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

Slyhunter said:

You people are the ones who claim they are born that way. So are Pedophiles. Thus they are the same. Through no fault of their own they were born that way. Thus they are genetic abnormalities or they wouldn't of been born that way.

Click to expand...

Ikari said:

What rights? When did cake become a right?

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

It doesn't "Codemn" our rights at all. There is no "natural" or Constitutional right to engage in discrimination. Period.

Click to expand...

LowDown said:

Of course there is a right to discriminate. People do it all the time, most of all liberals. They discriminate against conservatives, against Christians and other religious people and so on. Against anyone they don't agree with, actually. Actors in Hollywood often talk about being discriminated against if they are politically conservative.

Certain groups, though, have these special protections. Call them exceptions to the rule. Group rights have come to trump individual rights, and nothing could be more un-American than that. It just depends on which groups have the political clout.

During the Dark Ages when absolute monarchy was the rule even a cat could gaze upon a king, but these days one cannot even speak ill of certain groups regardless how justified.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

In the case of the baker in Colorado, the judge denied the baker his constitutional rights in regard to property and the Free Exercise clause which prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of his or her religion. Discrimination laws are important but when one violates the constitutional rights of another they are unlawful. If you are going to talk equality sir, then you must also apply it to all having equal treatment under the law. The First Amendment clearly comes into play in this case raising the question of whether an artist or craftsman can be compelled by the government to create objects against his or her wishes. The saddest part of this case is the judge's ruling citing "hurt feelings to others" as a reason to trump a business owner's right to property and right to practice his religious beliefs. Sir, there is a reason why legal experts agree these types of cases are headed to the Supreme Court because when a discrimination law results in discrimination of others it's bad law.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Where was the discrimination?

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Yes, there many who feel that shouting down any opposition to defend their belief, or attempting to intimidate by schoolyard taunts, is 'progressive, and it seems we have to suffer through them until the education system is overhauled. When it is one of the first few things they should do is teach the students about human rights. Required reading and discussion should be Democracy in America and The Road To Serfdom..

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

Now you wanna play obtuse? The discrimination is in the business owner refusing to serve people that they find "icky". Why do you continue to support bigoted white restaurant owners who refuse to serve blacks or bigoted bakers who refuse to serve gays? Why should the blacks or the gay have to go down the street to another restaurant or drinking fountain or bakery simply because some bigot wants to claim "religion" as a shield to follow the law? Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

Bigotry should ALWAYS be shouted down. There is no room for Bigotry in a civilized society.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

1.)What about the discrimination against the man who didn't want to bake the cake because of his religious beliefs?
2.) Is his rights lesser than others?
3.) Should he be forced to bake a cake because someone demands it?

Again, you drift away to other areas which have nothing to do with this case. Focus, Man, Focus!!

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

1.) there is no illegal discrimination against him :shrug:
2.) nope they are equal
3.) nope and this didnt happen here

all your starwmen fail

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Not only are you unfamiliar with the First Amendment, you haven't even read the story on which this debate is based~!!!

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

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

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

Now you wanna play obtuse? The discrimination is in the business owner refusing to serve people that they find "icky". Why do you continue to support bigoted white restaurant owners who refuse to serve blacks or bigoted bakers who refuse to serve gays? Why should the blacks or the gay have to go down the street to another restaurant or drinking fountain or bakery simply because some bigot wants to claim "religion" as a shield to follow the law? Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Not only are you unfamiliar with the First Amendment, you haven't even read the story on which this debate is based~!!!

Click to expand...

disneydude said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

ROFLMAO....seriously, how could you miss this? It's been posted many times. And the judge clearly states where he interprets the discrimination.

Click to expand...

Uncensored2008 said:

Yea!

We are done with freedom once and for all.

Anyone who thinks they are free to hold their own beliefs rather than obey federal masters has been taught a lesson.

If you "own" a bakery, you still have no rights, because YOU are owned by your overlords.

It's time to start shooting you motherf&*$ers - seriously.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

This is a very foolish decision and should be appealed to a higher court. Preferably one that isn't stoned when they hear the evidence or hand down their verdict.

Click to expand...

Uncensored2008 said:

Yea!

1.)We are done with freedom once and for all.

2.) Anyone who thinks they are free to hold their own beliefs rather than obey federal masters has been taught a lesson.

3.) If you "own" a bakery, you still have no rights, because YOU are owned by your overlords.

4.) It's time to start shooting you motherf&*$ers - seriously.

Click to expand...

Uncensored2008 said:

Notice it isn't just an activist court defecating on the constitution, look at the leftists in this forum CELEBRATING the revocation of fundamental civil rights.

I fear the only way to restore basic liberty will be to water the tree of liberty, as old Tom said.

Click to expand...

AGENT J said:

once again civil rights were factually protected in this case

Click to expand...

Uncensored2008 said:

Then I have a right to make you wash my car.

Get to it.

Click to expand...

Gipper said:

Every time I hear about a situation like this, I want to see someone really push this to an extreme under a blanket of First Amendment - like a Klansman walking into an establishment owned by a black man and get "go fetch me that thing there, n***er", or a skinhead going into a Jewish establishment and saying "how much does this cost, ya f'n kike".

Then we'll see how many people respect "we reserve the right".

Click to expand...