Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[martybegan]

Basing a belief on scripture does not automatically somehow sanctify and take away any spite underlying it.

Is there any evidence of malice or spite in the case of the baker? Does not baking a cake lower itself to malice or spite automatically?

Sea's approach would be tit for tat, and against a group of people, not the people in question, thus fitting the accusation of spite.

I think the baker's action is taken in spite. He says his personal beliefs prevent him from participating, but that is really tripe. He's saying his cakes are for straights only. He's not participating in a wedding by baking a cake, he's serving mammon. If his religious beliefs are so effing compromised, he can donate his profit to a charity of his choice.

And yes, either enforcing a public accomodations law or boycotting the baker in response to refusing to bake the cake is a spiteful act.

How is it in spite? if he were to agree then not deliver, or intentionally screw the cake up, THAT would be in spite. As for the whole donating thing, isn't it just easier to leave him the hell alone and said couple spend another 1/2 hour or so finding and going to another baker?

 

[martybegan]

It has nothing to do with me, I don't live there. Colorado enforcing it's anti discrimination law is now fascism?

Does that mean I should call you a pro-discrimination Nazi?

Nazis were very fond of discrimination.

I am for allowing private entities to discriminate, not government or any company that works for the government.

Colorado is basically making Thoughtcrime punishable via loss of your livelihood. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Not a crime, a civil violation, and its still oppressive, but since is oppression YOU agree with, then its OK in your book.

 

[dblack]

It has nothing to do with me, I don't live there. Colorado enforcing it's anti discrimination law is now fascism?

Does that mean I should call you a pro-discrimination Nazi?

Nazis were very fond of discrimination.

I am for allowing private entities to discriminate, not government or any company that works for the government.

Colorado is basically making Thoughtcrime punishable via loss of your livelihood. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Discriminating IS thinking. Refusing to serve them is the act, and that's not what is illegal. What's illegal is the thought behind it.

 

[bendog]

Is there any evidence of malice or spite in the case of the baker? Does not baking a cake lower itself to malice or spite automatically?

Sea's approach would be tit for tat, and against a group of people, not the people in question, thus fitting the accusation of spite.

I think the baker's action is taken in spite. He says his personal beliefs prevent him from participating, but that is really tripe. He's saying his cakes are for straights only. He's not participating in a wedding by baking a cake, he's serving mammon. If his religious beliefs are so effing compromised, he can donate his profit to a charity of his choice.

And yes, either enforcing a public accomodations law or boycotting the baker in response to refusing to bake the cake is a spiteful act.

How is it in spite? if he were to agree then not deliver, or intentionally screw the cake up, THAT would be in spite. As for the whole donating thing, isn't it just easier to leave him the hell alone and said couple spend another 1/2 hour or so finding and going to another baker?

he's saying his marriage is better because he's straight and he refuses to provide the same product he provides straights. That's spite. I realize you believe some religious principle elevates his motivations while I think such reasoning is tripe.

We disagree of that.

Personally, I don't buy the comparison of this discrimination to race. I think it reflects a certain hubris. However, some "Christians" seem more concerned with this that people working 40plus hours and not being able to feed their families or have time to spend with them. Or children in prostitution. And that is hubris too.

And I think the baker should have the right to all the spite he wishes to dish out, and the GLBT can dish it right back at him.

 

[BlindBoo]

I am for allowing private entities to discriminate, not government or any company that works for the government.

Colorado is basically making Thoughtcrime punishable via loss of your livelihood. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Discriminating IS thinking. Refusing to serve them is the act, and that's not what is illegal. What's illegal is the thought behind it.

BS. Discriminating is refusing to serve them. As far as I know mind reading is still in the realm of Science Fiction.

 

[BlindBoo]

I am for allowing private entities to discriminate, not government or any company that works for the government.

Colorado is basically making Thoughtcrime punishable via loss of your livelihood. If that isn't fascism I don't know what is.

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Not a crime, a civil violation, and its still oppressive, but since is oppression YOU agree with, then its OK in your book.

It is my opinion that in the state of Colorado what this baker did is a violation of their anti-discrimination law. My state doesn't have such a law. If a Baker here in Texas were to do the same as the guy in Colorado, he would not be subject to civil penalties. That's the law.

 

[dblack]

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Discriminating IS thinking. Refusing to serve them is the act, and that's not what is illegal. What's illegal is the thought behind it.

BS. Discriminating is refusing to serve them. As far as I know mind reading is still in the realm of Science Fiction.

But that's exactly what we're pretending to do here. Refusing to serve someone is perfectly legal for other reasons. What makes it illegal is doing it because it's a gay wedding. If the baker refused to serve them because they were ugly, it's not illegal.

 

[bendog]

Discrimination against ugly people is still discrimination. The question is whether discrimination by a private citizen against another private citizen, without threat of violence, should be illegal.

I think it should NOT be, but my position is a minority

 

[BlindBoo]

Discriminating IS thinking. Refusing to serve them is the act, and that's not what is illegal. What's illegal is the thought behind it.

BS. Discriminating is refusing to serve them. As far as I know mind reading is still in the realm of Science Fiction.

But that's exactly what we're pretending to do here. Refusing to serve someone is perfectly legal for other reasons. What makes it illegal is doing it because it's a gay wedding. If the baker refused to serve them because they were ugly, it's not illegal.

It would be the same if he refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple as well.

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado

 

[dblack]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about that? Does that baker have the right to refuse service for even more irrational reasons? Because he's having a bad day? Because he thinks they seem generally suspicious? Because he thinks their aliens from another planet set on world domination? Do you think refusing service for these reasons should be illegal as well?

 

[dblack]

Discrimination against ugly people is still discrimination. The question is whether discrimination by a private citizen against another private citizen, without threat of violence, should be illegal.

I think it should be, but my position is a minority

For any reason? Really?

 

[dblack]

BS. Discriminating is refusing to serve them. As far as I know mind reading is still in the realm of Science Fiction.

But that's exactly what we're pretending to do here. Refusing to serve someone is perfectly legal for other reasons. What makes it illegal is doing it because it's a gay wedding. If the baker refused to serve them because they were ugly, it's not illegal.

It would be the same if he refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple as well.

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado

Yeah... I know what the law says. And attractiveness isn't a protected class. He could discriminate against them because they're ugly, because he doesn't like the way the look at him, because they're rich, because their poor, etc, etc, etc...

The point is, it IS the thought that counts. It IS thoughtcrime.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's amusing, "Thought Crimes". As if all the baker did was think about discriminating against the couple. His refusal of service was a crime in Colorado.

Not a crime, a civil violation, and its still oppressive, but since is oppression YOU agree with, then its OK in your book.

It is my opinion that in the state of Colorado what this baker did is a violation of their anti-discrimination law. My state doesn't have such a law. If a Baker here in Texas were to do the same as the guy in Colorado, he would not be subject to civil penalties. That's the law.

Depends on who he does it to.

Federal public accommodation laws are applicable in all States.



>>>>

 

[bendog]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about that? Does that baker have the right to refuse service for even more irrational reasons? Because he's having a bad day? Because he thinks they seem generally suspicious? Because he thinks their aliens from another planet set on world domination? Do you think refusing service for these reasons should be illegal as well?

My post was a misstatement. I believe private discrimination should not be illegal. However, I really don't see the rationality in your comparison here. Moreover, any comparison is irrelevant. The statute is the thing. The statute defines was is, and what isn't, illegal discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Out of curiosity, what do you think about that? Does that baker have the right to refuse service for even more irrational reasons? Because he's having a bad day? Because he thinks they seem generally suspicious? Because he thinks their aliens from another planet set on world domination? Do you think refusing service for these reasons should be illegal as well?

My post was a misstatement. I believe private discrimination should not be illegal. However, I really don't see the rationality in your comparison here. Moreover, any comparison is irrelevant. The statute is the thing. The statute defines was is, and what isn't, illegal discrimination.

I know. And we're adding to that list regularly. It just seems ridiculously ad hoc. Vendors refuse service for all kinds of reasons that are arguably more irrational and unjustified than the list of protected classes. What's the rationale for what belongs on the list and what doesn't? Is it just a matter of the state's current social agenda?

 

[BlindBoo]

Not a crime, a civil violation, and its still oppressive, but since is oppression YOU agree with, then its OK in your book.

It is my opinion that in the state of Colorado what this baker did is a violation of their anti-discrimination law. My state doesn't have such a law. If a Baker here in Texas were to do the same as the guy in Colorado, he would not be subject to civil penalties. That's the law.

Depends on who he does it to.

Federal public accommodation laws are applicable in all States.

>>>>

Federal public accommodation laws do not cover sexual orientation. Some states do.

 

[dblack]

So, you guys don't see the potential for abuse in allowing government the power to manipulate us like this? You don't see how this could be used for political purposes? What if, for example, the government wanted to neuter anti-war protests and made it illegal for protesters refuser service to veterans...

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

 

[martybegan]

So, you guys don't see the potential for abuse in giving government the power control us like this?

They never do, mostly because they think they will always control the bureaucracies that control policing of this crap.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is my opinion that in the state of Colorado what this baker did is a violation of their anti-discrimination law. My state doesn't have such a law. If a Baker here in Texas were to do the same as the guy in Colorado, he would not be subject to civil penalties. That's the law.

Depends on who he does it to.

Federal public accommodation laws are applicable in all States.

>>>>

Federal public accommodation laws do not cover sexual orientation. Some states do.

I know, I was clarifying your statement that implied there were no Public Accommodation protections in Texas, that any private business can refuse service for any reason. They can't. They can't refuse an Asian because they are Asian, a Mexican because they are from Mexico, a Jew because they are Jewish, etc.

They can refuse gays because they are gay because there is no State law that says they can and the federal law doesn't include gays.


>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

How about refusing to serve the queers because he doesn't want to be targeted and used for a political agenda he doesn't agree with? Sick freaks.