nearly all means of communication or expression).

A right to express what one believes would seem—at least—to include a right not to be forced to express what one does not believe.

To be forced to create a work—be it a cake, a flower arrangement, a document, or any other decoration—that expresses support for and participation in an immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding is certainly a violation of the right of someone who does not consent to express such support or participation.

more fallacy that factually isnt happening :shrug:
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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




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

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*

T
he 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.




If you want to try to defy the 1964 Civil Rights Act, get after it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

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

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.




We'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Are you down with that idea?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

We'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it.

Are you down with that idea?

No. I am not.

Judicial tyranny has nearly replaced popular sovereignty since the end of the Second World War. The idea that we are actually here discussing a case in which a man has been compelled by legal despotism to support what almost everyone alive in the world today and who has ever lived since the domestication of fire has seen a gross perversion is clear evidence.

Similar examples abound. We could all save ourselves a lot of time and stress by simply demanding that the government proclaim itself an imperial oligarchy.

Out of respect the the millions dead who were sacrificed over the last couple of millennia in order that the current generation could have liberty and rule of law to cast aside like trash, I feel an obligation to point out what's happening here, that I might go to my grave with a clear conscience in this matter.

As for crossing "that bridge when we come to it," I'd imagine that in the late century, many a calm, intelligent soul gave that advice before the tanks crossed the border, the incendiary bombs fell, the neighbors were rounded up and taken away in cattle cars, the soldiers opened fire on the peaceful protestors, the gas chambers were revealed, the nightclubs burnt or the revolution came.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]


Judicial tyranny has nearly replaced popular sovereignty since the end of the Second World War. The idea that we are actually here discussing a case in which a man has been compelled by legal despotism to support what almost everyone alive in the world today and who has ever lived since the domestication of fire has seen a gross perversion is clear evidence.

Similar examples abound. We could all save ourselves a lot of time and stress by simply demanding that the government proclaim itself an imperial oligarchy.

Out of respect the the millions dead who were sacrificed over the last couple of millennia in order that the current generation could have liberty and rule of law to cast aside like trash, I feel an obligation to point out what's happening here, that I might go to my grave with a clear conscience in this matter.

As for crossing "that bridge when we come to it," I'd imagine that in the late century, many a calm, intelligent soul gave that advice before the tanks crossed the border, the incendiary bombs fell, the neighbors were rounded up and taken away in cattle cars, the soldiers opened fire on the peaceful protestors, the gas chambers were revealed, the nightclubs burnt or the revolution came.




If you think that you can cross that bridge before we come to it , get after it.
:lamo
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]




If you think that you can cross that bridge before we come to it , get after it.
:lamo

The bridge exists only in your imagination. You aren't facing a river. You're facing people who will gladly sacrifice our society and representative rule in the pursuit of a childish demand for the approval of the majority, and the fact that so many people are too innervated to oppose them. Oh well. It's an old, old story.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Businesses that hold out to the public don't have the same rights as a private individual. Sorry this bothers you.
Does this mean its now illegal to kick me out because I carry a gun?

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

The bridge exists only in your imagination. You aren't facing a river. You're facing people who will gladly sacrifice our society and representative rule in the pursuit of a childish demand for the approval of the majority, and the fact that so many people are too innervated to oppose them. Oh well. It's an old, old story.




Believe whatever you want to believe.

The end of this story has already been written and you are not going to change it.


Wait and see.




"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]

Believe whatever you want to believe.

The end of this story has already been written and you are not going to change it.


Wait and see.




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

Oh really? And what makes you think the story ever ends? More vital and aggressive societies displace more enfeebled and debauched ones with great frequency in the historical record. Read up sometime on how often that's happened in the last couple of thousand years in Britain alone.

"The end of this story has already been written," such glorious, conceit! It rather reminds me of the phrase "Thousand Year Reich," or national anthems with the word "forever" in them. No, a society, I'm sorry to have to inform you, that willingly sells its grandchildren into virtual slavery, and surrenders its freedom and social norms to the opinions of seedy characters in archaic robes isn't going to be around for any "end of the story."

The Romans surrendered their republic to short term popular expediency. So did the Germans in the 1930's. The French did so, at least twice. The Chinese have done so. The Russians did so in 1917 through 1918, and they might be doing so again now. No, the current perverse judicial silliness isn't the "end of the story." It isn't even a chapter in a story. It's a refrain in a bad song that is too popular to stop singing.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

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

Homosexuals are not a protected class under Federal Law:

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

  • Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
  • Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
  • Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
  • Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
  • Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
  • Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
  • Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
  • Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's 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?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Show me in the Constitution where it says a baker must be forced to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple... show me. Now, I can show you where all of us have, as you specifically stated, an ABSOLUTE right to their own religions beliefs... that is ABSOLUTE...which is defined by Merriam Webster as: complete and total : not limited in any way : having unlimited power...

Ever heard of the Equal Protection Clause? You might want to read it sometime.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Show me in the Constitution where it says a baker must be forced to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple... show me. Now, I can show you where all of us have, as you specifically stated, an ABSOLUTE right to their own religions beliefs... that is ABSOLUTE...which is defined by Merriam Webster as: complete and total : not limited in any way : having unlimited power...

BTW....you do have an ABSOLUTE right to your own religious beliefs. You can believe any which way you want. What you are NOT allowed to do is hide behind your religion to use it as a shield to impose your bigoted views on others. Sorry. The Constitution does not allow that....which is exactly why this judge ruled the way he did....and why courts in the past ruled that you cannot use your own morals to refuse to serve blacks at lunch counters....etc.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I think Jesus wouldn't support people living in sin. He was kind to the woman who was sleeping around, but he did tell her to go and sin no more.

Also, sexuality and what someone is sexually aroused by is not the same as race nor should they be compared or equated. The baker did not want to make a cake that would be used in the promotion of something he believed was sinful (gay sex/relationships). His beliefs and business should be respected. Going into someone's private business and demanding that they, as an individual, provide a service for you that violates the person's beliefs is bullying and that is bigotry. They aren't tolerant of the baker's beliefs and want to force him to provide them with a service to go against his morals and do something that he believes may be a promotion of what is morally wrong.
So you have no problem with a private businesses refusing service to anyone who violates their personal beliefs. You obviously believe it was "Bullying" to force which restaurant owners to serve blacks at their lunch counters...since it "violated their moral beliefs". Digs....you can't have it both ways. Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry....and thankfully this Court stood up and said that Bigotry is no longer tolerated in America.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

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

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

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


So in other words, you are fine with white restaurant owners refusing to serve blacks, you are fine with "White only" drinking fountains and having certain areas of theaters where people of color are allowed to sit and where they aren't allowed. Gotcha. Sorry...but that isn't America, my friend.
 
Back
Top Bottom