Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


My husband and I were turned away from an Italian restaurant in Florida one day, because he was wearing a tank top. This is an area where flip flops reign supreme.

Discrimination happens. Did we go sue the restaurant because we were rejected? It was 5 minutes from our house and we could have gone home and changed and come back, but oh well we just never went back there again.

reply to post by grey580

on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

They don't even have gender in that, so technically women could be discriminated against, if they don't invoke any of the other categories in addition.

So how come the guy's religion is being overruled?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Because claiming freedom of religion while discriminating is against federal law.

You may not deny someone service based upon any of the criteria.

Again. This is the same as a white business owner denying service based on race.

Or a muslim business owner denying service to a jewish person because they are jewish.

Your freedom of religion does not give you the freedom to discriminate against others.

reply to post by grey580


I saw nothing in that law that says anything about gender. Is gay a race?

By the way, activists are trying to revamp the old ERA amendment which was killed in Congress because of the potential of forcing pregnant women into active combat duty. They are trying to revamp the old ERA bill to add transgender, etc. The Occupy people were supporting that.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
My husband and I were turned away from an Italian restaurant in Florida one day, because he was wearing a tank top. This is an area where flip flops reign supreme.

I have shown the Colorado law that states it's illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Show me the Florida law that states it's illegal to discriminate based on attire.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
So how come the guy's religion is being overruled?

The race, religion, gender of the business person is irrelevant in law. It's the CUSTOMER who can claim discrimination.

If you're a black business person and a white customer says, "I'm not going to buy from you because you're black", that's perfectly legal. It's discrimination, but it's LEGAL discrimination.

FEDERAL law is not an issue in this case. Federal discrimination laws are irrelevant at this time. The guys are suing under Colorado law.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by grey580

 

I saw nothing in that law that says anything about gender. Is gay a race?

By the way, activists are trying to revamp the old ERA amendment which was killed in Congress because of the potential of forcing pregnant women into active combat duty. They are trying to revamp the old ERA bill to add transgender, etc. The Occupy people were supporting that.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

I see religion in there.
And religion has always implied either religious or lack of religious beliefs.

I'm sure YOU would count that gay marriage falls under the lack of religious beliefs.

So there you have it. No business may discriminate for either having or not having a religious belief.

reply to post by grey580


Federal law is irrelevant here. Federal law doesn't list sexual orientation under their discrimination laws, but Colorado does.

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act

Effective May 29, 2008, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was expanded to include sexual orientation, inclusive of transgender status, to the list of protected classes for public accommodations. Colorado now prohibits discrimination against individuals because they are straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in establishments like restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and hospitals.
...
A public accommodation is any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public, as well as any place offering facilities, privileges, advantages or other accommodations to the public.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Well, since I thought the thread was talking about discrimination in a broad sense, I didn't know we were talking exclusively law here. But thanks for the info.

Never mind...thanks for pointing out the law for me. Well that's it then. Open and closed case probably.

reply to post by grey580

I'm sure YOU would count that gay marriage falls under the lack of religious beliefs.

Honestly, I never saw it that way. Gay does not imply lack of religion, since we know there are gays who are religious and even specifically Christian.

But you assume way too much here. And what's new about assumptions on this forum?

I'm inclined to think you are the one who associates gay with no religion. Interestingly, the Kama Sutra is the Hindu manuscript on Sacred Sex and homosexuality is not expressly forbidden.
However, marriage in India is still between a man and a woman traditionally, and premarital and extra marital sex is still frowned upon. I think it is really more cultural, and religious practices often reflect the cultural mores of a society.

reply to post by AshleyD


www.lifesitenews.com...

OCEAN GROVE, New Jersey, January 13, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A New Jersey judge ruled against a Christian retreat house that refused to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony to be conducted on its premises, ruling the Constitution allows “some intrusion into religious freedom to balance other important societal goals.”

so its sort of all ready happening



www.washingtonpost.com... this judge is refusing to marry any one until gay marriage is legal

www.ontopmag.com... where as this judge refuses to marry same sex couples in Washington and its evidently legal (blames it on scheduling conflicts)

yahoo answers so take this for what its worth but answers.yahoo.com... states that churches can not be compelled to marry any one they dont want to ,i think with an exception being for churches that accept state/federal monies can not discriminate

but if they recieve no monies and are not for profit they seem to be-able to discriminate against any one they want legally.

so you can sue a judge i think but not a member of the church in most cases

www.abajournal.com... sort of simaler to the OP's article

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


Great post. This is what I mean by the imposition of Totalitarian measures of control by parties who have certain ideological agendas.

I'm sure they mean it as an open door to Sharia Law, since that trend is already happening in other parts of the world, and there is only that pesky little US Constitution stopping them here.
And so much for separation of church and state. Oh well, we know that Progressive ideologues change the rules whenever they want something. I wish the Progs would make up their mind. Do they want no religion with secular demands or do they want religion according to what they personally desire?

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
so its sort of all ready happening

Not really. That is not a church. It's a "retreat house" that the church rents out. That means it's a business. That means they cannot discriminate in business, based on sexual orientation, according to New Jersey Discrimination Law. No one was asking the CHURCH to marry them.

www.washingtonpost.com... this judge is refusing to marry any one until gay marriage is legal

Which is her right. She is not of the church, either. She has never performed marriages and is not required to do so. Once gay marriage is legal, she will marry both straight and gay people. No case for discrimination. Besides, Texas doesn't have an Anti-Discrimination law for public accommodation, so the only way someone could sue, would be under federal law, which, at this time, does not protect sexual orientation. She would be free to marry ONLY gay people if she wanted.

www.ontopmag.com... where as this judge refuses to marry same sex couples in Washington and its evidently legal (blames it on scheduling conflicts)

It's not legal (and he's not a church or pastor). He just hasn't been sued yet. He's getting away with it, just as the Colorado baker was, before this gay couple sued. If someone decides to sue, they'll likely win.

churches can not be compelled to marry any one they dont want to ,i think with an exception being for churches that accept state/federal monies can not discriminate

That is correct.

www.abajournal.com... sort of simaler to the OP's article

Exactly. Very similar to the OP.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The lines are all purposely being blurred to serve people's political and personal ideologies and agendas. This is what they are doing with the NGO's and the public/private partnerships.

The more they can blur the lines the more control they can demand and have over the populace.

ebooks.cambridge.org...

www.infosecurity-magazine.com...

thinkprogress.org... another case like the op's this one involving flowers

thinkprogress.org... this is a link to the bill that is trying to make it legal to discriminate against gays on religious grounds in Washington state and relates to the above case
apps.leg.wa.gov... link to full text of the bill
so from reading the bill it will be in effect august first meaning that in Washington it will be legal to discriminate legaly against those who offend "religious" views or beliefs

Republicans in Washington state have proposed a bill that would allow businesses to openly discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation if they want to do so because of their religious beliefs. SB 5927 carves out a specific exception to the state’s nondiscrimination law that says only federal protections — which don’t include sexual orientation — apply when a person’s religious belief is “burdened”: Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience. This subsection does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law applicable to the state as of the effective date of this section. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. Unsurprisingly, the bill’s sponsor is state Sen. Sharon Brown (R), whose district is home to Arlene’s Flowers, a business facing two lawsuits because it refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Conservatives have claimed that the nondiscrimination protections Arelene’s violated are tantamount to Nazi homofascism, a sentiment Brown seemed to echo by claiming, “There’s a glaring lack of protection for religion in state law.”

so while a diffrent state then colorado it is showing the patch work of laws that exist ,ie one state says you cant another sets up a law that says you can

kdvr.com... seems that they have seen an uptick in buisness since refusing to do service in the op's case

LAKEWOOD, Colo. — A Lakewood gay couple may end up having a masterpiece of a wedding, but they won’t have a “Masterpiece” cake to go along with it. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, told the couple they have their sexual orientation to thank for that. It’s an event that occurred on the afternoon of July 19, and it’s sparking national attention, a petition and a boycott of the local bakery. Phillips said it has also spiked a boom in his business, which he said has doubled since the incident. It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September. Phillips informed the couple his business does not create cakes for gay weddings. Mullins took to his Facebook page.

seems that while business it up they did get several death threats......



pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com... seems the sb5927 did NOT pass as the site seems to still claim

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


why? why do you suspect they had an agenda but he didn't? maybe they thought him the best baker and thus wanted his services for his talents


it's not forcing anyone to 'agree' with their lifestyle, it's saying. if you want to offer a public service, you can't discriminate against anyone,

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
The lines are all purposely being blurred to serve people's political and personal ideologies and agendas.

I don't see any indication that any lines are blurry in the cases we've discussed. These cases all are very clear as to what each state's laws allow and what they prohibit, as regards sexual orientation discrimination. Churches are NOT being forced to marry gay people, as was the original concern.

You may be right about a larger agenda, but for this thread (and my current interest), the laws are very clear.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I would say that it still holds true under the umbrella of anti discrimination in general.

If your personal belief is that your god allows gays to get married. And you're discriminated against then you're covered.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by grey580

 

I'm sure YOU would count that gay marriage falls under the lack of religious beliefs.

Honestly, I never saw it that way. Gay does not imply lack of religion, since we know there are gays who are religious and even specifically Christian.

But you assume way too much here. And what's new about assumptions on this forum?

I'm inclined to think you are the one who associates gay with no religion. Interestingly, the Kama Sutra is the Hindu manuscript on Sacred Sex and homosexuality is not expressly forbidden.
However, marriage in India is still between a man and a woman traditionally, and premarital and extra marital sex is still frowned upon. I think it is really more cultural, and religious practices often reflect the cultural mores of a society.

edit on 12-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I'm glad that you recognize that.
I've run across several hard core christians that think gays are godless creatures.
And that's just not true.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The lines are all purposely being blurred to serve people's political and personal ideologies and agendas. This is what they are doing with the NGO's and the public/private partnerships.

The more they can blur the lines the more control they can demand and have over the populace.

What exactly is it that is being blurred?

Anti discrimination laws are popping up all over the world like the one being debated in the case of the cake here. If anything they make things more crystal clear than ever. i.e. in this case, refuse to sell a cake because you don't like a gay customer = get sued because it's illegal. The same law would apply if the baker refused to sell it to someone because they were a male, Asian, or a Buddhist etc etc The ideology behind this law to create an even and equal playing field for everyone

The cake example may sound petty to some (myself included) but the principle behind it is not.

What exactly is it that you fear?

Are you worried that you will lose your position of privilege in society? Are you worried that the small amount of the population who are gay are going to become militarized and stage a coup or something? Fear clouds our judgement and makes small problems seem a lot bigger. Sometimes it can make something that is not a problem at all seem like the end of the world is looming over our heads.

Remember, a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and a society is only advanced as it's most underprivileged member.