Author Topic: Colorado baker to stop making wedding cakes after losing discrimination case  (Read 1128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,579
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/colorado-baker-to-stop-making-wedding-cakes-after-losing-discrimination-case/


Quote
DENVER - The owner of a bakery in Lakewood said he will no longer sell wedding cakes after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled he did discriminate against a gay couple when he refused to sell them a cake.

Jack Phillips owns Masterpiece Cakeshop. In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to the shop to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. They planned to marry in Massachusetts and have a reception in Colorado.

Phillips said he doesn't believe in gay marriage and he refused to sell them a cake.

"We would close down the bakery before we would complicate our beliefs," Phillips said after the hearing, according to CBS Denver. Phillips also admitted he had refused service to other same-sex couples.

A judge previously ruled a business owner cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips appealed to the commission, but it upheld the decision.

That prompted Phillips to decide he would no longer make any wedding cakes. He said he would be fine selling cupcakes for a birthday party for someone who is gay but added, "I don't want to participate in a same-sex wedding."


Offline flowers

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,579
Quote
The commission also ordered the baker to submit quarterly reports about the customers he refuses to serve and retrain employees to serve everyone.

Good fn grief. So it will soon be illegal to not give in to the gay nazi's. I didn't think i would see it in my lifetime, but here we are.


Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,139
If the government 'forced' me to bake a cake for someone against my will, I can pretty much guarantee that the cake is going to taste like week old kitty-litter.
 
So, that brings up the second deeper point. Is the government going to assign 'watchers' to document the preparations of the cake, and will they have government 'tasters' who will either approve or disapprove of the quality of the cake?
 
Will the baker be jailed if the cake does not taste as good as the government wants it to?
 
Sieg Hiel! Sieg Hiel! Sieg Hiel! this is what America has become only worse. At least the Nazis could get the trains to run on time. We can't even do that.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
You all act as if this is the end of the world as we know it.

The government forces business to do all manner of things, all the time.

They take the best parking spots in every business' parking lot and make you reserve them for people who may or may not come to your establishment.

They make you not allow smoking in your establishment.

They force businesses to act as tax collectors.

They (try) to force businesses to act as immigration law enforcement officers.

They (now) force restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menu item... as if you DIDN'T know how bad the Lemoncello Torte at The Cheesecake Factory is for your diet BEFORE you read how many calories it contains.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
You all act as if this is the end of the world as we know it.

The government forces business to do all manner of things, all the time.

They take the best parking spots in every business' parking lot and make you reserve them for people who may or may not come to your establishment.

They make you not allow smoking in your establishment.

They force businesses to act as tax collectors.

They (try) to force businesses to act as immigration law enforcement officers.

They (now) force restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menu item... as if you DIDN'T know how bad the Lemoncello Torte at The Cheesecake Factory is for your diet BEFORE you read how many calories it contains.

You would support the government putting the gun to a person's head and demanding "Obey!"  No doubt you will support the homosexual version of Kristallnacht when it comes against Christians.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
You would support the government putting the gun to a person's head and demanding "Obey!"  No doubt you will support the homosexual version of Kristallnacht when it comes against Christians.

Are you capable of playing the ball and not the man, ever?

I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now.

Please note that I absolutely avoided responding to you in kind, so if your response back is just going to be more commentary on me, and more fabricated positions that you can accuse me of holding so that you can then attack me for something I never actually said, do yourself a favor and do not respond.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,139
The examples you cited are indeed sever governmental intrusions into private business. No doubt about that. And all of those laws should be repealed.
 
However this situation crosses two new barriers. First, we have government using the force of law to coerce a private citizen to violate his religious conscience, whatever that may be. Second, this is government impelling coerced forced labor against the will of a private citizen. That is a whole new level of government control over the citizentry. They are saying that by 'force of law' you have no right to say 'no' to anything and you have no private control over your own wish to do labor or to decline.
 
No. This is nothing like a parking space, or smoking. This is a whole new level of government force. And if that does not get your attention, then you are already so aclimated to goverment power and force, that there is nothing the government could do that will cause you to balk, and say 'No', No farther, Enough is enough, as this brave family has done.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
The examples you cited are indeed sever governmental intrusions into private business. No doubt about that. And all of those laws should be repealed.
 
However this situation crosses two new barriers. First, we have government using the force of law to coerce a private citizen to violate his religious conscience, whatever that may be. Second, this is government impelling coerced forced labor against the will of a private citizen. That is a whole new level of government control over the citizentry. They are saying that by 'force of law' you have no right to say 'no' to anything and you have no private control over your own wish to do labor or to decline.
 
No. This is nothing like a parking space, or smoking. This is a whole new level of government force. And if that does not get your attention, then you are already so aclimated to goverment power and force, that there is nothing the government could do that will cause you to balk, and say 'No', No farther, Enough is enough, as this brave family has done.

The notion that government forcing this individual to do something that they don't want to do is somehow more worse than other instances of other people and other businesses being forced to so things they would otherwise not so simply because it involves religion, is rather myopic and frankly, un-American.

If we narrow our protests down to just government actions which violate our religious beliefs, we cede a tremendous amount of ground to the government and paint ourselves into a corner where the only things left to be violated are our religious beliefs.

And here we are..
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline mountaineer

  • Member
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 34,054
Quote
If we narrow our protests down to just government actions which violate our religious beliefs
A false premise, but carry on anyway.
Just being unique doesn't make you useful.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
A false premise, but carry on anyway.

That was attached to an entire proposition that you ignored, but carry on anyway.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Quote
I don't support ANY of that, but it baffles me that people who are constantly talking about the slippery slope always fail to see that this is just another stop along the way of a ride we've been on for quite some time now.

I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example.  It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so.  I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them.  Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections?  I think not.  And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,139
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example.  It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so.  I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them.  Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections?  I think not.  And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.

Forced 'creativity' is at the heart of this. Making a wedding cake is serious art. It takes years of practice, passion, and concentration. The idea that the government could usurp that 'talent', and that 'art', and dictate when and how it can and cannot be used is absurd.
 
Try to force a sculptor to create a statue by force of law and see what you get. You cannot 'order' people to be creative. It comes naturally, or it does not come at all. You cannot 'create' anything worthwhile in terms of art, if you do not believe in what you are doing. That is plain basic nature.
 
That is why I was curious if the police would throw him in jail, if the quote 'gays' didn't like the cake. Would their displeasure in his work get him thrown in jail? Or, would he be forced to keep trying until they like it?
 
How could anyone possibly judge this crazy situation? It is pure insanity.
 
I have ordered food and then got in an argument with the staff of the restaurant. I never eat the food afterwards. Rule number one we learned in the military is never ever eat food that has been prepared by someone who does not like you.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 03:43:22 PM by 240B »
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 57,513
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Will the same judge force him to stay in business so as not to avoid her orders?  Don't laugh!  With liberal judges, it is quite possible.
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. John Adams

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example.  It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so.  I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them.  Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections?  I think not.  And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.

Putting the brakes on at that point in the slide where we stop being the absolute beneficiaries of a slippery slope of our own creation is rather self-servingly hypocritical, plus the entire premise of a slippery slope is that brakes do not work.

The only way to stop this slippery slope is to go back to the top if the slide, and shut the whole thing down.

We don't want to do that. In fact, I don't know that we can.
“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,502
    • Boiling Frogs
I've made my point re: the slippery slope on other threads, and yes, this is another such example.  It doesn't stop some of us from applying the brakes, or at least attempting to do so.  I don't have any problem with most anti-discrimination laws, but when they set no boundaries with respect to creativity, then I question them.  Should an artist be forced to paint portraits of someone against his moral or religious objections?  I think not.  And this business owner should fight for his right to not create something that isn't already complete and ready for sale to anyone.

More on the slippery slope in my next Last Wire post, Luther and Calvin, LaQuana and Stephanie, and Superman and Bill and Ted.

“[Euthanasia] is what any State medical service has sooner or later got to face. If you are going to be kept alive in institutions run by and paid for by the State, you must accept the State’s right to economize when necessary …” The Ministry of Fear by Graham Green (New York: Penguin Books [1943] 2005, p. 165).

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,622
As 240 stated above, the baker has an incentive to make the cake 'a little off' the recipe, or not enough sugar in the icing, etc..

Here's a person that has a figurative gun to his/her head and is being 'forced' to sell your product to somebody you'd like to pass upon.

He can make a cake that tastes awful...prolonging the fight he/she will never win.   

The only 'win' would be in their minds, should the Court say that you can refuse service to anyone you want.

I question why you'd want to take a chance on ruining a 'special' day, by ordering the cake from somebody that finds your lifestyle an abomination and being against nature.

And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.



But that's just me.......        :whistle:
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,139
And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.

Nothing makes the day more 'special' than having the police escort the baker to the kitchen and forcing him to bake your cake.
 
I wonder if they'll have the police go and arrest a Mormon Bishop and force him at gunpoint to perform the ceremony? Then it would truly be 'a day of love'...
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807

Forced 'creativity' is at the heart of this. Making a wedding cake is serious art. It takes years of practice, passion, and concentration. The idea that the government could usurp that 'talent', and that 'art', and dictate when and how it can and cannot be used is absurd.
 
Try to force a sculptor to create a statue by force of law and see what you get. You cannot 'order' people to be creative. It comes naturally, or it does not come at all. You cannot 'create' anything worthwhile in terms of art, if you do not believe in what you are doing. That is plain basic nature.
 
That is why I was curious if the police would throw him in jail, if the quote 'gays' didn't like the cake. Would their displeasure in his work get him thrown in jail? Or, would he be forced to keep trying until they like it?
 
How could anyone possibly judge this crazy situation? It is pure insanity.
 
I have ordered food and then got in an argument with the staff of the restaurant. I never eat the food afterwards. Rule number one we learned in the military is never ever eat food that has been prepared by someone who does not like you.

LOL.  Indeed!
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline speekinout

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,337
We are definitely very far down that slippery slope. We have allowed gov't to dictate in every area of our lives. They have long been making rules like the ones Luis mentioned, and we didn't protest because most of us either weren't directly affected or learned to live with them. But the 0bama rule has gone much farther in just a short time - they dictate what we eat, what kind of health care we can have, where we can practice our religion, and it really isn't that much farther of a step to tell us how we have to run our businesses.

The only question is will we learn to accept these rules the way we accepted the smaller ones leading up to it? Or have they finally pushed too far? Would we have accepted the business rules if they had just introduced them more gradually - we do accept that businesses have to serve everyone, many of them have to provide handicap access, they have minimum wages, they have to have a diverse work force, etc. This is just another step forward - giving the gov't the right to dictate how a business must serve their customers.

And if this ruling holds, there will be plenty of lawsuits expanding on the same principle.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Putting the brakes on at that point in the slide where we stop being the absolute beneficiaries of a slippery slope of our own creation is rather self-servingly hypocritical, plus the entire premise of a slippery slope is that brakes do not work.

The only way to stop this slippery slope is to go back to the top if the slide, and shut the whole thing down.

We don't want to do that. In fact, I don't know that we can.

No we don't want to go back to the beginning, but I disagree that we can't slow down the slippery slope in many areas.  It's one principle of conservatism.  I look forward to your next wire post.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,622

Nothing makes the day more 'special' than having the police escort the baker to the kitchen and forcing him to bake your cake.
 
I wonder if they'll have the police go and arrest a Mormon Bishop and force him at gunpoint to perform the ceremony? Then it would truly be 'a day of love'...

IMO.....make the damned cake.   Make it the best one you've ever done.

Just don't place the bride/groom figures on...and don't write their names on the cake.

Place a sign in your shop...website....that all special occasion cakes include everything but the personalization.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
As 240 stated above, the baker has an incentive to make the cake 'a little off' the recipe, or not enough sugar in the icing, etc..

Here's a person that has a figurative gun to his/her head and is being 'forced' to sell your product to somebody you'd like to pass upon.

He can make a cake that tastes awful...prolonging the fight he/she will never win.   

The only 'win' would be in their minds, should the Court say that you can refuse service to anyone you want.

I question why you'd want to take a chance on ruining a 'special' day, by ordering the cake from somebody that finds your lifestyle an abomination and being against nature.

And baked by somebody at the point of a 'gun'.



But that's just me.......        :whistle:

No, DC, it's isn't just you.  The baker should not have to make such decisions under the threat of liberal tyranny.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 30,622
No, DC, it's isn't just you.  The baker should not have to make such decisions under the threat of liberal tyranny.

Yep....never understood it.

The sign in the corner 7-11 says....."No shirt? No shoes? No Service!

walk in with just a pair of pants on and you're SOL.

Yet, it you can prance, giggle and shriek like a girl and want to deep kiss your 'partner'.....buddy, their money's green.  STFU and serve them.


 :shrug:

"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"If you want to change the world, go home and love your family".    ...Mother Teresa

Offline evadR²

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
IMO.....make the damned cake.   Make it the best one you've ever done.

Just don't place the bride/groom figures on...and don't write their names on the cake.

Place a sign in your shop...website....that all special occasion cakes include everything but the personalization.

I'm pretty sure the judge would again rule that the cake maker had done this to circumvent his ruling.

It's a good try though.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,139
The whole situation is only indirectly about the cake. It is much more about 'submission'.
 
This entire case is about submission of a private citizen to the will of the State, and subsequently to the homosexual agenda.
 
By the way, none of this would be happening if the baker was a Muslim. Liberals have a negative obsession with Christians and Christianity. That is another big part of what this is all about.
You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf