Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 94

Thread: Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

  1. #1
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005

    Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505

    FUQ:

    [In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

    "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "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." ]

    ****************
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-08-2013 at 02:47 PM. Reason: Personal attack edited
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-order...ry?id=21136505

    FUQ:

    [In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

    "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "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." ]

    --Personal attack edited--.
    Ba doo boom crash. We have a comedian. Not sure what you do work my friend but if its not comedy then your missing your calling. I'm glad I'm in your thoughts.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-08-2013 at 02:49 PM. Reason: quote edited
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  3. #3
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Well if you don't like homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual we were told.

    Homosexuality does not harm anyone, unless you don't like it and then the state will harm you.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account that gay people's feelings will be hurt, and the government's job is to make sure this doesn't happen.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Here's your cake...enjoy!

    http://s3.media.squarespace.com/prod...2Bswastika.jpg


    lol I could see the guy doing this ... all in good fun of course ...

  6. #6
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Here's your cake...enjoy!

    http://s3.media.squarespace.com/prod...2Bswastika.jpg


    lol I could see the guy doing this ... all in good fun of course ...
    LOL, he should make one and send it to the judge. But then he'd probably be arrested for a hate crime. Just another day in the land of the free!
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Ba doo boom crash. We have a comedian. Not sure what you do work my friend but if its not comedy then your missing your calling. I'm glad I'm in your thoughts.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Kind of hard not to be since you've had 600 posts in a month, whereas I've had 2,000 in 7 years.....
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account that gay people's feelings will be hurt, and the government's job is to make sure this doesn't happen.
    Stealthy should there still be segregation? Not at schools but in businesses? Honest question.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    760
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Stealthy should there still be segregation? Not at schools but in businesses? Honest question.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Segregation ? hahahahaha

  10. #10
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Just a serious question. It seems the consesus is private businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation. So can you replace orientation with race color or creed? I think that's a fair question. I may be wrong, I thought the rule was either your open to the public or your not. If your open to public then you must except anyone. If your private like a club then you can pick whoever you want. Please clarify if I'm wrong

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Kind of hard not to be since you've had 600 posts in a month, whereas I've had 2,000 in 7 years.....
    I assume he has a bowel obstruction .. on the can alot w/his PC.

    Give the guy a break .... 2000 in 7 yrs .. thats a lot of posts ! I guess that's what this site is all about, right?

  12. #12
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Stealthy should there still be segregation? Not at schools but in businesses? Honest question.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    By any reasonable definition of freedom, any private business could exclude anyone at anytime for any reason. Of course your question is pretty much a non issue these days; how often does a business owner want to turn away dollars? Not very often at all.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I assume he has a bowel obstruction .. on the can alot w/his PC.

    Give the guy a break .... 2000 in 7 yrs .. thats a lot of posts ! I guess that's what this site is all about, right?
    Wowsers, 8,600 in less than 2 years....that's commitment!
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    By any reasonable definition of freedom, any private business could exclude anyone at anytime for any reason. Of course your question is pretty much a non issue these days; how often does a business owner want to turn away dollars? Not very often at all.
    +1 Great reply.

    Of course, his was not a serious question. It was an antagonistic question designed to ensnare.

    He still hasn't explained how he has standing to enforce laws on equals who did not expressly consent to be "governed".
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Just a serious question. It seems the consesus is private businesses can discriminate based on sexual orientation. So can you replace orientation with race color or creed? I think that's a fair question. I may be wrong, I thought the rule was either your open to the public or your not. If your open to public then you must except anyone. If your private like a club then you can pick whoever you want. Please clarify if I'm wrong

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Businesses have the right to do business with whom they choose and not to do business with whom they choose not to. The law, unconstitutionally, IMO, prohibits the exercise of the right. Exercising the right to discriminate against a race would be morally wrong, but still a right. Outlawing that discrimination is both immoral and an infringement on a GGONIYP right of association. Discriminating against behavior that violates one's morals is moral.

    JMO. Feel free to disagree.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    +1 Great reply.

    Of course, his was not a serious question. It was an antagonistic question designed to ensnare.

    He still hasn't explained how he has standing to enforce laws on equals who did not expressly consent to be "governed".
    It was a very serious question. And I got kind a serious answer in return. 77 replied that yes a business owner should be able to discriminate against race gender creed etc. But this doesn't happen solely because business owners want the money.

    I'm still pretty sure its the law that you cannot discriminate like that. Also pretty sure that law was made because there already was discrimination running rampant. Again I could be wrong and am willing to hear the other side.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    By any reasonable definition of freedom, any private business could exclude anyone at anytime for any reason. Of course your question is pretty much a non issue these days; how often does a business owner want to turn away dollars? Not very often at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Businesses have the right to do business with whom they choose and not to do business with whom they choose not to. The law, unconstitutionally, IMO, prohibits the exercise of the right. Exercising the right to discriminate against a race would be morally wrong, but still a right. Outlawing that discrimination is both immoral and an infringement on a GGONIYP right of association. Discriminating against behavior that violates one's morals is moral.

    JMO. Feel free to disagree.
    Primus, you've got your answers, move along.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Businesses have the right to do business with whom they choose and not to do business with whom they choose not to. The law, unconstitutionally, IMO, prohibits the exercise of the right. Exercising the right to discriminate against a race would be morally wrong, but still a right. Outlawing that discrimination is both immoral and an infringement on a GGONIYP right of association. Discriminating against behavior that violates one's morals is moral.

    JMO. Feel free to disagree.
    Thank you eye I really appreciate that explanation. That was my impression and I understand it as you've described it.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Regular Member HPmatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    1,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Stealthy should there still be segregation? Not at schools but in businesses? Honest question.
    Don't see anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments where it requires a citizen to DO anything.


    The judge's order violates the 1st amendment unalienable right of the Baker to express his religious convictions by who he chooses to work for. Perhaps the Baker should have taken a different tact - call the couple ****, *****, ******, etc and then they'd Boycott his business. Could perhaps institute a policy to give any gay revenue to the Anti-gay ballot propositions and groups that would bring down a gay boycott of his business.
    “Men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them"
    -Thomas Hobbes 1651

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by HPmatt View Post
    Don't see anywhere in the Constitution or its Amendments where it requires a citizen to DO anything.


    The judge's order violates the 1st amendment unalienable right of the Baker to express his religious convictions by who he chooses to work for. Perhaps the Baker should have taken a different tact - call the couple ****, *****, ******, etc and then they'd Boycott his business. Could perhaps institute a policy to give any gay revenue to the Anti-gay ballot propositions and groups that would bring down a gay boycott of his business.
    I don't know what the ***'s are, but you do have an interesting point. If flat-out discrimination is illegal, just exercise your 1A rights (without the *'s, IMO) to motivate folks doing stuff you believe to be immoral to WANT to go elsewhere. Even though the law says you must serve them, it does not say that you have to allow them to rebut your opinions.

    However, I would predict a court battle, where your expressions will be called "effective discrimination," and a whole new set of anti-discrimination laws that violate fundamental rights would result.

    Sorry....My thoughts are wandering.

  21. #21
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Stealthy should there still be segregation? Not at schools but in businesses? Honest question.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    No, segregation is/was a government mandate, most private businesses did not want segregation in the south because they had to spend more money making two separate sections of their business.

    Besides, I don't the baker refused to serve gay couples, we've had several incidences in WA and Oregon where bakers refused to make cakes for gay weddings, but were willing to serve a custom cake for a gay customer. If a gay customer came in and ordered a cake that said "happy birthday Clarence" I doubt they'd be refused service....

    If a "Christian identity" movement supporter went to a black baker and asked for a cake that said something along the lines "rot in hell emmet till" or "blacks are mud people" should the baker be ordered by the government to accommodate the racists "religion" since religion is a protected class?

    Honest question...
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 12-07-2013 at 11:35 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, segregation is/was a government mandate, most private businesses did not want segregation in the south because they had to spend more money making two separate sections of their business.

    Besides, I don't the baker refused to serve gay couples, we've had several incidences in WA and Oregon where bakers refused to make cakes for gay weddings, but were willing to serve a custom cake for a gay customer. If a gay customer came in and ordered a cake that said "happy birthday Clarence" I doubt they'd be refused service....

    If a "Christian identity" movement supporter went to a black baker and asked for a cake that said something along the lines "rot in hell emmet till" or "blacks are mud people" should the baker be ordered by the government to accommodate the racists "religion" since religion is a protected class?

    Honest question...
    Emn good question and I'll gibe you an honest answer. I'd say no .gov should stay out of that transaction and baker can tell customer he will not serve him or put that on a cake.

    Here's why. That is too narrow of an example. If baker refused all people of that religion or color and made that clear with signage verbal statement that was verifiable etc. Then yes its be a no go. What you described is one incident where the baker specifically wouldn't like what was requested. He could either refuse the order or he could refuse that customer based on that specific incident. Since that's his right.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie,,, no I mean it!,,, just wowwie...

    Have you lost what little mind you seemed to have had????

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    No, segregation is/was a government mandate, most private businesses did not want segregation in the south because they had to spend more money making two separate sections of their business.

    Besides, I don't the baker refused to serve gay couples, we've had several incidences in WA and Oregon where bakers refused to make cakes for gay weddings, but were willing to serve a custom cake for a gay customer. If a gay customer came in and ordered a cake that said "happy birthday Clarence" I doubt they'd be refused service....

    If a "Christian identity" movement supporter went to a black baker and asked for a cake that said something along the lines "rot in hell emmet till" or "blacks are mud people" should the baker be ordered by the government to accommodate the racists "religion" since religion is a protected class?

    Honest question...
    This post is a joke... nothing honest about anything her folks,,, just move along...

    not comparing apples and oranges,,, or peanuts and raisins..
    more like tree bark and shell fish...

    Any baker would make a cake saying happy birthday someone..
    Most bakers would refuse to make a cake saying rot in hell or blacks are mud...
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I kinda think that is his point. The baker is not discriminating against homosexuals. He is refusing to have any part in what he believes to be an immoral behavior: homosexual "marriage," hence his likely willingness to make a cake that says, "Happy Birthday Clarence!" for homosexual Clarence, but not willing to make one that says, "Congratulations Clarence and Robert," and has two grooms on top.

    His question was a good one, and drew out the other poster's opinion well.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Inappropriate and unwelcome
    Last edited by John Pierce; 12-09-2013 at 11:36 AM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •