• 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:113:123:292:647

Public transportation and private business are 2 different things. Please avoid strawman arguments.

There are many similar examples of blacks getting the same treatment in restaurants.

"Strawman avoided"

Besides, it's not a strawman in the example of showing how people have to do many things, even small things, in order to advance the greater good of achieving their civil rights.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Different issue. If he is in the business of performing abortions, he cannot say that I will perform the service for whites, but not blacks. THAT is more akin to the situation that we are talking about.
Your argument would be like walking into a bakery and demanding that they provide you with a 20 pound salmon. They would have a right in that situation to say...uh....we are a bakery...we don't sell fish.
Understand the distinction?

Actually, I don't think you understand the issue... its not a black v white discrimination; it was an offense to the shop owners moral sensibilities, similar to abortion.

Now, I certainly appreciate the civil law aspect to this. It is, in fact, a civil law conflict with moral law. What is somewhat reprehensible are posters that do not understand this. It is nothing at all like discrimination based upon race, color, creed, sex or national origin. It is a discrimination based upon a criteria that mainstream religions find morally wrong.

This was not a simple sale of goods. It was a matter of specific artistic performance; they asked the baker to apply his artistic skills to create something to celebrate something he found abhorrent. Its not that he found this abhorrent because of some sort of unsubstantiated personal bigotry, but because of a moral conviction based upon the Bible, a book a significant group of American's believe is the moral law (and many believe trumps civil law).

The closest controversy we have to this is abortion. The only thing wrong with my abortion analogy, however, is that abortion doctors chose to be in the profession. That said, there are OB/GYN's that will not perform abortions under any circumstance based upon moral conviction.

I can appreciate the civil side of this argument. The intellectually honest need to appreciate the moral side of this as well. It is an interesting case.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

No one is asking the baker to perform a gay wedding

... but they asked him to perform FOR a gay wedding.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

1.)It was filed on discrimination, I never said anything counter.
2.)Please try to refrain from pedantic arguments which add nothing and are nothing more than strawman.
3.) My point is that cake is not a right
4.) and if you are discriminated against for a cake it's not the same as discrimination that actually involves rights.
5.) Cake is not a right.

1.) yep filed and based on discrimination which in fact makes it not about cake. Please stop posting lies you posted it was based on cake and discrimination was secondary both proven wrong.
2.) another deflection and yet your statement was and is still factually wrong, only straw man posted around here was yours and facts and multiple posters proved that.
3.) correct and nobody ever said it was, this is why this strawman continues to be a complete failure
4.) they factually were not discriminated against for cake they were discriminated against for thier sexual orientation. This is why your statement about cake is a complete false and why cake is meaningless.
5.) correct please post another failed straw man that is meaningless to the facts.

Facts defeat your post again.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

It was filed on discrimination, I never said anything counter. Please try to refrain from pedantic arguments which add nothing and are nothing more than strawman. My point is that cake is not a right and if you are discriminated against for a cake it's not the same as discrimination that actually involves rights. Cake is not a right.

A piece of pie in a restaurant is not cake either. Pie isnt a right, is it? But it is a parallel claim of discrimination.

Denying Jews entrance to the beach on a private lake isnt a piece of cake either. Swimming isnt a right, is it? But it is a parallel claim of discrimination.

Denying a woman a job welding in a private company isnt a piece of cake either. Welding isnt a right. But it is a parallel claim of discrimination.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So we should allow them to be the moral police for one-third of a billion Americans? Yeah, and the right wing wants a police state...It's bad enough that we tell the world what to do and think. Hell if I want them to do it to their own.

Government regulation is a reaction to the unwillingness of individuals and businesses to do the right thing. The government shouldn't sit idly by while people suffer just because libertarians think we should twiddle our thumbs and wait for human nature to change.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Actually, I don't think you understand the issue... its not a black v white discrimination; it was an offense to the shop owners moral sensibilities, similar to abortion.

.

Are you claiming that serving blacks or being made to associate with blacks in public was not morally offensive to people? Because it certainly was and (disgustingly IMO) still is for some people.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Government regulation is a reaction to the unwillingness of individuals and businesses to do the right thing. The government shouldn't sit idly by while people suffer just because libertarians think we should twiddle our thumbs and wait for human nature to change.

You don't inspire change by force. You're no better than prostelyzing Christians that you hate.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Are you claiming that serving blacks or being made to associate with blacks in public was not morally offensive to people? Because it certainly was and (disgustingly IMO) still is for some people.

They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue. The Bible is reasonably explicit about homosexual acts.. (though, it make no mention of homosexual marriage, which was not an issue 1800 to 3500 years ago)... Now, many have interpreted the Bible inclusions in a variety of ways, including self serving ways. One of the mainstream interpretations, however, is that homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

My point, so I am clear, is I believe the shop owner has a very defensible position. I believe the courts should have respected his moral convictions here. Again, we have an issue where civil law encroaches on moral law. (God's law).
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You don't inspire change by force. You're no better than prostelyzing Christians that you hate.

I agree with that a good deal however do you think that the civil rights movements for blacks and women....rife with legal acrimony and civil disobedience....were ineffective? Certainly it was uncomfortable for dissenters during that time but just IMO, it probably advanced their causes by reducing the time of real change from decades to years.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue.

Um you are not very educated on the subject. Many people, including 'good Christians' thought it was indeed an abomination to treat blacks the same as whites. (And again, some still do :( )

How old are you? Do you have any memories at all of the civil rights newcasts during the 60s? The racist rhetoric..."on the news" was an embarrassment to human beings in general IMO. And I was just a child.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You don't inspire change by force.

You shouldn't delay the good and just thing just because it also happens to be the unpopular thing. Sometimes individuals have to be compelled to do the right thing through the force of law.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I agree with that a good deal however do you think that the civil rights movements for blacks and women....rife with legal acrimony and civil disobedience....were ineffective? Certainly it was uncomfortable for dissenters during that time but just IMO, it probably advanced their causes by reducing the time of real change from decades to years.

I think that the protests were effective, and that making your voices heard is always a good thing. However, I do not support the idea of forcing people to comply with the government. I would say what that's akin to, but I'd be breaking Godwin's Law. I supported the protests of people such as Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help inspire change from the populace. That's how you change minds and hearts.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You shouldn't delay the good and just thing just because it also happens to be the unpopular thing. Sometimes individuals have to be compelled to do the right thing through the force of law.

Sieg heil, mein fuhrer! Amerika Über Alles!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Sieg heil, mein fuhrer! Amerika Über Alles!

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

Sieg heil, mein fuhrer! Amerika Über Alles!

Precisely the kind of substantive rebuttal I've come to expect from Libertarians.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

"Im entitled to your business because i can see that you are doing business with others."
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I think that the protests were effective, and that making your voices heard is always a good thing. However, I do not support the idea of forcing people to comply with the government. I would say what that's akin to, but I'd be breaking Godwin's Law. I supported the protests of people such as Susan B. Anthony and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to help inspire change from the populace. That's how you change minds and hearts.

In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.

I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it, no matter how inconvenient. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.

Edit: IMO the fact that many in this thread cannot even see that this is an issue of discriminating against a group of people when compared against those previous civil rights battles is evidence that those earlier battles succeeded...because acceptance in society has become so commonplace. Just IMO of course.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.

I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.

So you have a right to someone elses business?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Precisely the kind of substantive rebuttal I've come to expect from Libertarians.

Yeah, I know that individual freedom is an enemy to you, since you so easily toss around words like "compel" and "force".

The leap to your blonde-hair-blue-eyed utopia has already begun.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

In general I agree but I also believe in anti-discrimination legislation....because it is the right thing to do. And it has worked, not perfectly, but has made a difference that has an overall positive affect on society. I dont say that about many laws that impose on the choices of others.

I believe that because when something is *the right thing to do*, it is wrong to ignore it or deny it, no matter how inconvenient. And denying the rights of blacks and women and gays and any other protected class based on their status alone is to me, very wrong.

Edit: IMO the fact that many in this thread cannot even see that this is an issue of discriminating against a group of people when compared against those previous civil rights battles is evidence that those earlier battles succeeded...because acceptance in society has become so commonplace. Just IMO of course.

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

Um you are not very educated on the subject. Many people, including 'good Christians' thought it was indeed an abomination to treat blacks the same as whites. (And again, some still do :( )

How old are you? Do you have any memories at all of the civil rights newcasts during the 60s? The racist rhetoric..."on the news" was an embarrassment to human beings in general IMO. And I was just a child.

OK... now we have to resort in insult and insolence. There goes the adult discussion.

So, apparently you are not very well educated on the Bible or you would get what I am talking about. Yes, there are many (uneducated in the Bible) that use it to support their warped views of the world. I understand that, but this argument is not about that. Its about having a world view based upon the Bible rather than a worldview that you try to justify by the Bible.

That said, I dare you to find a substantive biblical defense for bigotry towards blacks. While you will find no references to God or his prophets declaring the black man an abomination, you can rather easily find such references about homosexual behavior. Now, I could appreciate various interpretations of this; I certainly respect the interpretation that the owner of the Masterpiece Cake (which, by the way is about 200 yards from my office) had on this....

In this, I am not personally making any moral judgments about gays; nor would I do the same thing as this gentlemen. For the record, I have openly gay friends, clients and employees. This is not my personal worldview. However, as a strong Christian, I absolutely understand (and support) this guy's convictions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

What is near-sighted (I would say short-sighted) is that neither of you seems to realize that blacks, for example, had to fight the same way, do the same things, to achieve their civil rights. As did women.

And people considered what they did as annoying and valueless and selfish as you do. However....*history* will be the judge.

Thank you for pointing out my grammar error, I went back and changed it.
But as far as the rest of your post and comparing this to Blacks and the discrimination they endured is bogus.
Did the baker have a shingle or sign in the window that stated "NO GAYS ALLOWED"?
Or did he have two separate bathrooms one marked Straight people and the other Gay People?
Did he call them fags, queers or any other derogatory name?
Did he deny them all services/goods from his bakery?

The answer to all the above would be a big NO!
Blacks were forbidden to enter some establishments and treated less than second class citizens. The baker sold his goods to everyone. He specialized in wedding cakes, but he did other types of all occasion cakes that he would be glad to offer his services. The one thing his moral convictions did not allow him to participate in was to create a cake for a gay couple. His religious beliefs are that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman, holy matrimony. And because of those convictions he is hauled into court and painted as some bigot equal to a KKK member. Unbelievable!
But according to the legislation I discovered today, HR 3133, it looks like there is relief on the way for those of moral convictions, where they will find protection under the law.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So you have a right to someone elses business?

I have covered that in-depth in many posts. What I believe takes *precedence* is anti-discrimination laws.

I realize you disagree. So be it. If you want my reasoning, feel free to read back in the thread. (But I wont hold my breath)
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

They are not at all equivalent, even though many want to make them out to be. Unlike the issue at hand, you would find no support for being black being an "abomination". Being black is not considered a moral issue. The Bible is reasonably explicit about homosexual acts.. (though, it make no mention of homosexual marriage, which was not an issue 1800 to 3500 years ago)... Now, many have interpreted the Bible inclusions in a variety of ways, including self serving ways. One of the mainstream interpretations, however, is that homosexuality and, by extension, homosexual marriage is morally wrong.

My point, so I am clear, is I believe the shop owner has a very defensible position. I believe the courts should have respected his moral convictions here. Again, we have an issue where civil law encroaches on moral law. (God's law).

you really need to read up on history, your statements are factually wrong about religion being used to view minorities as lessers, it also applies to women too.

are you just claiming that YOUR personally dont see the relation because you feel their arguments of religion and woman cant be justified and were stupid to you? but you feel it can be justified against sexual orientation.

i dont understand how you separate them at all, when the reality is they are the same please explain

also moral convictions are meaningless when they break the law and infring on legal/civil/equal rights
 
Back
Top Bottom