The baker won...
- Thread starter WVUCOOPER
- Start date
LOL the baker lost substantial business...not sure that is the kind of attention anyone wants.
You’d think once SCOTUS ruled, you might accept it wasn’t bigotry.
And just an FYI, I’ve marched in support of your right to marry. Gay equality is something I very much support for you guys.
I was curious, did the baker refuse on grounds of the customer being homosexual outright? Or was it a “I’m all booked up” refusal?
I’m not sure it matters to me really. But I think anyone has the right to refuse a commission if it could hurt their business.
I’m not sure it matters to me really. But I think anyone has the right to refuse a commission if it could hurt their business.
I believe he refused because Colorado didn't recognize gay marriage and his religion didn't believe in it.
I hear what you’re saying, but at what point does the line get drawn here? Can a Christian baker refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding? For a Muslim’s birthday?
I mean, I think a business should be able to refuse to serve a customer.....but the argument that it’s not bigotry is flimsy, imo. “Homosexuality is against my religion”, so is not believing, believing in another religion, not believing Christ was the sin of God......technically the baker should refuse to bake a cake for any couple NOT Christian.
They should hang a sign reading Cakes for Christ so everyone knows that they will only bake for people accepted by their religion. Why is it just homosexuals that destroy their fragile religious sensibilities?
Yeah....but I mean, did he tell them he can’t bake a cake for homosexuals, or did he give another reason?
1- who says they don’t?
2- whats it matter?
3- maybe they couldn’t find the Cakes for Gays bakery
No idea. But I was much more interested in the reactions of the left towards religious liberty....they didn’t disappoint.
Not providing service based on sexuality is bigotry. It’s the very definition of bigotry. I’m taking about beyond this case.
To your second part...I know you’ve mentioned that before. But that is great to hear again. I sometimes paint with broad strokes but I obviously wasn’t referring to you. You’re definitely not a common right winger when it comes to social issues.
I guess that it is why it made it more disheartening when I read your earlier post about only caring about your bottom line. Marching is nice but voting is what matters. You probably shouldn’t repeat your philosophy to the people you marched with.
He’s got a point though. Can homosexuals just pretend to love the good book and get what they want too? I mean, it’s not like Trump walks the walk is it?
Many of them also refuse to bake gay wedding cakes. Funny how it's always the Christians being sued.
Just because people voted for Trump don't mean the agree with all his views, could be they viewed him as the lesser of to evils, I for one don't care what another person does in personal life as long as I don't have to pay for them , I have gay friends , there gay , but they are productive people that's all I care about , & they voted for Trump. The gay couple should have respected the Christians view of the situation , as Christians should respect gays pursuit of happiness ..just because we don't like what someone does , does not mean hate ..or bigotry
Are you guys in such numbers that you can afford to shun Support? Especially from entrenched Republicans? Seems counterproductive.
When this all went down as a national story, my thoughts were and realistically still are, that this guy is cloaking bigotry within the blanket of religion. Interesting thing though when you have to check your principles I’m defense of our governing document. There is no way to prove he was devout in his faith. Nor should he have to prove his pioussness (for the sake of this post, that’s a word goddamnit) as a religious test would go against decades of liberal positioning. Legally, this one was interesting.
If it were me, I’d bake the fvcking cake. Gay money spends just as well non-gay money, cuz it’s all money and it’s equal, but gay money is just a lil more happy!
Sorry, I don't need the SCOTUS to tell me what is bigotry when it is very plain.
This is the Colorado Law, which was obviously violated.
This Establishment Complies with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Laws
Discrimination based on the following factors is illegal in the areas of:
►Employment
Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical or
mental disability, marriage to a co-worker and retaliation for engaging in protected activity
(opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in an employment discrimination proceeding)
►Housing
Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, physical or mental
disability, marital status, families with children under the age of 18, and retaliation for engaging
in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a housing
discrimination proceeding)
►Public Accommodation
Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental disability, sexual
orientation, marital status, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a
discriminatory practice or participating in a public accommodations discrimination proceeding)
REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
Rule 20.1
- Every employer, employment agency, labor organization, and place of public accommodation,
amusement and resort shall post and maintain at its establishment a notice furnished by the commission which
contains the provisions of Parts 3 through 7 of Article
34 of Title 24, C.R.S. (1988), as amended. The commission
will not charge for the notices.
(A) With respect to employers and employment agencies
, such notices must be posted conspicuously in easily
accessible and well-lighted places custom
arily frequented by employees and app
licants for employment, and at or
near each location where employees' services are performed.
(B) With respect to labor organizations, such notices
must be posted conspicuously in easily accessible and well-
lighted places customarily frequented by
members and applicants for membership.
(C) With respect to places of public accommodation,
amusement and resort, such notices must be posted
conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by people seeking
accommodation, amusement, recreation, or other
services offered to the general public.
Rule 20.2
- Pursuant to § 24-34-501, C.R.S (1988), et seq
., as amended, real estate brokers or agents, home
builders, home mortgage lenders and all other persons who transfer, rent, or finance real estate shall obtain one
or more printed nondiscrimination notices from the commission and post the notices in all places where real
estate transfers, rentals and
loans are executed. The commission will not
charge for the notices. The notices shall
be posted and maintained in conspicuous, well-lighted
and easily accessible places ordinarily frequented by
prospective buyers, renters, borrowers, and the general public.
Rule 20.3
- No employer, employment agency, or labor organization as defined in § 24-34-401, C.R.S. (1988), as
amended, shall suggest or require that applicants submit their photographs prior to their employment or
placement, unless the requirement is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
Rule 20.4
- No person shall post or permit to be posted in
any place of public accommodation any sign which
states or implies the following:
WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.
Just because people voted for Trump don't mean the agree with all his views, could be they viewed him as the lesser of to evils, I for one don't care what another person does in personal life as long as I don't have to pay for them , I have gay friends , there gay , but they are productive people that's all I care about , & they voted for Trump. The gay couple should have respected the Christians view of the situation , as Christians should respect gays pursuit of happiness ..just because we don't like what someone does , does not mean hate ..or bigotry
Sure, when I go to church, which isn’t often, they happily welcome the gays.
Why would someone want to force someone to accept them when their fierce held religious belief is to not? You can argue it’s a bastardization of Christianity, I’m not gonna argue, but what you can’t do is force someone to violate their religious beliefs.
Let me ask you a question. Could a church refuse to marry a gay couple? How is that different? I don’t really know, just asking.
As I said, this was one where both sides have strong constitutional footing, at least in my eyes anyway. You can acquiesce to one without violating the other.
From Merriam Webster
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I'm a bigot, you're a bigot, we're all bigots
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
I'm a bigot, you're a bigot, we're all bigots
Cool story, bro. I’m truly shocked you posted someone else’s thoughts on a subject without being able to effectively articulate your own position. It’s like that never happens with you.
Can a gay bakery refuse to bake a cake for a religious institution celebrating traditional marriage with the scroll on the cake being “gay marriage is wrong”?
Would that not be a similar instance? Be careful, when one takes on principled stances, it sometimes has a way of biting you in the ***.
Would that not be a similar instance? Be careful, when one takes on principled stances, it sometimes has a way of biting you in the ***.
Based on the law I cited, no (answer to your first question). Religion is included.
My understanding is that they were refused the inscriptions/decorations. He would bake the cake.
The only reason I pointed to that post and specifically for you was because of your questioning why people on the religious right feel threatened by leftist ideals. It exemplified my position in the other thread.
Does it matter what Trump does or doesn’t do in the context of religious liberty? As I’ve tried to explain to you all, trying to shame the religious right because of Trump is folly. The religious rights is as ensconced for the GOP as the minority vote is for the Dems. I’m not buying the hype of the Candace Owens of the world. Trying to shame the religious right will only embolden them when it comes to getting out the vote.
The left is literally trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They don’t understand their adversaries. They don’t want to. They don’t feel they have to. This collusion narrative, and emoluments Clause discussion, and Logan Act, and Stormy, and and and is only deluding you all into not accepting there is a sizable percentage of people who disagree with your position. It enabled you all to not have to make a change by having to deal with that reality. You all deluded yourselves into believing the if only Trump hadn’t.....
You make an excellent point, without the "non-bigoted" remark.
The guy wasn't being bigoted. It's his religion. He didn't make the decision out of hate, he made his decision because his faith. So what?
Bars owners are allowed not to serve patrons, simply because they back our President. On to the next bar just like it should have been on to the next bakery.
"Tolerance".....pffffft....More like "As long as we like you, we will tolerate you."
Christianity is a legitimate faith and it shouldn't be any less tolerated than anything else.
I think business owners should be the decision makers in whether or not they allow smoking. Let the free market dictate the affects of business decisions, not government.
Want a smoke-free business? Start one. Want a President-hating atmosphere in your business? Have at it. Want to open a faith-based business? It's a free country. Go for it.
Customers have choices. Now....When they have no choice, that's when it's time to *****.
No way should people of faith be forced to do something that violates their faith.
Because he refused to participate in something that violates his faith, does not make him a bigot. If you insist he is a bigot, then anyone who is against the baker is no less of a bigot.
Ok, so why do you think it went 7-2? As you stated, it was clear, so what part of their ruling is incorrect and why?
That door swings both ways in this case. Why were the gay couple's fragile sensibility when some bigot refused to bake their cake. Frankly, I wouldn't want someone baking me a cake that doesn't like me or my lifestyle.
Live and let live..... but NOPE! Can't do that these days.