Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[manifold]

That equates to:

WHY would someone live where they aren't wanted?
Because we can afford the house, and it's in a neighborhood that has faster (and more benign) police response, better schools, public transportation, libraries, and hospitals.

WHY would anyone want to WORK where they aren't wanted? Because of the pay, experience, and benefits.

WHY would anyone want to sit at a Carl Company lunch counter when they are SO CLEARLY not wanted there?

Because it is a simple human right to be served the same way and at the same place any other paying customer does,

DUH

It doesn't equate to any of that bullshit.

nice try though

Does fucking too, it is the basis of the Carl Company sit ins. You usually don't SEEM stupid. What is it about the topic of today that has you blocked?

Does fucking not.

HG simply shared his very reasonable view that he wouldn't feel comfortable eating something prepared by someone he knows doesn't like him. Your attempts to conflate that with absolute nonsense is on you, not me.

 

[Barb]

If you won't do your professional duty based on a random client, you should be fired, period.

Your self-righteous bullshit duly noted and appropriately laughed at.

Whatever, Manny. Your situational ethic is also duly noted, and appropriately sneered at.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Had the baker said "Sorry, but only what's in the catalogue" it might have been much different.

Yep, as long as they didn't take custom orders as a general practice, that would be correct.

However if they take custom orders for wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, under the law they cannot deny custom orders for homosexual couples.


>>>>

Custom? Then we are back to "design" and artistry.

If you advertise for and accept custom orders from the public, then you cannot discriminate. If you don't want to accept them - supply a standard portfolio and allow people to choose from that.

The "artistry" angle was tried in Elaine Photography v. Willock - which was in New Mexico and this is in Colorado true, but until this completes the legal process we don't know how the Colorado Supreme Court would rule.

But "artistry" is not a blanket exemption to anti-discrimination laws. If they created their artistry and then sold them "as is" and didn't do custom orders - then they would not be in violation of thelaw for turning down a custom order. However their business is built on the custom order model - so that doesn't fly.

{35} Elane Photography has misunderstood this issue. It believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation. This determination has no relation to the artistic merit of photographs produced by Elane Photography. If Annie Leibovitz or Peter
Lindbergh worked as public accommodations in New Mexico, they would be subject to th
e provisions of the NMHRA. Unlike the defendants in Hurley or the other cases in which the United States Supreme Court has found compelled-speech violations, Elane Photography sells its expressive services to the public. It may be that Elane Photography expresses its clients’ messages in its photographs, but only
because it is hired to do so. The NMHRA requires that Elane Photography perform the same services for a same-sex couple as it would for an opposite-sex couple; the fact that these services require photography stems from the nature of Elane Photography’s chosen line of business​

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf


>>>>

 

[manifold]

Just imagine how people's tunes would change if the baker was a lesbian and refused to bake a cake for a patron who had a bumper sticker reading 'marriage = 1 man and 1 woman'.

I know my tune would be the same. Can't say the same for a lot of you hypocrites.

 

[Barb]

“If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.”


― Jon Stewart/QUOTE]

 

[Jughead]

That equates to:

WHY would someone live where they aren't wanted?
Because we can afford the house, and it's in a neighborhood that has faster (and more benign) police response, better schools, public transportation, libraries, and hospitals.

WHY would anyone want to WORK where they aren't wanted? Because of the pay, experience, and benefits.

WHY would anyone want to sit at a Carl Company lunch counter when they are SO CLEARLY not wanted there?

Because it is a simple human right to be served the same way and at the same place any other paying customer does,

DUH

So if you went to an Italian restaurant and I was the chef and I said I did not want to serve you, you would force me to cook a meal for you? I don't know about you but I just don't want anyone handling something I'm going to eat if they don't like me.

I'm saying its a fucked up, deceitful, and and faulty analogy. If you won't do your professional duty based on a random client, you should be fired, period.

Fired??? He owns the bakery for heaven's sake. Should he fire himself?

All this fellow was doing was denying a customer a certain product (gay cake) because he cannot prepare that specific product for any customer as it is in conflict with his faith. He would gladly serve the customer, and prepare any standard item that is available to anyone else.

 

[Barb]

So if you went to an Italian restaurant and I was the chef and I said I did not want to serve you, you would force me to cook a meal for you? I don't know about you but I just don't want anyone handling something I'm going to eat if they don't like me.

I'm saying its a fucked up, deceitful, and and faulty analogy. If you won't do your professional duty based on a random client, you should be fired, period.

Fired??? He owns the bakery for heaven's sake. Should he fire himself?

All this fellow was doing was denying a customer a certain product (gay cake) because he cannot prepare that specific product for any customer as it is in conflict with his faith. He would gladly serve the customer, and prepare any standard item that is available to anyone else.

Wedding cake is wedding cake, the ingredients are the same no matter WHO is served the first slice.

 

[manifold]

“If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.”


― Jon Stewart

Precisely.

The plaintiffs in this story clearly value their right to be complete assholes and it's considerably more than just a hobby.

 

[Barb]

“If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies.”


― Jon Stewart

Precisely.

The plaintiffs in this story clearly value their right to be complete assholes and it's considerably more than just a hobby.

Carl Company asserted their right to be complete assholes too, as did neighborhoods and the real estate agents that adhered to their wishes.

 

[Jughead]

I'm saying its a fucked up, deceitful, and and faulty analogy. If you won't do your professional duty based on a random client, you should be fired, period.

Fired??? He owns the bakery for heaven's sake. Should he fire himself?

All this fellow was doing was denying a customer a certain product (gay cake) because he cannot prepare that specific product for any customer as it is in conflict with his faith. He would gladly serve the customer, and prepare any standard item that is available to anyone else.

Wedding cake is wedding cake, the ingredients are the same no matter WHO is served the first slice.

I meant the cake cannot be customized a certain way for any customer. If I were the baker, one solution to this fiasco would be to have a catalogue which illustrates which cakes are available. If anyone wants a cake, they need to pick what's in the catalogue, no special customization. The catalogue would have various customized cakes, and no one would be allowed to order a cake that is not in the catalogue.

 

[manifold]

What is the word we hear all the time...

oh yeah, tolerance...


The plaintiffs sure do have a lot of tolerance for the bakery owner's religious beliefs don't they.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So if you went to an Italian restaurant and I was the chef and I said I did not want to serve you, you would force me to cook a meal for you? I don't know about you but I just don't want anyone handling something I'm going to eat if they don't like me.

I'm saying its a fucked up, deceitful, and and faulty analogy. If you won't do your professional duty based on a random client, you should be fired, period.

Fired??? He owns the bakery for heaven's sake. Should he fire himself?

All this fellow was doing was denying a customer a certain product (gay cake) because he cannot prepare that specific product for any customer as it is in conflict with his faith. He would gladly serve the customer, and prepare any standard item that is available to anyone else.

They didn't order a "gay cake" they ordered a "wedding cake" which is specifically a product the bakery lists for sale.

Since they provide "wedding cakes" that is a standard item this is available to everyone.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fired??? He owns the bakery for heaven's sake. Should he fire himself?

All this fellow was doing was denying a customer a certain product (gay cake) because he cannot prepare that specific product for any customer as it is in conflict with his faith. He would gladly serve the customer, and prepare any standard item that is available to anyone else.

Wedding cake is wedding cake, the ingredients are the same no matter WHO is served the first slice.

I meant the cake cannot be customized a certain way for any customer. If I were the baker, one solution to this fiasco would be to have a catalogue which illustrates which cakes are available. If anyone wants a cake, they need to pick what's in the catalogue, no special customization. The catalogue would have various customized cakes, and no one would be allowed to order a cake that is not in the catalogue.

That's doable, they provide a portfolio of cakes and customers select from the available options. If they don't take custom cake orders, then they don't take them from any customers.

That would be a consistent application of their business model.


>>>>

 

[Defiant1]

Upon further research of this case, I must concede. Mr. Phillips, the owner, refused to take the order before there was any discussion about the design of the cake.

I don't agree with the current law, but it is the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Upon further research of this case, I must concede. Mr. Phillips, the owner, refused to take the order before there was any discussion about the design of the cake.

I don't agree with the current law, but it is the law.

Good on ya.


Many on these boards never reach that level of understanding. Opinions about what a law should be verses discussion of reality and what the law is. They get is rooted in their head that their opinion of what the law should be is the same as reality and that can be a problem.



>>>>

 

[manifold]

Upon further research of this case, I must concede. Mr. Phillips, the owner, refused to take the order before there was any discussion about the design of the cake.

I don't agree with the current law, but it is the law.

Good on ya.


Many on these boards never reach that level of understanding. Opinions about what a law should be verses discussion of reality and what the law is. They get is rooted in their head that their opinion of what the law should be is the same as reality and that can be a problem.



>>>>

Whether one agrees or not, it's pretty obvious to any honest person with a brain that the law is on the side of the plaintiffs in this case. To me that's not at issue.

The issue for me is whether the plaintiffs did the right thing by taking it to court.

IMO, in their rush to make an example of the bakery owner, all they did was paint themselves as a shining example of intolerance and complete cuntishness.

Furthermore, this doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever with respect of the struggle of gays to gain acceptance, except perhaps to set them back a few paces. People who want to discriminate against them will simply be more creative about it.

 

[High_Gravity]

Upon further research of this case, I must concede. Mr. Phillips, the owner, refused to take the order before there was any discussion about the design of the cake.

I don't agree with the current law, but it is the law.

Good on ya.


Many on these boards never reach that level of understanding. Opinions about what a law should be verses discussion of reality and what the law is. They get is rooted in their head that their opinion of what the law should be is the same as reality and that can be a problem.



>>>>

Whether one agrees or not, it's pretty obvious to any honest person with a brain that the law is on the side of the plaintiffs in this case. To me that's not at issue.

The issue for me is whether the plaintiffs did the right thing by taking it to court.

IMO, in their rush to make an example of the bakery owner, all they did was paint themselves as a shining example of intolerance and complete cuntishness.

Furthermore, this doesn't accomplish anything whatsoever with respect of the struggle of gays to gain acceptance, except perhaps to set them back a few paces. People who want to discriminate against them will simply be more creative about it.

So these guys want to take this baker to court, put him through hell and than force him to cook for them?

 

[High_Gravity]

Thats like the White House hiring chefs from the Taliban.

 

[Jackson]

Remember the bakery that wouldn't bake a cake for little Hitler? The court said that was okay. What is the difference? It's just the Bakery putting their own values in their shop. If they didn't want do a cake for a gay marriage that should be their right as well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Remember the bakery that wouldn't bake a cake for little Hitler? The court said that was okay. What is the difference? It's just the Bakery putting their own values in their shop. If they didn't want do a cake for a gay marriage that should be their right as well.

The difference is that refusing to bake a Hitler cake has to do with Nazi's. Nazi's are not covered under Colorado's Public Accommodation laws.


>>>>