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.

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"?

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

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

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 would be an interesting discussion

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!

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

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.

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.

Best post on this thread...

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.

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.

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.