• 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]

Jesus taught nothing about picking and choosing who to sell something to.

Obviously you do not know much about him or his silly book

You know as much about the bible as you do about the Constitution.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The religious freedom argument is undermined when you are applying your "religious" beliefs selectively.

And yes, actually, once you're a business that holds out to the public, you don't have the same rights as an individual. The first amendment is not blanket authorization to ignore any law you claim to oppose. If I run a restaraunt and really, truly believe that all illness is the will of God, can I be exempt from food safety laws?

Every person with a religion applies their beliefs selectively and yes the first amendment protects the right to do so.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

You know as much about the bible as you do about the Constitution.

Which is more than you.

Still waiting for the clause you refuse to cite.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

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

Within the confines of their own personal life. It doesn't protect their right to discriminate once they open themselves up to the public.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Which is more than you.

Still waiting for the clause you refuse to cite.

You obviously cannot read then....go back and read......or do you still believe that there is nothing about "Equal Protection" in the Constitution.

Oh...let me save you the trouble. Article 14, sec 1. You might want to read it...then you might not make such a silly claim.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Within the confines of their own personal life. It doesn't protect their right to discriminate once they open themselves up to the public.

Yes it does, no where does it state " until you walk out the front door "

Even when interacting with the public I have the right to my beliefs and to interact with others in accordance with my beliefs so long as I do not violate their rights.

No one has or should have the right to patronize any business they wish.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The religious freedom argument is undermined when you are applying your "religious" beliefs selectively.
So, yes, you do believe the US justice system should rule if a person has effectively proven that they are following the edicts of their religion before being able to cite it as a defense in court. Is this accurate?
And yes, actually, once you're a business that holds out to the public, you don't have the same rights as an individual. The first amendment is not blanket authorization to ignore any law you claim to oppose. If I run a restaraunt and really, truly believe that all illness is the will of God, can I be exempt from food safety laws?
Where does it say a business can't refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation?
There's a difference in doing something that involuntarily harms the public and something that doesn't. As I stated to disneydude, if a business is playing music too loud at night, throwing trash in the streets, or as in your example, not following food safety laws, that's a danger to the public. Not making a cake hurts no one.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

You obviously cannot read then....go back and read......or do you still believe that there is nothing about "Equal Protection" in the Constitution.

Oh...let me save you the trouble. Article 14, sec 1. You might want to read it...then you might not make such a silly claim.

I can read you did not cite a clause and tell me the clause which contaisn that provision.

That is what it means to cite something which you cannot do.

BTW equal protection has nothing to do with selling or buying it has to do with GOVERNMENT as in we all have the right to equal protection UNDER THE LAW.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

So, yes, you do believe the US justice system should rule if a person has effectively proven that they are following the edicts of their religion before being able to cite it as a defense in court. Is this accurate?

Where does it say a business can't refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation?
There's a difference in doing something that involuntarily harms the public and something that doesn't. As I stated to disneydude, if a business is playing music too loud at night, throwing trash in the streets, or as in your example, not following food safety laws, that's a danger to the public. Not making a cake hurts no one.

Sorry...but if a bigot says that their "religion" or their "moral beliefs" prevent them from serving black patrons at their lunch counter....the law does not protect them. You might want it to be otherwise, but the Constitution does not allow it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Sorry...but if a bigot says that their "religion" or their "moral beliefs" prevent them from serving black patrons at their lunch counter....the law does not protect them. You might want it to be otherwise, but the Constitution does not allow it.

The constitution does allow it other laws forbid it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

So, yes, you do believe the US justice system should rule if a person has effectively proven that they are following the edicts of their religion before being able to cite it as a defense in court. Is this accurate?

Where does it say a business can't refuse service to someone based on sexual orientation?
There's a difference in doing something that involuntarily harms the public and something that doesn't. As I stated to disneydude, if a business is playing music too loud at night, throwing trash in the streets, or as in your example, not following food safety laws, that's a danger to the public. Not making a cake hurts no one.

What about refusing to sell food to people?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I can read you did not cite a clause and tell me the clause which contaisn that provision.

That is what it means to cite something which you cannot do.

BTW equal protection has nothing to do with selling or buying it has to do with GOVERNMENT as in we all have the right to equal protection UNDER THE LAW.
Dude open your eyes; ARTICLE 14, SEC 1

Here let me spell it out for you since you seem to be incapable of doing so yourself:AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

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.


See what a little education can do? Or are you still going to claim ignorance and that there is nothing about Equal Protection in the Constitution. DOH!!!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

What about refusing to sell food to people?
Explain further please ie give me a hypothetical situation.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Sorry...but if a bigot says that their "religion" or their "moral beliefs" prevent them from serving black patrons at their lunch counter....the law does not protect them. You might want it to be otherwise, but the Constitution does not allow it.
We're not talking about black people. Please try to keep up.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I have to explore this more, inviting more libertarians to share their beliefs.

On one side, as a Libertarian, I believe the business owner can buy and sell as he pleases. They can marry who they want and live as they will. We do not have to buy from or cater to him as well. People can make their own cakes if needed.

On the other side, I am left wondering. Feel free to expound rationally.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

You obviously cannot read then....go back and read......or do you still believe that there is nothing about "Equal Protection" in the Constitution.

Oh...let me save you the trouble. Article 14, sec 1. You might want to read it...then you might not make such a silly claim.

There is no article 14.

For your general constitutional education the constitution stops with article VII

So much for your expertise in the constitution
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

We're not talking about black people. Please try to keep up.

Bigotry is Bigotry is Bigotry....you can't be a Cafeteria discriminator. Sorry.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Explain further please ie give me a hypothetical situation.

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

There is no article 14.

For your general constitutional education the constitution stops with article VII

So much for your expertise in the constitution
LOL....wow....you should stop now before you display any more of your ignorance. Too funny......
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The ruling in is. Chalk another one up for the good guys
Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington TimesA Colorado judge ruled Friday against a bakery owner who refused to prepare a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception.

Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, to “cease and desist from discriminating against complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product [he] would provide to heterosexual couples.”


Read more: Colorado judge: Bakery owner discriminated against gay couple - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter





Another ruling that bigotry will no longer be tolerated in America. If this baker is truly concerned about his religious beliefs....perhaps he should start by trying to be more "Christ-like" and try living the principles that Jesus Christ taught.

And another blow to private property rights.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Dude open your eyes; ARTICLE 14, SEC 1

Here let me spell it out for you since you seem to be incapable of doing so yourself:AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

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.


See what a little education can do? Or are you still going to claim ignorance and that there is nothing about Equal Protection in the Constitution. DOH!!!

I see you cannot tell the difference between articles and amendments.

And as I have said repeatedly all of this applies to government.

As in GOVERNMENT may not deprive someone of equal protection.

This amendment ( as opposed to article ) in no way applies to private business
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

LOL....wow....you should stop now before you display any more of your ignorance. Too funny......

Ad hominen attacks mean you lost the argument.

Amendments and articles are not the same and there is no article 14

If you meant the fourteenth amendment you might have simply said so
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Ad hominen attacks mean you lost the argument.

Amendments and articles are not the same and there is no article 14

If you meant the fourteenth amendment you might have simply said so

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

Should have just refused to work for them because they are overbearing assholes. It's still ok to discriminate against assholes isn't it?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The center of all of this comes down to, is homosexuality a lifestyle choice, or is someone born that way?
If it is a choice, it should not be afforded the same legal protections as a trait someone was born with.
People and businesses can and do discriminate against others choices, I.E. no shirt, no shoes, no service, no smoking, ect.
So if a person chooses a certain lifestyle, that is their choice, but choices do sometimes have consequences.
If on the other hand homosexuality in a birth defect, it should be afforded the full weight of our anti discrimination laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom