Bake This Particular Cake, Bigot
The American media would have you believe there is a concerted effort among Christians in America to discriminate against gay Americans. "No gays allowed," they claim small Christian business owners are saying. It is a fiction created to avoid dealing with the facts. The fact is I am unaware of any Christian business that refuses to serve gay customers, but I am aware of many gay activists targeting Christian small businesses for persecution.
The latest issue is also the one where the left has most dramatically overplayed its hand. Jack Phillips, a baker in Denver, CO, has been compared to a Nazi participating in the holocaust. A member of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission said that. What crime did Phillips commit? He dared to offer a cake to a gay couple for their same-sex wedding.
You may need to read that last sentence again. Phillips is both a committed Christian and a renown artist. His cakes are elaborate creations. Phillips was willing to provide a cake for the same-sex wedding, but Phillips was not willing to provide his extra artistic talents for the particulars that the couple wanted. They could have the wedding cake, but he was not going to customize it the way they wanted it. For that, Phillips had to be prosecuted.
Before going further, it would be helpful for you to know just how committed a Christian Phillips is. He will gladly bake a cake for a gay person, but he will not bake a cake for a Christian who wants a Halloween themed cake. Phillips believes Halloween is a pagan holiday that dishonors God, so he will not lend his artistry to its celebration. He will not bake cakes for anyone's second wedding, even if a church is willing to do the wedding. Divorce is a sin. Phillips will not bake cakes celebrating other religions' religious holidays.
SEE ALSO
But Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the gay couple for their wedding. Still, he must be prosecuted because he would not customize it the way they wanted. For that, he must be shamed, boycotted and compared to a Nazi. His case is now before the Supreme Court. He goes in the company of Baronelle Stutzman. She regularly provided flowers to a gay couple in Washington. She had a long list of gay customers that she lovingly served. But Stutzman would not provide flowers for same-sex wedding of her long time customers. The couple did not file charges against Stutzman. They were, after all, friends and long time customers. But the State of Washington pursued her anyway.
Stutzman was found guilty of discrimination by the Washington State Supreme Court and risks losing her home, her business, and even her dog because of the judgment unless His Majesty Anthony Kennedy, the supreme ruler of the United States, deigns to carve out some small exception for Christians in private enterprise.
It really all comes down to Anthony Kennedy, who decided the Supreme Court had the power to change the multi-thousand year old definition of marriage, despite the government not having created it. Now Kennedy will tell us whether the First Amendment's "free exercise of religion" language means we can actually freely exercise our religion or only believe it without living it.
What the Christians before the United States Supreme Court want is not a ruling that says they can discriminate against gays and turn away a gay couple from their business. All they want is a ruling that says their artistic talents are speech and their speech cannot be compelled to endorse a religious ceremony they disagree with.
The compromise here should be obvious. Just as we should abhor the idea of forcing a black printer to print the fliers for a Klan rally or forcing the Muslim butcher to carve a pig for a church barbecue, we should not force the Christian to provide goods and services to a religious ceremony their religion decries as sin. You may disagree, but who are you to tell someone else how to live his faith? Anthony Kennedy, though, is our supreme ruler and he will tell us all. https://townhall.com/columnists/erickerickson/2017/10/20/bake-this-particular-cake-bigot-n2397479
Tags
I think he was going to retire, but he got some phone calls from some pretty big democrats threatening him not to retire.. in a nice way, not a mean way..
So what makes you 'think' that? Do you have some kind of super secret back door to the inside communications of the SCOTUS? Or are you just posting a fantasy scenario that you think sounds good?
They knew what they came there for. Their mom who lives more locally probably a regular found out the man was a Christian, then told her son. He in turn along with his buddy seen a chance for publicity, and a chance to hurt a Christian person with legal actions.
Why the need to fabricate a false scenario? EVERY bit of court documentation refutes it. Either it's an example of willful ignorance, or it's an example of intentional falsehoods. Pick one.
I know that is what the ALJ judge said, but remember these types of judges are at the bottom of the totem pole and suck most of the time on rulings AND many of them hold a strong bias and beliefs.
It seems that the only time that conservatives have a problem with judges holding 'strong bias and beliefs' is when they think they are LIBERAL bias' and beliefs.
BTW, you skipped a couple of steps. Phillips and the ADF went through the Colorado Appeals Court AND the Colorado Supreme Court and FAILED.
The Appeals Court voted unanimously and wrote a very cogent 63 page ruling. You should read it, the SCOTUS will...
Is your posit that ALL of Colorado's 'TOP of the totem pole' judges are bias?
just buy a generic cake and be on their way, since they had their own "decoration". Because it was a set up...perhaps the SC will that into consideration.
There is no such creature as a generic wedding cake. They are all custom designed for the occasion It starts with determining the flavors of the cake layers and then the fillings. No bakery has a wedding cake on the shelf waiting for a couple to walk in and they don't have a standard wedding cake in their recipe book.
A 12x18" sheet cake or a 9" round layer cake is not a wedding cake. Decorating the cake according to the customer's wishes is part of the job of the baker. They cant force a customer to buy a white cake with the crumb coat and tell them to decorate it themselves. That is only doing half the job.
Similarly, the baker is required to sell cakes to anyone who wants one - and he does, but he gets to choose what type of cake he is willing to create.
He doesn't get to turn down cakes that his customer's commission based on his religious views.
Why are you and others taking a customer request as a personal insult? If your religious views are threatened by writing words on a cake in icing then it is you that has a problem and not your customer. They are just words until you make them personally by being threatened by sugar paste.
When my ex-wife and I got married, we ordered a nice wedding cake. It came with a big Christian cross on the top. We should have had this happen in the USA, we could have sued the ass off the baker on the basis of discrimination and hurt feelings, brought a Human Rights violation proceeding, rounded up a bunch of people to bring signs and protest outside his shop, and then I could have written a book about the whole experience and made a fortune from it. Damn it! Why wasn't I born in America to be able to be such an asshole?
When my ex-wife and I got married, we ordered a nice wedding cake. It came with a big Christian cross on the top
Was that in Canada or China?
(I have heard that Christianity is spreading very rapidly in China-- is that true?)
I said my ex-wife - that was in Toronto.
I really don't know about Christianity here. Religion is not something people talk about in China.
I said my ex-wife - that was in Toronto.
Now that you mention it, I believe you had said in the pas tthat your first marriage was in Canada.
But why the cross if you didn't request it? Was the owner of the bake shop asome sort of fundamentalist Christian, unbeknownst to you?
Was the owner of the bake shop asome sort of fundamentalist Christian, unbeknownst to you?
I have no idea, nor did I even think about it back then. We handled the problem a little differently than Americans do. We took the cross off the cake and threw it in the garbage. No complaint. No law suit. No protest. We were amused when we saw it on the cake, but nobody else saw it.
Religion is not something people talk about in China.
Have you ever seen people practicing Falun Gong (AKA "Falun Dafa")? Is it illegal in China...??? I think the people who practice it claim its not a religion?
(I believe I mentioned that I spent a few months living in a Yoga Ashram in rural Virginia.. At the time I had a roomate who practiced Falun Gong-- he would wake up very early and practice in the room-- on the floor and also standing.
He lend me a small book about it-- but it was a while back I don't remember much about it.
(BTW currently I do practice a few Taoist QiGong exercises daily...mostly for physical and mental benefits. But that is not related to Falun Gong as far as I know).
I have no idea, nor did I even think about it back then. We handled the problem a little differently than Americans do.
Many Americans seem to constantly looking for things to be outraged about! And its gotten worse the last few years. Sometimes I find it very annoying at times (all the self-righteousness . . . )
We took the cross off the cake and threw it in the garbage.
Oh-- the horror! That's blasphemy! Sure you and your soul are doomed to burn in eternal Hellfire for all eternity!
Well, you seem like a decent person. So for a small fee I can give you a dispensation, and all will be well.
I Doubt that anyone here in China would even admit they practised Falun Gong. The penalty is severe. The only time I've seen anything about Falun Gong was when I had to go to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to apply for my visa. Outside the consulate there were a number of protesters advocating for Falun Gong, passing out pamphlets, etc.
I have seen some in the U.S. passing out literature.
Also sometimes they practice in public parks in big cities (they do movements like that are like Chi Gong or some of the other forms)..
Of course there is religious freedom here-- all sorts of religious groups pass out literature, etc. (both the more conventional religions as well as some of the somewhat more unconventional ones). A lot of the perpetually outraged types here get annoyed, but personally I like the fact that people have the right to do that.
It doesn't bother me-- I just ignore them.
The formatting is that comment is wrong-- it showed things as quotes when they weren't. Sometimes the html on this site gets weird.
You have to highlight your lines that are not quotes and click on the quotation icon at the top left of the options banner and thet puts the lines back to normal.
It came with a big Christian cross on the top.
But they sold you a cake, right? So what does that have to do with being denied any cake based on your sexual orientation as is the case here? The claim above that the couple asked it to be decorated in a way the baker refuse is total BS. They simply asked for a wedding cake and hadn't discussed any decoration before they were refused service.
Why were they refused? Do you believe everything a conniving gay activist couple bent upon filing a lawsuit would say?
Why were they refused? Do you believe everything a conniving gay activist couple bent upon filing a lawsuit would say?
There's no dispute at all about the facts of the case. The bigoted baker freely admits that he illegally denied service.
Newstalkers loves a good gay cake article. Lets strive for 1,000 comments this time!
Newstalkers loves a good gay cake article.
20 of the replies are likly mine.
All I can say is, if the left wing continues to pander to the all the usual suspects....LBGT radicals and activists (especially the trannies), Muslims, the climate change crazies, Antifa....being hatefully anti-Christian, being against common decency, being so stupid, illogical, and just plain wrong on about any issue, they will continue to lose elections and will never be a politcal power again.
The majority of Americans support LGBT equality.
“This new data again demonstrates that most Americans are shocked to discover that many LGBT Americans can be denied a job, a room in a hotel, a seat at a restaurant, a place in school, equal access to credit, or housing because they still lack explicit federal protections from discrimination -- and that once people learn that, they overwhelmingly support the basic idea that LGBT Americans should be judged only on their merits, just like everyone else. It’s time to act,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley.
The majority of Americans support LGBT equality.
Believe it or not, so do I...except for the sexually confused transsexuals. But a sizeable percentage of the population does not accept these "traits", and can never be forced to, regardless of what the law may be. I don't support gay activism that punishes people and wants to drive them out of business, simply because a gay got pissed at being rejected. That's just being childish and spiteful, and will never change anything.
"many LGBT Americans can be denied a job, a room in a hotel, a seat at a restaurant, a place in school, equal access to credit, or housing because they still lack explicit federal protections from discrimination"
That's not really happening at any appreciable levels...this has been a left wing mantra for years, with a lack of evidence to support it.
Believe it or not, so do I...except for the sexually confused transsexuals. But a sizeable percentage of the population does not accept these "traits", and can never be forced to, regardless of what the law may be. I don't support gay activism that punishes people and wants to drive them out of business, simply
Transgendered people aren't sexually confused. They know exactly what their gender identity is and that their psychological gender identity is incongruent with their biological gender. The problem is that you don't understand gender identity, despite it being explained on this forum multiple times by multiple people.
The fact that a portion of the population does not accept these traits is irrelevant because our rights are not determined by popular vote of the people. That action would be tyranny of the majority and it is a reason why we have the Bill of Rights that guarantees equals rights for everyone and not just those in the majority.
Equal rights for LGBT does not punish anyone because their rights are not infringed. The fact that the people who oppose LGBT equal are not prohibited from using their religious beliefs as a weapon to discrimination in a public business is not a punishment.
Your arguments are the very same that were tried to discriminate against black and internal people in the 1950s and 1960s. This is why we have the Civil Rights ACT with the public accommodation protections. They also claimed that their religious beliefs would be violated if they were forced by the state to serve other races equally.
That's not really happening at any appreciable levels...this has been a left wing mantra for years, with a lack of evidence to support it.
If it happens at all it is a problem that must be rectified immediately. Rights are for all people and not just those that you support or sympathize with. if they aren't equal for everyone then it isn't a right but instead is a privilege.
That's not really happening at any appreciable levels...this has been a left wing mantra for years, with a lack of evidence to support it.
Strange then that so many red states have recently been passing laws designed to harm LGBT folks.
Strange then that so many red states have recently been passing laws designed to harm LGBT folks.
LBJ understood the racist's motivations when he made this statement.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
That's not really happening at any appreciable levels...this has been a left wing mantra for years, with a lack of evidence to support it.
Perhaps you can explain to me what 'appreciable level' would cause you to recognize it as an issue. I never ceases to amaze me that conservatives thump on the Constitution yet really have no desire for it to apply to EVERYONE. The Constitution says 'PERSON', that's ONE person...
So IMHO, when ANYONE is denied equality, it matters...
" Phillips was willing to provide a cake for the same-sex wedding, but Phillips was not willing to provide his extra artistic talents for the particulars that the couple wanted."
Total lie.
“We asked for a cake,” Mr. Craig said. “We didn’t ask for a piece of art or for him to make a statement for us. He simply turned us away because of who we are.”
Just because the baker claims his cakes are "works of art" doesn't mean he can discriminate.
Should a Black baker be forced to put the Stars and Bars on a cake ? Should a Jewish Baker be forced to put a Swastika on a cake ? Should a Muslim baker be forced to put Muhammad on a cake ? Of course not. We already allow people to decline to produce things that are offensive to them like profanity or pornography or hate speech so how can you force a Christian to produce something that goes against their Religious Tenent's. This is not the same as refusing to serve someone lunch at a diner, each one of these bakers should be required to sell the cake without the offensive decorations to whom ever wants it but they shouldn't be forced to produce a product that offends their Religious or Moral Beliefs. Would you support forcing a Gay baker to put "LEV 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act" or "LEV 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves." if a Christian customer ordered it ? Of course not.
What conservatives keep getting confused about is the claim of this baker that each of his cakes is a "work of art" and even though the gay couple did NOT request any special design that would identify their cake as "gay" he has refused to make the cake on the grounds that his work of art would "have" to include some sort of gay aspects. This is a complete lie as the couple did not in any way direct him to design their cake in a "gay" manner. What the baker should have done is provide the same design book that other couples have chosen from and let them pick an already approved design that he would have made for any other wedding. Sadly, this baker chose to simply refuse them service and the courts ruled in the couples favor because of it. His claim of cakes being a "work of art" was merely an attempt to get around the law and allow him to unfairly discriminate.
His claim of cakes being a "work of art" was merely an attempt to get around the law and allow him to unfairly discriminate.
The ADF anti-gay hate group is representing the baker and they seem to be throwing any and all bogus arguments against the wall to see if any stick.
They're also the lawyers for Elane Photography whose appeal SCOTUS rejected several years ago, and the lawyers for the bigoted Minnesota videographers in "Telescope Media Group v. Lindsey". So far the ADF has lost the vast majority of their cases, and lost all the ones involving LGBT rights.
Exactly right. As I said before, Phillips has a website with choices for wedding cakes. Choose one.
When I ask what ingredient makes a wedding cake 'gay', crickets.
When I ask for them to tell me which of the wedding cakes on his website would be the 'straight' one, crickets.
They make a crap load of accusations and never follow up with a cogent thought.
It's ridiculous. And sadly, they will make the exact same claims in the next seed about this issue...
When I ask what ingredient makes a wedding cake 'gay', crickets.
I think some might have said "Gluten-Free" in reply to that query, but the sign behind him proves them wrong...
I wonder, can a store still put a sign up saying "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"?
Yes, they can. It's a sanitary health department issue, not a personal attribute like gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.
Restaurants: Right to Refuse Service
Authored by Peter Clarke , LegalMatch Content Manager
Do Restaurants Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service?
No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. In addition, most courts don’t allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can’t be refused service due to having a lazy eye.
But Aren’t Restaurants Considered Private Property?
Yes, however they are also considered places of public accommodation. In other words, the primary purpose of a restaurant is to sell food to the general public, which necessarily requires susceptibility to equal protection laws . Therefore, a restaurant’s existence as private property does not excuse an unjustified refusal of service. This can be contrasted to a nightclub, which usually caters itself to a specific group of clientele based on age and social status.
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.
What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?
There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:
- Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
- Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
- Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
- Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
- Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
How Can a Lawyer Help Me?
If you were unjustly refused service at a restaurant, you should contact a personal injury attorney specializing in premises liability immediately. A lawyer can help determine the existence of any unlawful discrimination , as well as the overall strength of your individual case.
If you are a restaurant owner, an attorney can provide more details on your right to refuse service , including guidance on placing limited restrictions on who gets served at your restaurant.
Spot on. This isn't the 50's civil rights movement and they aren't Rosa Parks.
Plenty of other options are available to them. No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to as long as other viable options are available. Which there was.
Honestly, i'm not sure why you would want to force someone to do that. Unless of course you are a total prick.
This isn't the 50's civil rights movement and they aren't Rosa Parks.
Agreed since there were no public accommodation laws at the time to protect Rosa Parks. The difference today is that such laws now exist and have been consistently upheld each and every time since 1964.
In fact this case is exactly like Newman v Piggie Park BBQ where in 1964 a bigoted Southern Baptist cited his nutty cult's racist ideology as an excuse for denying service to blacks. The court called the attempt to use superstition to justify illegal discrimination as "patently frivolous."
.
Plenty of other options are available to them. No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to as long as other viable options are available. Which there was.
They had no way of knowing that the baker was a dumb bigot since he hadn't posted a sign indicating which classes of people he'd deny service to. Of course such a sign would have been illegal too if it infringed any protected classes.
Also note that it's the baker who has viable options......he could easily choose to run his bakery as a private members-only club and deny membership to anyone his cult teaches him to hate like gays, women, Jews or blacks. That's how Rush LImbaugh is able to attend a whites-only country club.
the fact this case is exactly like Newman v Piggie Park BBQ where in 1964 a bigoted Southern Baptist cited his nutty cult's racist ideology as an excuse for denying service to blacks.
You found a great precedent. That SCOTUS case is exactly on point that religious beliefs are not sufficient to deny service in a place of public accommodation. It was an 8-0 ruling with Marshall abstaining.
No one should be forced to work for someone they don't want to as long as other viable options are available.
That was the very same argument that racists used to support denying black and interracial people equal service in public businesses. The bigots told them to go to businesses that serve blacks.
Conservatives do recycle, but only failed arguments and discriminatory policies.
No it wasn't.
It was institutional bigotry and racism back then. This couple had plenty of other options, blacks in the 50's did not.
Not even close to the same thing.
Why should they have to look for other options when his business serves the public and claims not to hold a bias against LGBT people? Did LGBT customers forbid the baker from attending church, wearing religious clothes/jewelry and praying as he wished?
Should LGBT people be forced to use a 21st-century version of the green motorist travel book?
It was institutional bigotry and racism back then. This couple had plenty of other options, blacks in the 50's did not.
This case sounds exactly like Lester Maddox's statement to black folks: "Go find another diner which serves your kind." It also sounds exactly like the Piggie Park BBQ case where the business owner cited his racist Southern Baptist beliefs as an excuse to deny service to blacks and to mixed-race couples.
.
Not even close to the same thing.
It sure sounds like it's exactly the same thing. In fact in all these cases then and now the dumb bigots even belonged to the same Southern Baptist cult which was founded to promote hate and bigotry.
However if you're arguing that some traits deserve protection and others don't, why aren't you petitioning the government to remove all protections for religious affiliation? Why shouldn't this bigoted baker be free to deny service to Muslims and Jews, or to any Christians who aren't Southern Baptists? Why do you want superstition to be a protected class?
However if you're arguing that some traits deserve protection and others don't, why aren't you petitioning the government to remove all protections for religious affiliation?
Or Catholics, Buddhists, Mormons, Hindus, and Atheists?
Why should owners have to change their convictions when customers can go next door and get the same thing?
The owner doesn't have to change his convictions, he merely has to follow the law. If he doesn't want to do that then he's free to run the bakery as a private member-only club and call it "Hate Cakes for Jesus".
Why should owners have to change their convictions when customers can go next door and get the same thing?
What religious convictions was he forced to abandon/change to bake a cake that should have required less than 8 hours? When did the customer mention his religious views as part of the cake design?
Did the customer ever say that the baker would be required to approve the marriage or even like the customer?
Why should anybody have to do anything for anyone else?
He has the right to make the business a private business that serves only members that he approves of or even close it.
Easy, if a business doesn't serve you to your satisfaction you take you business elsewhere.
Not serving a personal at all is a huge leap from not serving a person to their satisfaction. This baker refused to serve them because of his religious bigotry.
Why should business owners have to go against their convictions because someone wants a service that goes against their conviction.
the answers is ...... they shouldn't have to .... the customer can go somewhere else. No blood ..... no foul ....
... the customer can go somewhere else.
They did. In fact they got a far better cake from a much more ethical baker.
They also filed a complaint with the state's Civil Rights Commission so that other couples don't experience the same unlawful discrimination. Bummer for your ilk, eh?
haha....that is all it amounts too. I think all of them use the same "stupid shit to say" file. every article about discrimination they use the same shit.
a consumer can not demand a business to produce something for them.
an author who writes a book about heterosexuality can not be forced to write a book on homosexuality because a consumers asked for it. and a publishing company can't be forced to publish same.
a builder can not be forced to build a church for a Christian because the company had built a Synagogue in the past. or build a house for a white person because he had built one for a black person.
they just get way beyond the ridiculous.
The moment they wanted a homosexual cake, their religious beliefs were made apparent.
I say we all have a right to serve whomever fricking want when it comes to our personal resources, time and money.
The laws say that you are wrong. You cannot pick and choose who you serve in a public business. Your business license is in jeopardy if you don't follow the relevant laws.
So, you would bring back 'Whites Only' restaurants?
a consumer can not demand a business to produce something for them.
an author who writes a book about heterosexuality can not be forced to write a book on homosexuality because a consumers asked for it. and a publishing company can't be forced to publish same.
Writing a book is a personal opinion, so it isnt the same as making a cake that the customer designed.
a builder can not be forced to build a church for a Christian because the company had built a Synagogue in the past. or build a house for a white person because he had built one for a black person.
A builder can make their bid high as a way to get out of building certain projects, but if the customer chooses your bid and accepts your timeline then you must do that job.
The moment they wanted a homosexual cake, their religious beliefs were made apparent.
How does a homosexual cake differ from a heterosexual cake or a birthday cake? I have a lot of cake recipes but Ive never seen a recipe for a homosexual cake.
Why should anybody have to do anything for anyone else? Screw 'em all.
There are a plethora of safety and health regulations that states require businesses to follow. So I presume that you think that businesses should be able to violate all the other state regulations with impunity. Bugs and rats, no problem. Filthy kitchens, cook away. No refrigeration, spoiled food, false labeling, go right ahead, who cares?
The moment they wanted a homosexual cake, their religious beliefs were made apparent.
And the moment the baker refused to make a cake because the customers were homosexual, his bigotry was apparent. As was his violation of the law!
I say we all have a right to serve whomever fricking want when it comes to our personal resources, time and money.
Then you are wrong!
Why should anybody have to do anything for anyone else?
because they operate a business which provides services to others. If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't be in business.
A builder can make their bid high as a way to get out of building certain projects, but if the customer chooses your bid and accepts your timeline then you must do that job.
no again...a builder does not have to bid on any job. hence, a consumer can not force someone to build something for them.
Easy, if a business doesn't serve you to your satisfaction you take you business elsewhere.
Except that isn't the issue here. The business refused service to begin with.
it's not rocket engineering for most of us ...... but I guess it is for you folks.
Such an ironic statement from you, considering you don't seem to understand what the issue is.
Doesn't matter. Just because I operate a business doesn't give someone license to be a frickin a-hole.
And who is being such a thing and how?
I say screw the jerk offs and let 'em eat someone else's cake.
That's some business model. >sarc<
That's just a really frickin stupid comment.
That pretty much describes all of yours so far.
No one has a "right" to my time and money.
Oh but you see ..... that's where you're wrong.
Many of the folks in this discussion think they have that exact right but at the same time don't think you have the same right with them.
The hypocrisy of it all is thicker than molasses in winter.
Wrong but i understand the "screw everybody else, i'm getting mine no matter what" mentality. I don't agree with it in the least but i understand many have it.
That said, why would anyone want to patronize an establishment that doesn't want your business? It's pretty simple when that happens to me. I walk out and take my business elsewhere. Their loss.
I think most people operate this way and then we have the few who don't.
The loud and squeaky few ......
Wrong
Not even a little.
That said, why would anyone want to patronize an establishment that doesn't want your business? It's pretty simple when that happens to me. I walk out and take my business elsewhere. Their loss.
Why should a business be allowed to violate the law?
I think most people operate this way and then we have the few who don't.
Most people probably serve the customers who enter.
The loud and squeaky few ......
So if a business violates the law, no one should say anything?
hence, a consumer can not force someone to build something for them.
In residential and light commercial construction, a builder is solicited for bids. If they don't want the job they bid high, but the owner can still choose them if they want.
And by the way, I say law is wrong. No one has a "right" to my time and money.And if you are a moral person you would recognize that basic human right.
Discriminating against a customer in a public business because of your bigotry isn't a basic human right. The moral action is to serve everyone equally. Jesus said so and the golden rule says likewise.
If you suck, I ain't doing shit for you.
The government would fine you and then pull your business license because of your actions. A business licensee isn't a constitutional right.
no...writing a book can be fiction or non-fiction, opinionated or not.
Logically If the book is non-fiction it is not an opinion. People aren't hired to write non-fiction or even fiction books. People are hired to ghostwrite biographies and autobiographies.
That just more nonsense.
Your lack of a reasoned argument is telling.
Not even a little.
Why should a business be allowed to violate the law?
Most people probably serve the customers who enter.
So if a business violates the law, no one should say anything?
Again, no law was violated and it's ridiculous that SCOTUS has to be wasting time on such a BS issue. I have little doubt they will rule with the baker. And then you all can scream and holler about how bigoted the SCOTUS is and i'll be laughing my ass off at all y'all.
In the meantime it's still apparently raining drama queens in Colorado.
Unconstitutional laws. It violates the most basic natural right. The right of freedom of association. Only totalitarian governments force businesses to do business with customers against their freedom of choice.
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." -- John Locke, 1690
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "
Samuel Adams November 1772
Unconstitutional laws. It violates the most basic natural right. The right of freedom of association. Only totalitarian governments force businesses to do business with customers against their freedom of choice.
Poor whiny babies. Sounds like the bigot needs to run his bakery as a private members-only club rather than a business which is open to the general public. That way he doesn't have to associate with Jews, gays, blacks or any of the other kinds of people his nutty cult teaches him to hate.
More disingenuous nonsense.
He hasn't LOST 40% of his business. He CHOSE to stop making cakes for weddings until this BS gets cleared up. Thus reducing his business by about 40%
Congratulations to the gay couple who started all this. People lost their jobs because of you.
Good job dumb-asses!
He hasn't LOST 40% of his business.
According to his own testimony he's lost 40% of his business.
.
Congratulations to the gay couple who started all this. People lost their jobs because of you.
Strange that none of the other bakeries in the area have lost 40% of their business because of gay folks. I wonder why that is......could it have something to do with this dumb bigot's refusal to follow state law?
That's just a really frickin stupid comment.
That was just a really freaking stupid reply.
Only totalitarian governments force businesses to do business with customers against their freedom of choice.
Then the US has had a totalitarian government since 1964.
Since the 1930s when FDR usurped the Constitution and threatened the Supreme Court if they didn't reverse themselves and rule in favor of the New Deal
Liberal is the wrong word for today's left. Their core beliefs are undeniably marxist statist. Like Hitler, they believe that communism is not the solution because it eliminates the state. Instead today's left shares with Fascism, Stalinism, and Nazism that the best implementation of Marxism is an all powerful State that allows private enterprise under strict control of the state. That's why Democrats must never again be allowed the reigns of power.
The Democrats employ two central tenets- Marxisms Essential steps to transition from Capitalism to Communism and Lenin's Democratic Collective Centralism
The key belief within DCC or Democratic Collective Centralism is the belief of Collectivism.
“Collectivism being the idea of prioritizing the group rather than yourself or biased individuals such as your family. These prioritizations could be goals, outcomes, rights and so on.
This belief has been criticized for being 'inhuman' or 'unnatural' as people will naturally build biases towards individuals and parties. Socialists have argued the only way for this to work is to have common ownership.
The main or commonly spoken role which Collectivism plays within DCC is to shrink the wealth inequality within the public by having the significant majority of the population within the middle-class. This is done by the government enforcing strict tax laws within the state which effects low incomes very minorly however, large incomers significantly. The logic or reasoning behind the act is the belief that the money will have a better use if it's being used on the country's needs rather than materialistic needs. This relates to Collectivism as the money is being used for the public or the whole rather than individual unnecessary materialistic needs.
In addition to a key tax factor within Democratic Collective Centralism, there is the belief that when electing an individual you must vote for who you believe is the best for the state rather than who's best for you. This belief is practically impossible to enforce however, is seen as a moral.
DCC or Democratic Collective Centralism supports free market of all private organizations with one simple guideline. As long as the private organization is not intentionally damaging the country's or state's health for profit reasons, they're freely allowed to carry out all forms of legal business upon the public. However, if the private organization is found to be unintentionally damaging the country's or state's health when there is an option not to damage the country's or state's health; the government will step in and force that switch. All of this falls under collectivism because when the government acts, there reasoning will be for benefiting the country or state.
Lastly, collectivism wants it's people to prioritize the country's problems. What's meant by 'country's problems' could be the environment, science, unemployment and so on... The 'country's problems' can change dependent on the current situation. However, the key aspect to this belief is how citizens should view these problems. The people or citizens should believe in these beliefs as they're important for the country's health or survival which again links to Collectivism because of the aspect in prioritizing the country's problems.”
With thanks to Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists, by Schweickart, David; Lawler, James; Ticktin, Hillel; Ollman, Bertell. 1998
Secondly and of critical importance is the Democrats adherence in what Marx called essential steps to transition from capitalism to communism found in Section II, Proletarians and Communists of the Communist Manifesto
1. Heavy Estate Taxes
2. Heavy Progressive Income Tax
3. Promote Unionism to destroy capitalism
4. Redefine family and destroy the concept of the traditional family and it's influence.
5. Transfer as much power as possible to the Central State.
6. Free Public Education
Third is the shared view of Democrats with Hegel's the state is "god" that fits perfectly with Democratic Collective Centralism
Any objective analysis of the policies proposed and or already implemented by the Democrats shows there is NO significant difference between the Democrats and the ideology of Marxist Statism.
Unconstitutional laws. It violates the most basic natural right. The right of freedom of association.
Merely your opinions. Feel free to argue that in a court.
Only totalitarian governments force businesses to do business with customers against their freedom of choice.
Did the government force the baker to go into business? Owning or operating a business is not a right. The baker agreed to abide by non-discrimination and public accommodation laws when he obtained a business license. it's like a contract: he obtains a license, he follows the laws associated with that license. In effect, the baker violated that contract.
Yes, almost completely
They didn't violate any laws.
Yeah and some get refused services. The reasons for that are varied and vast. Happens every day.
Again, no law was violated
Again, you're wrong!
and it's ridiculous that SCOTUS has to be wasting time on such a BS issue.
Because discrimination isn't important, until it's yo being discriminated, against, right?
I have little doubt they will rule with the baker.
Given similar rulings and precedents in the past, you might be in for disappointment.
In the meantime it's still apparently raining drama queens in Colorado.
Apparently, there are still bigoted business owners in Colorado too.
Why should be change his view of Marriage?
He doesn't need to do that, he merely has to follow the law.
.
This is where our First Amendment protection comes into play and it will be a huge factor in the decision of this case.
Good luck with that given the Newman v Piggie Park precedent.
Well don't get your feelings hurt that i couldn't disagree with both of you more adamantly or more completely. You can rail on about this progressive point or that. Spew sanctimonious rhetoric all you want but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. It will not change the fact that the business owner has rights as well and can not be compelled to do work he doesn't want to do. Not in this instance.
I realize some of you folks think you have that power but you don't and SCOTUS will soon bear that out. So sad, so sorry but you will lose. So get ready to start trying to get over yourselves.
Fat chance of that ever happening with folks of your ilk..
Well don't get your feelings hurt that i couldn't disagree with both of you more adamantly or more completely.
I could care less if you disagree. You're free to be wrong if you wish.
You can rail on about this progressive point or that.
What is a "progressive point?" And what does it have to do with the issue at hand?
Spew sanctimonious rhetoric all you want
What rhetoric?
but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. It will not change the fact that the business owner has rights as well and can not be compelled to do work he doesn't want to do. Not in this instance.
The business owner also has an obligation to follow the law, which he agreed to do when he obtained a business license. He does not have a right to violate the law, which he clearly did according to the state of Colorado! That is a fact!
I realize some of you folks think you have that power but you don't and SCOTUS will soon bear that out. So sad, so sorry but you will lose. So get ready to start trying to get over yourselves.
Keep believing that if it makes you feel better.
Fat chance of that ever happening with folks of your ilk..
Oh do tell, what exactly is "my ilk?" Or is that supposed to be a thinly veiled ad hom attack?
I could care less if you disagree. You're free to be wrong if you wish.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
That said and again, get ready to be a loser ..... again. One would think you would be getting tired of that by now ....
We'll talk again when the SCOTUS rules. Perhaps you will win but i wouldn't get my hopes up if i were you.
Your opinion is absolutely meaningless to me as well but so what?
The feeling is more than mutual.
I'm not the one so full of himself that i think that matters in the least.
You must be projecting.
That said and again, get ready to be a loser ..... again. One would think you would be getting tired of that by now ....
Speak for yourself!
We'll talk again when the SCOTUS rules. Perhaps you will win but i wouldn't get my hopes up if i were you.
See previous statement!
Doesn't matter. Just because I operate a business doesn't give someone license to be a frickin a-hole.
This is a two way street, it doesn't give you a right to be a bigot either.
If you own a business that serves the public you don't have the right to be a bigot to your customers, you don't get the right to pick and, chose who you serve when it comes to race, sexual orientation, gender, age or, color. Suck it up Snowflake.
All I stand for is basic human rights and you want to impose your fascist ideology upon me.
No, what you want is someone to be able to violate the law under the guise of a "right."
History judges me as the one with vastly superior intellect.
A legend in your own mind, eh?
History judges me as the one with vastly superior intellect.
Your posts prove otherwise, as will history.
Okay, lets say we agree. It's a two way street.
So what's the resolution?
Yet, do not know the BASICS :-)
Im not going to get into an entire debate about the Bible now.
So you don't want to admit that the answer is NEVER. Got ya.
If you want to start to look, do it in Genesis. Then go over to Jesus talking about Marriage, and the apostles. The bible speaks clearly on what it teaches.
Geneses in which 'the Lord' oversees incest and polygamy. That Genesis? Jesus NEVER said a damn thing about One Man and One Woman. The bible speaks clearly about polygamy and men having as many concubines as they want.
Does it not SCREAM loud about the Bigotry of those that claim knowledge of the Bible, and Yet, do not know the BASICS
E.A. Does it not SCREAM loud about ignorance of vocabulary when someone uses the term Bigotry to describe an alleged lack of knowledge?
The Civil Rights act of 1964 requires businesses to do business with customers against their freedom of choice. If that is totalitarian, then we have been such since 1964.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act isn't totalitarian. It protects the rights of any minority from having their rights trampled by a majority. If white Christians were the minority, and Muslims were the majority religion in the US you would feel differently and would be glad that legislation existed.
Discimination in a public business has never been a constitutional right. The actions of an incorporated business are not the same as the business owners right as a private person. The legal action of incorporation separates him personally from the business. He can operate the business unincorporated but that is a huge financial risk that no competent lawyer would ever suggest a client do. As a private person he can pick and choose who he associates with, but when he operates a business there are laws and requirements that come with that business .slicense.
The owner's recourse is that he can sell or close the business, not make wedding cakes for anyone or make the business a private club so he can then pick and chooses who he serves, but the owner cannot pick and choose who he serves when he invites the general public into his store as a public business.
Every case is looked at differently . This is a unique case with its own unique set of circumstances.
How is this case different from the Newman v. Piggie Park precedent, as you claim it to be? They are both situations where the business owner cited his religious views as a reason to deny service to a customer in a public business.
should they be compelled to design said clothing for the First Lady if she wants it made?
According to Liberal types......YES !
But I guess this was a PC thing for them on agreeing with these "Business Owners" !
Liberal colors ALWAYS "Run"....LITERALLY ! 
According to Liberal types......YES !
As one of those 'Liberal types' my answer is NO. The reason is that fashion designers do not run public accommodations, which makes Bluestride's comment a false equivalency.
But I guess this was a PC thing for them on agreeing with these "Business Owners" !
It has nothing to do with 'a PC thing', it has to do with a 'jurisprudence thing'.
Liberal colors ALWAYS "Run"....LITERALLY !
That's the 3rd or 4th time a member with a conservative bent has insisted that Liberals 'Run'. I assure you, I'm right HERE, as are many of my brethren. I for one would prefer that instead of pretending that you speak for us, you'd allow us to speak for ourselves.
The reason is that fashion designers do not run public accommodations
If they produce for the "Public, "they" are the Public accommodation, whether if they have an actual Brick structure to visit or not.
"That's the 3rd or 4th time a member with a conservative bent has insisted that Liberals 'Run'."
Tears, Tears, Tears make "Colors" run. I didn't reference a "physical" run in the country.
the Public accommodation, whether if they have an actual Brick structure to visit or not.
The retail store is different than the designer's studio. Anyone is free to come in and buy the designs from the retail store. If you want a custom garment, then hire a custom tailor/seamstress to make it for you.
The retail store is different than the designer's studio.
Since a business turning down Melania for a dress, because she is a Trump, was what was being discussed:
If your talking "Studio", which is brick and mortar, you have a Brick public accommodation, whether it's a custom thing or not.....correct ?
So what is the difference between a "Custom" cake....and a "Custom" Dress again ?
Materials ?
So what is the difference between a "Custom" cake....and a "Custom" Dress again ?
The difference is whether your goods and services are offered to the general public. Fashion designers in general don't do that but bakeries do.
I suspect there's not a conservative in the world who understands how public accommodations laws work, much less what protected classes are.
If they produce for the "Public, "they" are the Public accommodation, whether if they have an actual Brick structure to visit or not.
So you consider designing 'for the First Lady' producing for the 'Public'? Please clarify that prevarication?
It seems that you may have some unfounded concepts about 'Liberals'.
Ever watched Chuck Schumer cry on national TV ?
Ever seen the screaming women when Trump was elected ?
Ever seen the million women Vagina march on national TV ?
Did you watch the Hillary "assemblies" when she lost ?
Just a Televised few.
So no, Not unfounded at all. They seem to relish showing themselves on national TV that way.
Ever watched Chuck Schumer cry on national TV ?
Actually no. Link?
However, I have seen John Boehner blubber on national TV, over and over and over again?
Ever seen the screaming women when Trump was elected ?
Screaming isn't necessary connected to tears.
Ever seen the million women Vagina march on national TV?
No tears there.
Did you watch the Hillary "assemblies" when she lost ?
Again no tears. You said this was all about tears but you seem incapable of posting an actual example.
Just a Televised few. So no, Not unfounded at all. They seem to relish showing themselves on national TV that way.
So you post a list of unfounded BS to support an unfounded assumption.
Bad form.
If your talking "Studio", which is brick and mortar, you have a Brick public accommodation, whether it's a custom thing or not.....correct ?
Is Melania buying the dress or was the designer providing it for her for free? The first is a right, but the latter definitely is not. Nobody, even the First Lady has a right to free clothes.
So you consider designing 'for the First Lady' producing for the 'Public'? Please clarify that prevarication?
Is she paying for the dress? The First Lady does not have any constitutional rights that the general public does not. Logically rights must be equal for all or they are not a right.
Designers commonly provide outfits to the First Lady and other celebrities in exchange for the media attention they receive while wearing the garment but those clothes are not a right. They are a gift that is commonly returned to the designer, displayed in the Smithsonian or sold in a charity auction.
In case you forgot, the designers are the ones that instantly came out and said they will refuse to make a dress for Melania.
Is it the designers (Business) right to refuse service, for personal reasons ?
Careful how you answer that. 
Seems to me she never asked them in the first place. They jumped right in and said no, based only on who Melania was. Isn't that what The bakers are doing ? Basing it on the Specific person or belief whether they say yes or no ?
Seems to me she never asked them in the first place. They jumped right in and said no, based only. Isn't that what The bakers are doing ?
They have the right to say that she would not provide the dress to her if she asked them to do it for free publicity. Melania could buy the dress and they couldn't deny to sell it to her.
The LGBT couple wasn't asking for the cake to be provided by the bakery for free. They obviously expected to pay for it and as such the baker could not deny to make it without violating the Colorado state protections for LGBT people that is an addendum to the public accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Why do they have a right to say no, we will not dress her and the baker cannot say no? Why won't they dress her? Because she is married to Donald Trump.....that is a hate crime!
Why do they have a right to say no, we will not dress her and the baker cannot say no?
It depends if she is buying the dress or if she expects them to do it in exchange for the free publicity.
Being married to Donald Trump is not a protected class, so refusing to dress Melaiana is not a hate crime. She can buy her own clothes. You need to learn what a hate crime is and what it isn't.
This is the federal definition of a hate crime from the FBI website.
Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
These efforts serve as a backstop for investigations by state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases throughout the country.
Why do they have a right to say no, we will not dress her and the baker cannot say no?
It depends if she is buying the dress or if she expects them to do it in exchange for the free publicity.
Being married to Donald Trump is not a protected class, so refusing to dress Melaiana is not a hate crime. She can buy her own clothes. You need to learn what a hate crime is and what it isn't.
This is the federal definition of a hate crime from the FBI website.
Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
These efforts serve as a backstop for investigations by state and local authorities, which handle the vast majority of hate crime cases throughout the country.
It depends on what you think.
It is a hate crime to refuse to dress Melania because she is the wife of the POTUS and you hate him.
No, you don't get to say what a hate crime is.
I am over your hate crime shit.
No, you don't get to say what a hate crime is.
I never said that I am defining what a hate crime is. The FBI defines what a hate crime is.
It is not literally a crime to hate someone.
Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
Please read and understand the FBI definition of what a hate crime is that I previously posted.
Since the FBI see's it differently than you why don't you go and, argue with them about it? I'm sure they'd love to hear from you on it.
So after the election of Trump, many cothing designers came out and said that they would not design clothing for the First Lady, should they be compelled to design said clothing for the First Lady if she wants it made?
Most of those designs are that are done in exchange for the publicity of her wearing your fashions, but they don't have to give anything to her. The situation is different if she is paying for the clothes.
"Most of those designs are that are done in exchange for the publicity of her wearing your fashions, but they don't have to give anything to her. "
Skirting the issue. If she wanted to purchase some could she compell them to design and make them for her?
If she is paying for the garment, then you do the job without bringing your political opinion into it.
Just so we are clear, if she is paying for the design and the clothes they, the clothing designers, can be compelled by the government to design and make the clothing for her?
Yes. It is equal service in a public business. It is also a good business practice not to refuse a paying job.
What happened to the adage that the customer is always right? You are bringing emotions into a place where they don't belong. Just be an adult and do the job that you created a business or were hired to do.
Just so we are clear, if she is paying for the design and the clothes they, the clothing designers, can be compelled by the government to design and make the clothing for her?
No. At least not unless the denial is based on a protected class.
And based on your comment I strongly suspect you don't know what a protected class is much less how it works in relation to public accommodation laws.
And based on your comment I strongly suspect you don't know what a protected class is much less how it works in relation to public accommodation laws.
So some people are more equal than others then?
So some people are more equal than others then?
Another comment which reveals that you don't know what a protected class is. Very few if any conservatives are capable of grasping such a simple legal concept.
So some people are more equal than others then?
Everyone has the very same rights. Which one of the protected classes aren't you a part of? You have a race, creed color ancestry, gender and a sex.
Conservatives don't understand the concept of hate crime laws either because you also take that idea literally instead of reading the statues.
Prior to The Civil Rights Act of 1964 businesses couild discriminate based on inate things like race, creed, sex, country of original etc and Jim Crow Laws made if illegal for those who were not white to enter white only banks, schools, restaurants, hotels and other public accomodations. That became illegal with The Civil Rights Act of 1964 which has been challenged from the top to the bottom over the last fifty plus years and has always been found to be Constitutional. The far rigth now wants to institute a New Jim Crow based upon "belief". No such right to discriminate in public accomodations is or will ever be recognized...
It you do not like it get yourselves and expensive lawyer and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Otherwise you may lump it. We are not going back to the bad olde days when sick children were denied help at a hospital or when brown People could not cash a check in a bank or when gays were routinely prosecuted persecuted and generally denied equal protection under the law. What you may personally think is immaterial. We are a nation of laws...
It you do not like it get yourselves and expensive lawyer and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Otherwise you may lump it. We are not going back to the bad olde days when sick children were denied help at a hospital or when brown People could not cash a check in a bank or when gays were routinely prosecuted persecuted and generally denied equal protection under the law. What you may personally think is immaterial. We are a nation of laws...
Never said I do not like it. I am all in for people being equal in the eyes of the law nor do I have any longing for those days... my issue is more along the lines of application of said laws as with the case of the Coffee shop owner. The "law" did not decide to hammer the owner of the shop for his illegal refusal of service, which was based on the religion of the customers.
I do also have issues with hate crime laws for similar and other issues. Same goes for Affirmative Action and it's offshoots which amount to nothing more than state sponsored bigotry.
my issue is more along the lines of application of said laws as with the case of the Coffee shop owner. The "law" did not decide to hammer the owner of the shop for his illegal refusal of service, which was based on the religion of the customers.
Actually you don't know what if any action the state might take in regards to that coffee shop, nor do you know if the customers even filed a complaint with the state.
Moreover your claim that the denial of service was "based on the religion of the customers" is obviously false, unless you can demonstrate that the owner has a pattern of denying service to other members of the same cult.
I do also have issues with hate crime laws for similar and other issues. Same goes for Affirmative Action and it's offshoots which amount to nothing more than state sponsored bigotry.
How are hate crime laws or affirmative action laws state-sponsored bigotry?
The coffee shop should have served the abortion/LGBT protesters but warned them not to harass his customers or attempt to disseminate their literature in his store.
What’s a cult?
Any group of folks with a common set of superstitions. Some cults just have more members than others.
"Culture", "cultivation" and "colony" all derive from the same Latin root word but maintain a similar concept of groups with common traits.
It you do not like it get yourselves and expensive lawyer and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Otherwise you may lump it. We are not going back to the bad olde days when sick children were denied help at a hospital or when brown People could not cash a check in a bank or when gays were routinely prosecuted persecuted and generally denied equal protection under the law. What you may personally think is immaterial. We are a nation of laws...
Never said I do not like it. I am all in for people being equal in the eyes of the law nor do I have any longing for those days... my issue is more along the lines of application of said laws as with the case of the Coffee shop owner. The "law" did not decide to hammer the owner of the shop for his illegal refusal of service, which was based on the religion of the customers.
I do also have issues with hate crime laws for similar and other issues. Same goes for Affirmative Action and it's offshoots which amount to nothing more than state sponsored bigotry.
I predict that just like Hobby Lobby won in Supreme Court so will this Baker. Forcing this Baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage forces him to commit an act that condones gay marriage which is a violation of the tenents of his religion. Most of the posters who are against the Baker are anti-religious anyway and they cannot perceive that a Religious Person's Religious Identity is as important to them and just as much a part of them as a Homosexual's Sexual Identity is to them. Part of being Religious is following the rules of that religion. Just in case anyone has forgotten the first "Protected Class" were the Religions and those Protections were enshrined in our Constitution over 200 years ago. You don't have to believe in this Bakers God or live by the rules of his Faith but he does and he has the Constitutional right to do so.
I predict that just like Hobby Lobby won in Supreme Court so will this Baker.
Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment OR the Constitution. It was about the RFRA.
You don't have to believe in this Bakers God or live by the rules of his Faith but he does and he has the Constitutional right to do so.
Phillips can live by the rules of his faith by NOT running a business that is a public accommodation. Easy peasy.
The idea is to get the courts to apply the RFRA to the free excercise there of of religious belief.
Good luck with that since the federal RFRA only applies to federal statutes and it certainly hasn't eroded the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The federal RFRA most definitely does not apply to state laws, nor would a state RFRA legitimately be used to permit superstition to be used as an excuse to violate state law (as was attempted by Mike Pence in Indiana). Colorado doesn't have one anyway.
If the ADF lawyers are going to cite the RFRA then they're even dumber than I thought they were......and they've lost virtually all their cases to date on LGBT-related issues.
Who is online
93 visitors
The fact is these people aren't being discriminated against at all. A theater, for example, is considered a public accommodation and they would be required to let anyone watch a movie. But they are not required to show certain movies that people want to see.
Similarly, the baker is required to sell cakes to anyone who wants one - and he does, but he gets to choose what type of cake he is willing to create.
The part I bolded isn't actually true. If the baker sells custom wedding cakes to the general public then he can't refuse service based on the race, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity, national origin, religion or other protected traits of the customer. That's why the bigots have lost every one of these cases to date.
There is no evidence he is doing that. He is refusing service based on the design of the cake, not the behavior of the customer.
False. He denied service upon learning that the cake was for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple. None of the details of the cake had been discussed and the bigoted baker freely admits this.
Your logic hit a speed bump and crashed.
How can he claim that he offered to bake a cake for them but he refused to make a wedding cake for them? Baking the layers is only half of the job. You don't go to a bakery for half of the job. Why is it that the layers don't offend him but it does offend him if he finishes it? Either he does the entire job or he doesn't, but he can't do half a job and then insinuate that he isn't discriminating against a customer.
How exactly is a cake offensive to this baker, if your claim is true then his refusal isnt about the gay couple? Is it the color of the icing? Does he think that he can prevent LGBT weddings by refusing to bake a cake? Does the same-sex cake topper intimidate him?
In other words he denied them "....the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,...." which are offered to all other customers. Thus he broke the law. No wonder the dumb bigot keeps losing in court.
So no discrimination exists. So far so good.
Yes, the baker DOES get to choose what type of cake he is willing to create. BUT, once he choses a certain type of cake, he MUST create that same type of cake for everyone. Get it yet?
What type of cake are you talking about. Philips was not willing to "celebrate" or participate in a homosexual union, or decorate a cake depicting that type of union. Why should he be forced to?? The gay guys don't have much of a case, since they had other options and suffered no loss or injury. 5-4 in Phillips favor.
Baking a cake is neither celebrating nor participating in a wedding, gay or otherwise. It is a product he normally offers as a business and preparing that product is a business transaction. Nothing more.
Sounds like you don't know much of anything about how public accommodation laws work. FYI, the baker has already been found to have broken state law.
.
LOL
Yes, and if he ever starts making gay wedding cakes, I'm sure he will be happy to make them for anyone who orders one. But, for now, he doesn't make that kind of cake.
No, it's not. He has never made a gay wedding cake. Why should he have to start now?
This actually is a problem for the Baker. If he were accused of violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he could rely on the interpretation of that law by SCOTUS. Here, though, he has not been accused of that. He has been charged with violating state law and SCOTUS will not review that decision. All SCOTUS will do is decide whether or not that state law violated the baker's First Amendment rights. That's a much narrower case than his lawyers would probably like.
Correct, but note that the "free exercise" part of their argument was answered in 1968 in the Newman v Piggie Park BBQ case. And the "artistic expression" part is equally ludicrous.
Is a "gay wedding cake" similar to a "mixed-race wedding cake"? I suspect so given that Southern Baptists like the bigoted baker have vehemently opposed both kinds of weddings. Bummer for the bigoted baker that the courts aren't fooled by infantile sophistry.
What's a gay wedding cake exactly? Does it have different ingredients than a "straight" wedding cake? Is it baked differently?
A gay wedding cake ingredients? It uses Vaseline for icing.
When Phillips was making wedding cakes, he had designs online. They are still on his website. So go on over there and tell me which one of those cakes is the gay wedding cake. Here's the link.
For the same reason that he is 'forced' to follow the other laws and regulations that govern his business.
'The gay guys' aren't part of the case.
You may want to review Kennedy's opinions before you count on his vote. Here is a handy list of relevant cases for you: Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor v. US, Obergefell v. Hodges.
What particular ingredient differentiates a straight wedding cake from a gay wedding cake?
For most of us, we would tell the baker to go to hell, since he believes in it and then we would go somewhere else to buy a cake from someone who would put our business above his or her faith.
In time the businesses like this baker would start realizing their businesses were suffering from their decisions, but the Fascists are not satisfied with this solution. They're intending on forcing the bakers to comply or run them out of business right away or even go as far as threatening their lives.
When do we know when another radical is going to strike? It's better to let time take care of this than trying to make abrupt changes many are not prepared to suddenly comply with, especially since it's not like it's a life or death situation.
Romer v Evans too. All the key LGBT rights rulings have been authored by Kennedy.
Moreover it's extremely unlikely that SCOTUS would ever rule for the bigoted baker since it would unwind all non-discrimination laws in the country.
.
I think they technically are since they're listed as respondents in the appeal. The underlying problem with public accommodations is that there's no enforcement mechanism like there is with most other laws, so the harmed party must first file a complaint with the state civil rights commission and then if the commission agrees that there's probable cause they sign on as a co-plaintiff.
IANAL so I don't know what if any role the attorneys for the harmed party would have as a general matter once the case reaches the appeals stage, But in this case they're represented by the ACLU which does have a strong interest in seeing these laws enforced.
That's odd.....the confederate states had 100+ years to see if that free market idea would work to eliminate such discrimination, but it was the Civil Rights Act which was the right tool for the job. Without it black folks would still need the "Green Book" to travel safely in the south.
Yet his lawyers have already made that exact same argument and it failed miserably.
Oh how did I forget Romer? Great catch.
The case going to the SCOTUS is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission but the couple are listed as respondents. The irony is that most of the conservatives here think the case goin to the SCOTUS was brought by the couple. NONE of the litigation was brought by the couple. It has always been the Colorado Civil Rights Commission litigating against Phillips.
Are you still looking through recipes?
You still haven't explained what a gay wedding cake is, or how it's different than a straight wedding cake.
What is a gay wedding cake?
Oh, that's an easy one. You take an ordinary cake and decorate it with references to the two men getting hitched, and a cute little plastic or whatever ornament featuring two guys standing arm in arm, or hugging each other. The real naughty ones depict the two having sex which some specialty bakeries will do for you. Le Bakery Sensual at 300 E. 6th Ave near downtown Denver is one such bakery....and much closer to the airport.
The baker isn't refusing to put two grooms on top of a cake, he's refusing to sell any wedding cake to the gay couple. The claim above is total BS that he simply refused to decorate it the way they wanted.
“We asked for a cake,” Mr. Craig said. “We didn’t ask for a piece of art or for him to make a statement for us. He simply turned us away because of who we are.”
What's it like for the Southern Baptists to live rent free in your head?
How does a gay wedding cake differ from a heterosexual wedding cake? Would he also object to a cake for a transgendered couple, even if they are a heterosexual?
Public accommodation protections do not violate the religious freedoms of anyone.
His right to believe in a god and worship as he sees fit isn't threatened by forcing him to serve everyone equally in a public business. The fact that an incorporated business separates the legal entity of the business from the owner is lost on you. The bakery business isn't the same as him because an incorporated business isn't a person, so the business has no religious rights.
He is trying to argue the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of the law. His only chance to win the case hinges on him finding judges who are willing to ignore the constitutional precedents and instead rule on their religious beliefs.
The cake topper is purchased from a 3rd party. It is not 3D printed by the bakery. I'm sure that the couple would not have been offended to be told to buy their own topper. It isn't put on the cake until it is at the reception hall, so that isn't a problem.
Oh, so the cake itself is the same. It's only the decorations that differ? Even then, such differences is superficial at best. It seems the baker has no case. Especially since he refused to make a cake in the first place.
That comment reveals multiple levels of ignorance about the law and about the specific case. The couple was married in Massachusetts, not Colorado. It was perfectly legal for married gay couples to visit or live in Colorado. A wedding cake is for a wedding reception, not for the marriage which occurred in a different state several weeks earlier. A wedding reception is a party and has nothing to do with a state or its laws.
Perhaps you should read about the case before you comment? There's a good reason the dumb bigot has lost every court ruling unanimously.
It's funny how RWNJs have fantasies about cake toppers even though such things aren't involved in this case or any other similar case.
So...how did Phillips know they were gay...unless they told him. And why in the world would they do that? Why would they not just buy a generic cake and be on their way, since they had their own "decoration". Because it was a set up...perhaps the SC will that into consideration.
Actually the point you were trying to make about Colorado not granting or recognizing same-sex marriages at the time proves that it was anti-gay discrimination, as the court noted:
The bigoted baker presumed the couple was gay as soon as he learned the cake was for a same-sex couple. It was his intent to discriminate based on sexual orientation that matters to the law. The actual sexual orientation of the customers is completely irrelevant. This case also could have been charged as sex discrimination.
.
No "decoration" was discussed. That's purely an invention and a fantasy on your part.
.
While it wasn't a "set up" at all it wouldn't matter one bit if it were. Many of the civil rights actions in the 50s and 60s were "set ups" to prove discrimination. Even Donald Trump was "set up" by the DOJ to prove the fact that he refused to rent to blacks. Funny that all these bigots are all so dumb that they fall for these "set ups" every time.
Like