Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Quantum Windbag]

Even better maybe we should start refusing business licensing to people that sin by ignoring Gods instructions to not judge people.

The baker was not judging anyone but himself. He was saying "I will not commit this sin". He didn't care what anyone else did.

When did baking a cake become a sin? Do we all get to cherry pick the old testement, give the selected portions our own interpretation and determine for ourselves what a "sin" is.

When did picking up an illegal alien hitchhiker become a crime, even if you didn't know they were an illegal alien?

When did giving someone money to get out of town after they killed someone become a crime?

When did driving someone to the 7-11 and back so they could rob the place, even though you had no idea they intended to do that, become a crime?

If the fucking government recognizes complicity in criminal acts even though you didn't actually commit the fucking crime what the fuck makes you think complicity in sin is not a sin?

 

[Katzndogz]

Even better maybe we should start refusing business licensing to people that sin by ignoring Gods instructions to not judge people.

The baker was not judging anyone but himself. He was saying "I will not commit this sin". He didn't care what anyone else did.

When did baking a cake become a sin? Do we all get to cherry pick the old testement, give the selected portions our own interpretation and determine for ourselves what a "sin" is.

It required him to participate in a same sex wedding. As a matter of fact, yes, people do pick and choose what sins are and what they will or will not do. After all, gays themselves have chosen that homosexuality not be a sin. Now they want to force their interpretation on everyone else. It is an intrusion into the conscience of someone else. It should be respected the same way the military respects the conscience of those who will not kill.

If it was just selling a cake, then the couple could have bought any cake right out of the showcase and no one would have said a thing. So it wasn't just any cake. Do people retain the right to refuse to violate their conscience? Then put a gun in that consciencious objector's hands and put him on the front line.

I would not participate in a same sex wedding. It has nothing to do with what they do. I categorically refuse to consider homosexuality itself a sin or any act performed by homosexuals a sin. That is simply none of my business. It is between them and whatever they consider God to be. I would not commit a homosexual act. It would be a sin for me to do. I would not participate in a same sex wedding for the same reason and everyone deserves that same freedom.

If Christians go around cherry picking what is a sin or not and conducting their lives according to those beliefs, there is no difference to the government picking and choosing what IT believes is worthy of being a sin or not and imposing that belief on everyone else regardless of what that person believes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the baker KNOWS that a man who divorced his wife to marry his mistress he might very well refuse to make that wedding cake. In this case, he KNEW that the couple was a same sex couple.

And if he did (i.e. said "I don't bake wedding cakes for divorced women") then he would have been found in violation of the law as Statute 24-34-601 lists marital status as one of the criteria where discrimination is not allowed.


>>>>

 

[BullKurtz]

If the baker KNOWS that a man who divorced his wife to marry his mistress he might very well refuse to make that wedding cake. In this case, he KNEW that the couple was a same sex couple.

And if he did (i.e. said "I don't bake wedding cakes for divorced women") then he would have been found in violation of the law as Statute 24-34-601 lists marital status as one of the criteria where discrimination is not allowed.

Talk about an anal-retentive....does your little rule book stipulate that most of these "offenses" are civil, not criminal, in nature and impossible to enforce without some stalinist prick from the ACLU funding it? You creepy crawlers got the WH and the Senate. That is about to change and your little rule book will someday be found in a museum display under the heading of "miserable revisionist crap we woke up to and stopped".

 

[Asclepias]

Baking a cake is not a sin. The gay couple could walk into that bakery and buy any cake they wanted. The baker did not want to participate in a same sex wedding which is different. And would be solved by his electing not to bake wedding cakes anymore except for people he knows or has someone he knows vouch for them.

If the baker KNOWS that a man who divorced his wife to marry his mistress he might very well refuse to make that wedding cake. In this case, he KNEW that the couple was a same sex couple.

We are really becoming just like Iran or Saudi Arabia, we are punishing people for their religious belief. We should just admit it and start putting people who refuse to renounce their faith and sin in prison. Make it official.

Even better maybe we should start refusing business licensing to people that sin by ignoring Gods instructions to not judge people.

We can do that right after you show me where the Koran tells us not to judge people. Hell, I will make it easy for you and let you use a book you pretend that you know, show me where the Bible tells us not to judge people. In the meantime, you can stop imposing your religion on others simply because you think there was a massive conspiracy by whitey to hide the fact that ancient Africans came from Mars.

Why would I show you in a Koran dumb ass? The guy professes to be Christian. Are you that stupid you don't know the difference? You must be the king of stupid not to look this up in the bible prior to running your mouth. As far as the bible goes take a gander at these speedy.

James 4:11-12

The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

My personal favorites

Matthew 7:1-2

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

John 8:7

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

1 Corinthians 4:5

Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If the baker KNOWS that a man who divorced his wife to marry his mistress he might very well refuse to make that wedding cake. In this case, he KNEW that the couple was a same sex couple.

And if he did (i.e. said "I don't bake wedding cakes for divorced women") then he would have been found in violation of the law as Statute 24-34-601 lists marital status as one of the criteria where discrimination is not allowed.

Talk about an anal-retentive....does your little rule book stipulate that most of these "offenses" are civil, not criminal, in nature and impossible to enforce without some stalinist prick from the ACLU funding it? You creepy crawlers got the WH and the Senate. That is about to change and your little rule book will someday be found in a museum display under the heading of "miserable revisionist crap we woke up to and stopped".

1. Yes there is a rule book which defines Civil v. Criminal violations. In this case is the Colorado Revised Statutes.

2. The ACLU doesn't fund the responsibility government entity that processed the complaint, I know that will burn your ass but it was tax dollars.

3. My party doesn't have the White House and the Senate, my party only holds the House. I've been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote in 1978.


>>>>

 

[BullKurtz]

None of you atheist humps get to decide what is and what is not a sin to a Christian....I know that's hard on you with all your recent successes in throwing religion out of the schools and public venues. How's that working out? Sandy Hook and Columbine is on you, not the nation's gun-owners. You've given children nothing to believe in or be fearful of should they decide to murder their classmates. You've taught them their hatred is justifiable if the targets represent what is okay to hate. When you sanctified abortion you cheapened life to the extent a court could even overrule a family's desire to keep their comatose daughter alive.

You've packed the courts with bookworm statists who no longer require a "so help me God" before lying on the stand. Nobody gets prosecuted for perjury anymore because you atheist humps consider lying an artform not a transgression on the legal process. The other day an atheist hump judge let a kid who killed 4 people in a car wreck walk because he was spoiled...he'd never learned right from wrong. That is now considered a valid defense in a murder trial.

There is literally nothing you atheist humps can't turn into a parody claiming as a "progressive" you're smarter and care more than regular people and can thus tinker with anything society has found to work. What's ironic is those who are doing this damage in your name, couldn't care less if you walk into the crossfire. They will sacrifice your atheist hump ass on a whim to keep themselves in charge of your life as well as those you're setting them upon.

p.s. Business licenses are given for any legal enterprise for the purpose of collecting tax revenue. That's it. They do not spell out how or in what way the owner should conduct his business. Be very careful trying to toy around with business. Without free enterprise, there is not tax money. Without tax money, your statist masters can't get a paycheck or be paid any attention to. And that guts you like a trout in your quest to mind everybody else's business for them.

All that effort put into a long rant must have put a tremendous strain on your brain. Stll you forgot or are unaware of 2 important points.

I am not an atheist.

You are not a Christian.

Let me get this straight, you are a Christian that judges other people even though you say it is a sin to judge other people. That either makes you a hypocritical sack of shit, or a lying sack of shit. Which is it?

Assplaster is on a geekathon posting binge....seen it before when the victim in question has been so soundly thrashed and abused they can't leave for fear they'll miss an insult...masochist in addition to all his other troubles. I bet he's been in touch with the suicide-hotline several times in the last few hours.

 

[BullKurtz]

And if he did (i.e. said "I don't bake wedding cakes for divorced women") then he would have been found in violation of the law as Statute 24-34-601 lists marital status as one of the criteria where discrimination is not allowed.

Talk about an anal-retentive....does your little rule book stipulate that most of these "offenses" are civil, not criminal, in nature and impossible to enforce without some stalinist prick from the ACLU funding it? You creepy crawlers got the WH and the Senate. That is about to change and your little rule book will someday be found in a museum display under the heading of "miserable revisionist crap we woke up to and stopped".

1. Yes there is a rule book which defines Civil v. Criminal violations. In this case is the Colorado Revised Statutes.

2. The ACLU doesn't fund the responsibility government entity that processed the complaint, I know that will burn your ass but it was tax dollars.

3. My party doesn't have the White House and the Senate, my party only holds the House. I've been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote in 1978.


>>>>

Look pal, anybody who knows a thing or two about the legal process knows you're blowing smoke up your own ass.....which you might find enjoyable being one of those Log Cabin type of GOPers. While I can appreciate looking into actual case law, simply stating a statuate title and number is goon-worthy without precedent and/or provenance. Nobody in a DA's office will bring a criminal charge based on what they believe to be in a defendant's heart. These are civil matters, usually funded by some nutbag outfit like the ACLU. Got it?

 

[Asclepias]

None of you atheist humps get to decide what is and what is not a sin to a Christian....I know that's hard on you with all your recent successes in throwing religion out of the schools and public venues. How's that working out? Sandy Hook and Columbine is on you, not the nation's gun-owners. You've given children nothing to believe in or be fearful of should they decide to murder their classmates. You've taught them their hatred is justifiable if the targets represent what is okay to hate. When you sanctified abortion you cheapened life to the extent a court could even overrule a family's desire to keep their comatose daughter alive.

You've packed the courts with bookworm statists who no longer require a "so help me God" before lying on the stand. Nobody gets prosecuted for perjury anymore because you atheist humps consider lying an artform not a transgression on the legal process. The other day an atheist hump judge let a kid who killed 4 people in a car wreck walk because he was spoiled...he'd never learned right from wrong. That is now considered a valid defense in a murder trial.

There is literally nothing you atheist humps can't turn into a parody claiming as a "progressive" you're smarter and care more than regular people and can thus tinker with anything society has found to work. What's ironic is those who are doing this damage in your name, couldn't care less if you walk into the crossfire. They will sacrifice your atheist hump ass on a whim to keep themselves in charge of your life as well as those you're setting them upon.

p.s. Business licenses are given for any legal enterprise for the purpose of collecting tax revenue. That's it. They do not spell out how or in what way the owner should conduct his business. Be very careful trying to toy around with business. Without free enterprise, there is not tax money. Without tax money, your statist masters can't get a paycheck or be paid any attention to. And that guts you like a trout in your quest to mind everybody else's business for them.

All that effort put into a long rant must have put a tremendous strain on your brain. Stll you forgot or are unaware of 2 important points.

I am not an atheist.

You are not a Christian.

Let me get this straight, you are a Christian that judges other people even though you say it is a sin to judge other people. That either makes you a hypocritical sack of shit, or a lying sack of shit. Which is it?

You dont have it straight. As usual for you the confusion of reading causes wide gaps in your comprehension. Like when you said the pyramids were built by aliens. Where did you get the notion I was a Christian? The bad thing about jumping to conclusions is sometime there is no safe place to land and your point? Well... it ends up breaking its leg.

 

[BullKurtz]

You must be the king of stupid not to look this up in the bible prior to running your mouth. As far as the bible goes take a gander at these speedy.

Another atheist hump/pretend Christian who consciously refuses to captialize the word "Bible"...in this case a worthless turd floating around in here for that last two days trying to find somebody to insult who won't beat him like a pinata for it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Talk about an anal-retentive....does your little rule book stipulate that most of these "offenses" are civil, not criminal, in nature and impossible to enforce without some stalinist prick from the ACLU funding it? You creepy crawlers got the WH and the Senate. That is about to change and your little rule book will someday be found in a museum display under the heading of "miserable revisionist crap we woke up to and stopped".

1. Yes there is a rule book which defines Civil v. Criminal violations. In this case is the Colorado Revised Statutes.

2. The ACLU doesn't fund the responsibility government entity that processed the complaint, I know that will burn your ass but it was tax dollars.

3. My party doesn't have the White House and the Senate, my party only holds the House. I've been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote in 1978.


>>>>

Look pal, anybody who knows a thing or two about the legal process knows you're blowing smoke up your own ass.....which you might find enjoyable being one of those Log Cabin type of GOPers. While I can appreciate looking into actual case law, simply stating a statuate title and number is goon-worthy without precedent and/or provenance. Nobody in a DA's office will bring a criminal charge based on what they believe to be in a defendant's heart. These are civil matters, usually funded by some nutbag outfit like the ACLU. Got it?

Then you must admit that the actual case law shows that Public Accommodation laws have been upheld in every state in the Union (for example Elane Photography v. Willcock, New Mexico Supreme Court) and in Federal courts up to and including the United States Supreme Court (Heartland Motel v. United States).

No "Criminal Charges" are required because these are Civil Law violations (in this case Business Regulatory Law) and not Criminal Law.

BTW - I'm not a Log Cabin Republican, I'm straight and have been happily married for over 26 years.

>>>>

 

[BullKurtz]

BTW - I'm not a Log Cabin Republican, I'm straight and have been happily married for over 26 years.

My apologies. Most who advocate for "gay" marriage and it's trappings are either of that persuasion or have a kid who is and have been forced through the eye of a needle to accept it.

I would also add "public accomodation" law stipulates that a business owner has a right to decide who is allowed on his property ie "no shirt, no shoes, no service". The persons in question here had eqaul access to all the goods presented for sale in his bakery. He was well within his rights to refuse a CUSTOM order he found offensive. To be ridiculed and sued for that goes against the Constitution we both swore to uphold and defend.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would also add "public accomodation" law stipulates that a business owner has a right to decide who is allowed on his property ie "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

Here is the applicable law -->> COCODE

Please identify that "stipulation".

Actually no real reason to look, it's not there and is irrelevant to the case as the individual was not refused service for "no shirt or no shoes".

The persons in question here had eqaul access to all the goods presented for sale in his bakery. He was well within his rights to refuse a CUSTOM order he found offensive. To be ridiculed and sued for that goes against the Constitution we both swore to uphold and defend.

Well you may want to actually read the law in question.

If the baker offers CUSTOM orders for wedding cakes as part of their normal routine business operations - then under the law - now he isn't allowed to refuse CUSTOM orders based on the criteria listed in the law.

The law requires "Full and Equal" access, offering full services to heterosexuals and only restricted services to homosexuals.


BTW - Why are we capitalizing "CUSTOM"?


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

The court in Elane Photography spelled it out quite clearly. If you advertise your services to the public, then public accommodation laws apply even if the law is wrong as it clearly is.

Just stop advertising to the public. If someone questions the change, explain that the law requires them to betray their principles. To comply with the law they choose not to hold out that service as one they will perform as a public accommodation.

Tell a few gay couples that and see how they feel about making their choices only from what is available.

It's going to happen. May as well get used to it now. Right now the government can say if you offer a service to some, it must be to all. There is nothing to say that if you don't offer the service to anyone you must provide it on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

No love lost between me and Christians (as opposed to Christianity I have no objections to) but in this case, I'm with the Christian owner. If he wants to refuse special services to those he doesn't like that's his right (or should be.) If he were refusing to let people in the shop to purchase regular stuff there's reason to obejct, but for other things made on a case by case basis I think he should be allowed to be intolerant and a dick.

As a baker myself who bakes twice every week giving most everythign away to the locals and workers, my only requirement is when I give a platefull of a dozen cupcakes or cookies that people share with their friends. But if this guy wants to scream at the top of his lungs how Christianity is different from Christians more power to him, I like the guy.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are so many people today who don't have any principles at all, it's rather refreshing to see someone who wouldn't sell grandma for a buck.

Like it or not, gays will be limited to conducting their transactions only with the willing. The choices will just get fewer.

 

[BullKurtz]

I would also add "public accomodation" law stipulates that a business owner has a right to decide who is allowed on his property ie "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

Here is the applicable law -->> COCODE

Please identify that "stipulation".

Actually no real reason to look, it's not there and is irrelevant to the case as the individual was not refused service for "no shirt or no shoes".

The persons in question here had eqaul access to all the goods presented for sale in his bakery. He was well within his rights to refuse a CUSTOM order he found offensive. To be ridiculed and sued for that goes against the Constitution we both swore to uphold and defend.

Well you may want to actually read the law in question.

If the baker offers CUSTOM orders for wedding cakes as part of their normal routine business operations - then under the law - now he isn't allowed to refuse CUSTOM orders based on the criteria listed in the law.

The law requires "Full and Equal" access, offering full services to heterosexuals and only restricted services to homosexuals.


BTW - Why are we capitalizing "CUSTOM"?

Not for the same reason you use your ">>>>>" as a trademark. Once again you show your complete lack of understanding any of this and divulge your statist tendencies which led me to believe what I believed earlier. No "happily married republican" carries the kind of dogma you do here. There is no "law" that established what the baker considers one CUSTOM order from another. It is his right as an American citizen to practice his religious faith and when that faith is challenged by something asked of him that he finds despicable, he has every right to refuse. Some asswipe judge finding to the contrary only means more expense to him to appeal....which is what the ACLU relies on to bully individuals....it's too expensive to bother with so we win. The "no shirt/shoes/service" example is a valid reminder a business owner can control who he'll do business with. I doubt a man entering a store barefoot and refused serivce has ever filed a lawsuit against the owner....they would put on some form of footwear and return if they wanted to buy what he had for sale. The same way these queers could have ordered a cake without the connotation they wanted him to include. They were looking for trouble is what's going on here. If a NAMBLA member walked in and asked him to depict anal intercourse between a man and boy on a cake, by your reasoning he would be forced to make it. This is ridiculous and why the left has hijacked the courts to accomplish what no legislator would dare try to; stealing our liberties by proxy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There are so many people today who don't have any principles at all, it's rather refreshing to see someone who wouldn't sell grandma for a buck.

Like it or not, gays will be limited to conducting their transactions only with the willing. The choices will just get fewer.

I'm not understanding the logic behind the last paragraph (I'm not trying to be funny or disagree, I don't get it.

Scenerio #1
Businesses are able to claim they have moral convictions against serving homosexual fully and equally the same as heterosexuals. Let's say there are 100 bakers in a city and of those 95 either support same-sex Civil Marriage or recognize that their business behaviors are separate from their moral or religious beliefs. That means that 95 bakers offer wedding cakes to everyone 5 bakers advertize that they do wedding cakes for homosexuals.

Scenerio #2
Let's say there are 100 bakers in a city and of those 95 either support same-sex Civil Marriage or recognize that their business behaviors are separate from their moral or religious beliefs. That means that 95 bakers offer wedding cakes to everyone 5 remove wedding cakes from their menu/portfolio.​

Under both scenario's homosexuals have only 95 bakers instead of 100 to choose from in both cases. So tell us exactly how homosexuals are going to have fewer bakers to choose from for a wedding cake? The ones that will "loose" are unequivocally the bakers that choose not to offer wedding cakes as part of their routine services. They loose not only the opportunity for wedding cake sales to homosexuals, they will also loose sales because they don't advertize their products in a competitive market.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would also add "public accomodation" law stipulates that a business owner has a right to decide who is allowed on his property ie "no shirt, no shoes, no service".

Here is the applicable law -->> COCODE

Please identify that "stipulation".

Actually no real reason to look, it's not there and is irrelevant to the case as the individual was not refused service for "no shirt or no shoes".

The persons in question here had eqaul access to all the goods presented for sale in his bakery. He was well within his rights to refuse a CUSTOM order he found offensive. To be ridiculed and sued for that goes against the Constitution we both swore to uphold and defend.

Well you may want to actually read the law in question.

If the baker offers CUSTOM orders for wedding cakes as part of their normal routine business operations - then under the law - now he isn't allowed to refuse CUSTOM orders based on the criteria listed in the law.

The law requires "Full and Equal" access, offering full services to heterosexuals and only restricted services to homosexuals.


BTW - Why are we capitalizing "CUSTOM"?

Not for the same reason you use your ">>>>>" as a trademark. Once again you show your complete lack of understanding any of this and divulge your statist tendencies which led me to believe what I believed earlier. No "happily married republican" carries the kind of dogma you do here. There is no "law" that established what the baker considers one CUSTOM order from another. It is his right as an American citizen to practice his religious faith and when that faith is challenged by something asked of him that he finds despicable, he has every right to refuse. Some asswipe judge finding to the contrary only means more expense to him to appeal....which is what the ACLU relies on to bully individuals....it's too expensive to bother with so we win. The "no shirt/shoes/service" example is a valid reminder a business owner can control who he'll do business with. I doubt a man entering a store barefoot and refused serivce has ever filed a lawsuit against the owner....they would put on some form of footwear and return if they wanted to buy what he had for sale. The same way these queers could have ordered a cake without the connotation they wanted him to include. They were looking for trouble is what's going on here. If a NAMBLA member walked in and asked him to depict anal intercourse between a man and boy on a cake, by your reasoning he would be forced to make it. This is ridiculous and why the left has hijacked the courts to accomplish what no legislator would dare try to; stealing our liberties by proxy.

Sorry...

Colorado Code 24-34-601
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or,​

The above was passed by the legislature, not by the courts.


BTW - the ">>>>" isn't a "trademark". I set the number of pages per post to the maximum amount. The combination allows me to fairly quickly go back and use the browsers Find feature to search and jump to my own posts and posts where others have quoted me.


>>>>

 

[BullKurtz]

There are so many people today who don't have any principles at all, it's rather refreshing to see someone who wouldn't sell grandma for a buck.

Like it or not, gays will be limited to conducting their transactions only with the willing. The choices will just get fewer.

I'm not understanding the logic behind the last paragraph (I'm not trying to be funny or disagree, I don't get it.

Scenerio #1
Businesses are able to claim they have moral convictions against serving homosexual fully and equally the same as heterosexuals. Let's say there are 100 bakers in a city and of those 95 either support same-sex Civil Marriage or recognize that their business behaviors are separate from their moral or religious beliefs. That means that 95 bakers offer wedding cakes to everyone 5 bakers advertize that they do wedding cakes for homosexuals.

Scenerio #2
Let's say there are 100 bakers in a city and of those 95 either support same-sex Civil Marriage or recognize that their business behaviors are separate from their moral or religious beliefs. That means that 95 bakers offer wedding cakes to everyone 5 remove wedding cakes from their menu/portfolio.​

Under both scenario's homosexuals have only 95 bakers instead of 100 to choose from in both cases. So tell us exactly how homosexuals are going to have fewer bakers to choose from for a wedding cake? The ones that will "loose" are unequivocally the bakers that choose not to offer wedding cakes as part of their routine services. They loose not only the opportunity for wedding cake sales to homosexuals, they will also loose sales because they don't advertize their products in a competitive market.



>>>>

Hey Mr >>>>>>> the word is spelled "lose"....you just lost the last shred of credibility you had.