judge-orders-colorado-baker-to-serve-gay-couples

[Telos]

The shop owner did not refuse to serve them, they refused to make them a wedding cake. The story came out months ago, they stated that they did not believe in gay marriage, that is why they refused to make a wedding cake. They have no problem with birthday cakes, cup cakes or what have you, just wedding cakes.
Other part of the story is that the person ordering the cake new their stance on gay marriage prior to attempting to order the cake from them.
The way to address businesses that do things you don't agree with is to take your business elsewhere, or even boycot the establishment, I really do not think they should be able to force a business to go against their beliefs.

Irony. I'll bet this owner would not have a problem making a 10 year Anniversary cake for the owner of the "strip joint" down the street from his bakery.

 

[Limiman12]

The fact that our market place has so many rules is part of the problem......  Sounds like the couple came in looking for a scene to me, or at least to press an issue or make a point.......

 

[chambero]

Yep - which makes it even harder for people that are truly discriminated against to get justice.

 

[knabe]

Like the bakers.

 

[OH Breeder]

Like the bakers.

One of these days are we gonna see you on an episode of "Snapped"?

 

[knabe]

Probably on one called irony alert.

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/48049380443/common-core-writing-assignment-think-like-a

 

[Doc]

The shop owner did not refuse to serve them, they refused to make them a wedding cake. The story came out months ago, they stated that they did not believe in gay marriage, that is why they refused to make a wedding cake. They have no problem with birthday cakes, cup cakes or what have you, just wedding cakes.
Other part of the story is that the person ordering the cake new their stance on gay marriage prior to attempting to order the cake from them.
The way to address businesses that do things you don't agree with is to take your business elsewhere, or even boycot the establishment, I really do not think they should be able to force a business to go against their beliefs.

Irony. I'll bet this owner would not have a problem making a 10 year Anniversary cake for the owner of the "strip joint" down the street from his bakery.

Telos, That brings up a good point. What would happen if you refused to bake a cake for lets say : PETA or the Marijuana Growers Assoc., or something else you find offensive but the courts have ruled for.

 

[BTDT]

This issue reminds me of Joan Jett(?) being removed from the Dakota float at the rose parade.  The people in the Dakota's were upset being she was a huge supporter of petta and did not want her to represent them, so they switched her to another float.  I thought that made total sense and didn't think it was a big deal until I read the comments on the article.

Many felt a "personal choice of supporting petta" should not interfere with business.  Most took the side against the cattleman's group for "making such a big deal of it." 
WHAT???  What happened to freedom of doing business with someone who agrees with your views? Every single decision one makes is based on "personal choice" ESPECIALLY business decisions. 

The couple that went into the bakery was looking to make a statement. They accomplished their goal.  What I have a struggle with is the people who support the bakery's right to make what they want remained pretty silent and thus got trampled. (Seems eerily similar to the ag's problem with the animal rights lies.... if we remain quiet, maybe they will go away. HINT: They won't)

 

[BTDT]

I did want to add that the photo of the petta singer in the article showed the singer wearing what appeared to be leather pants, and leather boots.  Again, is familiar with pamela anderson being a supporter of petta yet owning a car with leather interior.  "Is that bad?" was her response when ask about it.  (She apparently didn't know that leather came from cows.)

 

[chambero]

Really as a result of the civil rights movement, our laws are set up such that if you have a business that sells something to the general public (probably things directly to consumers - I'm no lawyer), you have to offer them for sale to everyone.  Those same laws do not require you to buy anything from anyone - hence you can vote by controlling what you spend money on.

Look at this way - if they are waiting on that danged cake that's one same-sex marriage that ain't happening.  Once the baker realized they were trying to make an example of them, the better and cheaper approach would have been to make the cake, but one that tasted awful.  If they'd thought of it they could have been quite creative.

 

[knabe]

Pamela Anderson should be sued for false advertising.

She was much cuter with a smaller udder and smaller lips.

Forcing speech underground is too hard to resist.

We must force everyone to be the same.

Irony alert. Always amazes me how intolerant the left is and how much they hate diversity. They pretty much are just liars.

If you like your lifestyle, you can keep it.

 

[knabe]

Pretty funny

http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/watchdog/watchdogreports/atf-uses-rogue-tactics-in-storefront-stings-across-the-nation-b99146765z1-234916641.html#continue_reading

This is the equivalent of trading a nickel for a dime with a handicapped person. Something a 10 year old would do. That adults do this is disturbing. It tells me there is a lot less crime and a lot more wasted resources and a lot of undeserved pensions.

 

[Cattle Cards]

This has taken several different turns and at times gotten off point.  Don't see were who you chose or don't chose to sell cattle to applies here.  As far as a business being able to refuse to serve someone, my only experience with that is because the person is drunk, loud, unruly, dirty, not appropriately dressed (health codes), etc.  Not serving them because they were gay is no different than refusing to serve someone because they are black, Jewish, a woman, etc.  It's not trying to change the minority, majority, right, left...it's just equal rights and protection under the law. 

 

[knabe]

Forcing someone to make something they don't believe in is discrimination.

There are plenty of other choices.

it's pretty much open season for the left to be hostile to anyone they disagree with.

the reverse is not even remotely true. 

that's discrimination.

what tools should be employed if people continually refuse to bow to the left?

convert, subjugate or die.  those methods do not qualify as a religion. yet the left is scared of them and for their head.

there probably will be another charles the hammer before it's all said and done with.

 

[RyanChandler]

What does whether you believe in it have to do with anything?  That would be like me telling the city inspector, "well I don't 'believe in' making our apartments wheelchair accessible or abiding by the ADA guidelines."  See how outrageous that sounds!?  You have all the choice in the world. But when you choose to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation,  be prepared to face the legal consequences of choosing to do so.

 

[knabe]

And Polymarry? Nambla?

Reduce voting age to what?

 

[knabe]

Since the supreme court said hospitals can't refuse people who can't pay, will they force doctors to accept patients who can't pay and will they force them to provide services that are reimbursed by Obamacare?

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-obamacare-will-end-up-forcing-doctors-to-take-patients/article/2540341

Will they accuse them of discrimination?

Should show cattle producers be forced to sell calves to this who can't afford them?  Anything else would be discrimination.

 

[RyanChandler]

Since the supreme court said hospitals can't refuse people who can't pay, will they force doctors to accept patients who can't pay and will they force them to provide services that are reimbursed by Obamacare?


Will they accuse them of discrimination?

Should show cattle producers be forced to sell calves to this who can't afford them?  Anything else would be discrimination.

Imagine a firefighter picking and choosing whose house fire they would put out or a policeman choosing whose call for help they would respond to.  Imagine if they verified your ability to pay on the spot prior to responding or if they were allowed to discriminate and say, "well, sorry, we realize your house is on fire but we 'choose' not to provide service to polka doted people." 

 

[frostback]

Since the supreme court said hospitals can't refuse people who can't pay, will they force doctors to accept patients who can't pay and will they force them to provide services that are reimbursed by Obamacare?


Will they accuse them of discrimination?

Should show cattle producers be forced to sell calves to this who can't afford them?  Anything else would be discrimination.

Imagine a firefighter picking and choosing whose house fire they would put out or a policeman choosing whose call for help they would respond to.  Imagine if they verified your ability to pay on the spot prior to responding or if they were allowed to discriminate and say, "well, sorry, we realize your house is on fire but we 'choose' not to provide service to polka doted people."

Your comparing apples to oranges. Firefighters are public servants the bakery is privately owned.

 

[knabe]

Firefighters already refuse service.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/07/it-happened-again-firefighters-let-home-burn-after-owners-didnt-pay-75-protection-fee/