Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Gauthier]

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.

If businesses have a right to discriminate against customers, well as might re-legalize "White Only" and "Colored Only" entrances and counters.

[Free Tristania]

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

If businesses have a right to discriminate against customers, well as might re-legalize "White Only" and "Colored Only" entrances and counters.

Wrong analogy. That was State policy. But if private individuals want to do so: let them. It would be their right and it would only show their own abject stupidity and allow for those that don't agree with them to do business with their competitors. I know that socialists hate freedom but this is freedom: free to do business with whoever you want, live your life you want and let others do it too. However stupid it may seem.

[Swedish Realm]

You're right, it doesn't but it stands against homosexual marriage. And guess what? He said he would sell them cakes, but said he wouldn't sell them a WEDDING CAKE.

Which part of his religion says it's a sin for him to sell a wedding cake to gay couples? I'd like to see the bible verse specifying that, but I'm willing to guess the baker pulled it out of his ass.

Pulled what out of his ass?

[Gauthier]

Which part of his religion says it's a sin for him to sell a wedding cake to gay couples? I'd like to see the bible verse specifying that, but I'm willing to guess the baker pulled it out of his ass.

Pulled what out of his ass?

Oh sure Leviticus says men shouldn't lay with men, but where in the Bible does it say you shouldn't serve men who lay with men?

[Nervium]

Pulled what out of his ass?

Oh sure Leviticus says men shouldn't lay with men, but where in the Bible does it say you shouldn't serve men who lay with men?

Jesus said; "Give unto Ceasar what's Ceasar's", he was talking about the salad. And Ceasar was a pagan.

What kind of Christian would disagree with Jesus on stuff like this.

[Conservative Conservationists]

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

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

I never tried to legitimize it. It was a comparison of a value system that someone could be forced to assist with that they are morally against. This point appears to go over far too many heads. Whether a practice or ceremony is right or wrong, I still do not want to force any individual to partake in any aspect of it.

[Conservative Conservationists]

Pulled what out of his ass?

Oh sure Leviticus says men shouldn't lay with men, but where in the Bible does it say you shouldn't serve men who lay with men?

Seriously, do you expect a specific bible verse for every statement? The bible is clearly against homosexuality. Is it really another leap of faith to be against any action that celebrates it?

[Gauthier]

Oh sure Leviticus says men shouldn't lay with men, but where in the Bible does it say you shouldn't serve men who lay with men?

Seriously, do you expect a specific bible verse for every statement? The bible is clearly against homosexuality. Is it really another leap of faith to be against any action that celebrates it?

It's against gay sex. Where does it say it's against providing service to gays?

[Conservative Conservationists]

Seriously, do you expect a specific bible verse for every statement? The bible is clearly against homosexuality. Is it really another leap of faith to be against any action that celebrates it?

It's against gay sex. Where does it say it's against providing service to gays?

There is a difference between providing something like a toothbrush to a homosexual person and providing something that you know will be used to celebrate a homosexual relation. On the first, the discussion or topic of homosexuality need never arise and it is not supported or harmed. On the second, it is clearly supported.

[Gauthier]

It's against gay sex. Where does it say it's against providing service to gays?

There is a difference between providing something like a toothbrush to a homosexual person and providing something that you know will be used to celebrate a homosexual relation. On the first, the discussion or topic of homosexuality need never arise and it is not supported or harmed. On the second, it is clearly supported.

Where does it say you shall not contribute to the celebration of homosexuality?

[Swedish Realm]

It's against gay sex. Where does it say it's against providing service to gays?

There is a difference between providing something like a toothbrush to a homosexual person and providing something that you know will be used to celebrate a homosexual relation. On the first, the discussion or topic of homosexuality need never arise and it is not supported or harmed. On the second, it is clearly supported.

Agreed.

[Free Tristania]

It's against gay sex. Where does it say it's against providing service to gays?

There is a difference between providing something like a toothbrush to a homosexual person and providing something that you know will be used to celebrate a homosexual relation. On the first, the discussion or topic of homosexuality need never arise and it is not supported or harmed. On the second, it is clearly supported.

Agreed.

[Heinostan]

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 baker's shop did not become private property by the mere act of him hanging out his shingle. See my previous post.

The court should stay out of private affairs or the judge should be disbarred.

Property rights are a decidedly public affair.

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.

The rights of property owners are determined by those who define and enforce those rights: in this case, the state of Colorado, as upheld by the judge.

[Swedish Realm]

There is a difference between providing something like a toothbrush to a homosexual person and providing something that you know will be used to celebrate a homosexual relation. On the first, the discussion or topic of homosexuality need never arise and it is not supported or harmed. On the second, it is clearly supported.

Where does it say you shall not contribute to the celebration of homosexuality?

Like he said earlier, there is not going to be a statement for everything, surely it is frowned upon. Saying otherwise is completely ignorant.

[Free Tristania]

The baker's shop did not become private property by the mere act of him hanging out his shingle. See my previous post.

He bought it, he inherited it = he owns it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Property rights are a decidedly public affair.

Let me guess: a commie that thinks that even a kids toy should be publically owned. Nothing is public when it's private.

The rights of property owners are determined by those who define and enforce those rights: in this case, the state of Colorado, as upheld by the judge.

Wrong again. The State has no such rights.

[Vurdenburg]

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.

[Ifreann]

Please explain how the judge is biased.

America's Civil Rights law defends religion and sexual orientation, and the man as a Christian does not want to violate his faith but is being forced to because of the Judge who is biased because he put Sexual Orientation over that of Religion. Just like putting Religion of Sexual Orientation would be biased, as well.

Again, please explain how the judge is biased. PROTIP: This involves more than saying he is biased.

---

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.

Actually he can't. You can tell because he lost the court case.

The court should stay out of private affairs or the judge should be disbarred.

It's not a private affair. The baker was breaking the law.

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.

You can't take away rights people never had.

[Dyakovo]

No, it doesn't.

Corinthians 7:7-9
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

"one of one kind and one of another" - Possibly referring to forced inter racial relations. Most likely between man and woman because as below. Mainly regarding premarital sex being wrong, but states different kinds

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

AND

Romans 1:26-28
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

AND
Many others

The bible is very clear that homosexuality is bad and quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman only.


Not believing in the bible is one thing that I personally agree with. But completely overlooking what it says without a remote reason for the argument is ridiculous.

Leviticus does not apply to Christians, and the passages written by Paul refer (most likely) to temple prostitutes.
In addition, none of those refer to same-sex marriage.

[Swedish Realm]

America's Civil Rights law defends religion and sexual orientation, and the man as a Christian does not want to violate his faith but is being forced to because of the Judge who is biased because he put Sexual Orientation over that of Religion. Just like putting Religion of Sexual Orientation would be biased, as well.

Again, please explain how the judge is biased. PROTIP: This involves more than saying he is biased.

---

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.

Actually he can't. You can tell because he lost the court case.

The court should stay out of private affairs or the judge should be disbarred.

It's not a private affair. The baker was breaking the law.

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.

I had already said it.

[Ifreann]

I had already said it.

Which post was this?

[Swedish Realm]

I had already said it.

Which post was this?[/quoteAmerica's Civil Rights law defends religion and sexual orientation, and the man as a Christian does not want to violate his faith but is being forced to because of the Judge who is biased because he put Sexual Orientation over that of Religion. Just like putting Religion of Sexual Orientation would be biased, as well.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Wrong.

[Ifreann]

Which post was this?

America's Civil Rights law defends religion and sexual orientation, and the man as a Christian does not want to violate his faith but is being forced to because of the Judge who is biased because he put Sexual Orientation over that of Religion. Just like putting Religion of Sexual Orientation would be biased, as well.

Again, saying that the judge is biased is not explaining how he is biased.

[Heinostan]

The baker's shop did not become private property by the mere act of him hanging out his shingle. See my previous post.

He bought it, he inherited it = he owns it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ownership has a meaning, and it is a social one. Again, see my prior post.

Property rights are a decidedly public affair.

Let me guess: a commie that thinks that even a kids toy should be publically owned.

There is a difference between private ownership of the means of production (i.e., bourgeois property) and personal possessions. But that's irrelevant here because in either case "ownership" is contingent on the conditions I described in my prior post.

Nothing is public when it's private.

And again, private property is by its very nature a public issue. It is only a thing because there is more than one person in the world.

The rights of property owners are determined by those who define and enforce those rights: in this case, the state of Colorado, as upheld by the judge.

Wrong again. The State has no such rights.

Your comments reflect your desires; mine reflect facts. You wish that the state did not enforce -- and therefore define -- property rights; I remind you that it does.

[Swedish Realm]

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.

Wrong.

Right.