Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out of cafe, goes on vulgar rant — it was all caught on video

[GtHawk]

It's nuts a 148 posts of people destroying Jazzhead's arguments and still this thread won't

[Cyber Liberty]

Everybody needs a hobby, Roos....

[Jazzhead]

The baker in question did not arbitrarily deny services to anyone because of who they are.  He refused a specific service to both homosexuals and heterosexuals.  No evidence has been presented in this thread that he treated homosexuals any differently from heterosexuals.

Of course he did.  He arbitrarily refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.  If you don't think that represents different treatment of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals seeking the same service, then you're entitled to your opinion.  The opinion that will matter is that of the SCOTUS.   

[LateForLunch]

The opinion that will matter is that of the SCOTUS.

And of the voters. Let us not forget them, eh? They are ultimately the ones who decide how much power they invest in the government to intrude into the private sector. Most smart people I know believe that the government's intrusion into the private sector is in far too0 many regards, excessive and blatantly unnecessary.

This is one of those cases. Common sense would dictate that if one cannot find a product or service one wants in an establishment, the logical, civilized fix would be to go elsewhere to someone who welcomes them. It does not fit any model of sense in any conventional mode to resort to Draconian government force to impose some behavior on one or the other.

[Cyber Liberty]

Of course he did.  He arbitrarily refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.  If you don't think that represents different treatment of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals seeking the same service, then you're entitled to your opinion.  The opinion that will matter is that of the SCOTUS.

You are also entitled to your opinions, many of which you present as fact then twist yourself into knots trying to defend them.  Your use of the word "arbitrary" in this post, for example, is pure opinion, in addition to your many callings of the baker a "bigot."  It's just your opinion, and like many things, everybody has one.

I'm tired of this thread, so I likely don't have a lot more to say about it, except I hope the SCOTUS fixes this mess by telling Colorado to stick it so far up their asses it tickles their tonsils.  With John Roberts at the help, I am not very optimistic, but if it happens my schadenfreude dance will be on you.  That would give me the happies for at least a week.

[Cyber Liberty]

If you are Black, you were born with those genetics. Kindly don't insult us by trying to conflate deviant behaviour with an inherently genetic attribute. If there was a "homosexuality gene" we would certainly have heard about it by now, because that would validate the baseless claim that homosexuals are "born that way".

What religion discriminates against someone on the basis of skin color? (none, and especially not Christianity)

What a tired little strawman that is.

There IS, however, a solid religious basis for not participating in any way in the (for want of a better word) abomination that is a celebration of homosexual acts, and the artistic effort of creating something to commemorate that can certainly be refused on a religious basis. As I asked you before (but you did not reply) Would you force a Jewish baker to bake a birthday cake for Adolf Hitler? (There are some people who celebrate that). Would you force a Muslim butcher to sell pork chops?

You can't act as if religious objections are trivial. People have been excused from bearing arms in the defense of this country in wartime after having been conscripted because of religious beliefs. So kindly quit trivializing the relationship between people and their God--a relationship people have died for, and in defense of--a relationship that will last far longer than the government will have jurisdiction over anything.

The clause "...nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." applies. Any law which regulates any aspect of religious practice has to pass the strict scrutiny standard:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

In this case there is no compelling national interest in forcing one baker to bake create a cake celebrating a union that is proscribed in the strongest terms by his religion.

(If you don't think such cakes involve artistic creation watch a couple of seasons of "Cake Boss".)

The Colorado decision should be overturned, and artistic license returned to the artists involved.

^^^   ^^^

[Hoodat]

I think it should be clear to the reasonable reader that this statement is untrue.   In the case of the baker,  I've said more than once that his religious scruples can and should permit him to reject a pro-gay message on a cake.

Completely irrelevant to the case at hand.  But you knew that already.

He can also choose what services he will provide to the general public

Again, completely irrelevant.  This isn't about performing service.  This is about selling a consumer good.

What he cannot do - as a public accommodation - is advertise services to the general public and then arbitrarily deny such services to certain customers because of who they are.

Nor did he do that.  The court records prove it.  And you know it too,  Yet here you are again, lying.

The community through the political process determines the scope of anti-discrimination protection.

Which you oppose.  When given the choice, you side with tyranny every single time.

Case in point - Colorado.  The result of the political process in Colorado is that marriage is defined as a sanctioned union between one man and one woman.  Do you embrace that political process?  Or do you instead prefer the tyranny of those who wear black robes, who ignore the law and dictate exactly how society is to act in utmost arbitrary fashion, just like they did in this case?

My state, for example, proscribes discrimination on the basis of race but not on the basis of sexual orientation.

Your state also proscribes that marriage is between one man and one woman.  It is even part of your state constitution.  Yet you reject that in favor of someone in a black robe forcing Vermont law upon you.  So enough with the sanctimonious BS.

And even if you did, it would be of no consequence in this case since there was no discrimination based upon sexual orientation or sexual preference.  Because sexual preference was never brought up.  Never.  Not once.  It wasn't mentioned by the customers that day.  It wasn't mentioned by the customer the following day.  It simply is not part of this case.  And no amount of wishing on your part will change that.  So stop posting things you damn well know to be false.

[Hoodat]

Of course he did.  He arbitrarily refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.  If you don't think that represents different treatment of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals seeking the same service, then you're entitled to your opinion.

But that's just it.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals alike were turned down for that same cake.  The court records prove it.  You've read it.  You know it.  Yet you still lie about the facts of the case.

[Hoodat]

If there was a "homosexuality gene" we would certainly have heard about it by now, because that would validate the baseless claim that homosexuals are "born that way".

@Smokin Joe

If they ever found a homosexual gene, then the entire homosexual community would become staunchly pro-life over night.

[RoosGirl]

Everybody needs a hobby, Roos....

I hope you remember that....   

[HoustonSam]

Of course he did.  He arbitrarily refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.  If you don't think that represents different treatment of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals seeking the same service, then you're entitled to your opinion.  The opinion that will matter is that of the SCOTUS.

As has been cited numerous times in this thread, a heterosexual sought exactly the same service and received exactly the same response, and the response was not arbitrary.  That isn't my opinion, it is a fact.

Now the court might decide this on the basis you are arguing, but such an *opinion* wouldn't change the *fact* that homosexuals and heterosexuals received the same treatment from the baker; authority is a poor disguise for fallacious reasoning.

[Fishrrman]

Jes' put jazzhead on ignore and forget about him...  ;)

(worked for sinkspur and geronl, right?)

[goatprairie]

@Smokin Joe

If they ever found a homosexual gene, then the entire homosexual community would become staunchly pro-life over night.


 :thumbsup3:.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.

That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy......   

Actually, he follows to the letter Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.“ Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new."

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Inevitably, YES - As we are seeing today. If you are not free to refuse service, then you are not free.

Absolutely.  True Freedom cannot be understood by liberals.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Of course he did.  He arbitrarily refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding.  If you don't think that represents different treatment of homosexuals as compared to heterosexuals seeking the same service, then you're entitled to your opinion.  The opinion that will matter is that of the SCOTUS.

Now we know you are delusional.

The opinion that matters is God's, not some unelected, black robed lawyers.

And His opinion is pretty well documented.

[Sighlass]

My two cents... and nothing else.

Private Shop owners should be able to serve who they want. Their shop their rules.

The Christian baker got screwed over, and time and again, other non-Christian shop owners have proven over time they are allowed to get away with doing the same thing the Christian baker did.

It doesn't work trying to legislate things like this, quit trying to push PC rules on private businesses. Let them serve who they want, let customers sort it out who survives.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

If they ever found a homosexual gene, then the entire homosexual community would become staunchly pro-life over night.

Why, they might even become breeders and pass it on....(Or turkey baster sales would go way up).

[Jazzhead]

Back at you. The baker's relationship with his God will last longer than all else being discussed. If his business is the price of maintaining that relationship, that is a sacrifice he is willing to make.

As well it should.  My relationship with God demands I acknowledge the humanity of my neighbors.  His demands that he deny them service in his shop because he cannot bear the thought of two folks seeking to celebrate their covenant with each other. 

Does your relationship with God compel you to respect your neighbors as individuals, or to label them as abominations?       

[thackney]

As well it should.  My relationship with God demands I acknowledge the humanity of my neighbors.  His demands that he deny them service in his shop because he cannot bear the thought of two folks seeking to celebrate their covenant with each other. 

Does your relationship with God compel you to respect your neighbors as individuals, or to label them as abominations?     

It also causes us to hate sin and not celebrate it.

[Jazzhead]

The baker did not discriminate against anyone.  He treated the homosexual couple in exactly the same manner he had treated the heterosexual woman - he declined to prepare a wedding cake and offered to sell anything else already available in the shop.  He did not refuse service to anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation, he refused to fulfill a custom order whether that order was submitted by a heterosexual woman or a homosexual couple.  There is simply no evidence that the baker discriminated against anyone on the basis of their sexual orientation because potential customers got the same treatment whether they were heterosexual or homosexual.

   After the gay customer was refused service,  his mother came in the next day.  That was the "heterosexual woman" who was also refused service.    Service was refused because the cake was to be used to celebrate a same sex wedding.   That's the crux of the discrimination, and there is court precedent that such conduct is indeed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule, but I can guarantee you they won't find for the baker on the basis of this silly argument.   

[Jazzhead]

If it could be reasonably demonstrated that the baker had previously refused work based upon Christian religious beliefs, unrelated to homosexuality, would you view his actions differently?  If he had a previous history of refusing to make goods that conflicted with his beliefs?

@Jazzhead

And what if because of this history, the gay couple sought him out?

The civil law is mainly enforced by civil litigation.  That is simply how it is.   I understand why you'd support this baker if the customer had sued not out of a legitimate grievance, but out of spite or to advance a political agenda.  I know I've posted before that what I'd like to see is a decision in favor of the plaintiffs,  with a damage award of one stinkin' dollar.

As to how the law should accommodate the baker and his customers,  I'd allow the baker to simply post a sign in his shop indicating that he created custom cakes for religious weddings only.    I don't know whether that would be lawful, but I'd argue that it is.   Limiting his business to religious weddings isn't, facially, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Plenty of straight folks don't get married in a church. 

[Jazzhead]

It also causes us to hate sin and not celebrate it.

I understand that position, but you should understand that it is also one of the reasons I left the Church.   So many good "Christians" fail to acknowledge the humanity of homosexuals, refuse to see them as individuals.   So many pay lip service to "loving the sinner",  but label decent folks who seek only to live monogamously with a partner as perverts and abominations and f----ts and other similar pejoratives.  I commend the mods for toning down some of this talk, but still this graceless debasement of our fellow humans continues, all in the name of "Christianity". 

I've had quite enough of it.     

[IsailedawayfromFR]

  After the gay customer was refused service,  his mother came in the next day.  That was the "heterosexual woman" who was also refused service.    Service was refused because the cake was to be used to celebrate a same sex wedding.   That's the crux of the discrimination, and there is court precedent that such conduct is indeed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   I don't know how the Supreme Court will rule, but I can guarantee you they won't find for the baker on the basis of this silly argument.

Silly argument?  Who exactly escalated this?  Did the baker find a lawyer and file suit?

No, after the customers went elsewhere and satisfied their needs, they are the ones who chose to make a big deal out of a 'Silly Argument' weeks later.

And therein lies the problems you always have. You claim this is much ado about nothing by calling it silly, yet the people who escalated all of this did not seem to think it silly.

You are trying to play both sides, and it doesn't work that way, except in the mind of a liberal.

[thackney]

I understand that position, but you should understand that it is also one of the reasons I left the Church.   So many good "Christians" fail to acknowledge the humanity of homosexuals, refuse to see them as individuals.   So many pay lip service to "loving the sinner",  but label decent folks who seek only to live monogamously with a partner as perverts and abominations and f----ts and other similar pejoratives.  I commend the mods for toning down some of this talk, but still this graceless debasement of our fellow humans continues, all in the name of "Christianity". 

I've had quite enough of it.     

I understand your position, but I cannot agree with it.  I won't go to a divorce party either for similar reasons.