Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute

[thereisnospoon]

What business is it of a baker where his cake is going to be used? There is no sacred religious meaning to a wedding cake. There is no valid religious grounds for refusing to make one. His refusal to serve these peoples' order was descriminatory towards them because or their sexual orientation.

The appeals court is correct.

blah blah blah....Next time you find yourself in a scary situation, do not call on God to save you.....Just DIE....This way , you can truly say you deny the existence of anyone's religious beliefs.....for purely political reasons.

do not call on God to save you

Yes braying to jebus really helps save lives

Most people do.......Of course assholes like you would deny ever screaming "Oh MY God" just to say you never did so.....Fuck off you racist piece of hippo dung....Put me on ignore. I dare ya.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

We need a Star Chamber. Some extra judicial group that goes around seeing that justice is done.

We know you cross grovels hate the American system

Which system might that be?

 

[Pete7469]

Only a true fascist pig could be happy about this ruling.

 

[Pete7469]

BTW, when do I get to force bed wetters to buy me a gun? It's a civil right, but I can't afford one.

I need Jerk Fakey to cough up $2000 so I can get a double stack STI 2011,

He has to go to the range and clean it for me too.

 

[aris2chat]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Did you just make up that list?.....
The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.
If the owner had a decent attorney that knew his way around Constitutional arguments and could present case law supporting religious objections( narrow scope) the courts would have no choice but to rule in favor of the respondent.
Now, a few observations.....
In your list...
What is the difference between "sex"and "sexual orientation"......Question....Have you ever heard of the fitness centers known as "Curves"?...These are female only centers. Males are excluded...Now, if a man wished to join and was denied based on gender( discrimination) would you object on the same grounds as the baker who refused to do business with the gay couple?
Define "creed"....As you know it. Do not look it up....
What is the difference between "race" and "Color"?.....
Oh....BTW....Just in case you try, answers to the question relating to the fitness center, answers such as " there are other gyms for the man to choose from" are unacceptable because the same could be said about bakeries for the gay couple to patronize.....
Have at it....

The bible says you can refuse to bake a cake for someone 'accused' of a sin? Did Jesus turn away from lepers or sinners? He did not heal them because they believed in him. He did no require them to believe he was god.
Even the body slave of the roman was healed without jesus being there. If Jesus can heal a gay, why should christians refuse to bake a cake?

 

[Davros]

What business is it of a baker where his cake is going to be used? There is no sacred religious meaning to a wedding cake. There is no valid religious grounds for refusing to make one. His refusal to serve these peoples' order was descriminatory towards them because or their sexual orientation.

The appeals court is correct.

blah blah blah....Next time you find yourself in a scary situation, do not call on God to save you.....Just DIE....This way , you can truly say you deny the existence of anyone's religious beliefs.....for purely political reasons.

There is no God that saves people. In the main, I don't understand your post at all.

I do not deny the existence of other peoples' religious beliefs. I just say there's no valid religious reason to refuse to bake a cake for gays because they're gay. Pretty simple, huh?

 

[Davros]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Did you just make up that list?.....
The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.
If the owner had a decent attorney that knew his way around Constitutional arguments and could present case law supporting religious objections( narrow scope) the courts would have no choice but to rule in favor of the respondent.
Now, a few observations.....
In your list...
What is the difference between "sex"and "sexual orientation"......Question....Have you ever heard of the fitness centers known as "Curves"?...These are female only centers. Males are excluded...Now, if a man wished to join and was denied based on gender( discrimination) would you object on the same grounds as the baker who refused to do business with the gay couple?
Define "creed"....As you know it. Do not look it up....
What is the difference between "race" and "Color"?.....
Oh....BTW....Just in case you try, answers to the question relating to the fitness center, answers such as " there are other gyms for the man to choose from" are unacceptable because the same could be said about bakeries for the gay couple to patronize.....
Have at it....

A woman's only gym is a different concept from a "straights only" bakery.

 

[Davros]

What business is it of a baker where his cake is going to be used? There is no sacred religious meaning to a wedding cake. There is no valid religious grounds for refusing to make one. His refusal to serve these peoples' order was descriminatory towards them because or their sexual orientation.

The appeals court is correct.

blah blah blah....Next time you find yourself in a scary situation, do not call on God to save you.....Just DIE....This way , you can truly say you deny the existence of anyone's religious beliefs.....for purely political reasons.

do not call on God to save you

Yes braying to jebus really helps save lives

Most people do.......Of course assholes like you would deny ever screaming "Oh MY God" just to say you never did so.....Fuck off you racist piece of hippo dung....Put me on ignore. I dare ya.....

What difference does it make if someone screams "oh my god"? That doesn't prove the existence of God. It proves that's a common exclamation for people who fear for their lives, as an exclamation of a desire for someone to save them. It doesn't prove that there actually is such a someone. How many people have died despite crying out for God's help?

 

[Davros]

People, bake the damn cake, it's not hard. And the Supremes have already rejected crap like this, as they should.

So you believe in forced labor.

Good to know.

According to Colorado law you can't refuse to do labor that you would normally do on account of objecting to the would be client's sexual orientation.

That is NOT what the Colorado law states. Not even close......
This is about what are vaguely described as "public accommodations"....

Actually, it is close. Public Accommodations are provided through one's labor, and one cannot descriminate in providing such public accommodation based on the would be customer's sexual orientation. So I'm not anywhere near as far off as you think.

 

[Davros]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Did you just make up that list?.....
The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.
If the owner had a decent attorney that knew his way around Constitutional arguments and could present case law supporting religious objections( narrow scope) the courts would have no choice but to rule in favor of the respondent.
Now, a few observations.....
In your list...
What is the difference between "sex"and "sexual orientation"......Question....Have you ever heard of the fitness centers known as "Curves"?...These are female only centers. Males are excluded...Now, if a man wished to join and was denied based on gender( discrimination) would you object on the same grounds as the baker who refused to do business with the gay couple?
Define "creed"....As you know it. Do not look it up....
What is the difference between "race" and "Color"?.....
Oh....BTW....Just in case you try, answers to the question relating to the fitness center, answers such as " there are other gyms for the man to choose from" are unacceptable because the same could be said about bakeries for the gay couple to patronize.....
Have at it....

A woman's only gym is a different concept from a "straights only" bakery.

And the reason is that women's only and men's only gyms provide a service of providing privacy to their customers. It is in the interest of some customers to have a place to go work out where they will not be leered at by members of the opposite sex, typically men leering at or judging women's bodies as they work out, making them feel uncomfortable about working out.

In short, and though this is not necessarily a legally valid argument, but common sense ... there is a customer based focus for providing a woman's only gym ... not so for a baker who refuses to provide goods to a particular customer because of his personal objections to that customer's sexual orientation.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sounds like this is headed for the SCOTUS.

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

 

[Jantje_Smit]

The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.

The owner runs a bakery, not a church.

But maybe they could put up a sign that says something like "This is a christian bakery, we do not serve sinners", would be interesting to see how long they would stay in business.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CADA is constitutional. Both appeals courts agree. If the defense can show a constitutional argument, they can appeal. SCOTUS may hear it, but probably won't.

 

[Seawytch]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

Yes you have been misinformed. Even if the District Court and the Appeals Court agree, the loser in the case can still appeal constitutional questions to the Supreme Court. Now say the Appeals Court for the 7th Circuit rules one way on a District Court case under their jurisdiction and the 11th Circuit court rules another on the same issue under their jurisdiction. Then it makes it more likely the Supreme Court will accept an appeal - but they are still not required to.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Probably so, I would think, De. While it has solid feet, the possibility the conservatives may drag Kennedy back with the argument "somewhere a person's conscience has to be protected", but that then leads to the KY issue of a county clerk refusing to issue marriage certificates based on her conscious conflict between law and her religion. The narrow path would be to say private business folks have certain rights, but government employees do not have those right.

The only path would be to say government people do not have that right, but private people do. They could also clarify the definition of "Public Accommodation" to it's original intent, and not to cover every transaction between private parties.

 

[martybegan]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

 

[Seawytch]

The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.

The owner runs a bakery, not a church.

But maybe they could put up a sign that says something like "This is a christian bakery, we do not serve sinners", would be interesting to see how long they would stay in business.

Except they do serve sinners all the time. The last bakery that discriminated, Sweet Cakes, proved they don't care about other sins, only the gays sinning. They prove that it's all about bigotry and zero about religion.

Bakery Will Do Pagan, Cloning, and Divorce Cakes But Not Gay Weddings

 

[Seawytch]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . because they are a black person.

Marty is right about differences of government and private service. The only way to address that is with PA laws, which have to be done at the state level.