Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
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?

Not that it matters if they wanted to toss it over a cliff, but the purpose of getting the cake was to celebrate their marriage with their friends and family in Colorado, as they were already legally married in Massachusetts.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
Layne Bryant makes clothes for large ladies...Skinny bithces of the world unite and shut them down.

If they refused to sell their clothes to skinny women, then they would have a case.

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.

I am absolutely judging it on the 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.

You're making stuff up. The baker provides wedding cakes to the public. It's against the law to refuse to sell a wedding cake to someone, REGARDLESS what the cake will be used for.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
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?

1. Wrong, it does matter. He will make a cake for a gay person just not a wedding cake for gays which is not legal in Colorado so it does not fit the law.

2. Colorado law is not the law of the land. It needs to be changed. Just like pot laws. I can get high as a kite in Colorado but if I cross state lines I am busted. You cannot just hide behind state law forever especially when it tells someone that they cannot have freedom of choice based on their religion.

4. She did not sit in the back and should not have too. Everyone has the right to sit where they want on a PUBLIC bus funded by state or city funds. It is not private.

5. It is not ok to treat them differently. However, it is not ok to raise them to tell them everyone hates gay people and you will have to fight everyday. Like blacks who will not break the cycle and stay racist telling their kids "Crackers are out to get them" When the children get away from the parents and realize not everyone is against them it will cause issues. I tell my kids that there are assholes everywhere and you have to learn to avoid them jsut like there are bad cops, bad teachers, etc. To teach them everyone is the same is teaching prejudice.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
He will make a cake for a gay person just not a wedding cake for gays which is not legal in Colorado so it does not fit the law.

I'm tired of your childish justifications for this man's discriminatory practices. You honestly have no clue of what you're talking about.

Originally posted by esdad71


1. Wrong, it does matter. He will make a cake for a gay person just not a wedding cake for gays which is not legal in Colorado so it does not fit the law.

He's not selling them a marriage license - he just makes cakes.

I'm tired of your childish justifications for this man's discriminatory practices.



Who's being childish? I'm honestly done with this thread! I have Gay friends....Good people.....however I did not attend my Gay friends wedding last summer....WHY? Because I'm Catholic.....I wish them the best of luck!!! It's an insult to God to attend and promote. You either get it or you don't!!! If u want to call it discrim..... so be it!!!!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by esdad71

 

Originally posted by esdad71
He will make a cake for a gay person just not a wedding cake for gays which is not legal in Colorado so it does not fit the law.

I'm tired of your childish justifications for this man's discriminatory practices. You honestly have no clue of what you're talking about.

edit on 6/9/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

LOL I didn't know it was illegal to make a "gay" wedding cake in Colorado!

I wonder if he'd make a divorce celebration cake? How about a baby shower cake for an unwed mother?

reply to post by windword


Wind....I know you're not a fan of GOD, Jesus. or the Holy Ghost....I got it......however, Should I be able to "FORCE YOU, to do something against your beliefs ????? thats the question? Should there be a law to force u to (Blank Blank)???

Originally posted by esdad71
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.

by your argument, he had no reason to refuse the cake than,

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Thank you for your kind consideration of my post. I sometimes think that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low here that all we can expect is continuous screaming until one side loses it's voice, and the other side declares, therefore, that their argument is intellectually superior.

I agree with you that the couple were legally married. I don't think I have any objection to the legal points being raised. That doesn't seem to be a fruitful argument. I'll agree that everything involved is legal. The ceremony and the celebration. It feels good to clear away that brush.

If I have a difficulty at all, it is that the "legal" argument is being used to defend too much.

Go back for a minute to the propane tank analogy. In both cases they were going to be used for a legal, celebratory event. I'm just a little worried that the law appears so vague that even you can't tell whether the hardware store owner could be sued.

If I may repeat the analogy? Consider a lumber yard selling wood left and right to everybody who comes in, regardless of who they are. Let's make the owner Black this time. A man comes in and says, "I'm gonna need enough lumber to build a 20' cross. It has to be good and sturdy, maybe throw in four pieces of lumber to be braces so it don't fall over too soon. It's been a long time since me and my Klan buddies have had a rip-roarin' cross burnin' but we're all set. We've got permits from the city, county and state. We're as legal as can be. Now, get that lumber and be quick about it."

Is it racial prejudice to refuse to sell them the lumber? I'd certainly say "Go get your *&^%$# lumber someplace else." But is it right to be sued over it?

The yard manager probably would have sold the lumber, if he didn't know what it was for, but when he identified the use of the product, his hackles rose. Rightly, in my opinion.

I see the baker in a similar situation. If the couple had said we want a cake and we want it too look like such and such. A refusal by the baker could very well have been discrimination. But when they say they want the cake to be part of something the owner is strongly and reasonably opposed to, I would argue the guy should be free of the risk of being sued.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Foreshadow
reply to post by windword

 

Wind....I know you're not a fan of GOD,

I'm not a fan of the God of the Bible.

Jesus.

I have no problem with "Jesus", it's his followers that vex me.

or the Holy Ghost...

In my opinion, the Holy SPIRIT, (not a ghost) is the spark of our humanity. I've got no problem with the "Holy Spirit."

.

Should I be able to "FORCE YOU, to do something against your beliefs ????? thats the question? Should there be a law to force u to (Blank Blank)???

No one is forcing you or me to "gay marry."

Jesus associated with prostitutes without condoning prostitution, or being forced to become a prostitute.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

Thank you for your kind consideration of my post. I sometimes think that the signal-to-noise ratio is so low here that all we can expect is continuous screaming until one side loses it's voice, and the other side declares, therefore, that their argument is intellectually superior.

I agree with you that the couple were legally married. I don't think I have any objection to the legal points being raised. That doesn't seem to be a fruitful argument. I'll agree that everything involved is legal. The ceremony and the celebration. It feels good to clear away that brush.

If I have a difficulty at all, it is that the "legal" argument is being used to defend too much.

Go back for a minute to the propane tank analogy. In both cases they were going to be used for a legal, celebratory event. I'm just a little worried that the law appears so vague that even you can't tell whether the hardware store owner could be sued.

If I may repeat the analogy? Consider a lumber yard selling wood left and right to everybody who comes in, regardless of who they are. Let's make the owner Black this time. A man comes in and says, "I'm gonna need enough lumber to build a 20' cross. It has to be good and sturdy, maybe throw in four pieces of lumber to be braces so it don't fall over too soon. It's been a long time since me and my Klan buddies have had a rip-roarin' cross burnin' but we're all set. We've got permits from the city, county and state. We're as legal as can be. Now, get that lumber and be quick about it."

Is it racial prejudice to refuse to sell them the lumber? I'd certainly say "Go get your *&^%$# lumber someplace else." But is it right to be sued over it?

The yard manager probably would have sold the lumber, if he didn't know what it was for, but when he identified the use of the product, his hackles rose. Rightly, in my opinion.

I see the baker in a similar situation. If the couple had said we want a cake and we want it too look like such and such. A refusal by the baker could very well have been discrimination. But when they say they want the cake to be part of something the owner is strongly and reasonably opposed to, I would argue the guy should be free of the risk of being sued.

With respect,
Charles1952

Hello Charles and welcome to the fray once again.

I have read this post of yours and while I think the couple are taking this too seriously and should let it go, I think you perhaps need to consider another example;

I manage a large store that sells among other things, knives and machetes. (I'm from a country with strict gun controls) We often get groups of people in that are very obviously buying these items for weapons. Some of them are very open about what they want them for.

For me this is a real moral issue. On the inside I really want to refuse them a sale, because I know that what I am selling them will probably be used to commit a crime. However, legally I cannot refuse a sale based on personal opinion. I am obliged to make sure they are over 18, but that's it. If I were to say no to some of these people (the gang patch wearing ones) I would be fearful that they would rob my store / seek retribution on me personally. So there are multiple reasons why I have to say yes.

Furthermore, your example of the lumber yard owner would most likely lead to reprisal from the KKK - this is what is happening to the owner of the bakery. He / she said no, but now he is suffering the consequences.

reply to post by charles1952


Charles.... U are Wise Man!!! Thank you for your presense on ATS

Wind....How does one reply? You're very contradicting to yourself or I owe you an apology?! I'm afraid I'm too tired and exhausted today, to offer my "FULL" opinion.

reply to post by markosity1973


Indeed, as i stated i personally wouldn't sue, money would not get me the Cake, nor the feeling of dehumanization to leave, likewise though it seems the Owner refused to "prove a point' that he is against Gay marriage, regardless of 'religious belief' it's a discriminatory act, if he believe God will smite him for selling a celebratory cake to a gay couple, he should rethink he business and work on not selling cake to other sinners

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Actually it makes all of the difference. If the Supreme court finds in favor of the woman in this case, it gives the gay couples more legal weight, as the precidence could be used in any and all cases against this baker, and force him to comply with the laws and force many states to change what their laws and constitutions read.

However, and as we do not know what or how the court will decide, if the court decides in favor of the state of New York, then the baker can counter and thus win, on the grounds, that while same sex marriage is legal in a few states, as it is not being legal in the state of Colorado, the couples have no bearings or legal standing and this case will be the ground work for such a defense.


Something tells me that the lawyers and courts involved in this case are all waiting for this opinion of the high court in this case as it will set a legal precident on all cases similar to this one.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by esdad71

 

Originally posted by esdad71
He will make a cake for a gay person just not a wedding cake for gays which is not legal in Colorado so it does not fit the law.

I'm tired of your childish justifications for this man's discriminatory practices. You honestly have no clue of what you're talking about.

edit on 6/9/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Childish justifications? The insults come out when there is nothing else to argue. Leave the thread then because you know I am correct. A state law does NOT overrule a Federal Law. Let me quote a law to you since you are so kind to remind us of the unconstitutional Law passed in the state of Colorado.

The Supremacy Clause of the US constitution holds that all federal laws trump state laws unless the federal law is unconstitutional.

Also, the law in Colorado protects against religious discrimination as WELL as LGBT rights. Other are protected as well. So, in effect, they are both protected here and the law needs to be reviewed. You cannot persecute a man based on his religious beliefs. It just shows that the law is bunk and was created to appease special interest groups. Gays.

Again, he will make a cake for them, but not for a religious ceremony. Did they say it was a civil union? Does anyone know. You see, these are the questions a good lawyer will ask and not just say " make the cake because we are gay and we do not care about your feelings". Religious persecution. If an atheist can make sure prayer is not in school or bibles cannot be in courthouses than why is this man not allowed his own beliefs.

Sorry, but this has gone beyond a cake for a two guys who want a wedding cake. It is about telling people what they can and cannot believe in and being punished for it. This is America. When the Supreme court recognizes gay marriage then Jack Phillips needs to get his ass baking. Until then, order a dog cake....

That argument is 'Marriage is a religious action' that many will disagree with, i don't think 'Religion' holds the trump on Marriage,

he is a hypocrite if he will serve other sinners but refuses to because 'gay marriage is not believed by religion' and that is what makes it discriminatory,

Originally posted by esdad71


Sorry, but this has gone beyond a cake for a two guys who want a wedding cake. It is about telling people what they can and cannot believe in and being punished for it. This is America. When the Supreme court recognizes gay marriage then Jack Phillips needs to get his ass baking. Until then, order a dog cake....

No one is telling him what he can and cannot believe. If he wants to believe that blacks are nasty smelly animals who are inferior to whites. he can believe that. There are no laws against personal beliefs of any kind. What he CANNOT do is refuse to sell a cake to a black person simply because of his personal belief. Same thing with gays or gay marriage. He can be against gay marriage if he wants, but he cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

reply to post by hamburgerler


Abolitionism was both Republican and Christian.

Eugenics was Democrat/Progressive
Jim Crow laws was Democrat through and through