So, freedom means no laws. Thanks for making us think Contrarius, because now
we know anybody who values freedom is ok with poisoning water and kidnapping
people. We just didn't realize that unless we happily accept where the
government draws lines for personal conscience, we really just want a lawless
free-for-all.By your logic, since you want more government control,
you must want a totally fascist state where the government determines all
appropriate thought and imprisons or executes all violators of politically
incorrect thought. After all, you said you want more government control than I
do, and that's government control.I assume you'd think
that's an irrational interpretation of your comments. It's likewise
ridiculously irrational to assert that people wanting MORE freedom (not lawless,
unfettered freedom, see the difference?) think it's ok to steal identities
and own slaves.Aaaaaand, you've got more than one answer about
the Walgreen's lunch scenario you think is such a troublesome conundrum.
It's difficult to intelligently debate someone who can't see the
difference between serving lunch to a human being and being forced to cater an
event that seriously offends one's conscience.
@DSB --"...freedom IS the ability to choose to poison
customers..."That's pure freedom, alright."Did ANYONE say they wanted no laws?"Y'all said you
want freedom. That's freedom."You're debating insane
straw men...."Nope. I'm just trying to make you think about
how many limits you actually want on freedom.You don't actually
want "freedom", as such. You really only want enough "freedom"
to allow you to discriminate however you like.That isn't really
freedom, DSB. That's just bigotry."...your automatic
fallback position is that since laws have been passed..."That's what we hear from the States' Rights folks all the time,
especially when some of us argue for gay marriage in Utah. Why does
the principle apply to Utah, but not Colorado?"...the courts
have determined some groups of people (but not everyone)"Guess
again.EVERYONE is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Everyone
has a race. Everyone has a gender. Everyone has an age. Everyone has an
orientation."Since anybody can find bakers who will cater to
them, there's no actual harm... "Aaaaaaaand, we're
back to the black kids at Walgreens. Should they have eaten lunch somewhere
@Contrarius - so, freedom IS the ability to choose to poison customers and water
supplies, and kidnap and maim people? Did ANYONE say they wanted no laws?
You're debating insane straw men of your own imagination.I see
your automatic fallback position is that since laws have been passed, everyone
who disagrees with them is wrong, even though we've been debating whether
the laws in fact are appropriate. Yes, legislators have determined that
discrimination harms people, but guess what - much of discrimination really only
offends people or creates inconveniences. Unfortunately, the courts have
determined some groups of people (but not everyone) have a constitutional right
to never have their feelings hurt in the marketplace. Since anybody can find
bakers who will cater to them, there's no actual harm if one baker decides
not to serve someone. But yes, the courts have decided this
inconvenience is a legal harm. We all get it! The debate here is whether these
laws are good or bad for our country. Yes - discrimination IS illegal. We get
it. Should it be illegal? That's the question under debate. You seem to
think you're right simply because you agree with the law.
@MrPlate --"I apparently believe I should be able to:"That's what freedom IS, Mr. Plate. The freedom to choose. Do you believe in it or not?Where exactly would you place the
boundary between acceptable freedoms and unacceptable ones?Legality?Harm to others?Guess what -- discrimination
IS illegal.Guess what -- discrimination DOES harm others.If legality or harm are not your boundaries, then what are they?
Contrarius - your interpretation of Mr.Plate's and Killpack's comments
defies logic. Although it's obvious that striking down Southern Jim Crow
laws worked more quickly than relying on progress through freedom to
discriminate and natural consequences, I agree in principle with Mr.Plate. He
certainly made no argument even approaching rationalizing slavery. Your
attempts to assert Mr. Plate must accept slavery as a tenet of freedom is
unbelievably twisted. I don't read anywhere that he says private
businesses should be able to "do as they wish" as you claim.Clearly you think government should dictate business dealings to a far greater
extent than me and others, to the point of even establishing boundaries of
personal conscience in business dealings. I think that should not be
government's role, even if legislators and judges establish such laws. Just
because something is law doesn't make it right, nor does it make someone
"50 years behind" to disagree with a law or judicial ruling.I think government controls too much. You probably believe it doesn't
control enough and will be happy with the next ruling that confiscates yet
another freedom of conscience in the name of one-sided tolerance.
@Contrarius - based on your last curious assertion, as a private business owner,
I apparently believe I should be able to:Make poison soft drinks.Maim people who don't buy my products.Steal identities from
customers who pay with a credit card.Dump my toxic waste into the
river.Install trap doors and kidnap customers.After all, I
obviously said private businesses have the right to "do as they wish,"
right? And anyone who proposes freedom believes there should be no legal
controls, right? Does that pass as logical debate at your house? Please quote
where I said private business has the right to "do as they wish,"
because I'm not seeing where I said that. There's quite a difference
between having the right of conscience to discriminate (wisely or foolishly) and
having the right to "do as they wish" by owning people as you
inaccurately twisted my words.Your logic has only broken down
further with your latest foray into this forum. I'm hoping for a rational
argument and honest debate.
@killpack --"laws in this country that have nothing to do with
criminal activity..."It's called civil law. You've
heard of it.From "Criminal and Civil Law" -- "Civil law
deals with disputes between private parties, or negligent acts that cause harm
to others . For example, if individuals or companies disagree over the terms of
an agreement, or who owns land or buildings, or whether a person was wrongfully
dismissed from their employment, they may file a lawsuit asking the courts to
decide who is right. .... the courts may order the losing party to take
corrective action, although the usual outcome is an order to pay damages - a
monetary award designed to make up for the harm inflicted. "btw
-- whatever happened to all the States' Rights advocates we usually see
around here?? The Colorado legislature lawfully enacted this legislation. Who
are you to say that the states' court was wrong in enforcing the laws of
its state??@MrPlate --"Where have I said that
private businesses have a right to own other people? "You said
private businesses have the right to do as they wish. That's what
"freedom" means.Either they have it, or they don't.
So, let me get this straight. There are laws in this country that have nothing
to do with criminal activity, contracts, torts but everything to do with moral
judgment? And those laws are being upheld by the judicial system? And those laws
are being enforced by muscle with badges? Interesting.
@contrariuser - what an utterly ridiculous and insane comparison. Where have I
said that private businesses have a right to own other people? Slavery became
entirely unconstitutional when rational people finally concluded that black
people were indeed human beings. What a dishonest twist of my philosophy on
freedom of conscience. That you feel following one's
conscience to not bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding is comparable to owning
slaves says a lot more about your logic than it does about my arguments.
@kilpack --"Oh, I get it now. So, when someone offends my sense
of right and wrong, that is a court matter. "Nope. When someone
violates the law, that is a court matter.That cake baker violated
Colorado state law regarding discrimination against customers due to sexual
orientation. He violated the law. Therefore he ended up in court.
'Harm and adherence to state and US laws and constitutions are the
court's problem.The cake baker did harm by violating the
couple's legally assigned rights to equal protection under their
anti-discrimination statutes. The cake baker violated state law by
discriminating based on sexual orientation.'Oh, I get it now.
So, when someone offends my sense of right and wrong, that is a court matter.
Okay. Just making sure. So, next time someone does something that I don't
think is right, even if it isn't criminal, tortious, or a breech of
contract, I'm going to take it to court. I think they do that in The Middle
East. It's called Sharia law. Interesting concept.
@MrPlate --"the PRIVATE business of Walgreens should not have
been forced to serve black college kids or anyone else they decided not to
serve."You are more than 50 years behind the times, Mr.
Plate.According to your argument, the PRIVATE businesses of
slave-owning plantations should have been allowed to keep their slaves, as well.
@Contraiuser - the PRIVATE business of Walgreens should not have been forced to
serve black college kids or anyone else they decided not to serve. And, people
opposed to the restaurant could boycott or otherwise bring about change or ruin
by other legal mischief. The owners of the restaurant should be exposed as
racists and suffer the natural consequences of their bigotry. Rosa Parks,
however, should expect that a government-owned bus operation would not
discriminate, and rightfully demand the same seating rights as anyone else.Any region that continued to engage in widespread racism such as
Walgreens should have been allowed to suffer the natural consequence of
stagnation and decline within their backwater netherlands while the rest of the
nation successfully moved forward in civility, dignity, and enlightenment. If
they held to their bigoted traditions and discriminatory practices, they would
have watched as their good citizens migrated to other areas of the country,
corporations fled or became unwilling to set up shop, their economies nosedived,
and they became the pariahs of the nation. Freedom of conscience, and natural
consequences.Freedom is not always pretty. The arc of the moral
universe is long, but it bends toward justice, and toward civility.
@killpack --"Do I think they should have meekly accepted the
discrimination against them? The answer is, of course not."Good
first step.So -- you appear to object to the **manner** in which
that gay couple stood up for their rights, not the fact that they did so. Please
correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.Would you have
approved if the gay couple instead sat down in the cake baker's bakery and
refused to leave until they were served? That would have more directly
paralleled the lunch counter sit-ins."I fail to see how that is
a court of law's problem. "Harm and adherence to state and
US laws and constitutions are the court's problem.The cake
baker did harm by violating the couple's legally assigned rights to equal
protection under their anti-discrimination statutes. The cake baker
violated state law by discriminating based on sexual orientation."Other than that, the courts have seriously overstepped their
bounds."The court was enforcing pre-existing state
anti-discrimination law. Don't blame the courts for doing their jobs.
Contrariuserer,Do I think they should have meekly accepted the
discrimination against them? The answer is, of course not. Discrimination of
that kind is immoral, whether it's done by a business or a person. I fail
to see how that is a court of law's problem. Last time I checked, courts
didn't enforce morality, but criminal, contract and tort law. Very few
things are inherently criminal to require criminal punishment e.g., rape,
murder, theft, fraud. Saying you are going to do something, and then not doing
it isn't criminal, but should require court intervention. Injuring someone
unintentionally also isn't criminal but should require the court to make a
damages judgment. Other than that, the courts have seriously overstepped their
bounds. The black kids in Nashville were definitely correct to stand up for
themselves. Kind of like, if someone does something that is morally offensive to
me, I should speak out. But, unless someone is committing a criminal act, I
would never appeal to a court of law for enforcement of moral issues. Especially
given the ideological and even corrupt nature of many judges in this country.
@MrPlate --"Unfortunately, some people are simply too cowardly
to just admit they do not believe people should be trusted with freedom"@killpack --"What happened to this country that fought
so dearly for freedom? "I'll repeat the same question that
nobody here wants to answer:Once again -- those black college kids
who sat down at the Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960 could easily
have gone somewhere else to eat. Do you think they should have meekly accepted
the discrimination against them?Or do you think that they were
correct to stand up for their rights as US citizens?
What happened to this country that fought so dearly for freedom? Right or wrong
morally, discrimination is something everyone does, and should be allowed to do,
on a daily basis. No judge should be allowed to take that away. That is a gross
infringement of individual, civil liberties. I know that judges have interpreted
The Constitution differently. Shame on them. You should be allowed to sell
whatever you have to whomever you want to for whatever reason. If you commit
murder, rape, theft, fraud, you should go to jail. If you say your going to do
something, and fail to do it, you should be made to do it. Otherwise, the legal
system needs to quit harassing people for ideological reasons.
Unfortunately, some people are simply too cowardly to just admit they do not
believe people should be trusted with freedom, and that we're just better
off when government coerces what it deems to be proper expressions of thought
and conscience in our business dealings. Probably because to put it so bluntly
doesn't sound as flowery and pleasant as couching the same ideology in
terms of tolerance and peace (which, ironically, they only offer to those who
think the same as them).Original intent of the Constitution was to
have a framework upon which a great nation could grow. A nation, by the way,
which could not have been created in its day if anti-slavery founders tried to
explicitly outlaw slavery in the Constitution. Since good men could not outlaw
slavery and simultaneously form the nation they desired, they created within the
Constitution the very principles that would inevitably lead to the downfall of
slavery and the rise of women's rights. Very clever and farsighted of our
founding fathers, not that I would ever expect some people to ever see the
@Redwings --"If freedom for all was really the intent, why did
Jefferson own slaves? "Hey, LetsDebate is the one who leans so
heavily on original intent. Maybe he/she wants to go back to the days of slavery
and barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen?"Since this cake
maker is not the only one in town, the plaintiffs could simply go to another
store."Once again -- those black college kids at the Walgreens
lunch counter could easily have gone somewhere else to eat. Do you think they
should have meekly accepted the discrimination against them?
The Contitution was written by white land owners who wanted to preserve their
rights as white land owners. Most never wanted to separate from England; what
they wanted was equal representation in the British Empire.If
freedom for all was really the intent, why did Jefferson own slaves? Why
didn't he free them? Granted, his slaves had better conditions than most,
but a person who truly believes in equal rights for all would have freed his
slaves as asked them to remain as employees. If the Constitution as
written in 1789 was meant to protect everyone from discrimination, why did we
need the Civil Rights Act, ADEA, PDA, etc.? Revisionist history and
judicial overreach aside, a private business owner should have the right to
refuse service to anyone. Since this cake maker is not the only one in town, the
plaintiffs could simply go to another store. That is an expression of tolerance
and respect for another's opinion.That the LGBT insist on using
the courts to bully others shows their moral fiber and true intent. It is not
about equality, it is about indoctrination into a specific political and social
@Contrarius - the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness intended by our founders indeed opens the door for private individuals
to discriminate in the exercise of their conscience. It allows people stupid
enough to be racists today to suffer social ostracization if they don't
hide it. It allows gay people to discriminate in their business practices
against those who treat them poorly. It gives skinheads the ability to pursue
Arian business practices and discriminate against those they despise, and gives
Jewish people the right to discriminate against skinheads.And in
such a setting of freedom, as we strive for a better world, natural consequences
will increasingly favor those who love despite differences, and those who can
balance inclusion, personal conviction of conscience, and dignity in
disagreement. It's possible for a baker who opposes homosexuality to
engage in overall inclusive business practices (making birthday cakes for
anyone), while holding fast to her convictions (refusing events that offend her
conscience), and treating those with whom she disagrees with dignity and respect
(politely referring a gay couple to another business that would happily
accommodate their wedding).Natural striving and consequences change
hearts better than judicial coercion.
@RedWings --"Not one of those laws you list specify
homosexuality. "Neither did LetsDebate when he/she said:
"personal conscience - based on religion or ANY other personal belief or
value system - should be an unalienable right and a valid reason for
discrimination in non-governmental transactions."That opens the
door to ALL discrimination. Remember -- the Constitution was written
in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And that means
to protect them against discrimination. That WAS an intent of the founders.
Remember that bit about "all men are created equal" from the
Declaration? Those guys meant it.
Bob K:Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments".
Jesus loved all, but did not condone sin. This is precisely what you are
expecting - that we condone the sin of homosexuality.If you owned a
business and told me that you would not serve me bacause I am Mormon, I would
pray for you and go somewhere else. I would not demand that a court force you
to serve me. I would have that much respect for your opinion, even if I
disagree with it.Tolerance means tolerating all, not just those we
agree with. I hope one day the left will learn this....
Contrarius - Not one of those laws you list specify homosexuality.
Making homosexuality a protected class is the product of the last few years of
judicial overreach. That separate laws had to be enacted for different groups
(race, disability, pregnancy, etc.) shows that these laws were meant to include
only those groups they address. The recent trend in liberal judges is to
braoden this to include anyone and everyone.Legislation is not the
mandate of the courts. Yet they scontinue to do in in spite of the
I think it's very likely that many judges could not care less what the
intent of the Constitution is. If they can twist any part of it to justify
their agenda, they'll do it. Ginsberg has practically admitted that's
how she feels about the Constitution. I think it's very likely the
founders would be appalled at the numerous aspects of our lives the government
controls today and the freedoms we've allowed to be confiscated. Also,
I'm guessing there would be a lot of tea in the harbor if they learned that
many citizens pay well over 50% of their income in various taxes, fees, and
assessments.Don't expect to convince anyone you have a clue
about Constitutional intent just because your secular progressive agenda is in
sync with today's judiciary. People like you and today's judges are
the very reason the Constitution will indeed one day hang by a thread.
@LetsDebate --"I opined about Constitutional intent"And, again, more than 50 years of legislation and court cases all say
that you're wrong.It's very very likely that all those
SCOTUS and other federal judges know a lot more about the Constitution and
"Constitutional Intent" than you do.Don't expect to
convince anyone that you're right and all those legal experts are wrong
just because you say so.
@Contrarius - I said nothing about existing law. I opined about Constitutional
intent, which was originally freedom for citizens and limitations on government
control. Many believe judges have usurped ultimate authority to twist the
constitution to fit personal values, rather than limit government's control
over increasingly large amounts of our personal and professional lives.Apparently, our country's moving in the direction you prefer. Many feel
it's a movement toward fascism and control of thought and reasonable
discrimination. Yes - people should have the right to love, hate, embrace,
reject any person or group they want.I believe in freedom, natural
consequences, and reasonable government regulation to ensure public safety. You
believe in government coercion and legal punishment for violating what the
government compels in terms of how personal values and conscience are expressed
through otherwise legal business activities. I think that's an immoral
intrusion on conscience. You think it's progress.Please get
the message: personal conscience - based on religion or ANY other personal
belief or value system - should be an unalienable right and a valid reason for
discrimination in non-governmental transactions.I'll admit
you're winning. I'm still free to dislike fascism.
Contrarius: So is homosexuality a valid excuse for bigotry, hatred, and
discrimination? By your posts, it would appear that bigotry and discrimination
are OK if you do not agree with something. This is certainly the opinion of the
LGBT community.Homosexuality and same-sex attraction can be changed.
Thousands and thousands of former "gay" people have changed. I know
because I no longer struggle with SSA as I did when I was younger. Yet the
media refuse to publish this because it is contrary to the LGBT activists'
opinions.If the cake maker does not make a cake for gay couples, go
to another cake maker. This is court-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination of
religious beliefs. It is sad that our country has lost what it was founded on
and has turned toward immorality and sin...
@LetsDebate --"judgments such as this against the baker are an
immoral and unconstitutional violation of the baker's free exercise of
conscience."The Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act
of 1968; the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978; multiple state laws
across the country, and more than 50 years of SCOTUS decisions, in addition to
the recent state court decisions, ALL say that you're wrong.Get
the message, people. Religion is NOT a valid excuse for discrimination.
All government entities should fully abide by anti-discrimination policies.
Businesses that contract with the government, or accept government funds, should
by and large be required to abide by anti-discrimination laws except where
exemptions are logical. Private businesses should be able to discriminate in
whatever manner they desire, according to the dictates of their owner's
conscience, and let them experience the social, financial, and eternal
consequences and judgments of those decisions. I believe that's the spirit
and intention of the Constitution, and judgments such as this against the baker
are an immoral and unconstitutional violation of the baker's free exercise
"July 2012 my son and his fiance; invited me to join them at a bakery for a
cake tasting and to discuss a cake design. What should have been a fun and
special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked
into the cake shop and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small
table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my
son said "it is for our wedding," the man said that he does not make
cakes for same- sex couples' weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son
said "really?" the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will
make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding
cake.I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt
on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was
breaking for my son and his fiance. What should have been a joyous occasion had
turned into a humiliating occasion."(Deborah Munn, mother of
plaintiff, "It Was Never About the Cake")
U-tarWoodland Hills, UT"From the comments posted, it seems like
there is a lot of hatred and prejudice in the Gay community and their supporters
towards those who feel differently than them."Actually, it is
very hard to feel polite toward someone who looks down on you, treats you as
less than equal, and uses God as an excuse to do so.
So many on the Religious Right are obsessed with gay gay gay gay gay gay gay.
Why is that one one "sin" that everyone gets so frantic about? If this
cake maker were asked to make a cake for someone who was a known adulterer in a
previous marriage, would they object to that? I'm guessing not. Maybe
someone they knew had been convicted of theft? Someone they knew coveted their
neighbor's donkey or took the Lord's name in vain?Do you
ask everyone you meet if they're gay just to be on the safe side, so
you're not somehow implicitly endorsing their "lifestyle" by not
shunning them? So many of you are obsessed with singling out gay people and then
shrieking about the "Gay Agenda" when someone calls you on your weird
preoccupation. How do intelligent people arrive at these attitudes? Oh, yes . .
the "spirit" inspires you.
@Miss Piggie --"...bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is
homosexuality."Yet again -- nobody has been able to show that
gay marriage harms anyone. We already know that pedophilia etc. do. There's
a huge difference.If you believe otherwise, please present your
evidence."don't think homosexuals cannot marry someone of
the opposite sex..."I always think it's ironic when someone
claiming to support "traditional" marriage encourages people to engage
in fraudulent straight marriages which will probably be unhappy and end in
divorce. How does encouraging bad marriages "support" the institution of
marriage in the long run?@Charles S --"you will
never ever legislate it away."You will never legislate murder
away, either. Should we therefore take all murder laws off the books?"Who are you to say otherwise?"It is not we who say
otherwise. It is federal law and the US Constitution. Look up the equal
protection clause and the Civil Rights Act."Force is the way of
the militant Left"Yeah, like those evil old lefties who forced
the South to free the slaves. How dare they??Cmon, people. Three
courts in three different states have already made the same decisions. Get the
Oh, where oh where is Jesus Christ in so many of these comments?A
simple recounting of the story from a human point of view:1..Two children
of God accepted the embarrassment that their State is not ready to legalize
their union, so they marry elsewhere, and decide to have a party back home.2..The couple went to a baker, and began the joyful process of choosing a
cake, until the baker realized they were marrying, and refused them.3..The
couple, feeling ill-treated, and knowing their State forbids discrimination
against Gays, eventually decided to file a complaint. The court had a very easy
decision.What would Jesus say?Some of us dislike
mormons, and would not want to do any business with any mormon until there is a
church apology for their Prop 8 shenanigans.Some of us are not too
crazy about people from certain countries, and would prefer to exclude them to
save the hassle of their foreign ways.Some of us dislike a political
party, and do not want to sell to its members.Did Jesus not say to
treat all of his children as we would ourselves?Does He tell you to
hide behind Bible quotes?
What about the CRFB?Civil Rights For Bakers
From the comments posted, it seems like there is a lot of hatred and prejudice
in the Gay community and their supporters towards those who feel differently
Oh so many people still do not understand the point of liberty and freedom.
There should be absolutely ZERO laws regarding discrimination or hate. Why?
Because you will never ever legislate it away.It does not matter
that this his a homosexual couple. It could be a Mormon, Catholic, fat, blonde,
ugly, tall, black, white, whatever. If a business chooses not to provide a
service for someone that is their choice. Who are you to say otherwise? Who are
you to force them to provide something to someone they choose not to, whatever
their reason?It may not be good for business or the nice thing to do
but who are you to force someone to do something against their will?People are free to make their own choices. Special interest groups, who claim
they are about acceptance, want to force others to do something they choose not
to. That is what is wrong, forcing others to do what you want them to when they
choose not to. How arrogant!Again, it may be a bad business decision
for them to deny service but that is their choice, not yours. Force is the way
of the militant Left
RanchHand--"Religious beliefs" are not a rational reason for bigotry.The right to worship as we choose is protected by civil rights also. By
not going to another cake maker their attitude would be considered bigoted. They
chose the cake maker because of the cake makers strong beliefs to make a point.
You can't force people to accept your way of thinking or life choice, and
to give up their beliefs. Their attitude is two steps back. Both are
protected groups, the judge should have seen their motive and decided based on
it. They were militant troublemakers.
nobody should be FORCED with the threat of fines or jail time to produce
ANYTHING. there are THOUSANDS of cake shops. the judge should have thrown the
case out without hearing it. as for the cake?? make it the nastiest tasting
cake ever made.
Miss Piggie says:"Sexual orientation is a fixed part of who the
person is. Then so is pedophilia, incest, porn consumption propensity, etc.
These are all bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is homosexuality."--- Which one harms other people, surely you can come up with something
better than that?"So IS homosexual conduct. Please don't
think homosexuals cannot marry someone of the opposite sex and engage in the
process that produces offspring. I've seen it done."---
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality for the homosexual, just as there is
nothing wrong with heterosexuality for the heterosexual. You don't like
it? Meh, that's your problem. WHY should we have to marry someone other
than person we love just to please someone else? Would you do that yourself?
If not, Miss Piggie, you have no business asking someone else to do it
(it's called hypocrisy).
"Sexual orientation is a fixed part of who the person is."Then so is pedophilia, incest, porn consumption propensity, etc. These are all
bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is homosexuality."BTW,
religion IS a choice."So IS homosexual conduct. Please
don't think homosexuals cannot marry someone of the opposite sex and engage
in the process that produces offspring. I've seen it done.@Jamescmeyer:"A privately owned business can do whatever it
wants..."A privately owned business cannot refuse to serve lunch
over the lunch counter to blacks. So, I guess a baker cannot refuse to bake a
cake for a homosexual.
@Jamescmeyer;If you're marriage is only about "sexual
fulfillment" then I pity you. We marry for love and companionship, the
same reasons any heterosexual couple gets married.
...the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse
service.As places of public accommodation, private businesses are
subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. ... prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,
disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.And
others, ...outlaw arbitrary discrimination....Courts
also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. ...None of this
means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means
that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.You can usually
refuse service in the following situations: When a customer is
not properly dressed When a customer has been, or is being,
disruptive When a customer harasses your employees or other
customers When there are safety concerns When you know someone
can't, or won't, pay When a customer is intoxicated or
high When you need to protect another customer's privacyIt's essential to apply these criteria on a bias-neutral basis. Even the
most compelling business reason can't overcome obvious discrimination.
I reserve the right to refuse business to any one I feel like. I have and
bake them a burned cake and be done with it. Obviously religious freedom no
longer exists. Atheists get away with their beliefs against christians, muslims
have their way with the courts, schools, businesses, and obama, but christians
are denied their rights and their beliefs. Perhaps America truly is no longer a
christian nation thanks to our socialist/marxist judicial system. Shame on the
I don't understand how this is a thing. A privately owned business can do
whatever it wants, reserving the right to serve or not serve anyone. Secondly,
why would the "couple" even still want a cake from them?There are no "rights" involved, only bullying. That homosexual
activists welcome something like this, sneering about how "bigotted"
people are who don't believe that marriage is abiut mere sexual
fulfillment, is the greatest sign that there's something horribly wrong
with this fanatical push to change marriage.
To the baker,Bake me a cupcake and bill me a hundred dollars and
then donate the cupcake on my behalf to a local church bazaar and use the
hundred dollars to pay the fine.
@Bebyebe;Most couples wouldn't have been told to "go
elsewhere". No couple should be told to "go somewhere else".@Just one more opinion;We LGBT support traditional marriage
right alongside other forms of marriage. Go ahead and donate your profit to
such a cause, we won't mind. What you really meant to say was you'd
donate your profits to an Anti-Gay organization.@a_voice_of_reason;@Mack2828;Sexual orientation is a
fixed part of who the person is. Even if it weren't, "icky" is
still not a valid reason to discriminate against someone. BTW, religion IS a
choice.@windsor;The word you wanted to use is
"bait". We're not evil people, looking to sue anybody and
everybody; we're just like you. We want to be able to walk into the
neighborhood bakery, that makes wedding cakes, and ask for a wedding cake just
like anybody else. Is that too much to ask?
"They had to make sure while in the shop that they 'shared' with
the owner that this cake was to celebrate their gay wedding."Unlike all of the heterosexual couples who keep completely silent about whom
they are going to marry when meeting with the cake decorator, photographer, or
Seams with all these incidents on the rise that gays and lesbians are enjoying
'throwing out the bate' to businesses and are enjoying it (and are
ready to sue) when the businesses bite.The men could have simply
gone in, chosen a cake, paid for it, and left. Then they could have then used it
to celebrate their wedding, or celebrate their mother getting out of jail or
anything else. But that wasn't good enough--they had to make
sure while in the shop that they 'shared' with the owner that this
cake was to celebrate their gay wedding. He bit (as they knew he would) right
down on the bate---and so here we are.....
I don't agree with same sex marriages, but I think that this Baker is
taking this way to far. Serving food to someone with a different sexual
orientation is not a violation of religious freedom. "Blacks" who
wanted to go into a restaurant to eat was not a violation of anyone's
rights because we were willing to pay for the food, we did not want it free, we
wanted to eat in those establishments because our Mothers, Fathers, brothers,
aunties, cousins, were in the kitchen cooking and we knew that the food would be
good.That Baker and the Florists is compounding the problem with
this issue. Serve the with the same quality and price as you would anyone else.
It's only a wedding, which will last less than a day, how in the world is
this a violation of his or her religious freedoms.I know that he has
served customers who had alcohol at their weddings, no doubt, some of his own
faith. I think that this hypocritical and business should not feed this frenzy
by filing long fruitless court cases because of this.
Am I still living in the country in which I was born? Is this still America?
These people ought to be able to do business with anyone they want to or not do
business with anyone they don't want to. Does freedom still exist?
Consider this: the Bible has far more to say about gluttony than about
homosexuality. Will this baker refuse to supply someone if some of the wedding
party is obese or has a history of overeating? What about racially or
religiously mixed-marriages? If those are not in accord with his beliefs, will
he refuse to sell to them? If his answer is that he will sell to them,
what's the basis for his deciding which "sin" he can condone and
which one he cannot? And if he only wants to sell to those who are sinless, he
either sells to no one or is denying the verse in his Bible that says all have
Let us assume that every businessman is a religious man of some particular
faith. To allow them the right to deny their business services to a gay person
because of "religious beliefs" is to allow them the right to deny their
services to a Mormon because they believe the Book of Abraham is a fake!!
LGBT community-Please let me know when this baker doesn't want
to bake you a birthday cake or sell you a dozen donuts because of the rainbow
sticker in your car. Until then this is not discrimination. He just
doesn't want to participate in an event he is against. And he won't
force you to cater his religious revival.Lets not confuse
intolerance for events vs. intolerance for people.
@Mack2828 --"Please stop trying to equate homosexuality with the
civil rights movement. It's Apples to Oranges. "Martin
Luther King III supports a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi because
of their anti-gay 'propaganda' law. He has said, referring to his
father, that "I think that as he worked to advocate for civil and human
rights, he was talking for everyone, not just for people of color."One of the chief architects of MLK Jr's March on Washington was an openly
gay man, Bayard Rustin.Rev. Bernice King. MLK's daughter, said
in 2012 that civil rights included those who are "heterosexual or
homosexual, or gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender."Coretta
Scott King said in 1998: "I still hear people say that I should not be
talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the
issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that
Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther
King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for
lesbian and gay people".
The whole gay rights movement will end up trampling on religious rights.
This is a horrible decision, denying a privately owned business their first
amendment rights. The gay couple could care less that this particular baker
would not bake a cake for them; they likely went to someone who would do so.
What they wanted was to take the baker to court to deny his first amendment
under the color of discrimination of a protected right. What this means is that
any color of freedom of religion in the Constitution means nothing when a claim
is made that it violates a so-called right. The Supreme Court needs to weigh in
on this to determine if one's first amendment rights no longer exist when
someone who has made a decision toward an alternative lifestyle decides to
challenge it. The full meaning of the first amendment is at stake here.
Please stop trying to equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement.
It's Apples to Oranges. Skin color is a fixed part of a who a person
is. The urge to engage in unnatural, biologically unnecessary and frankly
sickening sexual acts with ones own gender is not.When polled, guess which
demographic in the US is most in favor of traditional marriage? Yep, African
Americans. Makes you stop and think doesn't it.Please just learn to
control your unnatural urges and stop trying to legally force everyone in this
country to reassure you that what you are doing is okay. Because it's not.
If this business had been allowed to discriminate against these people, that
would have been a slippery slope. Would it next be okay to discriminate against
Catholics or Mormons, because you disagree with their religion? Would we go
back to the 'good old days' when discriminating against someone for
their skin color was allowed? Would the business owner have been allowed to
refuse to make a cake with a mixed race couple of top, because they disagree
with mixed marriages? I'm glad this is the decision made by the judge.
Religious people who want to make "conscientous objections" to something
that they decided violates their relgious beliefs need to take a note from the
Quakers. A Quaker would never get caught in the shenanigans of refusing service
to someone based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation,
because they know that their observance of their religion is about them, not
other people.If Christian business owners are going to take a
religious stand about customer's personal choices that violate their
religious beliefs, they are going to have to start running background checks and
interrogating customers about their personal lives - because you know, most
people who walk into any store on any given day probably have lied, stolen,
cheated, had lustful thoughts, drank too much, took the Lord's name in
vain, etc. It's hypocritical to pick and choose which commandments violate
your Christan beliefs.
What if this story was about a Mormon couple denied a wedding cake because their
Temple Marriage ritual offended the Baker's religious beliefs? Would the
reaction on these boards be the same. You can't claim civil protection for
yourself and deny it to others in the same breath folks.
If this baker (or any business owner) does not have the right to deny selling
products to protected classes.This baker (and other business owners)
do have the right to only sell products they want to make. He should have
created a list of his specific products that he is willing to make. When
someone comes in and asks for a product that he does not make (Halloween cake or
gay union cake) he simply tells them that it is not a product this business
@anneray;"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these,
ye have done it unto me."Sounds like you're going to please
your god with your behavior. (not).
When I drove cab, I had to get a business license. It was my job to get my
customer(s) from point A to point B in a timely, safe manner. It didn't
matter to me whether they were a CEO or a homeless person. Everyone that
stepped into my cab got the same professional service. Most of my customers
asked me for my card because they were pleased with my service. I got good tips
from being courteous to my customers. I learned this from my dad. He was an
OB/GYN. He never judged his patients. He gave them ALL the same professional
courteous service. I am a strong gay advocate and I support gay marriage. Most
of my friends are gay. I love them to pieces and would do anything for them.
This is plain wrong! In the cases highlighted in this story none of the
businesses were discriminating in hiring decisions, none were committing any
type of hate crime against the gay couples. They made a decision that, due to
their religious beliefs, they would not accept payment and would not provide
services to these individuals. These individuals could still receive services
from any other baker, photographer, and florist. Would an atheist bar be sued
for refusing to serve drinks to Christians? I doubt it. Would a rabid Auburn
fan's restaurant be sued for refusing service to people wearing Alabama
gear? I doubt it. I can understand taking offense and having hurt feelings - I
would feel the same if service was refused to me based on my race, religion,
age, etc. But, I would not go to the courts thinking that I had a right to be
serviced by businesses that did not want my business. I would figure that they
were the ones missing out.
I think the idea of taking the order and informing the customer that a portion
of their order will go to support traditional marriage is a reasonable idea, but
they better do that with each and every customer or I can see that as a form of
discrimination and subject to legal action. I'm not a lawyer or business
owner, but isn't there a risk of producing an unacceptable product or
service also a risky idea? Just feels like doing so is inviting more wrath and
in the wrong hands can be a cause to have it bite the person where they sit.It would be nice if everyone chose to respect the feelings of others,
but if you're going to choose to be in business and have customers who
you're not comfortable, you better be /really/ careful how you handle
things. People easily get riled up for an assumed slight, I can just imagine
what a deliberate act would produce. My point: Be wise, be careful,
and be sure what you choose to do won't come back and bite you in the end.
Just a suggestion.
Most couples would have gone elsewhere and most bakeries would have made the
cake. Cash is the same regardless of who pays it.But both sides had
a point to make and an axe to grind. The actions of these 4 people aren't
representative of the group - on either side.
What kind of a person can't make another human being a cake? And this
violates your belief system how?
That is a horrible decision by the judge. A business should have the right to
refuse service to anybody, nowadays doing so will just hurt the business that
refuses business in the long run. Not only will they lose the business of those
they decide not to serve, when other people hear about it, many of them will
boycott the business. Frankly I think it is a horribly dumb business move to not
serve a person because of his or her sexual orientation, gender, race, religion,
or any thing else about the person. But if a business wants to do that, the
government should not be able to force them to serve anybody. If a
business doesn't want to serve you due to anything about you the solution
is simple: 1) Go somewhere else, thus giving their competitor business 2) Spread
the word about how the business won't serve _________ (fill in the blank
with the group of people that it will not serve) 3) Watch the business suffer
due to decreased business and 4) leave the government (including the judicial
branch) out of it because it is none of their dang business what a private
business does or doesn't do.
"Because of who they are"--that is rhetorical bullying. The point is not
personal animus; it is a belief about whether a social institution that precedes
the state altogether should be radically redefined, and whether it is at all
important to have an institution committed to the moral notion of sexual
complementarity, to the ideal of gender equality, and to the project of keeping
mothers and fathers and children together. It would be refreshing if instead of
saying, "you don't like me," people would be more honest and say:
"the marriage institution as you understand it simply isn't
important." That would be progress. Besides, people who oppose the
redefinition of marriage are not opposed to other forms of accommodation. The
problem is that nuance is usually discarded in popular discourse on hot
political topics. Of course, that's how politics works.
They were boycotting an event. Many would consider it discrimination if they
would not bake a birthday cake for someone who is homosexual, but a same gender
marriage is an event.Some people are arguing that they need to keep
their morals at home because they are a business. It is ironic, Nelson Mandela
died this week and he fought apartheid in South Africa. Part of the reason that
apartheid ended is because companies, corporations, stopped investing in South
Africa because they had moral objections to apartheid. People running companies
should make their decisions based on morals.A couple of years ago I
said on this forum that gay marriage would be used as way to force Christians or
anyone who, for religious or cultural reasons, objects to same gender marriage
out of the public forum. The reasoning is that lurking in the background of our
society there are some scary right wing types who want to force everyone to
think like they do. The issue is no longer about the agenda of gay rights but
the agenda of the Gay Right.
"All are commanded to 'be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in
Heaven is perfect.' (Matt 5:48) And perfection does not include the
practice of homosexuality. In fact the Bible, which outlines how to obtain
perfection, tells that homosexual conduct is sinful."It's
not our job to decide whether or not we are going to sell a service to somebody
based on whether or not we think they are sinners. In fact, I think Christ
taught us a good lesson about this in the New Testament..."When
Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her,
Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"He reminded us all that we are all sinners, and that He is the ultimate job.
It's time we stop the nonsense and let people live their lives according
to the free will he granted us all. Let Him be the one to call us to repentance.
That will happen only when we have a change of heart--caused by Him.
Autumn Cook says:" people who simply want to abide by their
conscience, while doing no harm to anyone."Riiiiight. It is
"no harm" to the person you refuse to serve. @Daniel A;Bigotry is not "morality". Period. No matter your
rationalization.There are a lot of people here who, by their
comments, believe that it is OK to discriminate against people who are LGBT.
They should put themselves in the position of the LGBT couple. If they're
overweight, they should ask themselves how they'd feel if the business
refused to bake for the obese because it violates the WOW. Or how would they
feel if the business refused to serve them because they're Mormon? Or
Catholic? Or ...You should all walk in the shoes of someone facing
this discrimination. See how much you like it.
@Miss Piggie/Mr. Bean/wrz --"In fact the Bible, which outlines
how to obtain perfection, tells that homosexual conduct is sinful."It is not the baker's job to turn away all sinners. Does he do a
background check on all his prospective customers? Does he turn away adulterers
(divorcees getting remarried)? Does he refuse liars? Ex-convicts?Of
course not."It can be done..."Show us some
evidence. Be specific.@Viva la Migra"I listened to a
radio interview from this baker"Don't believe everything
you hear on the radio.@Max --"so this was the only
cake maker in Colorado?"When the black college kids sat down at
a Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960, there were plenty of other
places in town they could have gone to eat instead. But, of course,
that wasn't the point.Do you think those college kids should
have quietly accepted the discrimination against them and gone elsewhere? Or do
you think they were correct to stand up for their rights as US citizens?Cmon, folks. Three courts in three different states have already made
the same judgment. Get used to the idea that religion is NOT an excuse for
RichardB says;"If the cake maker respectfully explained his
beliefs, and asked them to go elsewhere, they should have. Both could have
respected each others rights. "No, that isn't
"respecting" the other's rights. It's telling them, I'm
NOT going to provide you the product that I provide to others because I think
you're icky. That's a "my way or the highway" view; not
"mutual respect".Please explain why anybody should have to
go from one business to another and another to find the product or service that
each of those businesses provide to everybody else? What could possibly be a
rational reason for it? "Religious beliefs" are not a rational reason
for bigotry.@ConstitutionLawoftheLand;The reason they
didn't "take their business elsewhere" is because they expected a
baker to bake for them just like he bakes for everybody else. There was no hate
involved, except on the part of the baker. Additionally, when the owner obtains
a business license, he agrees to set aside some of his "freedom" in
order to have the right to operate.@?;Businesses that
"refuse service to anyone" usually have a legitimate reason to refuse
If people can pick and choose which customers they serve, can a store refuse to
serve blacks or LDS members on the sole basis that it violates their religion?
And can people simply create a religion that allows all sorts of discrimination
or do religions have to register with the state to become "official"?
If you have groceries in your car and stop for gas on the way home,
can the gas station owner (perhaps owned by a Muslim or Jew) refuse to let you
fill up on the grounds that you bought pork chops for your family?
As an owner of a small business, I sympathize with the owner. But the solution
is simple: when I _really_ don't want to do a particular job, the price and
my turnaround time go _way_ up and I add in extra conditions to get the people
to go away.Granted, there are businesses where you can't do
that--but a specialized cake maker is not one of them.I would
probably have told them A) I can't have it done on time--way too busy right
now, B) if I manage to get it done, it will cost you 10 times normal price
because I consider it a rush job, C) it will cost you 10 times more on top of
that because yours is the first one of these I've done and it takes a while
to get a good solid reproducible design, and (if those 3 are not enough) D) (as
someone above suggested) I will only break even on it and donate the profits to
some organization supporting traditional marriage. These plaintiffs
don't seem the type to want the cake under those conditions--so he'd
be off the hook without a lawsuit.
The National Football League has refused to air an advertisement that supports
the Second Amendment (a citizen's right to bear arms). Is this not
discrimination? Perhaps the NFL should be taken to court and forced to serve
views that are not their own. I would say "two can play this game," but
it isn't true in today's politically correct environment. It
wouldn't fit the agenda of those currently in power.
Ok, the way around this is to MARKET yourself as a CHRISTIAN baker, who, on ALL
cakes will write faith promoting scriptures…then ….does
it matter? You are simply evangelizing…People who don't want that
won't come to you.
That the baker claims he is a cake artist, that his lawyer tried (and failed) to
claim artistic expression, shows how weak his case was at the outset for a claim
to "religious" expression in baking and selling a cake.I
guess with religious folks, anywhere, anything goes, if they call it the
"practice of their religious beliefs."A bakery is actually a
church, a baker is actually clergy, and selling a cake is solemnizing a
marriage?Then any couple, straight or gay, marrying anywhere, is
also the "practice of a religion" and protected by law.When
do we all get our tax exemptions?
I remember well the now embattled former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
leading the charge to create "Hate Crimes" laws in Utah. I wonder if he
envisioned this extreme interpretation of these laws?
As long as a bakery, a florist, a photography studio wants to discriminate, I
don't mind at all.They have to post a sign in their window and
a disclaimer on their marquee: This may look like a business, but it is really
a church. Non-members go elsewhere.
Wonderful comment Okieland.
Move to a state that would allow you to NOT bake a cake or even a cookie. I
would not heat the oven to bake anything that would make me deny my God.
imEKaysville, UTThe judge sounds like a liberal socialist. He has no
business getting into this..... I am very SAD that this comment got
5 "likes" on a website owned by a Christian Church, where Jesus ought to
be at least considered in the minds of the commenters.If the
Colorado law says "Businesses cannot say 'no' to customers because
they are mormon, or Gay, or have purple spots, the judge has an easy and obvious
decision.Pretending that following Civil Rights laws makes one a
liberal socialist sets this country back to the Civil War.
My wife and I are active LDS. She runs a small house cleaning business. For a
time she cleaned for a lesbian couple. She only quit cleaning for them because
of a scheduling conflict, yet my wife never felt she was compromising her
religious beliefs by cleaning for them.Should my wife have felt
different? If so, how come?
"Sure, my sexual orientation may make some people uncomfortable, but they
are commanded to love and treat me with as much kindness and consideration as
they would their straight friends and family members."All are
commanded to 'be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is
perfect.' (Matt 5:48) And perfection does not include the practice of
homosexuality. In fact the Bible, which outlines how to obtain perfection, tells
that homosexual conduct is sinful. The same-sex attracted maybe aught-a start
working toward perfection by reversing homosexual tendencies. It can be done...
and has to be done sooner or later, just as tendencies to pornography,
pedophilia, incest, and myriads of other sinful conduct can/must be controlled,
reversed, expunged. Go for it... and God speed.Then wedding cakes
can be ordered as a heterosexual, and throngs will cheer.
@?:"I don't know how many places I've seen where upon
entering the establishment there is a plaque stating the owner of said business
'reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.'"Yeah, but that only applies if the customer is drunk, disorderly, shirtless,
shoeless, etc. That sort-a thing. If he's black or Hispanic, etc., he
can't be denied. I guess we'd call that UN-equal protection under the
law.@PA Gardener:"For that reason, if I were the baker I
would agree to bake them their cake, but decline to put any communication on the
cake that sends a message contrary my views on marriage."I'd decline to put any frosting on it... and use wilted dandelions for
@ JLFuller,A reason serving these people is so objectionable is
precisely because it is an implied approval. The guests of an event will
forever associate their company with the event that their product was served at.
There are many companies which refuse to serve events because they know that it
is associated with their approval, such as the Boy Scouts or other traditional
groups. So, serving a gay marriage carries an implied approval. It is their
private company that is considered as approving the marriage. I can understand
why that would be objectionable.
I listened to a radio interview from this baker. This gay couple knew ahead of
time that this baker didn't make cakes opposed to his religious beliefs.
He also refused to make Halloween cakes which depict witches, demons and other
things he feels violate his conscious. He offered to sell this couple any other
item in his bakery, but he considers his cakes a form of art and politely
refused. They gay couple swore at him stormed out of his store.Where do you draw the line in a case like this? Could a Nambla proponent
compel this baker to create a cake depicting and adult and child together?
Could a pornographer compel him to make a cake celebrating her latest film? What about other professions? Will website developers be forced to
create a pornographic website, or a website which criticizes his own religious
beliefs or church if a gay couple makes this request? Perhaps this judge
should've weighed the impact on society of this growing number of
discontented people who use to courts to attack traditional values and beliefs.
A possible solution is that these businesses use their right to free speech.
They feel strong enough about the subject to go to court over, so they do not
consider these forced clients to be friends. As such, to satisfy the law, they
enact a policy of serving these same-sex couples, but they don't have to be
friendly about it. Make it clear they do not endorse the lifestyle, even view
it as morally wrong. They could hang a banner making a statement
that they are serving these couples under force of a government that does not
represent them, and they are being threatened by a court that does not honor
their morality, so they must serve these people. That way, the same-sex couple
get service, and know the views of those who are serving them, and if it makes
them uncomfortable, they can choose another establishment. By doing so, the law
will be upheld, and no one will mistake the servers as someone who approves of
these weddings. I mean, couldn't hurt much more than going to court. No
sense in faking friendliness when there is none. Honesty is the best policy.
This is a case of bigotry, for sure! Bigotry against those with politically
unpopular views. If a person finds that a business didn't want to serve him
for some reason, it would make sense to think the business owner is a jerk,
leave, and patronize another establishment. The fact that people
take the immense amounts of time and money to pursue these cases against small
businesses with unpopular conscience objections to certain activities shows a
far stronger bigotry by gay rights activists against people who simply want to
abide by their conscience, while doing no harm to anyone, than the
business-people ever show by politely declining to go against their conscience.
Uh.. so this was the only cake maker in Colorado?
Isn't this about obeying the first and great commandment to love God,
followed by the second commandment to love our neighbor? Then this case of
same-sex marriage discrimination has no relationship with civil rights
discrimination.I agree with the baker that same-sex marriage is an
affront to God. The baker can still love the same-sex couple and bake them
their cake. But he has every right to draw the line on aiding and abetting the
cause of same-sex unions. For that reason, if I were the baker I
would agree to bake them their cake, but decline to put any communication on the
cake that sends a message contrary my views on marriage.
All this seems to be doing is causing more people to lose their jobs and seeks
to curtail free enterprise. I don't know how many places I've seen
where upon entering the establishment there is a plaque stating the owner of
said business "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone." This
seems to apply to any kind of business out there, public or private.
There can't be a law and punishment for every step in life that you
take.(bad judge)There is no law of god to punish each person right
away, or in this life only.(bad baker)Some of the punishment comes
next life.(people don't know what they are doing)Could
this give us some perspective ?The judge was wrong, the baker was,
the customer also.(all three used force)If every one would take some
precautions to avoid conflict,then all of the above comments are right.
So the Constitutional right to practice one's religion as one see fit is
okay unless the government says otherwise. Or in other words, you can have an
opinion and express that opinion unless it disagrees with the opinions of those
with evil agendas as this. What ever happened to being able to claim the
privilege to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of your own
conscience and allowing all men the same privilege? I guess we can just throw
the Constitution out the window.To:stretchy; the reason they did not
take their business elsewhere is because they are hatefully targeting those who
differ from them. They ARE forcing people to accept and embrace their lifestyle.
It's a no-brainer.
Well.now, isn't it great that pot is so readily accessible in Colorado. I
see that it has found it's way into the court system there as well.
Do civil rights trumph religious rights? Or do religious rights trumph civil
rights? There is no reason that both sides can't get along, and respect
each other. If the cake maker respectfully explained his beliefs,
and asked them to go elsewhere, they should have. Both could have respected each
others rights. I don't know how the cake maker explained his choice to
them, but their choice to make an issue out of it hurts both sides, and causes
contention.Is it possibile for each to respect the others rights?
What if a gay hairdresser refused to cut my hair or a Catholic hospital refused
to treat me because I'm LDS? That would be wrong, wouldn't it?
No, Jake, according to the judge:1 - Men's Warehouse must sell
suits to anyone who has the money to make the purchase.2 - Lane Bryant
CANNOT tell a man who enters the store that he is not allowed to purchase the
plus-size dresses the store carries.3 - Victoria's Secret CANNOT stop
a man from shopping at their store if they question who will be wearing the
underclothing.4 - Chick-fil-a MUST sell their chicken sandwiches to any
customer who wishes to buy one.5 - McDonalds MUST sell the McRibb sandwich
to anyone who orders one, even if they believe it violates one's religious
dietary restrictions. The law is about treating customers with
fairness. A business license does not grant someone the authority to be the
morality police. It's a shame that we need to set laws to force people to
treat others the way Christ would, but I guess it helps compel some to a change
of heart and be kinder to others.
@Jake2010:It sounds like you misunderstood the judge's
reasoning. He didn't say that a business had to sell items that it
didn't usually carry. Instead, to use your analogies, the judge reasoned
that:1 - Men's Warehouse may not refuse to sell suits to women
...2 - Lane Bryant may not refuse to sell women's clothes to
Mormons...3 - Victoria's Secret may not refuse to sell
women's lingerie to African Americans4 - Chick-Fil-A may not
refuse to sell chicken to people in wheelchairs.5 - McDonald's
may not refuse to sell hamburgers to Italians.
The only business that is oppressed in this case is the photographer. I dont
know why a gay person would want to force someone to provide such a personal
service like this when you know he doesnt want to. I suppose the groups that
are supporting this litigation is that they just done want there to be a legal
precident that allows businesses to deny services for religous reasons.On the off chance that this photographer was forced to attend a gay wedding, I
would simply advise him to feel very sick (which would not be a lie) and tell
the people he had to leave. Here is your money back.The legal fight
is worth it. I hope the courts allow an excemption from Obamacare for businesses
who dont want to provide every conceiveable birth control method. Same would be
true for a pharmacists who doesnt want to sell certain birth control/abortion
drugs. Perhaps an exemption could be included for services requiring
"participation" at a gay wedding. That would apply to a judge.
Can't wait until a Judge orders me to allow the burglar in my home as I am
discriminating against him because I have locks on my doors!
Refusing services to someone is waging war on an individual, so is setting
someone up for a lawsuit. Both sides are wrong in this one. They are guilty of
trying to harm someone they disagree with. Nothing good can come out of this
According to this judge:1 - Men's Warehouse MUST carry a select
line of dresses...2 - Lane Bryant MUST carry men's suits...3 - Victoria's Secret MUST carry men's undergarments4 - Chick-Fil-A MUST carry beef! 5 - McDonald's MUST carry
steak and shrimp.on and on..Yes, I respect that gender
versus sexual orientation are two different things... The very clear point here
is that business does NOT fall under anti-discrimination rules and
regulations... It is a FREE MARKET economy... Meaning that as a business owner,
I have a constitutionally protect right to refuse service to any one at any time
for any reason! This judge should be removed from the bench!
"Solution: Charge a ton, make a terrible cake, and soon the word would
spread through the gay community don't do business there. They would quit
coming.""I would lose the order, forget to deliver or
whatever else I needed to do, so as to not be forced to attend and participate
in one of these gay weddings.""...And the King shall answer
and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."I
have come to the conclusion that I am still here on this good earth to help the
people within my circle of influence to learn to love more unconditionally--the
way Jesus taught us to love. Sure, my sexual orientation may make some people
uncomfortable, but they are commanded to love and treat me with as much kindness
and consideration as they would their straight friends and family members.
I have to agree that it is not within one's rights (freedom of religion) to
refuse the business of anyone based on sexual orientation. You have to obey the
mandates of the license you receive to own/operate a business, so you should
probably know up front if that is going to force you into an uncomfortable
situation. (Okieland, props to you for your creative solution.)I
must say, with discriminatory actions such as these occurring across the US, is
it any wonder why people are becoming increasingly anti-Christian? Since when
did Christ teach us to mistreat people we disagree with? I do not think it makes
you sympathetic to the gay rights just because you have gay customers. Imagine
instead of being a baker the person is a doctor with a private practice.
"I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable helping you because we
will have to discuss your homosexual lifestyle. You're going to need to
find a different doctor." Sorry, but I just don't think that would fly,
nor do I think that's how Jesus would act.
And so...we are one step closer to the end.
@stretchy --"Surely there are more cake shops than just the one
that they targeted. Why not go somewhere else? "When black
college kids sat down at a Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960, there
were plenty of other places in town they could have gone to eat instead. But, of course, that wasn't the point.Do you think
those college kids should have quietly accepted the discrimination against them
and gone elsewhere? Or do you think they were correct to stand up for their
rights as US citizens?
More money for my business. It's not my job to make sure my
clients/customers are doing this that and the other. Perhaps if I was a gun shop
owner and I was selling/donating weapons to know terrorist groups... oh wa
@ Mark from MontanaDavis County, UT"The next step will be
prosecuting them under federal hate crime laws. That would put them in jail for
18 - 24 months."I agree with you that that "should be"
the punishment. But, we should also understand that for some people it may be
hard to adjust to a new reality. So my dear Mark, let's forgive the baker
and let him off the hook just with a warning for this time. O.K? We
LGBT must show the compassion that was seldom shown to us and take the higher
road.(some sarcasm was included)
@ Faniyou wrote: "no business needs to know you're gay. You can
easily place the order leaving the details to you and your partner."My dear Fani, I am a gay man and I work at a school system. Do I promote
or advertise my sexual orientation? The answer is No! Actually, I seldom talk
about my family other than my child (who was enrolled in my school). Yesterday a
colleague start asking questions, my answer was, "my life is not a secret
but private", it feels rude and sometimes works as a deterrent, yet many
people in my school know that I am gay. Why? because they persist in their
questions and the gospel teaches me that to lie is a sin.Get the
connection? Some people ask and they just don't like the answer.
I remember when people who printed textbooks would not sell to integrated
schools because race-mixing was seen as unnatural and against the will of God. I
remember when preachers would not marry a mixed race couple because it violated
their religious beliefs. I remember when bus drivers refused to drive integrated
busses to integrated schools because it was against their moral ethics and their
religious upbringing. Someday I can tell my grandchildren that I remember when
gay people could not legally get married because of religious concerns.
"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be
able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his
written order.Should have stopped right there. Nothing else needs to
be said. A business should be able to provide the service to whomever they
choose. You will never, ever legislate away the ability for someone to make a
choice to provide a service. This is a joke. It's actually
quite unbelievable that judges feel like they can tell a business what to do.
Absolutely horrible decision.
The judge sounds like a liberal socialist. He has no business getting into
The next step will be prosecuting them under federal hate crime laws. That
would put them in jail for 18 - 24 months.
What would happen if the cake maker advertised "Traditional Wedding Cakes
for Traditional Weddings; Non-traditional Wedding Cakes for Non-traditional
Weddings." That kind of soliciting should protect their right to deliver a
markedly different product in markedly different circumstances.But
the bottom line is, leave Sodom and don't look back -- no matter what!
There are still horrible people in this world. Sad.Let's hope one day
humanity will just treat each other well instead of believing humans who lived
3,500 years ago had it all figured out.
It seems foolish that a businessman would consider his customer's private
life before selling his product. Even though the homosexual agenda is evil as I
see it, no one is asking the baker to approve of or support it. It isn't as
though he was being forced to pay homage or make a donation. It is simply a
business transaction. Like the old saying goes, you don't have to take them
home to raise.
I have a question for the two gay men in this instance. Surely there are more
cake shops than just the one that they targeted. Why not go somewhere else? Take
your business elsewhere. This is just another example of the gay/lesbian agenda.
I have no sympathy for them or their cause. They want to push this to the extent
where people are forced to agree with them and almost to the point of embracing
their lifestyle, or they will litigate and sue. Wrong, totally wrong.
@DN Subscriber 2"You MUST sell cakes to specific people.Is
this a FREE country or what?"You act like this is something new,
when really it's just like the Civil Rights Act provisions regarding
businesses discriminating based on race.
Trading religious rights for gay rights.I want to know why a gay
couple would want a cake from a business that is morally opposed to their union
and has been forced to bake for them. I wouldn't go near the cake thinking
the baker spit in it (or worse). If a person or business doesn't like me,
for whatever reason, I wouldn't want them forced to like me or provide
services to me; especially services that I would be eating later. If you're
too childish to do business with me then I don't want to support your
@ Baccus0902"The purpose of any business person is to do
business. He/she produces a service and/or product put in the market for all
those who want it and can afford it. That is the extend of their participation.
Going beyond that is not their role, is not required and not welcomed." The same can be said about gays that seem to bride themselves in causing
havoc to business and people that disagree with their lifestyle - no business
needs to know you're gay. You can easily place the order leaving the
details to you and your partner.
Good.God said to serve your fellow man. NOT to serve your fellow
man, unless he or she is gay. YOU MUST serve the public if you have
a contract to do so! If not, what would stop a religious person from not serving
an atheist, someone who has had a divorce or had an abortion? If
religious people are wanting to discriminate so badly against those who are
different from them, think different from them, then everyone else should have
the right to discriminate against religious people as well! It goes both ways.
You can't hog the law and share the basic rights with everyone else.
There were other cake makers that they could have went to. They are just trying
to force people to accept them, and deny them their right to their religion. I don't support the LGBT community if they deny the others their
rights.Grow up, and go to another cake maker.
baking a cake or selling flowers "at your store" shouldnt violate a
persons religious principles. However, I do feel for the photographer who is
forced to attend a gay wedding ceremony. That makes his "participation"
much more personal that he should be forced to do. He shouldnt have to do
that.I dont knwo what the law would allow with regard to charging
different amounts for cakes or flowers. I believe these businesses could
however, tell their gay customers that they dont deliever to gay ceremonies.
Hte quality of the product is not what the gays are after but I would not fault
these businesses for not doing a very good job if they feel that strongly about
it. I would lose the order, forget to deliever or whatevery else I needed to do,
so as to not be forced to attend and participate in one of these gay weddings.
They should be free enough to do that.
That's already three courts in three different states. When are people
going to catch on that religion is NOT an excuse for discrimination??Nobody forced this guy to get a gay marriage. THAT would have been violating
his right to freedom of religion. But there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible
which states "thou shalt not bake cakes for gay people".When
you take out that business license, you agree to abide by ALL the laws of your
jurisdiction. If you don't like those laws, then either work to change them
or move to a different jurisdiction. No matter what your religion
tells you, yes, if you own a business you have to serve blacks. You have to hire
women if they are qualified. You have to make reasonable accommodations for the
disabled. And if you advertise your services to the general public, you have to
serve gay people too. And Okieland, I'm with you all the way.
There were SOOO many ways that baker could have handled this -- but nooooooo, he
had to play "poor religious victim" while completely ignoring all the
other "sinners" he bakes for every day. He has only himself to blame.
My LDS mission president's son was drafted into the army of his country. He
was then assigned to be a bar keeper in the army. Most would say, "He had
religious freedom and should not be expected to do something against his own
personal moral code or the code of his religion." But, this young man's
stance was, "Of course, I do not drink. And, the church has a stance against
drinking. But, I will be the best bar keeper they have ever had. I will be the
most honest one they have ever had." I APPLAUD this kind of attitude.@Okieland: what a perfect way of handing this issue. You are genius for
thinking of it!!
@ Future PresidentYou wrote: "I used to feel for the LGBT Community.
But not anymore"Good. We don't need your pity. We demand
equality.@ OkielandI have no issue with your idea. However,
how practical that would be?The purpose of any business person is to
do business. He/she produces a service and/or product put in the market for all
those who want it and can afford it. That is the extend of their participation.
Going beyond that is not their role, is not required and not welcomed. Good for the judge, hopefully this will rid the market of "busybody"
bakers, florists, photographers, or whatever.
Mohokat stole my thunder.They want cake? Give 'em a cake. A
real GOOD cake. A UNIQUE wedding cake.
If the baker isn't allowed to demonstrate his belief in the sanctity of
traditional marriage by not making cakes used in other kinds of marriages, I
wonder if any other demonstration of his disagreement with the corruption of
traditional marriage by the state's acceptance of homosexual marriage would
be considered discriminatory?For example, I wonder if they can force
the baker to smile when he bakes or sells the cake?If he smiles when
he sells a cake to a heterosexual couple for their marriage, would it not be a
form of illegal discrimination if he doesn't smile, or smile as broadly,
when selling a cake to a homosexual couple?Perhaps harboring any
beliefs or opinions that are opposed to or even divergent from the state's
orthodoxy will one day be disallowed. Any such beliefs or opinions must, at a
minimum, be unexpressed, in any form. What the great leader dictates we must
obey....and we must look like we agree.Think N. Korea and the
"Dear Leader".A very slippery slope.
These businesses should consider this. Instead of turning these people away
refusing to do businesses with them based on their sexual orientation, and thus
risking lawsuits, and a smear campaign from the Gay community, maybe they should
welcome their business with open arms, disclosing to them that the complete cost
of servicing their occasion will be donated (in their honor) to a national
Advocacy group for the defense of traditional marriage group or campaign. This
will leave the decision up to the engaged couple whether or not they want their
$$$ going to support a group that advocates and defends the traditional
definition of marriage, and opposes gay marriage.
Solution: Charge a ton, make a terrible cake, and soon the word would spread
through the gay community don't do business there. They would quit coming.
I used to feel for the LGBT Community. But not anymore, we are talking about a
group of people who pride themselves going around suing people. That's
what they do and what they are about, if they don't get their they will
sue. No wonder the majority of Americans are against them. Stop trying to tear
down American small businesses. They love attention, "Look at
me Look at me!!" They will sue anybody and everybody who gets in their way.
How can anybody have compassion for people like this?
Re DN SubscriberIt gets even worse. People in jail and in prison in
this country have even less freedoms.
The Bible says men should not lie with men. It says nothing about providing
goods or services to people who do this.The Bible also says that
women who divorce shall not get remarried. Does this cake maker also refuse
marriage cakes to women getting married who have been divorced? If not then he
is cherry picking and not really following what his religion requires any way.
So the government can now dictate all types of economic activity.You
MUST buy this product- Obamacare- even if you do not want or need it.You
MUST sell cakes to specific people.Is this a FREE country or what?
All the bakeries and florists and caterers and photographers that people are
wailing and gnashing their teeth about? They aren't in the business of
enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY.
And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those
civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual
orientation.Perhaps Christians who believe that existing civil
rights laws are too burdensome should file suit to have those laws overturned.
Who knows, maybe they’ll be successful! Maybe the Supreme Court will
determine that civil rights laws interfere with religious freedom and freedom of
association. Then we can go back to the days when landlords could refuse to rent
to Muslims, and restaurants could turn away Blacks. Christian business owners
would be allowed to ask prospective customers which religion or sexual
orientation they are, and then pick and choose which customers to serve, and
which to turn away.You could even call it "American