The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: txradioguy on October 07, 2017, 03:39:51 pm
-
A Seattle, Washington coffee shop owner kicked a group of Christians out of his shop last week because their presence was “offensive” to him.
The group had been handing out booklets to Seattle citizens which addressed sin, the Bible, and abortion.
According to The Liberator, the group decided to take a break and stop for coffee at nearby coffee shop, Bedlam Coffee.
The site reported that one of the baristas told the owner what the Christian group had been doing outside on the streets of Seattle, and he didn’t take it well.
The owner, in the video, approaches the Christian group and tells them they have to leave.
“I’m gay, you have to leave,” he said. “This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have the right to be offended.”
The group attempted to tell the owner that they hadn’t left any of their pamphlets in his shop, but the owner wasn’t hearing any of it.
Repeatedly telling them to “shut up,” the owner said, “There’s nothing you can say. This is you and I don’t want these people in this place.”
The Christians pressed the owner as to why he is so opposed to their presence in the shop, and that’s when things got extraordinarily vulgar.
“Can you tolerate my presence? Really?” the owner asked. “If I go get my boyfriend and f**k him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that? Are you going to tolerate it?”
Becoming increasingly agitated, the owner yelled, “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it! Leave, all of you! Tell all your f**king friends don’t come here!”
As the group begins collecting their belongings to leave, one of the women in the group addresses the owner directly and tells him, “Just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle.”
“Yeah, I like a**,” the owner spat. “I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f**k Christ in the a**. Okay? He’s hot.”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/07/gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-cafe-goes-on-vulgar-rant-it-was-all-caught-on-video/?utm_content=buffer72d01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
-
It's Seattle. What do we expect? The place is overrun with belligerent gays and leftists.
-
Wow. Speechless..........
-
A Seattle, Washington coffee shop owner kicked a group of Christians out of his shop last week because their presence was “offensive” to him.
The group had been handing out booklets to Seattle citizens which addressed sin, the Bible, and abortion.
According to The Liberator, the group decided to take a break and stop for coffee at nearby coffee shop, Bedlam Coffee.
The site reported that one of the baristas told the owner what the Christian group had been doing outside on the streets of Seattle, and he didn’t take it well.
The owner, in the video, approaches the Christian group and tells them they have to leave.
“I’m gay, you have to leave,” he said. “This is offensive to me. I own the place. I have the right to be offended.”
The group attempted to tell the owner that they hadn’t left any of their pamphlets in his shop, but the owner wasn’t hearing any of it.
Repeatedly telling them to “shut up,” the owner said, “There’s nothing you can say. This is you and I don’t want these people in this place.”
The Christians pressed the owner as to why he is so opposed to their presence in the shop, and that’s when things got extraordinarily vulgar.
“Can you tolerate my presence? Really?” the owner asked. “If I go get my boyfriend and f**k him in the a** right here you’re going to tolerate that? Are you going to tolerate it?”
Becoming increasingly agitated, the owner yelled, “Answer my f***ing question! No, you’re going to sit right here and f***ing watch it! Leave, all of you! Tell all your f**king friends don’t come here!”
As the group begins collecting their belongings to leave, one of the women in the group addresses the owner directly and tells him, “Just know that Christ can save you from that lifestyle.”
“Yeah, I like a**,” the owner spat. “I’m not going to be saved by anything. I’d f**k Christ in the a**. Okay? He’s hot.”
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/07/gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-cafe-goes-on-vulgar-rant-it-was-all-caught-on-video/?utm_content=buffer72d01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Ahh..... methinks that this guy is going to be getting his just rewards some day. Perhaps even some day soon.... the way things are going.
-
Maybe he should bake a cake.
-
Sue him just like if he was a Christian baker.
-
Sue him just like if he was a Christian baker.
I think they'd have a case. He denied service based solely upon their beliefs, and @Jazzhead is always telling us that's what's illegal about the Christian cake bakers. Somebody needs to tell this fellow to "Just boil the damned coffee."
-
Sue him just like if he was a Christian baker.
The cafe owner is in a less defensible position. He's not being asked to participate in a celebration of Christianity - he's just being asked for a cup of coffee.
-
Ya think he would have said that to.... muslims ??
-
Has anyone been to this place? Maybe he advertised non-Christian coffee.
-
Has anyone been to this place? Maybe he advertised non-Christian coffee.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/447731858365612032/CtjHnUSz.jpeg)
-
It's Seattle. What do we expect? The place is overrun with belligerent gays and leftists.
Yes, and loonies of all stripes.
-
October 7, 2017
Gay coffee shop owner kicks Christians out and goes on offensive rant
By Rick Moran
A gay coffee shop owner in Seattle decided to kick out a group of Christian anti-abortion protesters, going on an expletive-laden, extremely offensive rant that was recorded and posted on Facebook.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/gay_coffee_shop_owner_kicks_christians_out_and_goes_on_offensive_rant.html#ixzz4uv8XqMJm
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
-
Merged two threads.
-
Immorality and intolerance are a lethal combination for any society.
-
I find it interesting that in neither post the owner of the coffee shop, Bedlam Coffee, was named.
They have dropped their website, however.
-
A Seattle, Washington coffee shop owner kicked a group of Christians out of his shop last week because their presence was “offensive” to him.
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/07/gay-coffee-shop-owner-kicks-christians-out-of-cafe-goes-on-vulgar-rant-it-was-all-caught-on-video/?utm_content=buffer72d01&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
The owner of the place just opened himself up to a lawsuit. Religious discrimination is against the law.
-
The owner of the place just opened himself up to a lawsuit. Religious discrimination is against the law.
I think not. Christians are the ones discriminated against, and that's OK. There should be a suit brought, but by whom?
-
I would love to see the ACLU take this cause/case on.
-
I would love to see the ACLU take this cause/case on.
I doubt the ACLU will. Christians are not among the protected classes.
-
Anybody notice who's missing on this thread? Hint: I pinged him upthread. One would think he'd be here to condemn the coffee shop owner for being a bigot and a bully.
-
Anybody notice who's missing on this thread? Hint: I pinged him upthread. One would think he'd be here to condemn the coffee shop owner for being a bigot and a bully.
He hasn't gotten instructions from his Liberal/DU friends on how to respond to it. So he's pretending the thread doesn't exist.
-
I think they'd have a case. He denied service based solely upon their beliefs, and @Jazzhead is always telling us that's what's illegal about the Christian cake bakers. Somebody needs to tell this fellow to "Just boil the damned coffee."
And I agree.
-
And I agree.
Very mild response for someone who normally goes ballistic about bigots and bullies.
Wonder why that is?
-
Very mild response for someone who normally goes ballistic about bigots and bullies.
Wonder why that is?
It is a sucker's bet to say anymore than that.
I wonder why the SPLC does not have Anti-Christian groups on its Hate Map? Seems we found one in Seattle.
https://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
-
Very mild response for someone who normally goes ballistic about bigots and bullies.
Wonder why that is?
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. But your position isn't consistent.
Wonder why that is?
-
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.
So you'd be here cheering loudly if the Christians verbally abused embarrassed and humiliated by this shop owner successfully sued for discrimination?
But your position isn't consistent.
And I'm sure you can show where it isn't?
Please feel free to try and do so.
Wonder why that is?
Because you're flailing...and a hypocrite.
-
So you'd be here cheering loudly if the Christians verbally abused embarrassed and humiliated by this shop owner successfully sued for discrimination?
And I'm sure you can show where it isn't?
Please feel free to try and do so.
Because you're flailing...and a hypocrite.
The gay coffee shop owner wasn't being asked to cater at a church bake sale.
The baker wasn't simply being asked to sell a cake to a guy who happened to be gay.
There is no equivelance between the two situations.
-
The gay coffee shop owner wasn't being asked to cater at a church bake sale.
The baker wasn't simply being asked to sell a cake to a guy who happened to be gay.
There is no equivelance between the two situations.
Sure there is. In each case, the customer sought the service the store owner advertised to provide.
-
The gay coffee shop owner wasn't being asked to cater at a church bake sale.
The baker wasn't simply being asked to sell a cake to a guy who happened to be gay.
There is no equivelance between the two situations.
Really? How do you figure?
If this had been a coffee shop owned by a Christian and he'd told the perverts to get out of his shop and done it in the loud manner this gay shop owner did...not only would have all the civil "rights" groups been all over this with lawsuits...Jazzy here would have been frothing at the mouth with his spittle flinging rants about Christian bigotry.
Instead he comes in and makes a very milquetoast response about the bias and bigotry of the coffee shop owner.
-
Sure there is. In each case, the customer sought the service the store owner advertised to provide.
I don't recall the owner of the bakery advertising he made gay "wedding" cakes.
-
I don't recall the owner of the bakery advertising he made gay "wedding" cakes.
Yeah, the law is the law. The coffee shop owner opened himself up to a potential lawsuit the moment he mentioned the customer's beliefs. It is standing precedent for case law that denial of products, services or civil entitlements because of religion is illegal. If the coffee shop owner had confined his criticisms to non-religious elements, he would be in the clear. The right to deny service to anyone has an unspoken addendum, "...legally deny service". One may not deny service to someone because they are Christian or any other religion.
I have been told by people who know that intention is 9/10ths of the law. The coffee shop owner demonstrated his intention to deny the customer service based on an arguably illegal premise. 'Dodged a bullet if the Christian doesn't sue. He has a strong case, IMO because of the his public statements. The question is whether it is worth the investment to pursue it.
Where is the ACLU when a Christian is mistreated based on his chosen beliefs/doctrine? Out playing golf or protecting transsexual Communist child-molesters no doubt.
-
Instead he comes in and makes a very milquetoast response about the bias and bigotry of the coffee shop owner.
I said I agreed with the poster who claimed the barista should be sued for his bias and bigotry. How is that a "milquetoast response"? Gay bigots, Christian bigots, I'll defend neither. And neither should you.
-
@LateForLunch I don't think you edited enough...we can express an opinion without using derogatory names..please edit again
edited to add I went ahead and fixed it myself along with @txradioguy quote of it...
-
Yeah, the law is the law. The coffee shop owner opened himself up to a potential lawsuit the moment he mentioned the customer's beliefs. It is standing precedent for case law that denial of products, services or civil entitlements because of religion is illegal. If the coffee shop owner had confined his criticisms to non-religious elements, he would be in the clear. The right to deny service to anyone has an unspoken addendum, "...legally deny service". One may not deny service to someone because they are Christian or any other religion.
I have been told by people who know that intention is 9/10ths of the law. The coffee shop owner demonstrated his intention to deny the customer service based on an arguably illegal premise. 'Dodged a bullet if the Christian doesn't sue. He has a strong case, IMO because of the his public statements. The question is whether it is worth the investment to pursue it.
Where is the ACLU when a Christian is mistreated based on his chosen beliefs/doctrine? Out playing golf or protecting transsexual Communist child-molesters no doubt.
All he could have said was "I don't allow soliciting in here"...which was a legit reason since the people in question were leaving religious printouts/material in the establishment...and it would have been a non issue.
But instead...
-
Really? How do you figure?
If this had been a coffee shop owned by a Christian and he'd told the perverts to get out of his shop and done it in the loud manner this gay shop owner did...not only would have all the civil "rights" groups been all over this with lawsuits...Jazzy here would have been frothing at the mouth with his spittle flinging rants about Christian bigotry.
Instead he comes in and makes a very milquetoast response about the bias and bigotry of the coffee shop owner.
I totally agree about the emotional disparity in @Jazzhead's response.
-
I totally agree about the emotional disparity in @Jazzhead's response.
"Emotional disparity"? Is that what conservatives are reduced to complaining about?
And do you really want to equate the barista's response with the bakers before knowing all the facts? I can't tell if the Christians were proseletyzing or distributing literature in the barista's shop. If they were, he would have been within his rights to throw them out. Same with the baker if the customer had asked him to print on the cake a message praising gay sex.
Unlawful discrimination arises when service is denied solely by reason of who the customer is. That seems to have been the case with the baker - he refused service prior to any discussion about the contents of the cake.
-
"Emotional disparity"? Is that what conservatives are reduced to complaining about?
And do you really want to equate the barista's response with the bakers before knowing all the facts? I can't tell if the Christians were proseletyzing or distributing literature in the barista's shop. If they were, he would have been within his rights to throw them out. Same with the baker if the customer had asked him to print on the cake a message praising gay sex.
Unlawful discrimination arises when service is denied solely by reason of who the customer is. That seems to have been the case with the baker - he refused service prior to any discussion about the contents of the cake.
Now you're arguing on behalf of the barista. Funny I never saw you give the baker the benefit of a doubt.
'Nuff said.
-
Now you're arguing on behalf of the barista. Funny I never saw you give the baker the benefit of a doubt.
'Nuff said.
The facts regarding the baker are set forth in affidavits and briefs filed with the Court. The facts regarding the barista's behavior are set forth in an article on a right-wing website. The baker claims he's an "artist", but refused service before there was any discussion concerning the artistry to be employed on the cake. There's no evidence whatsoever that his customer badgered him or otherwise demanded he provide anything other than what he'd advertised.
Regarding the barista, do you disagree that it is significant whether the customers were proselytizing or distributing literature in the barista's shop? If they were, the barista - like any shop owner, gay, Christian or otherwise - has the right to boot 'em out. If they weren't, then the barista is advised to lawyer up, if he can find a lawyer to defend his obnoxious bigotry.
-
Unlawful discrimination arises when service is denied solely by reason of who the customer is. That seems to have been the case with the baker - he refused service prior to any discussion about the contents of the cake.
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.
-
Sue him just like if he was a Christian baker.
They won't. Christian's aren't hateful people hell-bent on destroying people they disagree with.
That's liberals.
-
"Emotional disparity"? Is that what conservatives are reduced to complaining about?
You fell into the trap, which is now sprung.
Although you have tried mightedly to say you are a conservative, you have grouped yourself otherwise.
-
You fell into the trap, which is now sprung.
Although you have tried mightedly to say you are a conservative, you have grouped yourself otherwise.
No, I'm mocking a so-called conservative who's using the same emotionally-laden arguments you'd expect from a liberal. What I oppose is arbitrary bigotry, not the exercise of religious faith. That's a conservative position.
-
He did not refuse them service. He refused to make the specific product they wanted.
That's not correct - he refused to sell them a wedding cake, an item which he advertised to provide. According to the court briefs, he never discussed with the customer the design or message on the cake.
That said, the death threats and harassment he's been subjected to are beyond the pale. This is a legal question which can and will be resolved in the courts. It is not a subject for mob justice.
-
That's not correct - he refused to sell them a wedding cake, an item which he advertised to provide. According to the court briefs, he never discussed with the customer the design or message on the cake.
You can pretend all you want that any claimed wedding is the same. But in that state of Colorado, at that time, it wasn't a recognized wedding.
That said, the death threats and harassment he's been subjected to are beyond the pale. This is a legal question which can and will be resolved in the courts. It is not a subject for mob justice.
We agree on that point.
But they were not refused service because they were gay. They were offered anything they had in the store to sell.
-
But they were not refused service because they were gay. They were offered anything they had in the store to sell.
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 was making a political statement at his customer's expense in violation of the law. That he is cloaking it as his exercise of "religion" doesn't change its unlawful character.
Of course, I may be wrong. The Court's decision will be rendered later this year.
-
That's not correct - he refused to sell them a wedding cake, an item which he advertised to provide.
You keep saying that like a broken record, but I don't think you have proven, either by a scan of an ad or a screen-grab of an online ad to prove your point. Until you provide a link proving that wedding cakes were being advertised for sale to all comers, then I have say you've failed to put up, with the familiar second half to that equation.
-
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 was making a political statement at his customer's expense in violation of the law. That he is cloaking it as his exercise of "religion" doesn't change its unlawful character.
Of course, I may be wrong. The Court's decision will be rendered later this year.
Yet the "law" of the time agreed with the Baker. It wasn't a legal marriage in that state.
-
Yet the "law" of the time agreed with the Baker. It wasn't a legal marriage in that state.
So what?
-
So what?
If I order somebody to rob a bank or I'll kidnap his wife, that would be illegal because I'm creating an illegal act. The baker was being ordered to participate in what was then not a legal act, so that's what. My example is a little extreme, but it will suffice to show the folly of your flippant response.
-
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").
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. 11513
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm trying to get proof of said advertisement
That will prove difficult since Jazzhead made it up.
-
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.
-
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? :shrug:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Why would he have to advertise that he didn't make a product for an event that was not sanctioned under Colorado law?
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.
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.
Again, no. There is no law in Colorado that forces a baker to bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.
When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.
That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy...... **nononono*
-
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.
He also did not advertise he would not bake wedding cakes for a man marrying a goat.
So by J's logic, he would be forced to do so. Inscription requested is "I got my Goat!"
-
When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.
That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy...... **nononono*
He does this in order to shut down threads.
He is the Champion thread smasher of alltime.
-
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.
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?
-
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?
All good questions deserving answers as intelligent as the question.
Good luck to leftist litigators when it's Muslims telling the gummint to suck rocks about delivering products/serives to homosexual couples. My watchword is, "what would Holland do"? The answer is - nothing. Dutch cops/court would tell the gay person to suck it up and go somewhere else and tell the baker to put up a sign warning customers that their beliefs "prevent them from engaging in some products/services" and refer them to documation inside. No litigation wedges or cracks for attorneys to enter and cause destruction like roots in asphalt. No room for roving, poison-laden lawsuit "professionals" to attack a business person.
Not tort reform but almost better..
-
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 neglected to mention that the baker also refused to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual woman. And he is not being honest when he says the baker refused service. Jazzhead is consciously aware that the baker did not refuse service, but freely offered other baked goods to the customer.
Not sure why he remains determined to offer a false narrative of the events in question, especially after providing links that contradict his claims.
-
Jazzhead neglected to mention that the baker also refused to make a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual woman. And he is not being honest when he says the baker refused service. Jazzhead is consciously aware that the baker did not refuse service, but freely offered other baked goods to the customer.
Not sure why he remains determined to offer a false narrative of the events in question, especially after providing links that contradict his claims.
Because without distortion of fact, there is no case whatsoever, and people will realize just how badly the baker was screwed over. That doesn't exactly spin things the way he wants.
-
Again, no. There is no law in Colorado that forces a baker to bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.
Ah, but there is. It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation. Not all jurisdictions have such laws - but Colorado does. The status of same sex marriage in Colorado is irrelevant. Lots of folks celebrate weddings in Colorado that are held elsewhere. Bakers in Colorado that advertise wedding cakes are obliged not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
This is all lots of fun to argue about, but the bottom line is that the SCOTUS will soon rule who is right and who is wrong. I'll abide by their decision.
-
Because without distortion of fact, there is no case whatsoever, and people will realize just how badly the baker was screwed over. That doesn't exactly spin things the way he wants.
I linked a SCOTUS brief that lays out the facts. Read it before you accuse me of lying and spin. Service was refused without any sort of discussion regarding the design or message on the cake. Whether that amounts to unlawful discrimination is in the hands of the Supreme Court. We'll see who screwed over whom. One clue, however, may be seen on the baker's own website - he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.
-
Ah, but there is. It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation. Not all jurisdictions have such laws - but Colorado does. The status of same sex marriage in Colorado is irrelevant. Lots of folks celebrate weddings in Colorado that are held elsewhere. Bakers in Colorado that advertise wedding cakes are obliged not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
This is all lots of fun to argue about, but the bottom line is that the SCOTUS will soon rule who is right and who is wrong. I'll abide by their decision.
Why wasn't Colorado sued for the same reason on the issuance of the marriage licences?
-
Why wasn't Colorado sued for the same reason on the issuance of the marriage licences?
Maybe Colorado was; many states faced challenges in the years leading up to the Supreme Court's ruling that a government's provision of special status and benefits to married couples was subject to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs. That argument, as advanced by a public accommodation, is nonsense and will be disposed of quickly by the Court, as it has since 1964.
The more momentous argument is that because his business - the creation of custom wedding cakes - involves the exercise of some creativity, he should be allowed to decide who will, and will not, receive his services. That's momentous because it has implication for a whole host of service providers. Can a maker of sandwiches discriminate because his delicious double-stacked creations are the result of his passion and artistry?
Here, I predict that the SCOTUS will punt. It's important to keep in mind that the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose the cases it will hear. I think it picked this one because it can uphold the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation from First Amendment claims of religious freedom, while sidestepping the baker's status as an "artist" able to pick and choose his commissions. That's because the baker refused service before even initiating a discussion about the design or message of the cake. His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry". This fact is the lever for the SCOTUS to rule on the issue it wants to emphasize, while avoiding the issue it prefers to leave to the political process.
-
One clue, however, may be seen on the baker's own website - he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.
Then proving he once advertised wedding cakes for all should be a simple task for a bright-minded individual, yet we're still waiting.
(http://997waystobeagreatspeaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/speaking-mistake-looking-at-watch.jpg)
-
His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry".
That claim ignores the fact that he offered to sell them anything in his store. He wasn't biased against them. He was biased in participating in the custom design of a cake for a homosexual "marriage". It did not matter what that design was wanted, he was not going to be forced to be part of it.
This is a baker that routinely made business decisions based upon his religious beliefs. He had refused other work in the past that did not involve homosexuality due to his religious beliefs.
-
That claim ignores the fact that he offered to sell them anything in his store. He wasn't biased against them. He was biased in participating in the custom design of a cake for a homosexual "marriage". It did not matter what that design was wanted, he was not going to be forced to be part of it.
This is a baker that routinely made business decisions based upon his religious beliefs. He had refused other work in the past that did not involve homosexuality due to his religious beliefs.
His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks. His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly - he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone.
He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here, just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake for these folks to celebrate their wedding. As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that. What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.
-
His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks. His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly - he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone.
He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here, just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake to for these folks to celebrate their wedding. As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that. What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.
Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?
Anything at all? Usually at a bakery...because of the complexity of them...a wedding cake is a special request...special order kind of thing....something you have to specifically ask to find out if that particular baker does them.
So where is the link to something from this guys shop showing that he specifically advertised that he made wedding cakes?
-
His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks. His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly - he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone.
He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here, just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake to for these folks to celebrate their wedding. As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that. What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.
We disagree. We will see what the SCOTUS says.
This baker would not even sell Halloween decorated cakes because of his religious beliefs. The more I learn about the way he ran his business, the more I suspect he was targeted because of his religious beliefs.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/16-111-ts.pdf
Phillips gladly serves people from all walks of life,
including individuals of all races, faiths, and sexual
orientations. JA164. But he cannot design custom
cakes that express ideas or celebrate events at odds
with his religious beliefs. JA158-59, 164-66. For
example, Phillips will not design cakes that celebrate
Halloween; express anti-family themes (such as a
cake glorifying divorce); contain hateful, vulgar, or
profane messages (such as a cake disparaging gays
and lesbians); or promote atheism, racism, or
indecency. JA165. These limitations on Phillips’s
custom work have no bearing on his premade baked
items, which he sells to everyone, no questions asked.
-
Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?
Anything at all? Usually at a bakery...because of the complexity of them...a wedding cake is a special request...special order kind of thing....something you have to specifically ask to find out if that particular baker does them.
So where is the link to something from this guys shop showing that he specifically advertised that he made wedding cakes?
I've been requesting that proof. First he said that there is no proof is actually proof. When I pointed out the silliness of that approach, he started ignoring my request, and now I guess I'm the broken record. :shrug:
-
I've been requesting that proof. First he said that there is no proof is actually proof. When I pointed out the silliness of that approach, he started ignoring my request, and now I guess I'm the broken record. :shrug:
Nah the broken record is the one that keeps repeating the false bigotry meme and claims of discrimination with nothing to back up the claim.
-
I've been requesting that proof.
Check out his website. Check out the court briefs. A long-standing portion of his business was the creation of wedding cakes. The law requires him to serve his customers without discriminating on the basis of (among other things) sexual orientation.
-
Check out his website. Check out the court briefs. A long-standing portion of his business was the creation of wedding cakes. The law requires him to serve his customers without discriminating on the basis of (among other things) sexual orientation.
You've been claiming he advertised to bake wedding cakes for anyone. That is the claim I'm expecting you to prove, and for some strange reason you will not.
-
Ah, but there is. It's the law the prohibits discrimination by a public accommodation with respect to a customer's sexual orientation.
Except that you know this not to be the case since the request of a heterosexual woman to bake a same-sex wedding cake was also denied. Yet here you are lying about it once again.
-
Do you have any link to anything that shows this baker specifically advertised to make wedding cakes?
Silly argument:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130701000000*/http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20130701000000*/http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/)
http://masterpiececakes.com/
Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
-
Silly argument:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130701000000*/http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes/
http://masterpiececakes.com/
Masterpiece Cakeshop was The Knot Best of Weddings Pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2012.
Amazing that you could find that and someone else here either couldn't or wouldn't.
-
I linked a SCOTUS brief that lays out the facts. Read it before you accuse me of lying and spin. Service was refused without any sort of discussion regarding the design or message on the cake.
No discussion regarding the sexual preference of the customers occurred either. But there was a discussion about what the cake was for.
The baker made wedding cakes. Under Colorado law, weddings are between one man and one woman. The customers were ordering something that did not fall under this definition. They ordered something that the baker did not make nor ever offered to make to anyone.
But then you knew that already. Yet you still offer a false account of what occurred.
-
Except that you know this not to be the case since the request of a heterosexual woman to bake a same-sex wedding cake was also denied. Yet here you are lying about it once again.
A difference of opinion is not "lying", except to those too stupid or graceless to recognize it.
-
But then you knew that already. Yet you still offer a false account of what occurred.
@Hoodat if he was honest...he wouldn't be able to rant about intolerant Christian bigots with impunity.
-
Maybe Colorado was; many states faced challenges in the years leading up to the Supreme Court's ruling that a government's provision of special status and benefits to married couples was subject to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs. That argument, as advanced by a public accommodation, is nonsense and will be disposed of quickly by the Court, as it has since 1964.
The more momentous argument is that because his business - the creation of custom wedding cakes - involves the exercise of some creativity, he should be allowed to decide who will, and will not, receive his services. That's momentous because it has implication for a whole host of service providers. Can a maker of sandwiches discriminate because his delicious double-stacked creations are the result of his passion and artistry?
Here, I predict that the SCOTUS will punt. It's important to keep in mind that the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose the cases it will hear. I think it picked this one because it can uphold the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation from First Amendment claims of religious freedom, while sidestepping the baker's status as an "artist" able to pick and choose his commissions. That's because the baker refused service before even initiating a discussion about the design or message of the cake. His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry". This fact is the lever for the SCOTUS to rule on the issue it wants to emphasize, while avoiding the issue it prefers to leave to the political process.
I think you could make the argument that "custom" changes the nature of the service because it requires agreement between the customer and the service provider to a very specific, out-of-ordinary service. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, does that mean the service provider denied service?
-
I think you could make the argument that "custom" changes the nature of the service because it requires agreement between the customer and the service provider to a very specific, out-of-ordinary service. If the two parties cannot reach an agreement, does that mean the service provider denied service?
No, not at all. What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service; if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake, that's not an arbitrary denial of service. As I and others have noted before, a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.
But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion. That suggests arbitrary discrimination - and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.
-
No, not at all. What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service; if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake, that's not an arbitrary denial of service. As I and others have noted before, a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.
But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion. That suggests arbitrary discrimination - and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.
How is it arbitrary if he's refused to make gay "wedding" cakes for anyone who's asked?
Arbitrary would be making a gay "wedding" cake for person A and refusing to make the same kind of cake for person B.
The baker has been consistent...not arbitrary.
-
It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.
And your argument is that he doesn't have the right to discriminate against a cake.
The more momentous argument is that because his business - the creation of custom wedding cakes - involves the exercise of some creativity, he should be allowed to decide who will, and will not, receive his services.
But that is not the issue at all. It has never been about who is served, but rather what is served.
It's important to keep in mind that the SCOTUS gets to pick and choose the cases it will hear. I think it picked this one because it can uphold the laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation from First Amendment claims of religious freedom
Discrimination against a cake.
That's because the baker refused service before even initiating a discussion about the design or message of the cake.
You know that not to be true. The baker was specifically asked to make a wedding cake for a 'wedding' not sanctioned by the State of Colorado. He refused because he does not make that type of cake. He doesn't make that type of cake for anyone regardless of who requests it. His discrimination against that type of 'unsanctioned' cake affects everyone equally regardless of sexual preference. Pointedly so since sexual preference was never discussed. But then you knew that already.
His intent to discriminate was manifest without regard to whether he would be forced to practice his "artistry".
That would be because his intent to discriminate was in regards to the product he made and not to the customer wanting to buy it, which the court documents prove. And you already know this to be the case, yet you come back again and again and again with this false narrative of what happened.
-
No, not at all. What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service; if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake, that's not an arbitrary denial of service.
The message of the cake was to celebrate a marriage not sanctioned under Colorado law. So by the definition you just gave, there was nothing unlawful about the baker's actions.
As I and others have noted before, a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.
Why not? You are already demanding that a baker (at the point of a gun) add a product to his menu that he does not currently offer. Why does that same standard not apply to Jewish bakers?
Thus the pitfalls of making you the arbiter of who bakes what for whom. You champion equal protection, yet are the very first person to violate it.
But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion.
Nope. The baker was specifically asked to bake a cake for a wedding not sanctioned under Colorado Law. At no time did the baker turn the customer away. He informed the customer that he does not bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law, and he subsequently offered him other products that he did make. You keep flat out lying about the events that occurred. What is it in you that compels you to continually lie about this case?
That suggests arbitrary discrimination -
Nothing arbitrary about it. The baker simply does not bake cakes for weddings not sanctioned under Colorado law.
- and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.
What about the heterosexual woman who also requested the same-sex wedding cake? Is she also the victim of discrimination? Or is this where your equal protection argument falls apart?
-
That would be because his intent to discriminate was in regards to the product he made and not to the customer wanting to buy it, which the court documents prove. And you already know this to be the case, yet you come back again and again and again with this false narrative of what happened.
And you keep coming back again and again to your bullshit. If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes. His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes. All customers are treated the same - if they want a custom wedding cake, they'll have to go elsewhere. His PAST practice was very different - he advertised as his specialty the creation of wedding cakes, yet in practice he denied this service to his gay customers - no matter what design or message they may have requested for the cake. That was discrimination with respect to his customer , and that is what is unlawful.
-
How is it arbitrary if he's refused to make gay "wedding" cakes for anyone who's asked?
Arbitrary would be making a gay "wedding" cake for person A and refusing to make the same kind of cake for person B.
The baker has been consistent...not arbitrary.
Notice how Jazzhead violates the very standards he claims to uphold. He claims consistency as being arbitrary, yet deems his own arbitrary claims as consistent.
As Mick Jagger and Keith Richards once said:
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints . . .
-
one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs.
The 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The baker is protected by the bolded. He exercised his constitutional right to his religious beliefs as well as his constitutional right to free speech.
-
A difference of opinion is not "lying", except to those too stupid or graceless to recognize it.
You have made various assertions on this thread that have been proven false six ways from Tuesday, and you've backed up you claims with spurious evidence that don't 't prove your points at all. At some point in time a reasonable observer would come to the conclusion that you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
That some people call that "lying" is neither stupid or graceless.
-
Notice how Jazzhead violates the very standards he claims to uphold. He claims consistency as being arbitrary, yet deems his own arbitrary claims as consistent.
As Mick Jagger and Keith Richards once said:
Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints . . .
That's the problem Liberals run into when they try to make their case on a Conservative website. It's all based on emotion and feelings...and they never survive the cold harsh light of reality and facts.
-
It's important to keep in mind that the baker makes two principle arguments - one, that he has a First Amendment right to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs. That argument, as advanced by a public accommodation, is nonsense and will be disposed of quickly by the Court, as it has since 1964.
I have not read all the posts on this topic, nor have I read other relevant documents such as briefs, so my thoughts are certainly subject to correction. I note that others have asserted on this thread that the baker had previously refused to prepare a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding when that cake was ordered by a heterosexual woman, and that the baker had offered to sell the homosexual couple anything already available in his shop. I accept those assertions as true and acknowledge that if they are proven untrue then my argument fails.
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.
Now the baker and his lawyer might in fact be describing this as a right to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs, or perhaps that is simply a facile way to describe the baker's position if one disagrees with him. A court might make its decision from the perspective of discrimination. But the issue is not one of discrimination and insisting on describing it as such is intellectually lazy at best. If heterosexual and homosexual were both treated in exactly the same way then there was no discrimination. The issue is whether being in business causes one to lose constitutional rights. Can a business owner be forced to make a statement which violates his conscience?
-
If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes. His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes.
His adjustment reflects a change in the law, and it's dishonest to say he changed his policy because of your assertion he's a bigoted Christian and he was doing something wrong in the first place. People change policies all the time because they've been sued, and doing so is not an admission of guilt, it's a sound business practice. He's protecting himself from A-holes who call him a "bigot" with no cause.
Only people who have prejudged a business owner dance around and do victory dances in the end zone when this happens. Frankly, it makes you look petty and foolish. Reminds me of the saying about why one doesn't play Chess with a pigeon.
-
And you keep coming back again and again to your bullshit. If you go on his website, you'll find that he no longer takes orders for custom wedding cakes.
His actions after the fact have ZERO bearing on what occurred. And the reason he no longer takes orders for wedding cakes is because he refuses to be forced at the point of a gun to make a product against his will.
His CURRENT practice is to discriminate with respect to the product he makes.
That was his former practice as well. He has remained consistent, except that he is now denied the freedom (at the point of a gun) to make the wedding cakes he wants to make.
All customers are treated the same - if they want a custom wedding cake, they'll have to go elsewhere.
All customers were treated the same before, too. If they wanted a wedding cake for a wedding not sanctioned under Colorado law, they had to go elsewhere.
His PAST practice was very different - he advertised as his specialty the creation of wedding cakes, yet in practice he denied this service to his gay customers - no matter what design or message they may have requested for the cake. That was discrimination with respect to his customer , and that is what is unlawful.
Bullshit, bullshit, and more bullshit. First of all, sexual preference was not discussed with the customers. There is nothing in the court records that indicated the customers revealed their sexual preference to the baker. Secondly, at no time were the customers denied service. The court records are quite clear about this. Neither side denies it. Yet here you are again flat out lying about it. That makes you a liar. Thirdly, a heterosexual woman also asked for a same-sex wedding cake, and she too was told that the baker did not make that type of cake. So the discrimination against a certain product was experienced by both heterosexual and homosexual customers equally. So your claim that the customer was discriminated against simply because of his sexual preference is pure unadulterated bullshit.
But then you knew that already.
-
Reminds me of the saying about why one doesn't play Chess with a pigeon.
As usual, the chaos-ridden left has no consistent morality nor therefore policy. What will Jazzhead and his lovely friends do when muzz businesses stridently refuse to provide goods/services to homosexuals? What then, sieur? Will the ACLU and a cadre of expensive lawyers descend on them like carrion birds to destroy their business or put them in prison because they refused to serve Jewish, Christian or transgender people !?!
Can't wait to see what sort of absurd, cognitively dissonant crunk the 'Crats drop THEN. heh 'Can't wait.
The leftist carnival of chaos and mutual rape continues.
-
No, not at all. What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service; if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake, that's not an arbitrary denial of service. As I and others have noted before, a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.
But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion. That suggests arbitrary discrimination - and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.
In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?
-
In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?
From what I've seen of the argument, unless the Jewish cake baker specifies in his advertised schedule of services that he won't do Nazi imagery, then he can be compelled to decorate a cake with a Swastika and the double lightning bolts, too. If a Muslim walks in the store and wants a cake inscribed with "Die, Jewish Dogs" he'd likewise be forced to produce it, unless also noted in some list of services available.
Makes for quite a long stretch of fine print, no?
-
In your opinion, a Jewish baker could be compelled to to bake a custom cake for a Nazi celebration, provided the decorations are not considered offensive?
No. Nazism (indeed, political views in general) aren't protected characteristics with respect to public accommodations. A store could, I believe, refuse to serve Democrats, so long as such refusal isn't deemed a subterfuge for discrimination with respect to a protected characteristic.
Note that sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in many places. That is a matter for the political process to decide.
-
He's protecting himself from A-holes who call him a "bigot" with no cause.
Also against folks who would reasonably deem him a bigot on the basis of his actions. Those are the folks who tend to sue and win.
-
Not gonna say it. No matter what, it will come off looking like a cheap shot.
-
Not gonna say it. No matter what, it will come off looking like a cheap shot.
888high58888 Discretion is the better part of valor.
-
888high58888 Discretion is the better part of valor.
High praise, my dear ML. High praise indeed. You know what I'm thinking, too....
-
No, not at all. What's unlawful is the arbitrary denial of service; if the baker and customer couldn't agree on the design and message on the cake, that's not an arbitrary denial of service. As I and others have noted before, a Jewish baker can't be compelled to place a swastika on a cake.
But here, the facts are that the customer was turned away before there was any such discussion. That suggests arbitrary discrimination - and possible grounds for the Court to disappoint those hoping it would opine on the status of artists under the anti-discrimination laws.
My secondary business is creating custom jewelry for special occasions, mostly weddings. Its secondary and custom and I don't advertise (although more work would be good), because I don't like dealing with certain personalities and certain designs are offensive enough to me that I don't want to create them. I've had people really go off on me when I explained that I could not accommodate them. One or two has threatened to sue me. My attorney assures me that as long as I keep the business based on agreement between customer and myself as provider they have no standing to sue. The advertising bit is my own choice. I suppose the law differs between states to some extent. My point is that as long as the baker was willing to sell the customer anything in the bakery, he was not discriminating. The custom cake is an agreement between consumer and provider and any reason will do - including "I don't feel like making it right now". Otherwise, what limitations are there on the ability of a customer to make a demand on a provider? Could someone come to me and say "you will make diamond necklaces and earrings for my daughter's wedding, you will provide all the raw materials and labor and you will charge only $100 or I will sue you for discriminating because I'm Hindu."?
-
No. Nazism (indeed, political views in general) aren't protected characteristics with respect to public accommodations. A store could, I believe, refuse to serve Democrats, so long as such refusal isn't deemed a subterfuge for discrimination with respect to a protected characteristic.
In other words, some animals are more equal than others.
Note that sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in many places.
Non-sequitur. This case has nothing to do with sexual preference. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
That is a matter for the political process to decide.
Now that's funny. You have consistently rejected the political process in favor of the tyranny of black robes. The political process dictates that Californians get to establish their own marriage laws. The tyranny of black robes dictates that California does not get to establish their own marriage laws, but must adopt Vermont's instead.
-
High praise, my dear ML. High praise indeed. You know what I'm thinking, too....
I do indeed!
-
From what I've seen of the argument, unless the Jewish cake baker specifies in his advertised schedule of services that he won't do Nazi imagery, then he can be compelled to decorate a cake with a Swastika and the double lightning bolts, too. If a Muslim walks in the store and wants a cake inscribed with "Die, Jewish Dogs" he'd likewise be forced to produce it, unless also noted in some list of services available.
Makes for quite a long stretch of fine print, no?
"Makes for quite a long stretch of fine print, no?"
In the final analysis, the issue of the Christian baker refusing to bake a homosexual-themed cake is secondary to right of any business to refuse to make something they don't want to make.
If the Christian baker can indeed by law be forced to make a homosexual themed cake against his wishes, no business can be exempt from refusing to make a product some customer asks for.
You only make widgets painted certain colors? You must make me this widget painted this other color. You don't want to make your product with that paint color? Tough, I demand you make it that color so as not to discriminate against me.
There is no way to prove someone is a hater as courts are determining in ruling against businesses who don't make special products for homosexuals. I'm not a lawyer, but I've never heard or read of a legal decision being based on an emotion. Of course, now, thanks to leftists, we have hate crimes. What is a "hate" crime? There is no such thing under the constitution.
But they do it anyway. It's all unconstitutional, but when has unconstitutionality ever stopped leftists?
-
My secondary business is creating custom jewelry for special occasions, mostly weddings. Its secondary and custom and I don't advertise (although more work would be good), because I don't like dealing with certain personalities and certain designs are offensive enough to me that I don't want to create them. I've had people really go off on me when I explained that I could not accommodate them. One or two has threatened to sue me. My attorney assures me that as long as I keep the business based on agreement between customer and myself as provider they have no standing to sue. The advertising bit is my own choice. I suppose the law differs between states to some extent. My point is that as long as the baker was willing to sell the customer anything in the bakery, he was not discriminating. The custom cake is an agreement between consumer and provider and any reason will do - including "I don't feel like making it right now". Otherwise, what limitations are there on the ability of a customer to make a demand on a provider? Could someone come to me and say "you will make diamond necklaces and earrings for my daughter's wedding, you will provide all the raw materials and labor and you will charge only $100 or I will sue you for discriminating because I'm Hindu."?
"Could someone come to me and say "you will make diamond necklaces and earrings for my daughter's wedding, you will provide all the raw materials and labor and you will charge only $100 or I will sue you for discriminating because I'm Hindu."
That is the crux of the problem. Whatever particular kind of business it is is secondary to the principle of a business having the right to not to make anything they don't want to make.
How can somebody demand a business make a product they don't want to make? I've been upset in the past with certain food companies discontinuing certain brands. Despite my complaints, the food companies didn't start making the food products again. Imagine that, they stopped making those particular kinds of food despite my complaints. Maybe I should have sued for discrimination.
-
In other words, some animals are more equal than others.
Non-sequitur. This case has nothing to do with sexual preference. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Now that's funny. You have consistently rejected the political process in favor of the tyranny of black robes. The political process dictates that Californians get to establish their own marriage laws. The tyranny of black robes dictates that California does not get to establish their own marriage laws, but must adopt Vermont's instead.
Mr. Jazz really tipped his hand with that "Protected Characteristic," didn't he? After all these pages of posts, we finally sussed out what it is he wants. As you said, "Some animals are more equal than others." He finally had to admit what he wants in this affair is preferential treatment for "protected classes." Very telling, congrats for noodling that out.
The left will never, ever understand the correct way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate discrimination. Too much "Gettinevenism" going on out there, and it's the Left that's doing it.
-
My point is that as long as the baker was willing to sell the customer anything in the bakery, he was not discriminating.
Correct. Except that the baker wasn't willing to sell a wedding cake for the "wrong" kind of wedding.
The custom cake is an agreement between consumer and provider and any reason will do - including "I don't feel like making it right now".
Almost any reason will do. Not a reason which amounts to arbitrary discrimination. The baker is, for example, within his rights to decline to place a pro-gay message on a cake. But not to decline to produce any wedding cake whatsoever just because the customers are gay. His (IMO) fatal error was in showing his customer the door before even having a conversation about what the customer wanted in a cake. He can't claim a right to artistic license when it is clear his objection wasn't artistic.
-
"Could someone come to me and say "you will make diamond necklaces and earrings for my daughter's wedding, you will provide all the raw materials and labor and you will charge only $100 or I will sue you for discriminating because I'm Hindu."
That is the crux of the problem. Whatever particular kind of business it is is secondary to the principle of a business having the right to not to make anything they don't want to make.
How can somebody demand a business make a product they don't want to make? I've been upset in the past with certain food companies discontinuing certain brands. Despite my complaints, the food companies didn't start making the food products again. Imagine that, they stopped making those particular kinds of food despite my complaints. Maybe I should have sued for discrimination.
As many have noted here, what is being demanded of the Baker, the Photographer and others amounts to involuntary servitude, AKA "slavery." This article shows it's meant to be a one-sided street. The resident leftist freely admits that as long as he can get a tyrant in black robes to stamp on OK on it, he can force anybody to do anything he wants them too, at the point of a gun if necessary.
One of the Founders said we must exercise eternal vigilance. Guess who for?
-
Mr. Jazz really tipped his hand with that "Protected Characteristic," didn't he? After all these pages of posts, we finally sussed out what it is he wants. As you said, "Some animals are more equal than others." He finally had to admit what he wants in this affair is preferential treatment for "protected classes." Very telling, congrats for noodling that out.
I was asked to describe the state of the law. I have never been asked my opinion of how I would write the law given a clean slate to do so. The Trump administration's brief to the Court in support of the baker tries to argue that while race is a recognized protected characteristic, sexual orientation may not be. Have they "tipped their hand"? No, they're merely addressing the state of the law as it exists.
-
Correct. Except that the baker wasn't willing to sell a wedding cake for the "wrong" kind of wedding.
Almost any reason will do. Not a reason which amounts to arbitrary discrimination. The baker is, for example, within his rights to decline to place a pro-gay message on a cake. But not to decline to produce any wedding cake whatsoever just because the customers are gay. His (IMO) fatal error was in showing his customer the door before even having a conversation about what the customer wanted in a cake. He can't claim a right to artistic license when it is clear his objection wasn't artistic.
Your "reasonable sounding" exception to the rule of free association goes out the window when declarations of "illegal discrimination" can be manufactured out of whole cloth. In the case of the Baker of Cakes, it's obvious to all but you he was targeted by the Lavender Mafia to destroy him and make an example, even if they have to make up a reason to do it.
-
As many have noted here, what is being demanded of the Baker, the Photographer and others amounts to involuntary servitude, AKA "slavery."
What utter nonsense. The storeowner can decide what he will sell and not sell. He just can't unlawfully discriminate with respect to his customers. Do you seriously believe that a law prohibiting all-white lunch counters amounts to "slavery"?
-
In the case of the Baker of Cakes, it's obvious to all but you he was targeted by the Lavender Mafia to destroy him and make an example, even if they have to make up a reason to do it.
People are allowed to stand up for their rights, you know. If he's destroyed his business, it was because of his own stubborn actions.
-
The baker is, for example, within his rights to decline to place a pro-gay message on a cake. But not to decline to produce any wedding cake whatsoever just because the customers are gay.
Of course that's not what happened. At no time did the customers announce their sexual preference. The following day, a woman who is heterosexual also requested said cake. She was also told that such a cake was simply not offered at that bakery. Yet here you are once again lying about what happened.
His (IMO) fatal error was in showing his customer the door before even having a conversation about what the customer wanted in a cake.
That part didn't matter. The customer was inquiring about a cake the baker did not make. It wouldn't matter how they wanted it decorated.
He can't claim a right to artistic license when it is clear his objection wasn't artistic.
But he isn't claiming a right to artistic license. You made it up. (See: Logical falacies - Strawman)
Again, you are purposely giving a false portrayal of events. And you do so knowing full well that your account is false. That makes you a liar.
-
What utter nonsense. The storeowner can decide what he will sell and not sell. He just can't unlawfully discriminate with respect to his customers. Do you seriously believe that a law prohibiting all-white lunch counters amounts to "slavery"?
An irrelevant comparison, that was about an immutable characteristic to protect, skin color. This is about a behavior. "Gaydar" is a myth, one cannot be determined to be "gay" by looking at one, it must be self-professed. And, as time has shown, making such discrimination punishable as a criminal offense was a mistake because it's lead to tyrannical overreach by the left. Look at the pretzel logic you must employ to force others to comply with your wishes. You may or may not be a lawyer, but you sure think like one.
They should have used your preferred method to stop the million or so baby murders every year. Gentle persuasion. I'll bet a stack of wedding cakes you think that's insufficient for the cause at hand.
-
What utter nonsense. The storeowner can decide what he will sell and not sell.
That has been my point since Day One.
He just can't unlawfully discriminate with respect to his customers.
Yet he didn't discriminate with respect to his customers. Both heterosexual and homosexual customers got the same identical treatment. But then you knew that already. Yet here you are once again lying about it.
-
People are allowed to stand up for their rights, you know. If he's destroyed his business, it was because of his own stubborn actions.
Their rights to enslave another. Gotchyer number right here.
-
"Gaydar" is a myth, one cannot be determined to be "gay" by looking at one, it must be self-professed.
Please forgive Jazzhead for his bigoted assumptions.
-
That has been my point since Day One.
Yet he didn't discriminate with respect to his customers. Both heterosexual and homosexual customers got the same identical treatment. But then you knew that already. Yet here you are once again lying about it.
It's pretty obvious the Left will create a reason to cry "Oppression" at every turn, even if they have to make it up out of whole cloth. That is what we're seeing done here, right before our eyes.
-
Please forgive Jazzhead for his bigoted assumptions.
No. Not as long as he uses his bigoted assumptions to beat innocent people about the head and shoulders. 22222frying pan
-
Do you seriously believe that a law prohibiting all-white lunch counters amounts to "slavery"?
Inevitably, YES - As we are seeing today. If you are not free to refuse service, then you are not free.
-
Do you seriously believe that a law prohibiting all-white lunch counters amounts to "slavery"?
Poorly-chosen example, completely irrelevant to the case being discussed. If a hypothetical lunch counter were owned by an orthodox Jew who refused to prepare non-kosher food for either black or white customers, would you consider him bigoted against one or the other?
The bakery owner in no sense refused to do business with homosexuals. He refused a specific request from both homosexuals and heterosexuals. References to unrelated conditions from 60 years ago are simply undisciplined thinking.
-
His problem, though, is that the case law was settled long ago that a restaurant owner could not cite religious beliefs in refusing to serve blacks. His claim to discriminate on the basis of his religious beliefs is not going to fly - he can only do what he's already said he's done on his website - decline to provide custom wedding cakes to anyone.
He can only prevail on the basis of his status as an "artist" - but here, just as you said, he took the position he wasn't going to create any sort of cake for these folks to celebrate their wedding. As a public accommodation that advertises wedding cakes, he can't do that. What he could have done was reject a message proposed for the cake.
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: To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three tests:
It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest: there must not be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this "least restrictive means" requirement part of being narrowly tailored, but the Court generally evaluates it separately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny (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.
-
Poorly-chosen example, completely irrelevant to the case being discussed. If a hypothetical lunch counter were owned by an orthodox Jew who refused to prepare non-kosher food for either black or white customers, would you consider him bigoted against one or the other?
The bakery owner in no sense refused to do business with homosexuals. He refused a specific request from both homosexuals and heterosexuals. References to unrelated conditions from 60 years ago are simply undisciplined thinking.
The root issue is how far may the government use of force extend into the private sector to compel compliance with societal norms?
For leftists, the answer is "as far as necessary" and for conservatives and other normal people the answer is "as far as necessary within reason".
For far leftists it is obvious that even when there are other means available for people to obtain products or services, the application of government force is the preferred option.
So this is a matter of demarcating the extent of government power. It is clear that leftists never encountered a circumstance where an individual's rights were more important that the government's or societies rights to compel conformity. If leftists were honest, they would admit that they believe that any conflict between an individual and some legalism should result in the individual's loss of freedom or liberty.
One view seeks to enlarge the power of the state and authoritarianism to impose any and all collective preferences upon individuals. The other prefers that people seek remedy for conflict or deprivation through means not involving government force.
The entire substance of this long thread may be distilled into that basic argument. Jazzhead behaves like an advocate because he IS an advocate. In his view, clearly there should be virtually no limits on the employment of government power to compel collective obedience.
-
People are allowed to stand up for their rights, you know. If he's destroyed his business, it was because of his own stubborn actions.
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.
But the bottom line, is that that relationship with his God is protected under the First Amendment and he should not have to lose his business either.
No artist should be compelled to create that which they find to be abhorrent, for any reason.
Again, if you don't think there is any art involved, there, Betty Crocker, watch Cake Boss.
-
Jazzhead behaves like an advocate because he IS an advocate. In his view, clearly there should be virtually no limits on the employment of government power to compel collective obedience.
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. He can also choose what services he will provide to the general public - just as a Jewish butcher can restrict his menu to kosher products. 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. The community through the political process determines the scope of anti-discrimination protection. My state, for example, proscribes discrimination on the basis of race but not on the basis of sexual orientation. Finally, many kinds of business owners can decide to structure their businesses so that they are not "public accommodations" subject to these kinds of laws; e.g., by agreeing to contract on an individualized basis rather than by offering a menu of services generally to the public.
Let's be fair, sir - the foregoing hardly constitutes my support for "virtually no limits on the employment of government power to compel collective obedience."
-
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. He can also choose what services he will provide to the general public - just as a Jewish butcher can restrict his menu to kosher products. 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. The community through the political process determines the scope of anti-discrimination protection. My state, for example, proscribes discrimination on the basis of race but not on the basis of sexual orientation. Finally, many kinds of business owners can decide to structure their businesses so that they are not "public accommodations" subject to these kinds of laws; e.g., by agreeing to contract on an individualized basis rather than by offering a menu of services generally to the public.
Let's be fair, sir - the foregoing hardly constitutes my support for "virtually no limits on the employment of government power to compel collective obedience."
Yet all you speak of siuer, is how the use of government force may be justifiably applied in this case, without any consideration whatsoever of any other conceivable amelioration outside the application of government force. Help me to understand.
Your assertion that you are not acting out of advocacy seems (forgive me) disingenuous to be mild.
-
What he cannot do - as public accommodation - is advertise services to the general public and then arbitrarily deny such services to certain customers because of who they are.
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.
-
11513
-
11513
It's nuts a 148 posts of people destroying Jazzhead's (http://i40.tinypic.com/2q0qe10.jpg) arguments and still this thread won't (http://i44.tinypic.com/35hl4xl.jpg)
-
11513
Everybody needs a hobby, Roos....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
^^^ goopo ^^^
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Everybody needs a hobby, Roos....
I hope you remember that.... :smokin:
-
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.
-
Jes' put jazzhead on ignore and forget about him... ;)
(worked for sinkspur and geronl, right?)
-
@Smokin Joe
If they ever found a homosexual gene, then the entire homosexual community would become staunchly pro-life over night.
:thumbsup3:.
-
When faced with the truth, his entire argument falls to pieces.
That's why he won't acknowledge reality, and keeps arguing leftist fantasy...... **nononono*
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
*****rollingeyes***** 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
*****rollingeyes***** 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.
-
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.
-
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?
Humanity is one thing. Asking him to help celebrate (revel in) their sin (wickedness and unclean desires*) is quite another. (*That would be the biblical terminology for it. Forcing him to adopt your or their interpretation of that event and all it represents in any other terms denies him his right to his religious beliefs.)
Don't confuse Agape with Eros.
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. But there is no repentance, instead, glorying in these acts.
If I were a Muslim and not a Christian, my god would demand I threw them off a high building. You people don't know when you have it good.
-
@Smokin Joe
If they ever found a homosexual gene, then the entire homosexual community would become staunchly pro-life over night.
Excellent point.
-
I understand your position, but I cannot agree with it. I won't go to a divorce party either for similar reasons.
A divorce represents the breaking of a vow, for many a vow taken before God Himself. A divorce is nothing to celebrate.
A wedding, on the other hand, represents the promise and commitment of two individuals to be there for each other, for better or for worse, in perpetuity. Why isn't that worthy of being celebrated with a cake? Why should a stranger with a religious bee up his behind be able to humiliate a couple for seeking such an affirmation of their commitment?
-
A divorce represents the breaking of a vow, for many a vow taken before God Himself. A divorce is nothing to celebrate.
A wedding, on the other hand, represents the promise and commitment of two individuals to be there for each other, for better or for worse, in perpetuity. Why isn't that worthy of being celebrated with a cake? Why should a stranger with a religious bee up his behind be able to humiliate a couple for seeking such an affirmation of their commitment?
Because it is a commitment to sin. Sorry you cannot see that.
-
Because it is a commitment to sin. Sorry you cannot see that.
No, I can't see that. If it's a sin, then it's between this couple and God. Not some self-righteous baker with a religious axe to grind.
-
No, I can't see that. If it's a sin, then it's between this couple and God. Not some self-righteous baker with a religious axe to grind.
You don't help your brothers and sisters by helping them continue in sin.
-
If I were a Muslim and not a Christian, my god would demand I threw them off a high building. You people don't know when you have it good.
That's a vicious thing to say. Although being dragged to death behind a pickup truck is no day at the beach either. Plenty of Christian punks have beaten and even killed homosexuals and credited God with the inspiration.
-
No, I can't see that. If it's a sin, then it's between this couple and God. Not some self-righteous baker with a religious axe to grind.
Actually it is not the baker trying to change them, but is the baker trying to not be a part of it. I wish you could see that difference.
-
You don't help your brothers and sisters by helping them continue in sin.
thackney, you're one of the good ones here. I respect you and your opinions. On this one, I must respectfully disagree, and let it go at that.
-
No, I can't see that. If it's a sin, then it's between this couple and God. Not some self-righteous baker with a religious axe to grind.
Well and good. Both of you have good points. This is why we have courts. So you two don't have to take up arms to support your respective POVs. Clearly there is no absolute answer to this question about boundaries.
For me it's a clear-cut case of too much government intrusion. The bakers should have the right not to serve homosexuals looking for endorsement of their lifestyle on one of the baker's products. The homosexuals have the right to run or be customers of a business that does provide such things. Forcing people to do things they prefer not to do, without a morally compelling reason is idiotic.
Forcing someone to bake a cake for someone is not the same thing as forcing them to say, perform thoracic surgery to prevent them from dying. Government force is over-deployed in the private sector and it's time to remove it layer by layer so human beings can get back to doing what they want to do.
There are far too many legitimate issues requiring government force to maintain order to waste time/resources catering to pushy homos who are too lazy or stupid to find a bakery that WANTS their business.
-
thackney, you're one of the good ones here. I respect you and your opinions. On this one, I must respectfully disagree, and let it go at that.
I won't belabor it any more. I will say, regardless of the infrequency seen, one can love another, be encouraging, while not encouraging a bad behavior.
-
I will say, regardless of the infrequency seen, one can love another, be encouraging, while not encouraging a bad behavior.
I can agree with that. :beer:
-
[Removed]
What are you talking about? SJ made his remark before I made mine.
But you know what? I'll delete my post in the spirit of good faith.
-
And would SoCons suddenly switch sides, too, if they had the ability to abort to prevent creating an abomination?
That is such a bullsh*t statement I don't know where to start.
If a Christian is against abortions they're against abortions no matter who it is. They don't change their beliefs based on who it is being born. We don't have situational ethics.
Even when 5 justices in black robes create a "right" out of thin air that says otherwise.
Clearly a fact you seem to not comprehend in all of the Unitarian psycho babble you've been spewing on here for quite some time.
-
That's a vicious thing to say. Although being dragged to death behind a pickup truck is no day at the beach either. Plenty of Christian punks have beaten and even killed homosexuals and credited God with the inspiration.
Well, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing examples. Kindly do so.
Then explain to me about the gentle and loving SOB who tried to molest my grandson.
-
Well, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing examples. Kindly do so.
Then explain to me about the gentle and loving SOB who tried to molest my grandson.
:2popcorn:
-
What are you talking about? SJ made his remark before I made mine.
But you know what? I'll delete my post in the spirit of good faith.
So did I, so please edit my removed comment from your post? :beer:
-
That's a vicious thing to say. Although being dragged to death behind a pickup truck is no day at the beach either. Plenty of Christian punks have beaten and even killed homosexuals and credited God with the inspiration.
Name one.
And provide a link.
-
What are you talking about? SJ made his remark before I made mine.
But you know what? I'll delete my post in the spirit of good faith.
The remark about Muslims throwing Gays off rooftops? That's their religion, not mine.
Mine just says I wouldn't custom craft a wedding cake for a homosexual "marriage". Nope. Don't believe in it. It's a sick parody of what The Almighty intended. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
-
That is such a bullsh*t statement I don't know where to start.
If a Christian is against abortions they're against abortions no matter who it is. They don't change their beliefs based on who it is being born. We don't have situational ethics.
Even when 5 justices in black robes create a "right" out of thin air that says otherwise.
Clearly a fact you seem to not comprehend in all of the Unitarian psycho babble you've been spewing on here for quite some time.
I have hesitated saying it, but it's clear that not only does @Jazzhead make spurious accusations of pro-lifers and Christians who actually believe what the Scriptures say, but that he has a deep seeded disdain of us.
Anyone who says that pro-lifers would support abortion to kill homosexuals has a disturbed soul.
And I don't say that lightly......
@txradioguy
-
I have hesitated saying it, but it's clear that not only does @Jazzhead make spurious accusations of pro-lifers and Christians who actually believe what the Scriptures say, but that he has a deep seeded disdain of us.
Anyone who says that pro-lifers would support abortion to kill homosexuals has a disturbed soul.
And I don't say that lightly......
@txradioguy
@musiclady I agree. I had to edit my comments a couple times to filter out some of what was passing from my brain to my fingers when I read that crap he posted.
Clearly he's not reading from the same set of scriptures we are. He is more focused on social justice and being inclusive...than what is clearly written in the texts.
-
So did I, so please edit my removed comment from your post? :beer:
Done. Thanks, CL. :beer:
-
Done. Thanks, CL. :beer:
Backatcha. I noticed this thread has been getting a little heated, and it's bound to attract Mod attention if it keeps up. It's why I stopped posting pretty much yesterday, I don't want to be the one who gets it locked.
-
Backatcha. I noticed this thread has been getting a little heated, and it's bound to attract Mod attention if it keeps up. It's why I stopped posting pretty much yesterday, I don't want to be the one who gets it locked.
Come on and take one for the team! :laugh:
-
Done. Thanks, CL. :beer:
Now THAT is more like it!! The far left would have all who describe themselves as Christians and conservatives at each other's throats over minutiae and tangential culture issues such as this.
What I would do if I was a Christian operating a bakery is any time any homosexual couple came in demanding a wedding cake, do it but make it as badly as possible without violating any law. That way, the law is satisfied (render unto Caesar) and the Christians dodge a bullet.
See, making someone a cake under threat of criminal prosecution is likely a sin that God will forgive. No, Christians shouldn't commit some LARGE sin (ex:murder) just because Caesar threatens us, but it might be better to keep a low profile on idiotic attacks like this than to walk right into the jaws of Inequity like a soldier stepping on a land mine. Nothing wrong with playing it cagey.
Imagine if a Christian came into a homosexual bakery and demanded a cake that said, "All Homosexuals Are Going to Hell!!" and the homo refused to give service. You think that Christian would run to a cop and start whining about legal rights? They'd just go somewhere else or bake it themselves.
Militant homos, as other anti-conservative fanatics are a disease that needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. Some homos are normal decent people but the hard-left, militant homos are just takin' up space.
If I were emperor they would all be rounded up and defenestrated.
-
@musiclady I agree. I had to edit my comments a couple times to filter out some of what was passing from my brain to my fingers when I read that crap he posted.
Clearly he's not reading from the same set of scriptures we are. He is more focused on social justice and being inclusive...than what is clearly written in the texts.
I modified my description after I thought better of it, so if you can in your quote, I'd appreciate it.
The gulf between the comment that homosexuals would become pro-life if they actually discovered a homosexual gene..... for self-preservation, and saying that people who treasure life and value every human would advocate MURDER if that (imaginary) gene were discovered, is enormous, and the accusation against pro-lifers HIDEOUS.
My biggest question is whether @Jazzhead actually believes the filth he is spewing, or if he has just become so angry and argumentative that he'll say anything.......... no matter how FOUL......... to win this wretched argument.
This is the guy who goes around saying be nice to each other, and he's accusing ME of wanting to kill unborn homosexual babies (which, of course, do not exist, since they are not "born that way.")
-
You needn't have hesitated, he has admitted so himself during similar discussions.
Well, I did edit out "ugly" and "vengeful" (if you would do the same, please).
But I still maintain that he has a deep disdain of pro-life, pro-morality TBR members, and has a meanness that has been really surprising to me.
The irony is that he attacks us because we aren't nice and fair enough, while accusing us of all sorts of vile things himself.
Perhaps he actually is only here to shut down threads as some have said. Who knows?
-
This is the guy who goes around saying be nice to each other, and he's accusing ME of wanting to kill unborn homosexual babies (which, of course, do not exist, since they are not "born that way.")
Did you notice that I deleted the post? Would you like an apology too? OK - I apologize, musiclady. And to any other Christians on this thread who may have been offended, even those gentle ones who post that if they had their way, all homosexuals would be "rounded up and defenestrated".
-
Did you notice that I deleted the post? Would you like an apology too? OK - I apologize, musiclady. And to any other Christians on this thread who may have been offended, even those gentle ones who post that if they had their way, all homosexuals would be "rounded up and defenestrated".
You really think that helps? What has happened to you??
Your pseudo apology is an exercise in absurdity.
You have become what you supposedly hate. MEAN. NASTY.
Why don't you give that some thought, and come back the way you used to be.........
-
And with that I will exit (at least for now) this thread.
The "gay" (ludicrous term, is it not?) coffee shop owner is filled with hatred, and should be prosecuted for discrimination against Christians JUST BECAUSE they are Christian.
Of course, he won't be, because we now live in a progressive nightmare of a country without justice.
-
Well, I did edit out "ugly" and "vengeful" (if you would do the same, please).
But I still maintain that he has a deep disdain of pro-life, pro-morality TBR members, and has a meanness that has been really surprising to me.
The irony is that he attacks us because we aren't nice and fair enough, while accusing us of all sorts of vile things himself.
Perhaps he actually is only here to shut down threads as some have said. Who knows?
People on forums tend to defend their opinions the way Velocoraptors defend their eggs - they somehow get the idea that there is some very profound threat to them in not doing so effectively.
CG Jung once said of people's own perception of their own morality, "It is impossible for one to conceive of any morality superior to their own."
What I think heir Jung must have meant by that is we ascribe to the best morality that makes sense to us. When and if we encounter any moral synthesis which we deem superior, we then adopt it for our own.
One big problem with Forum debates is that people are so quick to defend their POV sometimes, that they don't take time for reflection and pondering - they "listen to respond" instead of "listening to understand".
Personally, I dislike it when people stand too much on technicalities and legalisms and I see a lot of that with Jazzhead's position(s). As if something that is legal is ergo, automatically moral.
Laws should be guidelines for justice. Clearly (at least to me) any law which allows someone to destroy another person's business/livelihood because of their refusal to provide some casual product/service, is immoral (idiotic) and should be eradicated.
Jazzhead's arguments are so ponderous they get bogged down in legalisms, perfunctory deferral to abstruse technicalities and other things tangential to making a sound moral judgment. His posts avoid the larger, more-central issues and concentrate on things that seem to me to be detached from the larger, more-vital elements.
There is an immediate gestalt, a zeitgeist in human activity that gets lost in cerebralism. Too much excursion into philosophical sophistries leads AWAY from health and sanity, not toward them.
We need to stop passing and maintaining laws that do not feel right. Sometimes intuition is a good guide - so in this case, which simply STINQUES of Statist, militant homsexual BS.
-
What I would do if I was a Christian operating a bakery is any time any homosexual couple came in demanding a wedding cake, do it but make it as badly as possible without violating any law. That way, the law is satisfied (render unto Caesar) and the Christians dodge a bullet.
I could not do that. Nor do I see a business owner who success is built around his quality would do so. And if you are making a stand for principal, you would be seen as not having that principal.
-
And with that I will exit (at least for now) this thread.
The "gay" (ludicrous term, is it not?) coffee shop owner is filled with hatred, and should be prosecuted for discrimination against Christians JUST BECAUSE they are Christian.
Of course, he won't be, because we now live in a progressive nightmare of a country without justice.
Here in the SF area I can assure you that such irrational antipathy towards Christians in the gay community is the norm rather than the exception. And just about everyone is afraid to challenge them on it.
-
I could not do that. Nor do I see a business owner who success is built around his quality would do so. And if you are making a stand for principal, you would be seen as not having that principal.
We all make choices. Yours would be to refuse to compromise because you deem it a betrayal of some fundamental principle. I see it as picking your battles.
-
Here in the SF area I can assure you that such irrational antipathy towards Christians in the gay community is the norm rather than the exception. And just about everyone is afraid to challenge them on it.
Well, maybe someone should. We've sidetracked on this thread back to the baker, but as I noted (many pages back), the barista is a creep and someone ought to sue his bigoted ass.
-
And with that I will exit (at least for now) this thread.
The "gay" (ludicrous term, is it not?) coffee shop owner is filled with hatred, and should be prosecuted for discrimination against Christians JUST BECAUSE they are Christian.
Of course, he won't be, because we now live in a progressive nightmare of a country without justice.
Man, I hear you, sister. I am blessed by knowing a lot of conservative "gay" people. I think of them as normal people who happen to prefer their own gender for intimacy. What people do behind closed doors is none of my bidneh. Not a single one of them give a rat's behind about gay marriage or any of the other standard leftist BS we are all supposed to be so concerned about. PTUI!! Who cares !?!
Justice is a relative term. There is no perfect justice. That's because any time a third-party gets involved in order to resolve some dispute, it will be impossible for any decision to be rendered which is perceived as completely, wholly and totally fair to both parties. One or both will have to give up something to which they feel entitled. That is the nature of "justice" in our world when third-parties get involved.
We pick our battles and hope that the right-mindedness prevails. The battle is already won. We have but to do our parts and have faith that God will do at least some of the heavy lifting.
-
You really think that helps? What has happened to you??
Your pseudo apology is an exercise in absurdity.
You have become what you supposedly hate. MEAN. NASTY.
Why don't you give that some thought, and come back the way you used to be.........
I deleted the post, on my own initiative. Still you attack. I apologized to you personally. Still you attack. What the hell, ML?
-
Of course, he won't be, because we now live in a progressive nightmare of a country without justice.
Especially Seattle. :shrug:
-
Jazzhead's arguments are so ponderous they get bogged down in legalisms, perfunctory deferral to abstruse technicalities and other things tangential to making a sound moral judgment. His posts avoid the larger, more-central issues and concentrate on things that seem to me to be detached from the larger, more-vital elements.
At root, my argument is simple - stay true to your word. No one's forcing you to sell wedding cakes. But if that's your choice, and you advertise to the general public that you do, then serve all your customers on the same basis.
-
*****rollingeyes***** 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.
Yes, service was refused because the cake was to be used to celebrate a same-sex wedding. And it makes no difference whether the heterosexual woman was the mother of the original requestor. Service was refused to *both* homosexual and heterosexual requestors, so clearly the preference of the requestor had nothing to do with the baker's decision, and as has been posted repeatedly the baker offered the homosexual customers anything else available in his shop. In no sense did he refuse to do business with them.
My argument is logical, not legal. I don't doubt that legal precedent exists to label the baker's policy as illegal discrimination, and I offer no prediction on how the court will rule. Regardless of precedent or rule, the fact is the baker by definition did not discriminate against anyone. Ignoring the facts and focusing law on ideology, whether done by laymen or judges, creates contempt for the law.
-
At root, my argument is simple - stay true to your word. No one's forcing you to sell wedding cakes. But if that's your choice, and you advertise to the general public that you do, then serve all your customers on the same basis.
The bakers are in their view being true to their word to their God. For people such as yourself without any concerns about such things, it is not surprising that you would see the desire of others to keep their word to their God as wholly dismissible, childish even. Selah.
I am unaware of any civilized culture in the history of humanity which made failing to "keep your word" about something like this, a criminal offense. Most normal cultures would not bother with such idiocy, they would dismiss it utterly as frivolous, superfluous / tangential to the central concerns of society.
I'm guessing that you are not a big supporter of libertarian (small "l") causes, Jazzhead.
-
. Regardless of precedent or rule, the fact is the baker by definition did not discriminate against anyone.
If he hadn't "discriminated against anyone", he'd have sold them the cake. *****rollingeyes*****
-
There are far too many legitimate issues requiring government force to maintain order to waste time/resources catering to pushy homos who are too lazy or stupid to find a bakery that WANTS their business.
They were not too lazy or stupid, as they did indeed find an alternative source for their cake to be baked.
They only after weeks decided to escalate this, what @Jazzhead calls a 'Silly Argument', into a court case.
The agenda is clear as can be: "conform to my sinful ways, or you will regret it."
-
If he hadn't "discriminated against anyone", he'd have sold them the cake. *****rollingeyes*****
Yeah, we get it. No need to keep repeating the homos case over and over and over again. The courts will decide the legal issue. God will decide the theological one. And you along with the rest of us will decide the political ones.
-
If he hadn't "discriminated against anyone", he'd have sold them the cake. *****rollingeyes*****
If he *had* discriminated, he'd have sold the cake to the woman, or refused the homosexuals anything in his shop. But neither of those things happened.
-
11513
-
At root, my argument is simple - stay true to your word. No one's forcing you to sell wedding cakes. But if that's your choice, and you advertise to the general public that you do, then serve all your customers on the same basis.
Just one more angle on this @Jazzhead
If it was for an illegal wedding, say underage or multiple spouses or....
-
You really think that helps? What has happened to you??
Your pseudo apology is an exercise in absurdity.
You have become what you supposedly hate. MEAN. NASTY.
Why don't you give that some thought, and come back the way you used to be.........
? 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.
-
Imagine if a Christian came into a homosexual bakery and demanded a cake that said, "All Homosexuals Are Going to Hell!!" and the homo refused to give service. You think that Christian would run to a cop and start whining about legal rights? They'd just go somewhere else or bake it themselves.
It would have to be a Fred Phelps style of Christian who would want that, and just about any Christian baker I can think of (like the one we've been talking about) would tell the requester of such a cake to go pound sand.
-
At root, my argument is simple - stay true to your word.
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).
-
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).
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/175xUnlimited/photos/carnac0808.jpg)
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.
-
Come on and take one for the team! :laugh:
No way, I'm sure the Mods already have me on speed-dial....
-
? 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/175xUnlimited/photos/carnac0808.jpg)
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..
-
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.
-
Please do not cloud the issue with facts.
****slapping 22222frying pan :chairbang:
-
(http://www.thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/175xUnlimited/photos/carnac0808.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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. :tongue2:
-
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. :tongue2:
I happen to think you are a very agreeable chap. :shrug: :tongue2:
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.
-
I happen to think you are a very agreeable chap. :shrug: :tongue2:
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.
-
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.
-
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? :chairbang:
-
What if they are Gay Nazis? :chairbang:
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.
-
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.
-
What if they are Gay Nazis? :chairbang:
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?
-
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.
-
That may require some long knives.
Casual attire -brown shirts.
-
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.