And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments [W:744]

[Hawkeye10]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Have you considered the possibility that the reason the SCOTUS disagrees with you so frequently is that your understanding of the Constitution is horse ****?

Have you considered the possibility that you are the last person to understand how bad SCOTUS has been in recent decades?

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I must have missed something? When did this become about medical treatment for children?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement. Nothing more. Truth be told, I side with the baker in this instance. If a decision is made that the couple feels hurts them, then they should have just gone elsewhere to have their cake done. The baker wasn't refusing service, they offered other choices and serve gay people all the time.

Why can't the baker respect their choice to get married?
Why can't the couple respect his choice not to do something against his religious belief?

Being tolerant and accepting also means you accept that people are not the same as you and to force them to do something they are strongly against is wrong, IMO.

BINGO!! This is case of intolerance, not by the baker, but by the two whiny little twits who sued. They are intolerant of the baker's beliefs and are trying to force him to do something that he feels violates his beliefs. Would we as a society be willing to force homosexuals to repent of their homosexuality in order to get married (a forced violation of their beliefs)? What's being asked here is no different. We have two people trying to force another person to violate his beliefs because they got their feelings hurt and that's the core of this whole case.

 

[Moon]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Current public accommodation laws aren't unconstitutional.

That wasn't the question, and isn't the issue.

 

[graeme104]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Wow. I wonder if you'd feel much different if you were in a minority group the majority wanted to refuse service to.

Imagine your children coming home upset because they couldn't get in a movie because the owner didn't like their type. So they tried to go roller skating. Couldn't get in there either. Finally gave up and went to get something to eat but again was refused service. The other people in the town don't really care because they agree that type of person is bad and so do the majority of people in other towns so it's not like they can move. I really don't understand someone who could support that.

Allowing the companies freedom to practice a religion of choice doesn't make it impossible for gay people to find service. There are plenty of bakers, roller skating places, theaters, etc. The situation you described is unrealistic and wouldn't happen as a result of the SCOTUS allowing freedom of religion. You understand that there are more religions than just Christianity right? What if there was a Muslim business who refused to serve anyone who isn't Muslim because he or she believes non-Muslims to be evil. This isn't a majority trampling a minority. It's not just Straights vs Gays.

 

[Proteus]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

"I'm from the government, and I'm ordering you to abide by the Constitution of the United States!"

Fixed that for you.

But I forgot.....conservatives don't much like the Constitution.

If you ever get around to actually reading the US Constitution, you might come to see how absurd your comment really is.

But I wouldn't bet on the if or the might in this case.

 

[Praxas]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Allowing the companies freedom to practice a religion of choice doesn't make it impossible for gay people to find service. There are plenty of bakers, roller skating places, theaters, etc. The situation you described is unrealistic and wouldn't happen as a result of the SCOTUS allowing freedom of religion. You understand that there are more religions than just Christianity right? What if there was a Muslim business who refused to serve anyone who isn't Muslim because he or she believes non-Muslims to be evil. This isn't a majority trampling a minority. It's not just Straights vs Gays.

Ever lived in a small town? There is a lot of services that are handled by maybe one or two people. So yes, that has to be in mind.

 

[chuckiechan]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

What I will find interesting is what happens to all the court rulings that used the cake case as precedent if the court rules in favor of the cake shop. As far as the ruling goes I am curious about the justifications that the court uses for whatever ruling they reach. I don't really have a horse in this race.

There are many mole hills hoping to grow up to become mountains before they disappear.

 

[JasperL]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

i cant equate the right to lodging, emergency care, and transportation with this case....it is a false equivalency

In one case the supreme court has ruled that certain items including public conveyance and medical care have to be provided....anyone who opens a motel, or runs a cab knows these laws

there is no such law on the books for a regular business that they MUST cater to every whim of every customer

i think that is what this case boils down to....does a business have the right to refuse service when that service is not essential and can be gotten elsewhere

i have zero issue with the public then making an example out of said business and trying to put him/her out of business for their practices....but i believe they should have the right to serve who they want to especially when their religious beliefs come into play

and please...dont ask if i am ok with "no blacks allowed" type of signs....that is not religious freedom, that is bigotry

and there is a difference

There is no difference at all except who are the targets of state-sanctioned bigotry, and history tells us there is an endless amount of bigotry that can be justified by "religious freedom." Those slaveowners and then proud supporters of Jim Crow didn't see any conflict with their interpretation of Christianity and their society. It's not hard to find religious justifications for "separate but equal" policies, or the inferiority of blacks in general.

This is from the lower court case that supported bans on interracial marriage:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[18]

Besides, if I have a right to turn away homosexuals, there is no principled reason why I don't have a similar right to turn away Jews or blacks or Muslims or anyone else. Bigotry and racism somehow justified by "religious freedom" is indistinguishable from bigotry and racism justified by stupidity or hate. He says he doesn't want to bake cakes for a homosexual couple because it offends his religion, or that his religion forbids the mixing of races in public, and I say I don't want to serve him a hamburger because I just hate fags, or niggers, or Jews. What's the difference? Why should society bless the former but prohibit the latter?

So let's at least be honest here. The theory behind allowing broad exceptions for "religious freedom" equally supports exceptions for simple racism and bigotry.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

i cant equate the right to lodging, emergency care, and transportation with this case....it is a false equivalency

In one case the supreme court has ruled that certain items including public conveyance and medical care have to be provided....anyone who opens a motel, or runs a cab knows these laws

there is no such law on the books for a regular business that they MUST cater to every whim of every customer

i think that is what this case boils down to....does a business have the right to refuse service when that service is not essential and can be gotten elsewhere

i have zero issue with the public then making an example out of said business and trying to put him/her out of business for their practices....but i believe they should have the right to serve who they want to especially when their religious beliefs come into play

and please...dont ask if i am ok with "no blacks allowed" type of signs....that is not religious freedom, that is bigotry

and there is a difference

It's called a "public accommodation".

It's kind of funny. You jump into a thread to supposedly debate, then you try to instruct people on what they are and are not allowed to say to you.




Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is no different in nature than discrimination on the basis of 'race'. Both attributes are determined by genetics and epi-genetics. Hiding behind "religion" doesn't change that.

:shrug:

(And of course, hiding behind "religion" would allow anyone to discriminate on the basis of race, etc., so long as they claimed it was in line with their religious views to do so).




It really is quite revealing to watch supposedly righteous religious folk cite religion as a basis for treating certain classes of humans as less-than-human. "Love they neighbor" indeed.

Nevermind that the cake isn't even used in the religious ceremony of marriage. It's eaten at a non-religious reception/dinner. I sure don't see fork manufacturers freaking out about the possibility that they might be used in the same reception. But then, that's because they aren't d-bag attention whores, like this cake-shop owner and that pizza place that sought its 15 minutes a few years back....

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Please, they are so strongly against gay marriage as being wrong but I bet anything they turn a blind eye to divorced couples and serve them just fine. I accept people not the same as me which is why I don't think anyone should be denied service.

This became about medical service for children because if you think people should not be forced to serve someone because it's something they are strongly against, it could lead there.

It already happened. A pediatrician refused to see a couples child, after praying on it, because they were lesbians.
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/03/04/pediatrician-refuses-see-baby-lesbian-couple

 

[mike2810]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Ever lived in a small town? There is a lot of services that are handled by maybe one or two people. So yes, that has to be in mind.

True, but not in this case. Take a look at the location of the store (Lakewood, CO). Without a map you could not tell if it was Denver.
A simple search shows many stores within a short distance to the bakery in question.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cak...61!3d39.65475527073459!3m2!1i924!2i575!4f13.1

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Because race has nothing to do with the issue before the court, nor is any other argument.

I dare these people to try to force a Muslim bakery to make them a cake and be present at the gay wedding.

The Muslim bakery would be obligated to not discriminate just like any other one would. So I don't see your point there. Either you think companies should be able to discriminate based upon race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, or you don't. If you are for businesses being able to legally discriminate, then just come out and say it.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

BINGO!! This is case of intolerance, not by the baker, but by the two whiny little twits who sued. They are intolerant of the baker's beliefs and are trying to force him to do something that he feels violates his beliefs. Would we as a society be willing to force homosexuals to repent of their homosexuality in order to get married (a forced violation of their beliefs)? What's being asked here is no different. We have two people trying to force another person to violate his beliefs because they got their feelings hurt and that's the core of this whole case.

Now that is a master class in dishonest inversion of an issue.

Bigots refuse to bake a cake because gay people might eat it after a wedding, and the bigots are the victims. LOL!

 

[gdgyva]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

There is no difference at all except who are the targets of state-sanctioned bigotry, and history tells us there is an endless amount of bigotry that can be justified by "religious freedom." Those slaveowners and then proud supporters of Jim Crow didn't see any conflict with their interpretation of Christianity and their society. It's not hard to find religious justifications for "separate but equal" policies, or the inferiority of blacks in general.

This is from the lower court case that supported bans on interracial marriage:



Besides, if I have a right to turn away homosexuals, there is no principled reason why I don't have a similar right to turn away Jews or blacks or Muslims or anyone else. Bigotry and racism somehow justified by "religious freedom" is indistinguishable from bigotry and racism justified by stupidity or hate. He says he doesn't want to bake cakes for a homosexual couple because it offends his religion, or that his religion forbids the mixing of races in public, and I say I don't want to serve him a hamburger because I just hate fags, or niggers, or Jews. What's the difference? Why should society bless the former but prohibit the latter?

So let's at least be honest here. The theory behind allowing broad exceptions for "religious freedom" equally supports exceptions for simple racism and bigotry.

no it doesnt

it is give us an inch, and we will take a mile approach

it is the same damn argument the NRA uses to block any sensible gun regulation, because they think you guys are going to take it another, and then another step

people are allowed to have religious and MORAL convictions....and there is absolutely no way in hell to rid the world of all discrimination and bigotry

sensibly, we have passed laws to make sure that the essentials cant be denied....i agree wholeheartedly with those laws

but getting a cake baked, or a florist to cater a wedding is NOT essential

and the fundamental freedom to make stupid choices should be left up to the business

and let the free market decide if they make the right choices or not

trying to "force" everyone to agree to your POV with these cases in asinine to me....and is setting those against your side to dig in deeper

it took decades for inter racial marriage to become commonplace and accepted

the more you try to force a square peg into a round hole, the bigger the fight you are going to get

MOST people are accepting...and gays are having less and less issues each year....but these cases cause your cause to actually lose ground

i hope you guys realize that....

 

[JasperL]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

I must have missed something? When did this become about medical treatment for children?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of his statement. Nothing more. Truth be told, I side with the baker in this instance. If a decision is made that the couple feels hurts them, then they should have just gone elsewhere to have their cake done. The baker wasn't refusing service, they offered other choices and serve gay people all the time.

But if the baker can use religion to justify refusing service, he can, obviously, refuse all services, not just wedding cakes.

Why can't the baker respect their choice to get married?
Why can't the couple respect his choice not to do something against his religious belief?

Similarly, why can't blacks respect that white supremacist's religious belief that the races should be kept separate?

Being tolerant and accepting also means you accept that people are not the same as you and to force them to do something they are strongly against is wrong, IMO.

Again, that's fine, but what we know from our history is that also justifies discriminatory hiring and firing, among other things. So if we accept this principle then we also accept the principle that a new manager can take over a business, or part of a business, and use his religion to fire, demote, or refuse to promote, blacks, women, Jews, etc.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Because race has nothing to do with the issue before the court, nor is any other argument.

I dare these people to try to force a Muslim bakery to make them a cake and be present at the gay wedding.

The baker wasn't even invited to the wedding in this case. The wedding was on a different day and in a different state than the reception.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

no it doesnt it is give us an inch, and we will take a mile approach it is the same damn argument the NRA uses to block any sensible gun regulation, because they think you guys are going to take it another, and then another step people are allowed to have religious and MORAL convictions....and there is absolutely no way in hell to rid the world of all discrimination and bigotry sensibly, we have passed laws to make sure that the essentials cant be denied....i agree wholeheartedly with those laws but getting a cake baked, or a florist to cater a wedding is NOT essential and the fundamental freedom to make stupid choices should be left up to the business and let the free market decide if they make the right choices or not trying to "force" everyone to agree to your POV with these cases in asinine to me....and is setting those against your side to dig in deeper it took decades for inter racial marriage to become commonplace and accepted the more you try to force a square peg into a round hole, the bigger the fight you are going to get MOST people are accepting...and gays are having less and less issues each year....but these cases cause your cause to actually lose ground i hope you guys realize that....

This is yet another issue where we can be sure that the only reason a position is being taken is because of the foot currently wearing the shoe. Religion is on the decline. Fast forward 50 or 100 years. If you get your way, then people will be just as justified in citing their atheism as a basis for not serving Christians, and the Christians still be squealing about victimhood.....just from the other direction.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

There is a video out there somewhere that a guy tried that. He asked Muslim bakery's to make a cake for his gay wedding and every one of them refused.

Not one of them was brought up on charges however.

It would make for an interesting case. The left would have to decide which of their darlings they would back.

The Crowder video was heavily edited, and had poor sound quality. One of the bakeries that did refuse only made breads, they did not even offer cakes. Another didn't do photo cakes which is what he requested and they told him the nake of a bakery that did do photo cakes. But if Crowder feels that he was denied unfairly, he can file a grievance with the state like the couple in this case did. Maybe he knows that his claims are BS and that he would be laughed out of court.

 

[Mr Person]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The baker wasn't even invited to the wedding in this case. The wedding was on a different day and in a different state than the reception.

See, it's that kind of thing that would utterly destroy their position if it wasn't already garbage.

They keep acting like the objection is to selling a product to be used in a religious service that their religious-bigotry drives them to dislike. Except wedding cakes aren't used in the wedding ever, they're used in the reception, which is not religious. And here, as you say, the reception is even further removed from the wedding they claim to object to than it usually is.

That, of course, gives the lie to the claim that this is only about wedding cakes, not potentially any service or product.




But then, I wouldn't expect logic from someone defending bigotry. Bigotry is inherently irrational.

 

[PleasantValley]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

cake is not food?

Tell that to my wife.
I only got one piece of the angel's food cake I bought two days ago, now it is gone.
That is also why i have to keep any chocolate hidden in my man cave if i expect to have any of it.
She would be seen passed out with wrappers ankle deep if I didn't.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

True, but not in this case. Take a look at the location of the store (Lakewood, CO). Without a map you could not tell if it was Denver.
A simple search shows many stores within a short distance to the bakery in question.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cak...61!3d39.65475527073459!3m2!1i924!2i575!4f13.1

Do you not believe that a supreme court ruling would apply to all states and even the small towns?

I live in a small town and had to call a guy from another state to pump my septic tank because the one guy in town that pumps tanks was booked solid. There are two bakeries within an hours drive from my house what if both of them refused me service, or the two grocery stores, or the one gas station or the one bank? If this baker can claim religious exemption from following the law what would stop small town bakeries from doing the same?

 

[Praxas]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

True, but not in this case. Take a look at the location of the store (Lakewood, CO). Without a map you could not tell if it was Denver.
A simple search shows many stores within a short distance to the bakery in question.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cak...61!3d39.65475527073459!3m2!1i924!2i575!4f13.1

That's not the point, constitutional rights are not determined by population.

 

[KLATTU]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

This case is interesting.

If that baker had baked the cake the couple wanted beforehand and put it in his display case, they could have bought it .That is, the bake shop does not routinely turn away customers who are gay.
Although I guess we don't know what would have happened if they announced beforehand: " We want that cake there, we're getting married".

 

[apdst]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Wow. I wonder if you'd feel much different if you were in a minority group the majority wanted to refuse service to.

Imagine your children coming home upset because they couldn't get in a movie because the owner didn't like their type. So they tried to go roller skating. Couldn't get in there either. Finally gave up and went to get something to eat but again was refused service. The other people in the town don't really care because they agree that type of person is bad and so do the majority of people in other towns so it's not like they can move. I really don't understand someone who could support that.

I would open up competitive businesses that served anyone with the money to pay the bill and clean up.

 

[apdst]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Do you not believe that a supreme court ruling would apply to all states and even the small towns?

I live in a small town and had to call a guy from another state to pump my septic tank because the one guy in town that pumps tanks was booked solid. There are two bakeries within an hours drive from my house what if both of them refused me service, or the two grocery stores, or the one gas station or the one bank? If this baker can claim religious exemption from following the law what would stop small town bakeries from doing the same?

States aren't required to enforce Federal law.