Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
www.huffingtonpost.com...




DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge says a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs. Friday's order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer says Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver will face fines if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes for their wedding celebrations. An attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Shop owner Jack Phillips had argued that making cakes for gay wedding ceremonies violates his Christian beliefs. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.


Is this a good idea? is this a good decision?
I believe in equal rights but also what about the right of the religious believer who is averse to transgender rights through their perceived religious obligations.
In this case the simple act of creating a wedding cake with figures of two men rather than a man and a woman on the cake prevents a bakery owner from making the cake due to his perceived religious duties.

Would forcing the baker to go against his perceived religious obligation be the government intervening in private citizens religious rights?

Or should the government, in the case a judge, exercise its judicial power and legally force this man to oblige the gay couple?

Obviously the judge has the right to do this but the question is should that power be curtailed by legislation?
Allowing religious beliefs to discriminate

What if a black Muslim doesn’t want to hire or do something for white people?
Or a Klansmen or Christian Identity (who are racist Christians) doesn’t want to serve minorities should their religious beliefs be tolerated?

The point is where do we draw the line in respecting religious beliefs versus the rights of individuals

It may be a question for Solomonic wisdom that I am sure is prevalent here at ATS

edit on 7-12-2013 by Willtell because: added content



+13 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
This is completely wrong and a violation of the first amendment. Not to mention the fact that any business owner should be able to choose who he will and will not do business with for any or no reason. Classic liberal judicial over reach. Personally, I would close my doors and go out of business before complying with this command from a corrupt regime.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Like the chinese guy said in the movie wedding planner " everyone needs a nice caak." lolololol



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
So, I guess the French Vanilla Tickler is back on the menu?

-Peace-


+22 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Gays forceing people to do there bidding through the courts is not going to indear anyone to there cause.
edit on 7-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


+30 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
So "No shoes, no shirt, no service" discriminates against the barefoot, barebacked population?

I want an Islamic caterer to make me roasted pork and have it covered in bacon!



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


As silly an example as that is Beez? It's a valid one in that if there are to be no limits to Government's ability to force private business to cater to customers? Well, religion is among the most protected rights our nation has. Numerically in the Document as well as values across society. So, either business HAS discretion or it does NOT. If business has none? Then indeed... Where IS my Pork filled cake. covered in bacon?

* For the record, the Muslim cake shop SHOULD have the right to decline, and so should the shop in this story.
edit on 7-12-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I would never be so rude and disrespectful to ask/force someone with a religious preference to violate their tenets.

But this ruling certainly opens the door to abuses to people with religious beliefs that may differ from others.

I could also bring an elk that I shot to a vegan caterer and have them dress it up since this ruling sanctions that kind of behavior.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

DarthMuerte
This is completely wrong and a violation of the first amendment. Not to mention the fact that any business owner should be able to choose who he will and will not do business with for any or no reason. Classic liberal judicial over reach. Personally, I would close my doors and go out of business before complying with this command from a corrupt regime.



I am sure I heard this spoken about schools being "forced" to take black students not that long ago.
Time offers perspectives.

Ro.


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The owner was stupid to bring his religious beliefs into the situation. You don't have the right to discriminate against someone just because it's against a persons religious beliefs. He says it's against his 1st amendment right he is wrong. A business doesn't have first amendment rights because it isn't a person. These rights were made for the people of the nation not the companies they run.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Before you know it ...

everything is going to be driven by membership.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I could also bring an elk that I shot to a vegan caterer and have them dress it up since this ruling sanctions that kind of behavior.



No, and simply because a vegan caterer would not be offering butchering services to the general public. This shop is offering service to the GP. It doesn't have any legal or serviceable justification for not serving gay people other than personal religious bias, and there is no law that permits a sign saying "only Christians that dont believe in equal rights for all humans can come here" on the door. It may be a private business, but it is offering a specific cake making service to the general public or it isn't.


Ro


edit on 7-12-2013 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I have two problems with this...

First, I think the private business owner should be able to decide what sort of clients he wants to take on. A contractor (for example) could refuse to build an addition on a house if he didn't want to work with the clients, he is under no obligation to build additions for anyone that asks him to.

Second, as a Christian I don't agree with this man's stance. I do not believe making a cake is a violation of Christian faith. If anything, it could be a good opportunity to show Christian love. That's just my opinion, though... which is really irrelevant because the first point above overides it. The small business owner didn't want to do business with these guys, that should be the end of the story.

And... really? They got married in MA but wanted a wedding cake in CO? I could be wrong but it sounds like a bunch of folks just itching for a fight. Not that the ACLU would EVER stage situations just to get people riled up.... Riiiight.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 


So do you think "No shirt, no shoes, no service" discriminates as well?



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
So does this mean that people can request swastikas on their cakes? What if it is an African American baker?

How about an "i hate gays" cake from a gay baker?

This is bs, the thing is the gays think they are doing the right thing. But all they are doing is insuring that one day even they will have no first amendment rights either. Once everyone elses rights have been taken, they will come for yours.

Freedom in this country is no more.


+6 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Back when I was a kid, the sign "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE" was a common sight.

A small business has the right to not make a wedding cake for a gay couple. You would think that gay couple would accept it, spread the word that the bakery is not "gay friendly" and find one that was. But NO.....they want to use the courts to force people to violate their personal beliefs by government mandate.

All this will do is drive more small mom and pop shops out of business. I'm with Darth Muerte, I'd rather go out of business than bend to the will of a government gone mad. If it were me personally, I'd make the cake, because I don't hold those religious beliefs, but it's not me.

As far as I'm concerned, the bakery has the right to refuse service to anyone. Period.




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Some points are valid but the thing is what many might not understand is that this law and many others in America are to protect, hypothetically, the powerless and minorities against an intolerant majority...

Beezer makes an interesting point. But then what happens when he goes to a Black Muslim and they tell him to get out of the store because their beliefs are that white people are devils.

Now Beezer might say if that happened then I would go to another place of business... Fine, BUT

What if the majority of his town becomes black Muslims?

You see my point
Rights, in a lot of respect exists to protect minority’s not just individuals.

What many of my good white friends don’t understand is that one day you may become a minority and then may be better able to understand the reason behind such laws that protect a minority like our Gay folks.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
This has been an issue in the UK of late due to a gay couple being refused service at a bed and breakfast, despite being in a civil partnership. The courts ruled in favour of the gay couple.

Tbh, I agree. It is a tricky one, but when you run a business you're surely tied to all kinds of legislation about non-discrimination in service. I do have sympathy for people running businesses who have their personal feelings challenged by such requests - but then again I wonder if they're in the right business if they offer a service like wedding cakes in a country/state that permits some form of gay marriage or other official union.

I suppose the question is - would it be cool for them to deny service to, say, an interracial couple if they disagreed with that too? I think not.

This said, you can't help wondering if it was absolutely essential for the gay couple to make a major issue of the whole thing. I can understand their annoyance, but there's plenty of wedding cake bakers out there. Perhaps it's the small battles that make the most difference? I dunno.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
If religious beliefs are no longer held sacred, what's to stop having a gay wedding performed at a mosque?


This is the state determining an individual's rights.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

KingIcarus
- but then again I wonder if they're in the right business if they offer a service like wedding cakes in a country/state that permits some form of gay marriage or other official union.



But what if the buisness was there before the law change?
edit on 7-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join