Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by esdad71


The role of the baker is not to enforce the law. If the couple got married, somehow, illegally (which cannot happen, as "marriage" is a licensed affair) the baker would not be complicit.

You are arguing from the angle of him having a right to decline to participate in an illegal act. That is not accurate. It has been explained to you ad nauseum. To the point of where now it is more a matter of who can outlast.

The baker was asked to bake a cake. That is the service he provides. Calling it a "wedding cake" was a descriptive of what was being made. There is no such thing as a "gay wedding cake", or any other such nonsense. It is just a cake.

And the only illegal action that he could have take was what he took: to deny service to someone based on sexuality. Making the cake would not have violated any law, and would in fact have aligned him with the law (by having him offer the same service to another person).

If gay marriage is not legal in Colorado, where did they marry? Because without a license no wedding happens. A ceremony may happen....but that is not a wedding.

If you want to protect the rights of everyone, then you have to ensure everyone is treated without discrimination. Otherwise you are protecting the bakers right to religious bigotry while ignoring the gay people's rights. All undre the guise of the baker having some legal standing in his fight against the injustice of gay marriage.

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MalynnWhat is it with people comparing homosexuality with beastiality? As if the two could even remotely be compared.

Why not?

I have just read through your "contributions" thus far. And I must say, it has been a long time since I have seen someone on ATS so obviously under the charm of MSM media and the false political dichotomy.

Free Republic obviously left its doors open, and one of the animals got loose.

Originally posted by Darth_Prime

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MalynnWhat is it with people comparing homosexuality with beastiality? As if the two could even remotely be compared.

Why not?

Why not compare Homosexuality and Beastiality? surely you jest?

Well why not? Both involve unnatural sex though the climax can be achieved. Surely there cannot be an offspring and certainly no re-production of the species from their relationship You can love animals just the way the gay couple love each other. There's the loyalty, trust, compassion etc etc. Aaah...its the TAXES, BENEFITS and WELFARE issue thats been catching up to the already existing couples.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MalynnWhat is it with people comparing homosexuality with beastiality? As if the two could even remotely be compared.

Why not?

I have just read through your "contributions" thus far. And I must say, it has been a long time since I have seen someone on ATS so obviously under the charm of MSM media and the false political dichotomy.
Free Republic obviously left its doors open, and one of the animals got loose.

Good guess but No. It has nothing to do with MSM See my other response to another poster. On the other hand, your statement makes it seem like you've been under the charm of a non-MSM media? MSM has been dead for a very long time.

Originally posted by esdad71



However, forcing someone to do something against their religious beliefs is.

If making a wedding cake is against his religious belief, he needs to get out of the cake-making business.

reply to post by hp1229

Both involve unnatural sex

Would "unnatural sex" also include blow up dolls, dildos and other sex toys?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by hp1229

 

Both involve unnatural sex

Would "unnatural sex" also include blow up dolls, dildos and other sex toys?

Ofcourse. Thanks for the additional info.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


This argument is not just about a cake anymore. It is about freedoms. The freedom for someone to say no, I do not believe in that so I will not support it. Do you not realize that it has broader applications than just a cake for two gay people. It opens a door to no choice for yourself and having to do somehting no matter what you believe in or feel.

If you are gay you are free to profess your love for another person of the same sex but if I follow a religion I cannot express how I feel? That is hypocritical. I am trying to dissect the law now not say whether or not they should get a cake. Should they, yes, but not at the expense of another persons freedoms. It is not discrimination to me if he will hire gays, make a cake for gay people but not create one for a gay marriage. That is what the cake is for. That is what they went to buy and it goes against this beliefs.

It is the right of the baker to have freedom of religion and it is not correct to allow the state of Colorado to make him do something against his beliefs but allow someone else the right to theirs. If they do, go the the Supreme Court and see what they say.

reply to post by esdad71



My God!!! Are you still going on about this???


You are WRONG.

Everyone has pointed out how you are wrong.... Sheesh.

Just stop man....

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

If you are gay you are free to profess your love for another person of the same sex but if I follow a religion I cannot express how I feel? That is hypocritical. I am trying to dissect the law now not say whether or not they should get a cake. Should they, yes, but not at the expense of another persons freedoms.

Agree. Unfortunately the vote bank politics is such that the laws/amendments/changes will be favored where the parties expect to win or gain more votes.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

This argument is not just about a cake anymore. It is about freedoms. The freedom for someone to say no, I do not believe in that so I will not support it. Do you not realize that it has broader applications than just a cake for two gay people. It opens a door to no choice for yourself and having to do somehting no matter what you believe in or feel.

YOu can arbitrarily move the goal posts all you want, I suppose. But don't be surprised when the rest of the world looks at you like a lunatic.

If you are gay you are free to profess your love for another person of the same sex but if I follow a religion I cannot express how I feel?

You certainly can. Express your disdain for homosexuality all you want. Words are not actions, and actions are what we are talking about here.

That is hypocritical.

No, it isn't. Everyone can feel about it however they want. It is wholly consistent. It is how those feelings are acted upon that are at issue here.

I am trying to dissect the law now not say whether or not they should get a cake.

First you should dissect how speech and action are two different things, and how this is not a debate about the first amendment.

Should they, yes, but not at the expense of another persons freedoms.

His freedom to feel about that matter is still intact. It is his ability to act that is impinged. Since nondiscrimination laws were needed to curtail all other manner of bad behavior amongst our populace, this is where we are at now. Perhaps the baker should exercise his freedom to no longer provide wedding cakes, so he isn't confronted with further illegal activity.

It is not discrimination to me if he will hire gays, make a cake for gay people but not create one for a gay marriage. That is what the cake is for. That is what they went to buy and it goes against this beliefs.

He is free to believe what he wants. But if he is using the criteria of a protected class as a determining factor, then it is illegal. What if he didn't beleive in hispanic weddings, could he refuse to making a wedding cake for a latino couple?

It is the right of the baker to have freedom of religion

yes, but his rights cannot infringe those of others. Since the matter of the right to not be discriminated against exists in Colorado, it seems as though the matter is clear.

and it is not correct to allow the state of Colorado to make him do something against his beliefs but allow someone else the right to theirs. If they do, go the the Supreme Court and see what they say.

Then do it. Until then, what the baker did is illegal.

Regardless, it is pathetic that we have to have laws to tell us to be civil to others. That bakers religion does not instruct him to be a bigot. That is his own personal spin, and not a religious belief.

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by hp1229

Originally posted by MalynnWhat is it with people comparing homosexuality with beastiality? As if the two could even remotely be compared.

Why not?

I have just read through your "contributions" thus far. And I must say, it has been a long time since I have seen someone on ATS so obviously under the charm of MSM media and the false political dichotomy.
Free Republic obviously left its doors open, and one of the animals got loose.

Good guess but No. It has nothing to do with MSM

See my other response to another poster. On the other hand, your statement makes it seem like you've been under the charm of a non-MSM media?

MSM has been dead for a very long time.

edit on 10-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

Media? Who has time for media. I wile away a few minutes here on occasion. Otherwise, I am too busy working to support my family, or spending time with my family, to take in any media. Especially once I discovered that all media is mainstream. "They" bought out all the alternative sites long ago. the world of WWW is about venture capitalism. Get a start up, sell it off. Feed the beast.

But you going on about communist this and Obama that....how does any of that have anything to do with this discussion? Don't bring your fixation into this. It is all about people treating others with decency, and the sad fact that there are laws that tell us to do this because so many people won't.

Then I get to ATS and see folks defending treating people without decency, and believe that a religion would encourage bigotry. That saddens me, that there are people who would accept bigotry from their God. If there is a Christian God, then why would he not just remove homosexuality altogether, if it is so disgusting to him. None of it makes sense, and I feel a little dumber having to even discuss it anymore.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


They were married in Massachusetts, but wanted to celebrate in Colorado with other family members.
To answer one of your other questions, there is the matter of free will.
Don't you make up your mind not to murder someone? The Ten Commandments say God doesn't want us to murder people, but why did we need the Ten Commandments to tell us not to? Because He gave us free will to choose, and to reap the consequences.

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Galatians 6:7 King James Bible

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
They were married in Massachusetts,

Exactly. So the cake they wanted wasn't even a wedding cake, really, as they couldn't have a real wedding in Colorado. It was a party cake. Even more reason for the baker not to refuse to serve them.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by hp1229
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by hp1229
Originally posted by MalynnWhat is it with people comparing homosexuality with beastiality? As if the two could even remotely be compared.

But you going on about communist this and Obama that....how does any of that have anything to do with this discussion? Don't bring your fixation into this. It is all about people treating others with decency, and the sad fact that there are laws that tell us to do this because so many people won't.

I am not going on and on. I am only responding and agreeing to someone else's comments. Whats wrong in expressing my thoughts and/or opinions? Is it illegal? Yes I do agree it is silly if you ask me that we have twenty plus pages of discussions on this topic. But it shows how sensitive the issue really is in our times. So why not discuss the heck out of it and possibly make some sense? Fair enough? I'm on the same boat as you are working to make the ends meet with wife and kids. But I would also like to understand the changes in our society, laws, politics, the associated special interests/rights groups (LGBT, Illegal Immigration, Gun Laws, Healthcare etc etc) and where its heading and how it could affect my family especially taxes. Everytime I turn around, they're going up much more quickly than it should IMO. Personally, I couldn't care less about what and who someone decides to live with/marry legally/illegally and lead a life. Just do not cause chaos and controversies and shove/force their belief system upon/unto others using the political tools and MSM claiming that the existing rules/regulations/religious beliefs are BS and that we should change them to adhere to theirs. Life is too fast and difficult as is.

Originally posted by hp1229
Originally posted by Foreshadow
"But a bakery who sells wedding cakes MUST sell a wedding cake to the populous at large"
Is this Communist Russia? I Must Sell? Say again?

I guess the liberal agenda is working. Sad to see it is heading towards it...'communism' that is from the forecast and changes that we've been put through the last 5 years by the almighty POTUS.

reply to post by hp1229

Both involve unnatural sex

According to whom?

It's a free country who are you to judge what two people want to do in their own bedroom.

reply to post by esdad71


You know, you are right, this is not just about wedding cakes. The same issue came up when Progressive activist and socialite Sandra Fluke decided that the University Institution which she voluntarily went to had a health insurance program which did not cover contraception. What did the Obama administration do, they invited her to testify before Congress to state her case, and to speak in front of the DNC delegation, then they proceeded to try to tell the Catholic Church what they can and cannot do. Obamacare forces the Catholic Church to do their bidding.

The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide full health care coverage for contraception, though the rule exempts houses of worship like churches or synagogues. However, other nonprofits with religious affiliations -- such as, for instance, a Catholic university -- were expected to comply. The Obama administration faces several lawsuits over the issue.

www.cbsnews.com...
I'm sure we all remember the brouhaha over this.

It's the same thing. Progressives want the govt to force everyone to acquiesce to their varied demands, and then we end up in the courtroom.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by hp1229

 

Both involve unnatural sex

According to whom?It's a free country who are you to judge what two people want to do in their own bedroom.

According to the laws of Nature. I'm Just a normal human being/mammal It is common sense not a judgement. It is built-in instinct

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by hp1229

 

Both involve unnatural sex

According to whom?

It's a free country who are you to judge what two people want to do in their own bedroom.

If this baker only knew HOW MANY of his customers are guilty of "unnatural sex"!

HAHA! ""I'll give you my VIBRATOR when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands"

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by grey580reply to post by hp1229

 

Both involve unnatural sex

According to whom?It's a free country who are you to judge what two people want to do in their own bedroom.

If this baker only knew HOW MANY of his customers are guilty of "unnatural sex"!HAHA! ""I'll give you my VIBRATOR when you pry (or take) it from my cold, dead hands"

Truely a sad society we're living in....really.