Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[Jim in CT]

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...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.

[fishbones]

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

[spence]

Apples and oranges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Raven]

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.

[*davack*]

doesn't sound very Christian to me...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by *davack*

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.

[*davack*]

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by *davack*

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

[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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

[PaulS]

Should have just bumped up his price 100%

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Yep..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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...

[Nebe]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[Nebe]

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

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[scottw]

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

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[scottw]

all of this hullabalou over a cake...

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

sorry TDF...had to do 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?