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

[RoosGirl]

That's just it.  The baker did stay true to his word.  He doesn't make halloween cakes.  He doesn't make swastika cakes.  And he doesn't make cakes for same-sex weddings (regardless of the sexual preference of the person buying it).

But he didn't stay true to his word because he advertised as making wedding cakes.  He never advertised he didn't make same-sex wedding cakes.  And a wedding cake is a wedding cake.

[Cyber Liberty]

Come on and take one for the team!   

No way, I'm sure the Mods already have me on speed-dial....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

? wrong thread...

As for Jazzhead, he sounds like a typical "you didn't build that, you just got lucky in life" liberal to me.  Redundant, I know.

It's far worse than that.  He gets to say 'Discrimination!' as easy as a racist says 'Racist!' because there are no boundaries in a liberal's world.

Nothing is off-limits, so no morality is bad enough to draw a line.

We all discriminate as human beings.  A lot of us due to our understanding of God's wishes.  What we choose to do, he would force us to accept otherwise in the world of diversity, and use the power of the courts to implement our enslavement by forced acceptance, and the hell with what God's wishes might be.

[musiclady]

I deleted the post, on my own initiative.  Still you attack.  I apologized to you personally.  Still you attack.   What the hell, ML?   

1.   I didn't 'attack.'  I reacted.

2.   I used to have a lot of respect for you, back when I thought you believed in justice and equality.  Now that you have made it clear that you don't, in hostile terms (and with a non-apology, a la liberalism), I am disappointed.

That is all.

@Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

1.   I didn't 'attack.'  I reacted.

2.   I used to have a lot of respect for you, back when I thought you believed in justice and equality.  Now that you have made it clear that you don't, in hostile terms (and with a non-apology, a la liberalism), I am disappointed.

That is all.

@Jazzhead

I'm sorry you feel that way, ML.   Trust me, the feeling is not mutual, and I have always read what you've had to say with interest and respect you as a valuable contributor to this board.   

[Smokin Joe]

But he didn't stay true to his word because he advertised as making wedding cakes.  He never advertised he didn't make same-sex wedding cakes.  And a wedding cake is a wedding cake.

But same-sex weddings were not recognized by the State of Colorado at the time: to wit, legally, it wasn't a wedding..

[RoosGirl]

But same-sex weddings were not recognized by the State of Colorado at the time: to wit, legally, it wasn't a wedding..

Please do not cloud the issue with facts.

[Cyber Liberty]

Please do not cloud the issue with facts.

 

[Hoodat]

But he didn't stay true to his word because he advertised as making wedding cakes.  He never advertised he didn't make same-sex wedding cakes.  And a wedding cake is a wedding cake.

I see what you did there.

[GtHawk]

But same-sex weddings were not recognized by the State of Colorado at the time: to wit, legally, it wasn't a wedding..

This is all too ridiculous, taking up so much time and energy, but wasn't the issue that it was not just a wedding cake of which the baker made certain styles, but that the Boys
wanted a custom cake which the baker did not offer anyway and in a gay queer theme. In any case as someone else pointed out it is up to USSC now.

[Hoodat]

This is all too ridiculous, taking up so much time and energy, but wasn't the issue that it was not just a wedding cake of which the baker made certain styles, but that the Boys
wanted a custom cake which the baker did not offer anyway and in a gay queer theme. In any case as someone else pointed out it is up to USSC now.

@GtHawk

Nope.  The discussion of never got that far.  Here are the facts:

• The customer requested a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
• The baker turned down the request, because he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings, which at the time were not legal in Colorado.
• The baker offered to make something else
• Customer turned down alternative offer.
• The next day, someone else phoned the shop and asked for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding
• The baker turned down the request, because he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

[Smokin Joe]

@GtHawk

Nope.  The discussion of never got that far.  Here are the facts:

• The customer requested a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.
• The baker turned down the request, because he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings, which at the time were not legal in Colorado.
• The baker offered to make something else
• Customer turned down alternative offer.
• The next day, someone else phoned the shop and asked for a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding
• The baker turned down the request, because he does not make cakes for same-sex weddings.

So if you are an old fashioned Jewish Deli and you do catering for parties and the NeoNazis have a shindig and call you, you have to do the catering? You can't refuse? That is the sort of precedent the homosexuals want to perpetrate upon our system of jurisprudence. Hopefully (there never are any guarantees) the Courts resist ruling for such an imposition.

[Cyber Liberty]

So if you are an old fashioned Jewish Deli and you do catering for parties and the NeoNazis have a shindig and call you, you have to do the catering? You can't refuse? That is the sort of precedent the homosexuals want to perpetrate upon our system of jurisprudence. Hopefully (there never are any guarantees) the Courts resist ruling for such an imposition.

I don't think @Hoodat is disagreeing with us on this, Joe.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think @Hoodat is disagreeing with us on this, Joe.

I wasn't disagreeing with @Hoodat, either, just extrapolating the precedent to a universally understood example of why finding against the baker would be a really bad idea. Sorry if I was being my usual disagreeable sellf. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I wasn't disagreeing with @Hoodat, either, just extrapolating the precedent to a universally understood example of why finding against the baker would be a really bad idea. Sorry if I was being my usual disagreeable sellf. 

I happen to think you are a very agreeable chap.     

I'm worried about SCOTUS on this.  There are at least four Justices who think it's a grand idea to force the baker, under penalty of jail if necessary, to create the cake.  SCOTUS has become a crapshoot, just like the entire court system.  It's a gamble.

[Smokin Joe]

I happen to think you are a very agreeable chap.     

I'm worried about SCOTUS on this.  There are at least four Justices who think it's a grand idea to force the baker, under penalty of jail if necessary, to create the cake.  SCOTUS has become a crapshoot, just like the entire court system.  It's a gamble.

Nothing is ever a given in court. The innocent are summarily convicted because of superficialities on a regular basis because people can't separate fact from emotion and react to the calm of an innocent defendant as being a complete absence of remorse for a crime they wouldn't be on trial for if they weren't guilty. (It is that bad, unfortunately, in places).
I haven't trusted one damned thing SCOTUS has in front of it since Roberts illegally rewrote the ACA to illegally rule it "constitutional". This could go either way, and with one of the highest percentages of homosexuals in the country in DC, it's hard to tell what pressures are being brought to bear in chambers.

[Hoodat]

So if you are an old fashioned Jewish Deli and you do catering for parties and the NeoNazis have a shindig and call you, you have to do the catering? You can't refuse?

According to Jazzhead, you can refuse to do the catering in that situation, primarily because Jazzhead gets to be the arbiter of what types of discrimination are legal and which are not.  All in the name of consistency, of course.

[Smokin Joe]

According to Jazzhead, you can refuse to do the catering in that situation, primarily because Jazzhead gets to be the arbiter of what types of discrimination are legal and which are not.  All in the name of consistency, of course.

What if they are Gay Nazis? 

[Hoodat]

What if they are Gay Nazis? 

Then it would all come down to what they happened to be thinking at the time.  The action itself is not relevant.  It is the intent.  And Jazzhead is able to read minds and know exactly what the intent of the egregious perpetrators is.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nothing is ever a given in court. The innocent are summarily convicted because of superficialities on a regular basis because people can't separate fact from emotion and react to the calm of an innocent defendant as being a complete absence of remorse for a crime they wouldn't be on trial for if they weren't guilty. (It is that bad, unfortunately, in places).
I haven't trusted one damned thing SCOTUS has in front of it since Roberts illegally rewrote the ACA to illegally rule it "constitutional". This could go either way, and with one of the highest percentages of homosexuals in the country in DC, it's hard to tell what pressures are being brought to bear in chambers.

Nailed it.

[mountaineer]

What if they are Gay Nazis? 

Speaking of gay Nazis, I see Ernst Röhm's 130th birthday is coming up in late November. Could someone please bake me a cake for the "alles gute zum Geburtstag" party I'm throwing?

[Hoodat]

Speaking of gay Nazis, I see Ernst Röhm's 130th birthday is coming up in late November. Could someone please bake me a cake for the "alles gute zum Geburtstag" party I'm throwing?

That may require some long knives.

[mountaineer]

That may require some long knives.

Casual attire -brown shirts.

[ColdSteelTalon]

I think not.  Christians are the ones discriminated against, and that's OK.  There should be a suit brought, but by whom?

Thats what I said by throwing the Christians out he opened himself up to a lawsuit.