Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

a reply to: Annee

and further more A gay person does not have to annonce what their sexual oreintation is when they walk doan the street. I can;t hide my skin tone when I walk down the street.

So dont say the two equality issues are the same

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: Annee

and further more A gay person does not have to annonce what their sexual oreintation is when they walk doan the street. I can;t hide my skin tone when I walk down the street.

So dont say the two equality issues are the same

You wouldn't know most homosexuals if you stood next to them.

I can stereotype behaviors of those of certain skin colors, just as you have stereotyped homosexuals.

a reply to: Metallicus

if the govt can really do this to a guy wow

we aren't free people of the once America, we are all PRISONERS in a NATIONAL PRISON>

I dont get the ruling, its is right to be a biggot, why force the man to bake a cake, he owns is shop its is decision.

How is forcing someone to do something againts is belief in any way logical.

Just boycott is store, that should be enough.

a reply to: Annee

what are you talking about steortyping all I am saying is when you see a black person you see a black person when I see a man I dont know if he is a homosexual or not?

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: beezzer

Indeed.. People have a right to be trolls and small minded bigots. Just as the American Nazi's had the right to march on Main street in Skokie, Illinois. America is (was) a place where being a complete fool isn't (wasn't) illegal.

Times are changing...and I hope we continue to roughly agree on the definitions here, since definitions are all it takes anymore.

Brother bunny, it's a sad day when PC has restricted us from identifying the idiots.

what confuses me is people don't want the government to implement Anti-Discrimination laws, but they want the government to enforce discrimination laws... only government when it suits your views?

This is a fairly complex issue, but the judgment is somewhat simplistic in its nature. The government has the right to regulate commerce if it is interstate commerce, or as it has evolved through cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel V. United States, if it even indirectly affects interstate commerce. There are many court decisions that led to this, but this is being done principally through the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment under the equal protection clause.

Essentially, the court who rendered this decision has decided that homosexuality is an inherent trait, akin to race, or a handicap. You cannot discriminate against people for an inherent trait, you can only refuse service over a specific action.

Example: A restaurant could ask a gay couple to leave if they were kissing in their diner. But, they would have to apply this equally to all customers. If they ask the gay couple to leave for this action, they must ask all customers performing this action to vacate the premises, or else it is discrimination.

Since the court rendered the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, at least in that circuit court's jurisdiction homosexuality is now considered an inherent trait that cannot be discriminated against in matters of commerce.

I have struggled with how I view this, but I tend to side with the court, though I don't side with the actions the couple took, necessarily. The couple was not performing any action by which they could be refused service. If even a quarter of the baker's products were shipped in across state borders, then the government has the right to regulate their commerce.

Though this is my legal understanding, I still have sympathy for the baker and his employees. The lengths they're putting him through seems quite arbitrary. From what I've read, he's decided to not bake wedding cakes anymore, which is absolutely his right.

What if a baker did below:

I refuse service to all Christians since I find them to be hypocrites and followers of a satanic religious cult created by the antichrist Paul.

How would the Christian community respond to that? They would be outraged and call themselves victims of discrimination and call for action.

This is the other side of the judging coin that you seed with your duality hate. If you judge others you will be judged back. If you hate you will be hated back. What you seed you will reap. Again I say. Follow Jesus teachings/wisdom.

I wonder how many bakeries they visited that day. I highly doubt his was the first, unless they were served there before and noticed a cross on the wall or something. I read another story of a bakery that was sued after politely declining a request for a gay wedding cake via email. Same thing happened to a photographer, via email.

By the way, the article states that gay marriage is illegal in Colorado, is that true? At least in my "backwards" state of Mississippi our legislators have set up protections for our merchants from frivolous lawsuits before it becomes a problem. Other states should follow suit.

Kudos to this man for standing his ground. In return I'll be placing an order for enough cookies to cover the cost of a wedding cake.

a reply to: Bone75

Supporting Discrimination is why Laws like these are in place.

This is in accordance with the Constitution so why are people upset? shouldn't you be happy that people are upholding that?

a reply to: LittleByLittle

If I was refused service I would go elsewhere that is the beautiful thing about America.

Remember people there are more then one choice out there Lakewood has more then one bakery.

originally posted by: Bone75

By the way, the article states that gay marriage is illegal in Colorado, is that true?

Doesn't matter. It's not relevant.

However, LGBT are a legal protected minority against discrimination in Colorado.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
What if a baker did below:

I refuse service to all Christians since I find them to be hypocrites and followers of a satanic religious cult created by the antichrist Paul.

How would the Christian community respond to that? They would be outraged and call themselves victims of discrimination and call for action.

This is the other side of the judging coin that you seed with your duality hate. If you judge others you will be judged back. If you hate you will be hated back. What you seed you will reap. Again I say. Follow Jesus teachings/wisdom.

They could be refused service for practicing their religion in the restaurant, but not just because they were Christian.

I understand you were being somewhat facetious, but there is a distinction that has been made clear by the court regarding what commerce can be regulated and when. It can be regulated if it principally, or indirectly, affects interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The Equal Protection Clause comes into play when a person is being discriminated for a specific trait inherent to them.

This is why the company in Texas who banned the gay couple will not likely lose a court case, as long they can prove they banned them over the specific action of "leg rubbing" (whatever the hell that means) and that they refuse all customers who perform this action (which is next to impossible to prove one way or another without eyewitness accounts to testify differently).

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
what confuses me is people don't want the government to implement Anti-Discrimination laws, but they want the government to enforce discrimination laws... only government when it suits your views?

No Darth.

But people have to embrace even the freedom to be complete asshats.

If we lose even that little slice of freedom, then lord knows what's next.

originally posted by: IsntLifeFunny

This is why the company in Texas who banned the gay couple will not likely lose a court case, as long they can prove they banned them over the specific action of "leg rubbing" (whatever the hell that means) and that they refuse all customers who perform this action (which is next to impossible to prove one way or another without eyewitness accounts to testify differently).

There will be no court case.

The Texas city where Big Earls is, can legally discriminate against LGBT.

No one in this thread has yet to mention that the baker DID, in fact, offer to make the original lesbian couple cupcakes for their cermony. What I don't understand in the original article I read earlier today is that the complaint was brought by two MEN. One can only assume that the men were also refused by this company, a family owned and probably very homgenious group. How far do you think the Nazi "re-education" troops are going to get with this family? The baker was reported to say his/their policies, after 40 some-odd years of doing business, were suiting them just fine and probably wouldn't be changed.

As far as the quip about Jesus washing the feet of whores and other pre-supposed "low lifes" I'll assert what I did in another thread back in January - that is there is NO instance where Jesus didn't admonish anyone that came to Him to 'clean up their act' before He gave them any blessing. The whole argument that He was all about luuuuuv is horse hockey and a catch-all phrase to mean whatever the heck you want it to mean. He was about getting people to change their lives for the better. He never, never, EVER gave anyone permission to go and do as you please and have the Kingdom of Heaven open to them.

Glenn Beck had a really good monologue that covered the subject of out-of-control political correctness in his response to Stu's online article regarding the rape statistics being outright lies. If you have the time you ought to watch it. If I can find it again I'll post the link.

Ah, here it is: www.glennbeck.com...

You know, if I owned a bakery and a gay guy stopped in to have a cup of coffee and a cream puff every morning before work, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I'd probably get used to seeing him and miss him if he didn't show up one day, just like I would any other regular customer.

If my neighbor was gay, I'd lend him my lawnmower if his was broke and if I was having a few neighbors over for a barbeque, it wouldn't even occur to me to not invite him. If he could play cribbage and wasn't a lawyer, we might even become friends.

However, if he got married to another man, I wouldn't be able to attend his wedding and I wouldn't be able to bake him a cake. It's not that I might not want to attend, I certainly wouldn't enjoy hurting his feelings, but my understanding of my faith forbids my participation/attendance in a gay wedding. (It's my faith, not yours, so it's not up to you to dictate the terms of my faith or the way in which I believe it's to be exercised).

Now clearly there are limits to the amount of freedom a society can allow people in the exercise of their faith, largely based on the impact it might have on others. But the implications/consequences/impact or whatever you choose to call it, of a specific baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding on religious grounds, doesn't even begin to reach the level that would justify limiting said baker's freedom to exercise his religion as he sees fit. (Again, his religion, not yours, you don't get to dictate the terms of his religion/faith/beliefs).

And frankly, while I think the term "hate" is over used, the idea of forcing someone to violate there religious beliefs or close their business if the won't bake a cake for your wedding, or take pictures of your wedding, is just truly hateful. It necessarily involves a level of hate that a refusal to endorse your gay wedding simply doesn't require.

Whether you realize it or not, the gay rights activists are pushing more and more people away with this ridiculous over reaching, people that might have ended up being their friends and certainly wouldn't have wished them any harm or ill.

Having said all that, I think the laws that have been proposed, (And passed I believe in Mississippi), in reaction to the case of the baker and photographer are too broad and should address gay weddings specifically and narrowly. The legislatures are cowards for not having done so.

People still do have the right to be idiots... up until the point they break the law.

At that point, they bypass the idiot label and step into the criminal label.

And once you've broken the law, it is the court's job to dispense a form of punishment to deter any further law breaking. The court applied the exact type of punishment(s) necessary to enforce that this business owner no longer breaks any discrimination laws. The criminal now must show documented proof that he is no longer breaking said law, up and until his sentencing is satisfactorily completed... no different than if he were to serve prison time, house arrest time, or probation time.

It's called "crime and punishment" NOT "idiot and punishment".

You cannot break the law and try to save your sorry ass by ducking under the umbrella of religious beliefs... laws do not work that way.

This business owner lost his freedoms the minute he committed a crime. That's how it works.

It kinda worked that way in Nazi Germany, too, Crainial. Where do you take your stand and say "I will not participate in this idiocy"?? Anyone that disagrees with your liberal ideas is subject to your damnation?