Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by Foreshadow
"But a bakery who sells wedding cakes MUST sell a wedding cake to the populous at large"


Is this Communist Russia? I Must Sell? Say again?

edit on 7-6-2013 by Foreshadow because: quotes

This is really why political correctness on steroids fits more into the Totalitarian model of society than a society which functions on love and general freedom. I guess they feel that forcing people to do stuff is better than letting the market determine the outcome.

Originally posted by charles1952
I think TheRedneck presented the difficulties involved very well in his post back on page 2. I would suggest reviewing it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I believe that it is probably against the law for the baker to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but the baker is not refusing service in general to gay people

Why don't you read your own laws since this seems to be important to you??? Bolding for emphasis.

As TheRedneck points out, during the gay marriage debate it was often said that churches would never be required to perform same-sex marriages, it violated separation of Church and State. But the baker is being told he must perform his part in the ceremony, provide the cake. If that same rule applied to every business that supplied portions of the church service, the only item that would be exempt would be the priest.

The same rules do apply to businesses that supply services to churches unless they are specifically religious businesses.

The Church, being a religious entity, is exempt from certain laws due to religious beliefs and these exemptions are specifically stated in law. Gay people can't force a Catholic priest to marry them, and it's likely never going to happen. It's the same way Muslims can't be forced to marry Christians and all the rest of it ... Explicitly religious organizations in many countries actually do have special rights in this area. I'm not having an opinion on it, it's just stated fact. However these rights are not a 'default' you can claim for obvious reasons.

The baker, when they made their business didn't claim or apply to be a religious cake maker supplying cakes only to Christian Churches as per their religious beliefs and part of the religious ceremony. Unless I'm wrong, the baker set up a normal bakery business and has the same rights a secular business but assumed religious exemptions.

I don't think it's wrong to ask a business to define itself as religious prior to them invoking their beliefs. Can you imagine going into a Chemist and the Pharmacist says, sorry I don't give out X pill here to Y demographic because it's against my beliefs?

'Believers' may want to be exempt from certain laws or think they should be by default, but the only reliable way to be exempt from a law in your business is to get prior recognition of religious status and therefore an exemption when creating it.

Yes, it would be wonderful if we didn't need government and everyone just respected one another but for the last few thousand years laws were invented because we don't do that.

reply to post by Pinke

religious freedom is not exclusive to any group, business or institution. perhaps you should re-read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, cause it does matter, in all cases.

especially personal activities, like baking a cake for a commercial reason.

weddings are not exclusive to 'churches', any of them.
however, religious beliefs are Personal to everyone and no secular activity (like baking a cake) is controlled by the government or the persons ordering it.

it is personal to the person baking it, period.

sorry I don't give out X pill here to Y demographic because it's against my beliefs?

doctors do it every dang day or is their secular activity (doctoring) exempt in your mind too ?

did the dr register as a 'religious entity' ??
i seriously doubt it

as secular businesses like Hobby Lobby are proving otherwise, it does make a difference and it is their right to refuse participation.

This case reminds me of a similar situation in the UK, where a Bed and Breakfast establishment, who openly promote themselves as "Christian" and do not rent rooms to any unmarried couples, were successfully sued by two gay men, who were refused a room. Link

However, it seemed that the establishment had been deliberately targeted and that the couple would have been aware of the guesthouse's policy prior to booking.

They operate a strict policy which only allows married heterosexual couples to share rooms at their B&B in Cornwall. The gay couple claim the snub was discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and are suing for up to £5,000 damages at Bristol County Court. But the court heard the scenario felt like ‘an acted out scene’ similar to cases used as examples of discrimination in literature distributed by gay equal rights group Stonewall. Yesterday the court heard how the couple booked two nights in a double room at the Chymorvah Private Hotel in Marazion near Penzance on September 4 2008. Mrs Bull, 66, took the telephone booking from Steven Preddy but no mention of a partner was made and she assumed he would be staying with his wife. She told the court: ”My first comment after coming off the phone was that I’ve let a double room for tomorrow night but I’ve forgotten to go through the policy with them. ”We definitely didn’t discuss a second person. We were all very surprised when two gentlemen turned up.” Guesthouse manager Bernie Quinn told the court he recalled taking a phone call later that day from a ”Mrs Preddy”, which led him to expect a husband and wife. He remarked that the whole incident smacked of an ‘acted out’ scene in a leaflet detailing how to deal with customers.

Source

My own opinion on this type of case is why the heck would you want to go to an establishment that is against your views or lifestyle? For example, would you take young children to a hotel which caters for stag and hen parties, with the full knowledge that there will be drunken behaviour of the type that you probably wouldn't want your children to see? Of course not, you would take them to a child-friendly hotel that caters for their needs.

Likewise, I would not book into a Christian guesthouse, as it's unlikely to be the type of venue I would enjoy myself in (not a big fan of organised religion) My daughter is gay and she agrees and can't understand why they didn't just book a more appropriate place...

But it seemed to come down to making a point and claiming damages for their hurt feelings, which is not the best way to put your case for equality across in my opinion.

Being gay i have only this to say:

I would have found another bakery.

Though i would not be pleased that i was being refused service because of my sexuality. If they had refused a black person it would be all over the news.
Its just not decent to run your business like this. The owners need to grow up and realise that they're running a shop not a club.

reply to post by Pinke

I don't think it's wrong to ask a business to define itself as religious prior to them invoking their beliefs. Can you imagine going into a Chemist and the Pharmacist says, sorry I don't give out X pill here to Y demographic because it's against my beliefs?

There actually was a case like this in the UK, where a woman was refused the morning after pill due to the religious beliefs of the pharmacist.Link

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by KeliOnyx

 

Sorry, it is. In both of these cases they went into a Bakery where it was known he would not make same sex marriage cakes.

Lakewood is minutes outside Denver. You really think this is the only one or they are so good they had to have it from there. No...a targeted attack by gays.

Girl, if it was a targeted attack there would be glitter

but seriously, sure, maybe they did it to make a point, maybe they knew it wasn't "allowed" maybe it was all for awareness, regardless, Discrimination is still happening

no matter how you spin the story, it's based in discriminating views,

i can't find any stories of us 'Gays' refusing service to straight people,

reply to post by Darth_Prime

i can't find any stories of us 'Gays' refusing service to straight people

Here's one....Gay Hotel investigated

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Pinke

 

There actually was a case like this in the UK, where a woman was refused the morning after pill due to the religious beliefs of the pharmacist.Link

Thank you for link.

This is the same as my country, but it is the exception not the rule. Pharmacists are allowed to reject the morning after pill for reasons of belief / conscience.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Pinke

 

weddings are not exclusive to 'churches', any of them.
however, religious beliefs are Personal to everyone and no secular activity (like baking a cake) is controlled by the government or the persons ordering it.

Hiya honor, this appears to be something you need to take up with your government, not Pinke for the most part.

doctors do it every dang day or is their secular activity (doctoring) exempt in your mind too ?

Doctors have exemptions on what is morally right and wrong. They do have to provide care based on the patients wishes though ... for example, they cannot refuse life support on religious grounds where I'm from.

did the dr register as a 'religious entity' ??

That doctor has exemptions and legal guidelines that are sometimes based on religion or moral choice. They have limits however. In Destinationnow's good example. the person has to offer alternatives I believe? The employee can't simply just be against contraception period.

Perhaps religious cake baking will be deemed the same as aborting child - a moral act or some such. I just personally think the number of persons in the thread requesting anarchy is quite worrying.


And yes ... to Darth ... there is places that don't allow straight persons in. At least one where I'm from has a legal exemption to do so for various reasons. You would have to look up the court ruling to understand it though.

reply to post by Pinke



Yes, it is rare in the UK as well fortunately and you are correct, if a pharmacist is going to refuse a request, they do have to provide the customer with information regarding alternative venues where their request will be accepted.

Personally, I don't believe that professionals in that capacity should utilise their position to preach their moral or religious views to anyone though. I think perhaps an alternative career which does not put their religious beliefs in confrontation with the needs of customers would be more appropriate.

Originally posted by Nucleardiver

DENVER – A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.

As a gay person myself, I have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

The business owner has a reputation of turning away gay business, certainly not the brightest way to keep afloat in a tough economy but he obviously is of the belief he does not need gay dollars anyway. His loss really.

So instead of having the brains to not poke a bear with a stick this couple goes there and acts all shocked and hurt when the owner turns them away and wants to sue. That is just plain dumb and these people should be ashamed of themselves. I am sure there are other bakeries in Denver that would love to make a reputation of being gay friendly.

Besides, if they really wanted a cake from him that bad, there would have been ways to fool him i.e. take a person of the opposite gender in to the shop say they are your fiance and pick the cake,, pay the money and voila one cake sneakily bought. I mean sheesh, it's just a stupid cake after all

reply to post by destination now

interesting case. it's a bummer that the story didn't include a conclusion but i'm guessing it's not yet been decided.

imho, the claim should be dismissed as the 'couple' were not refused suitable accomodations.

clearly, neither of them are a Mrs, yet someone apparently made such a claim and that alone should render their claim moot. booking under false pretense is still a deceptive practice.

kudos to the BB owners for not being as deceptive as their potential guests.

imho, since the 'couple' admitted to their knowledge of the 'rules' as provided on the website, it should be their responsibility to inquire when they booked by telephone.
such deception should not be rewarded.

reply to post by Darth_Prime

i can't find any stories of us 'Gays' refusing service to straight people,

the only reason there aren't 'stories' about such is because hetero couples don't deceive, book under false pretense, force or sue businesses that don't accomodate their needs
imagine that.

here's a few locations that cater to the gay market and don't 'share' with hetero couples:
liberty suites
miami
fun n sun
orbitz

again, the big difference is ... hetero couples don't FORCE businesses that don't cater to their needs to do so anyway.

reply to post by Pinke

hiya, what gives Pinke ?
what does the government have to do with forcing individuals to accomodate one another ?

religious preference isn't controlled by government nor should it be.

doctors are not bound by any 'moral' code unless they choose to be.
doctors commit some of the worst sins/offenses among us, that's why they're required to obtain 'licenses'

they cannot refuse life support on religious grounds where I'm from.

here, they can and frequently do.
not that i'm a fan but it happens.

they refuse everything from life-saving transfusions to life-saving operations and sometimes on grounds that have nothing to do with religion. (personal preference is all that's required)

heck, here, patients can refuse the care of medical professionals who aren't the 'race or gender' of the patient's preference.

again, i'm not advocating that this practice is a good thing but it is what it is and no 'law' has managed to eliminate it.

The employee can't simply just be against contraception period.

oh, but they can and do.
need examples ?

who said anything about anarchy ?
what's wrong with establishing a business/bakery that caters to homosexual preferences ??
it would be good for both sides of the fence, don't you think?

Pinke, you should know i harbor no angst for either side of the argument.
however, what's wrong with 'specialty' establishments ??
why does everyone have to be accepted everywhere ... isn't that just a bit unreasonable ?

ETA -- to me, this whole concept would be equivalent to myself waltzing into a Big & Tall specialty shop and suing them because they have nothing to accomodate my petite size.
how is that right ??
i just don't follow the train of thought here.

should i sue every 'adult' clothing store because this old fart still requires child sizes ??

reply to post by Honor93


Ooops..forgot to post the link to the ruling, the gay couple were awarded £1800 each, which I think is way over the top, it should have been at most the differential cost of alternative accommodation, which they didn't try to get anyway, they just went home Court Ruling

reply to post by Nucleardiver


Now replace the word "gay" with "black".

Should it still be okay to discriminate against others?

And enough with the BS religious excuses on this too. The Bible also condones slavery, the selling of women, invasion of nations, stoning, and plenty more. If someone wants to discriminate based on what it states in their holy book, they better be prepared to stop eating shell fish and only have clothes woven from one cloth!

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I really wish you guys would do some research before making erroneous statements as fact...

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Businesses reserve the right to refuse anyone service. Thats why you see sings that say "No shirt, no shoes, no service". Theyre targetting people who do not dress to their requirements. It's the same principle. If said busines refuses to sell someone a wedding cake because they do not want to violate their relgiious beliefs by promoting homosexuality then that is their right.

No, it's not. Not in Colorado. You're wrong on all counts.

Rule 20.4 No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign which states or implies the following:

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.

Effective May 29, 2008, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was expanded to include sexual orientation, inclusive of transgender status, to the list of protected classes for public accommodations. Colorado now prohibits discrimination against individuals because they are straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in establishments like restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and hospitals.
...
A public accommodation is any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public, as well as any place offering facilities, privileges, advantages or other accommodations to the public.

Colorado Civil Rights

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act

"No shoes, no shirt, no service" are usually for restaurants or bars, where food is served and cleanliness and sanitation is an issue. You can't just refuse to serve someone for your own personal reasons.

reply to post by destination now

thanks for the link

again, i disagree with this ruling and merely based on this statement right here ...

source
The restriction, the owners said, applied equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

for no reason other than what's quoted above is why i think the court err'd on the side of political pressure vs balanced reasoning.

[besides the fact that this particular B&B is located in the host's homestead]
their home, it should be their decision.

It's no different than refusing service to African Americans, Asians, or a religious sect you disagree with.

You can't do it.

In my opinion we should have a free market. If you own a business and you don't want to serve someone,
you just say no to them and refuse service. Let the market decide if that was a good idea or not.

But this is America, and we don't do things that way. In America all are supposedly equal. And if we
allowed an unrestricted market there would be areas of the country where all the locals got together
and shunned (ran out) entire races or creeds of other Americans....it has happened before.

In America if you have a business, you have to serve everyone...or no one

reply to post by Rocker2013

if the couple is not a male & female couple, then yes, it should apply.
who are we to re-write someone else's religious doctrine ?

good luck finding a Baptist that will accomodate a mixed-racial union.
should we force them to or just punish all Baptist's for their religious belief/practice ??

it's never OK to discriminate (imho) but that isn't gonna make it go away and ppl trying to force it aren't helping at all.

if your religion is important to you, who am i to tell you it is irrelevant and you MUST concede to my demands ???

should we FORCE muslim men to accompany their wives step for step and hand in hand ??
what about forcing children to accept, view or participate in public sex acts ??
[kissing, hugging, holding hands]

is it ok to punish parents who cover their childrens' eyes and ears in a seeminly offensive environment ??
when should tolerance become a forced issue anyway ?

i may be tolerant of many religious practices of which i'd never participate, but when does my tolerance translate to forced participation ???