Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

laudable

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

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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 $$$.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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

[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???

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[Raven]

i like 2" Bamboo way better

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[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.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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….

[DZ]

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



DZ

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Clearly they don't like making money, .

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

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.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

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 $$$.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

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

[Saltheart]

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.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

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?

[Jim in CT]

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...

[Nebe]

Yup.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

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.