Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

reply to post by charles1952


oops wrong thread lol.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
Are a persons religious beliefs not protected according to you?

He can BELIEVE whatever he wants. Denying the cake to the gay couple is an ACTION, not a belief.

Racist..ok, how about a 'bigot' judge.

I'll see what the judgment says and then make my judgment.

So. since 1993 they have said no to other gay couples.

They've turned away 6 customers in 20 years. That doesn't mean this gay couple knew about it. I don't know if they did or not. But they did find out about it after posting on Facebook and hearing of other experiences. (You call that an "unbiased" website????)

When Phillips refused, one of the pair, 28-year-old Dave Mullins, is reported to have said, “F*** you and your homophobic cake shop,” and directed an obscene gesture at the owner before leaving.

I might say the same if they refused me..

You really think they did not know going in?

I really do. I have seen them say they were shocked, felt dehumanized and mortified. I have no reason to think otherwise. If you want to speculate, feel free. But it's speculation, not fact.

Targeting. I hate to say it, but in all circles there are those who will do it and it does not help a cause one bit.

Whether you and I think it helps the cause or not is irrelevant. It's their RIGHT to do what they're doing.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

The couple are alleging the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Yes, AFTER they found out about the other cases (actually the ACLU dug them up) they made that statement. Remember, this all happened last year. The article you post is from 2013, AFTER the other cases had been revealed.

This is not a case of the gay couple's right to accommodations vs the baker's right to religious freedom. It's not a two-sided issue. The baker discriminated. Period. The gay couple has a right to accommodation. The baker does not have the right to discriminate.

If the baker went to an atheist sign maker and wanted a sign saying "Praise the Lord" for his yard and the sign maker refused because he doesn't do religious signs, THEN the baker would have a case of religious discrimination.

Originally posted by grey580

There has to be a extremely good reason for you to not do business with someone.

There doesn't have to be an 'extremely good reason' for you to not allow someone into your home. The notion that one is entitled to the services of a private citizen stems from an infantile sense of self-entitlement. You're claiming that they're entitled to a CAKE. No one who busts their butt to build and maintain their own private business should be obligated to perform services that they would prefer not to.

Claiming that you don't agree with gay marriage because it's against your religion isn't a good enough reason to deny someone service.

The only individuals who should decide what is and isn't a good reason to deny service are those who put in the effort to make such a service possible and who will lose the profit.

I had a ex KKK member standing in front of me in my store. I'm hispanic. Should I have stopped doing business with this guy because he was or still was a confirmed racist?

It's your store. The only one who should decide whether business with this guy should have halted or not is you.

But what shocked me even more wasn't that he told us the sheriff and other deputies were in the clan. But that he told us there were Mexicans and even an Italian guy in the clan.

There are white Mexicans. Why would you be shocked about Italians in the klan?

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
No, I just wanted to know if BH was going to use the same argument to defend Sharia Law.

Actually, I don't have a problem with Sharia law, as long as it doesn't violate our established laws. If two Muslim litigants want to add some religious components to their settlements or whatever, it's no skin off my nose.

People use "Sharia Law" to mean a lot of things. But as long as US laws are not violated, I have no issue with people volunteering to include it. I'll never be held to it, but if Muslims want to, why not?

Just like many people here obey Christian law (Catholics not using birth control, for example). It's a voluntary thing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

(actually the ACLU dug them up)

What a surprise! I guess other people have made complaints but didn't sue.

reply to post by Charmed707

Originally posted by Charmed707
The notion that one is entitled to the services of a private citizen stems from an infantile sense of self-entitlement.

They are not entitled to the services of a private citizen. They ARE entitled to the services of a business. You seem to confuse a business with someone's home.

No one who busts their butt to build and maintain their own private business should be obligated to perform services that they would prefer not to.

You opinion differs from the law. You state several times how it "should be". But that is not how it IS.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Actually, I don't have a problem with Sharia law, as long as it doesn't violate our established laws.

You mean as long as it doesn't involve stoning, beheading, or honor killings? But you would approve of bailing out giant insurance corporations for Sharia compliant product as Tim Geithner did? Wait, I thought corporations were evil.

So how is this Constitutional but Christian is not?

. This case in Florida, where a judge ruled that a dispute between Muslim parties could proceed under sharia law, will certainly add fuel to the fire -- and is already bolstering the political prospects of an anti-sharia bill being considered by the Florida legislature:
This case," the judge wrote, "will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law."

www.politico.com...

Actually it appears that judge has realized his mistake and now cited the Constitution as a reason not to take the case under Sharia Law

www.tampabay.com...

but in the meantime you have just argued to me that Sharia Law is indeed Constitutional but Christian complaints are not. And thus you have literally proven my point that Progressives will support Sharia Law but will move against Christianity.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I don't know that they'd even made complaints. I don't know how the ACLU found out about the other cases.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
But you would approve of bailing out giant insurance corporations for Sharia compliant product as Tim Geithner did?

I don't know the story. I'm sorry. And I'm not really interested in pursuing it at this time.

So how is this Constitutional but Christian is not?

Christian law IS Constitutional, as long as it doesn't violate our laws. People are free to follow Christian or Canon law if they want.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


They cannot find out unless some kind of complaint has been made. Perhaps it was only through twitter, facebook or whatever, not necessarily a formal complaint. But if the ACLU could find out, don't you think the gay couple could?
Whatever, if the bakery had a reputation it means that someone somewhere reported it somewhere on some media or whatever. Either that or the ACLU is great at reading minds.

If other complaints were made to the ACLU, why is this case so interesting to them?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This is the scariest statement you have made. The fact you would equate Sharia law to the Laws of the bible make me really wonder you motives. So, you are ok with Sharia law (as long as it does not infringe) but you do not want this man to have his beliefs?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

This is the scariest statement you have made. The fact you would equate Sharia law to the Laws of the bible make me really wonder you motives. So, you are ok with Sharia law (as long as it does not infringe) but you do not want this man to have his beliefs?

Wasn't it kind of BH to prove my point for me exactly?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


What is "Christian Law"? Maybe you meant "belief". Christian tradition has influenced our laws because the people were mainly Christian or Deist, but Sharia Law is something more codified into Islamic law.
The Ten Commandments contain the edict "You shall not murder". Would anyone really pretend this is not something pretty Universal?

But I dunno, maybe you'd like to try this out

Testimony from women is given only half the weight of men [in most sources outside of Wikipedia Sharia states that a woman's testimony only carries the weight of 1/4th of a man's], and testimony from non-Muslims may be excluded altogether (if against a Muslim). - See more at: the-american-catholic.com...

. Instead of precedents and codes, Sharia relies on medieval jurist’s manuals and collections of non-binding legal opinions, or fatwas, issued by religious scholars (ulama, particularly a mufti); these can be made binding for a particular case at the discretion of a judge. - See more at: the-american-catholic.com...

Trials are conducted solely by the judge, and there is no jury system. - See more at: the-american-catholic.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

They are not entitled to the services of a private citizen. They ARE entitled to the services of a business. You seem to confuse a business with someone's home.

Private businesses are built and maintained by private citizens. Property is property. Building a business does not make you property of the government.

You opinion differs from the law. You state several times how it "should be". But that is not how it IS.

Show me where I said that that's how it is.

Here's a helpful link: www.lmgtfy.com...

reply to post by Charmed707

Maybe they shouldn't, but they are.

If you own a business, your business is going to be regulated. One such regulation is antidiscrimination.

reply to post by Charmed707


So you think that a racist should be able to say no to serving black person?

reply to post by boymonkey74


The free market deals with things like that. A business that had the gall to ban a certain race of people or homosexuals, for example, will not fare well- not financially or in terms of their own safety. A business like that will not survive.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Regulating social interactions based on feelings is asinine and tyrannical. Plain and simple.

reply to post by boymonkey74


This has nothing to do with blacks like when someone brought up Rosa Parks. Stay on target unless we want to bring race into the equation which then adds religion but....

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

This has nothing to do with blacks like when someone brought up Rosa Parks. Stay on target unless we want to bring race into the equation which then adds religion but....

then again, you did not build your business, did you???

This is the state if America and it is skewed. ALL people should have the same protection but you are picking and choosing and do not see it. How blind and selfish can all of you be.