Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by 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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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???

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.