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

[Jazzhead]

The baker was being ordered to participate in what was then not a legal act, so that's what. 

Oh please, you're grasping at straws and look ridiculous doing so.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was against the law in Colorado at the time the baker refused service.   That's what's  relevant.   The customer asked for the same cake the baker advertised to provide to its customers generally.  It is of absolutely no relevance that that the couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted the cake for a celebration in Colorado.   It certainly doesn't justify the baker's discrimination (although perhaps it shows that the baker's objection was political, not "religious").   

[Cyber Liberty]

Oh please, you're grasping at straws and look ridiculous doing so.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was against the law in Colorado at the time the baker refused service.   That's what's  relevant.   The customer asked for the same cake the baker advertised to provide to its customers generally.  It is of absolutely no relevance that that the couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted the cake for a celebration in Colorado.   It certainly doesn't justify the baker's discrimination (although perhaps it shows that the baker's objection was political, not "religious").   

I'm not "grasping at straws," you have yet to prove what the "advertised services" of the bakery are.  Until you do, by your own admission this is just wind in sails.

[LateForLunch]

I'm not "grasping at straws," you have yet to prove what the "advertised services" of the bakery are.  Until you do, by your own admission this is just wind in sails.

Yeah, it's arguable from a legal perspective, QED it's still being adjudicated. So suggesting that there is any "grasping at straws" is a little too harsh. There is a good deal of hay being baled in this incident with the baker AND the homo barista.

This is the line of division between what the state may force people to do against their will for the greatest common good and where individual rights trump the interest of the general welfare.

Life is good for lawyers.

[Jazzhead]

I'm not "grasping at straws," you have yet to prove what the "advertised services" of the bakery are.  Until you do, by your own admission this is just wind in sails.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/16-111-BIO-CCRC.pdf     No discussion took place regarding the artistry or message for the cake.  The baker simply refused service in accordance with an unwritten "policy" he sprung on his customers when they entered the store.     

[Hoodat]

Hey, my position is consistent.   Bigotry such as the Christian baker's or the gay Seattle barista's is actionable under the law because in each case an innocent customer has been victimized by the store owner's arbitrary discrimination.

I don't recall any bakers subjecting gay patrons to tirades of profanity as they booted them out of their stores.

So your claim of your consistency of position doesn't hold since the given scenarios are not consistent.

[Hoodat]

Sure there is.  In each case, the customer sought the service the store owner advertised to provide.

Uh, no.  The Colorado baker did not advertise that he made cakes for same-sex weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.  But you knew that already.

[Hoodat]

False, he did offer to sell them anything that was in his store.  He was unwilling to be the supplier of a Gay Wedding Cake.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/colorado-baker-describes-harassment-after-refused-to-bake-cake-for-gay-wedding.html

He did not refuse them service.  He refused to make the specific product they wanted.

@thackney

Jazzhead knows that already, but is still trying to portray a false account of what happened in order to assuage and justify his own emotional involvement in this case.  If the facts don't suit the argument, then make up facts that do.

[Polly Ticks]

Creating a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding IS the message, irrespective of any decorations or wording. A wedding cake is part of a wedding celebration; forcing someone to participate in a ceremony which is contrary to their religious beliefs or else forfeit their way of making a living is reprehensible.

[Hoodat]

And do you really want to equate the barista's response with the bakers before knowing all the facts?

Before knowing the facts?  Isn't that EXACTLY what you did with the Colorado bakery case?  Seriously, you were pushing this completely bogus account post after post after post, until you were confronted with the written court decision.  And even after that, you are still here lying about what happened.  So I find it hilarious that you would even make mention of "knowing all the facts" while you continue to consciously ignore them in the Colorado case.

I can't tell if the Christians were proseletyzing or distributing literature in the barista's shop.

It shouldn't matter either way.  He can kick out whoever he wants on basis of viewpoint.

That seems to have been the case with the baker -  he refused service prior to any discussion about the contents of the cake.   

Still telling that lie, I see.  At no time did the baker refuse service (which the court records provided to you earlier confirm).  The baker simply refused to change his mind about making a product he does not make.  But then you knew that already.

[Jazzhead]

Creating a custom wedding cake for a gay wedding IS the message, irrespective of any decorations or wording. A wedding cake is part of a wedding celebration; forcing someone to participate in a ceremony which is contrary to their religious beliefs or else forfeit their way of making a living is reprehensible.

But, Polly Ticks, no one forced this baker to make custom wedding cakes.  That was his choice.  All the law says if that if you choose to sell wedding cakes, that you do so without discriminating.  Again - see the link I provided - there was no discussion regarding the artistry or message on the cake.   That's very significant, because the baker claims he should not be compelled to craft a message that offends his conscience.   But he never even had that discussion with his customer -  he simply refused service with respect to a service he advertised to provide.  His claim of artistic freedom is belied by the facts - he wanted to make a political statement.   And that's fine, so long as you don't violate the law.     

[Hoodat]

On that we must respectfully disagree.   They were refused a specific item on the baker's menu of advertised services, without regard to any artistry or message to be placed on the cake.

The baker did not advertise wedding cakes for weddings not sanctioned by the State of Colorado.

[Cyber Liberty]

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/16-111-BIO-CCRC.pdf     No discussion took place regarding the artistry or message for the cake.  The baker simply refused service in accordance with an unwritten "policy" he sprung on his customers when they entered the store.     

You've been saying over and over again wedding cakes for all were advertised by the baker.  You don't get to impute one, try again.  There's a ton of information on this superhighway, surely you can find a bona fide advertisement to bolster your claim?

[Hoodat]

All the law says if that if you choose to sell wedding cakes, that you do so without discriminating.

The law also says that a marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  So by legal definition, a wedding cake is for a marriage between one man and one woman.  No discrimination there.  It has to do with the wedding itself.  Not the customers.  So there is no discrimination.  But then you knew that already.

[Cyber Liberty]

The baker did not advertise wedding cakes for weddings not sanctioned by the State of Colorado.

I'm trying to get proof of said advertisement, and until I do that argument is crap.  I'm finished with it.

[240B]

Seriously guys, who in their right mind would touch anything in that place. There is probably sperm residue everywhere. I wouldn't even drink out of a cup, if he handed it to me. Nasty nasty place. Board of health needs to look into this place.


Any guy who brags about wanting to 'F Jesus in the ass', is not a person that I want cooking or making anything for me.


He really does sound like a crazy psychopath, and with that there is no limit to what he may do to your food or drink. He seems to have no personal standards, and no personal limits.


Just go to a local loony bin and ask an inmate there to fix you a cup of coffee. What do you think may come out of that adventure? I don't want to find out.

[Polly Ticks]

But, Polly Ticks, no one forced this baker to make custom wedding cakes.  That was his choice.  All the law says if that if you choose to sell wedding cakes, that you do so without discriminating.  Again - see the link I provided - there was no discussion regarding the artistry or message on the cake.   That's very significant, because the baker claims he should not be compelled to craft a message that offends his conscience.   But he never even had that discussion with his customer -  he simply refused service with respect to a service he advertised to provide.  His claim of artistic freedom is belied by the facts - he wanted to make a political statement.   And that's fine, so long as you don't violate the law.     

He doesn't need to discuss the details with the customer.  The custom-made cake itself signifies his agreement to participate in a gay marriage, which is contrary to his faith.  That is not a political statement; that is freedom of religion. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Seriously guys, who in their right mind would touch anything in that place. There is probably sperm residue everywhere. I wouldn't even drink out of a cup, if he handed it to me. Nasty nasty place. Board of health needs to look into this place.


Any guy who brags about wanting to 'F Jesus in the ass', is not a person that I want cooking or making anything for me.


He really does sound like a crazy psychopath, and with that there is no limit to what he may do to your food or drink. He seems to have no personal standards, and no personal limits.


Just go to a local loony bin and ask an inmate there to fix you a cup of coffee. What do you think may come out of that adventure? I don't want to find out.

You, uh, said a mouthful there, and I agree.  It's probably why the attempted customers aren't suing the coffee dude.

[Jazzhead]

You've been saying over and over again wedding cakes for all were advertised by the baker.  You don't get to impute one, try again.  There's a ton of information on this superhighway, surely you can find a bona fide advertisement to bolster your claim?

It's the baker's whose ass and business is on the line.  If he had posted or advertised that he didn't sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings,  he would have produced it long ago.   The reality is that he made no such distinction - he advertised wedding cakes, and sprung an unwritten "policy" on his customer in violation of the law.   

[Jazzhead]

Any guy who brags about wanting to 'F Jesus in the ass', is not a person that I want cooking or making anything for me.

Yup.  An obnoxious, bigoted pr*ck. 

[Hoodat]

I'm trying to get proof of said advertisement

That will prove difficult since Jazzhead made it up.

[Smokin Joe]

It's the baker's whose ass and business is on the line.  If he had posted or advertised that he didn't sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings,  he would have produced it long ago.   The reality is that he made no such distinction - he advertised wedding cakes, and sprung an unwritten "policy" on his customer in violation of the law.

Why would he advertise that, especially when same-sex "marriages" were not recognized by the State.
If it isn't a marriage, how can it be a "wedding"? That would be like making a wedding cake for someone and their car.

[musiclady]

It's the baker's whose ass and business is on the line.  If he had posted or advertised that he didn't sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings,  he would have produced it long ago.   The reality is that he made no such distinction - he advertised wedding cakes, and sprung an unwritten "policy" on his customer in violation of the law.

Please acknowledge that, according to Colorado law, there was NO SUCH THING as a "same-sex marriage," making your entire argument moot.

Why do you keep arguing with imaginary 'facts,' @Jazzhead ??

Especially among a group of people who know the real facts and that you are making your entire argument out of whole cloth?   

[Cyber Liberty]

It's the baker's whose ass and business is on the line.  If he had posted or advertised that he didn't sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings,  he would have produced it long ago.   The reality is that he made no such distinction - he advertised wedding cakes, and sprung an unwritten "policy" on his customer in violation of the law.

Inferring there's an advertisement because there was no advertisement.  That's what I mean by "imputing," and you fail.

[Hoodat]

If he had posted or advertised that he didn't sell wedding cakes for same-sex weddings,  he would have produced it long ago.

Why would he have to advertise that he didn't make a product for an event that was not sanctioned under Colorado law?

The reality is that he made no such distinction - he advertised wedding cakes

Since you are unable to produce said advertisement even though asked repeatedly to do so, I will assume that wedding cakes sold in Colorado are for Colorado weddings under Colorado law.

.  .  .  and sprung an unwritten "policy" on his customer

Uh, no.  The customer sprang a request on the baker that was outside of what he offered.  Let's try to stick with the truth here, Jazzhead.

.  .  .  in violation of the law.

Again, no.  There is no law in Colorado that forces a baker to bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.

[Cyber Liberty]

That will prove difficult since Jazzhead made it up.

That would be my point, yes.  You got it, well and good.  In fact, you always did.