Colorado's Masterpiece Cakeshop Must Serve Gay Couples Despite Owner's Religious Beliefs, Judge Ru

reply to post by dragonridr


If I were you, if I were a man, I wouldn’t go into a ladies bathroom, because I was pretending to being gay.
If you’re a man they might lock you up then pretending to being gay may be problematic... in jail so you would have to go back to being straight.

If that makes any sense, it doesn’t to me

starfoxxx
The owner has the right to serve whoever they want or don't want..

Maybe in a time of such political correctness, the right answer would be
we are back logged and don't have time to do it..

You obviously should NEVER tell anyone you will not serve them for being a certain color, creed, or sexual orientation..

Make the cake and put a man and a woman on it.

jimmyx

DarthMuerte
This is completely wrong and a violation of the first amendment. Not to mention the fact that any business owner should be able to choose who he will and will not do business with for any or no reason. Classic liberal judicial over reach. Personally, I would close my doors and go out of business before complying with this command from a corrupt regime.

how about serving black people...c'mon...this was going on in the sixties, in the south. there were supreme court cases outlawing this very thing....how about not serving white Christians??...are you in favor of that too?

I am in favor of not allowing a Christian demanding a muslim bake a cake celebrating Jesus triumphing over Allah the Devil.

Lilroanie

ForestBehindTheTrees
As for the bakery if I lived close by I'd exercise MY freedom of speech and stand outside with a sign saying the store is run by intolerant bigots.

I agree. They must agree with someone elses beliefs. That is why I am standing outside your house with the exact same sign.

dragonridr
reply to post by Willtell

 

Wow being gay you get lots of rights very cool.Next time i go to the gym i think ill tell them im gay and really not comfortable with men staring at me and tell them i need to use the womens locker room instead. Since they cant deny my rights being gay should be fun. Only problem ill have is maintaining my composure but i guess i can take a cold shower im in the locker room.

No, you tell them you aren't a man. You are a woman trapped in a man's body, and they have no right to deny you access to the woman's locker room and bathroom.

Willtell
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You could marry your car as long as you have liability insurance!

Ok that was great made me choke on my pretzel.

Willtell
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You could marry your car as long as you have liability insurance!

Wonder how many gay people will think I'm a freak and say that it's wrong? I bet it's a lot. Not to generalize because they are not all like this, but as a whole gay people are the most intolerant group of people I have ever met. You should hear the things I have heard said about bi-sexual people by the gay people I have known. Pure hatred almost.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Good point womens aerobic classes here i come. I truly wonder if the judge thought about how much damage he was doing to the sign business. Now they cant make those signs that say management reserves the right to deny service to anyone. Think of all the people hes putting out of work.

reply to post by dragonridr


I think the best solution is to agree to make the cake while affirming the right to make the cake how you see fit, and that your cakes express the beauty of marriage between a man and a woman, and the cake you make will reflect that. They may be able to force service, they can not force artistic design.

reply to post by Willtell

At this point in the US sexual orientation is NOT a protected class, so I'm not sure how the judge came up with this ruling. Maybe the ACLU put serious lobbying pressure on someone. If it goes to a higher court it will most likely be overturned.

Something that many don't realize when we see these rulings that seem to come from out of the blue, is that judges aren't required to have any legal training whatsoever. Anyone can be appointed a judge. You don't have to study the law, you don't have to graduate law school, you don't have to pass the bar, you aren't even required to have any experience in any field related to the legal system at all.

reply to post by buster2010

A business doesn't have first amendment rights

a business isn't baking the cake. it can't talk or express views, a business isn't minding the store. a person is.

My state, CO, made the right decision. Don't like it don't open a biz here.

There were more discreet ways to handle the situation. Imo the bakers wanted to send a message and chose honesty over kind discretion. Well they got a message sent right back.

After Ted Haggard, former pastor of new life mega church in Colorado Springs, was exposed for frequenting male prostitutes/using crack, these bakers should've seen this coming a mile away. Possibly from within their own congregation.

The hubby and I are small biz owners we reserve the right to refuse service and we do just that with drunks. Haven't been sued yet. I don't care what sign you post at your biz you can only refuse services within the confines of the law. CO has decided being gay isn't a good enough reason to refuse service.

No ones infringing on anyone's right to do biz or practice religion. There's an alternative available to all biz owners who desire a more select clientele, membership only. It's how the rich get around the law/avoid the riffraff.

suz62

jimmyx

suz62
This is wrong. A business owner has the right to refuse service and always has had that right. This is liberal politics. The judge should be kicked off the bench.

you do realize that you are talking about a gay person buying a wedding cake, right?...what would be your excuse for NOT selling a wedding cake to a gay person?...cooties?...and what is amazing is that it's because the owner believes in the writings of an unknown author in a 2000 year old book about what a mythical being said....

edit on 7-12-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)

Read what you wrote. You discriminate against those who believe in God. Hypocrite.

And here's the big rub. ARE they people who believe in God at all?

If they ARE, then why aren't they LISTENING to God and doing what GOD says to do? How do we validate someones religious belief systems when it comes to laws like discrimination? I get no one is perfect but if you are going to take a legal stand on religious grounds then why is it not like getting a green card where you do have to validate you are a citizen of xyz etc and not marrying for money or convenience? Shouldn't there be a shibboleth of sorts for excusable discriminatory practice under law for claiming to be Christian too?


According to John 3:16, 17 there are no conditions on God’s love. The only condition set on obtaining everlasting life, or salvation, is to believe in Jesus. John 3:16-17

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. (KJV)"

Where in that does it say ' except gay/queer/transgendered/lesbian people ' ?

I do not see in the above ANY Christian religious validation for denying people a damn wedding cake on the grounds they are gay and going to hell because "God" said so. A convenient shield as God Almighty is not in form currently to defend his own word! Whats more New Covenant Christians aka non Jewish people who say they believe in Jesus Christ aka CHRISTIAN people, are not bound by Leviticus at all as it is a Talmudic Jewish cultural law not The Law Of Moses as handed down to/for all peoples. So the entire premise of their argument is flawed from the get go!

Why is it ok for these two people, to hide behind names and titles like the word 'Christian " in order to practice sexual discrimination, but not ok for Imams or mullahs to hide behind sharia law to practice the same or to justify religious murder? What makes USA Christians such a super special special people? Especially when by their own actions, these two shop keepers are clearly not, by their OWN actions, actually PRACTICING a Christian belief system?

This is just like people who abuse Islamic law, or the KKK abusing secular law...sure you can say what you like,call yourself what you like, but just dont call it Christian if it aint Christian as there is a lot of press to back up the truth in that regard and you WILL get caught out every time by people who DO read their Bibles or DO know what a bigot is. IF if walks like a bigot acts like a bigot then its a bigot regardless of what shield its hiding beneath.


Ro

reply to post by Rosha


many christians only follow the old testament which jesus also followed in his life and think new testament books are catholic garbage meant to mislead people from the truth, what you quotes was new testament scripture if i'm not mistaken and as for your bigot euphemism, what one appears to be is not always the truth and is usually relative to the viewer and their emotions.
you're declaring one right more important than another and you can't even see that fact, you're judging others with a blindfold on and lobbing insults, distracting people with target words doesn't make you more right i hope you know.

reply to post by Rosha



Well the simple answer is christians look at marriage as an expression of god this is why they call it holly matrimony. It stems back to the bible eve was created from adams rib women are apart of man. this is why Jesus makes this statement.

Matthew 19:5-6
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[a]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

So obviously to a christian think that a woman and a man bound together is the will of god or even a gift from god since women were created so man wouldnt be alone. So as a christian 2 guys marrying is kind of a slap in the face to gods will as they see it. Look you may not agree with this baker and his beliefs but you have no right to tell him his beliefs are wrong. Your simply placing your beliefs on others at that point and thats not freedom thats oppression. To me it matters in the least who married who as long as i dont have to see two guys kissing im cool with it. However what this judge did was wrong the state has no business countering ones religious beliefs. There putting an undue burden on him the next time a gay couple walks in his store he now has to choose between his religion and his company. Thats not the way the United States was established in fact the reason it was established was because people wanted to have a place to practice their religion in peace and safety. Your shocked because he didnt want to condone their marriage you should be more shocked the state is forcing him too.

reply to post by Rosha


It's great you post a few verses and not others. They must ALL be posted to give context.

1Cr 6:9
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
1Cr 6:10
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Then we have ...

1Cr 6:11
And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

namehere
reply to post by Rosha

 

many christians only follow the old testament which jesus also followed in his life and think new testament books are catholic garbage meant to mislead people from the truth

No .... Jews follow the Old Testament only. Christ is New Testament, I am not sure where you got this idea from. Almost all Christians more or less disregard the Old Testament, though they shouldn't.

defcon5
reply to post by Willtell

 

At this point in the US sexual orientation is NOT a protected class, so I'm not sure how the judge came up with this ruling. Maybe the ACLU put serious lobbying pressure on someone. If it goes to a higher court it will most likely be overturned.

Something that many don't realize when we see these rulings that seem to come from out of the blue, is that judges aren't required to have any legal training whatsoever. Anyone can be appointed a judge. You don't have to study the law, you don't have to graduate law school, you don't have to pass the bar, you aren't even required to have any experience in any field related to the legal system at all.

Colorado state law includes sexual orientation as a protected class. The judge's ruling was correct.

Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth.

cdn.colorado.gov...

reply to post by ketsuko

Sorry - somehow I didn't catch this yesterday

Or look at it this way - You have a regular customer who is 60 or so, and one day he comes in asking you to make a cake celebrating his wedding. The lucky bride will be a 10-year-old girl. Should you be forced to make that cake?

I've used a few absurd, over dramatic and preposterous scenarios to make my point too :-)

So - all I can think to say to this is - is it legal in our country for a 60 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl?

:-)

I know this decision (among others) is not going down easy. I don't see how it could - or why it should. I've said it before - this is that kind of case - isn't it? And these are the times we live in - things are changing and many things challenge us to decide where we really stand.

The law says you can't discriminate. Conscientious objection is something I will always support

Where does that leave us? I believe the man is entitled to his feelings about the gay community - and gay marriage

I also believe that Jesus would have baked them the stupid cake - probably happily :-)

But, I guess that's neither here or there

I know people have very strong feelings about the ACLU - they see so much of this sort of thing - these kinds of cases - as unnecessary or antagonistic

But, maybe they should look at it the same way as any legal matter - even someone accused of a particularly heinous crime are entitled to a trial. People often wonder about the kind of lawyer that would defend such a person - without really realizing that these lawyers are there to make sure the process remains fair for everyone. That includes you and me

We live in interesting times - and mankind is beginning to look at itself and treat itself differently

It won't go smoothly

namehere
reply to post by Rosha

 

many christians only follow the old testament which jesus also followed in his life and think new testament books are catholic garbage meant to mislead people from the truth, what you quotes was new testament scripture if i'm not mistaken and as for your bigot euphemism, what one appears to be is not always the truth and is usually relative to the viewer and their emotions.
you're declaring one right more important than another and you can't even see that fact, you're judging others with a blindfold on and lobbing insults, distracting people with target words doesn't make you more right i hope you know.

No, in any other field of human endeavor to publicly say one thing and do another - in the public sphere - is considered fraud. You can be charged and sent to jail for false representation.
So I do not see why, if you say you are a " Christian" and yet do not follow Christs teachings (- a man who by the way ONLY makes an appearance in the NEW testament so your old.new argument is bs -) is also a fraud! To take that lie one step further, and go out into the public sphere and then discriminate or cause harm to others on this basis, is perpetuation of a fraud and imo should be considered the same as any other fraud. Why it isn't a crime to do this simply because the people hide behind religious dogma instead of a gang manifesto is beyond me. This is how mobsters and molesters have been getting away with murder and bull for generations. I'm not trying to be right - that's the difference. The truth speaks for itself.

Ro