Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[The Black Forrest]

Oh the victim card eh? Christians usually like to play that.

yes I love to trample the rights of Relgious people trying to force their ways on others. I really LOVE trampling Religious peoples rights to make others second class citizens.

Lol, double. You are wrong once again. I dont believe in a God at all.
If you bothered reading any of my previous posts, you would have seen that.
You are an exemplary standard of someone that does not care about other people opinions and readily trample over them. This is the issue I have with forcing baker to make an item for a ceremony their faith is against.

Uh-huh.

The bakers faith is irrelevant. The bakery is not a religious institution. As the judge stated. You can't sell to hetros and not to homosexuals.

[Liriena]

Lol, double. You are wrong once again. I dont believe in a God at all.
If you bothered reading any of my previous posts, you would have seen that.
You are an exemplary standard of someone that does not care about other people opinions and readily trample over them. This is the issue I have with forcing baker to make an item for a ceremony their faith is against.

Uh-huh.

The bakers faith is irrelevant. The bakery is not a religious institution. As the judge stated. You can't sell to hetros and not to homosexuals.

If the baker wanted to make a religious statement out of his wedding cakes, he should have started an NGO or a church. A licensed business, as a part of the free market, has obligations.

[Conservative Conservationists]

Lol, double. You are wrong once again. I dont believe in a God at all.
If you bothered reading any of my previous posts, you would have seen that.
You are an exemplary standard of someone that does not care about other people opinions and readily trample over them. This is the issue I have with forcing baker to make an item for a ceremony their faith is against.

Uh-huh.

The bakers faith is irrelevant. The bakery is not a religious institution. As the judge stated. You can't sell to hetros and not to homosexuals.

You keep on proving my point and its sad you don't realize it.
"the bakers faith is irrelevant" - The judges opinion is not relevant to my argument.

You have misread or not read my posts twice (once by assuming that I would not provide an item for the ceremony and again by assuming my beliefs) and reflected your belief that for this cause at least (although no one thinks so for a FGM ceremony) wish to dictate the actions of others. There is a personal value reflected by forcing people to partake in ceremonies that you consider worth while only.

The homosexual community wants gay marriage as it does not wish to be restricted from performing private actions. At the same time the couple and its supporters are willing to force others to partake in it thus restricting the private actions of others.
Please stop typing instantly and consider your response. Instead of trying to trample over the opinions of others, try and first understand the opinion.

[JJ Place]

Do you mean that too many people who are judges would be tempted to set a new president?

The Supreme court did it in 2000.

Oh, precedent.

[Orham]

The homosexual community wants gay marriage as it does not wish to be restricted from performing private actions. At the same time the couple and its supporters are willing to force others to partake in it thus restricting the private actions of others.

What the law in question is designed to do is prevent public accommodations from engaging in discrimination against customers on the basis of their membership in a protected class. The law simply regulates how business is to be conducted in a public accommodation in order to retain a license to operate as such, and the bakery was voluntarily established under the terms of that licensure. The burden of the law was assumed entirely voluntarily, there's no coercion to be spoken of.

EDIT: Typo.

[The Black Forrest]

Uh-huh.

The bakers faith is irrelevant. The bakery is not a religious institution. As the judge stated. You can't sell to hetros and not to homosexuals.

You keep on proving my point and its sad you don't realize it.
"the bakers faith is irrelevant" - The judges opinion is not relevant to my argument.

It must bother you to know your opinion doesn't matter. The law said you can't discriminate and the judge ruled the baker can't discriminate.

The bakers faith is irrelevant.

You have misread or not read my posts twice (once by assuming that I would not provide an item for the ceremony and again by assuming my beliefs) and reflected your belief that for this cause at least (although no one thinks so for a FGM ceremony) wish to dictate the actions of others. There is a personal value reflected by forcing people to partake in ceremonies that you consider worth while only.

The homosexual community wants gay marriage as it does not wish to be restricted from performing private actions. At the same time the couple and its supporters are willing to force others to partake in it thus restricting the private actions of others.
Please stop typing instantly and consider your response. Instead of trying to trample over the opinions of others, try and first understand the opinion.

Uh-huh.

The gay couple used their rights. The baker was stupid and rightly chastised. Hopefully, he is not stupid with the chance he was given.

Again; your faith is IRRELEVANT if you open a business to the public.

[JJ Place]

Because gay people's dignity is not as important as that of ethnic or religious minorities.

It should be outlawed, like I said before, except when religion is involved.

There are no religious exemptions in a just world.

[Conservative Conservationists]

You keep on proving my point and its sad you don't realize it.
"the bakers faith is irrelevant" - The judges opinion is not relevant to my argument.

It must bother you to know your opinion doesn't matter. The law said you can't discriminate and the judge ruled the baker can't discriminate.

The bakers faith is irrelevant.

You have misread or not read my posts twice (once by assuming that I would not provide an item for the ceremony and again by assuming my beliefs) and reflected your belief that for this cause at least (although no one thinks so for a FGM ceremony) wish to dictate the actions of others. There is a personal value reflected by forcing people to partake in ceremonies that you consider worth while only.

The homosexual community wants gay marriage as it does not wish to be restricted from performing private actions. At the same time the couple and its supporters are willing to force others to partake in it thus restricting the private actions of others.
Please stop typing instantly and consider your response. Instead of trying to trample over the opinions of others, try and first understand the opinion.

Uh-huh.

The gay couple used their rights. The baker was stupid and rightly chastised. Hopefully, he is not stupid with the chance he was given.

Again; your faith is IRRELEVANT if you open a business to the public.

And if someone believed your opinion was irrelevant and insisted your medical business help mutilate another persons genitals, you would be OK with that?
I have far more respect for individual choice.

[Caltarania]

I guess the baker can do what he likes.

But it's a fucking terrible business plan. He's losing a massive market by being a bigot.

[Orham]

And if someone believed your opinion was irrelevant and insisted your medical business help mutilate another persons genitals, you would be OK with that?

...you're going to have to explain how this hypothetical is at all comparable to the situation in Colorado. A bakery operated as a public accommodation sells wedding cakes. A homosexual couple requested a cake and was refused full and equal service on the grounds of their sexual orientation, a violation of Colorado law. The bakery was penalized for violating the terms of its business license.

Meanwhile, at Forrest's hypothetical female circumcision clinic _______ . Fill in the blank.

I have far more respect for individual choice.

I don't care.

[JJ Place]

FGM causes actual harm, being homosexual doesn't.

Depends on your beliefs. Some would argue FGM is of benefit to the child. It is practiced for a reason, people believe it is in their child's best interest.
Others would argue that homosexual marriage is an against god and therefor will harm society.

Neither of those are my beliefs. I just refuse to support forcing someone to comply with either FGM or homosexual marriage.

GM is still a crime to a person, and morally wrong, regardless of beliefs. Likewise, it's not really an issue that a minority of conservatives see being gay as being morally-wrong, or that they'rs a lingering prejudice against people for being gay. Those beliefs are wrong.

[ALMF]

Baking a cake violates his religious beliefs?

Lets say you are a person who creates medical supplies.
You have an order from someone who wishes to perform female genital mutilation as part of their culture. If operating in a country that does this, should you be forced to provide the individuals the product although you know what it is to be used for? Its completely legal to do so, just possibly not ethical depending on your beliefs.

You may just be preparing a knife. Yet you know what it is going to be used for.

Absolutely should be required, FJM should be illegal and you should do what is analogous to Chik-Fal-la. However, if it requires ANY modification to be effective, you shouldn't modify it.

Edut note: FJM violates international law so is not legal anywhere.

[ALMF]

The Bakers attorney put it down right. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."

No, discrimination is antithetical to everything America stands for.

True, but this is risky. We had a "House Committee on Un-American Activities."

[ALMF]

How is serving a homosexual couple violating the Christian religion?

Serving homosexuals doesn't violate the Christian religion, but serving them a WEDDING CAKE does. I am going to quote this baker here...."I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings.", you're welcome. So there, he didn't refuse to serve them.

Lets put this in a contexts were everyone disagrees with the costumer, so there's no question of bious. Given a Jewish baker and a Neo-NAZI groop wanting a birthday-cake for Hitlers birthday. If the baker refuses to put swasticas on the cake or "Happy Birthday Hitler" he is within his rights both morally and ethically. However if he standardly sells birthday cakes that say "happy birthday," and refuses to sell one here, he is a discriminatory SOB and deserves tobe in jail: legally if political party/position is a protected class and morally regardless.

[Gauthier]

He can simply do what another butthurt "Christian bakery" in Oregon did:

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Denied Gay Couple A Wedding Cake, Closes Shop

The Oregon bakery which sparked the ire of same-sex marriage advocates nationwide by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple has closed up shop.

As Willamette Week first reported, Sweet Cakes by Melissa closed its storefront on Saturday, Aug. 31, as the shop is not open for business on Sundays.

"This will be our last weekend at the shop we are moving our business to an in home bakery," an Aug. 30 entry on Sweet Cakes' Facebook page reads. "I will post our new number soon. Email will stay the same melissa@sweetcakesweb.com."

Meanwhile, KOIN reports that a sign hinting at the controversy that ensued after co-owner Aaron Klein cited his religious beliefs in turning away the lesbian brides-to-be earlier this year appeared on the bakery's door a day after the shop closed for good.

“This fight is not over," the sign read, according to the report. "We will continue to stand strong. Your Religious Freedom is becoming not Free anymore. This is ridiculous that we can not practice our faith. The LORD is good and we will continue to serve Him with all our heart."

The shop's closing came on the heels of news that the lesbian couple that Klein rejected had filed a complaint with the state, alleging that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation, according to Oregon Live.

In response to the complaint, the bakery's co-owner Melissa Klein argued that turning away the couple was "definitely not discrimination at all."

"We don't have anything against lesbians or homosexuals," she said in August. "It has to do with our morals and beliefs. It's so frustrating because we went through all of this in January, when it all came out."

Her remarks echoed sentiments her husband Aaron shared with NBC earlier this year. "I think [the state labor commissioner] is going to have decide what's more important: The Oregon State Constitution, or the statute that was passed in 2007," he said at the time. "They dropped the ball by not putting in any exemption for religious beliefs."

Oh, here's an interesting tidbit.

Meanwhile, the company's Facebook page has been filled with a myriad of supportive comments.

"I am saddened to hear that you're closing your shop. It is terrible that you live in the U.S.A. -- land where our forefathers fought and died for our freedoms, and you have been criticized and threatened for standing up for what you believe in," one user wrote. "You have the right to do that, and I fully support the decisions you have made! Hope things go well for you and your business continues to flourish!"

Wasn't that Free Market Whore supposed to make businesses with bigoted views unpopular?

[ALMF]

But why is religion an excuse? Sure, people have the right to believe in and abide by whatever religious doctrine and rituals they so desire... but there are certain boundaries. Religion is a private, personal matter, not an excuse for malicious behaviour, least of all behaviour that affects the quality of life of others.

Religion still will come into life and business.

Just like (with a right to personal safety) homicides will still happen: true but it doesn't make homicide or public religion any more moral.

[ALMF]

"My religion says taxes are evil, I'm not paying any! Freedom of religion FTW!"

My religion says certain illicit drugs are holy sacraments of my faith. Ohwait there really are legal religious exemptions for that.

True; drug intake ends at your skin. You cannot however give it to your kids. see the pattern.

[ALMF]

It should be outlawed, like I said before, except when religion is involved.

There are no religious exemptions in a just world.

And "by definition" to the end and this is perfect.

[Conservative Conservationists]

Depends on your beliefs. Some would argue FGM is of benefit to the child. It is practiced for a reason, people believe it is in their child's best interest.
Others would argue that homosexual marriage is an against god and therefor will harm society.

Neither of those are my beliefs. I just refuse to support forcing someone to comply with either FGM or homosexual marriage.

GM is still a crime to a person,

Depending on which country you reside in. In some countries gay sex is illegal. That dosnt make it morally right or wrong.

and morally wrong,

Yet benefits according to its supporters are related to health. Healthcare is normally categorized as good.

regardless of beliefs.

Actually it is all about beliefs.

Likewise, it's not really an issue that a minority of conservatives see being gay as being morally-wrong,

Depending on which survey you follow, there are more people against gay marriage than supporting a major political party. I dont know how that becomes a minority

or that they'rs a lingering prejudice against people for being gay.

In most western countries, a government approved title to a union is the only legal seperation.

Those beliefs are wrong.

As they are not yours?

[Fartsniffage]

GM is still a crime to a person,

Depending on which country you reside in. In some countries gay sex is illegal. That dosnt make it morally right or wrong.

and morally wrong,

Yet benefits according to its supporters are related to health. Healthcare is normally categorized as good.

regardless of beliefs.

Actually it is all about beliefs.

Likewise, it's not really an issue that a minority of conservatives see being gay as being morally-wrong,

Depending on which survey you follow, there are more people against gay marriage than supporting a major political party. I dont know how that becomes a minority

or that they'rs a lingering prejudice against people for being gay.

In most western countries, a government approved title to a union is the only legal seperation.

Those beliefs are wrong.

As they are not yours?

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

[Gauthier]

Depending on which country you reside in. In some countries gay sex is illegal. That dosnt make it morally right or wrong.


Yet benefits according to its supporters are related to health. Healthcare is normally categorized as good.


Actually it is all about beliefs.


Depending on which survey you follow, there are more people against gay marriage than supporting a major political party. I dont know how that becomes a minority


In most western countries, a government approved title to a union is the only legal seperation.


As they are not yours?

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

When you have to legitimize female genital mutilation to argue a point, it's over.

[Heinostan]

appears that if you own a private business you cant decide who you do business with or not anymore

Business owners do not operate in a vacuum. A person can only be said to "own" something because they, or others on their behalf, are willing and able to enforce that claim. In Colorado, like most everywhere else on Earth at present, ownership claims are enforced by the government. That's not the only way to do it, but that is the system we currently live under. (So-called "anarcho"-capitalists, who deify business owners like no other group does, argue that private agencies should replace those of the state -- but even they understand that someone must enforce ownership claims.)

Since the business is owned by virtue of the government, it is the government that decides how the business owner may operate. Freedom is not being trampled when the government (ostensibly the people) tells the business owner that he may not continue to operate under its protection if he insists on discriminating against segments of its population. The government is not entering his vacuum to take away something he already had -- it is adjusting the rules under which he is allowed to claim ownership.

[Maqo]

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Terrible verse.
How about some of the other laws of Leveticus?

18:21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord'"
All of Leveticus 19, such as:
19 “‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
“‘Do not practice divination or seek omens.
27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.
20:9-10
9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

The only people who quote Leveticus are bigots who haven't actually read the bible and want to pass off the blame for their intolerance.

[Free Tristania]

I am sorry but a baker's shop is private property and the baker can refuse people if he wants to for no reason given if need be since it's private property. The court should stay out of private affairs or the judge should be disbarred. I don't agree with refusing people because of their sexual orientation or their race (eventhough I am not a huge fan of homosexuality myself) but taking away basic rights from those who hold private property is beyond the pale.

[Free Tristania]

The Bakers attorney put it down right. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for."

Exactly. Now "equality" has become more important than someone's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.