Colorado baker ordered to serve gay wedding or face fines

[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 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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

I would like to know what religion the baker is, plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays. Even the Pope just recently came out and said "Who are we to Judge". Be interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

I would like to know what religion the baker is, plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays. Even the Pope just recently came out and said "Who are we to Judge". Be interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up.

You made a good point about freedom of speech. I looked it up...the ACLU, of course, has defended the Westboro Baptists on both freedon of speech grounds and freedom of religion grounds...

"I would like to know what religion the baker is"

Some kind of Christianity...

"plenty of religions are against Gay Marriage but they will still be accepting of Gays"

Very true.

"interesting to A) See where this Goes and B) see what kind of can of worms it opens up"

The baker, who can get free representation if he chooses, has not yet decided (last I checked) whether o rnot he will appeal.

I wonder if ACLU will defend his right to freedom of religion, as they did for Westboro Baprist? Not likely!

[Nebe]

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

Here is what you are not grasping...this baker's religion, presumably, does not say that homosexuals do not have the right to be employed. His religion does say they don't have the right to marry.

Look at it this way...Catholic hospitals cannot refuse to hire homosexual doctors, but they can absolutely refuse to let that homosexual doctor get married in the hospital chapel.

You may well have a point about discrimination. However, you never, not once, addressed the baker's right to fredom of religion.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Im pretty much done with this topic, but heres the deal.. What if someone went into his shop and asked for a Job.. and let him know that they were gay….. He then says sorry.. I don't hire gays..

That is discrimination and very much on the same grounds as him saying ' sorry no cake for you gay boys'…

As TDF says, employment laws do not apply to refusal to provide service. Even more, I believe at the Federal level, businesses with less than 15 employees don't have to abide by sexual orientation discrimination law. State laws differ in many ways. Depends on Colorado's discrimination laws.

The problem with anti-discrimination laws is that they discriminate. They are on shaky philosophical grounds and definitely on our Federal Constitution grounds. The Constitution does not prohibit individuals from discriminating. It prohibits government from doing so. So when government creates laws which discriminate in favor of one party over another, it does that which it prohibits against and does so against that which it is prohibited.

Your right to discriminate, so long as it does not deny someone else their right to life, liberty and PURSUIT of happiness, is one of those unalienable rights not specified but inherent in the understood VAST RESIDUUM of rights not given to government but retained by the individual.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I think WBC gets away with what they do under Freedom of Speech, not Freedom of Religion. You don't need to base what they do on religion...anybody thats non-affiliated can do it under freedom of speech....just like burning the flag.

Yes, the court decided their right was under Freedom of Speech. I would think the same applies to the baker vs. the gays issue. But, unless the case is appealed and gets up to the SCOTUS, it remains a State issue and the gays win.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Not the same as there are specific laws in place for Employment Descrimination.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Not the same as there are specific laws in place for Employment Descrimination.

Exactly.

There are also specific laws in place that guarantee the right to practice your religion as you see fit.

[basswipe]

In an aside but much related topic:

Can't stand bishop Tobin or the church he represents but he had the RIGHT to say what he said about Mandela,its guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.And yet there's a grassroots effort to force him to apologize.

I can see it already "I apologize for using my 1st Amendment right to an opinion".

[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.

[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.

[Raven]

i like 2" Bamboo way better

[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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by 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.

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

because they could get a "standard cake" anywhere...which is why this is about "forcing" the baker to make a cake for a "non-standard" wedding and not really about the cake itself....

I suppose if they were looking for the cake that you describe and the baker refused to make it...the Judge could just order him to make it or pay a fine or go to jail

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

because they could get a "standard cake" anywhere...which is why this is about "forcing" the baker to make a cake for a "non-standard" wedding and not really about the cake itself....

Maybe the guy made really nice cakes?

So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well?

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Maybe the guy made really nice cakes?

So if he decided to not sell to black people would that be ok as well?

-spence

it would not be ok in my opinion....but he should have the right to decide whether he wanted to or not and be judged by the market and either flourish or more likely fail based on his decisions....just as a black baker should have the right to not sell to white people, just as a gay baker should have the right to refuse to bake a cake for a heterosexual wedding....forcing them to do so seems like a recipe for disaster so to speak

Originally Posted by Nebe View Post

The baker really screwed up... He should have never ever ever told them that he refused to serve them because they were gay...

so he should have lied.....doesn't that violate both Nebe commandments? or is lying cool ? suppose he had lied about his values and made the cake and the couple found out weeks after the wedding that their cake was made by a raging homophobe @#$^%$# with a mental illness....imagine how painful it would be for them every time that the looked at the wedding pictures and saw that cake...... probably grounds for a lawsuit there too...

personally, I prefer the honest racist, homophobe, sexist, bigot... whatever etc......at least you know where you stand with them and can make a better informed decision as to whether you want to associate with or trust your catering to them ....


Detbuch had a great point, if this couple approached this baker and he'd agreed to make the cake but they then declined citing his religious propensities(or they could lie I guess), could the baker file suit against the couple for discrimination and could a judge force the couple to purchase a cake from this baker?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

If the baker was asked to bake a "standard" cake by someone who wasn't "protected" by an anti-discrimination law, and the baker refused, could the judge order him to bake the "standard" cake?

[Sea Dangles]

So this is Bloomberg telling you what size soda you can drink. Skits like the soup nazi on seinfeld certainly take on a whole different spin when it is looked upon this way.No soup for you is grounds for a lawsuit.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the baker was asked to bake a "standard" cake by someone who wasn't "protected" by an anti-discrimination law, and the baker refused, could the judge order him to bake the "standard" cake?

Why would the baker refuse?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why would the baker refuse?

-spence

Because he wanted to. He just didn't feel like it. He got some bad mystic vibes from the guy/gal/it. It was somebody that cut in front of him in a grocery store checkout line. It was his mother-in-law.

Is there some blank space in the anti-discrimination act that can be filled in if the "victim" doesn't fit the right categories?

What kind of fair and equal law allows you to discriminate against one but not another? In selective discrimination laws, aren't there always somebody who is or can be discriminated against, including the one charged with discriminating. Wouldn't just and equal discrimination laws prohibit any discrimination whatsoever? Oh, right, then we would be automatons not humans. How about letting us discriminate so long as we don't deprive someone of life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness (which include the right of personal property and the disposal thereof under the same conditions).

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never read anywhere they were looking for a non-standard cake. Your making it sound like they were looking for a giant phallus shaped cake that squirted frosting.

-spence

I think it was the Judy Garland montage that was Photo-frosted on top that was a little too much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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.

On this issue, it appears you see things my way, doesn't it? I think the baker ha every right to ay "no thanks" to the happy couple...

[Nebe]