Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake

Originally posted by esdad71

Would you feel the same if the baker took the same stance against a black couple? But he didn't. If he did not make a birthday cake for a black person I would have a problem. For two black same sex wedding cakes, I would have to say he might be an idiot but he should have the right.

edit on 17-6-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

and this is why the rest of us get saddled with laws. Because some folks think that there are justifications for discriminating against others.

If you don't see discriminating against others as wrong, then there is nothing that can be done here. It is a flaw that logic and reason just cannot seem to overcome.

Originally posted by SourGrapes
Why are we discussing sexual preference AT ALL in an elementary school? I absolutely HATE that I have had to explain what gay and lesbian means, before I've even had the 'sex' talk with my children.

Because unless your children live in a vacuum, at fourth grade they already know what sex is. The school doesn't have to even mention it, by that time some of their peers have already started explaining it. If you have more than one once the oldest knows they start explaining it to the younger ones. So now who do you want explaining it school or their friends? Unless you live in Mississippi, it is probably best if the school does it.

The fact is while ideally parents should be having the talk, most are not ready to do so at the age their children's friends start. (I am not making a condemnation, merely an observation of the parental desire to keep their children innocent as long as possible.) And really how do you avoid telling them what gay and lesbian mean, before the sex talk. Because really that is the easy one to answer, and does not need to reference sexual activity at all.

I believe 'Chick-Fil'A' is a good point to bring up, outspokenly against Gay Marriage, and yet still serves any person of the LGBT community

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"There were a lot of things said over the past year," Braun told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. "I wanted to show that Chick-fil-A doesn't discriminate against anybody. We serve everyone. We're happy to serve the community and this was an opportunity to have this group come in and show them our hospitality regardless of their beliefs, sexual orientation, or whatever. Chick-fil-A has never been about hate"

they keep their beliefs, and they don't discriminate,

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If you don't see discriminating against others as wrong, then there is nothing that can be done here. It is a flaw that logic and reason just cannot seem to overcome.

This is why my questions go unanswered. They have no logical answer, because
1.) there is no effect on the baker's religious freedom
2.) supporting discrimination in one business means supporting it in every business, and
3.) discriminating against one group is the SAME as discriminating against any other group.

Having the position that business owners should be free to discriminate against people they disapprove of, based on their personal beliefs, is why we have to have laws like these, that spell out discrimination and civil rights protections for the people of this country.

This is why my questions go unanswered. They have no logical answer, because
1.) there is no effect on the baker's religious freedom
2.) supporting discrimination in one business means supporting it in every business, and
3.) discriminating against one group is the SAME as discriminating against any other group.

I answered your questions, you just do not believe what I say and do not want to accept it.

1. Who are YOU to say that there is no effect on his freedoms. It is. You are telling a person, who cares if they own a business, that he has to not only do something against his beliefs but do something for someone that is NOT protected. GAY MARRIAGE, for the last time, IS NOT PROTECTED because even in the eyes of the law of Colorado it DOES NOT EXIST. Really, how can you not see that and yuou are continuing to say he discriminated against GAY PEOPLE. You yourself said he would make a cake for someone who is gay just not for a same sex wedding ceremony. It is time for the couple to be tolerant to someone elses beliefs if they want to have e society of equal treatment.

2. Never said that. If there is a pattern and no bakery will make cakes for people who are gay, of race, or religion, there is an issue.

3. He is not discriminating against a group, it is an action ne does not because of his religion believe in.

How can you not see the difference between a group and an act? Beastialtiy(since yuou keep bringing it up) is an act, not a group of people. An action. Gay people can perform and so could Rosa Parks.

These are VERY logical answers but since it does not fit your view you dismiss them. Very narcissistic.

You need to take off the gay blinders and look at the world as someone who wants to give rights and freedoms to anyone. You are attacking this man for his beliefs..bottom line .

Also.

Colorado's civil unions law allows unmarried couples, both gay and heterosexual, the ability to form civil unions and get rights similar to those of married couples.

Un-married couples. Civil unions are not the same so do not come back with that one.

Originally posted by esdad71

1. Who are YOU to say that there is no effect on his freedoms. It is. You are telling a person, who cares if they own a business, that he has to not only do something against his beliefs but do something for someone that is NOT protected. GAY MARRIAGE, for the last time, IS NOT PROTECTED because even in the eyes of the law of Colorado it DOES NOT EXIST. Really, how can you not see that and yuou are continuing to say he discriminated against GAY PEOPLE. You yourself said he would make a cake for someone who is gay just not for a same sex wedding ceremony. It is time for the couple to be tolerant to someone elses beliefs if they want to have e society of equal treatment.

IT DOESN"T MATTER WHY THEY BOUGHT THE CAKE - as long as they are not doing something illegal with it, i.e., putting a bomb in it to kill unsuspecting victims. Having a party, and eating cake IS NOT ILLEGAL. That's all this gay couple was trying to do. Have a party, and have cake for everyone to eat. It isn't any of the baker's business exactly what the subject matter of the party is --- really, how can you not see that??

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
You are telling a person, who cares if they own a business, that he has to not only do something against his beliefs but do something for someone that is NOT protected.

I am not telling a person. I'm telling a business. Non-discrimination laws are for businesses, not for individuals. The baker is free to discriminate as an individual. bigfatfurrytexan has gone over this several times. The baker doesn't personally have to make the cake, but SOMEONE in his business does, according to the law.

You have yet to tell me how making a cake infringes on this business's first amendment religious rights.

GAY MARRIAGE, for the last time, IS NOT PROTECTED because even in the eyes of the law of Colorado it DOES NOT EXIST.

DOG MARRIAGE, for the last time, IS NOT PROTECTED because even in the eyes of the law of Colorado it DOES NOT EXIST. Yet, he sold a wedding cake to them.

It is not the baker's business to enforce state law.

Really, how can you not see that and yuou are continuing to say he discriminated against GAY PEOPLE.

Would he sell a wedding cake to a straight couple? A black couple? A DOG couple? Yes.
A GAY couple? No. That's discrimination. Against gay people.

You can deny it all you want, but your position is hypocritical and illogical.

Dog marriages are also not recognized in the state of Colorado. Two black people can get married as well as two atheists. Just not two people of the same sex. What part of that is illogical?

Again, I am not saying that they should not be able to get a wedding cake, but telling a private business that they have to do something that goes against their beliefs is wrong. It will be settled in court. No big deal.

Also, if you look deep enough into the CIvil Rights act of 1964 there are protections against private business as opposed to Federal business about one beliefs.

Again, a state law cannot supercede a Federal Law so if this leaves the local level and goes Federal there could be a different decision.

What needs to happen is the law needs to be more clearly defined, like this bill that is being introduced in the State of Washington.

link

I think you should all read this. It makes a great deal of sense. Protection for all not just one specific group. How is this not 'Logical'?

The bill amends the state’s non-discrimination statute and states that it cannot force someone to provide services, if doing so would violate their conscience or strongly held religious convictions. While this would apply to wedding ceremonies, including polygamous and/or same-sex wedding ceremonies, it would also apply generally to works of art, conventions, conferences, parties, or published messages like artwork, literature, or website design that could include a message that a business or individual would not be comfortable lending their services to.

This bill is a step in the right direction for freedom of religion and rights of conscience. The way the non-discrimination statute is currently being applied suggests that religious freedom is trumped by the right to never be offended or annoyed by a business’s decisions. The state’s non-discrimination law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and disability. This bill would help distinguish between discrimination based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation and a decision not to provide services for activities and/or messages that an individual or business is not supportive of.

A policy that says you don’t serve Christians or Muslims is discrimination based on religion. Declining the chance to be part of a Ramadan festival or Easter Service at the request of a Muslim or Christian may not be. The Attorney General’s lawsuit fails to recognize this difference. Arlene’s Flowers had sold flowers to the gay couple involved in this lawsuit for years and even employed homosexuals. The job of providing floral services for a wedding ceremony, however, is different than simply selling flowers to a customer because it involves going to the location, creating arrangements , and generally being part of the event. This particular business owner was not comfortable with that. The question Washington citizens need to consider is whether there is still room in our civil society for people to make that decision. The only alternative is to force people to choose between their livelihood and their conscience. That’s not liberal, that’s not libertarian, and that’s not American.

A person should not be made to choose between livelihood and their beliefs.

Originally posted by esdad71


What needs to happen is the law needs to be more clearly defined, like this bill that is being introduced in the State of Washington.

link

I think you should all read this. It makes a great deal of sense. Protection for all not just one specific group. How is this not 'Logical'?

Your link is from a far-right religious group who wants to ban all same-sex marriage, so yeah, no bias there.

Oh, and good luck getting that bill passed in Washington state - one of the more liberal states in the country. Maybe when pigs fly....

Currently, Washington state is the only state in the United States where assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and cannabis use are all legal.

en.wikipedia.org...(state)

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
Dog marriages are also not recognized in the state of Colorado. Two black people can get married as well as two atheists. Just not two people of the same sex. What part of that is illogical?

Are you serious? You claim the bakery's discriminatory action is legitimate because gay marriage is not legally recognized in Colorado. Dog marriage is also not legally recognized in Colorado. Yet he made a wedding cake for the dogs. You don't see the lack of logic there?

If one is using the reason "gay marriage is not recognized in Colorado, so the baker is justified in his discrimination", then it follows that he would also deny the dogs' wedding cake because dog marriage is not recognized. Let me spell it out for you:

Gay marriage not recognized = wedding cake for gays? NO
Dog marriage not recognized = wedding cake for dogs? YES

See the difference? No logic.

Again, I am not saying that they should not be able to get a wedding cake, but telling a private business that they have to do something that goes against their beliefs is wrong.

I'm not talking about right and wrong. I'm talking about the LAW. This is a LEGAL case. You can have your personal opinion that the baker should be allowed to discriminate, but that's not what the law says.

By the way, the bakery HAS to have the Colorado non-discrimination law posted in clear view in his business.

Also, if you look deep enough into the CIvil Rights act of 1964 there are protections against private business as opposed to Federal business about one beliefs.

You'll have to post more than that if you want me to take it seriously. Give me a link and quote the excerpt that proves your statement.

What needs to happen is the law needs to be more clearly defined, like this bill that is being introduced in the State of Washington.

The Colorado law is CRYSTAL clear.

I know the republican legislators and the so-called "family protection" groups are scrambling to pass legislation that would allow them to discriminate against gays, but hopefully, they will not succeed. They did not in 2006, and since then, Washington has legalized marriage equality. So I don't think they're going to take this backward step.

Washingt on Voters Decisively Rejected The “License To Discriminate” Against Gays In 2006

Those amendments were rejected for very good reason: Washington voters disapprove of discrimination. That was made clear in 2006 when the state legislature amended the state’s anti-discrimination law to add sexual orientation and gender identity and expression to the list of protected classes, and opponents failed to collect enough signatures to force a referendum on the new law onto the ballot.
...
Washington voters were in fact so supportive of the new LGBT anti-discrimination law that R-65 backers weren’t able to collect enough signatures to make submitting them to the Secretary of State worthwhile.

reply to post by esdad71


Again. Your freedom of religion does not give you freedom to discriminate.

Once you offer a public service. That service must be offered to all equally under federal law.

The business owner is committing discrimination for not offering service to the gay couple.

reply to post by grey580


Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

Federal Law does NOT recognise same sex marriage but it does protect you if you are gay.

So, if you want a birthday cake and you are gay, you can have one.

Where is the failed logic there?

I also like how you all immediately attack family protection groups and it shows again you care more about gay rights than the rights of all. A bigoted view and you cannot backpedal anymore. I have said time and time again they should have equal rights but you keep attacking people who want, again, to choose what their families or children are subject to or how they practice religion.

So, if this law was passed and it protected the baker and his religious beliefs, what would you do then?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by grey580

 

Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

Federal Law does NOT recognise same sex marriage but it does protect you if you are gay.

So, if you want a birthday cake and you are gay, you can have one.

Where is the failed logic there?

I also like how you all immediately attack family protection groups and it shows again you care more about gay rights than the rights of all. A bigoted view and you cannot backpedal anymore. I have said time and time again they should have equal rights but you keep attacking people who want, again, to choose what their families or children are subject to or how they practice religion.

So, if this law was passed and it protected the baker and his religious beliefs, what would you do then?

Then make a birthday cake, but make it look like a wedding cake. Problem solved.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by grey580

 

Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

Federal Law does NOT recognise same sex marriage but it does protect you if you are gay.

So, if you want a birthday cake and you are gay, you can have one.

Where is the failed logic there?

I also like how you all immediately attack family protection groups and it shows again you care more about gay rights than the rights of all. A bigoted view and you cannot backpedal anymore. I have said time and time again they should have equal rights but you keep attacking people who want, again, to choose what their families or children are subject to or how they practice religion.

So, if this law was passed and it protected the baker and his religious beliefs, what would you do then?

how did the Baker get discriminated against? no one is attacking his beliefs, as i brought up the 'Chick-Fil-A' story, you can keep your beliefs and still not discriminate

reply to post by esdad71

Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

This is covered under federal law already. A business may not deny service to anyone based upon the customers religious beliefs.

Federal Law does NOT recognise same sex marriage but it does protect you if you are gay.

So, if you want a birthday cake and you are gay, you can have one.

Where is the failed logic there?

In my book. Discrimination is discrimination.

en.wikipedia.org...

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".

Gay marriage is not explicitly said here. However the laws intent is to not allow anyone to discriminate against others based upon any criteria.

I also like how you all immediately attack family protection groups and it shows again you care more about gay rights than the rights of all. A bigoted view and you cannot backpedal anymore. I have said time and time again they should have equal rights but you keep attacking people who want, again, to choose what their families or children are subject to or how they practice religion.

Again your freedom of religion does not allow you to discriminate against others.

So, if this law was passed and it protected the baker and his religious beliefs, what would you do then?

We already have federal law.

en.wikipedia.org...

And it says that you may not discriminate against anyone.

reply to post by esdad71

Originally posted by esdad71
Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

What you're not understanding is, very simply, under these laws, consumers (individuals who patronize businesses) are the ones who are protected. Public accommodation laws do not protect business owners. They protect the people who are giving money to the businesses. Businesses are in a position of making money. If you're going to make money from the public, you have the responsibility of obeying the law. When someone goes into business, it's their responsibility to be aware of the laws and to display the state's non-discrimination laws on the premises (and to follow them).

And religion is not missing. It is right there along with sexual orientation. See this post:

Discrimination based on the following factors is illegal in the areas of: PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), marital status, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a public accommodations discrimination proceeding)

But only if you are the consumer, does it matter.

I also like how you all immediately attack family protection groups and it shows again you care more about gay rights than the rights of all.

That's not true. I care about equal rights for all. I just don't like the way these anti-gay groups have flowery names that involve "protecting the family"... They're bigoted against gay people and that is their MAIN thrust: to deny gay people their rights. I don't like the idea of ANY group trying to deny the rights of others.

So, if this law was passed and it protected the baker and his religious beliefs, what would you do then?

The law you quoted was for Washington state, so it wouldn't change anything in Colorado. What would I do? Nothing. Some states don't protect sexual orientation, for example. I think Texas doesn't even have a consumer non-discrimination law at all. You don't see me "doing" anything about that.

All I'm doing here is TRYING to explain Colorado law to you and why, under Colorado law, the bakery under question is at fault and will be found in violation of that law. You're not getting it or something. You're trying to argue with me what's right and wrong and what should be... None of that is relevant to this legal case.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I really admire your patience, at least 20 pages saying the same thing to the guy and he still doesn't get it...
Kudos to you

As is usually the case on ATS, people are focusing on the wrong points.

1. Someone believes they were discriminated against.
2. Plaintiff files a suit.
3. A jury decides if it is discrimination.
4. Court decision is used as precedence in further litigation.

Someone taking this to court is a GOOD thing, as the courts play a vital role in fleshing out our sometimes ambiguous laws.

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by grey580

 

Your choice of religion also does not allow you to be discriminated against. That is the part of the law that is missing.

Correct. However, the bakery owner wasn't being discriminated against. Matter of fact, they tried to give him business.

You are wrong. No matter how you try to spin it, it has already been slapped down. Most of the thread has walked away, shaking their heads at the continued obstinence you show. But obstinence is no replacement for truth. Even with a hard head, you are still wrong. And the whole world knows it, except you and a bakery owner in Denver.

reply to post by boymonkey74


What is there not to get. This is something that needs to be settle in the courts but there is a difference of opinion. You can beat me down as many times as you want and repeat what you think is right, and I can admire that, but i think what you are saying is incorrect, unfair and that the law is unjust. It is protecting one group of people as these types of laws often do.

It is not that I am against gay rights, it is that I am against ANY group of people not having the ability to freedom of speech, expression and religion. Since the late 1800's our rights as defined in the constitution have been stripped and edited. Each new law that is passed makes another obsolete.

This is not partisan, I am not pro life or choice, I am no choice and I vote with my heart and not on party lines. You try to define me in this thread as people try to define someone who is gay. We are all Americans, and as such, we all have rights and if the rights of one group infringes on another than I will not just shut up and let it ride. Sorry, that is what has happened for too long and now we, as a country have a smaller and smaller piece of individual freedoms.

This is bigger than a cake but if that is where you want to leave it, fine.