Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by esdad71


Homosexuality is genetic and you cannot reverse it. At a very early age children usually will find themselves different than others, at different ages, and in the past you were just 'put in the closet' so to say. Now, there are many more outlets which is why I a, pushing the legal aspect of how they should move forward and like I had said before also, choose the battle correctly and you can win the war.

i appreciate the fact that you believe we were born this way,

though, it is Discrimination because he refused based on the nature of their sexuality and intended cake, had they been a straight couple he would have sold it, indeed, he has sold cakes to gay people, but he refused base don 'Gay Marriage' that under law is discriminatory,

he had to of been savvy on the laws, had he just been baking cakes out of his home and refused them, whilst it would still be 'Discriminatory' there would be no legal right to sue, but since it's a public service it falls under the laws, he has the freedom and right to any religion, any belief, he doesn't have to accept nor believe in gay marriage, but offering a public service, under 'law' he can't refuse based on discriminatory factors,

reply to post by Charmed707


In certain limited circumstances you could deny someone service.

Examples would be.

You don't want a biker gang in your bar because they tear up the place ie Vandalization.
A customer is harassing you verbally or physically.

There has to be a extremely good reason for you to not do business with someone.

Claiming that you don't agree with gay marriage because it's against your religion isn't a good enough reason to deny someone service.

And let me relate to you something that happened to me once.
Some 10 years ago my family owned a jewelry store.
We had one customer that was a good ol boy from georgia. As he described himself, "I'm a rebel flag wearing redneck and proud of it."
He had on his hat with a big ol rebel flag on it. A huge rebel flag belt and some really nice cowboy boots with his jeans and flannel shirt.

He told us that back in Georgia he was a deputy in some town and that..... he was at the time a member of the KKK.

I had a ex KKK member standing in front of me in my store. I'm hispanic. Should I have stopped doing business with this guy because he was or still was a confirmed racist?
I didn't kick the guy out because he was always well mannered, would always call me bubba, but it was definitely a shock.

But what shocked me even more wasn't that he told us the sheriff and other deputies were in the clan. But that he told us there were Mexicans and even an Italian guy in the clan.
What is this world coming to?

reply to post by grey580

You make Progressive sound like such a dirty word.

Yes, because historically the Progressive Era was earmarked by the embracing of eugenics and Totalitarian legislation. Wilson is the one who brought us the Espionage Act, wherein American citizens could be tried for speaking out against the government. Progressives brought us the Federal Reserve Act. The progressive income tax is the Marxists' dream of income redistribution.

The Progressives tried to permanently fix their reforms into law through constitutional amendments 16-19. The 16th amendment made an income tax legal (this required an amendment due to previous Supreme Court rulings).

en.wikipedia.org...

during President Wilson's tenure, both parties had their own versions of the Fed Reserve Act legislation.

The current incarnation of the income tax is the government using the tax arm of the law to target specific groups they hate. It's been in the news lately and I won't even say the name of the three letter word.

Progressives embraced the same kind of eugenics as any Totalitarian fascist. Margaret Sanger is infamous in this regard, she founded the American Birth Control League which is now Planned Parenthood, which is now involved along with SIECUS in bringing radical sexual education to schools through the Common Core Standards all the way down to kindergarten. Sanger believed in sterilizing black women to help them out of poverty. It was called "The Negro Project:" and the Rockefeller dynasty funded her.

Progressives during that era brought us Prohibition. And we know how well that worked out. Speakeasy anyone? The Kennedys made their fortune on bootlegged liquor, so I guess it profited some people. That is what totalitarianism is about, it's about restricting our freedoms "for our own good" and the good of the collective. It is Collectivism. Thanks to Progressives we have the Statist Dewey system running our education system. You may not think that's bad but the current incarnation of that is data tracking of everything in our children's lives, including their parents religious affiliations and income and financial status, their behavior in school and mental health, right down to every pink slip. That is already happening right now. Have you heard of that giant data tracking warehouse in Utah?
How come all the Democrats who hated Bush are now on board with all this data tracking under Common Core?
I mean also Progressives in the Republican Party, because the Republican Party is not our grandfathers party.

What else is going on in the Progressive world today? Hillary Clinton helped bring us the Benghazi scandal.
Progressives are trying to eliminate second amendment rights.
They are trying to institute a global tax under the guise of global warming. That didn't work out so well, so people like Richard Trumka are sporting a world financial tax.
Then there's Agenda 21.... the Global government of the NWO and it's dedicated to the ultimate Totalitarianism of rationing all the resources of the world, the land usage, water rights, where and how people will live, and even health care.
Did you hear about how Kathleen Sebelius tried to stop that little girl from getting a lung transplant ostensibly because children don't do well with adult lungs and because some people just have to die. Yes Kathleen is a true Progressive.

But I guess if those things don't bother you...

reply to post by grey580


Since you've gone and brought up the KKK and Dixie rebels, you should know that Democrats were the original KKK and created the Jim Crow Laws, and the Southern Democrats also fought the abollitionists. We fought a bloody civil war over it.

But you probably believe the lies that it was all Republicans and conservatives.

I'm not for denying people services, unless they are waving a gun in my face, but that's another story.

But there is an agenda abroad in the land which is intended to attack all the traditional institutions, such as marriage. This has it's roots again in the Progressive mindset. Progressives today are aligned with the agendas of Marxism, whether they know it in their conscious mind or not. Just ask a Progressive today if they want to tax the rich. That comes right out of Marxism.
Doing Totalitarian things for our own good is right out of the Marxist Socialist playbook. Want a Big Gulp? Just ask a Progressive if it's alright. Want meat? Just ask a Progressive if it's alright. Want a Happy Meal? Just ask a Progressive if it's ok.
If you believe your children are yours, ask a Progressive if they think so too. Ask a Progressive today if it's ok to homeschool your kids.
Marx and Dewey believed the kids belong to the State and today's Progressives do too, as it is well known that a media person came out very loud about it recently.
Progressives are promoting everything collective and statist.

Many gay people have been attacked or even murdered just for being gay.

yah, not in my community lately, but there is no justification for that, absolutely.

And I don't condone stoning people. That is sooooo 2000 BC!

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I think you have read some of the same books i have about history and it is true. Sad part is that today people are not taught these things and the books that are written about them end up in the dollar store bin.

It will be interesting to see who and what the judge says when this is done.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

but since it's a public service it falls under the laws, he has the freedom and right to any religion, any belief, he doesn't have to accept nor believe in gay marriage, but offering a public service, under 'law' he can't refuse based on discriminatory factors,

Like I said already, you can force people to do things and enforce it with incriminating laws, but you can't make a person respect you and believe what you believe(at least not without resorting to brainwashing and disinfo).

I hear there are some reeducation camps around the US these days.

reply to post by charles1952

Even if the gay couple wins the suit, what does it to do reduce hostility, and advance full social acceptance? Just about the same thing that the Chick-fil-A business did.

They are hoping that by enforcing discrimination laws and reeducating people into their lifestyle from the earliest possible age(kindergarten officially in the national sexuality standards), they will win the hearts and minds of people and make it be the norm.

This is the change the Marxists wanted to bring.

I've said before that some of the early activists were members of the Communist Party. I'm speaking primarily of Harry Hay and some of his friends. But Harry apparently was too radical even for marriage.
Along in that vein, radical leftists seek to redefine traditional marriage. This comes out of the Marxist hatred of the bourgeois family, because they believed, as Karl Marx wrote in his Communist Manifesto that the bourgeois family was rooted in capitalism and must be abolished.
Today we see Progressives trying to redefine the traditional family in some very radical methods, including Hillary's It Takes A Village, and her desire to make children belong to the State and to the NWO through the UN RIghts of The Child. This is expressly for taking the parents out of the picture so they can reeducate the children into the norms the State desires, whatever that happens to be at any given time.
This is the real reasoning behind Common Core Standards. It's nothing less than Totalitarian Nationalization of education into the global community.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not think there was discrimination because he did it based on his protected religious beliefs.

That's exactly what you CANNOT do. The baker's religious beliefs have no bearing on the situation. He cannot "USE" his beliefs to justify discrimination. In the 50s, people used their religious beliefs in much the same way because they believed God didn't want blacks to dine with whites. Would you support that?

I am also not making excuses for him

That sure is what it sounds like.

So what happens if it is thrown out, do you then accept it and move on calling the judge a racist then or are you content with the decision?

I would have to hear the judgment and why it was thrown out. And "racist" doesn't enter into is. Gay is not a race.

They were free to go anywhere and choose a bakery that was known to not may same-sex wedding cakes.

THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME! Do you read my posts or just ignore them completely? If they knew about it, prove it. Show me where any source says they knew about it ahead of time.

You say they have no bearing. Are a persons religious beliefs not protected according to you? So, a person can believe two people of the same sex can be married (NOT a civil union) but not in what their god teaches. That seems very, very hypocritical to me as well as favoring one group over another. That is discrimination BH.

I do not support what happened in the 50's nor do I support someone discriminating against someone. I just do not think he did because it is a religious belief. Like it or not people have freedom of religion but there is not freedom to same-sex marriage in all states or at a Federal level.

Racist..ok, how about a 'bigot' judge. You know exactly what I meant as you are much smarter than to question that.

Link to 2012 article - non biased

So. since 1993 they have said no to other gay couples. Do you really want to tell me that these residents did NOT know. Give me a break, really...

Phillips explained that since 1993 the family owned and operated business has refused about half-a-dozen requests for same-sex wedding cakes. However, on Sunday he said he was forced to call police because of several death threats over the latest refusal.

Now, about the guys who went in there. Seems like they were ready to fight with these words. Humbled and put out...nice backpedal.

When Phillips refused, one of the pair, 28-year-old Dave Mullins, is reported to have said, “F*** you and your homophobic cake shop,” and directed an obscene gesture at the owner before leaving.

Phillips remarked that he is not “homophobic” and does not refuse service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. He does however draw the line on catering to same-sex “marriage.” Colorado does not recognize same-sex “marriage” or same-sex civil unions.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips said. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

You really think they did not know going in?

and you know for a fact, this was done AFTER the one in Colorado and this guy was targted....trying to make a point are we? You can play ignorant but you know what the truth is.

New case

Targeting. I hate to say it, but in all circles there are those who will do it and it does not help a cause one bit.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

The baker's religious beliefs have no bearing on the situation. He cannot "USE" his beliefs to justify discrimination.

Yah I hope you are going to cite this when Progressives ring in the new Sharia compliant version of the Constitution.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The baker's religious beliefs have no bearing on the situation. He cannot "USE" his beliefs to justify discrimination.

Yah I hope you are going to cite this when Progressives ring in the new Sharia compliant version of the Constitution.

What do you even say to something like that?

"Just you wait until the sparkling fairy princess returns with a Yellow Brick Road compliant version of the Monroe Doctrine."

I mean, it is just meaningless words.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


no one is asking for anyone to believe in anything they don't or are prohibited from based upon their religion.

no one asked you or anyone to 'believe' in gay marriage, just to accept us as Human and not discriminate, as you would a 'Straight' person

THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT AT THE TIME!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic




Not so sure about that.

The couple are alleging the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

'Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it's something that we champion at the ACLU,' said Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint on behalf of the couple.

mmmhmmm, probably all religious rights but Christian


There are also two other cases like this that I am aware of. Must be an accident.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

The baker's religious beliefs have no bearing on the situation. He cannot "USE" his beliefs to justify discrimination.

Yah I hope you are going to cite this when Progressives ring in the new Sharia compliant version of the Constitution.

Sharia law huh.

Let's look at this a little more closely. You obviously have the not entirely unreasonable fear that anti-discrimination laws will lead to the implication of religious law from Islam.

This is where the argument of separation between church and state become incredibly relevant. Everyone is entitled to freedom of religious belief as guaranteed by your constitution so belief in sharia law is quite okay by today's rules. So is the belief that gay = wrong under Christianity.

However, and this is a big however, it is not legal to take those beliefs and use them to discriminate service in the case of the cake or break secular laws in the case of Sharia law.

With the case of the cake consider this; It is okay for a butcher to not stock pork because he is a Halal butcher. Being a good Muslim, selling pork goes against his religious belief, so he does not stock it. He is not breaking the law by not stocking a type of meat and he is not singling anyone out for discrimination because he does not sell the product to anyone at all.

The baker on the other hand does sell wedding cake. But he decides at his discretion that he only sells the wedding cakes to straight people because it says in the bible that gay is wrong. The belief is not legally wrong, but the refusal to sell the cake is because he unlike the Halal butcher is refusing service to a select group of people.

Sharia law will do the same thing; it will override secular law when it gives someone XYZ strokes of the cane for drinking alcohol - we call that assault. It will override the law if they start trying to stone someone for having a baby out of wed lock - we call that murder.

Separation of church and state is more critical than ever in the issue of allowing a religion other than Christianity freedom to practise it's religious beliefs, especially so when those beliefs contravene current secular law. True it may be that our law is rooted in the bible, but we stopped stonings a long long time ago. We no longer declare a house with a patch of mould xyz in size unclean and we eat pretty much any type of food we want. It can therefore be argued that the law does not pander to Christianity and therefore should not bow to Islam either.

Don't most businesses have the "right to refuse service"? It's not good for business, but they do have that right.

Originally posted by WonderBoi
Don't most businesses have the "right to refuse service"? It's not good for business, but they do have that right.

That's a yes and no answer. Where anti-discrimination laws exist, then they are not allowed to refuse service based on gender, race, religion or sexuality including transgenderism. A bar can still refuse to serve a drunk person etc however.

reply to post by markosity1973

Let's look at this a little more closely. You obviously have the not entirely unreasonable fear that anti-discrimination laws will lead to the implication of religious law from Islam.

No, I have the awareness that AIG is a Sharia compliant insurance agent which Timothy Geithner was complicit in getting a taxpayer bailout, and Sharia Law is creeping into European countries, yes the ACLU defends people who believe in Sharia. It says so on their website.

Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws designed to prevent courts from applying Islamic or “Sharia” law, as well as “foreign” or “international law.”

Efforts to single out Muslims and to advance the ugly idea that anything Islamic is un-American are unjust and discriminatory and should be rejected. Laws that single out Sharia violate the First Amendment by treating one belief system as suspect. Attempts to prevent courts from considering international or foreign law suffer from constitutional flaws and undermine the ability of courts to interpret laws and treaties regarding global business, international human rights and family law issues such as international marriages and adoptions.

www.aclu.org...

So what was once the Progressive/atheist/secular demand for separation of church and state now has to be overruled to accommodate Sharia Law.

I said it before here that Progressives just make up their own rules as they go along, even if it means overruling their own previous demands.
I was just challenging BH's comment

are you saying that us gays are being utilized to issue 'Sharia Law'?

as far as them 'knowing' prior, all i have read said they found out about other cases after the brought it up on social media

reply to post by Darth_Prime

are you saying that us gays are being utilized to issue 'Sharia Law'?

No, I just wanted to know if BH was going to use the same argument to defend Sharia Law. Because Progressives are definitely supporting it. I suspect it is partly to garner the votes of muslims, but also because of hatred of Christianity.
Karl Marx hated religion and the bourgeois family. Progressives support the Islamic faith right now and seek to destroy Christian traditions.

I'm sorry if my saying that upsets you or anyone here, but it is a trend which can be easily seen with just a bit of research and observation. I have already pointed out where the ACLU defends Sharia. I have already pointed out that Progressives in the current administration got taxpayer bailouts for Sharia compliant company. At the same time, the traditional family unit consisting of a man, a woman, and a child is being attacked. I have shown where Progressives today believe that the children belong to the State and not the parent.
The Soviet ex-KGB agent Yuri Besmenov explained this also back in the 80's, and used the term "sleepers" for agents who would be agitators and activist for various issues in order to destabilize society. Since you likely won't take my word for it, here is his discourse.



"Now he makes it a political issue"

"violent clashes"

"human rights, women rights, kid leave whatever"

He said many of the sleepers were KGB agents who become leaders and they get money from foundations.

Guys? I know this is weird, but I have a favor to ask.

This is one of the tense issues floating around on the board now. Islam is another one. I was getting pretty tense.

Please consider taking a quick break and running over here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I just couldn't stop laughing. It's done a lot for my mental health, give it a try.

Thanks.