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

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

vesper said:

I never stated that incest or pedophilia led to homosexuality. I stated the same argument using "discrimination" the gays used to further gay marriage would be the same argument those who find incest and pediphilla and polygamy acceptable relations will use to further law changes.

Click to expand...

sorry there is factually no legal or right based precedent in america that is strictly gay rights based that lends itself to pedophilia

nobody educated believes this

if you disagree simply give us a factual example that is soley based on equal rights for gays that lends itself to pedophilia. . . .ONE

you wont be able to

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

CriticalThought said:

For the sake of argument though, had this been an interracial couple and the baker had denied them a wedding cake because he religiously felt that he could not support interracial marriages, would you have supported that as legitimate free exercise of religion?

Based on your other response, I am guessing that for you, personally, you do not believe sexual orientation should be a protected class like race and that influences how you see this situation. I am wondering if you would respond the same way if it were racial given that people have, in the past, used religious convictions to deny services to people of different racial groups.

Also, it should be noted since you brought dogs up, that this baker does do wedding cakes for dog weddings.

Click to expand...

What's really the matter with you? Do you not understand this is not about interracial marriage? Why do leftists repeat these senseless analogies over and over again? You must have leftist friends. Are they this way too?

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

vesper said:

Gay marriage is no threat to me unless it means my rights are violated in the name of "discrimination". If I find it morally wrong, how dare you force me to bake a cake for the occasion or take pictures or cater the reception or print the invitations? You talk a lot about staying out of people'ss business, then how about staying out of the business of those who do not wish to go against their moral conscience?

Click to expand...

your moral conscience is meaningless to peoples rights and law this fact will never changes, there is no force

facts defeat your post again

dont like this don't break the law

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

TheNextEra said:

Yes, just like the blacks should have moved to another restaurant that allowed them in right? Or moved to a fountain that allowed blacks or a bus that didn't have them sitting in the back. WOW why didn't someone think of your wonderful solution BACK then as well? :roll:

Click to expand...

Do you understand that Blacks were not allowed to be served in those restaurants and they had the force of the law behind them and that this was on fr scores of years?

Do you also not understand that this Gay couple could have ordered bread, cookies, and any baked goods which were in the store? They had bought baked goods there in the past.He just didn't want to make a wedding cake because he felt it was wrong according to his religion. It is not anything like Black people being refused any kinf of service in all restaurants. This guy just didn't want to make a wedding cake.

Why not respect this guys religion, as people should, and just go get their cake at another bakery?

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

TheNextEra said:

My explanation is this country doesn't allow discrimination based on sexuality, race or religion. If you can't accept that, Iran is your next best option to move to. They are more to your liking on the right to discriminate. If you cannot see why it is wrong to discriminate, I cannot help you.

Click to expand...

You said it. They can't discriminate against this baker because because of his religion. We are finally making progress!!

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

Lursa said:

Again, if you felt it was immoral to serve a black person or a Jew,you wouldnt have any standing under the law. Since gays are a protected class as well in that state, you would be subject to that law. Dont like it? Dont have a business where you might have to serve blacks, Jews, or gays.

Again....gays are who they are, they do not make that choice, and have the same right to pursue happiness as anyone else (in America, not Iran...it's a basic Constitutional right)....so your moral outrage seems hypocritical. You never did answer that question...which I asked you twice.

Click to expand...

The conversation has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. But that hasn't stopped you from trying to make it such. It is about a baker being forced to make cakes for couples whose actions violate his moral conscience. The same baker could find a number of cakes people ask him to create that go against his moral principles. But people like you have willingly denied him the right to say "no". I think that is about as hideous of an act of authoritarianism as one can get when you deny someone the right to abide to his moral convictions. It is absolute or blind obedience to authority, that is against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning forced obedience by all. Far from what this country was founded.

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

over 118 pages and nothing has changed lets go over the facts:

Owner chose to play in the public realm and open a public access business, this requires a licenses and has rules and laws that regulated it
Owner chose to break the law, commit a crime and make himself a criminal which has consequences


The judge actually let the criminal off easy,he didn't fine him or anything, he just gave him a cease and desist order.

So all the owner has to do is stop breaking the law, committing crimes, illegal discriminating and stop infringing on peoples rights, seems easy to me.

next time this dummy will think twice before breaking the law


heres some qoutes from the judges 13 page ruling

“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote.


“Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer.


The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.


“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”


I love it when equal/human/civil rights wins over discrimination and bigotry and people who support bigotry and or discrimination freak out.

#EqualRightWinsAgain

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

vesper said:

1.)The conversation has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. But that hasn't stopped you from trying to make it such.
2.)It is about a baker being forced to make cakes for couples whose actions violate his moral conscience.
3.) The same baker could find a number of things from wedding cakes to anyone he decides to discriminate against when it violates his moral principles.
4.) But people like you have willingly denied him the right to say "no".
5.) I think that is about as hideous of an act of authoritarianism as one can get when you deny someone the right to abide to his moral conviction and refuse to admit it.
6.)It is absolute or blind obedience to authority, that is against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning forced obedience by all.
7.) Far from what this country was founded.

Click to expand...

1.) 100% false the correlation is violating civil/legal/equal and human rights which this does and is the same in that regard
2.) the baker wasnt forced to make a cake, repeating this lie will never make it true, also is this criminals moral conscience is meaningless to law and civil/legal/equal and human rights
3.) and if he continues to break the law he false the penalties
4.) he has no right to say no when it violates civil/legal/equal and human rights
5.) your opinion is meaningless most the country cares about civil/legal/equal and human rights just because you dont doesnt matter
6.) nope its factually protecting civil/legal/equal and human rights
7.) its actually exactly what this county is about protecting civil/legal/equal and human rights if this bothers you you could move :shrug: maybe russia?

Facts defeat your post again

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

vesper said:

The conversation has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. But that hasn't stopped you from trying to make it such. It is about a baker being forced to make cakes for couples whose actions violate his moral conscience. The same baker could find a number of things from wedding cakes to anyone he decides to discriminate against when it violates his moral principles. But people like you have willingly denied him the right to say "no". I think that is about as hideous of an act of authoritarianism as one can get when you deny someone the right to abide to his moral conviction and refuse to admit it. It is absolute or blind obedience to authority, that is against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning forced obedience by all. Far from what this country was founded.

Click to expand...

This has been discussed for over 100 pages. It is about civil rights. Which are applied to ALL protected classes, including women and blacks. These are 2 groups that also had to FIGHT for their civil rights.

So it is exactly the same. Plenty of people saw it as immoral that black people were served in a business the same as whites. Many people thought it immoral when women entered the workplace outside the home. It's not UP TO YOU, as a business owner, to pick and choose WHICH protected class is immoral and which isnt. Once covered under anti-discrimination laws, they are the same...equal with every other American

A business owner may even today consider a black person only 3/5 human and consider it immoral to serve them. Is that ok?

And AGAIN. It was explained to you that YOU CAN choose NOT to create cakes that you find morally offensive IF they are not part of that protected classification. You do not have to put a gun on a cake if you morally object to that. You do not have to design a pair of Crocs sandals on a cake...which I find exceedingly in poor taste and morally objectionable...because those things are not "protected."

It is not blind authority. Again, religious people serve people that their religion claims they should not every day. Just selecting a particular thing you find immoral, out of ALL things that are against your religion, is just playing the 'religion card.'

Because as I said, if you were a truly devout Catholic, you would find it immoral to create a cake for a divorcee being remarried. A Jew would find it immoral to create Christmas cakes. And Christians and Muslims wouldnt serve athiests or other people of other religions because their mandates are NOT to support any other faith but instead, try to convert them.

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

Lursa said:

Because as I said, if you were a truly devout Catholic, you would find it immoral to create a cake for a divorcee being remarried. A Jew would find it immoral to create Christmas cakes. And Christians and Muslims wouldnt serve athiests or other people of other religions because their mandates are NOT to support any other faith but instead, try to convert them.

Click to expand...

These people might do all these things, though its probably unlikely. But those who were refused could get their cake elsewhere, which is what most rational people would do.

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

Unitedwestand13 said:

speaking of not remembering what was in the Declaration of independence:

Click to expand...

Endowed with unalienable rights...

Being equal in rights to you does not mean that I am your slave, that I must toil for you, that I must engage in commerce with you just because you want me too.


You folks don't want free commerce, you want coerced commerce.

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

Grant said:

If your friend Debbie found Jews to be immoral you should find new friends.

Click to expand...

As usual you cannot accurately read. I said her family's bakery created lots of cakes for barmitzvahs.

But since you gave me the opening to further prove my point :lol: :

"They killed Jesus. They arent Christians and it's immoral to be celebrating a young man being old enough to accept THAT religion that does not believe in Christ. I will not bake his barmitzvah cake. I believe it is immoral."

See how that works? Except it mostly doesnt. Businesses are in business to make $. They have to accommodate all kinds. And they know it. And they know the laws regarding discrimination. So when they normally provide services to people of all faiths, beliefs, lifestyles, etc that are opposing or different to their's, they are just playing 'the religious beliefs' card when all of a sudden something bothers them.

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

vesper said:

The conversation has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. But that hasn't stopped you from trying to make it such. It is about a baker being forced to make cakes for couples whose actions violate his moral conscience. The same baker could find a number of cakes people ask him to create that go against his moral principles. But people like you have willingly denied him the right to say "no". I think that is about as hideous of an act of authoritarianism as one can get when you deny someone the right to abide to his moral convictions. It is absolute or blind obedience to authority, that is against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning forced obedience by all. Far from what this country was founded.

Click to expand...

This country was founded on the notion that all people are born as equal, no matter what they believe or who they look like. Discrimination is an act that stems from the notion that some are more worthy than others, based solely on who they are. So... how is this law far from what this country was founded on? Doesn't it uphold the most central idea in our constitution? Sorry, bro, it does. And laws like this, namely the civil rights act, made this country much more able to claim that our policies reinforce the idea that all men are created equal. Maybe you haven't read your history books. I'd give them a look if I were you, because you seem very confused about what is and isn't "American."

And others have said it, but this conversation has everything to do with race AND gender AND sexual orientation. Do you think people here are vigorously arguing about a cake? No, and claiming so reduces the argument to absurdity. This debate is 100% about discrimination laws and the central notion that all of us are equal. You are (one of) the one(s) arguing that businesses have a right to treat people as subhuman. Doesn't sound very American to most of us. You're in a small, extreme minority, and while I cannot change your point of view, I hope that you understand why your viewpoint is so disgusting to the vast majority of Americans who have heard of the struggle for civil rights. Trust me, this information is readily available should you choose to educate yourself on what this country used to be like for minorities.

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

JayDubya said:

Endowed with unalienable rights...

1.)Being equal in rights to you does not mean that I am your slave
2.), that I must toil for you,
3.) that I must engage in commerce with you just because you want me too.
4.) You folks don't want free commerce, you want coerced commerce.

Click to expand...

1.) correct good thing the fact is nobody wants this, this strawman fails
2.) good thing the fact is nobody wants this, this strawman fails
3.) good thing the fact is nobody wants this, this strawman fails
4.) theres no facts to support this lie, nobody wants forced commerce, this strawman fails too

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

Grant said:

These people might do all these things, though its probably unlikely. But those who were refused could get their cake elsewhere, which is what most rational people would do.

Click to expand...

Of course they do...because they dont CHOOSE to attach significance to those things even tho they ARE against their religion.

And then...we're back to Rosa Parks not really needing to move a few steps back, just a few!...to sit in the back of the bus.

If people do not stand up and demand their rights....by legal means, by civil disobedience (yeah Rosa!), by petitioning their legislators....how will they ever get them?

Would most 'rational' blacks have moved to the back of the bus? Maybe. Would the cause for black civil rights have been advanced if they did? NO.

A lawsuit by one gay couple is just one step. But it has generated awareness.....

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

Grant said:

What's really the matter with you? Do you not understand this is not about interracial marriage? Why do leftists repeat these senseless analogies over and over again? You must have leftist friends. Are they this way too?

Click to expand...

You have been told over and over again that this is a civil rights issue. Continue to disagree if you must but dont act like it's surprise when it is justifiably used to support an argument.

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

Grant said:

Do you understand that Blacks were not allowed to be served in those restaurants and they had the force of the law behind them and that this was on fr scores of years?

Do you also not understand that this Gay couple could have ordered bread, cookies, and any baked goods which were in the store? They had bought baked goods there in the past.

Click to expand...

Ah no. They were not being served 'the same.'

Blacks had to sit separately, were treated differently and believe me...did not get the same quality of food or service.

The gay couple was able to buy stuff, but were not able to buy the same thing as a straight couple....a wedding cake.

Separate is not equal. Per SCOTUS.

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

Mustachio said:

And others have said it, but this conversation has everything to do with race AND gender AND sexual orientation. Do you think people here are vigorously arguing about a cake? No, and claiming so reduces the argument to absurdity. This debate is 100% about discrimination laws and the central notion that all of us are equal. .

Click to expand...

Worth repeating.

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

The baker broke the law as written. Now if it were me, I'd have sued the baker and still bought a cake from somewhere else. Anti-descrimination laws are in place for a reason and by serving the public you have chosen to abide by those laws.

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

vesper said:

I spent several years of my life studying Judiasm and 7 years studying the philosophies of the one I believe to be the Messiah. No I don't think you know Him any better than I do. Thank you very much.

Click to expand...

Well then....you obviously studied a distorted view of his life. Because if you truly understood the teachings of Jesus Christ you would know that they are diametrically opposed to the actions of this bigoted baker and you wouldn't be defending his actions.

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

Grant said:

Who has the right to discriminate? The baker or the Gay couple?

Click to expand...

Only the baker is discriminating....despite your many failed attempts to flip reality. Who was "discriminating" in the lunch counter sit ins? Why do you side with the persecuted bigots who refused to serve blacks? Why should the black patrons have to go down the street to another restaurant so as to not "offend" the sensibilities of the "white only" restaurant owners?

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

Grant said:

These people might do all these things, though its probably unlikely. But those who were refused could get their cake elsewhere, which is what most rational people would do.

Click to expand...

But the question Grant is "Why should black people have to walk down the street to a restaurant that will serve them?" True....they could get their meal elsewhere...but I disagree that that is what most "rational" people would do. I think most people would stand up for what is right and call the bigots out.

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

vesper said:

Gays have never been counted as 3/5ths of a person as Blacks once were. To compare the two is absolutely ridiculous.

Click to expand...

When were blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person?

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 am 100% for gay marriage, bigotry against gays/lesbians is ridiculous and I think this bakery owner is probably an ignorant pig.

BUT

I think any private business should be able to not sell to anyone they want, for any reason.

Hey, if the public don't like it, don't buy from them and put them out of business.

I know I would never buy from a shop that discriminated in this way.

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

Phil_Osophy said:

When were blacks counted as 3/5ths of a person?

Click to expand...

Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state, but delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but increased it over the northern position