Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by Darth_Prime

why? why do you suspect they had an agenda but he didn't?

hmmm, I don't remember saying the baker didn't have an agenda. But the Progressives in general have an agenda for sure.

maybe they thought him the best baker

Umm no, seriously I question their motive and their agenda because it is known that they specifically went to this bakery knowing the guy wouldn't want to cater gay wedding cakes.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

If you're a black business person and a white customer says, "I'm not going to buy from you because you're black",

Aren't we past this already? This is why Progressives are likening gay rights to black civil rights. They know that people won't argue if they get compared to being racist. Comparing sexual orientation to being black is really pushing the envelope, but of course that was what "After The Ball" is about. That is also why they are trying to promote the idea that they have zero control over their sexual activities.

And sure you can win lawsuits that way if that's what you want to do.

Even gay activist Paul Varnell says this is not about civil rights or discrimination suits but it is about making people accept and respect the lifestyle.

Here are his own words:

Writing in the Chicago Free Press, even homosexual activist Paul Varnell admitted this. He wrote, "The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality. Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal. On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves. So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." (Paul Varnell, "Defending Our Morality," Chicago Free Press, Aug 16, 2000, indegayforum.org...).

lasalettejourney.blogspot.com...

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


You make Progressive sound like such a dirty word.
I shiver every time you mention it.

Again. Your freedom of religion does not give you the right to discriminate against anyone else.
In this country every person is entitled to live his life within the law.

I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

It's all here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Granted that sexual orientation isn't here. But we do have Colorado law to cover that.

And a question. Why can't we compare how gays are treated now to how blacks were treated in the 60's.
Many gay people have been attacked or even murdered just for being gay.
No one deserves that.

Oh and let me leave this here.

The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort.

Maybe the bakery owner should of just made the cake and gone on with his life.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

You point out one of the aspects of this that hasn't been well thought out. To requote your quote:

Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.

Even if the gay couple wins the suit, what does it to do reduce hostility, and advance full social acceptance? Just about the same thing that the Chick-fil-A business did.

I think the most likely outcome from this suit is that most people will say "Those $^&8* gays, always causing trouble. It's a stupid lawsuit, and if that's the way they think, I don't want them anywhere near me."

Win the battle, lose the war.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


and your ideology doesn't? name one ideology that doesn't have an 'Agenda'

dictionary.reference.com...

a·gen·da

noun formally a plural of , agendum but usually used as a singular with plural , a·gen·das or a·gen·da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.

every story i have read about it said they found out about other couples being turned away after they filed the lawsuit, is that true or not? i don't know, i don't know them personally, i can't judge if they went to purposely get denied to file a lawsuit, or if they had no idea they would be denied

reply to post by charles1952

I think the most likely outcome from this suit is that most people will say "Those $^&8* gays, always causing trouble. It's a stupid lawsuit, and if that's the way they think, I don't want them anywhere near me."

Charles,

"Most people"? I don't think so. I think most people think the baker is in the wrong here, and is guilty of discrimination.

Things often get worse before they get better. We are seeing the pains of change as people are becoming more and more acceptant of alternative lifestyle and families while others hold onto their bias in a death grip.

Even people who are against gay marriage don't, as a rule, enjoy seeing others treated with rejection because of who they love. More young people are in favor of gay marriage than their elders, and the youth are coming up fast into their
"optimum prime" leaving last century's mindsets in the dust.
Nearly 60% Support Legal Same Sex Marriage, 80% Youth

Sure, this couple may be viewed as overly litigious, but I doubt that opinion will carry over to the gay community at large or add to the bigotry toward gays. But it won't help win over the people who are already against their being treated fairly, that's for sure!

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Dear ThirdEyeofHorus,

You point out one of the aspects of this that hasn't been well thought out. To requote your quote:

Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.

Even if the gay couple wins the suit, what does it to do reduce hostility, and advance full social acceptance? Just about the same thing that the Chick-fil-A business did.

I think the most likely outcome from this suit is that most people will say "Those $^&8* gays, always causing trouble. It's a stupid lawsuit, and if that's the way they think, I don't want them anywhere near me."

Win the battle, lose the war.

With respect,
Charles1952

Hi Charles,

in that last sentence you have summed up the argument I was putting forward earlier in the thread by saying a cake was bit of a stupid thing to fight over.

However, the principle of the matter is what really applies here.

Consider this; if we were to allow this baker to continue his practise of refusing to bake cakes for gays, how is a gay person that has never heard of this bakery but in search of a cake to know he does not make cakes for them. Is he now going to hang a sign above his door saying 'No Gays allowed?' Does this very step not take us several hundred years backwards in civil rights?

I know it is hard for people to change their ways, I really do get that. The one argument I do accept for people not liking gay people is "I am heterosexual and I don't like gay because it just feels so foreign to me" - that's just someone's natural sexuality playing out combined with a fear of the unknown. However as a homosexual, I and all the gay people I know will not say the reverse about heterosexuality as we are immersed in the environment and just have to deal with it.

To all those who think it's okay to deny us a simple cake, think about this. If your, or my country were being invaded by a foreign force, I would pick up a gun and I would fight alongside you to protect your family and our way of life. I am pretty sure none of you would turn my, or any other gay person's help down. In that respect you would treat us as equals because it is convenient to you.

But when we want a simple cake, you (as in the general population who do not like gay people, not yourself personally) find that inconvenient because it makes you feel uncomfortable. Yet many people spend their lives making us gay people feeling as unwelcome as possible.

People talk of underhand agendas and of this and of that, but not one single argument I have seen against us and this one silly little cake moves out of the realms of fear and ignorance into rational and reasonable.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

A. Business owners don't have the obligation to serve anyone who comes in their shop. But if you have a business in Colorado, you cannot discriminate against the customers because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or you could get sued. It's just the law.

I didn't say the law was anything other than what it was. I made a comment about a notion that many people hold.

B. A business isn't a private home and the laws that apply to a business don't apply to a private home. That's ridiculous.

Property is property. Home owners decide who gets access to their property and who doesn't. If they happen to own a private business as well, there's no reason that those same rights shouldn't be applied as role of business ower.

reply to post by markosity1973

Dear markosity1973,

Do you have any idea how valuable you are to ATS, and to me personally?

There are some topics in which it is nearly impossible to find a person who is not screaming and who is willing to explore ideas. For me, Islam, Israel, Monsanto all seem to be at the top of the Rogue's Gallery of posters. Homosexuality is not far behind. You are rare, and nearly priceless.

But, gotta get to work.

Largely, I agree with your post. Laws have to be obeyed, violators must be punished. In some cases the punishment is almost a martyrdom and a spur to change. Every movement has them. (Sometimes ala OWS, they hope to make them.) So where do we differ, if at all?

In the optics, as the Washington insiders put it.. Assume the case is air-tight and the couple wins. Further, say all the bakers in town are intimidated and start giving out free cakes to gays.

Still, it looks to a lot of people in this thread, and presumably throughout the country, that the couple are sue happy, publicity grabbing, pests.

This whole thing could have been handled better. It reminds me of labor unions working to rule, which slows down everything to 10% of what it had been. Then they turn to a complaining public and say "We're not doing anything wrong, we're only following every letter of every policy manual." They look like jerks.

This case "looks" (the optics again) a little like avengers trampling down every tiny incident of resistance after the main prize had been won.

But, sure, they should win the suit.

Just had a thought, and it's not a very good one. What would happen if the couple said. "Ah, heck, we've proved our point, we don't need a law suit. Just sign a statement that you plan to abide by Colorado's law in the future, appear with us in a press conference, and we're outta here."

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by markosity1973


Work,

a reply worth reiterating Truth, Decorum and Dignity

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973

 

Just had a thought, and it's not a very good one. What would happen if the couple said. "Ah, heck, we've proved our point, we don't need a law suit. Just sign a statement that you plan to abide by Colorado's law in the future, appear with us in a press conference, and we're outta here."

We would be discussing how the gays are blackmailing to force people to publicly denounce their own values in press conferences. Forgiveness and homosexual aren't two words that many religious people would be allow to sit in a sentence together as friends.

Even your own post is filled with terms like publicity grabbing and pests indicating that you know exactly what motivates the people involved and what their value system is. Would you give them the benefit of the doubt if they said 'we don't need a law suit'?

reply to post by Pinke

Dear Pinke,

I'm sorry I created that impression in you mind. I know it's hard to believe, but I wasn't attacking anybody. Here's what I was thinking, summarized:

The couple will win the lawsuit. This whole business will be seen by many in a way unflattering to gays in genral, especially the assertive ones. (Rightly or wrongly) It's too bad, that they couldn't have won over hearts and minds, which is the real prize. How could they do that now? I don't know. Here's a goofy idea to spur some thought on the subject.

Peace?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by markosity1973

 

Just had a thought, and it's not a very good one. What would happen if the couple said. "Ah, heck, we've proved our point, we don't need a law suit. Just sign a statement that you plan to abide by Colorado's law in the future, appear with us in a press conference, and we're outta here."

With respect,
Charles1952

For me personally, that would still be a win in terms of having the right thing done; both legally and morally if the bakery owner was genuine in his retraction and perhaps did something out of his own personal free will like just give them a cake. If the business owner did that, they would become the darling of the rights movement because they have shown that anyone can change in a public way.

Gaining money out of this or shutting the business down does not prove anything. It would not make the owner change their personal views, it will only hurt them financially and probably steel their resolve against gay people. And I guess that is why I expressed shock at the thought of the lawsuit in the first place. Not everything can be solved by going someone for a lot of money in court.

At least, they are humans. And humans have right to have cake.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Umm no, seriously I question their motive and their agenda because it is known that they specifically went to this bakery knowing the guy wouldn't want to cater gay wedding cakes.

That is not true. People keep saying that in this thread, but nowhere in all the sources I've read about this story did they know they would be turned down. They only found out about this baker's history AFTER the incident, when they went on Facebook to relay their story.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
They know that people won't argue if they get compared to being racist.

It IS comparable. Racist, sexist, religionist, etc. If you discriminate, based on a characteristic (race, sex, religion, sexual orientation) it's all the same thing. Those who wish to separate sexual orientation out as if it's a "special case" and not discrimination are fooling themselves. People have a choice about their religion. Is it, then, OK to discriminate because of that?

Even gay activist Paul Varnell says this is not about civil rights or discrimination suits but it is about making people accept and respect the lifestyle.

Nearly the exact same think could have been said about black people in the 50s. That doesn't mean we ignore the civil rights aspect of gay discrimination. To illustrate:

"Even though blacks have obtained non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and marriage rights benefits, those have done little to counter the underlying moral condemnation (racism) which continues to fester beneath the law and generates hostility, fuels hate crimes, supports white supremacist groups, encourages black youth resentment (gangs) and inhibits the full social acceptance that is our goal."

Yes. Discrimination laws won't FIX the problem completely, but that doesn't mean we continue to allow gays to be LEGALLY discriminated against and ignore it like the festering wound that it is. It has taken 60 years to get where we are in the civil rights fight for black equality, and we're not even done yet. But at least, the law is protecting the people, which is what it's meant to do.

Here are his own words:

On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears.

And how, pray tell, does this man suggest we convince the staunch, right-wing conservative, evangelical religious majority that homosexuality is fully moral???? He's dreaming! They think they have "God" on their side - that they're fighting for the salvation of the country and the world...

Don't get me wrong, I agree with him. IF we could convince people that homosexuality is as moral as heterosexuality, all the discrimination would go away. But how does he suggest we perform that particular miracle???

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


So what if being gay is completely a choice. What if gay people choose to be that way, and then choose to embrace each other for a life long relationship in which each person feels valued and appreciated? How does that offend anyone here in the least? WHy does that matter?

And why would that be a reason to deny anyone some cake?

No matter how it is sliced, I just fail to see why it is even a discussion.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


It is a crime against humanity to deny any fellow human cake.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
So what if being gay is completely a choice.

I've asked that many times with nary a response... Since when did so-called "conservatism" decide to stand against personal choice?

And when people say that race and sexual orientation are different because gay people have a choice, I then wonder... Does that mean if race WAS a choice, it would be fine to discriminate against them? The very idea that "black people can't help being black because they don't have a choice", suggests a mindset that I'm a little hesitant to explore because it shows underlying beliefs and assumptions that I find ugly and offensive.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


how quickly we find that the kindness we see from others is likely contrived and plotted?

Homosexulas do not have a choice. . If one 'chooses' to be gay often times they are embracing it as lifestyle I have found that they many times were victims of abuse, sexually, verbally or in a relationship. Sociological influence.

Boys molested often times by someone will continue the cycle and not really be gay or women want the comfort of a woman because of abuse but really like to have sex with men. These people are not gay they need some help, love and therapy. You cannot therapy away homosexuality.

Homosexuality is genetic and you cannot reverse it. At a very early age children usually will find themselves different than others, at different ages, and in the past you were just 'put in the closet' so to say. Now, there are many more outlets which is why I a, pushing the legal aspect of how they should move forward and like I had said before also, choose the battle correctly and you can win the war.

These were men who have been around and more than likely have dealt with really horrible verbal attacks, etc and if he, the baker, called them 'homos' and said leave I would feel much differently but again, I do not think there was discrimination because he did it based on his protected religious beliefs. If that was just an excuse that come out later and nothing else then hang him but all people, not just gays, have the right to freedoms. I am also not making excuses for him but showing how thin a lawsuit would be in my eyes. In the end it is up to the judge who and interpret the law how he feels just. So what happens if it is thrown out, do you then accept it and move on calling the judge a racist then or are you content with the decision?

They were free to go anywhere and choose a bakery that was known to not may same-sex wedding cakes. Not "not sell to gays". to me this shows it may have been targeted. If this was a gang of bakers who would not do it I would also see the discrimination. A pattern. If it is one guy who believes strongly enough in something there are 100's of others waiting to take your money.

Again, people can have opinions but just because it does not fit yours does not mean they would not stand up for you. I know I have and would.If they were my friends, I would have gone and simply ordered a cake from there for them if they really wanted one. That is what friends do...they do not argue semantics they work to make everyone comfortable and fight the next battle.