Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Honor93

 

How many times does it need to to be spelled out to you?

The gay couple did NOT ask for ANYTHING extra that the baker does not do already. How is this concept a hard concept?

Oh, I know, he doesn't make "gay" wedding cakes because a cake can be gay right?

you and I may think it is a stupid decision- but ultimately, private business should be free to make such decisions- very authoritarian and dictatorial to want to get the state involved

Most cake businesses would accept their cash, they are being drama queens

You see Progressivism was always fascist and totalitarian. They just don't want to admit it. And they hide it behind causes of tolerance and "justice".


Imagine this conversation... "I will not use my business to promote something I don't agree with."
"Oh yah, you won't make me a cake, I'll MAKE you make it"

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Honor93

 

How many times does it need to to be spelled out to you?

The gay couple did NOT ask for ANYTHING extra that the baker does not do already. How is this concept a hard concept?

Oh, I know, he doesn't make "gay" wedding cakes because a cake can be gay right?

you and I may think it is a stupid decision- but ultimately, private business should be free to make such decisions- very authoritarian and dictatorial to want to get the state involved

Most cake businesses would accept their cash, they are being drama queens

You see Progressivism was always fascist and totalitarian.

That is your opinion, not a fact.

They just don't want to admit it. And they hide it behind causes of tolerance and "justice".

What a load of bull-poo. What is fascist about giving women and black people the right to vote?

The Anti Progressive movement is so totalitarian, they wanted politics to be a tool exclusively available to white males. The Anti Progressive movement has always defends inequality and prejudice.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by Honor93

 

How many times does it need to to be spelled out to you?

The gay couple did NOT ask for ANYTHING extra that the baker does not do already. How is this concept a hard concept?

Oh, I know, he doesn't make "gay" wedding cakes because a cake can be gay right?

you and I may think it is a stupid decision- but ultimately, private business should be free to make such decisions- very authoritarian and dictatorial to want to get the state involved

Most cake businesses would accept their cash, they are being drama queens

You see Progressivism was always fascist and totalitarian. They just don't want to admit it. And they hide it behind causes of tolerance and "justice".


Imagine this conversation... "I will not use my business to promote something I don't agree with."
"Oh yah, you won't make me a cake, I'll MAKE you make it"

edit on 9-6-2013 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Oh please. We're just saying he needs to make a cake. Making cakes is his business. It's not like we're forcing him to kiss a man's private parts. He makes cakes for people who are probably having premarital sex. He makes cakes for people who probably masturbate. He makes cakes for people who are probably gluttons or sloths, or suffer from vanity or greed -- all sins according to the Bible. Making cakes for those people doesn't mean he has to agree with what they do in their own private lives. The truth is, it really isn't any of his business what people are doing in their private lives.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Ah, but you just mentioned a very valid point.

The baker, provides services on a case by case basis, not as a general rule of thumb. Not every one does dog weddings, thus a person would have to find a baker who would be willing to provide a cake for such.

And as the State of Colorado does not permit same sex marriages, any and all services around such, would have to be considered optional at the discretion of the business owner.

Can the state or any one force a business to provide services for something that is not legal or recognized in the state that the transaction occured? No, it can not, cause then it could run into all sorts of legal issues that are not even mentioned or considered. After all ask Tommy Chong about the consequences of getting into the grey area of the law.

All this baker did is actually follow the law, as the state of Colorado does not recognize same sex marriages, then no businesses should be forced to provide services for such, or compelled to.

Businesses have to exercise options when doing business, as that is the nature of business, and to compell or demand a service that the provider is not comfortable with either providing or not wanting to is in itself wrong.

Now if all of the bakers in the greater Denver area were refusing to do such, it would be a case of discrimination, but right now, it is not. The baker hires gay people, provides all but one service to them. If the gay community is trying to send a person to the other side and force him to tip his hand to where this man, and his children and his grandchildren will be fully against the gay community and not so accepting this would be the way to do such. Ultimately what may end up happening is that this Baker, closes his doors and moves to a state which would be more in agreement with his point of view. And currently at a time when having income coming in for both the person and the state is very important, which would take the greater hit, the person, or the state that not only looses the income from the sales, personal and business taxes, or the person who just has to come up with the funds to relocate and start up again? I think the state would lose in this case.

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
In continuation,

The Constitution - Separation of Church and state.

he has every right to believe in whatever religion, practice whatever religion, but doesn't override the 'State'

Likewise "All men will be treated equal", so is he denying the "Constitutions" because he wont give a wedding cake to a gay couple? regardless of his 'religious beliefs' if all men are to be treated equal he should give a wedding cake to any couple man or woman gay or straight

as far as them being 'Drama Queens' and 'crying about it' if he feels that strong about it, why doesn't he take it to the state? if he feels the law is unjust and against the "constitution" why not take it to the State, get signatures and petitions, have them vote on it, see what the people of Colorado want,

The thing about them being drama queens....I am unsure they should have to justify acting within their rights.

No one infringed on the shop keepers right of religion. He was always free to believe what he wished. It is when those beliefs cause you to infringe on anothers rights that you must curtail. Coming from the south, I have heard no shortage of old timers explaining how their racism was justified by the bible.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
In continuation,

The Constitution - Separation of Church and state.

he has every right to believe in whatever religion, practice whatever religion, but doesn't override the 'State'

Likewise "All men will be treated equal", so is he denying the "Constitutions" because he wont give a wedding cake to a gay couple? regardless of his 'religious beliefs' if all men are to be treated equal he should give a wedding cake to any couple man or woman gay or straight

as far as them being 'Drama Queens' and 'crying about it' if he feels that strong about it, why doesn't he take it to the state? if he feels the law is unjust and against the "constitution" why not take it to the State, get signatures and petitions, have them vote on it, see what the people of Colorado want,

The thing about them being drama queens....I am unsure they should have to justify acting within their rights.

No one infringed on the shop keepers right of religion. He was always free to believe what he wished. It is when those beliefs cause you to infringe on anothers rights that you must curtail. Coming from the south, I have heard no shortage of old timers explaining how their racism was justified by the bible.

i concur with you, them requesting a cake for their 'same sex marriage' doesn't take away is religious freedoms

it seems as if the right to believe and discrimination are being convoluted,

above raised a fabulous point, does he make wedding cakes for straight couples who practice oral sex? because oral sex is considered sodomy, and Sodomy is a sin in the 'bible', it seems as if he is tolerant enough of 'Sins' just not 'Homosexuality'

reply to post by sdcigarpig


I believe they had already gotten their license in another state. They were having a ceremony with the cake. It is not illegal to have a ceremony or party, is it? The couple wasn't doing anything illegal -- the baker WAS.

Oh, wait, that's right...you can exercise your religion until you interfere with another person's rights. The gay couple did nothing to stop the cake maker from exercising his religion. But, the cake maker DID infringe on the rights of the gay couple. I'm done arguing this point in this thread. We will see in September what the Law says. My money is on the couple.

reply to post by HandyDandy


I did not say I believe in Satanism, but it is protected. You keel trying to take bits and piece and create a new argument for what I am saying it wrong.

To Texan...

He did NOT infringe on any rights because there is NO legal marriage for gays in Colorado nor the US. He will make a cake for a gay person for their birthday, or graduation, or any thing else that is 'legal' and not against his religious beliefs. He will employ gays. He does. He said he has no problem with gay people just the ceremony. There really is no case and a good lawyer will make sure this does not even go to any type of trial.

However,If the couple wins, it opens a door for what could be considered more religious prosecution. Again, who is any governing body to determine what a person should do especially if it is against his morale and religious beliefs.

Should the baker have made the cake, sure, but it is his right not to. Should the couple have not gone to a baker who is known not to make them, yes. In both cases, common sense. If any of you are truly entwined in the gay community anywhere you know it is a close knit group, like I was trying to explain earlier in the thread about ethnicity and how they also stick together.

Again, remove emotion and use some basic common sense. Do I feel bad for the couple, no, because they can go to tons of other places, like they did, and get a cake. Again though, Rosa Parks did not have a choice of another bus so that argument is moot also.

The Prohibition angle is also very valid. It is about how the Progressive government will use people it cares nothing about to push an agenda for control. It uses you, the gay community to votes but nothing gets done. Nothing. It is about the government controlling what you can do and how you can do it. Before Prohibition a child learned to drink from parents and relatives and during Prohibition it was listening to how bad is was...but more people died during that time than before from alcohol. But the vote gave the government control over commerce and food (FDA) and also a base for voting in women and brochures that was never in any way rewarded.

Sometimes it is not always what you think it is in these cases.

and one more to chew on....If a mechanic only works on Toyotas, and someone bring him a Ford and he says he does not work on them, is that not discrimination against business practice or only if a man is gay would it matter? Do you see again the slippery slope that is here when the law is twisted.

Let me try an example, sometimes those work best.

A hardware store has been in business for years with no indication of discrimination to anyone. A Muslim (just assume he is, all right?) walks in and says to the Jewish owner, he'd like to try the American custom of bar-b-que, and could he please have a propane tank? The tank is sold and the Muslim walks out happy.

The next customer, coincidentally, is also a Muslim. He tells the store owner that they have set up a big display featuring a huge Torah, Menorah, several Israeli flags, and a large figure dressed to look like a Rabbi. The Muslim says they need a propane tank to ensure there is enough fuel for a roaring fire. They don't want to disappoint the press and Muslim dignitaries who will be assembled to watch the blaze.

If the store owner says "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second, is he discriminating on the basis of religion?

Originally posted by charles1952
Let me try an example, sometimes those work best.

A hardware store has been in business for years with no indication of discrimination to anyone. A Muslim (just assume he is, all right?) walks in and says to the Jewish owner, he'd like to try the American custom of bar-b-que, and could he please have a propane tank? The tank is sold and the Muslim walks out happy.

The next customer, coincidentally, is also a Muslim. He tells the store owner that they have set up a big display featuring a huge Torah, Menorah, several Israeli flags, and a large figure dressed to look like a Rabbi. The Muslim says they need a propane tank to ensure there is enough fuel for a roaring fire. They don't want to disappoint the press and Muslim dignitaries who will be assembled to watch the blaze.

If the store owner says "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second, is he discriminating on the basis of religion?

Let explain your explanation...

A guy on the internet tries to equate a cake and a propane tank.

Would the couple say they were using the cake to burn representations of the straight community?

how about this, the couple sought that shop because of it's merits, should the owner feel honored that a gay couple who supposedly knew the owner didn't approve of gay marriage sought his services and talents?

reply to post by Honor93

Originally posted by Honor93
all of what i listed are practicing public accomodating operations that discriminate in one form or another.

OK. Explain to me how Lane Bryant discriminates.

Lane Bryant makes clothes for large women. That is the service they provide to the public. Big people, small people, men, women, gay people, straight people, old people young people, disabled people and able-bodied people can ALL buy their clothing. Who are they discriminating against?

why can't you accept that 'weddings' are a religious event ...

Some weddings are. Mine was not. Not all weddings are religious events. And that has WHAT to do with the topic? They didn't ask the baker to BE IN the wedding or have anything to do with the wedding. They asked him to do what he does for many other customers: Make a wedding cake.

reply to post by AuntB

Originally posted by AuntB
Why would a gay couple go to a bakery that is known to turn away same sex couple then claim they were:

They only found out about the history of the bakery AFTER they posted their experience on Facebook and heard from other gay people who had been turned away.

So are we saying that homosexuality trumps religious beliefs?

Um, no.

Sexual orientation is a federally protected class but freedom of religion is constitutionally protected.

The baker is still free to have his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs would still be intact if he made a wedding cake for a customer.

reply to post by Credenceskynyrd

Originally posted by Credenceskynyrd
But oh no, a couple need to have their moment in the sun, look at me wha wha wha

Cry babies

Yeah, Rosa Parks should have just stayed in the back of the bus, right? Instead of crying "wha wha wha" to bring attention to an injustice (which is what this gay couple is doing) she should have just gone to the back and not been such a drama queen... Right?

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Gay marriage is not recognized so how can it fit into that law in Colorado.

It doesn't matter if they were even getting married or not. If I went in there and wanted to buy a wedding cake for my husband's BIRTHDAY, the baker should sell it to me. He sells wedding cakes. What I do with the cake is NOT his concern.

And dog marriage is not recognized either, but he made one for them.

2. Any establishment should have the right to refuse as it is a private business.

That's your opinion, not Colorado law.

.
4. Rosa Parks did not have a choice of other buses

She had the choice to sit in the back or walk or ride a bike or take a taxi. Why didn't she just sit in the back???

5. Raising a child who is homosexual is not a difficult experience, but an enlightening one for sure. You should show them what they can have, how they are not different and can integrate.

So, you have raised a gay child and have the experience to say it wasn't difficult? And if they're "not different", why is it OK with you to treat them differently?

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
A person has the right to not support gay marriage or gay unions.

So, if the gay couple wins this case, the baker will all of a sudden "support" gay marriage?

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" .

The baker is FREE to exercise his religion. He can worship, pray, go to church, etc. He's NOT free to discriminate.

reply to post by charles1952


The couple were already LEGALLY married in Massachusetts. They wanted the cake to celebrate with their friends and family in Colorado. Nothing illegal about a party to celebrate their legal marriage in another state.

It's a nice analogy (I expect nothing less from you. ) But in this case, it doesn't work.

To answer your question, I don't know. But if the gay couple had planned on doing something illegal with the cake, then the baker might have a case for refusing service. Eating a cake in Colorado is not, as far as I know, against the law.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Glad you brought up that point, as there is an actual court precident that will be let out and known soon by the Supreme Court, that deals with that very issue and heart of that matter.

In that case, and it is challenging DOMA, is all around a woman, who went to another state, and got married to her partner. Her partner died and she inherieted everything. The state of New York, does not recognize same sex marriages, and she was set with a large tax bill, where if it had, she would have not had to deal with the taxes on the estate that she had inheritied.

As this would follow a similar bearing on the case, it thus shows, that under the current set of laws, when it comes to same sex marriages, what one state recognizes, another state does not have to recognize or consider valid under the law.

This would also tie into the same sort of court case that affected Tommy Chong, the famous actor. In California, glass pipes, water pipes and other items that could be used for narcotic use, can be sold, but due to the federal regulations and in some states they are illegale to sell via mail order, or even do business in. He got charged with several federal crimes, even though he was not selling anything illegale, yet still did time a prison for such. All cause the items and his former work promoted drug use, indirectly.

Now as the state of Colorado does not currently, as of a 2006 amendment to its state constitution, recognize same sex marriages, and to do such would require a change in its constituion again.

Now if the state does not recognize, by law, same sex marriage, then what would be the purpose of a same sex couple purchasing a wedding cake for them to celebrate something that is not legal in that state in the first place?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by charles1952

 

The couple were already LEGALLY married in Massachusetts. They wanted the cake to celebrate with their friends and family in Colorado. Nothing illegal about a party to celebrate their legal marriage in another state.

It's a nice analogy (I expect nothing less from you.

) But in this case, it doesn't work.

To answer your question, I don't know.

Indeed, it wasn't a 'Wedding cake' it was a celebratory cake, so if he made it it wouldn't 'support' the marriage as it already happened,

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Layne Bryant makes clothes for large ladies...Skinny bithces of the world unite and shut them down.

Also, since you have said you did not have a religious ceremony you are again judging this on emotion and personal experience, not on law. It is not legal to be married as a gay couple so there can be no discrimination. There is nothing to discriminate against if it does not exist.