Colorado cake company loses gay-cake lawsuit

There appears to be a pattern forming.

You don't have the right to discriminate in business. Whether you SHOULD have that right might be up for debate, but that is not a right you have currently. You don't get to pick and choose which groups of people you want to service.

 

A pattern of judicial abuse is hardly worth cheering over...

 

Would it be considered discrimination if the cake created was awful in taste and ungodly to the eye? Would gay couple then hire investigator who'll compare quality of gays cake with quality of straight cake, and will then courts take the case of gays trying to prove the ugly, awful cake they were served with was made so on purpose?

Uncharted territory we're at...

 

Question though is - why would a gay person want a wedding cake made by a fundamentalist Christian?

How do they know they won't spit in the batter - or donate profits to anti-gay groups?

 

If I owned this shop, I would post a sign on the door saying that 10% of all profits are donated to The National Organization for Marriage.

 

You forgot to put "abuse" in quotes.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is all they had to do to begin with. They would have gotten what they wanted.

Instead they wanted special treatment. They wanted to arbitrarily deny service to certain groups of people. That's not legal.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe they are giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are decent people?

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. But of course there are consequences to that route as well...the homos could then post a Yelp review showing the awful quality of the product.

That sort of passive aggressiveness is completely acceptable IMO. That is really how they should have handled the situation.

 

Yes. And I believe, this kind of advertising will increase shop traffic tenfold.

 

They were trolling for an opportunity to sue someone and make a stink. They probably could have gone elsewhere and gotten their cake. I bet they avoided the Muslim bakeries like the plague.

 

That's how it SHOULD be handled. But they don't want to do it that way, because they believe they have these entitlements. Straight white Christians have been dominant in our society for so long that they have come to expect them.

I mean, as recently as the 60s it was openly legal to deny services to people based on race or religion alone. Even public services.

- - - Updated - - -

The opportunity should never have existed in the first place. It does not matter what their motives were.

 

It certainly DOES matter. They picked the Christian bakery and not a Muslim one. Their motive was clear. Lets bash Christians... they are fair game.

 

If government forced a church to marry queers against its religious beliefs, there would probably be a civil war.

Government keeps pushing the envelope. Eventually it will go too far. I'm not hoping for a revolution, but I think one will happen in about 200 or 300 years.

 

With the drop off rates in religion there will, hopefully, be no religions around in your "civil war" time frame. <Rule 3>

 

businesses open to the public should not be able to discriminate based on the race or gender of a couple

.

 

as history has shown, a new religion will always take the place of the old, some people need religion in their lives... I have no issue with people believing what they want as long as they do not try to force it on others

we even had a new religion invented in our times.. Scientology... sure it wont be the last

ya never know if the next religion will be better or worse then the old one.... that is one of the risks of change

.

 

Did they rejoice in the Soviet Union after killing off twenty million Christian bigots? I don't think so. From what I read they had seventy years of misery afterwards. But that's okay, the Soviet Union didn't die, it moved here so good luck.

 

they would never be able to do that as even atheists would support the theists in that fight, gov will never force a church to marry same gender couples, nor prevent them from doing so anymore

Christians sometimes push too far and our government sometimes push too far, when either does, you slap them back in line

sometimes one will win for awhile, like God in our pledge, ten commandments at a court house, but eventually they will be slapped back into place as people will always fight to keep it neutral as that is the most peaceful, sensible way to handle it, everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.. one Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all (not just those that believe in a God)

.

 

Does this mean that people have to form communes in order to cater to whoever they want without government interference? I know there are hundreds of thousands of Christians who home school, and that religious communities do exist throughout the US. It's an interesting development for a nation that once believed in freedom.

 

you mean do they have to form communes to discriminate against whomever they want to run out of town?

kinda like huge gated communities....

part of me says that should not be allowed, but we do allow it for some, Indians and Amish, but not others

.

 

You are very optimistic. I don't think the US will be around in two or three hundred years. To be honest, I don't think it will be around in twenty years..or at least not the way it is now. There probably will be pockets of survivors here and there, but life will be different...and even more important, people will be different.

Frankly I think you better pay more attention to what's going on in the world, because if anything, Washington has been pushing a few too many buttons.

 

Well, if they make themselves "fair game" SHOULDN'T they be bashed?

"Look at those horrible police, arresting those poor Christians just because they were burning people for blasphemy. That's part of their religion, don't you know?"

What part of "You can't break the law, even for religious reasons" don't you understand?
'

At least in a Constitutional America it never will

Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

Denis Diderot

The problem isn't that some people need religion in their lives, for you can always put religion in if you miss it. but that some people have to put religion, and not just religion but THEIR religion, into the lives of others.

If you don't like gays, don't be gay, that's all you should be able to do. That does lead to a big problem though, in that the only REAL major reason for really disliking gays is that you ARE gay, and don't want to admit it, even to yourself. Hence religion, the great justifier of all kinds of hatred for whatever strange reasons we make up, enters the picture. Thus people are once again spared the travail of coming to terms with themselves and living healthy and happy lives. Yay religion, and isn't conservatism wonderful?

 

You're saying it's discriminatory for someone to associate only with people who hold the same morals and values as themselves. Does this mean that everyone should accept a code of 'ethics' based on the decisions of our judicial system? Wouldn't this be turning the courts into some sort of 'god' by making them the determining factor of what is right and what is wrong?

 

Sigh, this tired old nonsense from the bronze age book of nonsense.

Tolerance of your intolerance is not tolerance.

 

Well, yes, people will almost certainly be different in 20 years. Most, except for some isolated pockets, will look back on this controversy like we now look at anti-miscegenation laws, as hopelessly outdated, unjust and even downright EVIL and wonder how it was ever allowed in America

And the Westboro Baptists, along with whatever pitiful remnants of the GOP still exist somewhere, will still be around for some others

 

Uh...together with the legislature isn't that EXACTLY what courts do? Courts interpret the laws written by the legislature into the real world, but the whole purpose of law is to define what is right or wrong in the eyes of society, yes?

 

But these people you consider evil are the ones who created this country...and as far as I can tell, it has done pretty well until the 1960's. That's when the courts began changing our laws and values. This wasn't only in our domestic policies, it was also in our foreign policy with its genocides.

Let's see if we will continue to survive, or will we go the way of the other ideologues...such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union?

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."​

John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."​

John Quincy Adams
6th U.S. President

"The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made 'bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God' (Isaiah 52:10)."​

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."​

​