Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    1:15 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit Back to Topics
teacher_tim
Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:20,569
Points:863,325
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2014 9:36:39 PM

"A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
*******************************
Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.

“They are turning people of faith into religious refugees,” Martin told me. “Is this the society that we want to live in – where people of faith are driven out of business?”

Martin said it was “truly frightening” that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me he’s not going to create any new policies.

“My old ones are pretty adequate as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.”
link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 28, 2015 12:22:14 AM

<<In the 18th century and until fairly recently, the word "men" was understood to mean "men and women" and not just "adult males," as indicated by the context.>> gas_too_high

That is not true necessarily.

Or else why would they not let women vote or own property or sign contracts?

Very clearly men was not always under stood to mean both men and women.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 8:00:51 PM

GTH: "I note that the Declaration of Independence does not say "all sexual unions are created equal". Nor is that language in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else."

weaselspit: 'So because the "language" is not "in the Constitution", you don't believe in it as a founding principle of our nation? It means nothing to you?'

Do you mean that I don't believe in "all sexual unions are created equal" as a founding principle of our nation? No, of course I don't believe that.

I do, however, believe that all people are created equal. That *is* a founding principle and distinct from equality of sexual unions.

GTH: "I note that the Declaration of Independence does not say "all sexual unions are created equal"."

weasel: "It also doesn't even include women, we should thusly be allowed to discriminate against them as well."

In the 18th century and until fairly recently, the word "men" was understood to mean "men and women" and not just "adult males," as indicated by the context.

Way to go, going after that strawman.

"Apparently somebody doesn't care about a different perspective regarding 'pursuits of happiness' that don't align with his."

We could have a philosophical discussion on what "pursuit of happiness" means and what it meant to the Founding Fathers (hint: it did not mean "pursuit of pleasure") but I doubt calm discussion is what you want.

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 12:32:52 PM

"I note that the Declaration of Independence does not say "all sexual unions are created equal". Nor is that language in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else."

So because the "language" is not "in the Constitution", you don't believe in it as a founding principle of our nation? It means nothing to you?

"I note that the Declaration of Independence does not say "all sexual unions are created equal"."

It also doesn't even include women, we should thusly be allowed to discriminate against them as well. Well-played. <s>

Apparently somebody doesn't care about a different perspective regarding 'pursuits of happiness' that don't align with his. Not shocking...
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 11:10:17 AM

I note that the Declaration of Independence does not say "all sexual unions are created equal". Nor is that language in the Constitution, in the 14th Amendment or anywhere else.

If your copy of those documents does say that, you might want to go back and check the originals. :)

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 27, 2015 9:07:04 AM

From the Declaration of Independence;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Some might need to re-read this...
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,196
Points:955,320
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 9:45:31 PM

EZExit “Right there, we can't even agree on what discrimination had occurred, the topic is about gay wedding cake, not sexual orientation.”

How tactless, to make up strawmen for both sides of the issue.

The topic is not about “gay wedding cake” since there's no such thing. Cakes don't have genitals therefore they can't be either gay or straight. They're just cakes.

Therefore it can't be about a “gay wedding cake”. It's just about a wedding cake that a gay couple wanted to get.

The baker refused to bake a cake for them BECAUSE THEY WERE HOMOSEXUALS. That's not about “sexual orientation” as you claim but it's discrimination.

If one of the couple had been female and the other male the baker would have baked the cake for them even if both of them had been homosexuals and had no intention of consumating the marriage. Therefore it's quite clearly discrimination, merely because the baker didn't like that both individuals were of the same gender.

“I have acknowledged numerous times on this thread that discrimination due to sexual orientation is indeed illegal, while discrimination again st gay marriage is not. One is a character trait, one is a behavior.”

That's just another way of restating GTH's favorite saying, that “behavior is a choice”. Well, so is religious belief so maybe we should start legislating against that.

The behavior is part and parcel of the “character trait” just as having penile/vaginal sex is part of being heterosexual, so your point is invalid.

<<<"The proof that you're wrong is that there are more and more cases happening where the law sides with the homosexuals being discriminated against.">>>

“The number of cases means nothing, other than the legal definition is being pushed against harder and harder.”

The number of cases does indeed mean a lot. It's increasing which indicates that the tide has turned against religiously condoned prejudice.

<<<"Or are you now going to start calling the legislators, lawyers and judges “confused” about the law while you maintain that you're the expert?">>>

“Legislators don't interpret law, they write law. lawyers and judges interpret law, and sometimes interpretation is lost in translation. in this case, none of the above made any determination on this baker case. It was a bureaucratic committee.”

Which was interpreting the law passed by legislators. That should be a simple concept even for a believer.

Again, the number of cases being found against those who practise discrimination against homosexuals is increasing. The precedents have been set and the tide has turned.

<<<"Ah. So that's why GTH keeps bringing up “what the genitals are designed for”, because he has no problem with homosexuals using them for something different from his approved “use”?">>>

“When GTH addresses counterargument that gay people's behavior is "innate", then he makes a quite tangible point of the design of the human anatomy, he makes a point that can't be disputed. I have not seen GTH speak of "approved genital use".”

And what else can it be other than what GTH considers “approved genital use” when he states that the genitals are designed for specific purposes? It's saying the same thing in different words. Really, you can't read something and see all the implications of what's been said .

<<<"So please, tell us where you, the baker, or anybody else was being “forced to love” somebody they didn't.">>>

“The baker was forced (at least attempted force) to enter into a contract to make a cake.”

No. He obviously was not forced to “enter into a contract” because he did not enter into said contract. He was being forced to stop discriminating.

<<<"As for what to do, what the baker does is bake cakes. So you're saying that it's wrong to have the baker do what he does for a living?">>>

“It's a person's right to make or not make any product for sale. Once the product is made and offered for sale, than equal access applies. If the product doesn't exist, it is wrong to force the baker to create the product against his or her will.”

If the ONLY reason for not creating the product was discrimination, then the baker can indeed be charged with discrimination. So far you and the others have made all sorts of steps trying to dance around the issue but haven't been able to show that the reason for refusing the contract was anything other than that the baker didn't approve of the couple's homosexuality, therefore, discrimination.

Again, if the couple had been heterosexual the baker would have made the cake. Therefore it's clearly discrimination.

“Think of it as a contract offer with the right of refusal. the reason someone refuses to enter into a contract is equally none of their business.”

Since discrimination is against the law, that makes it the government's business.

<<<"If I was the best baker in town and made the best wedding cakes you could imagine, better than anybody else's, or the other bakers all charged double the price for the same thing, or the next closest bakery was an inordinate distance away, then most people WOULD be upset at being refused service merely because the baker didn't like them.">>>

“And a void would exist the other entrepreneurs would fill.”

The couple wanted the cake THEN, not waiting for a couple of years until some other baker came into the picture. What a stupid example yours is.

“Of course in this case there were numerous other bakers..”

That's the same attitude that some Jews had in Germany when the authorities went after the criminals in the mid 30's.

“.. and many people that later offered reviews on this baker indicated that his product was horrible.”

After the fact doesn't matter. Where they just saying that because they supported the gay couple? Did saying it after the party was over get a cake for the gay couple? Would the baker never discriminate again just because somebody said something to him after the fact?

“So why the indignation to buy a lousy cake from a horrible person?”

So why do you protest so much to defend a lousy cake baker who's a horrible person?

<<<"Since none of those has happened in recorded history, let's wait until it does before you go to extremes of imagination shall we?">>>

“So you really think that this is the very first time someone wasn't served based on the obnoxious behavior displayed by the customer..”

What “obnoxious behavior”? Is this something you just made up again or is there some record of the gay couple being “obnoxious”?

Or is merely the fact of being homosexual what the baker considers “obnoxious”, in which case he would be discriminating, wouldn't he?

“That's pretty naive coming from someone as educated as yourself.”

I find it pretty naive for somebody not to understand what discrimination is, the harm it can do to individuals and how it can cause society to degenerate.

<<<"All of which is irrelevant to the issue as has been pointed out to you over and over again.">>>

“..and equally dismissed with no foundational validity.”

Correct that you've dismissed it. But incorrect that you've shown there's no foundational validity to it.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 9:05:58 PM

rjh: "I'm not aware of anything in any religion that'd prohibit anyone from baking and selling a cake for a SSM deception."

Funny, I'm not aware of anything in the Constitution that allows a government to determine what is and is not a part of anyone's religion.

GTH
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 3:44:14 PM

I'm not aware of anything in any religion that'd prohibit anyone from baking and selling a cake for a SSM deception.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 11:09:33 AM

"in the first place, to give credit where credit is due, that was from EZExit, not me."

I stand corrected, thank-you.

"So you couldn't "abide" by the ruling because it doesn't restrict you."

Tell that to the organizations and donors who benefitted from that decision and those who think it should be restricted and might act improperly accordingly...

Or, if you don't like EZ's example, take it up with him.
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:32:31 AM

"the topic is about gay wedding cake, not sexual orientation"

Huh?
A baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the couple?
Sorry, there is no logic in that.
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:72,218
Points:4,457,435
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 10:22:49 AM

"--Think of it as a contract offer with the right of refusal. the reason someone refuses to enter into a contract is equally none of their business."

Unless, as in the case with the Colorado baker, the reason is discriminatory.



[Edited by: Zimcity at 3/26/2015 10:23:04 AM EST]
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,729
Points:2,538,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 26, 2015 1:25:47 AM

BabeTruth: <<<"YOU'RE confusing being forced to honor the laws against discrimination with being allowed to discriminate between what members of the public a business will sell to and which ones he refuses to sell to because of their sexual orientation.">>>

--Right there, we can't even agree on what discrimination had occurred, the topic is about gay wedding cake, not sexual orientation. I have acknowledged numerous times on this thread that discrimination due to sexual orientation is indeed illegal, while discrimination again st gay marriage is not. One is a character trait, one is a behavior.

<<<"The proof that you're wrong is that there are more and more cases happening where the law sides with the homosexuals being discriminated against.">>>

--The number of cases means nothing, other than the legal definition is being pushed against harder and harder.

<<<"Or are you now going to start calling the legislators, lawyers and judges “confused” about the law while you maintain that you're the expert?">>>

--Legislators don't interpret law, they write law. lawyers and judges interpret law, and sometimes interpretation is lost in translation. in this case, none of the above made any determination on this baker case. It was a bureaucratic committee.

<<<"Ah. So that's why GTH keeps bringing up “what the genitals are designed for”, because he has no problem with homosexuals using them for something different from his approved “use”?">>>

--When GTH addresses counterargument that gay people's behavior is "innate", then he makes a quite tangible point of the design of the human anatomy, he makes a point that can't be disputed. I have not seen GTH speak of "approved genital use".

<<<"So please, tell us where you, the baker, or anybody else was being “forced to love” somebody they didn't.">>>

--The baker was forced (at least attempted force) to enter into a contract to make a cake.

<<<"As for what to do, what the baker does is bake cakes. So you're saying that it's wrong to have the baker do what he does for a living?">>>

--It's a person's right to make or not make any product for sale. Once the product is made and offered for sale, than equal access applies. If the product doesn't exist, it is wrong to force the baker to create the product against his or her will.

<<<"Think of it as baking wedding cakes ... period. What the customer does with a cake after the baker sells it is really none of his business.">>>

--Think of it as a contract offer with the right of refusal. the reason someone refuses to enter into a contract is equally none of their business.

<<<"If I was the best baker in town and made the best wedding cakes you could imagine, better than anybody else's, or the other bakers all charged double the price for the same thing, or the next closest bakery was an inordinate distance away, then most people WOULD be upset at being refused service merely because the baker didn't like them.">>>

--And a void would exist the other entrepreneurs would fill. Of course in this case there were numerous other bakers, and many people that later offered reviews on this baker indicated that his product was horrible. So why the indignation to buy a lousy cake from a horrible person?

<<<"Since none of those has happened in recorded history, let's wait until it does before you go to extremes of imagination shall we?">>>

--So you really think that this is the very first time someone wasn't served based on the obnoxious behavior displayed by the customer (through the eyes of the store owner)? That's pretty naive coming from someone as educated as yourself.

<<<"All of which is irrelevant to the issue as has been pointed out to you over and over again.">>>

--and equally dismissed with no foundational validity.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 10:52:02 PM

#### The following is an extended quote from weaselspit:

Not surprisingly, when countered with a rational response to an irrational argument gth suddenly dropped it like a hot potato and went radio-silent;

"gth>>>"--It's amazing, your confidence in the findings of a state bureaucratic commission, in light of your constant whining about a citizen's united ruling by a real court being wrong in other topics."

Weasle>>>Here's the big difference you seem to be missing - I still abide by the SC's CU ruling, even though I disagree with it.

Didn't think that was such a hard distinction to make."

#### End extended quote

Wrong on multiple counts weasel.

in the first place, to give credit where credit is due, that was from EZExit, not me.

And the "Citizens United vs FEC" SCOTUS decision was binding on the federal government (specifically the FEC) not on you or any private individual. So you couldn't "abide" by the ruling because it doesn't restrict you.

IOW, more confusion from marriage redefiners and anti-religious discriminators.

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 2:52:35 PM

Not surprisingly, when countered with a rational response to an irrational argument gth suddenly dropped it like a hot potato and went radio-silent;

"gth>>>"--It's amazing, your confidence in the findings of a state bureaucratic commission, in light of your constant whining about a citizen's united ruling by a real court being wrong in other topics."

Weasle>>>Here's the big difference you seem to be missing - I still abide by the SC's CU ruling, even though I disagree with it.

Didn't think that was such a hard distinction to make."

;)
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,196
Points:955,320
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 2:40:40 PM

EZExit “There have never been any prohibition from people choosing an alternative lifestyle, including choosing a partner of the same sex. Your confusing individual freedom to be outside the societal norm to being forced to honor the exception as the rule.”

On the contrary.

YOU'RE confusing being forced to honor the laws against discrimination with being allowed to discriminate between what members of the public a business will sell to and which ones he refuses to sell to because of their sexual orientation.

The proof that you're wrong is that there are more and more cases happening where the law sides with the homosexuals being discriminated against.

Or are you now going to start calling the legislators, lawyers and judges “confused” about the law while you maintain that you're the expert?

“Most of us have no problem with whom or what people love or do...”

Ah. So that's why GTH keeps bringing up “what the genitals are designed for”, because he has no problem with homosexuals using them for something different from his approved “use”?

“.. we have a problem with what people force us to love or do..”

So please, tell us where you, the baker, or anybody else was being “forced to love” somebody they didn't.

As for what to do, what the baker does is bake cakes. So you're saying that it's wrong to have the baker do what he does for a living?

“.. including baking wedding cakes for a gay marriage.”

Think of it as baking wedding cakes ... period. What the customer does with a cake after the baker sells it is really none of his business.

“The same as I wouldn't have an issue if you as a gay baker didn't want to make a cake for my conventional marriage.”

If I was the best baker in town and made the best wedding cakes you could imagine, better than anybody else's, or the other bakers all charged double the price for the same thing, or the next closest bakery was an inordinate distance away, then most people WOULD be upset at being refused service merely because the baker didn't like them.

Are you trying to tell us then that you're not normal?

“Or making a cake for the annual KKK convention. Or making a cake for ISIS camp, etc.”

Since none of those has happened in recorded history, let's wait until it does before you go to extremes of imagination shall we?

“Remember, this wasn't a product sitting there on the shelf available for sale, this was a contract for a custom product that wouldn't be created or useable except for the unique individual(s) that ordered it.”

All of which is irrelevant to the issue as has been pointed out to you over and over again.
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 2:17:38 PM

There is no confusion on our side about <<recognizing the definition of marriage>> gas_too_high.

The baker was not asked to recognize the marriage. He was only asked to bake a cake which is what he claimed to be in sales for the public to do.

That he will only do it for some members of the public and not for others is a clear case of discrimination and only those who are confused can not see that.

It is more likely that the committee knows the Colorado discrimination laws better than some biased religion fanatic in Ohio.

Also if their interpretation of the law was incorrect then you would think the baker and may be even his church would have fought the conviction. That they did not makes it look like you are wrong once again.

Also this confuses between properly interpreting law versus using an incorrect interpretation as a pretext for discrimination against religious believers.

tHE bullying is from the religous people who want to make the definitions of their religion the only definitions that are allowed by law and to not let other religions have their beliefs.

So people who say as you are bullies as well as prejudicedd and confused.
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,729
Points:2,538,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:57:15 PM

Rumbleseat: <<<"Allowing 2 people to choose partners based on love regardless of gender is not a true re-definition when compared to that.">>>

--There have never been any prohibition from people choosing an alternative lifestyle, including choosing a partner of the same sex. Your confusing individual freedom to be outside the societal norm to being forced to honor the exception as the rule.

Most of us have no problem with whom or what people love or do, we have a problem with what people force us to love or do, including baking wedding cakes for a gay marriage. The same as I wouldn't have an issue if you as a gay baker didn't want to make a cake for my conventional marriage. Or making a cake for the annual KKK convention. Or making a cake for ISIS camp, etc.

Remember, this wasn't a product sitting there on the shelf available for sale, this was a contract for a custom product that wouldn't be created or useable except for the unique individual(s) that ordered it.

[Edited by: EZExit at 3/25/2015 1:58:47 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:43:01 PM

You want to talk re-definition? We in the so-called "civilized world" no longer pay 3 goats and a cow for a wife. Why not? It was established practice, it was tradition. We no longer raid other camps and towns and steal women to make them wives and mothers. Why not? It was established practice, it was tradition.
Alowing 2 people to choose partners based on love regardless of gender is not a true re-definition when compared to that.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:32:00 PM

"Some will even be so confused, that they'll think that gay marriage was always the norm until quite recently, and that people like you are seeking to redefine or narrow marriage to be only between a man and a woman."

I wonder - if I were to open an establishment that served the public if I could discriminate against those who hold discriminatory beliefs? And I sure bet those who were refused service wouldn't let me just get away with that (as they claim that the couple who complained were in it for the 'glory' and their 5 seconds of fame)...
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,729
Points:2,538,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:28:54 PM

GTH: <<<"In general, marriage redefiners are confused, and many of them seek to bully the rest of us into their confusion.">>>

--That is that can of worms thing, you redefine marriage, which forces other redefinitions to enable the redefinition to stick. This includes redefining a gay marriage to actually be a homosexual person, so that a discrimination suit would be operative. Perhaps we can extend the protected class of all individuals to all partnerships (why just gay ones?), and give my company first amendment protections as an individual too.

Some will even be so confused, that they'll think that gay marriage was always the norm until quite recently, and that people like you are seeking to redefine or narrow marriage to be only between a man and a woman.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:04:55 PM

"In general, marriage redefiners are confused, and many of them seek to bully the rest of us into their confusion."

You do realize you are once again projecting here, right? It is those of your ilk that are trying to narrow the definition of marriage and bullying everybody else to fall in line (or be refused service, perhaps)...

;)
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 25, 2015 1:00:36 PM

"Yes, you only see what suits your bigoted agenda. Clearly the commission WAS upholding the law that the baker had violated."

More confusion between recognizing the definition of marriage, and discriminating against persons. Also this confuses between properly interpreting law versus using an incorrect interpretation as a pretext for discrimination against religious believers.

In general, marriage redefiners are confused, and many of them seek to bully the rest of us into their confusion.

GTH
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 1:33:31 PM

"You see a bigot, I see a person that stood up for their principles in the face of a liberal state bureaucratic commission ruling by agenda instead of law."

Birds of a feather... Note the distinction I made for you in my previous post. Now who is whining?
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 1:32:13 PM

"--It's amazing, your confidence in the findings of a state bureaucratic commission, in light of your constant whining about a citizen's united ruling by a real court being wrong in other topics."

Here's the big difference you seem to be missing - I still abide by the SC's CU ruling, even though I disagree with it.

Didn't think that was such a hard distinction to make.
Zimcity
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:72,218
Points:4,457,435
Joined:Aug 2001
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:38:41 AM

'I see a person that stood up for their principles in the face of a liberal state bureaucratic commission ruling by agenda instead of law. '

Yes, you only see what suits your bigoted agenda. Clearly the commission WAS upholding the law that the baker had violated.
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,729
Points:2,538,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:32:16 AM

El Gato: <<<"Is it not also a mistake when he will may be go down in history and be remembered as a bigot? That is not how most people would want future generations to remember them.">>>

--I don't think he really cares what you think of him, similar to how I don't care what you think of me, because of an opinion that might differ from your own. You see a bigot, I see a person that stood up for their principles in the face of a liberal state bureaucratic commission ruling by agenda instead of law.
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:06:20 AM

What ever his exact situation is in baking it seems that he has lost business. Is that not usually considered a mistake when a business owner loses money because of some thing he did when he could have been making money?

Is it not also a mistake when he will may be go down in history and be remembered as a bigot? That is not how most people would want future generations to remember them.

[Edited by: El_Gato_Negro at 3/24/2015 11:08:20 AM EST]
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:17,729
Points:2,538,250
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:05:11 AM

Weasel: <<<"Just like some others here on GB who don't call the baker's action a mistake (even though his actions were reviewed and found to be as such)...">>>

--It's amazing, your confidence in the findings of a state bureaucratic commission, in light of your constant whining about a citizen's united ruling by a real court being wrong in other topics. I suppose that the amount of weight that a liberal applies to anything depends on the agenda of the topic as hand, thus the constant contortionist positions you'll see on these boards.

Settled case law, or a mistake, it really depends on which way the wind blows for many liberals as you are witnessing right here on these threads...

[Edited by: EZExit at 3/24/2015 11:06:04 AM EST]
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 11:01:41 AM

"He said he just wasn't going to do any wedding cakes, period. He is not out of a job, he is self-employed, and has voluntarily limited his business."

Correct. Cut off ones nose to spite their face...
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 10:55:30 AM

"If the Colorado baker did not make a mistake, then why is it he who is out of a job while the same-sex couple is still married?"

He said he just wasn't going to do any wedding cakes, period. He is not out of a job, he is self-employed, and has voluntarily limited his business.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 10:28:33 AM

"The Colorado baker didn't make a mistake. He made a stand."

And in taking a stand for his 'beliefs', he discriminated - showing his bigotry for the world to see.

Just like some others here on GB who don't call the baker's action a mistake (even though his actions were reviewed and found to be as such)...
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 24, 2015 10:19:17 AM

If the Colorado baker did not make a mistake, then why is it he who is out of a job while the same-sex couple is still married?

It looks like he made a very big mistake indeed and in future generations may be he will be remembered as one of the last bigots of homophobia.
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 10:49:26 PM

You think it is not possible for a stand to be a mistake? That is too funny.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 9:37:52 PM

The Colorado baker didn't make a mistake. He made a stand.

GTH
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,196
Points:955,320
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 11:00:54 AM

Weaslespit "And as long as you can't, don't or won't see my point(s), you will make the same mistake as the Colorado "baker" which will get you somewhere - just not where you want... ;)"

Seeing as how the Colorado baker is not the only baker who's had this problem, and that the end result in each case has ended up to be judged as discrimination by the authorities, it seems that those with a mindset (a set mind?) like GTH's are on the losing side of history.

It therefore behooves him to at least make an effort (which he obviously has not done) to see another point of view other than his own, because at the present rate of change even another conservative administration is not going to be able to stop the eventual national legality of same sex marriage.

If GTH (and others) can't accept that their religiously based definitions aren't the only ones, then they set themselves up for an early death due to the stress it will put on their minds.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 23, 2015 10:24:33 AM

"As long as you can't, don't or won't see this, you will make the same mistake as the Colorado "civil rights commission" and this discussion will get nowhere."

And as long as you can't, don't or won't see my point(s), you will make the same mistake as the Colorado "baker" which will get you somewhere - just not where you want... ;)
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 9:33:43 AM

I do not think gas_too_high knows what is the definition of projection. He seems to think it means some thing like <<being like him>>.
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 22, 2015 9:15:57 AM

Projection.

GTH
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 11:51:00 PM

N o,you seem to regard everything about marriage except procreation as ,insignificant.


[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/21/2015 11:52:59 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 11:37:48 PM

No,you seem to regard everythingaboutmarriage exceptprocreation as significant.



[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/21/2015 11:44:38 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 11:36:59 PM

"Marriage is fundamentally different from same-sex unions"

Marriage is 2 loving people making a life together, and a same sex union is 2 loving people making a life rogether. Fundamentally different? Only in the eyes of the bigotted or the terrified.

Saw a good sign.
What if homosexuality is a choice?
Even If Being Gay Was A Choice
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 9:05:03 PM

Neither do I. But I don't view procreation as insignificant either, as do you.

GTH
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 8:52:54 PM

Has such a.limited concept.



[Edited by: rjhenn at 3/21/2015 8:58:09 PM EST]
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 21, 2015 8:35:41 PM

gas_too_high - "
No it's not. Marriage is fundamentally different from same-sex unions."That depends entirely on what you think a marriage is. You keep insisting that marriage is all about procreation. Not everyone was such a limited
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:16,197
Points:2,744,390
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 9:20:23 PM

GTH: "I don't advocate anyone else being forced to agree with me."

weaselsit: "Is that a joke?"

Are you for real?

quoted by weasel: "Why should he have to repeat the same evidence over and over when you refuse to see it over and over."

weasel: "He continually ignores me pointing that fact out..."

Because what you point out is not evidence. That is, it is not evidence of discrimination.

You continually confuse 2 diferent things:

GTH: "IOW, some believe that refusing to recognize a same-sex "marriage" and discriminating against homosexual as persons are one and the same."

weasel: 'Because it is. Next.'

No it's not. Marriage is fundamentally different from same-sex unions. And the choices peopel make about their lifestyles are different from the characteristics (innate or otherwise) they possess.

As long as you can't, don't or won't see this, you will make the same mistake as the Colorado "civil rights commission" and this discussion will get nowhere.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 3/20/2015 9:21:37 PM EST]
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 2:48:04 PM

"You mean GTH is still using that old Nelson trick of putting his hand over his eyes and saying that he doesn't see any evidence."I guess he did it until he went blind.
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:29,771
Points:2,963,980
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 2:34:14 PM

GTH "But wait, this same-sex couple begs to differ"
I. note that they ddn't offer anything other than their opinion in support
And no one has yet been able to explain how baking a cake has any religious significance.
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:19,283
Points:621,805
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 8:45:49 AM

"Why should he have to repeat the same evidence over and over when you refuse to see it over and over."

He continually ignores me pointing that fact out...

"<<I think you confuse evidence of refusing to recognize marriage redefinition, which is not a crime, with homosexual discrimination.>>

Or it could be that you refuse to recognize discrimination which is a crime instead of acknowledging that the baker was not asked to recognize a marriage."

This is really not a difficult concept, the only way one does not see this is to ignore reality to protect and justify their discriminatory opinions.

"I don't advocate anyone else being forced to agree with me."

Is that a joke?

"You still have not established that the gender of the parents is relevant."

Nor can gth, because it is irrelevant.

"IOW, some believe that refusing to recognize a same-sex "marriage" and discriminating against homosexual as persons are one and the same."

Because it is. Next.

"<<A same-sex "marriage" in a state that recognizes them, is a marriage, in exactly the same way that a corporation is a "person" -- as a legal fiction.>>"

Keep denying the facts that are an inconvenience to you.
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:6,196
Points:955,320
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Mar 20, 2015 12:24:02 AM

EGN "Why should he have to repeat the same evidence over and over when you refuse to see it over and over."

You mean GTH is still using that old Nelson trick of putting his hand over his eyes and saying that he doesn't see any evidence.

ROTFL

Some things never change.
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:4,614
Points:976,720
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 9:05:48 PM


GTH: "I am unaware of any evidence that could have been the basis of the decision of the "Civil Rights Commission"."

weaselspit: "None that you are willing to consider, certainly."

<<And nothing that you are willing to present, if you have anything to present.>> gas_too_high

Why should he have to repeat the same evidence over and over when you refuse to see it over and over.

<<I think you confuse evidence of refusing to recognize marriage redefinition, which is not a crime, with homosexual discrimination.>>

Or it could be that you refuse to recognize discrimination which is a crime insteadd of acknowledging that the baker was not asked to recognize a marriage.

" Why would you support persecuting varying religions who support SSM (the list grows every year) in direct violation of the Constitution?"

<<Anyone is free to recognize a same-sex union as a "marriage" if he or she so chooses. I don't do so and I don't want to be forced to do so. But unlike you, I don't advocate anyone else being forced to agree with me.>>

Instead you advocate forcing one specific religious definition on everybody.

GTH: "Every child deserves to be raised by a father and mother."

weasel: "Every child deserves to be raised by their parents.."

<<That is, their mother and father. Or, in case of need, adoptive or foster substitutes for the biological mother or father, but always same-sex substitutes.>>

You still have not established that the gender of the parents is relevant.

GTH: "IOW, some believe that refusing to recognize a same-sex "marriage" and discriminating against homosexual as persons are one and the same."

sgm4law: "Yes..."

<<Thank you for that simple admission that weasel seems unwilling to make.>>

Yes. She shows an honesty that is alien to you.

"...and you can leave off the quotation marks around marriage, since it's not imaginary that gay people are married--it's legally recognized by governments of most states."

<<A same-sex "marriage" in a state that recognizes them, is a marriage, in exactly the same way that a corporation is a "person" -- as a legal fiction.>>

If you want to go that way then any marriage is a legal fiction.
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:26,238
Points:3,875,130
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Mar 19, 2015 7:11:08 PM

Commercial bakeries open to the public are not religious institutions.
Post a reply Back to Topics