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

OccamsRazor04
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.

I posted the verses I did as they are central tenets of the Christian faith as well as practice. More, they show that salvation is for ALL people and undertaken via belief in the son of GOD not via preachers or churches or any other wheel and deal you might try. That was the point I was making and those words exist despite Corinthian's/ Paul's judgmental implications. You're also talking about a Paul v Jesus perspective with the quotes above, as they do not resemble the words spoken by Christ one iota.

There's also those little sneaky verses about loving your neighbor AS yourself and the one where Jesus says to Love one another, as to love ( honestly love) is to fulfill ALL of the law! Last time I heard, discrimination judging condemning people ( unless your westboro) are not acts of love..most regular people call those things abuse.





Ro

OccamsRazor04

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.

I didn't write that.
Whoever did was responding to my post.

R

Is not selling a wedding cake to a couple because of their sexual orientation stupid? Absolutely. That being said, they should have every right to be stupid. It's their property after all. If you don't like it, then take your money to a more accepting bakery.

reply to post by Willtell


First of all, both the Supreme Court of Colorado and the Supreme Court of the United States have said that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited. If you don't like that, you have a lot of law to change, and you'll have to fight the majority of the population on it.

Second, there is nothing in Christianity that says you cannot perform services for people who don't follow your beliefs. If anything, Jesus' examples show him doing just the opposite. This has nothing to do with being allowed to follow your religion, it has to do with being intolerant and inflexible and ignorant of your own creed.

There are often lines that need to be drawn between different parts of our Constitution. That's why we have judges. You are perfectly welcome to disagree. In this case, I agree with the judge. If the man thinks his religion conflicts with this judgement, he would be hard pressed in this case to prove that to a logical person. It also does not disagree with the first amendment. The man is free to say whatever he likes, but if he offers a service to the public, he has to include gays.

reply to post by Willtell


In America, there is this thing called a "Constitution" which says that people must be treated equally. For a long time, people haven't really been following The Constitution which promotes the idea that all men are created equal , but now there is more awareness and The Law (of Equality) is finally being observed.

In a country where the ideals are Equality and Freedom, you have to conduct business in that way .Excluding minority groups is not a part of "Equality".

reply to post by starfoxxx


As a service dog handler, who is also well versed when it comes to American laws regarding me and my dog, I can tell you that while cab drivers can throw a fit about their religion regarding our dogs, it is still a federal crime to deny us service.
(Also we don't all have cards and our dogs aren't always marked)

It is a federal crime to deny me entrance to any public business or denial of service because of my dog.

Because just like this situation, when a business signs the papers for their license wherever they are, they are agreeing to abide by the laws regarding discrimination.
And if in that area there are laws protecting gays, then the business is obliged to follow them.

reply to post by technical difficulties

Obviously they're freely exercising their right to be stupid but they can't illegally refuse services they promote as being available to the general public. In Colorado sexual orientation isn't a good enough reason.

If the bakers don't like it they can relocate to another state or go private membership. Sam's Club/Costco make tons of money and if the large christian community supported the bakers they could too. What they can't do is offer services to the general public then refuse this one or that based on personal bias. It doesn't work that way.

As a biz person if we want to enjoy the volume/profit the general public offers, there's rules. You might not like it but if you want to profit off of Colorado citizens as a whole that's how it is.

Laws have to be general or it can get messy. If we let the bakers get away with this what's to stop the religious shoe store from refusing "wedding" shoes or wedding decorations at the party store, caterers, photographers, tux rentals etc. This couple could get rejected at every turn.

Would we have to stand at the counter and prove we're heteros before buying wedding items or would that only apply to people who look gay??? Not even sure how that would work.

Sorry but Colorado decided this couple in fact doesn't have to search out a more accepting bakery. If the business is open to the public it's the bakery that has to be more accepting.

What if the tables were turned. If the majority of biz owners in Colorado were gay, they couldn't refuse services to christians because it went against their beliefs. They'd have to put on their big boy pants, bite the bullet, make the sale.

We're in biz we do this all the time. We don't like all our customers but we sure like the money/volume. You can't have it both ways.

I see this as the actions of greedy biz people using religion as a tool to shame others. They want to enjoy the flow of public clientele but they want to pick/choose/judge, rewrite the laws to better suit them or punish.

People need to do their research. If you want to open a biz there are hoops we all have to jump through. If those hoops are too restrictive, you need to rethink your biz model. As I said in a previous post the bakers should've seen this coming and I'm sure they did. Imo they wanted to send a message and maybe a business open to the public isn't the best place to do that.

"I don't have the time to make your cake. I'm booked."

Problem solved.

reply to post by suz62

That would only work if the baker's "gaydar" picked up the couple's gayness immediately. (eye roll)

Most likely someone proceeded to make the sale then discovered the couple was in fact gay. At that point it was either impossible to come up with a believable lie, christians aren't suppose to do that anyway, or the owners took it as an opportunity to be self-righteous shame/punish.

The bakers put themselves in this situation by not being as smart as they think they are. I guess they thought they could spot the gay or just outright insult them. Not sure but they're obviously wrong on both counts.

Morningglory


Laws have to be general or it can get messy. If we let the bakers get away with this what's to stop the religious shoe store from refusing "wedding" shoes or wedding decorations at the party store, caterers, photographers, tux rentals etc. This couple could get rejected at every turn.

Then they can boycott those places. Besides, there's bound to be at least a couple of stores who aren't bigots (whether it be due to principles or money). Besides, it will probably more effective in the long run anyways, since they will be more accepting of gays on their own, and not because the government said so.

I see this as the actions of greedy biz people using religion as a tool to shame others. They want to enjoy the flow of public clientele but they want to pick/choose/judge, rewrite the laws to better suit them or punish.

Where exactly is the greed in not selling something to a customer? They're not making any money off of this, and it's not like they're trying to. They're simply standing by their principles. Stupid principles, but principles nonetheless.

People need to do their research. If you want to open a biz there are hoops we all have to jump through. If those hoops are too restrictive, you need to rethink your biz model. As I said in a previous post the bakers should've seen this coming and I'm sure they did. Imo they wanted to send a message and maybe a business open to the public isn't the best place to do that.

edit on 12-9-2013 by Morningglory because: (no reason given)

If the hoops are too restrictive, maybe we should rethink the laws instead. The government works for us, not the other way around.

reply to post by technical difficulties

Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation which includes heterosexuals. So in other words we all are protected equally under the law because perceptions can't be depended on.

If I get refused at that bakery because I walk in with a gay friend how in the world could I prove I was hetero? I couldn't without embarrassing myself in public/causing a scene. Why would you want to inflict that on the general public?

As far as the greed part of it yes imo they are being just that. It's not about the sale they refused it's about the volume of sales/customers who are at their disposal when offering services to the general public.

Don't like the general public, then don't offer them services as a whole/go membership.That certainly would shut out a large portion of their market and I guess they don't want to financially cut their own throat so instead they think they can play both sides of the fence.

I really don't see discriminating against people as being too restrictive but obviously the bakers do. I don't mind providing services to the general public as defined by Colorado Law. The bakers felt it needed changing and went about it the wrong way, in defiance of the law and failed miserably.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to make changes it's their methods that stink and won't be tolerated. They have to go through the same channels as the rest of us, religion doesn't give them special shortcuts. They've got their work cut out for them and imo they're being lazy/greedy.

suz62
"I don't have the time to make your cake. I'm booked."

Problem solved.

Now there's something that's actually against their religious beliefs.

Lying.

Unless you can show me how refusing to make cakes for gay people is an example of striving to be more like Christ, I'll continue having no sympathy for this dying breed of bigots who are ignorant to their own religion.

arpgme
reply to post by Willtell

 

In America, there is this thing called a "Constitution" which says that people must be treated equally. For a long time, people haven't really been following The Constitution which promotes the idea that all men are created equal , but now there is more awareness and The Law (of Equality) is finally being observed.

In a country where the ideals are Equality and Freedom, you have to conduct business in that way .Excluding minority groups is not a part of "Equality".

That is for the government not the individual. I dont have to like you i dont have to treat you the same as others. This is what freedom is i have the freedom to follow my will without being forced to obey others beliefs. Laws are meant for society to live together they are not meant to tell you how to live what to aprove of what to like what to hate as they say god gave us free will. And with it means you take the bad with the good. I personally would have baked the cake no problem but i dont think the government has the power to tell someone they must do something for someone else.

Morningglory
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation which includes heterosexuals. So in other words we all are protected equally under the law because perceptions can't be depended on.

If I get refused at that bakery because I walk in with a gay friend how in the world could I prove I was hetero? I couldn't without embarrassing myself in public/causing a scene. Why would you want to inflict that on the general public?

As far as the greed part of it yes imo they are being just that. It's not about the sale they refused it's about the volume of sales/customers who are at their disposal when offering services to the general public.

Don't like the general public, then don't offer them services as a whole/go membership.That certainly would shut out a large portion of their market and I guess they don't want to financially cut their own throat so instead they think they can play both sides of the fence.

I really don't see discriminating against people as being too restrictive but obviously the bakers do. I don't mind providing services to the general public as defined by Colorado Law. The bakers felt it needed changing and went about it the wrong way, in defiance of the law and failed miserably.

I'm not saying they don't have the right to make changes it's their methods that stink and won't be tolerated. They have to go through the same channels as the rest of us, religion doesn't give them special shortcuts. They've got their work cut out for them and imo they're being lazy/greedy.

Every individual has the right to work for who they please. Well we used to anyway apparently thats not the case anymore. Just because someone offers a service doesnt mean they have to offer it to everyone all the gyms that are women only prove that. Do you know how they get around it simple they say there are other gyms guys can go to. Just like in this instance there are other bakeries they could go to.

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)

No, he is talking about not selling a person a cake simply because "I don't want to sell you my cake."

That is it! You are NOT PRIVY TO WHY HE DOES NOT WANT TO!!! IT DOES NOT MATTER!!!

That is all there is!!!! GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!

Who do you think you are? The "sell my cake police??"

Seriously, maybe it is you type of people that do not understand the first thing about human rights.

Forcing people to sell their cakes?????

Wake up.

reply to post by WhatAreThey


It gets even worse too. If you are a photographer, you can be forced to attend and photograph their wedding as well. Completely nuts. Miles worse than having to bake a cake, you can be forced to attend it in some professions.

dragonridr


Every individual has the right to work for who they please. Well we used to anyway apparently thats not the case anymore. Just because someone offers a service doesnt mean they have to offer it to everyone all the gyms that are women only prove that. Do you know how they get around it simple they say there are other gyms guys can go to. Just like in this instance there are other bakeries they could go to.

Don't confuse a place of public accommodation with a private club. Private clubs are not open to the public, and you have to interview or fill out an application to become a member. Private clubs can legally turn away anyone they want. Remember the Boy Scouts? People tried to sue them for denying gays access. The courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts on that one, because they are a private club. It just so happens that due to pressure from the public and existing members, the B.S. decided to be more lenient on their acceptance of gay members. But it wasn't because they were legally forced to.

I can't comment on US law, but from a UK perspective...

A person has the right to choose who they interact with or don't interact with, providing they don't get into name calling etc.

A business has to offer equal service to all people, regardless of colour, sexual orientation etc, providing that the provision of the service does not pose a verifiable risk to yourself or others (damage to your mortal soul is not considered a verifiable risk under law).

If you are a sole proprietor of a business, then you have to swallow your pride, and give equal service to someone you don't wish to interact with, because at that point in time, you're not a "person" but a business. That is the law. As a hotelier recently found out.

Obviously if you have employees, you get one of your emplyees to handle a transaction if you don't wish to interact with the client.

kaylaluv

dragonridr


Every individual has the right to work for who they please. Well we used to anyway apparently thats not the case anymore. Just because someone offers a service doesnt mean they have to offer it to everyone all the gyms that are women only prove that. Do you know how they get around it simple they say there are other gyms guys can go to. Just like in this instance there are other bakeries they could go to.

Don't confuse a place of public accommodation with a private club. Private clubs are not open to the public, and you have to interview or fill out an application to become a member. Private clubs can legally turn away anyone they want. Remember the Boy Scouts? People tried to sue them for denying gays access. The courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts on that one, because they are a private club. It just so happens that due to pressure from the public and existing members, the B.S. decided to be more lenient on their acceptance of gay members. But it wasn't because they were legally forced to.

So then the simple solution is for this baker to hand them a card to be a member of the bakers friends and family plan. See the whole thing is crazy first do you really want to force someone like a baker to make you a cake knowing hes liable to sabotage the cake? You cant force people to go against their beliefs without ramifications. As society moves along we lose more of are individual rights for the greater good.Look at richmond they actually banned owning guns in public housing. There reasoning well these people live in housing paid for by the government by doing so they lose the right to bare arms. Its a slippery slope of course everyone goes hey thats a great idea. It will lower crime less murders etc. Sounds good to me also the only problem becomes we are denying rights to these people everyone else has. This is no different then throwing them in prison and dictating what they can do there is just no fense.

Even though i consider his actions to be well let us say reprehensible i will defend his right to act like an ass. When a society starts dictating what we buy (obama care for example), What we eat (ban on selling coke in NEW york),What we can own and who we work for maybe its time we rethink about where are country is going as a nation. Sometimes i think im the only one seeing this i truly hope im not but for gods sakes people wake up! Any law we make should look at individual rights first and if it doesnt violate those then public good can and should be considered. But as all things in life the pendulum will continue to swing happened before when repression gets to great people rebel and the pendulum swings the other way. This is the reason the United States was born in the first place through oppression.You know im sorry people it just frustrates me how people are willing to take away rights as long as it doesnt apply to them.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

written by Pastor Martin Niemoller when he was put in a nazi concentration camp in 1937

Willtell
I was referring to your statement that Muslims are getting a free ride.

Actually, they are. Especially in Europe. In Norway, several Muslims who were charged with violent crimes were set free because they were here illegally. (Sounds idiotic, no?) The judge(s) said that they didn't want to jeopardize their chances of asylum as having a police record severely impacts your chances. The story made quite a few people extremely mad a few years back, and rightfully so.

On topic: I'm rather torn by this case. On one hand, I feel that saying "no" to a gay couple just looking for a cake to celebrate their wedding is wrong. But then again, forcing someone whose religion doesn't accept the idea of a gay wedding to make a "gay wedding cake" is also wrong.

I would have liked to think that the gay couple in this case were mature enough to realize that not everyone is going to welcome their lifestyle with open arms, and move on to the next shop. Going to the courts seems like they wanted attention more than anything else. (That and maybe a cash payout. Weddings are expensive after all!)

I've been discriminated against. I was with a Somalian girl for a while and she took me to a local Somali owned "lunch house". She was excited to show me some of her culture, especially the food. The store owner (and several patrons) looked shocked as I walked through the door. The owner actually refused to serve me because I wasn't a Somali. My girlfriend was livid, I on the other hand had to laugh at the ignorance.

She wanted me to talk to a lawyer, but I didn't. I moved on with life. Plus, she made me a good home made veggie Somali dish. So I came out OK.