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

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by dronedodger

 

dronedodger
He can not in good conscience contribute to the celebration. I read that when he makes wedding cakes, for him, he's also participanting in the celebration.

If that's the way he feels, that's fine. But to obey the law of the land, he would have to deny EVERYONE a wedding cake, which it seems he has chosen to do. That's fine. Sometimes our personal and professional lives cross. We must find a way to honor both. And removing wedding cakes from his repertoire is the perfect solution.

I wonder what God will say about him making a wedding cake for two dogs who got "married"... I wonder if he's worried about answering for that...

Why wonder? You could call him and ask him about it and reply with his actual response. I'm surprised at how people on here reply with assumptions without digging a little deeper for their answers.

reply to post by dronedodger

dronedodger
I'm surprised at how people on here reply with assumptions without digging a little deeper for their answers.

What assumption did I make? I have done quite a bit of research on this case (when it originally happened). I have never seen him even mention the dog wedding. I'm not curious enough to call him, however. No assumptions here.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by dronedodger

 

dronedodger
I'm surprised at how people on here reply with assumptions without digging a little deeper for their answers.

What assumption did I make? I have done quite a bit of research on this case (when it originally happened). I have never seen him even mention the dog wedding. I'm not curious enough to call him, however. No assumptions here.

Your "what if" and " I wonder" can easily be answered without throwing someone into such a large net.
I guess the thread is here for chit chat and broad wondering.

Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by dronedodger

 

dronedodger
I'm surprised at how people on here reply with assumptions without digging a little deeper for their answers.

What assumption did I make? I have done quite a bit of research on this case (when it originally happened). I have never seen him even mention the dog wedding. I'm not curious enough to call him, however. No assumptions here.

Personally, when I do quite a bit of research, I truly try to go to the source when possible.
I don't know him so if I'm going to publicly post about him in particular, I feel the need to attempt to contact the source. I'll certainly try to keep up with what happens with his appeal.

beezzer
If religious beliefs are no longer held sacred, what's to stop having a gay wedding performed at a mosque?


This is the state determining an individual's rights.

It will happen precedence is being established allowing for a law suit in facti remember reading an article about two guys suing the church of england because they couldnt have a ceremony in a church not sure what happened with it but ill see if i can find out.

reply to post by macman


it's not about forcing someone to do something, it's about the fact that it is discrimination, that is against the law and he broke it, thus the law suit.

talk about forcing, why should a couple be forced to go elsewhere? why should someone be forced to select another bake shop? why should someone be forced to find a store that would serve the if all stores should be allowed to discriminate?

what about a couple who lives in a town where every shop would be allowed to discriminate? what if they couldn't find a store that would serve the, should they be forced to travel outside of their town?

I Want My America Back! (or, What the Law Said)


“To permit this [Reynolds was a polygamist - G66] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Majority Opinion, Reynolds v. United States (1878)

"No well-ordered society can leave to the individuals an absolute right to make final decisions, unassailable by the State, as to everything they will or will not do. The First Amendment does not go so far." Justice Hugo Black, Concurring Opinion, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

"Although a State would be 'prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]' in violation of the Clause ["free exercise Clause" - G66] if it sought to ban the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts solely because of their religious motivation, the Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons." Justice Antonin Scalia, Majority Opinion, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) Upholding Reynolds (1878).

___________________________________________

Religious belief does not supercede the fair and equal treatment of citizens under the law. Period. Christians, you may have reason to be thankful for this fact, and for the American separation of Church and State, if persons with religious beliefs hostile to your own were to gain power in this country, in a State or a county or a city near you.

Bakers bake cakes. They do not conduct religious tests to decide who can employ their services.

BUT, let's go with constancy of application of Biblical principles for a moment (one of the actual legal tests in determining whether 1st Amendment applies) ... did the baker consistently follow the Bible's teachings in determining the validity of customers?

Did the baker also deny services to someone previously divorced? (Mark 10:9 "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.")

Did the baker also deny services to someone serving alcohol at the reception? How about steak? (Proverbs 23:20-21 "Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.")

Did the baker also deny services to anyone wearing two different kinds of cloth? (Leviticus 19:19 "Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.")

... or how about shrimp? Anyone eating shrimp cocktail at this wedding? how about catfish bites? NO CAKE FOR YOU! (Deuteronomy 14:9-10 "These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.")

... and so on and so on ... ad absurdum, ad nauseam.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It is a document created to confine what the Govt can/can't do. Good hell, that is not that hard to understand.

It does create equal treatment, by the Govt to all people. There is nothing in that stating that I must treat others equally, as a person.

And the law being unconstitutional is the larger issue. But, I do think it is funny, and sad, that people champion this as a good thing, where someone is forced to do something against their will.
And the sad fact that doing business requires a paid for permission from the Govt, with Govt rules and confines.

Darth_Prime


it's not about forcing someone to do something,

Oh, so the owner ISN'T being forced to do something against his will or want?? Like bake a cake for someone.

Darth_Prime
it's about the fact that it is discrimination, that is against the law and he broke it, thus the law suit.

There is a state law, that supersedes the Constitutions in forcing someone to give up their rights, so that others may have rights.

Darth_Prime
talk about forcing, why should a couple be forced to go elsewhere?

So, now it is forcing someone to go elsewhere. Been waiting for this to come about.
Is there a Govt forcing them to go elsewhere??? No.
Is the free market driving this?? Yes.
I guess, that the argument could be that if a place, like the bakery, doesn't offer a certain frosting, then I should be able to claim that I am forced to go elsewhere. Thus, the Govt should step in and mandate all bakeries to offer said frosting.

Darth_Prime
why should someone be forced to select another bake shop?

Because they have the freedom to do so. Where as the bakery in questions does not. They are forced by State law to serve said people.

Darth_Prime
why should someone be forced to find a store that would serve the if all stores should be allowed to discriminate?

Because that is how it was designed. Maximum freedoms come with a small price.

Darth_Prime
what about a couple who lives in a town where every shop would be allowed to discriminate? what if they couldn't find a store that would serve the, should they be forced to travel outside of their town?

Yes, see above.

Just because the couple has chosen to live in the small town, doesn't afford them to right to force someone to do business with them.

reply to post by Willtell




Nowhere in the bible does it say "Thou shall not serve homosexuals in your business."

Nor "Thou shall treat homosexuals as lepers," or anything of the kind.


It does (arguably, at least) say that homosexuality is unnatural. As such, if the court ruled that this man had to go.... "get busy"... with another man, I'd consider that 100% wrong, and I'd agree that his religious rights have been violated.


As it stands, I would say this one is right on the border. Nowhere, in any official writings, are Christians prohibited from doing business with homosexuals. On the other hand, a person should be free to practice their religion as they see fit. However, to say that he should be able to discriminate against gays, is...well....discriminatory no matter how you slice it.


What if I were to tell you that my version of Christianity (or whatever religion) prohibited me from doing business with blacks, or latinos? Or white people? Or women? Or fat people? Or short people? Or those with an IQ under 120? What would you say then? Is that okay? Would that be discriminatory?

reply to post by macman

macman
It is a document created to confine what the Govt can/can't do. Good hell, that is not that hard to understand.

Oh, I understand that. And having a business in the state of Colorado is a contract with the government of that state and one has to follow the LAWS of that state or not be in business.

It does create equal treatment, by the Govt to all people. There is nothing in that stating that I must treat others equally, as a person.

Agreed. But this case isn't just a person's treatment of another person. It's a BUSINESS'S treatment of a person.

And the law being unconstitutional is the larger issue. But, I do think it is funny, and sad, that people champion this as a good thing, where someone is forced to do something against their will.

The baker is not forced to do anything. He CHOSE to make wedding cakes for the public. As a BUSINESS, he MUST treat his customers equally. It's in his contract with the STATE. He doesn't have to own a business OR make wedding cakes. But if he does CHOOSE to do these things, he must treat his customers equally. Business-wise.

It's not that hard to understand.

Benevolent Heretic


Oh, I understand that. And having a business in the state of Colorado is a contract with the government of that state and one has to follow the LAWS of that state or not be in business.

And the law supersedes the Constitution.

Benevolent Heretic

Agreed. But this case isn't just a person's treatment of another person. It's a BUSINESS'S treatment of a person.

And the business is owned by a person.

Benevolent Heretic
The baker is not forced to do anything.

Is he or is he not forced to serve someone?

Benevolent Heretic
He CHOSE to make wedding cakes for the public. As a BUSINESS, he MUST treat his customers equally. It's in his contract with the STATE. He doesn't have to own a business OR make wedding cakes. But if he does CHOOSE to do these things, he must treat his customers equally. Business-wise.

It's not that hard to understand.

So, he IS forced to do something against his will then.

reply to post by macman

macman
And the law supersedes the Constitution.

What do you mean it "supersedes" the Constitution? You mean it violates the Constitutions? Because it does neither. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a business's choice to discriminate... If I'm wrong, please get specific and point it out.

And the business is owned by a person.

That's irrelevant.

Is he or is he not forced to serve someone?

He's not forced to have a business. He's not forced to make wedding cakes. So, no, he's not forced to serve anything to anyone. If he FREELY chooses to have a business and operate under the laws pertaining to business ownership, then he must comply with the laws.

You're arguing a case comparable to a person getting a drivers license and refusing to obey the laws of the road because it's "against his religion" to go the speed limit. That's crazy talk! If he gets a license, he has to obey the laws. Same with a business.

So, he IS forced to do something against his will then.

Just as obeying driving laws "forces" people to do something against their will.

Benevolent Heretic
What do you mean it "supersedes" the Constitution? You mean it violates the Constitutions? Because it does neither. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects a business's choice to discriminate... If I'm wrong, please get specific and point it out.

Yes it does. I have certain rights, just like everyone else. I have the right to not interact with people. If I own a business, I OWN the business, I have that right.

Benevolent Heretic
That's irrelevant.

Oh good hell. I love how when challenged, Progressives will deem something not relevant.
It is totally relevant.

Benevolent Heretic

He's not forced to have a business. He's not forced to make wedding cakes. So, no, he's not forced to serve anything to anyone. If he FREELY chooses to have a business and operate under the laws pertaining to business ownership, then he must comply with the laws.

He has the freedom to open a business, just not decide who he does business with. Sounds like force to me and anyone else. It only gets you and others up in arms, once the gay thing is injected into it.
As logic applies, remove the emotional aspect of Gay, and it is a basic issue of rights of a business owner.

Benevolent Heretic
You're arguing a case comparable to a person getting a drivers license and refusing to obey the laws of the road because it's "against his religion" to go the speed limit. That's crazy talk! If he gets a license, he has to obey the laws. Same with a business.

There is no right to have a driver’s license.

Benevolent Heretic

Just as obeying driving laws "forces" people to do something against their will.

Driving is not a right.

reply to post by macman

macman
I have certain rights, just like everyone else. I have the right to not interact with people. If I own a business, I OWN the business, I have that right.

Just as I thought, you have nothing to back up your argument. You can't just scream, "I have that right"! and expect people to listen.

I love how when challenged, Progressives will deem something not relevant.

I love it that you've resorted to personal attack. That means you have no case and nothing with which to back up your claims. So, thanks.

He has the freedom to open a business, just not decide who he does business with. Sounds like force to me and anyone else. It only gets you and others up in arms, once the gay thing is injected into it.
As logic applies, remove the emotional aspect of Gay, and it is a basic issue of rights of a business owner.

It's not about being gay. He was breaking Colorado law and got caught and sued. That's how our legal system works.

There is no right to have a driver’s license.

There is a right to travel. But you still have to obey the laws of the land.
Just as there is a right to own a business, but you still have to obey the laws pertaining to business.
Just because you have a right to something doesn't mean there aren't laws involved.

Driving is not a right.

Neither is discrimination.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



So simply, I as a person am allowed to discriminate, but if I own a business, that I am not allowed to.

Love the double standard.

If I as a business owner want to prohibit say, a gun owner from entering my business, all is good. And that is not discrimination.

reply to post by macman

macman
So simply, I as a person am allowed to discriminate, but if I own a business, that I am not allowed to.

You're still allowed to discriminate as a person, but when it comes to doing business, no, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, national origin, blah, blah, blah. Each state has their own business laws.

I don't understand why people are so eager to discriminate in the first place. You make it sound like it's something one should aspire to ...

If I as a business owner want to prohibit say, a gun owner from entering my business, all is good. And that is not discrimination.

I'm not sure if you're talking about someone CARRYING a gun, or someone who simply OWNS a gun. But you certainly can prohibit firearms on the premises of your business. Firearms are not people and they don't have rights.

And gun owners haven't historically been discriminated against. They haven't been oppressed and killed for simply owning guns. So, no. Gun owners aren't a protected group.

One fine day, when people don't look down on others for who they are and are willing to treat those who are different from themselves with equality, then we won't need these stupid laws.

Benevolent Heretic


You're still allowed to discriminate as a person, but when it comes to doing business, no, you're not allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, national origin, blah, blah, blah. Each state has their own business laws.

No, no you are not, as the law was created taking away the rights of the business owner.

Benevolent Heretic
I don't understand why people are so eager to discriminate in the first place. You make it sound like it's something one should aspire to ...

Where did I state this?

Benevolent Heretic

I'm not sure if you're talking about someone CARRYING a gun, or someone who simply OWNS a gun. But you certainly can prohibit firearms on the premises of your business. Firearms are not people and they don't have rights.

I have the right to bear arms as per the Constitution.
I also have the right of private property and ownership of. The business is private property, until it comes to this crap. Again, it is always different.
People either have the right to private property or they don't.
People either have the right to refuse service, regardless the reason, or they don't.
You and others like this idea of refusing service, until it comes into play with your own view. It is very much black and white.
You either is, or you isn't.

Benevolent Heretic
And gun owners haven't historically been discriminated against. They haven't been oppressed and killed for simply owning guns. So, no. Gun owners aren't a protected group.

And what does that have to do with anything?
And yes, gun owners ARE currently discriminated against, hence business not allowing said people in to enjoy the publicly open business offering services to others.

Benevolent Heretic
One fine day, when people don't look down on others for who they are and are willing to treat those who are different from themselves with equality, then we won't need these stupid laws.

Gotta love social engineering. If people don't see it your way, then create laws to force them.

Again, it is always different for people like you.

reply to post by macman

macman
Again, it is always different for people like you.

I don't even know what that means. But again, you have resorted to personal attack and I'm starting to think this discussion was over a while ago. If you cannot back up what you say, your argument is pretty weak.

By the way, I have not said whether or not I agree with Colorado law, so I'm not sure how you can make such statements about me and people like me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Fair enough.
Do you back the decision and the law?