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

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I'd just be afraid to eat anything from them. If they disagree with you in some way ... ya' know?
I'd wonder what they'd do to the food. It happens in restaurants.

reply to post by Darth_Prime



My view is simple people can believe whatever they want and have the right to do so.In this situation ill say the Baker was an idiot but he has the right to be. Ill say his actions are consistent with his beliefs and i hope one day people realize just how counter productive religion is in a free society. But its not our place to decide nor should it be. As far as the rights of the couple they were not violated no one stopped them and they have recognition under the law. So legally their rights were upheld the bakers on the other hand his right was violated because from now on he must lie or risk legal action for his convictions. I dont think we should be putting people in this situation.Because we all know this Baker isnt going to be baking cakes for same sex mariages all they did was teach him to be smarter next time.

FlyersFan
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I'd just be afraid to eat anything from them. If they disagree with you in some way ... ya' know?
I'd wonder what they'd do to the food. It happens in restaurants.

Actually id be more concerned with him not completing the cake or accidentally dropping it that would put a severe damper on a wedding. Id definately want a baker that was taking it as serious as i would be.

dragonridr
As far as the rights of the couple they were not violated no one stopped them and they have recognition under the law. So legally their rights were upheld

According to Colorado law, the gay couple has the RIGHT to be served in any place of business. Their rights were violated.

the bakers on the other hand his right was violated because from now on he must lie or risk legal action for his convictions.

What rights of the bakers were violated?

He still has the right to believe what he wants. He has the right to his religion. He NEVER had the right to discriminate.

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes, i believe it was to bring media attention to the fact that discrimination continues even though it is protected under law

but if i remember the story correctly they had posted it on Facebook saying not to go to that baker, and people told them to file a lawsuit, or something of that nature. i don't believe they targeted that store just to bring attention to themselves

Darth_Prime
Yes, if a Gay owner denied services to a straight person i would have just as many issue, i believe in Equality, we are all human.

Well, at least you hold true to your beliefs.
I will hold to mine as well.
The business owner has the right to refuse service.

Darth_Prime
how do we not know this owner took the opportunity to claim his dislike of same sex marriages? how do we know it wasn't the perfect opportunity for him to take his "Stand" against this "Sin"? how do we not know he knew this may get media attention?

I guess we don't, as I have yet to meet anyone that knows what is in the heart of their fellow man.

Darth_Prime
likewise how do we know the couple didn't target the store knowing they would get denied and thus create media attention? we don't, and i wont argue that point, the only point i am trying to make is discrimination is wrong, and protected under the laws which they opened their business, if they want to disregard the laws than they pay the consequence

I will disagree.
Discrimination is morally wrong, but everyone as the right to do so. There is nothing in the founding documents stating it is unlawful, therefore it isn't.

reply to post by macman


The business owner does not have the right to refuse service based on sexuality, race, gender, religion. that is protected under law.

i agree everyone has the "right" to discriminate, though i can't imagine why someone would want to be that way, but as a business under law you are not allowed to discriminate and he did

macman
Discrimination is morally wrong, but everyone as the right to do so. There is nothing in the founding documents stating it is unlawful, therefore it isn't.

The consitution isn't the only legal document in history, bud.

FlyersFan
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I'd just be afraid to eat anything from them. If they disagree with you in some way ... ya' know?
I'd wonder what they'd do to the food. It happens in restaurants.

lol, true.

i'd give them a cake they wouldn't believe.

free!

dragonridr
reply to post by Darth_Prime

 

My view is simple people can believe whatever they want and have the right to do so.In this situation ill say the Baker was an idiot but he has the right to be. Ill say his actions are consistent with his beliefs and i hope one day people realize just how counter productive religion is in a free society. But its not our place to decide nor should it be. As far as the rights of the couple they were not violated no one stopped them and they have recognition under the law. So legally their rights were upheld the bakers on the other hand his right was violated because from now on he must lie or risk legal action for his convictions. I dont think we should be putting people in this situation.Because we all know this Baker isnt going to be baking cakes for same sex mariages all they did was teach him to be smarter next time.

hey, they want to drag people into the 21st century?

start with the muslims.

they didn't teach the baker anything except that gays are jerks.

no other cake bakers around?

i made my own frigging cake when i got married.

i'd sue the gays for harassment, lol!

assault, stalking.

no shirt, no shoes, no straight, no service. just kidding.

the gays were the trouble makers. like the couple that sued the B&B.

i'm friends with gays all my adult life, none i know would ever pull crap like that.

Benevolent Heretic

dragonridr
As far as the rights of the couple they were not violated no one stopped them and they have recognition under the law. So legally their rights were upheld

According to Colorado law, the gay couple has the RIGHT to be served in any place of business. Their rights were violated.

the bakers on the other hand his right was violated because from now on he must lie or risk legal action for his convictions.

What rights of the bakers were violated?

He still has the right to believe what he wants. He has the right to his religion. He NEVER had the right to discriminate.

he has the right to refuse service to anyone.

he doesn't work for the fed gov.

it's not a fed bakery, if it was, the couple couldn't afford the cake.

Darth_Prime
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes, i believe it was to bring media attention to the fact that discrimination continues even though it is protected under law

but if i remember the story correctly they had posted it on Facebook saying not to go to that baker, and people told them to file a lawsuit, or something of that nature. i don't believe they targeted that store just to bring attention to themselves

ya but they did, right?

ruined a small biz, made points with glaad and libs, put people out of work, for what?

a friggin cake? seriously?

Darth_Prime
reply to post by macman

 

The business owner does not have the right to refuse service based on sexuality, race, gender, religion. that is protected under law.

i agree everyone has the "right" to discriminate, though i can't imagine why someone would want to be that way, but as a business under law you are not allowed to discriminate and he did

yeah but why make a federal case, out of a cake?

go somewhere else! ya think?

good thing after the argument, the baker didn't say, OK, i'll give you your cake. lol!

reply to post by Darth_Prime


And the law is wrong and Unconstitutional.

And yes, it is morally wrong to discriminate. But people have the right to do so.

This no right to discriminate stemmed from a backlash against GOVERNMENT made laws, and was for correcting said laws.

It has been bastardized into this idea that a person is not allowed to discriminate and/or voice views against certain people.

reply to post by TheRegal


Oh okay then.

Where does it show, following the correct procedure, that the law is indeed lawful.


There is no facepalm big enough to retort with, to your response.

macman
reply to post by TheRegal

 

Oh okay then.

Where does it show, following the correct procedure, that the law is indeed lawful.


There is no facepalm big enough to retort with, to your response.

A facepalm can't "retort" anything, so I guess you're right.

No answer to your question would render my statement false. I suppose that's more indication that you cannot "retort" it.

Tell me, how do you ensure equal opportunity and freedom to discriminate at the same time?

FlyersFan
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

I'd just be afraid to eat anything from them. If they disagree with you in some way ... ya' know?
I'd wonder what they'd do to the food. It happens in restaurants.

Thought the same thing myself. Though, it doesn't seems like such a thing has happened yet. The media tends to be all over anti-gay stuff, and if something this had happened, it would've been a top story.

For all I know, maybe they're just good at hiding it.

reply to post by tsingtao

tsingtao
he has the right to refuse service to anyone.

No, he doesn't. Not according to Colorado law, he doesn't. If you don't like that, change the law. But for now, to have a business License in Colorado, one must agree to serve people of all races, genders and sexual orientations.

reply to post by TheRegal


There is no such thing as equal opportunity within the private world.
The laws were made to restrict the Govt.
And there is no such law stated in the founding documents giving such rights.
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

reply to post by macman

macman
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

This very quote comes from the phrase that addresses equality in the DoI. ALL men, not just the ones you approve of.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A business license is a contract with the state. The baker was in a contract NOT to discriminate. I know you think the law shouldn't be, but that doesn't really matter. It's the way it IS. Gay people should be permitted the freedom to do business and the pursuit of happiness of celebrating their marriage.