Baker Forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Nope, can't just go to a different baker. Better to sue someone and FORCE them to make a cake for you. This isn't a gay rights issue to me. This is a civil liberty issue. You should not be forced to provide a service that is against your religious beliefs. Period.

Source

Well, is the the extreme its going to take for people to realize that if someone is a human, you should treat them as one?

originally posted by: andr3w68
Well, is the the extreme its going to take for people to realize that if someone is a human, you should treat them as one?

Right, respect the baker's right to his beliefs and go elsewhere. I am sure that is what you meant, right?

a reply to: andr3w68

They or anyone may be human or a person doesn't mean that the courts should have the right to make me serve them. If refusing to hurts my business it is my own fault. No one should have the right to make me.

originally posted by: andr3w68
Well, is the the extreme its going to take for people to realize that if someone is a human, you should treat them as one?

...actually the extreme breeds more hate. Do you honestly believe anyone forced to attend sensitivity training and jump through financial and legal hoops in the name of "appeasement" is ever going to say "Damn, I judged those people unfairly?" It would not shock me at all to find the next news article regarding the man being along the lines of "'Colorado baker spat in our cake mix', claims gay couple."

As an average guy, possessing nothing that qualifies me as a special interest protected class American, I'll go ahead and say that I wouldn't want to do business (especially business regarding anything consumable) with a business that didn't want me as a customer. If I walk into a pizza joint wearing my Broncos hat and the guy behind the counter says "Oh great, a Bronco fan. We don't serve your type here." I care not if he's serious or joking because I'm headed back out the door... of course you'll never hear of that because I am not arrogant enough to make a scene and file a ridiculous lawsuit over any businessman not wishing to recieve my business.

Your mileage may vary.

a reply to: Metallicus

It goes both ways. Sure no one should be able to make you. But the guy should have made the cake in the first place. Gay or not, he has the right to refuse service, but that doesn't mean he should use that right because someone is of a differing sexuality.

a reply to: andr3w68

Would you eat a cake that someone was forced to make for you?

Also can you clarify what you mean by nobody should make you, but the guy should have made it.

Isn't that force?

originally posted by: andr3w68
Gay or not, he has the right to refuse service, but that doesn't mean he should use that right because someone is of a differing sexuality.

"has the right"

The fact that he was ruled against in a lawsuit would seem to indicate that having rights is undeniable, but Americans can now be held legally accountable for exercising their rights. Seems a bit unconstitutional, no? What good are rights if they cannot be freely exercised?

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: Metallicus

It goes both ways. Sure no one should be able to make you. But the guy should have made the cake in the first place. Gay or not, he has the right to refuse service, but that doesn't mean he should use that right because someone is of a differing sexuality.

I agree with you he should have just made the cake, but I don't share his beliefs so I can't judge him. No matter what I believe ...if you start FORCING me to do something I am just going to resent you more.

WHy should his employee's be "forced" to do anything? Surely they were only doing as requested by their employer?

Well that's the nature of non-discrimination laws. There wouldn't be any articles hinting at the outrageousness of this if it was a bookstore that refused to sell to a black man or a tire shop that wouldn't serve women.

Honestly though, as a gay woman I wouldn't eat a cake from some douche-bag's shop anyway. Who knows what would be in it.

a reply to: Metallicus

Welcome to America 2014.

Not only do you have to acknowledge their rights, you have to LIKE it also.

originally posted by: andr3w68
a reply to: Metallicus

It goes both ways. Sure no one should be able to make you. But the guy should have made the cake in the first place. Gay or not, he has the right to refuse service, but that doesn't mean he should use that right because someone is of a differing sexuality.

It should go both ways ... but it doesn't. One side is now forcing the other to comply.

And when it comes to this, the issue isn't about not serving people because of behaviors they engage in. If it was, they wouldn't serve gays at all. It's about not participating in something that would be a sin for them. They likely don't care one way or the other what the gays are doing, but they don't want to do what they consider a sin to participate in it.

It's not about what the gays are doing; it's about what they would have to do to comply.

And I believe that rather than comply, this baker has simply decided to no longer serve any wedding cakes.

originally posted by: beezzer

I do not believe gays successfully suing a bakery in state court for refusing to make them a domestic partner cake is the death knell of America, Beez. It is a sign of just how ridiculous America has become, but we've got far more serious crap going on. Most of these stories, fun to argue about they may be, significantly pale in comparison to the widespread eggregious horsecrap like the TSA violations, NSA violations, ACA violations. The catch is these stories are (successfully) used to manufacture enough outrage to distract the masses away from discussion of real news.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
Well that's the nature of non-discrimination laws. There wouldn't be any articles hinting at the outrageousness of this if it was a bookstore that refused to sell to a black man or a tire shop that wouldn't serve women.

Honestly though, as a gay woman I wouldn't eat a cake from some douche-bag's shop anyway. Who knows what would be in it.

We don't have articles about the outrageousness of a doctor refusing to perform an abortion, either, because it was long ago decided that they shouldn't have to be forced to go against their consciences to do so, and laws were passed to protect them having to do it.

a reply to: Metallicus

This is just sad. Sadder than a dog with AIDS. Sadder than the guy that gave the dog AIDS.

When you have no control over who you can buy from and sell to, it's over. Time to pack a bag and go into the woods.

Cheers - Dave

Like I've said in the past, I hate olives, but America gives you the freedom to like them, regardless of what I think.

Now?

No-one is allowed to have olives, because I don't like them.

a reply to: beezzer

Oooo, is that how it works now?

We are so outlawing hamburgers tomorrow!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

I do not believe gays successfully suing a bakery in state court for refusing to make them a domestic partner cake is the death knell of America, Beez. It is a sign of just how ridiculous America has become, but we've got far more serious crap going on. Most of these stories, fun to argue about they may be, significantly pale in comparison to the widespread eggregious horsecrap like the TSA violations, NSA violations, ACA violations. The catch is these stories are (successfully) used to manufacture enough outrage to distract the masses away from discussion of real news.

I disagree. I can now force you to do something.

Sounds like slavery, doesn't it?

a reply to: thesaneone

No I most certainly would not. I just want to make it clear that I agree no one should force him to make the cake. Not only will it not be eaten, but he does have the right to refuse service.

Now, the point I am trying to get across is that we are humans, and it would do a lot of good if we would treat others as if they were indeed human. It's not like by performing gay sexual acts you suddenly become a new species. If people would treat others as they would like to be treated(not only is this in the bible as well, but serving a gay man a cake is not participating in gay sex, therefore should not be a "sin") we would all be better off.