Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

The privately owned business has a right to accept or reject whichever clients it wants.
On the flip side - people have a right to boycott this business if they dont' like the way it's run.
Welcome to freedom in America ...

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Honor93
should the owner be forced to expand her stock to satisfy a few who would make a stink about it ?

When asking a baker to make a cake that he makes for everyone else, how is he being asked to expand his stock? Reaching much?

hmmm, does he have the 'decoratives' necessary to accomodate a gay couple on the cake ???
if not, then he's being forced to expand his stock.

Oh ... another thought ...

When people are in a restaurant and they don't like the food, sometimes they send it back to the chef and say 'do it again' or 'get it right' or whatever. God only knows what the chef and kitchen staff do to food that goes out to people in the restaurant who complain.

that's why when we go out to eat .. we never complain about the food or send it back or whatever. If we don't like it, we just don't go back. And NEVER tick off a pizza delivery place when you place your order. those guys handle your food .... get the idea ....

If this gay couple pushes and tries to get this bakery to make them a wedding cake, and the baker doesn't want to, .... well .... If the baker gets forced to make a cake, I wouldn't want to be eating a cake made by the baker after that kind of fuss is made. Ya' know?? And if this gay couple moves on to another baker who happens to be friends with this baker ... I wouldn't want to eat that cake either. God only knows what the buddies at the bakers union or whatever say behind closed doors and do to the food.

Anyways ... that thought just came to me.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I'm only stating the law IN COLORADO

then maybe you should read it rather skim over the parts that fit your or this couple's agenda.

do tell, which of them was applying for a job again ?????

Maybe you should take your own advice?

What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?

Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status.

Since when does an employer "service" his employees? Unless we are talking about a porno movie?????

reply to post by HandyDandy

source please ?? and not a propaganda poster please.
i linked the LAW, what are you offering ?

as for services provided ... hotels offer "room service" ... restaurants provide "banquet accomodations" ... resorts offer "personal massages" ... frequently there are 'concierge' services offered ... and sometimes, some places provide "companionship/escort" services ... need i go on ???

Originally posted by Honor93
hmmm, does he have the 'decoratives' necessary to accomodate a gay couple on the cake ???

You mean iceing?

if not, then he's being forced to expand his stock.

BTW...I saw their wedding cake that they actually got from another bakery. It didn't have anything different on it than a normal bakery has.

Try again....

reply to post by HandyDandy

no, ICING is part of every cake

so, it wasn't THIS bakery that was so important eh ??
just that they be refused the service, as they believed they would be, before ever making an inquiry to complain about, right ????

so, which of the partners applied for a job at the offending bakery again ?

i see you aren't offering your source as requested, why is that ?

reply to post by HandyDandy

your propaganda piece isn't the law or reflective of what the law says.

What does the expanded Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?

Places of public accommodation may not
deny any person participation, entry, or
services based upon the person’s sexual
orientation, including transgender status

no source, no relevance.
if you want anyone to believe that, you really should provide a source as requested numerous times. otherwise, it's the same old propaganda for a new target, nothing more.

Originally posted by Honor93
i see you aren't offering your source as requested, why is that ?

Discrimination based on the following factors is illegal in the areas of:

Public Accommodation
Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), marital status, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a public accommodations discrimination proceeding)

cdn.colorado.gov... ame%3D%22Civil+Rights+Division+Poster+%28English%29.pdf%22&blobheadervalue2=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251842644831& ssbinary=true

For some reason the link doesn't work unless you copy it and paste it into your web browser.

Rule 20.4
- No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign which states or implies the following:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE

Public accommodations are facilities operated by private businesses whose operations affect commerce and come within one of the following twelve broad categories [42 USC §12181(7); 28 CFR §36.104]:
•An inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor.
•A restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink.
•A motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment.
•An auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering.
•A bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment.
•A laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment.
•A terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation.
•A museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection.
•A park, zoo, amusement park, or other place of recreation.
•A nursery, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education.
•A day care center, senior citizen center, homeless shelter, food bank, adoption agency, or other social service center establishment.
•A gymnasium, health spa, bowling alley, golf course, or other place of exercise or recreation.

www2.courtinfo.ca.gov...

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93
you are mixing apples and oranges.

the LAW covers employment not sales, try again or get back to me when you have a clue.

I'm getting back to you because you are WRONG. The law I linked to on page 3 talks, not about employment, but about businesses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by FlyersFan


No, they don't. Please see the link to Colorado law in my last post.

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by markosity1973
The point that I have been trying to make is that then opens up gay night clubs in particular to be sued in reprisal.

Good. If they are discriminating then they deserve it.

And this is where your straightness betrays you.

There is a good reason, albeit illegal why gay clubs do this. It is the only place a gay person can go and meet and make an advance on another person being safe in the knowledge they are not about to be beat up for it. I have been into gay clubs all over the world and the same entry policies apply. Yes some gay clubs do have events that see them open for straight folk but most are discriminatory to this day

Its actually not that easy out in the open world for 2 gay people to find one another you know. Sure the internet has changed things a bit, but we still need safe places to met.

i concur,

though, places i've done drag there have been straight guys who go with their Girlfriend, Likewise straight guys who just enjoy the entertainment,music,drinks Etc, straight people even go to pride events because they support the cause and community

no matter how much debates occurs, he refused based on discriminatory views, that is a law in Colorado, regardless if it was a Law or not, discrimination is wrong on any level and both sides

reply to post by Nucleardiver


i am all for equal rights, and do so personally.

But i was not aware homosexuality was a protected class. Sex is, sexual persuasion is not

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Sexual orientation is protected in Colorado, where this lawsuit is taking place.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


ahhh, well....good for Colorado.

Ah hah! I've got the solution.

An announced straight couple goes into the bakery and orders a same-sex wedding cake. The baker says "No, I don't do same-sex wedding cakes." He thereby proves he treats gays and straights the same. No discrimination, no lawsuit, case closed, thread done. Ta-daaa!

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Homosexualty became protected and a hot topic in the State of Colorado, following the Admendment 2 passing and the court cases after such.

But beyond that, what is disturbing about the entire Colorado law, is the lack of online text where a person could read this act in its entirity, it does not go into all of the details or notes or even go into the court challenges it has faced, as one would find in many other statutes of such. It is what they want you to see, not the entirity, and thus is questionable.

While discrimination is wrong, the question is why target one person or business? Is that not a form of bullying, is what the gay community, and those who know that this person does not and would prefer not to cater to those who want to celebrate a same sex marriage.

There are many principles here that are at play, and more questions keep arising, that should be answered, yet non so far.

The first and foremost of these questions that should be asked, and it is at the heart of the matter: Does the baker, if he has employees, has he denied any employment to anyone who is gay? If a gay person were to walk in and ask for a cake, not a wedding cake, does he refuse them service? These 2 questions should be answered first and foremost, before determining if it is or is not a case of discrimination. If he has hired and has on staff gay people, and has sold cakes and goods to gay people, then it is simply a matter of the fact that he does not believe in gay marriage and it is not a case of discrimination, thus the lawsuits are ultimately fradulent, and what is going on is an attempt to ruin his name and reputation.

On the flip side, the question is, if the couple knows that this man is not going to or be willing to make them a wedding cake, due to his belief, why then bring a lawsuit against him? Did he make any disparaging remarks about such, did he indicate that he does not like gay people, did he at any point and time indicate that he was disgusted by them? Does he have things like Focus on the Family litrature sitting around the shop?

Too many questions that are not answered nor are forth coming from either side.

But in either case it bodes well for the whole, as it will affect everyone who wants to do business in the State of Colorado, and for those who have strong religious convictions.

reply to post by HandyDandy


They asked for a cake with their names on it. This is why it was rejected. Again, why it someone who is gay more important than someone who has religious beliefs. The laws is unconstitutional and at this point, hopefully, it will also be overturned by this ridiculous attack on religious freedoms, because that is what it is. Like I posted before, they are minutes outside Denver where they could get any type of cake, like they did.

Twice now this baker in the last year has been targeted by gay couples. I say, get a life. If your life is so miserable your only goal is to make others miserable than you get what you deserve.

Again, I use the kosher deli as an example. Ridiculous as it may sound it fits the same bill. They should have gone home where it is legal and done a few bong hits and find another bakery.

Also. earlier I linked a quote from the baker who says he employs gay people but based on his religious beliefs he did not want to make the cake. So, it was not refusal to accommodate but a refusal based on personal religious beliefs. In America, you have freedom of religion. Last time I checked being gay is not a religion but a pre-determined genetic imprint.

They could have also simply goggled Fay Friendly bakeries in Denver...there are 5 pages...

Link to List of Gay Friendly Bakeries

That is what normal people who do not want publicity or money from a lawsuit would do.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
They asked for a cake with their names on it.

Source, please?

This is why it was rejected.

Source, please?

Again, why it someone who is gay more important than someone who has religious beliefs.

They aren't. The baker's religious beliefs are intact. He is still free to believe, go to church, pray, worship, and otherwise practice his religion. But discrimination is not part of his religion.

Twice now this baker in the last year has been targeted by gay couples.

Seems he doesn't have any problems making a wedding cake for dogs...

reply to post by esdad71


In what reality does who you are having sex with determine the bakery you can use? Do you not see the sheer insanity of this?

I would say that if it is a Christian baker who is up in arms over having to bake cakes for gay people...they should ask themselves what the namesake of their religion would do. You know, Jesus....the guy who had among his best friends a prostitute.