Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[fishbones]

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

[DZ]

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



DZ

[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.

[Swimmer]

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

[Nebe]

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

[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 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

[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

[The Dad Fisherman]

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"

[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

[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.

[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

[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….

[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

[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

[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

[Nebe]

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

[Nebe]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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?

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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?

[detbuch]

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