The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: flowers on May 31, 2014, 05:10:08 pm
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-baker-to-stop-making-wedding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/
DENVER - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.
Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.
Phillips said he doesn't believe in gay marriage and he refused to sell them a cake.
"We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs," Phillips said after the hearing, according to CBS Denver. Phillips also admitted he had refused service to other same-sex couples.
A judge previously ruled a business owner cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed to the commission, but it upheld the decision.
That prompted Phillips to decide he would no longer make any wedding cakes. He said he would be fine selling cupcakes for a birthday party for someone who is gay but added, "I don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding."
-
The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.
Good fn grief. So it will soon be illegal to not give in to the gay nazi's. I didn't think i would see it in my lifetime, but here we are.
-
If the government 'forced' me to bake a cake for someone against my will, I can pretty much guarantee that the cake is going to taste like week old kitty-litter.
So, that brings up the second deeper point. Is the government going to assign 'watchers' to document the preparations of the cake, and will they have government 'tasters' who will either approve or disapprove of the quality of the cake?
Will the baker be jailed if the cake does not taste as good as the government wants it to?
Sieg Hiel! Sieg Hiel! Sieg Hiel! this is what America has become only worse. At least the Nazis could get the trains to run on time. We can't even do that.
-
You all act as if this is the end of the world as we know it.
The government forces business to do all manner of things, all the time.
They take the best parking spots in every business' parking lot and make you reserve them for people who may or may not come to your establishment.
They make you not allow smoking in your establishment.
They force businesses to act as tax collectors.
They (try) to force businesses to act as immigration law enforcement officers.
They (now) force restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menu item... as if you DIDN'T know how bad the Lemoncello Torte at The Cheesecake Factory is for your diet BEFORE you read how many calories it contains.
-
You all act as if this is the end of the world as we know it.
The government forces business to do all manner of things, all the time.
They take the best parking spots in every business' parking lot and make you reserve them for people who may or may not come to your establishment.
They make you not allow smoking in your establishment.
They force businesses to act as tax collectors.
They (try) to force businesses to act as immigration law enforcement officers.
They (now) force restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menu item... as if you DIDN'T know how bad the Lemoncello Torte at The Cheesecake Factory is for your diet BEFORE you read how many calories it contains.
You would support the government putting the gun to a person's head and demanding "Obey!" No doubt you will support the homosexual version of Kristallnacht when it comes against Christians.
-
You would support the government putting the gun to a person's head and demanding "Obey!" No doubt you will support the homosexual version of Kristallnacht when it comes against Christians.
Are you capable of playing the ball and not the man, ever?
I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now.
Please note that I absolutely avoided responding to you in kind, so if your response back is just going to be more commentary on me, and more fabricated positions that you can accuse me of holding so that you can then attack me for something I never actually said, do yourself a favor and do not respond.
-
The examples you cited are indeed sever governmental intrusions into private business. No doubt about that. And all of those laws should be repealed.
However this situation crosses two new barriers. First, we have government using the force of law to coerce a private citizen to violate his religious conscience, whatever that may be. Second, this is government impelling coerced forced labor against the will of a private citizen. That is a whole new level of government control over the citizentry. They are saying that by 'force of law' you have no right to say 'no' to anything and you have no private control over your own wish to do labor or to decline.
No. This is nothing like a parking space, or smoking. This is a whole new level of government force. And if that does not get your attention, then you are already so aclimated to goverment power and force, that there is nothing the government could do that will cause you to balk, and say 'No', No farther, Enough is enough, as this brave family has done.
-
The examples you cited are indeed sever governmental intrusions into private business. No doubt about that. And all of those laws should be repealed.
However this situation crosses two new barriers. First, we have government using the force of law to coerce a private citizen to violate his religious conscience, whatever that may be. Second, this is government impelling coerced forced labor against the will of a private citizen. That is a whole new level of government control over the citizentry. They are saying that by 'force of law' you have no right to say 'no' to anything and you have no private control over your own wish to do labor or to decline.
No. This is nothing like a parking space, or smoking. This is a whole new level of government force. And if that does not get your attention, then you are already so aclimated to goverment power and force, that there is nothing the government could do that will cause you to balk, and say 'No', No farther, Enough is enough, as this brave family has done.
The notion that government forcing this individual to do something that they don't want to do is somehow more worse than other instances of other people and other businesses being forced to so things they would otherwise not so simply because it involves religion, is rather myopic and frankly, un-American.
If we narrow our protests down to just government actions which violate our religious beliefs, we cede a tremendous amount of ground to the government and paint ourselves into a corner where the only things left to be violated are our religious beliefs.
And here we are..
-
If we narrow our protests down to just government actions which violate our religious beliefs
A false premise, but carry on anyway.
-
A false premise, but carry on anyway.
That was attached to an entire proposition that you ignored, but carry on anyway.
-
I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now.
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example. It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so. I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them. Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.
-
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example. It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so. I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them. Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.
Forced 'creativity' is at the heart of this. Making a wedding cake is serious art. It takes years of practice, passion, and concentration. The idea that the government could usurp that 'talent', and that 'art', and dictate when and how it can and cannot be used is absurd.
Try to force a sculptor to create a statue by force of law and see what you get. You cannot 'order' people to be creative. It comes naturally, or it does not come at all. You cannot 'create' anything worthwhile in terms of art, if you do not believe in what you are doing. That is plain basic nature.
That is why I was curious if the police would throw him in jail, if the quote 'gays' didn't like the cake. Would their displeasure in his work get him thrown in jail? Or, would he be forced to keep trying until they like it?
How could anyone possibly judge this crazy situation? It is pure insanity.
I have ordered food and then got in an argument with the staff of the restaurant. I never eat the food afterwards. Rule number one we learned in the military is never ever eat food that has been prepared by someone who does not like you.
-
Will the same judge force him to stay in business so as not to avoid her orders? Don't laugh! With liberal judges, it is quite possible.
-
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example. It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so. I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them. Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.
Putting the brakes on at that point in the slide where we stop being the absolute beneficiaries of a slippery slope of our own creation is rather self-servingly hypocritical, plus the entire premise of a slippery slope is that brakes do not work.
The only way to stop this slippery slope is to go back to the top if the slide, and shut the whole thing down.
We don't want to do that. In fact, I don't know that we can.
-
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example. It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so. I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them. Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.
More on the slippery slope in my next Last Wire post, Luther and Calvin, LaQuana and Stephanie, and Superman and Bill and Ted.
-
As 240 stated above, the baker has an incentive to make the cake 'a little off' the recipe, or not enough sugar in the icing, etc..
Here's a person that has a figurative gun to his/her head and is being 'forced' to sell your product to somebody you'd like to pass upon.
He can make a cake that tastes awful...prolonging the fight he/she will never win.
The only 'win' would be in their minds, should the Court say that you can refuse service to anyone you want.
I question why you'd want to take a chance on ruining a 'special' day, by ordering the cake from somebody that finds your lifestyle an abomination and being against nature.
And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.
But that's just me....... :whistle:
-
And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.
Nothing makes the day more 'special' than having the police escort the baker to the kitchen and forcing him to bake your cake.
I wonder if they'll have the police go and arrest a Mormon Bishop and force him at gunpoint to perform the ceremony? Then it would truly be 'a day of love'...
-
Forced 'creativity' is at the heart of this. Making a wedding cake is serious art. It takes years of practice, passion, and concentration. The idea that the government could usurp that 'talent', and that 'art', and dictate when and how it can and cannot be used is absurd.
Try to force a sculptor to create a statue by force of law and see what you get. You cannot 'order' people to be creative. It comes naturally, or it does not come at all. You cannot 'create' anything worthwhile in terms of art, if you do not believe in what you are doing. That is plain basic nature.
That is why I was curious if the police would throw him in jail, if the quote 'gays' didn't like the cake. Would their displeasure in his work get him thrown in jail? Or, would he be forced to keep trying until they like it?
How could anyone possibly judge this crazy situation? It is pure insanity.
I have ordered food and then got in an argument with the staff of the restaurant. I never eat the food afterwards. Rule number one we learned in the military is never ever eat food that has been prepared by someone who does not like you.
LOL. Indeed!
-
We are definitely very far down that slippery slope. We have allowed gov't to dictate in every area of our lives. They have long been making rules like the ones Luis mentioned, and we didn't protest because most of us either weren't directly affected or learned to live with them. But the 0bama rule has gone much farther in just a short time - they dictate what we eat, what kind of health care we can have, where we can practice our religion, and it really isn't that much farther of a step to tell us how we have to run our businesses.
The only question is will we learn to accept these rules the way we accepted the smaller ones leading up to it? Or have they finally pushed too far? Would we have accepted the business rules if they had just introduced them more gradually - we do accept that businesses have to serve everyone, many of them have to provide handicap access, they have minimum wages, they have to have a diverse work force, etc. This is just another step forward - giving the gov't the right to dictate how a business must serve their customers.
And if this ruling holds, there will be plenty of lawsuits expanding on the same principle.
-
Putting the brakes on at that point in the slide where we stop being the absolute beneficiaries of a slippery slope of our own creation is rather self-servingly hypocritical, plus the entire premise of a slippery slope is that brakes do not work.
The only way to stop this slippery slope is to go back to the top if the slide, and shut the whole thing down.
We don't want to do that. In fact, I don't know that we can.
No we don't want to go back to the beginning, but I disagree that we can't slow down the slippery slope in many areas. It's one principle of conservatism. I look forward to your next wire post.
-
Nothing makes the day more 'special' than having the police escort the baker to the kitchen and forcing him to bake your cake.
I wonder if they'll have the police go and arrest a Mormon Bishop and force him at gunpoint to perform the ceremony? Then it would truly be 'a day of love'...
IMO.....make the damned cake. Make it the best one you've ever done.
Just don't place the bride/groom figures on...and don't write their names on the cake.
Place a sign in your shop...website....that all special occasion cakes include everything but the personalization.
-
As 240 stated above, the baker has an incentive to make the cake 'a little off' the recipe, or not enough sugar in the icing, etc..
Here's a person that has a figurative gun to his/her head and is being 'forced' to sell your product to somebody you'd like to pass upon.
He can make a cake that tastes awful...prolonging the fight he/she will never win.
The only 'win' would be in their minds, should the Court say that you can refuse service to anyone you want.
I question why you'd want to take a chance on ruining a 'special' day, by ordering the cake from somebody that finds your lifestyle an abomination and being against nature.
And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.
But that's just me....... :whistle:
No, DC, it's isn't just you. The baker should not have to make such decisions under the threat of liberal tyranny.
-
No, DC, it's isn't just you. The baker should not have to make such decisions under the threat of liberal tyranny.
Yep....never understood it.
The sign in the corner 7-11 says....."No shirt? No shoes? No Service!
walk in with just a pair of pants on and you're SOL.
Yet, it you can prance, giggle and shriek like a girl and want to deep kiss your 'partner'.....buddy, their money's green. STFU and serve them.
:shrug:
-
IMO.....make the damned cake. Make it the best one you've ever done.
Just don't place the bride/groom figures on...and don't write their names on the cake.
Place a sign in your shop...website....that all special occasion cakes include everything but the personalization.
I'm pretty sure the judge would again rule that the cake maker had done this to circumvent his ruling.
It's a good try though.
-
The whole situation is only indirectly about the cake. It is much more about 'submission'.
This entire case is about submission of a private citizen to the will of the State, and subsequently to the homosexual agenda.
By the way, none of this would be happening if the baker was a Muslim. Liberals have a negative obsession with Christians and Christianity. That is another big part of what this is all about.
-
2 Timothy 3
3 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
-
2 Timothy 3
3 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Move out of Colorado?
-
Move out of Colorado?
Too late... Avoidance is not so much location.
Revelation 13
16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave,[e] to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. 18 This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666.
-
What do Bible verses have to do with civil affairs, anyway?
-
The whole situation is only indirectly about the cake. It is much more about 'submission'.
This entire case is about submission of a private citizen to the will of the State, and subsequently to the homosexual agenda.
By the way, none of this would be happening if the baker was a Muslim. Liberals have a negative obsession with Christians and Christianity. That is another big part of what this is all about.
:hands:
-
What do Bible verses have to do with civil affairs, anyway?
Not much... anymore.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work.
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now. ]]
So, Luis -- just what do you think it will take to halt that slide down the slippery slope??
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. ]]
Wasn't there a similar case regarding a wedding photographer (who refused to cover a gay wedding) being run before a court for making such a refusal?
How much does that differ from your portrait painter?
How long before a painter, who upon solicitation by a gay couple for a double portrait refuses the job -- and is taken to court and ordered to do the painting?
Luis spoke of "the slippery slope" above.
Once we start slippin' down it, ANYTHING can become possible.
You also wrote in the same post:
[[ I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws... ]]
Well, I'm going to get everything including the kitchen sink thrown at me for saying so, but I've come to the conclusion that the worst "slippery slope" of all -is- the concept of "anti-discrimination" laws. To go further, I've concluded that in some cases it is absolutely appropriate and NECESSARY to discriminate against certain individuals, or against entire groups. You've rolled your eyes at me before in the forum for stating as much, but such behavior is necessary for a society to retain its cutural mores and moorings.
It is because of "discrimation" of certain groups against others that national cultures were created and maintained.
Our egalitarian enthusiasm to dismantle such a culture is exemplified by all our attempts to "end discrimination".
Just look around -- it's like the country, society and culture is cracking and falling apart all around us. I see comments to this effect made almost daily here. Yet no one has the courage to cut to the chase, and opine on just what it would take to return to the "America of our past".
To paraphrase Gordon Gekko -- "discrimination is good".
It's high time we brought some of it back!
-
Luis spoke of "the slippery slope" above.
Once we start slippin' down it, ANYTHING can become possible
Start slipping?
We've been sliding down that slope for a loooong time.
-
Start slipping?
We've been sliding down that slope for a loooong time.
There's no turning back or halting or even slowing "the slide". It's more like free fall.
As an example, the debt has now reached exponential proportions. It's like that penny that you start with and double every day. It's nothing at first but by the end of the month, you're in the millions of dollars.
-
Luis wrote above:
[[ I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now. ]]
So, Luis -- just what do you think it will take to halt that slide down the slippery slope??
Things we, as a society, are unwilling to do.
Coming soon to The Last Wire:
Luther and Calvin, LaQuana and Stephanie, and Superman and Bill and Ted. Climbing Up the Slippery Slope
-
There's no turning back or halting or even slowing "the slide". It's more like free fall.
As an example, the debt has now reached exponential proportions. It's like that penny that you start with and double every day. It's nothing at first but by the end of the month, you're in the millions of dollars.
The debt?
THE DEBT!
How DARE you mention the debt!
We're discussing homos and religion and queer Nazis and baking cakes... IMPORTANT THINGS!
Get back in line and discuss the things that politicians want you to talk about instead of paying attention to shit like the debt.
Agitator...
-
Well, I'm going to get everything including the kitchen sink thrown at me for saying so, but I've come to the conclusion that the worst "slippery slope" of all -is- the concept of "anti-discrimination" laws.
I take it you're no fan of the 14th or 15th Amendments?
To go further, I've concluded that in some cases it is absolutely appropriate and NECESSARY to discriminate against certain individuals, or against entire groups. You've rolled your eyes at me before in the forum for stating as much, but such behavior is necessary for a society to retain its cutural mores and moorings.
What if it's actually society that is changing rather than some invisible government conspiracy to destroy us?
It is because of "discrimation" of certain groups against others that national cultures were created and maintained.
So it must be a zero sum social game? Are you suggesting that our white European culture needed slavery and other injustices to succeed?
-
If it disturbs you that badly do something beyond writing a nasty post in a tiny corner of the Internet. About 60 years ago, there was one black woman who refused to give up her seat. Today Americans are unwilling to give up comfort.
-
The debt?
THE DEBT!
How DARE you mention the debt!
We're discussing homos and religion and queer Nazis and baking cakes... IMPORTANT THINGS!
Get back in line and discuss the things that politicians want you to talk about instead of paying attention to shit like the debt.
Agitator...
MY apologies. I do tend to lose sight of the big picture.
I forgot, are queer Nazis good or bad?
-
MAC wrote above:
[[ Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections? I think not. ]]
Wasn't there a similar case regarding a wedding photographer (who refused to cover a gay wedding) being run before a court for making such a refusal?
How much does that differ from your portrait painter?
How long before a painter, who upon solicitation by a gay couple for a double portrait refuses the job -- and is taken to court and ordered to do the painting?
Luis spoke of "the slippery slope" above.
Once we start slippin' down it, ANYTHING can become possible.
You also wrote in the same post:
[[ I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws... ]]
Well, I'm going to get everything including the kitchen sink thrown at me for saying so, but I've come to the conclusion that the worst "slippery slope" of all -is- the concept of "anti-discrimination" laws. To go further, I've concluded that in some cases it is absolutely appropriate and NECESSARY to discriminate against certain individuals, or against entire groups. You've rolled your eyes at me before in the forum for stating as much, but such behavior is necessary for a society to retain its cutural mores and moorings.
It is because of "discrimation" of certain groups against others that national cultures were created and maintained.
Our egalitarian enthusiasm to dismantle such a culture is exemplified by all our attempts to "end discrimination".
Just look around -- it's like the country, society and culture is cracking and falling apart all around us. I see comments to this effect made almost daily here. Yet no one has the courage to cut to the chase, and opine on just what it would take to return to the "America of our past".
To paraphrase Gordon Gekko -- "discrimination is good".
It's high time we brought some of it back!
Considering the fact that "whites" will be a minority in the US by 2043, you may wish to rethink that thought.
-
The debt?
THE DEBT!
How DARE you mention the debt!
We're discussing homos and religion and queer Nazis and baking cakes... IMPORTANT THINGS!
Get back in line and discuss the things that politicians want you to talk about instead of paying attention to shit like the debt.
Agitator...
If that is what you take away from what we were discussing then you are not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are. If that is all you got out of this discussion, then you missed the whole point by a mile.
The discussion had to do with growing governmental force on a personal and private level. It had nothing to do with queer nazis or all that other childish nonsense you listed. Grow up.
-
If that is what you take away from what we were discussing then you are not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are. If that is all you got out of this discussion, then you missed the whole point by a mile.
The discussion had to do with growing governmental force on a personal and private level. It had nothing to do with queer nazis or all that other childish nonsense you listed. Grow up.
Maybe, it's you who completely missed my point.