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

So will gays now flood his shop with orders just to be spiteful?

Sounds like a great marketing idea to me

FissionSurplus

The problem with that kind of thinking is that you might well end up looking at it differently down the line...

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha

 

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

Well shirts and shoes being a public health issue rather than a discrimination one, I dont have an issue with that 'sign' on the door personally. Generally speaking though, I personally feel business owners should serve anyone who has money to buy their product without discrimination or requirement of any sort, or just don't enter the business world....but that's me.

The religious freedoms laws in the US stem from the First Amendment, that amendment only prohibits the federal government from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " - so show me where these store owners are having their religious practices violated? They aren't. Only their personal religious bias's are being infringed upon.

Nothing in the religious rights laws gives any store owner the RIGHT legally or otherwise to break the current law of the land and actively discriminate against any particular group for personally held religious reasoning. Unless their cake shop is their church, and making cakes is their religious practice, then they haven't got a leg to stand on.

When it boils down to it, money is money out there, and if this person cant see that and get passed their crap, then some other cake store owner is going to pull in bucket load. And good for them.


Ro.

reply to post by beezzer


What about the religious people who want to starve their children? Should the state stop that? There are many cases of this

Or those you refuse their children valid medical care?

Or want to exercise the devil in somebody through some kind of ritualistic violence.
Should the state stop that?

Absolute rights don't exist

They are thought criminals, by expressing their reasons for refusal they have committed a thought crime against the collective and will be punished.

They will now be forced against their will to provide services to anyone, even perverts who who wish to marry their dog. Extreme and outlandish? So was gay marriage once and now it is not.

This is what is meant by "progress" and "evolving".

If they refuse to serve anyone for any reason, the precedent this has set will open them to endless lawsuits until they are put out of business. Which, being an openly Christian business, is the end goal.

Openly Christian businesses are targeted by activists for this very purpose.

I have the right to refuse my services to anyone for any reason, and my reasons are my business alone and I will not be forced to reveal them to any one if I choose not to.

Period.

Maybe I don't like your hat? FU, that's my call, not the state's.

Willtell
reply to post by beezzer

 

What about the religious people who want to starve their children? Should the state stop that? There are many cases of this

Or those you refuse their children valid medical care?

Or want to exercise the devil in somebody through some kind of ritualistic violence.
Should the state stop that?

Absolute rights don't exist

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

I've seen people die needlessly because of their religious beliefs.

It happens.

If we are going to ignore/disrespect religious beliefs, where does it stop?

Willtell
reply to post by beezzer

 

What about the religious people who want to starve their children?

Starving people is a deliberate action by a party to harm another.

Gays can get a cake somewhere else.

To compare these two cases as equal is typical leftist nonsense and laughable.

reply to post by Rosha


When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs.

This is wrong. A business owner has the right to refuse service and always has had that right. This is liberal politics. The judge should be kicked off the bench.

crazyewok

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)

My uncle owns a factory that makes roofing insulation. For about 30 years his insulation contained asbestos. This was outlawed in the 90s when the dangers were realised, and my uncle had to make major modifications to his business to a) change the product, and b) absorb the changing costs. He's still in business though.

But how is forbidding asbestos as a manufacturing material similar to a cake making company no longer being allowed to discriminate against gays?

Well, it's not - it's entirely unrelated. However, the couple making cakes and my uncle both run businesses - and regardless of the nature of their respective businesses, they are all required to adhere to the change in law, regardless of what they think to them.

Adapt or die, it's as simple as that really.

The owner has the right to serve whoever they want or don't want..

Maybe in a time of such political correctness, the right answer would be
we are back logged and don't have time to do it..

You obviously should NEVER tell anyone you will not serve them for being a certain color, creed, or sexual orientation..

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.

how about serving black people...c'mon...this was going on in the sixties, in the south. there were supreme court cases outlawing this very thing....how about not serving white Christians??...are you in favor of that too?

jimmyx

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.

how about serving black people...c'mon...this was going on in the sixties, in the south. there were supreme court cases outlawing this very thing....how about not serving white Christians??...are you in favor of that too?

They didn't serve black people because they were black.

It had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

beezzer
reply to post by Rosha

 

When someone is forced by the state to provide a service that is against their beliefs, then the state is imposing restrictions to their beliefs.

I think this is the crux of it really.

You are free to express your beliefs as you wish - within law.

In personal thoughts, dealings, relationships etc etc you can discriminate how you choose - which is entirely fair enough, in my opinion.

However, the moment you set up as a business, you become subject to all manner of requirements and obligations that ensure people are permitted equal treatment on the basis of factors such as age, race, sex, disability etc etc etc.

Laws are not dictated by belief - the church and state are seperate - it's unfortunate when church and state collide, but state has to win out as not everyone in the state are part of the same church.

Good question.

But remember sometimes there is no black and white solution to a conundrum like this issue.

But we have to use flexibility in these cases and unfortunately not allow people to exercise ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, even over their children for example.

It comes down to circumstantial wisdom and reason, imo

Sure you can let people wear any kinds of cloths in religion but if they want to go around NAKED in public for religious purposes the state or people have to intervene in order to protect the rights of others that the naked believer would be infringing upon

Here is a general rule for this dilemma

Any one has the right to do anything unless it infringes on the rights of any other individual or the rights of the general or specific society
reply to post by beezzer

reply to post by KingIcarus


So you would be ok with someone forcing an Islamic caterer to provide a pork/bacon meal?

beezzer

Willtell
reply to post by beezzer

 

What about the religious people who want to starve their children? Should the state stop that? There are many cases of this

Or those you refuse their children valid medical care?

Or want to exercise the devil in somebody through some kind of ritualistic violence.
Should the state stop that?

Absolute rights don't exist

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

I've seen people die needlessly because of their religious beliefs.

It happens.

If we are going to ignore/disrespect religious beliefs, where does it stop?

So Bob Marley, who gave his life to music and his religion died needlessly?
All he had to do was let them cut off his foot..
The man did not WANT TO LIVE like that and decided to die..
That is needless. What right do you have telling someone
they MUST take medical care that disfigures them, or worse??

I went back a re-read the reply, I am actually with you on this beezer
might not read like it, but i was kind of adding on to what you said to that other poster.

Willtell


Any one has the right to do anything unless it infringes on the rights of any other individual or the rights of the general or specific society

Then the gay couple infringed on the rights of the bakery. QED

buster2010
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.

Yes, you do. They have it in medical practice. No one can force a doctor to perform an abortion, for example, if it goes against that doctor's conscience. Those laws exist, and it may be time for them in business practice. The sad thing is that we are reaching a time where people have so little respect for each other that we need force of law to sort this out.

I wouldn't have any trouble selling my services to a homosexual, but I would have plenty of trouble participating in a gay wedding since I don't believe they exist.

Look for the SCOTUS decisions on Obamacare mandates to have some far reaching implications. If a business does not have to comply with a mandate based on faith, then that could open the door for cases like these, too.

reply to post by beezzer


The problem with that hypothetical is that a practicing Muslim wouldn’t serve pork at all, he wouldn’t have it in the shop, and a non practicing Muslim would certainly serve it.

The baker made wedding cakes.
If he didn’t make wedding cakes then those people had no complaint.