Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

[XD40sc]

Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.

 

[onus]

Can someone answer this question...

When did someone's personal feelings trump another's rights?

It seems to me more and more, government is trampling someone's rights to cater to another's emotion.

A few months ago at the gym I overheard an argument between some people.

Apparently a man and women got into an argument and at some point the man called the female a "fat b*tch".

Later, the female was being consoled by her friends and one of them said "you know, that's assault. intentionally hurting someones feelings is assault. you really need to call police and report this"

 

[onus]

Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.

The government wants you to believe that its a PRIVELDGE to be able to engage in free enterprise and create opportunity and wealth for yourself and others and to be able to support yourself and your family.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.

You don't believe that people have a right to consensually exchange private property with others?

 

[conandan]

A few months ago at the gym I overheard an argument between some people.

Apparently a man and women got into an argument and at some point the man called the female a "fat b*tch".

Later, the female was being consoled by her friends and one of them said "you know, that's assault. intentionally hurting someones feelings is assault. you really need to call police and report this"

Are you serious, you think hurting someone's feelings is assault... Wow

First off one person can not hurt another's feelings. You can not make anyone think, feel, or do anything. Unless said person allows it.

If your feelings are hurt by something someone says or does its your fault not there's. Only you can choose to be upset, no one can make you.. Everything you do or how you respond to any situation is of you own choice not someone else's.

It seems to me people no longer want to take responsibility for there own actions, its always someone else's fault.

 

[conandan]

What is the legal definition of assault in your state?

In common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent offensive contact.

I don't have the law on hand at the moment. But regardless of how the law is interpreted assault is a physical action.

If a person has freedom of speach how can words be against the law.
Words cannot harm you unless you choose to let them hurt.
You cannot be harmed by words

If speech is considered assault you no longer have freedom of speach.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally utter any words from your mouth at any time, to any person... You know that.

 

[conandan]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can literally utter any words from your mouth at any time, to any person... You know that.

Freedom of speach does mean exactly that... If you have limits on your words its not freedom..

Now with that said, it all goes back to personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions or response, not someone else's. Words can only hurt, offend if YOU allow it..

 

[BrianB]

I know this thread is mostly concerned with the philosophical arguments around whether or not a commercial entity should be able to choose whom to do business with and not. For those interested in an in depth analysis of the topic, on more of a legal/constitutional basis, by some pretty bright legal minds, about a year ago a New Mexico wedding photographer case got a lot of traction on Volokh.com. In that case it was a wedding photographer who refused to photograph gay weddings. The photographer considers her work to be art, and expressive art at that, and felt that being forced to create expressive works she disagreed was unconstitutional.

Professor Volokh filed an Amicus Brief on behalf of the Cato Institute arguing for the position that the wedding photographer's work is "expression" and the photographer has the 1st amendment right to choose the content of that expression.

Post on that brief is here: link

There were quite a few good posts with a lot of legal angles supporting the right of the wedding photographer not to photograph gay weddings. To find lots of reading material on the topic use this link: link

The photographer lost at the appellate level and has appealed to the New Mexico supreme court. The case is still ongoing.

You might argue that making wedding cakes is similar expressive conduct.

As a libertarian I support the concept of gay marriage. I think the government should either get out of the marriage business or marry any two consenting adults who so choose. There's no reason why gay folks shouldn't be allowed to suffer with the rest of us (being funny there). But one person's rights never trump another's, and I'm not a big fan of the government forcing people to do things they don't want to do, especially something like creating an "expressive work".

I start to lose my grip on the right answer when I consider the angle of public accommodations refusing to provide service to black people. By that I don't mean wedding photographers and cake bakers, I mean restaurants, hotels, retail establishments, etc. My libertarian brain thinks that the government shouldn't force any business to serve a person they choose not to serve, regardless of the reason. But my pragmatic brain has a problem with the possibility that a black family on a vacation trip finds themselves in a town, possibly stranded in such a hypothetical town, where they can't buy gas, use the restroom, get their car repaired, or get a meal or lodging, simply because they are black.

Anyway, for those that weren't aware of it I thought the materials and discussion of the wedding photographer case on Volokh.com might be interesting.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Freedom of speach does mean exactly that... If you have limits on your words its not freedom..

Now with that said, it all goes back to personal responsibility. You are responsible for your actions or response, not someone else's. Words can only hurt, offend if YOU allow it..

Nope. Threats and lies are two examples of communication to which speech can be the medium that falls outside the scope of your right to free speech. You do not have the right to defraud, nor do you have the right to threaten someone just because you choose "speech" as the medium with which to make that communication.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Nope. Threats and lies are two examples of communication to which speech can be the medium that falls outside the scope of your right to free speech. You do not have the right to defraud, nor do you have the right to threaten someone just because you choose "speech" as the medium with which to make that communication.

I have the right to travel, that doesn't mean I can walk through your yard any time I like. I have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I can point my gun at you so long as I refrain from unleashing a bullet from it. Etc. etc. etc. Threats and fraud are forms of coercion. Even when speech is chosen as the medium with which to execute this coercion, you are wrong to do it.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP I start to lose my grip on the right answer when I consider the angle of public accommodations refusing to provide service to black people. By that I don't mean wedding photographers and cake bakers, I mean restaurants, hotels, retail establishments, etc. My libertarian brain thinks that the government shouldn't force any business to serve a person they choose not to serve, regardless of the reason. But my pragmatic brain has a problem with the possibility that a black family on a vacation trip finds themselves in a town, possibly stranded in such a hypothetical town, where they can't buy gas, use the restroom, get their car repaired, or get a meal or lodging, simply because they are black.

Just grip harder.

The problem isn't whether the hotel or restaurant should serve the stranded black family. (They should.) The question is whether government should have the power to compel it.

No, no, no, no. NO!!

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Just grip harder.

The problem isn't whether the hotel or restaurant should serve the stranded black family. (They should.) The question is whether government should have the power to compel it.

No, no, no, no. NO!!

And when most people are good people, in a free market, those businesses that don't do "what they should" will be significantly less profitable than those that do "the right thing." In some cases, market forces could even cause complete closure of a business as a result of that business' despicable practices.

In a case like in the OP, it probably isn't so despicable to a significant enough portion of the community there that they'd go out of business, but they'd obviously not have the business of those that they refused to serve, which is obviously understood by and accepted by the business owner. And that's totally his/her right, to accept a reduction of revenue in order to keep his/her conscious clear.

 

[HPmatt]

How about when the Federal Government and then the state you are licensed to practice medicine in tell you, the doctor, that you have to perform abortions in order to practice medicine? Similar to telling a baker that (s)he must do their trade in violation of their religious rights that are protected under the 1A.

Don't think any religion (other than Farakan and his Muslim Brotherhood) has a underlying tenet that discriminates against skin color.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Perhpas you have confused the word 'cater' with 'discrimination' because the judge only told him his business cannot discriminate. Running a business is a privileged, regulated and licensed.

Since when did running a business (providing for yourself) become a privilege. Oh don't bother with the citing current rules that make it so. I would like to hear it either constitutionally or one that coincides with natural law.

 

[conandan]

Nope. Threats and lies are two examples of communication to which speech can be the medium that falls outside the scope of your right to free speech. You do not have the right to defraud, nor do you have the right to threaten someone just because you choose "speech" as the medium with which to make that communication.

I understand the point you are making. I agree makeing threats and lies are wrong, IMO that's a moral issue not a legal one. Nowhere in the constitution have I found limits to free speech.

And your other point about freedom of travel. That's not speach, if you tresspass you are violating private property rights.
The same with pointing a gun at someone. That's not speach. You are endangering a life.

Do you see the difference... Actions are not free speach. Your spoken word is speech.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We absolutely have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. We also should pay for the consequences of misusing that right.

 

[eye95]

That is like saying, "I have a right to punch you in the nose. I just have to pay the consequences for misusing that right."

You have neither right, because both acts (absent justification, and I assume that we are talking about when there is not a fire) violate the rights of others, by directly harming others or by creating a circumstance where harm is a very predictable outcome.

Caveat: I am speaking strictly from a GGONIYP rights sense, not from a court-has-ruled-that-way sense.

 

[OC for ME]

Here's your cake...enjoy!

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

~51 minutes for Gidwin's Law.....this has got to be some sort of record.

Incorrect on both counts. Discrimination certainly isn't just "have no control over" or else religion wouldn't be on the list. Secondly, your opinion that homosexuality is a choice or learned behavior is HIGHLY arguable. When did you choose to be heterosexual? You didn't, you just are. (And forgetting the fact that human sexuality isn't a binary thing and is much more of a continuous scale. Yes, I'm saying everyone is a little bit gay.)

Cures? Like abuse them so much that they deny themselves who they are and stay in the closet?

For such a pro-rights crowd, I'm wondering why the disconnect with civil rights in this case.

No, I am not "a little bit gay."

And when most people are good people, in a free market, those businesses that don't do "what they should" will be significantly less profitable than those that do "the right thing." In some cases, market forces could even cause complete closure of a business as a result of that business' despicable practices.

In a case like in the OP, it probably isn't so despicable to a significant enough portion of the community there that they'd go out of business, but they'd obviously not have the business of those that they refused to serve, which is obviously understood by and accepted by the business owner. And that's totally his/her right, to accept a reduction of revenue in order to keep his/her conscious clear.

Not necessarily. It may be that the "We don't do gay wedding cakes" baker will see a increase in business. In fact that business may dominate the cake baking market in that area. This is another example of the state threatening violent physical force for non-compliance with anti-liberty mandates. EMNofSeattle swerved into the correct liberty centric solution. The gay couple should patronize a business that will cater to their catering needs. Unfortunately the plaintiffs are not well versed in the age old action by "OCers discriminated against" vote with your wallet. If they claim to be 2A supporters they are the liberal variety of 2A supporters and thus are not liberty centric in reality.....just liberals with a gun.

 

[eye95]

~51 minutes for Gidwin's Law.....this has got to be some sort of record.

Only nazis spell Godwin that way.

No, I am not "a little bit gay."

His accusing everyone else of being homosexual is reminiscent of the juvenile, "Yeah, well, you too!" I guess it makes his choices feel more normal and acceptable if he chooses to believe that we are all like him. We are not. If he so damned comfortable with his choices, what should it matter to him what ours are???

Not necessarily. It may be that the "We don't do gay wedding cakes" baker will see a increase in business. In fact that business may dominate the cake baking market in that area. This is another example of the state threatening violent physical force for non-compliance with anti-liberty mandates. EMNofSeattle swerved into the correct liberty centric solution. The gay couple should patronize a business that will cater to their catering needs. Unfortunately the plaintiffs are not well versed in the age old action by "OCers discriminated against" vote with your wallet. If they claim to be 2A supporters they are the liberal variety of 2A supporters and thus are not liberty centric in reality.....just liberals with a gun.

I would make sure that I bought my next cake from him--as long as he allows OC in his establishment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>