• 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]

The pics were Vesper's. Apparently you were being scolded for responding to the pics she posted, since in the new version you werent the one that posted them.

yes that is what happened in that post and that is the back pedal you witnessed, i get it now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

still nothing huh just more failed insults. PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

I'm insulting you??? You are the one who repeats the word "lies" rather than responding directly to a post.

this is the lie you posted to refresh your memory. we are waiting for you to back this lie up and quote me saying "this is about the blacks in the 50s"? let us know when you can and when you have ANYTHING ON TOPIC to back up your posts.

That's the big lie, is it?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.)I'm insulting you???
2.) You are the one who repeats the word "lies" rather than responding directly to a post.
3.)That's the big lie, is it?

1.) nope thats why they are failed insults
2.) i did respond directly and you have in fact posted lies, thats true
3.) big? no, the only one? no but yes thats the current and factual lie we are talking about

so again when you want to stay on topic, stop trying to deflect and make me the topic and you can simply post any facts that support your false claims let us know
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.) nope thats why they are failed insults
2.) i did respond directly and you have in fact posted lies, thats true
3.) big? no, the only one? no but yes thats the current and factual lie we are talking about

so again when you want to stay on topic, stop trying to deflect and make me the topic and you can simply post any facts that support your false claims let us know

Was my lie "So the photos of restaurants in the 50's are FACTS relating to the FACTS in this case? This is getting quite strange!"?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Was my lie "So the photos of restaurants in the 50's are FACTS relating to the FACTS in this case? This is getting quite strange!"?

see above, your question was already answered
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Are you making the claim that a question is a lie???

nope never made that claim at all
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

nope never made that claim at all

Then where is the lie? You really don't have anything at all, right?

Why not make your apologies now?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.)Then where is the lie? You really don't have anything at all, right?
2.)Why not make your apologies now?

1.) already answered this in post 1503 and you already acknowledged the lie in your previous post before that
2.) i never apologize for posting facts, pointing out lies and destroying failed posts

do you have ANYTHING ON TOPIC or are you gonna continue trying to discuss me?
do you have any facts that support your failed posts? any?
 
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.

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.

There was a time where a number of mainstream religions found inter-racial marriage to be morally wrong. In fact there was a time where many religions refused admission to blacks because they found them to be "morally reprehensible". You are the one mischaracterizing the issue. It is absolutely akin to discrimination based upon race color, creed, sex or national origin. Just because the bigots here want to hide behind their religion and claim so special privilege to discriminate does not change the fact that it is discrimination based on bigotry. Bigotry in the name of religion is still bigotry.

Your abortion analogy is completely baseless. They were not asking this baker to perform any service that he didn't offer to other groups. Its not like asking a heart surgeon to perform an abortion.

The bottom line is, hiding behind your religion is no different than white only restaurant owners hiding behind their "moral convictions". They both found the groups that they didn't want to serve "icky". That is not basis to discriminate under our laws.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

... but they asked him to perform FOR a gay wedding.

So Friggin what! Blacks asked white restaurant owners to serve them at their lunch counters. If you open a business, you have to abide by the rules. There is no special right to discriminate because you want to claim your religion grants you that. If this man were TRULY Christian....he should start by being more Christlike in his actions.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So Friggin what! Blacks asked white restaurant owners to serve them at their lunch counters. If you open a business, you have to abide by the rules. There is no special right to discriminate because you want to claim your religion grants you that. If this man were TRULY Christian....he should start by being more Christlike in his actions.

And during the 1800s, the rules were that blacks were property. Lets drop the "its the rules" argument now, please.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

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.

It was discrimination over cake. There are lots of forms of discrimination and not all should be illegal. The ones we must protect against are those that infringe upon rights. And one has no right to somebody's cake.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

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.

Government may not discriminate, but private enterprise may as it is property and labor. Less the discrimination infringes on rights, there is no justification for using the guns of government. And you don't have the right to be serviced by others.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

It was discrimination over cake. There are lots of forms of discrimination and not all should be illegal. The ones we must protect against are those that infringe upon rights. And one has no right to somebody's cake.

So out of curiosity, do you think it should be legal for a shop to not sell their merchandise to a customer because they are black?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

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.

Private land can bar entry of others along any basis. Country clubs have been notorious for their discrimination. Private clubs discriminate membership as well. Not sure if you thought you had a point or not with this argument, but it's moot.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

What if a privately owned utility decide not to serve select people?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Any business that opens to the public is a public business, not a private one. If they don't want to abide by public policy then don't open a business to the public. Pretty simple.

Who pays property taxes? Are they funded with public money? If no, then it's private. Just because you want access to other people's property doesn't make it public property.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Private land can bar entry of others along any basis. Country clubs have been notorious for their discrimination. Private clubs discriminate membership as well. Not sure if you thought you had a point or not with this argument, but it's moot.

Country Clubs are not open to the public to begin with.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Country Clubs are not open to the public to begin with.

Yes, I did say private.

But OK, so if the Bakery instead had membership and only members would be serviced, then game on?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Yes, I did say private.

But OK, so if the Bakery instead had membership and only members would be serviced, then game on?


Legally speaking it probably wouldn't fly since it is an obvious attempt at not having a real "private club" but more a means of circumventing the law.

Here is a piece that details some of the considerations as to whether something is truley a "private club" (legally speaking) or not -->> http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedFiles/PCS/MayJune02legal.pdf

1. Is "club" truly selective in it's membership and are such criteria enforced.

2. Are membership rules not structured to simply evade other non-discrimination laws.

3. Does the organization advertize for general/random membership or for the delivery of goods/services to non-members.

4. Size can be a consideration.

5. Who controls the organization, is it truly controlled by the club members through an elective process or is it controlled by an individual "owner".

6. Who controls the funds of the organization, are they controlled by club members through member selection process or are funds controlled by an individual "owner".

7. Is the "club" operated for profit of an individual "owner" or is it operated for the benefit of the members.​



For profit businesses trying to evade the law by claiming they are a "private club" probably doesn't work very well.


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

Legally speaking it probably wouldn't fly since it is an obvious attempt at not having a real "private club" but more a means of circumventing the law.

Here is a piece that details some of the considerations as to whether something is truley a "private club" (legally speaking) or not -->> http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedFiles/PCS/MayJune02legal.pdf

1. Is membership truly selective in it's membership and are such criteria enforced.

2. Are membership rules not structured to simply evade other non-discrimination laws.

3. Does the organization advertize for general/random membership for for the delivery of goods/services.

4. Size can be a consideration.

5. Who controls the organization, is it truly controlled by the club members or is it controlled by an individual "owner".

6. Who controls the funds of the organization through member selection process or are funds controlled by an individual "owner".

7. Is the "club" operated for profit of an individual "owner" or is it operated for the benefit of the members.​



For profit businesses trying to evade the law, probably doesn't work very well.


>>>>

Country clubs are for profit though, yes? So there can't be a bakery called Resurrection Loaf or Jesus has Risen that had strict membership regulations that are staunchly enforced? If not, why can other businesses or private clubs discriminate?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So out of curiosity, do you think it should be legal for a shop to not sell their merchandise to a customer because they are black?
There was no merchandise in this case. The two Gay men were asking the baker to create merchandise, and he objected. The two Gay men insisted he had to make it anyway and took him to court.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

1.) already answered this in post 1503 and you already acknowledged the lie in your previous post before that
2.) i never apologize for posting facts, pointing out lies and destroying failed posts

do you have ANYTHING ON TOPIC or are you gonna continue trying to discuss me?
do you have any facts that support your failed posts? any?
No, you didn't. All I'm asking is where is this lie you are ferring to. Simply repeating that I lied again and again does not prove your case.

Of course I really don't care at all what you say because there are too many interesting adults I can debate with here but I do enjoy your denials and squirming. Your main response to any post is calling other posters liars, and of course you can never demonstrate this to be true. Carry on!
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Country clubs are for profit though, yes? So there can't be a bakery called Resurrection Loaf or Jesus has Risen that had strict membership regulations that are staunchly enforced? If not, why can other businesses or private clubs discriminate?

What private clubs don't allow black people?
 
Back
Top Bottom