A very interesting case...a Colorado baker, who is Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued, and a judge ruled in their favor. Last time I checked, the constitution guarantees the ability to practice your religion without government interference. But what happens when that freedom butts up against the freedom from discrimination?

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-baker-discriminated-denying-gay-couple-wedding-cake-041625653.html

I have no quarrel with gay marriage. What I don't like, is that proponents of gay marriage often used concepts like "inclusiuon" to support their cause. Well, if they are in favor of inclusion, doesn't that mean that Christians have a right to be included, too? And in suburban Colorado, assuming thi sbaker isn't the only baker in town, is it asking so much that they find a baker who doesn't have to violate his religious beliefs to support their wedding?

The jusge said this..."At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

So when did we amend the constitution to guarantee that no one would ever experience hurt feelings? COurts have upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals, which is devastating to the families. In other words, the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, allow for the Westboro Baptist Church to hurt the family members trying to bury a fallen patriot. If freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings, why doesn't freedom of religion trump hurt feelings?

An interesting case. I say, tell the happy couple that even Chriistians have the freedom to practice religion, and they can easily find another baker happy for their business.

The baker could have just made the cake and put pubes in it if he has such a problem with gays.

Apples and oranges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apples and oranges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure what that means. If you're referring to the Westboro analogy, I'd argue that's it's apples and apples. The judge said that citizens are constutitionally protected against having their feelings hurt by a business. If that's true (and I'm pretty sure it's not true), why don't we have the same protections against having our feelings hurt by the Westboro kooks?

And how is this not a violation of the right to freedom of religion, which has consistently been interpreted as the right to practice your religion without the government telling you that your beliefs are wrong?


Interesting case...

A very interesting case...a Colorado baker, who is Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued, and a judge ruled in their favor. Last time I checked, the constitution guarantees the ability to practice your religion without government interference.

Does the baker's religion actually prohibit him from making a cake for a same sex couple? Is making a cake a practice of his religion? In this case, it may more be his right to free speech rather than a right to practice his religion.

But what happens when that freedom butts up against the freedom from discrimination?

At this point, it would be a matter of state law--Colorado's law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

As a federal constitutional matter, regardless of how SCOTUS would willy nilly "interpret" it, there is no prohibition against discrimination, except for equality before the law. Any SCOTUS "interpretation" of one part of the Constitution which negates another part should be null and void. In actual current practice (past 80 years or so) SCOTUS has repeatedly, at whim, used various parts of the Constitution (incorrectly) in contradiction to other parts or intents, especially in regards to individual "rights." So how the SCOTUS would rule, if this case got that far, depends on how 5 Justices "feel" about the issue--how they would "interpret" it. At the federal Constitutional level equality before the law falls under the constitutional enumerations--none of which prohibits personal discrimination. What the Constitution does is codify at the national level the ideal of the Declaration of Independence. It was written as a means to protect that independence against government tyranny. That Declaration guaranteed certain unalienable rights amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The baker's refusal to bake the cake did not deny any of those unalienable rights.

I have no quarrel with gay marriage. What I don't like, is that proponents of gay marriage often used concepts like "inclusiuon" to support their cause. Well, if they are in favor of inclusion, doesn't that mean that Christians have a right to be included, too? And in suburban Colorado, assuming thi sbaker isn't the only baker in town, is it asking so much that they find a baker who doesn't have to violate his religious beliefs to support their wedding?

Did the gay couple speak of inclusion--of being included among the baker's clientele? They would have no inherent right to be included if they were not accepted. Inclusion is more of a societal privilege rather than a legal right.

The jusge said this..."At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

And what would that "blush" be if not an inherent right?

"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

Ah . . . so a "cost" to society or a "hurt" to another person wipes away the blush of individual freedom and makes the baker, instead, a tool of society. So what was the "cost" to society? The cost of individual freedom being sacrificed to the need of a vague and incoherent collective? And what was the "hurt"? Was there a bodily harm or a threat to life? Was there the deprivation of someone's liberty, or to his pursuit of happiness?

And being denied service simply because of "who they are," in the relativistic "spectrum" of being and the legalistic "interpretation" thereof, can surely go beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation. That spectrum can be fractioned into smaller and smaller units until every individual is uniquely "who they are." To say that you cannot deny service to someone simply because of who they are is saying that you cannot deny service to anyone.

So when did we amend the constitution to guarantee that no one would ever experience hurt feelings? COurts have upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals, which is devastating to the families. In other words, the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, allow for the Westboro Baptist Church to hurt the family members trying to bury a fallen patriot. If freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings, why doesn't freedom of religion trump hurt feelings?

An interesting case. I say, tell the happy couple that even Chriistians have the freedom to practice religion, and they can easily find another baker happy for their business.

Ultimately, the expansion of society's interests into and against the sphere of individual interests is that continual growth of the State versus the individual. The individual's sovereign rights to property are constantly eroded and eventually surrendered to the collective, and the individual's property becomes public property.

they should make this guy eat some weed brownies, inhale some nitrous oxide ,
smoke some of the finest giggle grass like skunky bubblegum, drink some wine
chugging on his own bottle and eat a couple grams of magic mushrooms (preferably all at the same time) while watching pink floyd pulse

and make him a more highly enlightened individual instead of the uptight stuck in a box of doggiedoo dogmire crap that's ruining his Life immeasurably.

doesn't sound very Christian to me...

doesn't sound very Christian to me...

If one's religion is opposed to gay marriage, and this baker supports that, then his actions are perfectly in alignment with his Christianity. If he treated these guys with respect, but merely declined the opportunity to support the wedding, it's not un-Christian. No more than it's un-Christian for Catholic doctors to refuse to perform abortions.

This guy has the right to exercise his religion. That right, unlike the right for homosexuals to marry, is explicitly stated in the Bill Of Rights.

The Bill Of Rights isn't always easy. Freedom of speech means the Klan can hold a rally. Freedom of the press means that the kooks on MSNBC can say George Bush was a racist. And like it or not, freedom of religion means that a Christian baker can say "no thanks, but best wishes to you" when being asked to provide services for a gay wedding.

George Bush isn't intelligent enough to be a racist.

George Bush isn't intelligent enough to be a racist.

:fishin: :hihi:

Interesting decision. Article said his bakery was a "public business" - maybe it was a chain? Most small bakery's are "private businesses" - then maybe then it would have been ruled differently?

DZ

Interesting decision. Article said his bakery was a "public business" - maybe it was a chain? Most small bakery's are "private businesses" - then maybe then it would have been ruled differently?

DZ

I think by "public", the judge meant that it was "open to the public", and therefore, subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Should have just bumped up his price 100%

I think by "public", the judge meant that it was "open to the public", and therefore, subject to anti-discrimination laws.


Yep..

Yep..

Unfortunately for the couple, though, even Christians who own bakeries are entitled to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights. The constitution doesn't say that Freedon Of Religion only applies so long as no one's feelings are hurt.

Very interesting case.

Should have just bumped up his price 100%

Or the happy couple could have chosen a baker that was willing to work for them, of which I'm sure there are several.

Or the happy couple could have chosen a baker that was willing to work for them, of which I'm sure there are several.

But how would they have known that until they went to the baker? While I didn't read the link you posted, I'm betting he must have indicated he didn't like their lifestyle or something similiar. They prob. felt insult and thought it was illegal for the baker to discriminate against them and sued.

If he just said he had a few cakes that weekend and would have to charge extra, they prob. would have just walked away not knowing better.

Or he could have said he was out of flower cake decorations and only had basketball and football cake decorations left and I'm betting they would have went to someone else.

I think the key is how this BIGGOT told them to take their business somewhere else because they were fags.. He could have been wildly insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But how would they have known that until they went to the baker? While I didn't read the link you posted, I'm betting he must have indicated he didn't like their lifestyle or something similiar. They prob. felt insult and thought it was illegal for the baker to discriminate against them and sued.

If he just said he had a few cakes that weekend and would have to charge extra, they prob. would have just walked away not knowing better.

Or he could have said he was out of flower cake decorations and only had basketball and football cake decorations left and I'm betting they would have went to someone else.

You are correct, there is no way they could know that this baker is a devout Christian. Apparently, when they asked him to provide a cake for their wedding, he politely told them that his religion prevented him from doing so. You're right, there are other things he could have said (and he may wish he said one of those thing). However, we have the constitution, and a Bill Of Rights therein. The Bill Of Rights includes the freedom of religion, and that has consistently been interpreted that the individual can practice his religion without interference from the government, and that the government cannot take sides for or against any one religion.

Basically, the question is this...what takes precedence, freedom of religion, or anti-discrimination laws?

You are correct, the baker could have said one of those things. Similarly, these guys could have gone to a different baker when this guy refused...

I think the key is how this BIGGOT told them to take their business somewhere else because they were fags.. He could have been wildly insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"this BIGGOT ..."

Have you ever failed to ascribe derogatory intentions to anyone who has ever disagreed with you about anything? Not that I can tell...Everyone is an idiot unless they agree with you. I guess I missed the announcement when they named you God.

"He could have been wildly insulting."

Now you are making things up in order to paint him in the worst possible light...

The key, perhaps, is that the US Constitution (which you have either never read, or do not have the ability to comprehend) appears to give him the right to refuse their business.

If freedom of religion gives Westboro Baptist Church the right to demonstrate at military funerals (where they hold signs saying "Thank God For Dead Soldiers"), perhaps it also gives this baker the right to refuse to provide services for the wedding.

I'd love to hear what a lawyer has to say...

Sorry. If someone told me that they will not serve me because of my sexualality, I will call them a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing BIGGOT. Furthermore, the very fact that you mention westboro Batist church.... The biggest bunch of BIGGOTS in this country, makes me completely fine with calling the baker a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry. If someone told me that they will not serve me because of my sexualality, I will call them a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing BIGGOT. Furthermore, the very fact that you mention westboro Batist church.... The biggest bunch of BIGGOTS in this country, makes me completely fine with calling the baker a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't concede that being opposed to gay marriage is necessarily bigoted (while it certainly can be rooted in bigotry, it's not necessarily rooted in bigotry). I know plenty of profoundly decent people who don't want to call that union 'marriage'. George Bush did more for AIDS victims than any human being who has ever lived. If he opposes gay marriage, are you going to tell me he's a homophobic bigot? Why did he do so much for AIDS victims?

How about that pesky constitution, Eben? All you are doing is bashing those with whom you disagree. Fine. Tell me why the freedom of religion doesn't guarantee that baker the right to say "no thanks" to the happy couple?

Firstly. You don't have to be gay to get aids.
Secondly, if George Bush is opposed to gay marriage, that's just fine. Your point is moot.

Feeling one way is one thing. Actively discriminating against someone is another.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??
Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.

That is the nature of all societies. A cohesiveness of at least some fundamental beliefs is necessary for society to function. Associations, organizations, by their nature, push their beliefs onto those within and request that those who are outside of their sphere allow them to have their beliefs and not be forced to abandon them for the benefit of others. The pushing goes both ways. Your gears seem to grind only when those you accept are pushed, but your gears run smooth when those you don't like are pushed against.

This pushing of beliefs is most destructive to a society of free people, not when various groups wish to be left to their beliefs, but when government pushes agendas on the whole of society. And I take it for the very reason that you don't like when some push their beliefs on others that your gears grind against Obamacare? Or do they only grind when conservative Christians "push" their beliefs? At any rate , I don't see the baker's refusal to bake a cake for the gay couple as pushing his beliefs on them. He was not trying to convert them or convince or force them to do anything. It was, on the contrary, the gay couple who wanted to force their views on him by making him do something against his own wishes to suit theirs.

Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??

For the same reason you don't? You're certainly not keeping your beliefs to yourself in this thread.

Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

I'm sure the baker would agree with that. There doesn't seem to be anything in the story that says he would have a gay marriage, nor that he was doing anything to stop the gay couple from having one.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would that not then, behoove YOU to be tolerant of others?

interesting...the State of Colorado does not recognize gay marriage, but rather, they have civil unions...the couple married in Mass. and wanted a cake to celebrate that marriage from Mass. in Colorado...the State...or at least, one judge, is forcing the bigot baker to do something that the State itself does not do, recognize the marriage, and bake a bigot cake to celebrate something it does not recognize.... or be punished....

I think their bigot beef is with the State

if gay marriage is not recognized in Colorado, aren't the judge and the couple forcing their views on the bigot baker?


10/31/2013

A Colorado couple has filed a lawsuit aimed at overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

7News in Denver reports that Dr. Rebecca Brinkman and Margaret Burd applied for a marriage license from the Adams County Clerk's office. The clerk told them that they were not eligible because they are both female and offered them a civil unions license instead. The couple rejected the clerk's offer and instead filed suit in district court Wednesday. seems to be contagious

Colorado legalized same-sex civil unions earlier this year, with the first couples being granted a civil union in May, but same-sex marriage was banned in the state in 2006. The lawsuit that Brinkman and Burd filed argues that civil unions do not grant the same rights to couples that marriage does.


been reading about a related Colorado story in which some High School girls(bigots) were threatened with hate crime charges and other punishment by the school if they didn't stop complaining about the trans-gender boy that was using the girl's bathroom whenever he wanted and harassing them...apparently your right to be unable to differentiate between male and female plumbing supersedes another's right to privacy

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.


there are plenty of scenarios of the planet experiencing destruction
without man's intervening in the process.

that doesn't mean it breaking into chunks -> just living conditions becoming uninhabitable for those with no access to the underground.

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??
Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??"

Classic liberal response. You know what? You could not be more wrong here. You literally could not be more wrong.

The baker isn't trying to convert anyone to Christianity. He simply wants to be left alone to practice his religion, as the Constitution appears to explicitly guarantee him the right to do.

It's the pro gay marriage community, including you, that would force your beliefs on him, against his will. It is your side who wants to force him to abandon his beliefs, it is your side that wants to force him to accept your agenda.

Try making that wrong.

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??
Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple. "

Using your logic, a child molester might say "against raping kids? Then don't do it! But leave me alone to do as I wish"

"Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction."

That's rich, coming from you.

all of this hullabalou over a cake...:love:

nothing funnier than a bunch of "straight-ass straight guys" arguing the finer points of the gay agenda...

sorry TDF...had to do it ...:rotf2:

Eben, I'm curious because you are a shop owner yourself, if someone walks into your shop and asks you to make something that somehow represents something that you disagree with ethically, politically or otherwise...do you feel you have a right to refuse the work?...should a judge be able to force you to accept and do the work or face a fine or worse?

all of this hullabalou over a cake...:love:

nothing funnier than a bunch of "straight-ass straight guys" arguing the finer points of the gay agenda...

sorry TDF...had to do it ...:rotf2:

Eben, I'm curious because you are a shop owner yourself, if someone walks into your shop and asks you to make something that somehow represents something that you disagree with ethically, politically or otherwise...do you feel you have a right to refuse the work?...should a judge be able to force you to accept the work or face a fine?
I would never say no to anyone if they came in and asked me to make something that I make all the time. If it is something that I don't make, then I might say no because I just can't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would never say no to anyone if they came in and asked me to make something that I make all the time. If it is something that I don't make, then I might say no because I just can't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that's your right - you have the right to decide whether or not to say 'no'. The baker has teh same right.

It's easy to demonize this man Eben. Try something harder...try telling me why the Bill Of Rights, and the freedom of religion contained therein, doesn't apply to him.

We don't get to selectively decide who is protected by the Bill Of Rights, depending upon the ideological agenda that's popular at that moment.

And let me remind you that personally, I support gay marriage. But more than that, I support our constitution, and I don't like it when judges ignore sections of it that they don't happen to like. If we give judges that power, then maybe someday, someone will decide that the constitution doesn't apply to you. I wouldn't like that any more than I like this.

If this judge wants to be a gay rights activist, that's a noble thing, but he cannot do it when he's sitting on the bench. The concept of 'justice' demands that he put his personal agenda aside when he's wearing that robe. His only agenda is supposed to be the law.

all of this hullabalou over a cake...:love:

nothing funnier than a bunch of "straight-ass straight guys" arguing the finer points of the gay agenda...

sorry TDF...had to do it ...:rotf2:

Just upset that you beat me to it


Eben, I'm curious because you are a shop owner yourself, if someone walks into your shop and asks you to make something that somehow represents something that you disagree with ethically, politically or otherwise...do you feel you have a right to refuse the work?...should a judge be able to force you to accept and do the work or face a fine or worse?

Glass Swastika?

I'm pretty sure I've been in Places that have had signs that say "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service"


....and you're telling me that between two Gay Guys they can't figure out how to bake their own cake...C'mon :hee:

This story reminds me of the Barilla pasta owner who said he would not advertise with images of gay people. He has gay employees and provides benefits for them but feels any type of marketing portraying a gay lifestyle is not for his company. Predictably, the international backlash was loud.

They could have got an Entenmann's cake and put a nice topper like this on it.

In Colorado if it went to trial the jury might just side with the BB.

And that's your right - you have the right to decide whether or not to say 'no'. The baker has teh same right.

Jim, knowing your Catholic views and your sympathy for those in need, let me make the scenario a bit more difficult. Would you as a Christian hospital have the right to say no to a gay person who was admitted with a life threatening injury which needed immediate attention? Would you as a heterosexual bank manager have the right to deny loans or deposits to gay people? As a strictly constitutional matter, I would say yes, you have those rights. What say you?

It's easy to demonize this man Eben. Try something harder...try telling me why the Bill Of Rights, and the freedom of religion contained therein, doesn't apply to him.

I don't know what specific demands the baker's form of Christianity practices, but in general, from my experience, most Christian sects don't prohibit the selling of cakes to homosexuals. The baker being Christian, for me, doesn't matter constitutionally in this issue. If he were not Christian his constitutional right to own and distribute his property would be the same as it would if he was Christian. Again, I don't know the specifics of his particular brand of Christianity, but it doesn't seem to me that this is a question of practicing religion.

We don't get to selectively decide who is protected by the Bill Of Rights, depending upon the ideological agenda that's popular at that moment.

But we have gone very far down the road as a society whose government and its judicial system does exactly that. Perhaps we have gone so far that many of us are seeing the disparity between the original Constitution and the current living breathing one. I think that's good, if not too little too late. And when even those who support "the Constitution" against judicial activism are willing to bend it a little to satisfy their own conscience or sense of fairness, as in restricting the second amendment to own firearms to what they consider a "sensible" level, then the cracks and fissures are there to grow and expand to other areas of that founding structure.

And let me remind you that personally, I support gay marriage. But more than that, I support our constitution, and I don't like it when judges ignore sections of it that they don't happen to like. If we give judges that power, then maybe someday, someone will decide that the constitution doesn't apply to you. I wouldn't like that any more than I like this.

If this judge wants to be a gay rights activist, that's a noble thing, but he cannot do it when he's sitting on the bench. The concept of 'justice' demands that he put his personal agenda aside when he's wearing that robe. His only agenda is supposed to be the law.

The judge in this case made a telling and instructive admission when he said that at first blush it would seem that the baker had a perfect right to refuse to sell his wares to anyone he wished . . . but on second consideration it was necessary to understand and correct the harm that would do to society. How he was even able to arrive at such a reason for judgment is based on how the court system has been transformed from merely adjudicating the law to judging by agenda. I had said in a previous thread that I didn't know of any progressive principles. But I had forgotten one of the very first--Woodrow Wilsons assertion that the Constitution was not to be seen, as the Founders did, as a "Newtonian" document--a mechanistic structure--but to be "interpreted" as a Darwinian one. It was, in the progressive view, an organic living thing, as was the government it instituted. The Constitution was not to be a rigid mechanically functioning structure to serve the people at the people's behest as any machine would do, rather it and the government which functioned through it were living things, subject to living evolution and self-fulfillment. A wholly different way of "interpreting" the Constitution was necessary in view of its transition from an immutable code to an organic living system of societal governance.

Government and its judges were not to be bound by mere structures of law, but would perform and judge as if by a living entity with its own ideas of necessity, efficiency, and justice. For that is what a healthy and rational living thing does. Of course, the reality is that only ACTUALLY living things, real people, would be the functionaries that operated this new system. So, in actuality, it was not some self-evolving "living" entity called government, but a small coterie of actual people deciding for the entire population what was law and what was not.

Judges developed new ways of interpreting the law. Interpretation was no longer about what the words in the Constitution, as written, meant, nor any longer only to decide if the law was actually within an enumerated power granted by the Constitution--rather, judges were to be free of such narrow limitations and allowed into a vaster sphere of interpretation based on utilitarian and equitable social justice, as well as other forms of "higher ideals," none of which stemmed from powers granted in the Constitution. Concepts of jurisprudence were concocted out of thin air such as government having "a compelling interest" outside the confines of prescribed constitutional limitations, or whether there was any, even the slightest theoretical, rational basis for legislation regardless of whether or not there was an actual constitutional basis for it.

Of course, a machine, as the progressives viewed the founders version of their Constitution, can have no "interests" much less any "compelling" ones. Such an entity does not have self-willed human attributes. Such a Constitution can only "compel" the government, as a guide or blueprint, to operate and legislate only within its enumerated boundaries. A progressive "living" governmental structure, on the other hand, is not restricted to things that refuse to give it life. A living thing must be free to meet new challenges in new ways, to grow beyond infantile restrictions and expand to a mature strength that gives it the power to more efficiently govern an evolving society. And so another principle the progressives derived from this living status of government was that this living thing must have the power to create its own bounds. That is, this living government must be unimpeded to function as it sees fit for the efficient and socially justified administration of law. That is, the government was to be basically unlimited in its power to govern.

And so the judge, in this baker vs. gays case can blithely go from the "first blush" of original constitutional property rights to the progressive socially justified distribution of the baker's property per force of a compelling government interest in protecting society from "harm". The irony that such a judgment is elicited from the "interpretation" of a document which was written to protect society from being harmed by government, goes unnoticed. It is, in fact, applauded by our ruling elites in academia, in the media, and in our branches of government. Some might say this is the new road to serfdom. Others would say, c'mon, that's extreme--couldn't happen. But one of the founding principles of the American Revolution, of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Constitution, was the individual right to possess property and dispose of it as one wishes. And one of the most important functions of the government that was originally founded is the protection of those property rights. Under the progressive model, however, those property rights are an obstacle to efficient and equitable governance. There is a burgeoning progressive philosophy that property is a public right not a private one. The government holds it in a sort of escrow for the people and distributes it through regulation and taxation to individuals to husband for the good of the community. Private property, essentially becomes public. And, in the final analysis, the baker has no right to withhold property from the gay couple.

Detbuch - good probing questions as usual...

"Would you as a Christian hospital have the right to say no to a gay person who was admitted with a life threatening injury which needed immediate attention?"

No, the Catholic hospital would not have that right, nor is any Catholic hospital threatening to withold care from anyone on any such basis. Catholics, as a group, do not want to eradicate homosexuals from the planet. Catholics care just as much about homosexuals as we care about anyone else, we (and I don't include 'me' in that 'we', as I am a Catholic who supports gay marriage) just don't want to call the union a marriage. That's not nearly the same thing as a Catholic doctor refusing to treat a gay patient. The Catholic catechism demands that we love homosexuals as much as we love ourselves.

There is a difference between opposing a marriage between two homosexuals, and refusing to treat them as human beings. Any religion based on love, and in my opinion Catholicism certainly qualifies, woudl dictate that I have empathy and compassion for anyone. Loving a person and condoning/supporting their specific behaviors, is not the same thing.

"I don't know the specifics of his particular brand of Christianity, but it doesn't seem to me that this is a question of practicing religion."

I don't know the specs either. But it's easy for me to see how a Christian might not want to accept this business, because you are in a sense, supporting that which your religion says is immoral. And according to Catholic cathechism, if you support that which is immorl, you are acting in a way which could result in excommunication from the Church.

To your question on medical care...Catholic doctors should be (and are) required to provide lifesaving care to those in need. However, my belief is that the state cannot force that same Catholic doctor to prescribe abortificant drugs to a pregnant woman, nor should the state be able to force a Catholic business owner to provide his employes with birth control if his religious beliefs lead him to conclude that is immoral.

"But we have gone very far down the road as a society whose government and its judicial system does exactly that (selectively applied the Bill Of Rights".

Yes, this particular president has a real habit of doing that. It's repugnant.

"as in restricting the second amendment to own firearms to what they consider a "sensible" level, "

I actually wish we had more stringent gun control, but in my opinion, we would need to amend the constitution first, to allow for that. As the constitution is written today, I would not support radical gun control.

"How he was even able to arrive at such a reason for judgment is based on how the court system has been transformed from merely adjudicating the law to judging by agenda"

Correct, this was a perfect example of judicial activism, and I always hate that.

FIRST THE CAKES!

NEXT THE CHILDREN!

You people are clowns.

Detbuch - good probing questions as usual...

"Would you as a Christian hospital have the right to say no to a gay person who was admitted with a life threatening injury which needed immediate attention?"

No, the Catholic hospital would not have that right, nor is any Catholic hospital threatening to withold care from anyone on any such basis. Catholics, as a group, do not want to eradicate homosexuals from the planet. Catholics care just as much about homosexuals as we care about anyone else, we (and I don't include 'me' in that 'we', as I am a Catholic who supports gay marriage) just don't want to call the union a marriage. That's not nearly the same thing as a Catholic doctor refusing to treat a gay patient. The Catholic catechism demands that we love homosexuals as much as we love ourselves.

Sorry, I was not specific enough when I asked about having a "right." I meant constitutional right, not church doctrine. I tried to make the scenario more difficult by tugging at personal sympathetic strings. I believe, constitutionally, any private hospital would have the right to say no to anyone they chose, and to do so for whatever reason they wished. Morality is a different question. I have enough faith in most people to do the "right thing" without government coercion to do its version of the right thing. I wanted to lead up to your understanding of upholding constitutional rights, whether to a T or with exceptions.


"I don't know the specifics of his particular brand of Christianity, but it doesn't seem to me that this is a question of practicing religion."

I don't know the specs either. But it's easy for me to see how a Christian might not want to accept this business, because you are in a sense, supporting that which your religion says is immoral. And according to Catholic cathechism, if you support that which is immorl, you are acting in a way which could result in excommunication from the Church.

OK. I can see a connection between your religion and selling a cake to gays. However, though far be it from me to tell Catholics what they should believe, if by support you mean something like selling to those whom your church believes are immoral, it might be difficult for many Catholics to run a business. I gotta believe for basic matters of economical survival that there would be lots of dispensations. That's one of the reasons I think the issue in the baker case is more a universal rather than a religious one.

To your question on medical care...Catholic doctors should be (and are) required to provide lifesaving care to those in need. However, my belief is that the state cannot force that same Catholic doctor to prescribe abortificant drugs to a pregnant woman, nor should the state be able to force a Catholic business owner to provide his employes with birth control if his religious beliefs lead him to conclude that is immoral.

I agree, but I believe your argument expands beyond Catholic or religious grounds. I don't think any business owner, Catholic or not, should be forced to provide abortifacients. That, again goes beyond merely religious grounds. And if it is restricted solely to religious grounds, then it can intrude on property rights in general.

"But we have gone very far down the road as a society whose government and its judicial system does exactly that (selectively applied the Bill Of Rights".

Yes, this particular president has a real habit of doing that. It's repugnant.

Correct, this was a perfect example of judicial activism, and I always hate that.

I think the matter of baker vs. gays goes well beyond religious freedom. Unfortunately, when I write a long response, I usually do it extemporaneously, as was the case in the above post to which you respond here. Because in long posts I'm thinking on the run, there are pauses for thought which add to the already long amount of time needed to finish the post. This leads to a glitch that I often run into which makes the site not allow my post but must refresh with back button, etc. And this is not always successful, and I lose the post and the considerable time spent writing it. So I sometimes pause with a note that there is more coming and will be back shortly in order to prevent the glitch from happening. I see that you posted a response before I finished adding to the post after the pause in which I said more was coming. The addition further added my thoughts on the importance of the property rights issue and how we were losing that most important reason for which there was a revolution and a Constitution. You might go back and read the eding.

I would never say no to anyone if they came in and asked me to make something that I make all the time. If it is something that I don't make, then I might say no because I just can't make it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's not really answering the question...

you make things from glass...he makes things from flour etc...he might make cookies for the show case every day as you make ornaments for the window ....

should you, in your business have the right/ability to refuse the request to make something (I doubt he makes cakes for weddings every day, usually special order I think) that you feel represents something that you disagree with ethically, politically or otherwise ...or...might be used at an event that celebrates something that you disagree with on the same grounds? remember, you are an artisan, if they request that you make something "that you make every day" for an event, by making items for that event you are putting your signature on the event, if you decide that you do not want your work associated with that event or group or cause....should a judge then be able to force you to provide the product/service or face a fine or worse?

I can offer some obvious example but that would be me assuming a bias on your part

I have said no when kids ask me to make them bongs... But let's be clear here.. I would never in a million years say no to someone because they were gay, a different race or religion than me.
And while I have said no to bongs/pipes to kids.. I do make them for MMJ card holders. Even though I am slightly opposed to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the basic argument here isn't "Why he said No" but "Does he have the Right to say No"

I mentioned a Glass Swastika earlier...if a Group of White Supremists came in and asked you to make one for them....would you?...knowing full well that your name will be attached to it as soon as it leaves your door.

You have the right to say No...just like the baker has the right to say No.

And the Gay couple has the right to let their friends know this guy wouldn't do it for them....he may lose business because of his decision...but thats his choice and if he can live with whatever repercussions come from it....So Be It.

Simply not a matter for the courts to decide...

Like I said...."We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service"

I'd charge a lot and I wouldn't sign it. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But.. Just like Jim had to make the stretch all the way to the westboro baptists, you are making the stretch all the way to a white supremacist group. Both groups represent hate and intolerance.

A couple who want to be together and have a piece of paper that entitles them to the same legal rights as a man and woman who are married I a threat to no one.
Last I heard, there hasn't been and gay supremacist groups or gays out picketing funerals of fallen vets.

The baker is probably dealing with some seriously strong gay genetics and has had to go to god to help repress them.. The biggest homophobes I know would probably love to soak the cork given the chance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Technically the West Baptist Church isn't a threat to anybody....they are just a bunch of Misguided A-Holes out picketing....But you don't like what they stand for....just like the baker doesn't like what Gay Marriage stands for.

....and its not a stretch to use the WBC or the KKK....if the court rules that the baker doesn't have a right to refuse their business....then people can't refuse the WBC's business under the same ruling...

If the court rules that he has to make a cake for a gay wedding...then in the same vein he would have to make a Cake for the WBC that says something hateful about fallen vets....there is absolutely no difference, as there shouldn't be, in the eyes of the court.

I have no issue with Gay Marriage....but some do.

Again...its not Why he says no....just should he have the right to say no...

Anti descrimination laws are in place for these types of things. :$)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It seems like the problem with the discussion between Nebe and others is an argument between opinion and principle.

Anti descrimination laws are in place for these types of things. :$)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you explain on what principle those laws are made?

But.. Just like Jim had to make the stretch all the way to the westboro baptists, you are making the stretch all the way to a white supremacist group. Both groups represent hate and intolerance.

A couple who want to be together and have a piece of paper that entitles them to the same legal rights as a man and woman who are married I a threat to no one.
Last I heard, there hasn't been and gay supremacist groups or gays out picketing funerals of fallen vets.

The baker is probably dealing with some seriously strong gay genetics and has had to go to god to help repress them.. The biggest homophobes I know would probably love to soak the cork given the chance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim had to make the stretch all the way to the westboro baptists, you are making the stretch all the way to a white supremacist group. Both groups represent hate and intolerance. "

I agree, Westboro represents hate, in fact, that was my point. Because in this case, the judge said that the baker doesn't have the right to hurt the feelings of the happy couple. My response, and I think it's valid, is this...if the Westboro Baptist Chruch has the right to hurt people's feelings during the course of practicing their religion, so does the baker.

How is that wrong? That fact that Westboro Baptist are a reprhehensible bunch of jerks does not refute my point, it strengthens my point. Because why do they have freedom of religion, but not the baker?

Your response?

You're claiming that I am equating a homosexual couple with the Westboro baptists, and that's not even close to what I'm doing. I'm saying the baker has as much right to practice his religion, even if it hurts someone's feelings, as Westboro Baptist.

"The biggest homophobes I know would probably love to soak the cork given the chance."

This from the guy who recently said we need to be tolerant of those who disagree with us. Here's a tip, start with yourself.

Again...its not Why he says no....just should he have the right to say no...

I think "why he says so" is crucial. If he says so because of his religion, then how does the constitution not guarantee him that right?

Courts have said that Westboro Baptist Chruch can spew their hate for one reason, and one reason only...they are doing so in the course of practicing their religion, and hurtful as it may be, the freedom of religion gives them that right.

Why doesn't the baker have as much right to practice his religion, as WBC?

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

I would like to know what religion the baker is, plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays. Even the Pope just recently came out and said "Who are we to Judge". Be interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up.

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

I would like to know what religion the baker is, plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays. Even the Pope just recently came out and said "Who are we to Judge". Be interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up.

You made a good point about freedom of speech. I looked it up...the ACLU, of course, has defended the Westboro Baptists on both freedon of speech grounds and freedom of religion grounds...

"I would like to know what religion the baker is"

Some kind of Christianity...

"plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays"

Very true.

"interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up"

The baker, who can get free representation if he chooses, has not yet decided (last I checked) whether o rnot he will appeal.

I wonder if ACLU will defend his right to freedom of religion, as they did for Westboro Baprist? Not likely!

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.


Yes, the court decided their right was under Freedom of Speech. I would think the same applies to the baker vs. the gays issue. But, unless the case is appealed and gets up to the SCOTUS, it remains a State issue and the gays win.

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

Not the same as there are specific laws in place for Employment Descrimination.

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

Here is what you are not grasping...this baker's religion, presumably, does not say that homosexuals do not have the right to be employed. His religion does say they don't have the right to marry.

Look at it this way...Catholic hospitals cannot refuse to hire homosexual doctors, but they can absolutely refuse to let that homosexual doctor get married in the hospital chapel.

You may well have a point about discrimination. However, you never, not once, addressed the baker's right to fredom of religion.

Not the same as there are specific laws in place for Employment Descrimination.

Exactly.

There are also specific laws in place that guarantee the right to practice your religion as you see fit.

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

As TDF says, employment laws do not apply to refusal to provide service. Even more, I believe at the Federal level, businesses with less than 15 employees don't have to abide by sexual orientation discrimination law. State laws differ in many ways. Depends on Colorado's discrimination laws.

The problem with anti-discrimination laws is that they discriminate. They are on shaky philosophical grounds and definitely on our Federal Constitution grounds. The Constitution does not prohibit individuals from discriminating. It prohibits government from doing so. So when government creates laws which discriminate in favor of one party over another, it does that which it prohibits against and does so against that which it is prohibited.

Your right to discriminate, so long as it does not deny someone else their right to life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness, is one of those unalienable rights not specified but inherent in the understood VAST RESIDUUM of rights not given to government but retained by the individual.

In an aside but much related topic:

Can't stand bishop Tobin or the church he represents but he had the RIGHT to say what he said about Mandela,its guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.And yet there's a grassroots effort to force him to apologize.

I can see it already "I apologize for using my 1st Amendment right to an opinion".

Exactly.

There are also specific laws in place that guarantee the right to practice your religion as you see fit.

Be careful Jim. the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But if the free exercise of your religion, AS YOU SEE FIT, conflicts with laws that pertain to other people's rights, then those laws can supersede your practice. Most religious practices don't go that far, but there are some far out ones that encroach on the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (a.k.a. right to property) of others. So the practice of religion is not seen as a right to do so in all your interactions with the rest of society. It is more normally seen as practiced in your strictly personal or religious settings.

What is so interesting to me in the discussion of this case is how we have so narrowed the scope of rights we retained by the Constitution's limitation of government that they are minimized into a small scope of a few amendments. Madison didn't originally want to include a Bill of Rights for that very reason. The VAST RESIDUUM of rights that were ours in Madison's unamended version did not require a Bill of Rights. He feared that they would become the list of only those rights we posses. That is basically what has happened. We should not have to be pointing to the first amendment to be allowed to speak freely or to be free to practice our religion, or other amendments to bear arms, or the whole limited laundry list of amended guaranteed rights. EVERYTHING that was not given to the limited power of government, before the Bill of Rights was included, was retained by the people and the States. Almost all of that has been vanquished, and we cling to a few of the remaining Bill of Rights.

That we are having a discussion of what is or isn't discrimination, or whether we should be allowed to say no, or that we must bake a cake for anybody who asks us is so far from our founding principles that we are like a foreign country compared to the original U.S.A.

Discrimination in its broadest sense is a process that delineates who we are as individuals. It is a primary facet of freedom. Ownership of property and how it is disposed is also a primary facet of freedom and was bound with the pursuit of happiness in the eyes of the Founders. The debate should not be if we have those rights, but how little the government can intrude on them. Without those rights what are we but minions of the State? And more than half of our people accept that.

I have said no when kids ask me to make them bongs...

And while I have said no to bongs/pipes to kids. "just say NO"

I do make them for MMJ card holders. Even though I am slightly opposed to it. so just charge them a lot more and don't sign them
.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:claps::thanks:

laudable

you are "slightly opposed" to adult pot smoking?...what other things are you "slightly opposed" to?...just curious

And while I have said no to bongs/pipes to kids.. I do make them for MMJ card holders. Even though I am slightly opposed to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stop it.You either make bongs or you don't.Card holders don't need bongs to smoke when they can go into Fall Riv and buy a pack a papers for .50 cents.You make bongs because it makes you $$$.

I mentioned a Glass Swastika earlier...if a Group of White Supremists came in and asked you to make one for them....would you?...knowing full well that your name will be attached to it as soon as it leaves your door.
Sorry guys, I had a quick jump to San Francisco late last week immediately followed by an interview in Detroit yesterday.

TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.

A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.

A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.

It's not the same thing.

And all the talk about Federal Constitutional stuff here needs to be put in context of Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation.

So I'd think that if the cake they were ordering was a somewhat standard cake the vendor would be violating state law.

-spence

Stop it.You either make bongs or you don't.Card holders don't need bongs to smoke when they can go into Fall Riv and buy a pack a papers for .50 cents.You make bongs because it makes you $$$.
For many card holders the very act of medication is a ritual. That they may want to do it in style is up to them...I think Nebe's point is that they're not engaging in illegal activity as they deal with their illness, so it's not up to him to judge. Different from someone who just wants to get stoned.

-spence

And all the talk about Federal Constitutional stuff here needs to be put in context of Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation.

So I'd think that if the cake they were ordering was a somewhat standard cake the vendor would be violating state law.

-spence

It has already been accepted in the discussion here that it was Colorado law which was violated. Federal Constitutional stuff can come into play if there are appeals. And intelligent people, especially those who are aware of the problems which various laws create when they contradict fundamental principals on which a society is founded, should debate those contradictions and question on what principles such laws are based. If laws are passed on the wave of perceived injustice but eventually are discovered to violate the will of majorities and create more injustice, and further, violate founding principles, they most certainly should be discussed. If we simply accept, without question any law that a State creates, we abandon that "eternal vigilance" which is required to preserve liberty. And if we just stick our heads in the sand while new laws and regulations are concocted at all levels at the current record speed and quantity, we don't deserve nor really want liberty.

It has already been accepted in the discussion here that it was Colorado law which was violated. Federal Constitutional stuff can come into play if there are appeals. And intelligent people, especially those who are aware of the problems which various laws create when they contradict fundamental principals on which a society is founded, should debate those contradictions and question on what principles such laws are based. If laws are passed on the wave of perceived injustice but eventually are discovered to violate the will of majorities and create more injustice, and further, violate founding principles, they most certainly should be discussed. If we simply accept, without question any law that a State creates, we abandon that "eternal vigilance" which is required to preserve liberty. And if we just stick our heads in the sand while new laws and regulations are concocted at all levels at the current record speed and quantity, we don't deserve nor really want liberty.

the left does seem to operate on the notion that once they've instituted a law or layer of bureaucracy by any means possible, society is then expected to live with the law/mess and it's unintended/negative consequences for eternity....

it would be quite a spectacle, would it not to, have this judge ordering the bigot wedding cake baker and the bigot photographer and the bigot caterer and the bigot priest/jop/reverend and the bigot limo driver and the bigot florist and the bigot DJ to all show up at the hall/room owned by the bigot function hall owner to participate in or face a fine or worse to celebrate a wedding/mariage that the State itself does not/ will not recognize.....

I guess to REALLY make a point you might shop around for bigot vendors and keep filing suits..but do you really want these people at your wedding???...even more so....do you want them touching your food???.....would you eat the cake???:rotf2:

TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.

A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.

A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things any bongs? they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.

It's not the same thing.


-spence

it's exactly the same thing....he makes a number of items that he stocks his shelves and show cases with, they could just as easily be cookies and crumpets(standard offerings) as they are ornaments and paperweights...pretty sure bakers consider themselves to be artistic as well and wedding cakes are not things they make and stick in the show case hoping someone comes by ...I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to have a wedding cake to get married either, but you do need a marriage license and apparently, for now, if you are a gay couple you can't get one of those in bigoted Colorado, weddings cakes are a traditional wedding/marriage accompaniment, not sure if they are a traditional civil union ceremony feature......

from what I can decipher from Eben's posts, put in a similar position...he'd either lie to them and say he can't make the item in question....or charge them double for the item and disclaim any responsibility for the creation of the object.....good to have options;)

the symbol might be a bad analogy because it would likely not be a denial based on the race, gender or orientation of the requester but there are other examples that would provide better analogies which go to the argument, which is whether he, as the business owner, has the right to refuse to make something and if a judge may compel him to make something that he might disagree with... and if his right to refuse to make something or be compelled to make something that he disagrees with by the Judge supersedes the right of the couple and Judge to force him to make it when...honestly...they could and should go somewhere else...they are perfectly entitled to make their experience public and let the bigot baker's business suffer whatever losses of business it might incur as a result...

the story has almost nothing to do with a wedding cake

Sorry guys, I had a quick jump to San Francisco late last week immediately followed by an interview in Detroit yesterday.

TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.

I think its a perfect analogy...someone walks into yor place of Business and asks you to make something that represents something you are morally against....Whether it be a Nazi symbol to Nebe or a Gay Wedding Cake to the baker.

A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.

A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.
-spence

Not sure what your argument is here...Custom Cake or Custom Glass....only difference is the Medium used.

May the first glass blower who has NOT made a bong please stand up. If I were to attempt to replace my fish pipe who would I go to with no mmj card? hmmmm

i like 2" Bamboo way better :)

Be careful Jim. the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But if the free exercise of your religion, AS YOU SEE FIT, conflicts with laws that pertain to other people's rights, then those laws can supersede your practice. Most religious practices don't go that far, but there are some far out ones that encroach on the rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (a.k.a. right to property) of others. So the practice of religion is not seen as a right to do so in all your interactions with the rest of society. It is more normally seen as practiced in your strictly personal or religious settings.

What is so interesting to me in the discussion of this case is how we have so narrowed the scope of rights we retained by the Constitution's limitation of government that they are minimized into a small scope of a few amendments. Madison didn't originally want to include a Bill of Rights for that very reason. The VAST RESIDUUM of rights that were ours in Madison's unamended version did not require a Bill of Rights. He feared that they would become the list of only those rights we posses. That is basically what has happened. We should not have to be pointing to the first amendment to be allowed to speak freely or to be free to practice our religion, or other amendments to bear arms, or the whole limited laundry list of amended guaranteed rights. EVERYTHING that was not given to the limited power of government, before the Bill of Rights was included, was retained by the people and the States. Almost all of that has been vanquished, and we cling to a few of the remaining Bill of Rights.

That we are having a discussion of what is or isn't discrimination, or whether we should be allowed to say no, or that we must bake a cake for anybody who asks us is so far from our founding principles that we are like a foreign country compared to the original U.S.A.

Discrimination in its broadest sense is a process that delineates who we are as individuals. It is a primary facet of freedom. Ownership of property and how it is disposed is also a primary facet of freedom and was bound with the pursuit of happiness in the eyes of the Founders. The debate should not be if we have those rights, but how little the government can intrude on them. Without those rights what are we but minions of the State? And more than half of our people accept that.

"if the free exercise of your religion, AS YOU SEE FIT, conflicts with laws that pertain to other people's rights, then those laws can supersede your practice"

Correct. To the extreme, I cannot perform human sacrifices on religious grounds. And this conflict (the baker's right to freedom of religion, versus the couple's right to avoid discrimination) is what makes this interesting to me.

The judge, in this case, said that the couple has the right to not "be hurt for who they are". That's absurd. There is no right to not have your feelings hurt. Teasing is not against the law. WHat the Westboro Baptist Cjurch does, is at least as hurtful, but courts have said that's protected.

Sorry guys, I had a quick jump to San Francisco late last week immediately followed by an interview in Detroit yesterday.

TDF Not sure that's a good analogy.

A wedding cake for the most part is a commodity item. Sure there are basic ones and fancy ones but it's a generally accepted service that vendors provide to the community. I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to be getting married to order a wedding cake.

A glass swastika would be a one off special request and an odd one at that. I've been to Nebe's shop recently and while there are various vases, bowls, ornaments, paperweights and other non-functional yet beautiful things they all have a generally accepted artistic or functional purpose and are standard offerings of his business or any other glass makers business.

It's not the same thing.

And all the talk about Federal Constitutional stuff here needs to be put in context of Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation.

So I'd think that if the cake they were ordering was a somewhat standard cake the vendor would be violating state law.

-spence

"Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation. "

Is there such a law? I'm not doubting you, but from what I saw, the judge did not cite a specific state law that the baker was violating. What I saw (and I may well have missed the law you are referring to) was the judge saying that the couple has the right to not be hurt for who they are. That concept seems to be at odds with the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to celebrate the death of military KIA's at their funerals. That is hurtful to the families, but judges have said that despite the hurt inflicted, they have the right to express their religious beliefs in that manner.

And if there is such a state law, one might argue that it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed to the baker by the Bill Of Rights. When there is a conflict, the United States Constitution trumps state laws.

"Colorado law, which specifically prohibits a place of public accommodation (i.e. a bakery) from selectively denying service based on sexual orientation. "

Is there such a law?

Yes.

And if there is such a state law, one might argue that it violates the freedom of religion guaranteed to the baker by the Bill Of Rights. When there is a conflict, the United States Constitution trumps state laws.

It violates more than that. To begin with, as ScottW has pointed out, Colorado does not recognize same sex marriage, not even if it is performed in another State. So there would be an apparent conflict between the two laws. If same sex marriage is not accepted as valid in the State, how can a baker be prosecuted for not accommodating such a marriage? The judge should have recognized that the two laws could apply to the baker only in respect to baked goods that he makes and are in stock at the time of purchase. If he does not make same-sex wedding cakes, and there are no wedding cakes in stock at the time of request he cannot, even under the anti-discrimination law, be forced to make one, just as he cannot be forced to make jelly donuts for someone if they are not in stock. The baker can perfectly accommodate the gay couple by selling them those goods that he has produced and are available for sale, but they cannot compel him to make something he otherwise would not nor does not wish to do.

Furthermore, the anti-discrimination law has a fundamental problem with equal protection as provided in the Constitution. Anti-discrimination laws as they are written prohibit discrimination against "protected" classes. But they do not prohibit discrimination against those class of people that do not fall into the protected areas (i.e. sexual orientation, religion, race, gender, etc.) If the baker simply didn't like me for some undecipherable "vibes" he detected, not for any of the protected classifications, the laws would not prohibit him from not selling his wares to me. I would not have the equal protection that the laws provide to others. Of course, the obvious unequal application of such laws is the ensuing discrimination against the baker. Anti-discrimination laws are by nature discriminatory. To be truly anti-discrimination, there should be no protected class of people, everybody should be protected, including the baker. That is asking the impossible. Which may be why the Constitution only prohibits the government from discriminating

It seems like the problem with the discussion between Nebe and others is an argument between opinion and principle.

Who the hell cares about opinion and principle?

Clearly they don't like making money, or they knew there would be backlash that would get them publicity.

And publicity good OR bad is ALWAYS good.

Remember, every time Howard or Imus say something dumb on the radio, listener-ship goes through the roof.

the left does seem to operate on the notion that once they've instituted a law or layer of bureaucracy by any means possible, society is then expected to live with the law/mess and it's unintended/negative consequences for eternity....

:

Yes, especially with Obamacare (sorry, is that racist?), the left likes to beat the drum "it was signed into law, upheld by the Supreme Court, so stop complaining and accept it".

This assumes there is no such thing as a bad law. I remind the lefties of another law which was upheld by the Supreme Court, one which the democrats wanted to hear no more opposition to - slavery. Once again, it was the Republicans who refused to be silenced in their opposition, despite the fact that slavery laws were duly constituted and upheld by the Supreme Court.

it's exactly the same thing....he makes a number of items that he stocks his shelves and show cases with, they could just as easily be cookies and crumpets(standard offerings) as they are ornaments and paperweights...pretty sure bakers consider themselves to be artistic as well and wedding cakes are not things they make and stick in the show case hoping someone comes by ...I'm not aware of any provision that you actually have to have a wedding cake to get married either, but you do need a marriage license and apparently, for now, if you are a gay couple you can't get one of those in bigoted Colorado, weddings cakes are a traditional wedding/marriage accompaniment, not sure if they are a traditional civil union ceremony feature......

from what I can decipher from Eben's posts, put in a similar position...he'd either lie to them and say he can't make the item in question....or charge them double for the item and disclaim any responsibility for the creation of the object.....good to have options;)

the symbol might be a bad analogy because it would likely not be a denial based on the race, gender or orientation of the requester but there are other examples that would provide better analogies which go to the argument, which is whether he, as the business owner, has the right to refuse to make something and if a judge may compel him to make something that he might disagree with... and if his right to refuse to make something or be compelled to make something that he disagrees with by the Judge supersedes the right of the couple and Judge to force him to make it when...honestly...they could and should go somewhere else...they are perfectly entitled to make their experience public and let the bigot baker's business suffer whatever losses of business it might incur as a result...

the story has almost nothing to do with a wedding cake

What this boils down to is that I make certain things.. Vases, Bowls, Etc… The baker makes Cakes. I would never in a million years deny a piece to that i make or have in stock to a gay couple… Custom orders are a slippery slope no matter who is ordering it and I should have been more clear on that. I charge more for any custom order as opposed to a piece that i make repetitively.. there is time to design the piece, i might have to make 2 or 3 to get a good one, etc….. so no matter what, no matter who or what the person wants, the moment you put the words 'special order', 'custom commission', etc… in front of me, i am going to sing a different tune……Any artist would say the same answer, unless they only do custom work, then their price structure is geared for that all the time.

My business is so complex, sometimes i don't even know how to describe what i do to people. One day i am making lighting parts for a lamp company, the next i am making huge works for architects, the other day i am teaching 8 year old kids how to make christmas ornaments…. so yes… it is nice to have options :)

Never in a million years would i turn someone away from my studio who came in and pointed at something on my shelves that I make because of race, sexual preference or religious beliefs… In fact, i even taught your daughters a class last year, so that says a lot…. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

We'll I think we need something to put this discussion in perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niCiKpgeRYo

DZ

Clearly they don't like making money, .

Some people aren't willing to violate their beliefs for a few bucks...

Who the hell cares about opinion and principle?

Clearly they don't like making money, or they knew there would be backlash that would get them publicity.

And publicity good OR bad is ALWAYS good.

Remember, every time Howard or Imus say something dumb on the radio, listener-ship goes through the roof.

Ya think the judge was in on it? Maybe the gays were in on the scam too? Lotsa money to go around for everyone. Gives me a new outlook on all the discrimination suits that have been filed. And hear tell there are tons more coming down the pike. OOOOhWOW! the underground wealth index is about to spike up big. Too bad the governments can't get a tax or regulatory cut. Detroit could sure use some. Maybe they're in on it too.

For many card holders the very act of medication is a ritual. That they may want to do it in style is up to them...I think Nebe's point is that they're not engaging in illegal activity as they deal with their illness, so it's not up to him to judge. Different from someone who just wants to get stoned.

-spence

Yet he did judge these people.Please go back and re-read his statement that I quoted.

Btw that so called ritual you speak is not endorsed by any doctor.All doctors recommend using a vaporizer so that no carcinogens are inhaled and all patients are told this.I stand by my original statement...he makes and sells bongs for $$$.

Yet he did judge these people.Please go back and re-read his statement that I quoted.

Btw that so called ritual you speak is not endorsed by any doctor.All doctors recommend using a vaporizer so that no carcinogens are inhaled and all patients are told this.I stand by my original statement...he makes and sells bongs for $$$.

I do.. and it equates to about .001% of my income.. I do it as a service to help someone with a serious problem.. The last one i made wasn't actually a bong, but a steamroller that was custom made for a patient with a tracheotomy…. made to fit the opening in his neck and long enough to go past his chin.. ANd.. its it is perfectly legal:uhuh:

In fact, i even taught your daughters a class last year, so that says a lot…. :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

they love you too and still talk about that trip, the ornaments are hanging in the window in our living room and look great...

you are very clear that you would not have done what the baker did in this instance, that's not the question, the question is whether the baker had or should have the right to say no...

to try to pick an easy example for you that might relate as this law pertains to race, religion and orientation, I don't know this for certain but if you happen to be pro-choice....and some representatives of a religious group walk through your door and want to purchase one of your more elaborate sculptures for the centerpiece of their upcoming pro-life rally and fund raising dinner...

should you have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? ....y/n

should a judge, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....y/n


should be a pretty simple yes/no.... without wandering off into bong talk :)

First I would have simply said that I never made one like that before and I'm afraid I would do a really poor job. If that didn't get rid of them I would say , OK , I'll try but the extra time I will need to design it will mean it costs 3 times as much. If that didn't get rid of them I'd make them a really crappy cake and get paid 3X for it! :)

Honestly , I think the baker should be able to just say no.

they love you too and still talk about that trip, the ornaments are hanging in the window in our living room and look great...

you are very clear that you would not have done what the baker did in this instance, that's not the question, the question is whether the baker had or should have the right to say no...

to try to pick an easy example for you that might relate as this law pertains to race, religion and orientation, I don't know this for certain but if you happen to be pro-choice....and some representatives of a religious group walk through your door and want to purchase one of your more elaborate sculptures for the centerpiece of their upcoming pro-life rally and fund raising dinner...

should you have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? ....y/n

should a judge, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....y/n


should be a pretty simple yes/no.... without wandering off into bong talk :)
Scott. I don't give a #^&#^&#^&#^& what people do in their lives. I wouldn't turn anyone down for anything I make. I live my life and I let people live their lives. Live and let live.

It's really simple and allows me to sleep very well at night. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they love you too and still talk about that trip, the ornaments are hanging in the window in our living room and look great...

you are very clear that you would not have done what the baker did in this instance, that's not the question, the question is whether the baker had or should have the right to say no...

to try to pick an easy example for you that might relate as this law pertains to race, religion and orientation, I don't know this for certain but if you happen to be pro-choice....and some representatives of a religious group walk through your door and want to purchase one of your more elaborate sculptures for the centerpiece of their upcoming pro-life rally and fund raising dinner...

should you have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with? ....y/n

should a judge, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....y/n


should be a pretty simple yes/no.... without wandering off into bong talk :)
Oh.. Yes or no.

No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sooo....

no....you should not have the right to refuse to sell that object to them if you'd would prefer that your name and artwork not be associated with a cause or event that you might disagree with?

and presumably

yes... a judge should, if you decide that you do not want your name or work associated with that event be able to force you to make or sell that object or face a fine ?....

interesting....I guess "live and let live" does not apply to the baker? doesn't tolerance go both ways?

"I wouldn't turn anyone down for anything I make. I live my life and I let people live their lives. Live and let live."

if this is true you should have no opinion regarding the actions of the baker....but you were quite explicit in your condemnation

is he not being discriminated against by the judge and couple over his religious/moral views and having their beliefs forced on him? are they bigots? you mentioned earlier that you had a real problem with religions tending to "force" their views on others....does this also apply to the couple and the judge?

"No! No one should be discriminated against based on sexual preference, race or religion. Period."

this is one of those statements that sounds great when stated initially...then you start applying reality to it and it doesn't make a lot of sense....there is plenty of discrimination that exists..some is attacked and some is protected

the baker and the couple could have been tolerant of each other's beliefs and parted ways...one party chose to sue and have their views forced on the other by the State....over a cake :)...or was it?

Nebe, you posted this earlier...

"If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??

Here's what you have not/will not/can not grasp...

It is the gay couple and the judge who are forcing their beliefs on the baker, not the other way around. The baker isn't trying to convert anyone to Christianity, he simply wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. The baker isn't telling the couple they cannot get married, he just doesn't want to be involved.

The baker wants to be left alone to live in accordance with his beliefs. Our country was literally founded on that concept.

You also said this...

"Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!"

Again, your words are precisely what the baker is trying to do...he just wants to be left out of this marriage, but the couple and the judge are telling him to participate in the wedding or face fines.

Your arguments here, are supporting the baker's case as well as any lawyer could, and somehow you think you are refuting his case...

Yup.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.

Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.

On this issue, it appears you see things my way, doesn't it? I think the baker ha every right to ay "no thanks" to the happy couple...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUVzhale5R8

Right or wrong, any person should be entitled to discriminate as they see fit. This baker wasn't bothering anyone but the fag nazis want everyone to see things from their perspective.I am not a homophobe at all,I just can't stand that our right to opinion and individualism are being taken away. The government is forcing people to play nice and that is not necessarily in our best interest. I really don't see things Jim's way but I support his view in this case.

That, in a direct non-legalistic way, describes the fundamental transformation of our society. Those humans who wished to be free have sought through the ages for a society to exist in harmony. One of the most basic ways to do so was the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. But that was a philosophical maxim not a governing law. And it wasn't general enough to account for the personal concepts of what you wish to be done unto you. And it certainly didn't have the force of law. And laws tended to deprive individuals of personal opinion.

The Founders were very much in agreement with you that you should be able to discriminate as you wish. But they also understood that, though the individual is paramount, we must exist in society. The clash of individual wishes vs. societal cohesion needed a way to preserve one within the other. They came up with the concept of individual unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness among those rights which individuals could inviolately posses and which society must protect. This social compact would protect the individual and unify the society. The individual could "discriminate" as he wishes, but must not act in ways that would negate another's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

So they instituted a system of government which would accommodate the sovereignty of the individual and the cohesion of society.

Apparently we individuals, over time, have been found wanting. We have been deemed by other individuals to be incapable of their version of golden rules or of forming their version of society. We must subscribe to THEIR way of acting nice, and live in THEIR version of society. "Our best interest" as an individual, because of our selfish incompetence, must conform to the best interest of the society created by this higher group of beings.

The baker may not have denied to the gays life, liberty, or PURSUIT of happiness, but he did not conform to the new ideal--the subservience of the individual to the will of the collective. Of course, neither the will of the collective, nor the ultimate motive for that will, is fully understood at this time. It is wrapped in some convenient phrases such as "fairness" or "equality" or "anti-discrimination" even though pitting one person's version of those qualities against another's denies one of them the same fairness, equality or anti-discrimination.

So the individual's desire to live freely within a society of free individuals has been, apparently, a pipe dream. We are too imperfect as individuals, so must bow to the perfection defined by the State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUVzhale5R8

I'm not an expert, like Snider apparently is, on conservative Christians, but wouldn't they want to "save" people like him rather than put them in jail? Is there some widespread conservative Christian movement to put Snider in jail? And he's able to sing his bigoted stuff on FOX? I wonder if he has any concept of what really allows him to be free.

First I would have simply said that I never made one like that before and I'm afraid I would do a really poor job. If that didn't get rid of them I would say , OK , I'll try but the extra time I will need to design it will mean it costs 3 times as much. If that didn't get rid of them I'd make them a really crappy cake and get paid 3X for it! :)

Honestly , I think the baker should be able to just say no.
I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

I'm not an expert, like Snider apparently is, on conservative Christians, but wouldn't they want to "save" people like him rather than put them in jail? Is there some widespread conservative Christian movement to put Snider in jail? And he's able to sing his bigoted stuff on FOX? I wonder if he has any concept of what really allows him to be free.

Take it for what it is… ;)

If you are a baker who makes Boy/girl wedding cakes then obviously something has to be different to make it a boy/boy wedding cake. If not what would the courts be trying to make the guy bake? You don't need to get the courts involved for a boy/girl cake do you?

Now to show you what a radical you are , I was thinking it would have two men dolls on top instead of bride and groom dolls. You are talking a Phallus cake shooting frosting out the top! That's a little radical isn't it.

We should all tolerate other peoples differences. How dare someone not tolerate gays points of view. Oh I mean how dare gays not tolerate straight peoples points of view. What? They don't have to tolerate our point of view , we only have to tolerate theirs? Hmmm, somehow that hurts my feelings. Hurt feelings?? I got a court case!!! :)

If you are a baker who makes Boy/girl wedding cakes then obviously something has to be different to make it a boy/boy wedding cake. If not what would the courts be trying to make the guy bake? You don't need to get the courts involved for a boy/girl cake do you?

Now to show you what a radical you are , I was thinking it would have two men dolls on top instead of bride and groom dolls. You are talking a Phallus cake shooting frosting out the top! That's a little radical isn't it.

We should all tolerate other peoples differences. How dare someone not tolerate gays points of view. Oh I mean how dare gays not tolerate straight peoples points of view. What? They don't have to tolerate our point of view , we only have to tolerate theirs? Hmmm, somehow that hurts my feelings. Hurt feelings?? I got a court case!!! :)

What gender does a wedding cake have aside from the little cheesy plastic people on top that nobody uses any more?

-spence

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

because they could get a "standard cake" anywhere...which is why this is about "forcing" the baker to make a cake for a "non-standard" wedding and not really about the cake itself....

I suppose if they were looking for the cake that you describe and the baker refused to make it...the Judge could just order him to make it or pay a fine or go to jail

because they could get a "standard cake" anywhere...which is why this is about "forcing" the baker to make a cake for a "non-standard" wedding and not really about the cake itself....
Maybe the guy made really nice cakes?

So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well?

-spence

What gender does a wedding cake have aside from the little cheesy plastic people on top that nobody uses any more?

-spence

Nobody uses them little Bride/Groom dolls anymore and they make them out of cheese!!?? But they do make phallus shaped cakes that squirt whipped cream? Man , I guess I am out of touch with todays wedding cakes! :biglaugh:

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

If the baker was asked to bake a "standard" cake by someone who wasn't "protected" by an anti-discrimination law, and the baker refused, could the judge order him to bake the "standard" cake?

So this is Bloomberg telling you what size soda you can drink. Skits like the soup nazi on seinfeld certainly take on a whole different spin when it is looked upon this way.No soup for you is grounds for a lawsuit.

If the baker was asked to bake a "standard" cake by someone who wasn't "protected" by an anti-discrimination law, and the baker refused, could the judge order him to bake the "standard" cake?
Why would the baker refuse?

-spence

Why would the baker refuse?

-spence

Because he wanted to. He just didn't feel like it. He got some bad mystic vibes from the guy/gal/it. It was somebody that cut in front of him in a grocery store checkout line. It was his mother-in-law.

Is there some blank space in the anti-discrimination act that can be filled in if the "victim" doesn't fit the right categories?

What kind of fair and equal law allows you to discriminate against one but not another? In selective discrimination laws, aren't there always somebody who is or can be discriminated against, including the one charged with discriminating. Wouldn't just and equal discrimination laws prohibit any discrimination whatsoever? Oh, right, then we would be automatons not humans. How about letting us discriminate so long as we don't deprive someone of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness (which include the right of personal property and the disposal thereof under the same conditions).

Take it for what it is… ;)

Do I have to take it? Is there some anti-discrimination law that says I must? Can I say NO?

Sure. You can say no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks. You're my kind of guy . . . er . . . person . . . thing . . . whatever
:cheers::cheers:

Oh, wait, I won't be sued for discriminating against no-good hippies, will I?

Sure. You can say no.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope. Just don't bogart that joint maaan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope. Just don't bogart that joint maaan
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Faaar out maaan . . . dja ever blow some glass while you were dancin' with mary jane?

Faaar out maaan . . . dja ever blow some glass while you were dancin' with mary jane?
Not once. And that's the God's honest truth. I've had a beer or 2.. But I really need to be in my head to work with 2000 degree glass
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kinda funny that if a homosexual walks into your space of "public accommodation" and announces he's gay you gotta sell him whatever stuff you have that he wants, but if, upon finding that you don't approve of the "gay lifestyle," after taking up your space and time he can leave without buying anything and you can't get a judge to make him do it. Matter of fact, he can even picket your store and influence others not to buy your stuff. Reverse discrimination is OK.

You don't have to be gay to do that. And that's why I follow the 2 commandments at my studio. 1- Be Cool. 2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You don't have to be gay to do that. And that's why I follow the 2 commandments at my studio. 1- Be Cool. 2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the point. Just plain regular unclassified folks can freely "discriminate" against one another in a place of public accommodation. But only "protected" class of folks, like gays, cannot be discriminated against in a place of public accommodation, even though they can (like anybody else) reverse discriminate.

Not really. If a gay couple were in my studio and were being extremely rude, I'd kick them out. I can do that. Not because they are gay. Because they were being rude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not really. If a gay couple were in my studio and were being extremely rude, I'd kick them out. I can do that. Not because they are gay. Because they were being rude.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly. You CANNOT kick them out just because they are gay. But you can "kick out" somebody that is not of a protected class even if they are not rude--just because you don't want their business for whatever reason suits you.

Yep. And that is called discrimination. You don't have to be gay. You can have aids, be black, mentally disabled, a redhead, etc.....
The fact is.. If you kick anyone out because you don't like or agree with their background, you deserve what's coming to you, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.... The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay... If he had said they were being disruptive, we would never have heard about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep. And that is called discrimination. You don't have to be gay. You can have aids, be black, mentally disabled, a redhead, etc.....

You started out with a few protected classifications, but when you got to redheads . . . is that a new legally protected class?

The fact is.. If you kick anyone out because you don't like or agree with their background, you deserve what's coming to you, because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.... The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

Did the baker actually "kick them out" or refuse to serve them? Did he refuse to sell what he had in stock to the gays? Don't know the whole story, but doesn't sound like he would have refused their request to buy donuts or whatever else he had in stock. Story doesn't say he was rude or nasty to them. Just didn't want to bake a cake for them that would trespass his religious convictions. This was in a state which also didn't support same sex marriage. Is that just too difficult, too much of a problem for the gays to abide? What was he supposed to "have coming to him?"

If he had said they were being disruptive, we would never have heard about this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Depends on whose ox is being gored. It sounds like their request was disruptive to his convictions. And maybe those convictions also included not lying about his motive. He was, as the judge phrased it in describing what should not be discriminated against, simply being who or what he is. And what is an anti-discrimination law worth if all you have to do is lie about your motive? C'mon Nebe, you know that would not have washed. As Scott said, this was more than just about a cake. If he had asked them to leave because they were being disruptive, you actually believe they would have left and let the matter be? This is just too good of an opportunity to push an agenda . . . as Rob Emanuel said . . . don't let a crisis go to waste. It has the whiff of a possible set-up. If not, it sure turned out as if it were.

the Baker can always get a job working for A&E

the Baker can always get a job working for A&E

Yeah they could ask him to do episodes of being a steward for Christian values, giving cakes to homeless folks, praying over his donuts so that they would feed the hungry and bring them to love god through the baker's charity and handiwork. Then, the final episode of a rating busting season, have him do an episode where he denies a gay couple their request for a wedding cake because it would make him an instrument in promoting that which god considered an abomination. (In the meantime having canned a full season to be aired next year.) Then make a huge stink about it, getting even more publicity which will make their next season even more of a blockbuster, and, in the meanwhile, getting rid of the bible-thumping type they normally like to discriminate against.

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As jim says.. It must be a mental illness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There seems to be a ring of truth to what you say. At least that's, as the judge in the baker/gays case put it, at first blush. The problem with your being saddened is that it is not just SOME people who can't think for themselves, MOST can't. And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us. In an uncertain, relative world there is nothing substantial to think about except in relation to something else. In such a world you cannot "think for yourself." You can only perceive through points of view. And those may be endless. And, in the end, they all amount to nothing more than imaginary thoughts. So, even in such a world, for our simple finite minds, we need a guidebook. The question, then, is how do we accommodate such a diversity of perceptions? Should the guidebook be dictated by a regime of thinkers we perceive to be experts on what and how we should think? Should we resolve the uncertainty by submitting to being cast into a one-size-fits-all mold? Or can we accommodate our massive spectrum of differences in such a way that we can all agree (whatever agree means in a relative world) to exist in some form of free harmony which allows our unique perspectives to flourish? Is there room in such a world for different religious perspectives, and atheistic perspectives, and agnostic perspectives, of mystical or artistic perspectives, of strictly rational scientific perspectives? Or must all but one be stamped out for the sake of creating a world which makes us secure against our ultimate ignorance?

Hey, the Founders had an idea. Just a thought. It was a friendly and imaginative guidebook.

It's simple. Be Cool. And don't be an a s s hole. How hard is it?? Baker is the later. The gays have their issues as well... But in the end... It's all about the 2 commandments. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And, in the final analysis, NONE of us can--unless there are absolutes to guide us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

Muahahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's simple. Be Cool. And don't be an a s s hole. How hard is it?? Baker is the later. The gays have their issues as well... But in the end... It's all about the 2 commandments. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey . . . when we make our own commandments, it ain't hard at all. Problem is making everyone else follow our commandments.

Eben for dictator!

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

I think it was the Judy Garland montage that was Photo-frosted on top that was a little too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgpytjlW5wU

:rotf2::rotf2: How did I know you would respond to that line?
I was thinking of you when I threw in the bit about absolutes.

Actually, every rational or semi-rational, person "deals" in absolutes. Objectivist/relativist philosophers who "prove" there are no absolutes do so by definition. They define an absolute as something distinct and unaffected by anything else that exists unchanged for all time. And then they go through a catechism of questions where they make you define your terms and eventually trap you by stating nothing you answer can exist distinct and unchanged (or something like that) for eternity.

But, as Likwid might say, who gives a damn about eternity? Eternity can exist in a moment. Relatively speaking. Or otherwise. And who gives a crap about some philosopher's restrictive definition of "absolute." We have our own utilitarian definitions. Religious folks do. Scientists do. Mechanics do. Critics and rhetoricians do. Dreamers do. And Siths do. But Siths are not the only ones that do.

Absolute is a concept which provides limitations when limitations are needed or useful. Nebe absolutely cannot smoke weed when he blows glass. Absolute zero is some baseline from which to describe relative temperatures. In some instances 1 plus 1 absoslutely equals 2. We limited, imperfect beings need the guidebook which Nebe mocks. Then he prescribes a two commandment guidebook which he thinks is his own concoction. Like those "commandments" didn't exist in the realm of human thought and he just thought them up by himself without the input of all he had learned from others. Or so it seems if he is serious about the sad state of some people not being able to think for themselves.

And if we don't recognize some defined absolutes, at least for the moment, we may find it difficult, if not impossible to function in a world outside of our sleeping dreams. How would relativity be possible to describe without absolute points of view? If every point of view was relative to another point of view and that to another point of view, and that to another point of view ad infinitum it would be impossible to describe what was actually relative to what. It would all be an endless chain of indefinite possibility.

So for the necessity of the moment we deal in our trite mundane absolutes--just in order to "exist"--to get food and clothing and medical attention and money and sex and see a good movie about siths.

Maybe the guy made really nice cakes?

So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well?

-spence

it would not be ok in my opinion....but he should have the right to decide whether he wanted to or not and be judged by the market and either flourish or more likely fail based on his decisions....just as a black baker should have the right to not sell to white people, just as a gay baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding....forcing them to do so seems like a recipe for disaster so to speak

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

so he should have lied.....doesn't that violate both Nebe commandments? or is lying cool ? suppose he had lied about his values and made the cake and the couple found out weeks after the wedding that their cake was made by a raging homophobe @#$^%$# with a mental illness....imagine how painful it would be for them every time that the looked at the wedding pictures and saw that cake...... probably grounds for a lawsuit there too...

personally, I prefer the honest racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot... whatever etc......at least you know where you stand with them and can make a better informed decision as to whether you want to associate with or trust your catering to them ....


Detbuch had a great point, if this couple approached this baker and he'd agreed to make the cake but they then declined citing his religious propensities(or they could lie I guess), could the baker file suit against the couple for discrimination and could a judge force the couple to purchase a cake from this baker?

it would not be ok in my opinion....but he should have the right to decide whether he wanted to or not and be judged by the market and either flourish or more likely fail based on his decisions....just as a black baker should have the right to not sell to white people, just as a gay baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding....forcing them to do so seems like a recipe for disaster so to speak

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

so he should have lied.....doesn't that violate both Nebe commandments? or is lying cool ? suppose he had lied about his values and made the cake and the couple found out weeks after the wedding that their cake was made by a raging homophobe @#$^%$# with a mental illness....imagine how painful it would be for them every time that the looked at the wedding pictures and saw that cake...... probably grounds for a lawsuit there too...

personally, I prefer the honest racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot... whatever etc......at least you know where you stand with them and can make a better informed decision as to whether you want to associate with or trust your catering to them ....


Detbuch had a great point, if this couple approached this baker and he'd agreed to make the cake but they then declined citing his religious propensities(or they could lie I guess), could the baker file suit against the couple for discrimination and could a judge force the couple to purchase a cake from this baker?
Scott...what the difference between not selling to blacks vs gays?? I'd like to hear this logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scott...what the difference between not selling to blacks vs gays?? I'd like to hear this logic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't differentiate

I didn't differentiate

You can pray away the ghey. Oh wait...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can pray away the ghey. Oh wait...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

don't think anyone here has suggested that either...reaching now?...odd videos and inferences....:)

don't think anyone here has suggested that either...reaching now?...odd videos and inferences....:)

It was a joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a joke.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.;)"

2.- Don't be an #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&.
You're so tense these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're so tense these days.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I ordered a bong from Eben for Christmas...that should help :)

I ordered a bong from Eben for Christmas...that should help :)

sorry.. i don't sell to stoners.. oh wait…:rotf2:

As jim says.. It must be a mental illness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God damn right it is. Nebe, you claim to hate it when one person forces their beliefs onto another, and somehow, you can't see that's exactly what the liberals are doing to this baker. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?

I see 2 possibilities...

(1) you are in fact in favor of coercion, when you happen to agree with those trying to force their beliefs onto another

(2) you haven't thought this through

You go ahead and explain it, I'm all ears...

....


Detbuch had a great point, if this couple approached this baker and he'd agreed to make the cake but they then declined citing his religious propensities(or they could lie I guess), could the baker file suit against the couple for discrimination and could a judge force the couple to purchase a cake from this baker?

Hell no, not unless the baker belonged to some demographic that the liberal stormtroopers have anointed with "victim" status.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

God damn right it is. If you genuinely feel no one should be forced against his will to accept the beliefs of another, then how in God's name can you not be on the baker's side? Can you explain that?



It saddens me that some people can't think for themselves and need to follow their imaginary friends guide book.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


I apologize in advance but this just struck me as amusing :uhuh:

maybe rephrase the question Jim :huh:

Scott, I am not sure I can re-phrase it with any more simplicity or clarity. Nebe says he doesn't like it when one person tries to force his beliefs onto another. That's what he said, his words, in an earlier post on this thread. Somehow, he cannot connect the dots to conclude that it's the gay rights activists who are trying to force their beliefs onto the baker. The baker isn't forcing his Christianity on anyone, he just wants to be left alone to act according to his beliefs. No one here has made a better argument for the baker's rights, than Nebe. And somehow, he thinks he's making a compelling case in opposition to the baker. He's making my argument for me, and he's not able to grasp that.

As to his comment about following an imaginary friends guide book. Assuming he is talking about the bible, that's a pretty offensive comment, and you'd think we could expect more from someone who claims to be as progressive, enlightened, and evolved as he thinks that he is.

In all fairness Jim I think they just wanted a cake. This isn't exactly cramming their beliefs down the bakers grill.If a muslim wants a cake I doubt he is attempting to convert,nor do I think the baker is vulnerable to any type of mind meld.Just keeping it real here.Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another? I mean,he DOES sell cakes right?
IMO he can sell to whomever he wants but if he only sells to people of the same religion it will probably be a short carreer.Like I stated before,I support his right to sell to his choice of customer but your shallow depiction of a vulnerable merchant may be short sighted.

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Somehow, he cannot connect the dots to conclude that it's the gay rights activists who are trying to force their beliefs onto the baker.

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays..

2 guys wanted a cake and the baker didn't want to make it for them.....and now they are Gay Rights Activists and the Baker is forcing his religion down their throats.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....:hihi:

:rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In all fairness Jim I think they just wanted a cake. This isn't exactly cramming their beliefs down the bakers grill.If a muslim wants a cake I doubt he is attempting to convert,nor do I think the baker is vulnerable to any type of mind meld.Just keeping it real here.Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another? I mean,he DOES sell cakes right?
IMO he can sell to whomever he wants but if he only sells to people of the same religion it will probably be a short carreer.Like I stated before,I support his right to sell to his choice of customer but your shallow depiction of a vulnerable merchant may be short sighted.

I'm not sure it matters what it was they were purchasing. What matters is that what they were asking, was interpreted by this man as contradictory to his religious views.

"Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another?"

The courts are telling this guy that he must provide the cake, or face fines. The court is ordering this man to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs. I'm not sure I see how that's different from courts ordering Catholic OBGYN's to provide abortions. I'm not saying a cake is the moral equivalent of an unborn baby, I'm saying that these would both be examples of the government ordering someone to participate in that which violates their religion. If that's not a violation of the Freedom Of Religion, I don't know what is, do you?

And remember I support gay marriage. But I also support the Bill Of Rights, and I don't like it when the courts pretend those protections don't exist when it serves their personal agenda to do so.

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. "

Wrong What you cannot grasp, is that there is a huge difference between asking to be left alone to paractice one's religion, and actively forcing your religion on someone else.

What is the baker doing to "force" anything on these guys? Is he asking them to go to church? Is he asking them to go to confession, or to accept Jesus? Is he asking them to speak out against gay marriage? Is he asking them to read the Bible, or to get communion?

No, no, no, and no. What the baker is asking, is to be allowed to practice his religion as he sees fit, without interference from the government.

"So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks?? What if he refused service to Muslims???"

Let's say I own a restaurant. I don't think I'd have the right to exclude Muslims who wanted to come in and eat. But if Muslims asked me to cater, and therefore participate in, a Muslim religious ceremony, I should have the right to refuse. Not that I would personally refuse, but like it or not, I have the constitutional right to do so.

It is the gays, and the court, that are trying to force this man to participate (as he sees it) in something which violates his religion. That doesn't sit well with me.

"I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. "

Yeah, yeah, whatever. The more opposed one is to homosexuality, the more gay that person is, right? Sure. Now you're a psychiatrist. Using your 'logic', if I think all pedophiles should be put in jail for life, does that make me a closet child molester, Dr Freud?

"What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??"

You're an artist, so that makes you a sissy too then? When backed into a corner from which there is no escape, just insult the guy for his career choice.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....:hihi:

Seems to me that one could therefore say the same thing about the Boy Scouts?

I don't beleive I'm struggling even a bit, I don't think it could be more simple. But Merry Christmas to you as well!

Seems to me that one could therefore say the same thing about the Boy Scouts?

Yeah, they could. there are a bunch of stubborn A-Holes there as well.

No Shortage of Stubborn A-Holes in the World...Right Jim

The 2 commandments... It could save the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure it matters what it was they were purchasing. What matters is that what they were asking, was interpreted by this man as contradictory to his religious views.

"Can you explain how ordering a cake from a baker is forcing ones beliefs on another?"

The courts are telling this guy that he must provide the cake, or face fines. The court is ordering this man to participate in that which violates his religious beliefs. I'm not sure I see how that's different from courts ordering Catholic OBGYN's to provide abortions. I'm not saying a cake is the moral equivalent of an unborn baby, I'm saying that these would both be examples of the government ordering someone to act in a way which violates their religion. If that's not a violation of the Freedom Of Religion, I don't know what is.

And remember I support gay marriage. But I also support the Bill Of Rights, and I don't like it when the courts pretend those protections don't exist when it serves their personal agenda to do so.

I agree with you that it is OBVIOUS the only party being forced upon in this dispute is the baker. Even if he were trying to convert the gays, which he wasn't, he wouldn't have been forcing them or "cramming" anything on them. While it is true the gays were also not forcing the baker to become gay, or even to tolerate or accept the "gay life style," they used the government to force him to their wishes or face a penalty.

Those who accept government mandates such as prohibition of discrimination by private citizens fail to see the problem of Constitutional "slippage." Or they don't care about it. And, after all, it only seems fair that we should not "discriminate." Even if we are forced not to. But the slippage has been happening, at first gradually, now quickly, over time, and various rights have slipped away with it. We have not noticed that what was once referred to as the "vast residuum" of rights beyond those in the Bill of Rights, we individuals once had possessed are now gone. We don't notice because it happened in pieces over time and only seemed to affect a few folks when government mandates backed by SCOTUS decisions forced a farmer here or there not to grow more than a certain amount of a crop, or a cheaper healthy alternative to whole milk during the depression era was eradicated because it competed with the dairy industry, or the thousands of little closures or restrictions of business were forced by the misuse of Commerce Clause, and transfers of wealth and creation of huge bureaucracies which imposed their will on the people were created by Commerce and Welfare Clauses. They happened bit by bit, with the announced purpose of helping us all to a better life. That was easy enough for us to say OK . . . that's good. The whole process has expanded to such a mass/mess that more and more are beginning to take note. We woke up one morning and were astounded to learn that we had to buy something, not for the privilege of receiving some right, but because the government wanted it so. Oh yeah, there was the usual rationalization about the public good. But the public was finally being told on a massive scale, not just a little here or there, that it could not decide its own good. Government would do that.

Oh yeah, Jim, we still have the Bill of Rights, don't we? Well, apparently we have not been noticing, those are slipping away as well. Amendments have been "interpreted" to mean other than they were intended. Most have little force if the government can get five judges to agree. The most sacred First and Second have been under assault for some time. And anti-discrimination laws have slipped from prohibition of government to prohibition of citizens from discriminating.

Your protection of speech and practice of religion have been severely assaulted by anti-discrimination laws. Once only government was prohibited from those discriminations. That has now crept into prohibition of individuals doing so in places of "public accommodation." What does that do to your first amendment rights? They have been narrowed. And as the drum beats for the continuous expansion of the concept of "equality" the definition of a place of public accommodation can very well, and probably will, expand. Do you accommodate public airwaves into your home? Do you receive letters and circulars into your home? So when you must accommodate the public as the government dictates, do you really own your business? Can you really own your property? If what you ostensibly "own" can be taxed and regulated at will, do you really own it. If you cannot freely have a right to your expression of speech in your public place because it "discriminates" against someone who enters who does have that right, do you really have freedom of speech? Oh, and there is something new called the "doctrine of government speech" which the court has conjured out of the usual thin air which can supersede your individual right to free speech when the two are in conflict. But that has not reared its ugly head in a major noticeable way for the larger public to notice. It may well do so down the road when the government needs to apply it in larger portions.

None of this bothers most folks. They don't notice it. Or don't care because it doesn't seem to affect them in any bad way . . . so far as they can tell. We're all busy working (most of us) and playing and don't want to be bothered by the little laws and such the government passes. We trust it's all for the good, and necessary.

I still find it hard to wrap around the idea that the federal government can force us to buy health insurance. I am certain the Founders would have thought that was cause for another revolution. But they would have thought that well before this. But so long as we think this is all for the good, we accept it . . . and the Constitution slips away.

Yeah, they could. there are a bunch of stubborn A-Holes there as well.

No Shortage of Stubborn A-Holes in the World...Right Jim

TDF, you brought up that term, not me. I believe you thought it was funny at the time.

I believe this baker deserves the same constitutional protections that we give to the Klan when they want to hold a rally. If that makes me a stubborn ahole, then I can live with that.

TDF, you brought up that term, not me. I believe you thought it was funny at the time.

I believe this baker deserves the same constitutional protections that we give to the Klan when they want to hold a rally. If that makes me a stubborn ahole, then I can live with that.

I still think it was funny....that hasn't changed.

And I agree with everything there....but yet you have this "Talent" of alienating people, even when they agree with you (like Me)

and I also consider myself a Stubborn A-Hole as well....just ask my wife and kids :hee:

I still think it was funny....that hasn't changed.

And I agree with everything there....but yet you have this "Talent" of alienating people, even when they agree with you (like Me)

and I also consider myself a Stubborn A-Hole as well....just ask my wife and kids :hee:

Point taken, merry christmas and a very happy new year to you guys...

Scott, I am not sure I can re-phrase it with any more simplicity or clarity.

I just thought you might want to try a different approach seeing as how he was just channeling Marx :uhuh:

2 guys wanted a cake and the baker didn't want to make it for them.....and now they are Gay Rights Activists and the Baker is forcing his religion down their throats.

I prefer you just refer to them as 3 Stubborn A-holes....:hihi:

right...whatever happened to agreeing to disagree?

What about a store cashier that sues because they were fired for not selling alcohol because their muslem religion forbids them from doing so?

If memory serves me right (hopefully) that clerk won their lawsuit because they shouldn't be forced to do something that was against their religious beliefs.

So what it sounds like is that the courts only acknowledge religions OTHER than Catholicism as real religions worthy of constitutional protection.

What about a store cashier that sues because they were fired for not selling alcohol because their muslem religion forbids them from doing so?

If memory serves me right (hopefully) that clerk won their lawsuit because they shouldn't be forced to do something that was against their religious beliefs.

So what it sounds like is that the courts only acknowledge religions OTHER than Catholicism as real religions worthy of constitutional protection.

....that was in the UK

also there also remains the fact that in the US and the UK if the clerk/server is under 18, they can't sell you alcohol either, but have to get someone else to do it. a bit different than refusing someone service completely.

If the baker wants to be left alone, the baker should not run a business that is open to the public.

You've expanded the perception of being "left alone" to ridiculous widths. If the baker ran a business that was only open to those of his religion, he still wouldn't be left alone. If your definition of being "left alone" is not to be impinged upon by anyone who might disagree with you in any way, you would have to be a hermit. But then you would have to accept the intrusions of distasteful weather, and creepy beasties. It is impossible to be "left alone" if by that is meant not to be affected by that outside of yourself. I think what is generally meant in this context is to be allowed your personal beliefs so long as you do not deprive others of theirs. If you are forced to relinquish your beliefs to the satisfactions of anyone else's beliefs, you have none. That would work in a world where no-one believes anything.

So can the baker refuse to sell to whoever he does not feel that his religion agrees with??
What if he refused service to blacks??
What if he refused service to Muslims???

As far as I can tell from this story is that the baker didn't refuse to sell to the gays (or blacks or Muslims), but he refused to sell something he did not have. Nor, because of his beliefs, would ever have.

Jim, the thing you are not grasping is that he is forcing his religion on the gays.. Because he is telling them he won't sell them a cake because his religion does not agree with it.

In this manner of thought, your mere presence is "forcing" it on someone else. If your presence annoys me, I can leave and force you to be deprived of my presence. If you speak to me you are forcing your words on me. Actually, I don't have to listen. And by not listening I am forcing you not to be heard. If I preach my religion to you through my presence and my words, you may choose to not listen to my words, or to leave my presence. If you force your presence and words on me by demanding I make something that I don't make nor choose to make, should I not be free to repel your force with my own? Should not my reaction be equal to your action?

The baker was not FORCING his religion on the gays. They were in no way compelled to be part of his religion. They had every right and means to reject his religion. Their imposition of personal behavior on him should in no way compel him to abandon his own. He was not refusing to give them service. He was refusing to give them a service he did not provide--making something that was intended for a behavior which his religion condemned.

I don't know if I have said this yet, but the biggest homophobes are always the ones who fight a constant struggle to repress their own gay urges.. I mean really... What kind of Colorado cowboy decides he is going to make pretty cakes with little roses all over them??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, are you forcing your peculiar notion on the rest of us? We can reject it, and force you to have no effect.

And if the gays had asked merely as customers, not by imposing their presence as gays, the baker to bake a pretty cake with little roses, he may have done it. But if he didn't want to, should he have been forced to?

As far as I can tell from this story is the baker didn't refuse to sell to the gays (or blacks or Muslims), but he refused to sell something he did not have. Nor, because of his beliefs, would ever have.
Aren't most wedding cakes made to order?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aren't most wedding cakes made to order?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the first Amendment's protection of that right?

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the Second Amendment's protection of that right?

is he a one man operation?
if not, why didn't he just have one of his heathen sinner employees bake it?

then he's free from supporting sinners.

or does he only hire god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every sunday children of the all holy god?

If you are implying that ordering a cake has no connection to its specific use, that would be true if the ultimate use is not known to the baker. But if it is ordered as specified for a purpose, then that purpose is known to the baker, and if the baker's religion compels him to not participate in the purpose, what compels him to violate his beliefs and the Second Amendment's protection of that right?

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Like I said before, I could see the baker refusing to make an outlandish cake, perhaps in the shape of a swastika or sexually suggestive somehow. But so far I've not read anything that suggests anything but a standard cake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True. He said he chooses not to sell to gays. Kinda like all those whites who chose not to sell to blacks.. How'd that turn out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True. He said he chooses not to sell to gays. Kinda like all those whites who chose not to sell to blacks.. How'd that turn out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you sell glassware to Nazis? How about al Qaeda?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The use is different in exactly the way you described it. It's used to celebrate a gay wedding. Its use is different in the same way a hammer's use to pound nails in construction differs from using it to break into someone's home. Just about any object can be used in different ways, some of which are not approved of by some people who would not therefore choose to sell the object to someone who would use it in a destructive way. The use of the baker's cake to celebrate something his god would forbid differs from that baker selling a cake to be used for something which his god would either approve or not disapprove.

Take it out of the context of religion and into a matter of law. It may be illegal to sell a gun to a convicted felon. But its usually not illegal to sell a gun to a "respectable" person with the right papers. It is assumed that the gun will be used for different purposes by people with anti-social character than by upstanding folks.

is he a one man operation?
if not, why didn't he just have one of his heathen sinner employees bake it?

then he's free from supporting sinners.

or does he only hire god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every sunday children of the all holy god?

I don't know. Maybe he used Christianity as a cover but was actually a member of some secret heterosexual Satanist cult which commanded a form of jihad against gays.

Maybe his religion dissuaded him from hiring "heathen sinners." I'm not sure if that's a class protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Even so, ordering the heathen sinners to bake the cake would still implicate him in supporting sinners. And I doubt if his god would approve of his trying to get around his faith in devious ways. That is one of the many ways "god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every Sunday children of the all holy God" differ from the less than scrupulous among us. We tend not to like cheating ways when used against us, but admire and recommend it to friends and family when it's to their advantage. Politicians are especially good at it.

True. He said he chooses not to sell to gays. Kinda like all those whites who chose not to sell to blacks.. How'd that turn out?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did he actually say that he chooses not to sell to gays? I don't know the full text of the story. It sounds like he didn't want to sell the cake because it would be used to celebrate something which debauched a sacrament of his church. I didn't read that he would not sell to gays under any circumstance.

Did he actually say that he chooses not to sell to gays? I don't know the full text of the story. It sounds like he didn't want to sell the cake because it would be used to celebrate something which debauched a sacrament of his church. I didn't read that he would not sell to gays under any circumstance.
Hmm a very valid point. I don't know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The women only health club Curves will not let me patronize their business under any circumstances. :smash:

How is the use of a cake for a gay wedding any different than a cake for a straight wedding? It's cake...you eat it.

Like I said before, I could see the baker refusing to make an outlandish cake, perhaps in the shape of a swastika or sexually suggestive somehow. But so far I've not read anything that suggests anything but a standard cake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you should expect more of yourself.

The couple asked him to provide a cake for, and therefore somewhat participate in, a gay wedding. He chose not to.

The complexity of the cake is not relevant.

Hmm a very valid point. I don't know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So maybe you want to recant your description of this guy as a bigot?

So maybe you want to recant your description of this guy as a bigot?

No. Anyone who denies something to someone else because they don't like their beliefs are a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. Anyone who denies something to someone else because they don't like their beliefs are a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK, so it's OK for you to insult someone (Christians) for their beliefs, that's acceptable. But because you will take money from those you disagree with, and this baker will not, that makes you MORE morally principled? According to you, abandoning your beliefs to make a buck, is ethically superior to sticking to your beliefs? Interesting...

No. Anyone who denies something to someone else because they don't like their beliefs are a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I believe I should be allowed to patronize that womens only health club dammit!!!!! :uhuh: Are they biggots for denying me?

Spence, you should expect more of yourself.

The couple asked him to provide a cake for, and therefore somewhat participate in, a gay wedding. He chose not to.

The complexity of the cake is not relevant.

The guy is on record having baked a cake for a wedding between two dogs. Was he participating in that also?

-spence

I don't know. Maybe he used Christianity as a cover but was actually a member of some secret heterosexual Satanist cult which commanded a form of jihad against gays.

Maybe his religion dissuaded him from hiring "heathen sinners." I'm not sure if that's a class protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Even so, ordering the heathen sinners to bake the cake would still implicate him in supporting sinners. And I doubt if his god would approve of his trying to get around his faith in devious ways. That is one of the many ways "god fearing monogamous/virgin/go to church every Sunday children of the all holy God" differ from the less than scrupulous among us. We tend not to like cheating ways when used against us, but admire and recommend it to friends and family when it's to their advantage. Politicians are especially good at it.

I'm pretty sure most Gods don't give a damn who you bake a cake for, but they do care when you discriminate against your fellow man.

The guy is on record having baked a cake for a wedding between two dogs. Was he participating in that also?

-spence

What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? :devil2: Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? :rotf2: Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? :love: Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? :uhuh: Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs. :biglaugh:

Or was it one of those cutesy things pet owners do which have no relation or meaning to the rest of society? You wanna make your dogs get "married," which don't amount to a pile of dog poop in terms of what marriage is as recognized either by religion or government? Don't mean squat to me (the baker) since it ain't for real. Here's your cake.

This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.

I'm pretty sure most Gods don't give a damn who you bake a cake for, but they do care when you discriminate against your fellow man.

Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.

Apparently, you are not familiar with "most Gods." In any event, the baker was not discriminating against the gays as fellow men, he was choosing not to participate in something which is condemned by his religion.

Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?

Can you tell me where it says baking a cake for a gay couple is condemned by his religion?

I cannot tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with a bomb in it for a jihadist. I can't even tell you where it is condemned by his religion to bake a cake with poison in it for a suicidal nut or someone who wants to kill his wife. Nor can I tell you where it is made mandatory in his religion to bake a cake for a gay couple, or for anybody else. I cannot tell you if his religion approves or disapproves of cakes. Not sure, but I don't think his religion approves of jihadist bombers, or suicide, or killing your wife. And I don't think his religion approves of helping anyone to do those things. I don't think his religion condones homosexual marriage. I think, quite the contrary, it considers the act of consummating same sex as sodomy. I cannot tell you if his religion is OK with the baker helping folks to celebrate their sodomy, or if it is totally indifferent to it, but I defer to the baker's own interpretation. I'm sure you disagree with it, but your not baking the cake.

IT'S NOT ABOUT SIMPLY BAKING A CAKE! No one disagrees with your wide, perhaps infinite, latitude of agreeability. But you simply cannot grant any reason for the baker's motives because you think they're stupid. I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said something like what marks a bigot is not being able to see even the possibility of the other side's opinion.

Its not like he was a party favor for the after party.

He was asked to do a service (paid favor) for the party.

Using "religious reasons" in this day and age, for denying services, is just stupid.

Is that because religion is meaningless in this day and age? Apparently, many others don't see it that way. If you think religion was only useful in another day and age because it kept you out of a persecutor's rack, and had no other meaning than to get ahead in society, then it would have been intrinsically meaningless in all days and ages. And would have been just another social scheme, like all the social schemes of today, to make your life "better." Our social climbers and equal opportunity seekers are today participating in the scheme of today's political religion and bowing to its god the State. I guess, if the mantle of "religion" has been rewoven into the cloak of secular worship, religion is "stupid" and gaming the system is "smart."

And if its true, that he baked a cake for 2 dogs getting married, then wouldn't that be in violation too? Since thats taking part in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman"?

It's not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either the biblical or the political sense. It is baking to satisfy someone's personal fantasy--which most cakes, in some way, do.

I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

If a man and a man love each other, they should be allowed to live together and have a bond on paper. And in reality.. The biggest reason gays have fought for the right to Marry is to be allowed to visit their partner if he or she is dieing in a hospital, and to have equal rights that men and women have as far as these things... It's all the little details.

But when you consider how many people have died on our planet because of fighting over imaginary men in the clouds, I'm really not surprised.

If this baker was a Muslim, I wonder if he would martyr himself in the name of Allah...

Santa Claus tells us all to be good all year long or we get coal. I struggle to see the difference...
There is no Easter bunny.. There is no Santa, and once you understand that religion is used to control the sheep of society to all behave in a harmonious way, you realize that you are actually capable of thinking for yourself!! Then if you are smart enough and can judge between right and wrong, you don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to pull your strings...

Societal utopia is a world where the entire race does not worship anything outside of themselves and one another.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way. :)

I would love to see a number of how many peoe have died in the last 1000 years because of religion. Billions?? Hey... It's good population control ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.



Nobody is comparing them to each other...they are just trying to point out that what might not be negatively viewed by one might be by somebody else.....and visa versa.

If he doesn't support it.....he doesn't support it.....who the #^&#^&#^&#^& am I to tell him what to do with his life...or his business.

Nobody here said anything against gay marriage.....they just support the baker doing what he wants and being left alone.

You're arguing something that isn't even being argued here....

And as far as your 2 commandments.....how is not just going somewhere else to get a cake.....instead of hiring lawyers and involving the ACLU, being cool and not being an A-hole....seems like a pretty big A-hole move to me

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My point is that the only way to back up this guy and defend him is to make the comparison to something waaaaay more extreme. Gays don't want to hurt anyone. They don't push a supremacist agenda.. They just want to be left in peace. But I hear you....this is about the bakers right to do as he pleases. I'm kind of cranky tonight. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe,nobody is really saying anything other than the guy is a #^&#^&#^&#^&, but he has the right to be a #^&#^&#^&#^&.Say what you want about the two commandments but this country was founded on the constitution (outdated) and I believe we all have the birthright to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& and discriminate at our will. It may not always be cool or popular and it may ruffle feathers for all of you group hug types,but it just seems we should be entitled to do as we please in these instances.The guy wasn't really hurting anything except his own reputation and the feelings of the happy couple.I say what's the big deal." It's very easy to always be cool but it's the pricks and malcontents that enable us to have the expanding freedoms you seem to enjoy.

Good point.

No wonder the rest of the world hates us. It's our RIGHT to be A-holes. :hihi:
In all seriousness. I agree.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

Wow . . . what a sentence. I guess because this follows my post that it inspired this reply. I am not sure what you mean by "conservative." I often put it in quotes because the word is so loosely used to mean anything from an intolerant bigot who is ruining society or a saint who is saving it. From the posts where you throw the word in it sounds like you view it more like the bigot than the saint. I don't refer to myself as a "conservative." There are some things I like to conserve and much that I don't. I am not a "liberal" but am liberal in the classical sense. Politically I would like to conserve the classically liberal view of government. I don't support the "hick," as you call the baker, I support and try to defend the liberal form of government we once had and which is giving way to a more repressive one.

That you read a comparison of gays or Neo-Nazis in my post may speak more volumes of either your reading comprehension or your inability to see what is actually there and so impose your own narrow (bigoted?) prejudged interpretation of it.

If a man and a man love each other, they should be allowed to live together and have a bond on paper. And in reality.. The biggest reason gays have fought for the right to Marry is to be allowed to visit their partner if he or she is dieing in a hospital, and to have equal rights that men and women have as far as these things... It's all the little details.

They have had the right to live together for as long as I can remember. And if they wanted to have a legal bond to do so, nothing prevented them from going to a lawyer and putting it "on paper." If they had such legal papers be it via civil union or a "paper" signed by both parties to do so they could visit their dying loved one in a hospital. As far as equal rights to government marriage benefits go, I don't think even men/women should have them. I can understand society's concern for the procreation and raising of children, but large intrusions of government "help" and regulation discriminates financially against single folks. And makes no sense for the increasingly growing number of childless couples. But that was the initial reason for government intrusion, and gays simply don't have the complimentary biological equipment to procreate, so how can they have equal marriage rights? I would consider all the little details, and get government mostly out of the marriage benefit programs. As well as out of the marriage penalty stuff.

But when you consider how many people have died on our planet because of fighting over imaginary men in the clouds, I'm really not surprised.

Are you certain that the imaginary men in clouds syndrome is any more culpable than all the other motives for killing? the big wars where hundreds of thousands or even millions have been killed have not been about imaginary men in the clouds. Imaginary men in the clouds folks have also saved or helped thousands or millions of other people.

If this baker was a Muslim, I wonder if he would martyr himself in the name of Allah...

I've heard of men martyring themselves over broken romances. Humans are capable of dying for lots of reasons of which you would disapprove. So what? You want to start a movement, or just sadly wonder and make sarcastic comments?

Santa Claus tells us all to be good all year long or we get coal. I struggle to see the difference...
There is no Easter bunny.. There is no Santa, and once you understand that religion is used to control the sheep of society to all behave in a harmonious way, you realize that you are actually capable of thinking for yourself!! Then if you are smart enough and can judge between right and wrong, you don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to pull your strings...

Sure there are Easter bunnies and Santa Clauses. I've seen movies and paintings, even glass blown images of them. They make for little bits of pleasure. Are you a Grinch? Religion can be used to control the "sheep." So can so-called democratic systems controlled by demagogues. The controlling of the sheep in our society has been done lately by demagogues dispersing more "candies" and goodies than an Easter bunny or a Santa could ever do. Perhaps people trust them more to pull their strings than imaginary men in the sky because the goodies they get are more abundant and tangible so the more worthy of dancing to the strings.

Societal utopia is a world where the entire race does not worship anything outside of themselves and one another.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

That, at least, is a more unique way of defining utopia. So how does that "respect of each others' happiness is equal to our own" work in the gays vs. the baker case? Is the baker's happiness equal to the gays' happiness? That all would work well if everybody had the same happiness. Would be kinda redundant, though--make for very boring movies. What happens to viva la difference? I think the Founders concept, though not utopian, provided for a way to make everyone's diverse happinesses, at least the pursuit of them, a viable proposition. That's what I'ld like to conserve.

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way. :)

Those commandments work well in various types of societies. They work especially well in monochrome societies where differences are limited and frowned upon. And most especially well in very structured, regulated societies, bee-hive like or borg-like societies. In dictatorships those commandments are absolutely necessary and actually, though expressed in more legalistic verbiage, are part of the official code of conduct. But in the more diverse, complex, and freer societies, with various personalities and differing points of view and greater passions for expressing those points, there is far greater probability that coolness will not prevail and the other guy will be the A-hole. The greatest growth, in most measurable facets, of our society of free individuals happened amidst rambunctious, energetic, bustling activities which had no little opportunity for expression of likes and dislikes. It was wild, exciting, and still a model for interesting and entertaining stories. Your an artist--what would instigate the most entertaining, expressive, exciting, even beautiful art? A static world of think and act alikes living in a utopian comfort lacking in disruption, or one with the friction of human interaction?

I would love to see a number of how many peoe have died in the last 1000 years because of religion. Billions?? Hey... It's good population control ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a suspicion that Obamacare will be a far more effective means of population control.

I love how all of you conservative god fearing biggot supporting guys defend this hick by comparing gays to terrorists, neo nazzis, etc....
Speaks volumes really.

.. Where respect of each others happiness is equal to our own. I doubt the baker will ever see this or many of you...

So I will continue to follow my 2 commandments. Be cool and don't be an A-hole. Life is very simple that way. :)


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you do realize that you've succeeded in defining yourself as a bigot or "biggot"....:uhuh:

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

similar to what has been stated, I would have baked the cake.....but I'm adamantly opposed to the judge forcing this guy to do so if he has deeply held religious beliefs that he concludes would be compromised by doing so.... there is no evidence that he was rude or disrespectful to the couple...you and others have repeatedly tried to assign absurd motivations and actions to him absent any evidence in order demonize him to make a case...it is entirely possible that outside of this incident the baker is a generous, model citizen in the community and the couple might be quite the contrary but you would never consider that based on all of your biased assumptions

I guess "live and let live" and "be cool and don't be an a-hole" are "relative" as defined by you and additionally, you are happy to have a court impose these standards on another and rain some impressive hostility down on those that might stray from your standards of behavior....I find that far more threatening than a baker refusing to bake a cake for any reason...but I guess I shouldn't feel threatened as long as I don't step out of line and I abide by your loosely defined standards of behavior and thought ...right???...is that how it goes in Societal Utopia?


BTW....if you read back through..it was you, TDF and Spence who began injecting/discussing the Nazi and Al Qaeda references :uhuh:

you tend to see only what you want to see:)

this country was founded on the constitution (outdated) .

this would be an interesting discussion

It's not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either the biblical or the political sense. It is baking to satisfy someone's personal fantasy--which most cakes, in some way, do.

Baking a cake for a gay wedding isn't "taking part" either.
Its just baking a cake.

You're contradicting yourself, keep your stories straight!

What is the "record"? Were the dogs gay? :devil2: Did they have a marriage license? Do they qualify for government marriage benefits? :rotf2: Did the dogs say "I do" and pledge faithfulness for the rest of their lives? :love: Is the judge comparing a dog wedding to a gay marriage? :uhuh: Does the baker's religion say anything about dog marriages? I believe the bible condemns humans from sexual relations with other animals, but doesn't condemn dogs doing it with dogs. :biglaugh:

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

This judge is the kind of progressive joke that has been played upon this country and its traditions and constitutional laws. He, like the progressive judges who have "transformed" this country's governing structure from bottom up to a top down, adjudicates not by law, but by personal or agenda driven points of view. His type has made the judiciary the high priests of morality and the good rather than judges of the law. It didn't used to be, under a legal system, the judge's role to decide what was harmful to society. That used to be a matter left for society itself to determine.

The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

Baking a cake for a gay wedding isn't "taking part" either.
Its just baking a cake.

You're contradicting yourself, keep your stories straight!

It was you who said that if he baked a cake for two dogs getting married it would be "taking part" in a wedding that is not of a "man and a woman". That is what I responded to. So if you are now saying that analogously baking a cake for a gay wedding ISN'T "taking part" then it is you , not I, who is contradicting himself, and it is you who should keep your story straight.

And I didn't say that baking the cake was not "taking part or contributing" to the two dog "wedding." I said it was not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either a biblical or political sense. That is, it was not a marriage in any real sense as was the gay marriage. It was, I'm guessing, some kind of fantasy by the dog owners. So the baker was indeed contributing to the phony dog marriage that had no impact on his religious beliefs.

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

I'm thinking he considered it no more than a harmless fantasy not intended to insult the tradition of marriage, or to change that tradition in any way. If there was some dog lover movement to "legalize" dog marriage, that would be a different story. Most Christians aren't so easily offended as, perhaps, Muslims are. If they were, the present state of government regulations and judicial decisions, as well as media portrayals, would have our society in a constant turmoil of burnings and bombings and all manor of havoc and killing as goes on in many Muslim dominated societies. Are you saying that he should have been more personally offended by the dog wedding? That's up to him. To be or not to be.

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...

Jesus added a New Testament to the religion he was born in. I don't know if he intended to completely throw out the old religion. Certainly most Christians don't consider the Old Testament to be totally obsolete. They seem to abide much of what is in it, including its views on sodomy.

The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

Progressive judges have been making up laws for the past eighty years. And the progression and precedents of those "decisions" have led to not only laws on which present judges model their decisions, but have created a whole new mode of "interpretation." This judge follows in this progressive tradition by deciding on his own to determine what would create hurt or harm to society. The sense the Founders had of judicial decision was a determination based on law and an interpretation of what the words in the law meant, as written, and if governmental legislation actually abided by the restrictions the law allowed (i.e. enumerations in the Constitution). So, in his way, this judge added to this progressive tradition of inserting his personal views and feelings about what is good for society rather than following the ultimate law, the First Amendment. Their might be room for local government to impose restrictions on absolute (like that word here?) denial of service to a class of people (though, as I have said, that is in itself discriminatory), but not if it contradicts a constitutional guarantee. Not only did his decision, in the limited text of the reports, fail to include the State of Colorado's Constitution not recognizing gay marriage, but it violated the baker's First Amendment right in order to satisfy his personal opinion on what would harm society.

Nobody is comparing them to each other...they are just trying to point out that what might not be negatively viewed by one might be by somebody else.....and visa versa.

If he doesn't support it.....he doesn't support it.....who the #^&#^&#^&#^& am I to tell him what to do with his life...or his business.

Nobody here said anything against gay marriage.....they just support the baker doing what he wants and being left alone.

You're arguing something that isn't even being argued here....

And as far as your 2 commandments.....how is not just going somewhere else to get a cake.....instead of hiring lawyers and involving the ACLU, being cool and not being an A-hole....seems like a pretty big A-hole move to me

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Best post on this thread...

If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?

Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...



The judge didn't make up the law.

-spence

Spoence, do you think a "marriage" between 2 dogs, is the equivalent of a marriage between two homosexuals? You don't see the difference there?

"The judge didn't make up the law."

But he may have ignored the constitution. That's what is bothersome to some here. Judges take an oath to uphold all of our laws, not just the ones they happen to like.

And I didn't say that baking the cake was not "taking part or contributing" to the two dog "wedding." I said it was not taking part or contributing to a "marriage" in either a biblical or political sense. That is, it was not a marriage in any real sense as was the gay marriage. It was, I'm guessing, some kind of fantasy by the dog owners. So the baker was indeed contributing to the phony dog marriage that had no impact on his religious beliefs.

So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.

So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.

It's not just that it's not a real wedding. It all centers around the fact that this man's church sees homosexuality as a sin. Not merely that it's not a "real" marriage, but that the couple are actively sinning.

Many devout people will go to great lengths to avoid condoning, or overlooking, or participating in, a sinful act. The baker may genuinely believe that he is endangering his soul if he gave them a cake. I don't feel that way, and you don't feel that way, but he feels that way. And what none of the liberals here (as far as I can tell) will comment on, is this...like it or not, the Constitution guarantees him the right to feel this way.

Freedom of speech guarantees Kanye West the right to say that George Bush was a racist. Freedom of the press gives MSNBC the right to say that Governor Palin deserves to have someone deficate in her mouth. And like it or not, the Freedom Of Religion gives this baker the right to refuse to have any part of a homosexual wedding.

The freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights are not reserved for those that you happen to agree with. Denying those rights to political opponents is the textbook definition of totalitarianism.

Try making that wrong.

So because the church does not recognize gay weddings, wouldn't those also be considered 'fantasy' along with 'not real' weddings? Therefore it wouldn't matter if he baked a cake for them.

If not then the baker was contributing to the phony dog marriage then it would be violating the sanctity of marriage also.

I said the dog marriage was not real in a biblical or political sense--those senses which define and make it socially valid, or real. The dog marriage is a "real" marriage in the eyes of the dog owners. But real under what terms and conditions other than some form of play acting for some fun purpose, I can't rationally imagine. Maybe there is some dog cult thing? Not sure if the dogs were concerned about the reality of the funny motions and noises which they might or might not have been paying attention to during the ceremony. Which by itself would not have made the "marriage" valid or worthy of any respect as such. I doubt if a pastor of the baker's church would have performed a dog marriage. Maybe under some make-believe fun scenario. But asking the pastor to do so under the solemn rites of his church with the intention of doing so as an act of worship and practice of his religion would probably have been turned down. At any rate, any "reality" attributed to a dog marriage would be limited to personal perspectives, not part of any universally or majoritarian view, certainly not sanctioned as a legal entity by a Christian or government code. So, as a peculiar notion which is not accepted as anything more than an eccentricity and did not affect, as he saw it, his religious beliefs, he might have gone along with the play and made a really nice dog "marriage" cake.

As far as the gay marriage being a fantasy . . . no. It was intended as a government sanctioned relation defined legally as a marriage, and even, if they were married in a church that allowed gay marriage, a union of holy matrimony. As pointed out by Jim in Ct, such a marriage would be a sin in the baker's faith. It would be a sanction of a type of sodomy which the baker considered was contrary to his religious belief. Further, I have heard further reports that the gays wanted a cake expressive of their union. They did get a cake from another baker. It was decorated in rainbow colors to express their relationship. The baker also said that he doesn't make usual cakes, but artistically expressive cakes. Which may be why the gays went to him first. But the baker felt that the cake they wanted would express something he didn't want to say, or be recognized as saying. That forcing him to bake such a cake would also be violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.