Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by Beartracker16
Because the gay couple plainly targeted this particular business, could the owner counter sue for malicious persecution?
I could have said prosecution too.

edit on 7-6-2013 by Beartracker16 because: added thought

I posted this earlier...

This is about a targeted attack on a small business by these two guys. They knew it going in. It is, then by definition, a conspiracy against the baker.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


If I were that shop owner and faced with that situation I would have told them I am not conformable making that cake due to my religious beliefs or whatever. If they objected or became demanding I would simply ask them to leave. If they refused to leave then I can have the police issue a trespassing warning.

As much as I don't like the police state America has become I do know certain situations require the police's help. This being one of them because in our sue happy, backwards legal system you have to know how to play the system.

For the record I support gay marriage and also support the right for private businesses to refuse service to anyone. It would be the business missing out on a sale, that should be enough punishment for not making the couple a cake.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by hp1229
My point was that since you consider the drug users/pedophiles etc etc as people that break the law, would you consider child marriage 'breaking the law'? or polygamy breaking the law?

It is legal in many countries around the world. Since we're referring to 'equal rights' here and the basis of what constitutes a 'law'. Dont tell me that we're only referring to the US laws here since we do criticize and/or pressure/force change in laws in certain countries, why not look at laws that are legal in other countries ?

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-6-2013 by hp1229 because: (no reason given)

Yes, child marriage is currently breaking the law. Yes, polygamy is currently breaking the law. Initiating a same sex marriage in a state that bans it is also breaking the law. Your point? Why are we looking at what other countries do? I live in America, so I am concerned with American laws. Americans don't follow other countries' laws. Banning child marriage prevents victimization of children. I'm good with that. I have no personal problem with polygamy, as long as children aren't being forced to marry. I'm not sure what all this has to do with the baker, though, except that apparently there is a law in Colorado that bans discrimination by a public establishment based on sexual orientation.

That is exactly the point. According to you and your opinion which is no different than some of the other minorities that feel the same way about their belief system about things we consider illegal. I brought this up since you brought up 'breaking the law'. Thus the question what is a law and who decides to make it a law? US or anywhere else?

reply to post by jrod

reply to post by Darth_Prime


Here is Colorado Law:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by hp1229


If you don't know what a law is, I don't think I can help you.

Definition of law (n)

Bing Dictionary


1.binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority
2.piece of legislation: an act passed by a legislature or similar body
3.legal system: the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established process

Synonyms: rule, regulation, decree, act, edict, ruling, commandment, directive, bylaw

reply to post by kaylaluv


Does anyone remember this case? Same thing...common sense approach.

Link - Man wants to be Hooters Waitress

Black people go to black businesses...Hispanics go to Hispanic businesses...Orientals go to Oritental businesses..so, why do gay people not go to gay businesses?

Do you see the common sense approach here. It is not about rights. They were not told to leave the store because they were gay. If they had tried to purchase an off the shelf cake i am sure the man would have sold it to them, why not? But again, like my other point earlier, if I asked for a cake of a naked woman, and a baker refused, not on religious beliefs but said it was distasteful, that would be a violation of my sexual orientation, right, according to the law?

reply to post by kaylaluv
I know the definition of Law. Nevermind. You wouldn't understand.

1.binding or enforceable rule: a rule of conduct or procedure recognized by a community as binding or enforceable by authority.

Which community? What comprises a community? Just a group of single religion or multi religious people with different belief systems? And if someone doesn't agree with 'same sex marriage' or turning it into a 'law', does that violate the laws of the community? Majority or the Minority?

legal system: the body or system of rules recognized by a community that are enforceable by established process

Which community are we referring to ? LGBT or the Majority ?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Why should he be closed down because of his personal beliefs...sounds a little 1930's to me...

No I said I hope it closes down, not it's closed down.
I hope people boycott it and the owners are forever tarnished with the bigot brush for their very 1930's attitude.

Is a bakery considered a restaurant? First legal question......

I just support a private business being able to refuse service to anyone. Clearly that is not a right anymore.

Originally posted by stargatetravels

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Why should he be closed down because of his personal beliefs...sounds a little 1930's to me...

No I sad I hope it closes down, not it's closed down.
I hope people boycott it and the owners are forever tarnished with the bigot brush for there very 1920's attitude.

Dont worry. Similar to 'Chick Fil A' incident last year, the sales will go up

reply to post by jrod

If I were that shop owner and faced with that situation I would have told them I am not conformable making that cake due to my religious beliefs or whatever. If they objected or became demanding I would simply ask them to leave. If they refused to leave then I can have the police issue a trespassing warning.

But why? Why open yourself up to a lawsuit just to make a point? A simple "we are not taking anymore orders" negates this whole issues.

As much as I don't like the police state America has become I do know certain situations require the police's help. This being one of them because in our sue happy, backwards legal system you have to know how to play the system.

For the record I support gay marriage and also support the right for private businesses to refuse service to anyone. It would be the business missing out on a sale, that should be enough punishment for not making the couple a cake.

They are free to refuse service to anyone, so long as it is not based on discrimination.

Originally posted by stargatetravels

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Why should he be closed down because of his personal beliefs...sounds a little 1930's to me...

No I said I hope it closes down, not it's closed down.
I hope people boycott it and the owners are forever tarnished with the bigot brush for their very 1920's attitude.

edit on 7-6-2013 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)

Unfortunately, if this is anything like the case in oregon, this will only serve to get them more business.

Originally posted by jrod
Is a bakery considered a restaurant? First legal question......

I just support a private business being able to refuse service to anyone. Clearly that is not a right anymore.

Here you go Though this one is specific to NH, I saw many links to the query to other states. Definition(s) might vary a lil.

Step 1: Determine if the activity on the premises qualifies the operator to be a "restaurant ". A restaurant is defined by RSA 78-A:3 X (b) as:

A "restaurant" means an eating establishment where food, food products, or beverages including alcoholic beverages are served and for which a charge is made. The term includes, but is not limited to, a cafe, lunch counter, private or social clubs, diner, snack bar, dining room, food vending machine, and any other eating place or establishment where meals are served, even if the service of a meal is not the primary function of the establishment such as but not limited to convenience stores, gas stations, or supermarkets, but only as to the portion of such establishment that serves a Ameal@ as defined in this chapter. The term includes eating establishments whether stationary or mobile, temporary or permanent. (Emphasis added.)

Simple Bakery: A simple bakery is a bakery [or the bakery section of a store] that does not qualify as a restaurant. A simple bakery is one that does not sell taxable meals. It cannot, therefore, sell taxable coffee or any taxable beverages. A simple bakery cannot sell sandwiches of any kind or any other product that would meet the definition of a taxable meal. All bakery products sold by a simple bakery are not taxable. If the bakery or the bakery section of a store does sell any taxable meals, then the bakery would be classified as a "restaurant type bakery" and the bakery products sold would be considered taxable meals.

Restaurant Type Bakery: A restaurant type bakery [or the restaurant type bakery section of a store] is one that, in addition to bakery products, sells taxable meals. That is, a restaurant type bakery [or the restaurant type bakery section of a store] might sell taxable coffee or juice, or croissant sandwiches, or any other product that would be a "taxable meal". Once the bakery, or the bakery portion of a store, does sell any product that is taxable, then the facility or that section of the facility is classified as a restaurant.

All food and/or all beverages sold by a restaurant type bakery are taxable except:

a. Items sold for 35 cents or less;
b. Items that are wholly packaged off the premises and are sold in their original unopened container (except sandwiches), such as but not limited to canned soda or vending-type coffee cake;
c. All single serving bakery products sold in a quantity of six or more, such as but not limited to donuts, cookies, brownies, or bagels; or
d. Whole, multiple serving bakery products, such as but not limited to cakes, pies, or bread.

Step 2: Maintain documentation necessary to differentiate between the sale of taxable and non-taxable items.

Department of Revenue personnel are available to walk through your premises to help you identify taxable and non-taxable products and to answer any questions you may have. please be advised that any change in your operation may change the classification of your products.

Please Note: The following facts do not affect the classification of a bakery, or the bakery section of a store, as simple bakery or restaurant type bakery: whether or not seating facilities are available, if the items are served "to go" or are intended for on-premise consumption, if an item is sold with or without a beverage, and the method or location of payment.

NH_Definition

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
honestly, I suspect this is a marketing scheme by this shop. They knew it would grab headlines.

I'm thinking along the same line here. Lets see the outcome hopefully in a few weeks.

reply to post by jrod

Originally posted by jrod
Is a bakery considered a restaurant? First legal question......

It's not limited to restaurants. If you READ the post I linked to, all the info is there. The term is "public accommodation", which is defined IN Colorado LAW as "any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public".

I just support a private business being able to refuse service to anyone.

You may support that, but Colorado law does not.

And I don't support businesses refusing to serve someone because they're black, a woman, handicapped, white or Jewish. You do? You would support a restaurant refusing to serve white people???

Originally posted by stargatetravels

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by stargatetravels

 

Why should he be closed down because of his personal beliefs...sounds a little 1930's to me...

No I said I hope it closes down, not it's closed down.
I hope people boycott it and the owners are forever tarnished with the bigot brush for there very 1920's attitude.

edit on 7-6-2013 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)

But it would close down because of this lawsuit. Not fair. Sorry, they could simply go somewhere else but instead they will take away this guys livelyhood. What happened to freedom of choice in this country. He did not make they a cake that was horrible because they were gay or a slur. There is not a sign that says "No Homos allowed" like they used to have that said "NO IRISH!!!".

Again, I can empathize but move on. Some fights, with people who you deem ignorant and are not hurting anyone else, are not worth it.

Originally posted by esdad71

Black people go to black businesses...Hispanics go to Hispanic businesses...Orientals go to Oritental businesses..so, why do gay people not go to gay businesses?

Wow, did you really just write that? So you don't think a black person has ever bought a cake at this bakery because the owner is white??? I think the owners of Chili's restaurants are white - guess blacks and Hispanics just don't go there...

Do you see the common sense approach here. It is not about rights. They were not told to leave the store because they were gay. If they had tried to purchase an off the shelf cake i am sure the man would have sold it to them, why not? But again, like my other point earlier, if I asked for a cake of a naked woman, and a baker refused, not on religious beliefs but said it was distasteful, that would be a violation of my sexual orientation, right, according to the law?

The baker could decide what he would or wouldn't do in the decoration of a cake (naked man, penis, whatever), but to refuse to sell one of the wedding cake designs that he offers is discrimination. Do you see anywhere that this couple demanded a penis on their wedding cake?

reply to post by esdad71

But it would close down because of this lawsuit. Not fair. Sorry, they could simply go somewhere else but instead they will take away this guys livelyhood.

Do you really expect anyone to feel bad for a guy who is facing the repercussions of discriminatory practices?

What happened to freedom of choice in this country. He did not make they a cake that was horrible because they were gay or a slur. There is not a sign that says "No Homos allowed" like they used to have that said "NO IRISH!!!".

Might as well be.

Again, I can empathize but move on. Some fights, with people who you deem ignorant and are not hurting anyone else, are not worth it.

Just because discrimination doesnt hurt you, does not mean it is not hurting anyone else.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


You may support that, but Colorado law does not.

And I don't support businesses refusing to serve someone because they're black, a woman, handicapped, white or Jewish. You do? You would support a restaurant refusing to serve white people???

An effective boycott should put those kind of establishments out of business.

The shop was foolish for not taking that couples money and made them a cake. In a free market a business would be allowed to refuse service to anyone.

I honestly think that the best thing that can be learned from this article is most of the time government is not the solution but instead creates many of the problems. A large majority of the time governments solutions to problems create additional and often times more complex problems and when they add any kind of regulation to protect a certain class, ethnicity, creed, etc they by doing so infringe on the rights of others.

This was my concern with the article in the first place. We have now gotten to a point in our society that the citizens are becoming more and more akin to kindergarteners that need someone to hold their hand on a daily basis. We have been devolved from a society capable of handling our own problems to a society that looks to government to solve all of our problems and save us from having to use our own responsibility of handling them ourselves. I also honestly think that this is the intended plan of government so that they can use situations such as this to further intrude in our lives.

I admit we need government enacted and enforced laws to protect people from physical and equitable harm, but we don't need them involved in every aspect of our lives. Someone please tell me where under the pursuit of happiness clause of the Constitution it says that we are all guaranteed to be accepted by everyone else. If someone doesn't like the lifestyle that a person chooses to live, or a religion, or any other aspect of a persons life why is it so hard for that person to just say "Hey so they don't approve" or "Okay so they don't agree with my stance" and move alone and get on with their lives? As long as no actual physical, financial or character harm befalls the person then it shouldn't really matter.

I know quite a few people that don't agree with my certain aspects of my lifestyle, my hunting for instance or my religious ideas. I do not agree with their view of me put I support the idea of them being able to have their own views and would defend their right to their views and opinions. There are some people that I don't agree with their lifestyle choices and ideals but it's their lives free to live as they see fit and as long as they do not cause and actual injury to me, my family, or others then more power to them.

Im not saying it's okay or morally right to hate someone or dislike them but I mean seriously when do we draw the line? Must it get to the point that we lose our freedom of ideals and thought before we stop this lunacy of forced acceptance?