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

It doesn't matter what YOU would do in their situation.
It doesn't matter that YOU think a business owner should be allowed to deny service based on their beliefs.
It doesn't matter that a taxi driver is legally permitted to ban DOGS from his taxi. That's not discrimination.
It doesn't matter that you mistakenly think this has ANYTHING to do with the US Constitution.

None of that crap matters. What matters is Colorado business law. And for someone to have a business license in Colorado, they agree NOT to discriminate, based on gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

The law is completely clear and is spelled out in this thread, originally posted when this subject first came up.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The judge made the right decision, as the baker BROKE THE LAW. That's it!

The government is not "forcing" him to do anything. When he created a Public Business he agreed to serve the public without discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or sexuality. If he wanted to discriminate based on religious beliefs, he should have gotten a religious business.

Just because you sell a gay person a cake, that does not mean you are "going against your beliefs". You can still believe gay people are evil while making money off of them. Racist people do it all the time, but it is also illegal to outwardly refuse serve based on race.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


So state law supersedes the Law of the Land?

arpgme
The government is not "forcing" him to do anything. When he created a Public Business he agreed to serve the public without discrimination based on gender, race, religion, or sexuality. If he wanted to discriminate based on religious beliefs, he should have gotten a religious business.

Just because you sell a gay person a cake, that does not mean you are "going against your beliefs". You can still believe gay people are evil while making money off of them. Racist people do it all the time, but it is also illegal to outwardly refuse serve based on race.

edit on 17-12-2013 by arpgme because: simplified my points

Just curious what is a religious business? Are you saying he should have started what a church? To my knowledge if an owner is religious and they own the business they can decide what they want their company to do. Chick Fil a comes to mind the owner is religious id guess and thats why they close on sunday. Is that a religious business? I dont believe he thought gays are evil since he didnt stop them from shopping in his bakery he just told them he wasnt going to make a cake special for them. Im sure if they had just wanted a generic cake they would have bought it and left. But thats not what happened they wanted this baker to take time out of his day to bake them a special cake and it appears he declined to do so.

Now if you agree with the reason he declined or not is really irrelevant he has the option to say no. In fact when i was getting married the first bakery we went to flat out told us they didnt have the time. We left didnt ask just assumed they probably had other orders or just didnt want to. Baking a wedding cake takes time and alot of effort. However having the state take away the right from the baker to say no is wrong. I remember a similar case to this involving a photographer. Se declined a same sex marriage telling them she wouldnt be comfortable doing that and only handled traditional weddings. Maybe she had a thing about two women kissing (i dont) who knows but that was years ago.See i know where this is going and thats what i find funniest. See right now chuches have the option to opt out of doing a gay wedding for religious reasons. However in law you can set something called precedence. So eventually what will happen is someones going to sue a church for refusal to do the wedding and site casses like this in the suit watch.

reply to post by dragonridr


As I said before. There is freedom of religion and people in the church have the right to marry (or not marry) who they want, since it is their religious beliefs; but when you start a business it is against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, religion or sexuality. These laws exist for a reason. If it is ok, to discriminate against a gay person in business, why not do the same for hiring eventually? Why not do the same to Blacks, Hispanics, or any other race? Since these laws protect gays (sexuality) AND minority races (black, hispanics, etc.) What is stopping that line from being blurred? If this law is allowed to be disregarded because of "religious" beliefs, pretty soon we will wind up like The Middle East refusing people for a different skin color or religion as well and those are not the principles America was founded on. We are supposed to treat everyone equally ('each man created equal')

macman
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So state law supersedes the Law of the Land?

No. The law of the land allows the baker to PRACTICE his religion, not to impose his beliefs on others.
He can believe what he wants to believe.
He can go to church.
He can pray.
He can teach his children in the ways of his religion.
He can handle snakes, meditate, worship Satan or wear magic underwear.
That's all freedom of religion.

But he cannot discriminate in his business because he doesn't approve of the customer.

I still can't believe people are defending the Cake Maker?

It's the same as those defending the B&B couple in the case in the UK... both are essentially the same, people refusing a service to a certain group, a service that they provide to EVERYONE else except to people based on their sexuality.

It's utterly indefensible, whether you make it a constitutional argument or however you dice it.
Those providing a service, the business owners, are WRONG.

That's it.

End of story.

dragonridr
Im sure if they had just wanted a generic cake they would have bought it and left.

You are mistaken. The cake wasn't even discussed. They said they wanted a "wedding cake", which he makes all the time for others, and even made for two DOGS that were getting "married", and he turned them away immediately, without having discussed the details of the cake.

As it happens, this couple had a beautiful cake made elsewhere. No little people on top. Just a beautiful wedding cake.

The scenario you described (not having time) is NOT discrimination.

arpgme
reply to post by dragonridr

 

As I said before. There is freedom of religion and people in the church have the right to marry (or not marry) who they want, since it is their religious beliefs; but when you start a business it is against the law to discriminate based on gender, race, religion or sexuality. These laws exist for a reason. If it is ok, to discriminate against a gay person in business, why not do the same for hiring eventually? Why not do the same to Blacks, Hispanics, or any other race? Since these laws protect gays (sexuality) AND minority races (black, hispanics, etc.) What is stopping that line from being blurred? If this law is allowed to be disregarded because of "religious" beliefs, pretty soon we will wind up like The Middle East refusing people for a different skin color or religion as well and those are not the principles America was founded on. We are supposed to treat everyone equally ('each man created equal')

edit on 17-12-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

Sadly that's what a lot of the posters at ATS are arguing for.
They actually WANT and BELIEVE it is fair and right and proper for everyone to refuse service to anyone they so choose, because it's their business.
I've had them tell me in the other thread that at least when it was this way and you had signs up in business windows saying "No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish" and so on, it was more honest.... and now it's too fake and deceptive.
People should be free to discriminate.

That's literally what these people think.... they want to be free to discriminate and segregate.

Thankfully they will NEVER get their wish.

macman
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

So state law supersedes the Law of the Land?

Did people vote in the people who wrote the state legislation, or did they magically appear and start making laws?

Welcome to democracy.

Things change when people ask for it.

Get used to it or feel free to move to North Korea.

TheRegal
Did people vote in the people who wrote the state legislation, or did they magically appear and start making laws?

That's not even the point. The baker's freedom of religion is intact and has not been violated. There is no disagreement between the First Amendment and this Colorado law.

Nowhere in the bible (or any religious texts that I'm aware of) does it state that you must or may discriminate toward people with whom you disagree or disapprove. It's not part of the baker's religion to discriminate. No one is asking him to perform the marriage, condone the marriage or accept the marriage as "right". He can still believe what he wants about gay marriage, but if he offers wedding cakes to straight couples, he must offer them to gay couples as well. In Colorado.

No one has shown how this case violates the baker's First Amendment right to religious freedom.

reply to post by TheRegal

TheRegal

Did people vote in the people who wrote the state legislation, or did they magically appear and start making laws?

Welcome to democracy.

Things change when people ask for it.

Get used to it or feel free to move to North Korea.

Correction, America is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic.

The pledge of allegiance is to the flag and the "REPUBLIC" for which it stands.

The Constitution which protects Equality comes first and foremost , THEN the vote of the people.

Without The Constitution (Republicanism) people can just vote to discriminate against anyone. The Constitution helps keep order.

reply to post by arpgme


Funny how the constitution failed to protect gay people, black people, and women up until we started making laws to do so.

I'm sure when the slave trade was ending, those who owned slaves were complaining that they were being stripped of the right to do what they wanted with their own property. They purchased those human beings, after all. Those poor business owners.

TheRegal
reply to post by arpgme

 

Funny how the constitution failed to protect gay people, black people, and women up until we started making laws to do so.

I'm sure when the slave trade was ending, those who owned slaves were complaining that they were being stripped of the right to do what they wanted with their own property. They purchased those human beings, after all. Those poor business owners.

edit on 17-12-2013 by TheRegal because: (no reason given)

Oh wow so not baking a cake for a same sex marriage is the same as slavery. Wow do you over exagerate much? There is no comparison the baker in no way violated anyones rights. There is no right that says people must help you if you're getting married.He simply refused to participate in an event. Its like forcing an anti abortionist to work in an abortion clinic. If they are fundamentally against the idea you should not force someone to participate. Does this baker disciminate against gays id have to say no i dont believe he cares if they asked for a birthday cake etc. His problem is his belief in marriage and what it stands for. So all i have to say is tone down the politically correct garbage and look at the facts. Declining to participate in something is not a crime until now i guess.

reply to post by dragonridr

dragonridr
Oh wow so not baking a cake for a same sex marriage is the same as slavery. Wow do you over exagerate much?

Nobody said it was the same. The point is, people are willing to treat others unequally and still claim they "they" are the ones being treated unfair for not being allowed to do so.

dragonridr
There is no comparison the baker in no way violated anyones rights. There is no right that says people must help you if you're getting married.

But there is a right to be treated equally, and if you have a business and you are not serving people based on gender, race, religion (beliefs), or sexuality, then it is illegal because of discrimination laws.

dragonridr
Its like forcing an anti abortionist to work in an abortion clinic.

Then don't work in a abortion clinic, duh. Nobody forced you to take that job, likewise, if it is his religious beliefs to discriminate against others (which is illegal based on gender, race, religion, or sexuality) he could have chosen not to make the business.

dragonridr
Does this baker disciminate against gays id have to say no i dont believe he cares if they asked for a birthday cake etc. His problem is his belief in marriage and what it stands for.

Again, discriminating based on sexuality and religious beliefs. If it was a religious bakery, there would be no problem. A "Christian" Bakery serving those through their faith, THAT would be an expression of freedom of religion, but just having a regular bakery and discriminating against others is not.

dragonridr
Declining to participate in something is not a crime until now i guess.

Again, I will repeat: It is illegal to treat people unfairly based on gender, race, religion, or sexuality. There are discrimination laws to make sure people are treated equally.

If this was a bakery dedicated to "Serving people through Faith in The Lord", there would be no problem because it would be an expression of Freedom of Religion. It would be a Bakery dedicated FOR religious beliefs, but this was not.

dragonridr
There is no comparison the baker in no way violated anyones rights.

Yes, he did. He violated the couple's right to services under Colorado Law.

There is no right that says people must help you if you're getting married. He simply refused to participate in an event.

No one asked the baker to "help" them get married.
No one asked him to participate in their marriage.
In fact, they were already married.
They asked him to bake a cake for them, which is something he does for the public.

Its like forcing an anti abortionist to work in an abortion clinic.

No, it's not. It's like asking a drug store owner (who is against abortion) to sell pain relief medicine to someone who had an abortion.

... you should not force someone to participate.

A. It doesn't matter how YOU think it should be. That's not the way it is.
B. No one asked him to participate.

Does this baker disciminate against gays id have to say no i dont believe he cares if they asked for a birthday cake etc.

If he sells wedding cakes to straight couples and doesn't sell them to gay couples, that is discrimination, no matter what YOU think.

Declining to participate in something is not a crime until now i guess.

No one asked him to participate. They asked him to do the job he is legally licensed to do and he refused.

arpgme
If it was a religious bakery, there would be no problem. A "Christian" Bakery serving those through their faith, THAT would be an expression of freedom of religion, but just having a regular bakery and discriminating against others is not.

Hi arpgme.

Actually, I don't think the above statement is true. If the baker has a BUSINESS license in Colorado, he is not permitted to discriminate. Period. If he was a church, mosque, or a place used primarily for religious purposes then he could. But a business, regardless of the business, can't legally discriminate.

Benevolent Heretic


No. The law of the land allows the baker to PRACTICE his religion, not to impose his beliefs on others.

So, how is he pushing he beliefs onto someone else???? Oh, by not wanting to offer services to someone he disagrees with. I see how the "imposing" is happening..

Benevolent Heretic
He can believe what he wants to believe.

Except when it goes against what Progressives think are wrong. Gotcha.

Benevolent Heretic
He can go to church.
He can pray.
He can teach his children in the ways of his religion.
He can handle snakes, meditate, worship Satan or wear magic underwear.
That's all freedom of religion.

How very nice to have permission to do these things.

Benevolent Heretic
But he cannot discriminate in his business because he doesn't approve of the customer.

So again, the rights of the Gay couple trump the rights of a business owner.

He is forced to service someone he doesn't agree with.

Sounds very.......1940s European'ish.

TheRegal


Did people vote in the people who wrote the state legislation, or did they magically appear and start making laws?

Oh good grief.
Making Unconstitutional law is still Unconstitutional. Regardless of what the 'elected' have pushed through.

TheRegal

Welcome to democracy.

You mean a Republic right???
Or do you actually mean a populist based Democracy as what we have now, where it is mob rule of the have-nots being shoveled handouts for electing people that provide said free stuff.

TheRegal
Things change when people ask for it.

And the Progressive drivel seeps out.

TheRegal
Get used to it or feel free to move to North Korea.

Seeing that one can't simply move to North Korea, and that is more along the lines of what most people want, total Govt control where everyone is "equal", why not start the process yourself.

reply to post by macman

macman
So, how is he pushing he beliefs onto someone else????

I didn't say he was pushing his beliefs onto someone else. I said he is imposing them on others. Look up "impose".

Except when it goes against what Progressives think are wrong.

No, he can believe what he wants to believe, regardless what ANYONE thinks. Belief and action are two different things. You can believe that black people shouldn't be allowed in restaurants, but if you take action on that, you are breaking the law, just as this baker did.

How very nice to have permission to do these things.

That's freedom of religion. It doesn't extend beyond that.

So again, the rights of the Gay couple trump the rights of a business owner.

Wrong. The gay couple DO HAVE THE RIGHT to be serviced at this business. The owner DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to discriminate. It's easy to understand. I'm not sure why you're not getting it...

He is forced to service someone he doesn't agree with.

He willingly AGREED to service people he doesn't agree with when he got his business license. He is not being forced, he agreed to it.