Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Nosmo King]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

I doubt the ingredients for a pork sandwich is readily available in a Kosher deli. But flour, butter, eggs, sugar and shortening go into "grades" the same as every other cake baked in a bakery.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think I accidentally ate a grake today. It tasted really fruity.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Can't fags get their own gake shops and stop pestering Christians?

 

[novasteve]

Will the aids brigade require a gay baker to bake an anti gay marriage cake requested by Christians?

 

[Nosmo King]

"Christians"?!?

I'm a Christian. I believe in the words Christ spoke to us. Words like "This I now command you, that you love one another and do unto others as you would have done unto you.".

I wonder what it's like to hide behind the skirts of Christianity while casting stones at others for their immutability? It must feel cowardly because that's what is being inferred.

 

[WorldWatcher]

To me, if you can't respect another person's beliefs and opinion, don't go expecting them to show any for the beliefs and opinions that you yourself have.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Well I guess that is true. The shop owner didn't respect the beliefs and opinions of the couple getting married so I guess they shouldn't have expected the couple to respect their beliefs and opinions.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If I had to bake the cake I would do so to the best of my ability and make the experience so horrible the gay customers spread the word to all their gay friends. Gays today are quite likely to create another hoax so they can complain. I would let them know that I expected a hoax. Video tape the order. Photograph all the paperwork including the receipt. Have them initial everything in triplicate. All conversations had to be wtinessed by two witnesses.

Then the wedding cake would be baked and decorated according to their specifications but the bakery does not provide the figurines fot the topper and provides only curbside delivery. They are responible for constructing the cake themselves.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.​

If the bakery offered toppers and full delivery and setup to heterosexual couples, then denying equal treatment (refusing to provide the topper and provide setup services) to homosexual couples would still be a violation of the law because of the differences in service levels.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would appeal this. The judge is way out of his jurisdiction on this one.

For those of us who do not acknowledge gay marriage because it is in conflict with our faith (myself included), there is no way we could respect the judge's ruling. I would surely not renounce my faith to respect some judge's ruling. Freedom of religion should supersede any judge's ruling.

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html​

>>>>

 

[Dragonlady]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

If this man had refused to bake a cake for a black couple's wedding because blacks are the descendants of Cain, would you think that was OK? What if he refused to bake a cake for a Jewish couple because Jews killed Jesus? Or he refused a Muslim couple because all Muslims are terrorists? Or athiests because they don't believe in God?

If you are in business to serve the public, you can't let your personal prejudices determine who you will or will not serve. The Bible says "Judge not lest you be judged". This man judged the couple who asked for a wedding cake, and ignored the teachings he supposedly followed.

I would say he needs to back to reading his Bible - especially the parts about compassion, and not judging others.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, if you can't respect another person's beliefs and opinion, don't go expecting them to show any for the beliefs and opinions that you yourself have.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

Well I guess that is true. The shop owner didn't respect the beliefs and opinions of the couple getting married so I guess they shouldn't have expected the couple to respect their beliefs and opinions.

And obviously the beliefs and opinions of the shop owner were not respected either.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

P.S. Another place could have been found, but no. Certain people in this world just have to go and make a spectacle of themselves. All that couple did is give people even more reason to resent their kind. If they wanted respect, they only made it harder to score for themselves now.

 

[novasteve]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

If this man had refused to bake a cake for a black couple's wedding because blacks are the descendants of Cain, would you think that was OK? What if he refused to bake a cake for a Jewish couple because Jews killed Jesus? Or he refused a Muslim couple because all Muslims are terrorists? Or athiests because they don't believe in God?

If you are in business to serve the public, you can't let your personal prejudices determine who you will or will not serve. The Bible says "Judge not lest you be judged". This man judged the couple who asked for a wedding cake, and ignored the teachings he supposedly followed.

I would say he needs to back to reading his Bible - especially the parts about compassion, and not judging others.

If they made him make a cake depicting violations of all the 10 commandments, should he be forced to do it?

Should a Jewish musician be required to play Wagner at a wedding?

 

[Vox]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

Omg it's so completely different. Are you kidding me?

How about like a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve a non-jew? <-- There, now that's way closer to being no different.

no, it is NOT.
it is absolutely exactly the same situation.

 

[Vox]

I would appeal this. The judge is way out of his jurisdiction on this one.

For those of us who do not acknowledge gay marriage because it is in conflict with our faith (myself included), there is no way we could respect the judge's ruling. I would surely not renounce my faith to respect some judge's ruling. Freedom of religion should supersede any judge's ruling.

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

>>>>

except a cake in a bakery has absolutely NOTHING to do with public accommodation - there are tons of other bakeries.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would appeal this. The judge is way out of his jurisdiction on this one.

For those of us who do not acknowledge gay marriage because it is in conflict with our faith (myself included), there is no way we could respect the judge's ruling. I would surely not renounce my faith to respect some judge's ruling. Freedom of religion should supersede any judge's ruling.

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

>>>>

except a cake in a bakery has absolutely NOTHING to do with public accommodation - there are tons of other bakeries.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public;...​

Sorry, that is incorrect. A bakery is a business engaged in sales to the public.

Ya they are.



>>>>

 

[novasteve]

So women only gyms are illegal there?

 

[Jughead]

I would appeal this. The judge is way out of his jurisdiction on this one.

For those of us who do not acknowledge gay marriage because it is in conflict with our faith (myself included), there is no way we could respect the judge's ruling. I would surely not renounce my faith to respect some judge's ruling. Freedom of religion should supersede any judge's ruling.

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

>>>>

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance and religious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.

If my faith does not allow me to acknowledge or recognize homosexuality, then in order for me to keep practicing my faith, I cannot engage in any activity that promotes or supports anything to do with homosexuality. That includes baking a gay wedding cake. If I were an IRS tax official, my faith would not permit me to process joint tax returns filed by a gay couple. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects my religious freedom in this regard.

So if I were the owner of the bakery in question here, I would find myself a good lawyer who is experienced in cases involving the 1st amendment.

 

[novasteve]

Libs only care about the first amendment when it comes to flag burning

 

[TemplarKormac]

If I had to bake the cake I would do so to the best of my ability and make the experience so horrible the gay customers spread the word to all their gay friends. Gays today are quite likely to create another hoax so they can complain. I would let them know that I expected a hoax. Video tape the order. Photograph all the paperwork including the receipt. Have them initial everything in triplicate. All conversations had to be wtinessed by two witnesses.

Then the wedding cake would be baked and decorated according to their specifications but the bakery does not provide the figurines fot the topper and provides only curbside delivery. They are responible for constructing the cake themselves.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.​

If the bakery offered toppers and full delivery and setup to heterosexual couples, then denying equal treatment (refusing to provide the topper and provide setup services) to homosexual couples would still be a violation of the law because of the differences in service levels.



>>>>

And should a homosexual bakery encounter this issue when denying service to straights or Christians... I wonder where all of these de facto experts on the law would be then?

You know, I just thought of something: I think people who support homosexuality would defend them. Like I said, in a reverse situation, the court could just as easily force the gay bakery to serve Christians. But in the meantime, you'll have pro-gay liberals on this board defending them left right and sideways

 

[WorldWatcher]

I would appeal this. The judge is way out of his jurisdiction on this one.

For those of us who do not acknowledge gay marriage because it is in conflict with our faith (myself included), there is no way we could respect the judge's ruling. I would surely not renounce my faith to respect some judge's ruling. Freedom of religion should supersede any judge's ruling.

You could appeal, but Public Accommodation laws have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court and been found Constitutional.

The Judge was well with compliance with the law.

Colorado Revised Statutes
23-34-601 Discrimination in places of public accommodation
(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, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

>>>>

Well, if we look at the first amendment of the U.S. constitution, specifically the free exercises clause, it states:

Free Exercise Clause – This clause provides each individual with the right to freely practice the religion of his or her choosing. It ensures the autonomy houses of worship and other religious institutions from government in matters of internal governance and religious law. It prohibits government from enacting laws that specifically target religion. Importantly, it empowers the government to provide houses of worship with special accommodations and exemptions from civil law that might otherwise interfere with religious worship or practice.

#1 No it doesn't. The 1st Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."​

#2 The laws was passed by the Colorado Legislature not Congress.

#3 From your incorrect quote about what the 1st Amendment says... Public Accommodation laws do not interfere with the autonomy of houses of worship or religious institution (a for profit bakery is not a house of worship or religious institution). Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and do not "specifically target religion". Public Accommodation laws in general, and specifically in this case provide an exemption for houses of worship, from the law ""Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes."

So if I were the owner of the bakery in question here, I would find myself a good lawyer who is experienced in cases involving the 1st amendment.

You could try, but the only one that will be happy with the result is your lawyer when you stroke a check. Public Accommodation laws have already been challenged at all level including the Supreme Court of the United States and found to be Constitutional.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is no different than a court forcing a Jewish kosher deli to serve pork sandwiches.

American's are slowly losing their personal freedoms. ....

You don’t understand.

The issue has nothing to do with what’s being sold, but refusing to sell an item available to the general public solely as a consequence of the customer’s sexual orientation, in violation of Colorado law.

If a customer came to the deli requesting a pork sandwich, the owner could refuse to sell the sandwich not because he doesn’t want to sell the item to the customer because of his race, gender, or sexual orientation, but because there are no pork sandwiches to sell.

Consequently, no personal freedoms are being 'lost.'