Colorado judge orders baker to cater to gays

[Kopis]

why would a gay couple want a cake from this person anyway? They still have to pay for it and he will likely make a shltty cake. Just vote with your money and go somewhere else.

 

[eye95]

why would a gay couple want a cake from this person anyway? They still have to pay for it and he will likely make a shltty cake. Just vote with your money and go somewhere else.

That is reason.

The anti-rights, but-I-wanna crowd is emotional, not rational. They want folks forced into their dogma.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

why would a gay couple want a cake from this person anyway? They still have to pay for it and he will likely make a shltty cake. Just vote with your money and go somewhere else.

It's not about the cake, it's about a special class of people who want special protection forcing the rest of the world to approve their lifestyle by any means nessecary.

it's like the photographer in New Mexico who lost her court case for refusing to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. by the time the courts actually heard it the wedding had occured and they found a different photographer who not only approved of gay marriage but quoted them a lower rate then the christian photographer charged for weddings.

I think she should just get some Westboro baptist church T-shirts, have her show up like that, hey she served them at the price! then they'll file court actions saying they have a right to control what the photographer they hire wears.

I say this as someone who supports gay marriage rights, I do not approve of this forcing businesses to accomodate you....

 

[OC for ME]

It's not about the cake, it's about a special class of people who want special protection forcing the rest of the world to approve their lifestyle by any means nessecary.

it's like the photographer in New Mexico who lost her court case for refusing to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. by the time the courts actually heard it the wedding had occured and they found a different photographer who not only approved of gay marriage but quoted them a lower rate then the christian photographer charged for weddings.

I think she should just get some Westboro baptist church T-shirts, have her show up like that, hey she served them at the price! then they'll file court actions saying they have a right to control what the photographer they hire wears.

I say this as someone who supports gay marriage rights, I do not approve of this forcing businesses to accomodate you....

Your continued refusal to hold the state as the only aggressor in this situation is noted, and not unexpected. I had thought, erroneously, that you were starting to "get it", sadly that is not the case, and I was wrong.

The state should have never allowed the case to go forward in the first place, yet the did.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your continued refusal to hold the state as the only aggressor in this situation is noted, and not unexpected. I had thought, erroneously, that you were starting to "get it", sadly that is not the case, and I was wrong.

The state should have never allowed the case to go forward in the first place, yet the did.

The state is certainly an aggressor in this case, but they wouldn't be if all kinds of people didn't lobby the state to be one. the "state" didn't just wake up one day and create this system (although states in the south did have a big hand in creating the environment in which these laws were passed) the idea of "protected classes" came about during the civil rights movement, the people demanded that the state switch from mandating people not be served or served separately, to mandating service of everyone.

in the end you can sugarcoat it all you want and claim there is a conspiracy of tyrannical cabals of the state, but the simple fact is, the majority of people wanted these laws and got them, and now people use them to harass people who they don't like. States are certainly not the "only aggressor" if people refused to send complaints to the pencil necks who assess fines against these businesses this would screech to a halt, if people who served on civil juries nullified these kinds of verdicts it would crash to a halt, if large sums of people wrote their legislators demanding repeal of these system they would be gone.

The state is certainly the prime agressor, but not the only one.....

 

[OC for ME]

The state is certainly an aggressor in this case, but they wouldn't be if all kinds of people didn't lobby the state to be one. the "state" didn't just wake up one day and create this system (although states in the south did have a big hand in creating the environment in which these laws were passed) the idea of "protected classes" came about during the civil rights movement, the people demanded that the state switch from mandating people not be served or served separately, to mandating service of everyone.

in the end you can sugarcoat it all you want and claim there is a conspiracy of tyrannical cabals of the state, but the simple fact is, the majority of people wanted these laws and got them, and now people use them to harass people who they don't like. States are certainly not the "only aggressor" if people refused to send complaints to the pencil necks who assess fines against these businesses this would screech to a halt, if people who served on civil juries nullified these kinds of verdicts it would crash to a halt, if large sums of people wrote their legislators demanding repeal of these system they would be gone.

The state is certainly the prime agressor, but not the only one.....

I did not sugarcoat anything. The state should not have allowed the case to go forward from the get-go. There are no other aggressors other than the state.

 

[Freedom1Man]

why would a gay couple want a cake from this person anyway? They still have to pay for it and he will likely make a shltty cake. Just vote with your money and go somewhere else.

I know if I was order by a judge to make a cake, I would not be making the best cake at all.

Oh look there is some instant cake mix on the grocery shelf. Mix that up and then the artistic part might be rather offensive to them.

 

[stevebowhunts]

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...

+1. Good example.

 

[stevebowhunts]

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

Primus..You said that EMNof Seattle gave a narrow example, but he didn't. It matched what the baker was doing. As EMNofSeattle stated, the baker isn't refusing service to gays, he just refuses to take part in their gay wedding. The baker stated that he would bake them a shower cake or a birthday cake, but won't bake a wedding cake because he feels that would be taking part in a gay wedding that he has strong religious beliefs against. If he refuses service to gays, that's discrimination. He is only refusing to be a part of the wedding. Is there only one bakery in the state of Colorado, or are they just making an example of him?

 

[stevebowhunts]

In a free society a private business can make the choice of who they want to do said business with. And a free market would decide if that business stays in business. If people get there feelings hurt that a private business does not agree with them they scream discrimination. Now the state gets involved and takes away freedom to make someone else feel better about there life..

I know some will disagree with my opinion, but who's freedom of choice is more right... If a business does not want to do business with you that's their freedom of choice. Now the person who is upset also has freedom of choice to choose another business.
I do not buy the argument that a private business must give up there rights to accommodate everyone. Using that logic a private citizen should be compelled to spend money with businesses they do not agree with. But consumers have a choice of who they wish to spend there money with.

The state has no reason to get involved in private business. If you do not agree with a businesses spend your money elsewhere. Let the market sort it out.

+1. Well stated.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

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.

QFT +1 like etc.

 

[johnfenter]

And....

I know if I was order by a judge to make a cake, I would not be making the best cake at all.

Oh look there is some instant cake mix on the grocery shelf. Mix that up and then the artistic part might be rather offensive to them.

There's also the old "ExLax in the chocolate frosting" trick...

 

[Primus]

Primus..You said that EMNof Seattle gave a narrow example, but he didn't. It matched what the baker was doing. As EMNofSeattle stated, the baker isn't refusing service to gays, he just refuses to take part in their gay wedding. The baker stated that he would bake them a shower cake or a birthday cake, but won't bake a wedding cake because he feels that would be taking part in a gay wedding that he has strong religious beliefs against. If he refuses service to gays, that's discrimination. He is only refusing to be a part of the wedding. Is there only one bakery in the state of Colorado, or are they just making an example of him?

Thank you Steve for the correction. Then I would have to agree that they would have a right to not bake that individual cake. Again if they broadened it a bit further then I'd be against it. If they said they won't bake anything since they are gay then I think it crosses a line. To specify that type of cake is ok in my opinion.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

There's also the old "ExLax in the chocolate frosting" trick...

That crosses a legal boundary. Besides, it sounds like it's a running joke.

However, a "brown eye" that leaks Hydrogen-sulfide might be acceptable.

 

[countryclubjoe]

This tyrant judge is trying to force a businessman/citizen to enter into a contract. Is this judge for real? What is this tyrants justification for his unconstitutional decision?

I have no problem with the sexual orientation of anyone, I do have a problem with a government employee ( the judge ) threatening a citizen with fines ,fees or jail time for simply not wanting to enter into a contract with the gay couple or anyone for that matter...

This case will be dropped at the next level and the baker will be awarded attorney fees.. Case closed.

My .02

CCJ

 

[Citizen]

My .02 CCJ

Worth several kilos in gold, though.

 

[OC for ME]

This tyrant judge is trying to force a businessman/citizen to enter into a contract. Is this judge for real? What is this tyrants justification for his unconstitutional decision?

I have no problem with the sexual orientation of anyone, I do have a problem with a government employee ( the judge ) threatening a citizen with fines ,fees or jail time for simply not wanting to enter into a contract with the gay couple or anyone for that matter...

This case will be dropped at the next level and the baker will be awarded attorney fees.. Case closed.

My .02

CCJ

Read the op again, it is right there. The judge is practicing some social justice. If the baker bakes a cake for birthdays and showers for gay folks then he is not denying service to gays.....except in that judge's mind.

 

[45 Fan]

As a gay man, I would like anti-gay bakery owners on a list...so i can stop spending money at their stores. Social Justice has its own methods, the method is rather obvious and simple. STOP SPENDING MONEY AT SAID SHOP. If you get enough people to rally alongside you, you can essentially deprive the business of consumers and then it will close.

The government should stop making gay rights an issue.

Bakers and other business owners need to practice some PR Techniques. 'I have decided not to do business with you, please leave.' And if they argue, 'I have decided not to do business with you, I am calling the police if you do not leave immediately.' and so forth...how hard is it to go to trial and go, 'This is policy, this is all that was said. I decided I did not want to do business with that person on that day.'

 

[Freedom1Man]

As a gay man, I would like anti-gay bakery owners on a list...so i can stop spending money at their stores. Social Justice has its own methods, the method is rather obvious and simple. STOP SPENDING MONEY AT SAID SHOP. If you get enough people to rally alongside you, you can essentially deprive the business of consumers and then it will close.

The government should stop making gay rights an issue.

Bakers and other business owners need to practice some PR Techniques. 'I have decided not to do business with you, please leave.' And if they argue, 'I have decided not to do business with you, I am calling the police if you do not leave immediately.' and so forth...how hard is it to go to trial and go, 'This is policy, this is all that was said. I decided I did not want to do business with that person on that day.'

It's not about equal rights, it's about special rights.

 

[OC for ME]

As a gay man, I would like anti-gay bakery owners on a list...so i can stop spending money at their stores. Social Justice has its own methods, the method is rather obvious and simple. STOP SPENDING MONEY AT SAID SHOP. If you get enough people to rally alongside you, you can essentially deprive the business of consumers and then it will close.

The government should stop making gay rights an issue.

Bakers and other business owners need to practice some PR Techniques. 'I have decided not to do business with you, please leave.' And if they argue, 'I have decided not to do business with you, I am calling the police if you do not leave immediately.' and so forth...how hard is it to go to trial and go, 'This is policy, this is all that was said. I decided I did not want to do business with that person on that day.'

A well reasoned post. +1 to you Sir.

However, there are those in the LGBT community who do not share your view point and desire the state to implement social justice for them. Those folks want to keep gay rights a government priority, clearly anti-liberty in my view. I would request that you start with your fellow gays and work to ween those amongst the LGBT community who rely upon the state first from using the state as their agent until all lesser means have failed.

On a side note, the perception of any slight as a civil rights affront has gone way past what I think was intended back in 1964. Unless of course not baking a cake for you is a interstate commerce issue and thus actionable in a federal court.