The cake non-bakers were politically correct

[Pop23]

Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?

Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?

I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.

Do not ignore the fact that the baker was willing to offer any other product he has, other than the wedding cake. To me, tolerance dictates they shoulda just gone to another baker, they didn't have to literally make a federal case out of it. Which makes me think that was in fact what they really wanted in the 1st place.

but they were attention whores and had to out the guy.

Over a cake that he would also not offer to bake for a same sex straight couple. Strange indeed.

 

[Pop23]

Seems a bit odd to me in either case. I am not aware of the "test" that confirms homosexuality?

Exactly. The publishers of the books went round and round about it with the gay lifestylists. Visit the link in my signature for the link to the story about that. Seems that the gays were trying to "out" people that the publishers weren't certain were gay and it was causing issues. Still is. As far as I know though, CA is green lighting the gay-propaganda course mandate for this Fall in public schools. Wonder if they'll make kids take its equivalent (neutrality) in "famous Christians in history' where the person's Christianity is tied to their accomplishments; just like its counterpart?

I like your argument on how sexual orientation isn't necessarily the deal killer for the baker. That's another topic too, but it is related here. It's true. There is no requirement that the "same-sex" couple be sexually involved at all. The baker's objection can just simply be that he does not consider two people of the same gender ever qualifying "as married". A LOT of people feel the same way about that.

Do not ignore the fact that the baker was willing to offer any other product he has, other than the wedding cake. To me, tolerance dictates they shoulda just gone to another baker, they didn't have to literally make a federal case out of it. Which makes me think that was in fact what they really wanted in the 1st place.

but they were attention whores and had to out the guy.

Over a cake that he would also not offer to bake for a same sex straight couple. Strange indeed.

Only those that agree with your premise are allowed to participate? This had nothing to do with being PC or not PC. It had to do with assumptions that are not based in reality. That assumption is that there is something called "gay marriage". No such thing exists in our legal system, and all the Baker is obligated to do is, if offering same sex wedding cake, offer the same service to the sex or sexuality's of the clients. Since he does not offer such services to any, he is following the law.

I know it's not really dramatic, but it is what it is.

 

[Timmy]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

Where in my post did I use his faith?

You want to argue whether or not he is true to his faith, have at it, I might join in, but if you are going to answer my post, I suggest you answer with something relevant to it.

Oh, and he does bake cakes for gays, likely on a daily basis, he does not however supply same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

The problem with the OP is that we are talking business and not personal action.

In your personal life , you don’t have to wash your hands or refrigerate your ingredients when making cakes . If you open A BUSINESS you do need to follow those rules .

 

[Pop23]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

Where in my post did I use his faith?

You want to argue whether or not he is true to his faith, have at it, I might join in, but if you are going to answer my post, I suggest you answer with something relevant to it.

Oh, and he does bake cakes for gays, likely on a daily basis, he does not however supply same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

The problem with the OP is that we are talking business and not personal action.

In your personal life , you don’t have to wash your hands or refrigerate your ingredients when making cakes . If you open A BUSINESS you do need to follow those rules .

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

 

[Silhouette]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

 

[Pop23]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

What is there to think about? Except that the parties be legally able to enter into a contract, and that they not be too closely related, there is no other requirements to enter into this contract (and that is all it is - a contract - not much different than any other). The meaning of Same-Sex is not all that complicated. It is equally available to Males, Females, Homosexual and Heterosexual alike.

As to your question, I will have to put some thought into it.

 

[dblack]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

Where in my post did I use his faith?

You want to argue whether or not he is true to his faith, have at it, I might join in, but if you are going to answer my post, I suggest you answer with something relevant to it.

Oh, and he does bake cakes for gays, likely on a daily basis, he does not however supply same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

The problem with the OP is that we are talking business and not personal action.

I've never been able to take this rationalization very seriously. It only comes up when someone is trying to leverage the Commerce Clause to justify the intrusion. And since I don't buy the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it carries no weight for me.

If you open A BUSINESS you do need to follow those rules .

Yep. We can make up whatever hare-brained law we like and insist that a BUSINESS (by some arbitrary definition) follows it. But that says nothing about the justification for the law, whether it should be a law or not. Which is what we're usually discussing here.

 

[Pop23]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

Where in the Bible does it say “thou shall not bake cakes for the gays”?

I question the bakers beliefs . He’s a fake Christian . If you don’t really follow the religion, why should u be able to claim religious exemption of the law?

Where in my post did I use his faith?

You want to argue whether or not he is true to his faith, have at it, I might join in, but if you are going to answer my post, I suggest you answer with something relevant to it.

Oh, and he does bake cakes for gays, likely on a daily basis, he does not however supply same sex wedding cakes regardless of the sexuality of the couple.

The problem with the OP is that we are talking business and not personal action.

I've never been able to take this rationalization very seriously. It only comes up when someone is trying to leverage the Commerce Clause to justify the intrusion. And since I don't buy the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it carries no weight for me.

If you open A BUSINESS you do need to follow those rules .

Yep. We can make up whatever hare-brained law we like and insist that a BUSINESS (by some arbitrary definition) follows it. But that says nothing about the justification for the law, whether it should be a law or not. Which is what we're usually discussing here.

If a law has no justification to exist, it is not unreasonable to believe people will have a problem complying with same.

 

[Silhouette]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

What is there to think about? Except that the parties be legally able to enter into a contract, and that they not be too closely related, there is no other requirements to enter into this contract (and that is all it is - a contract - not much different than any other). The meaning of Same-Sex is not all that complicated. It is equally available to Males, Females, Homosexual and Heterosexual alike.

As to your question, I will have to put some thought into it.

Well while you're thinking, remember that the word "parties" includes children who share benefits from the contract. Their benefits HAVE ALWAYS BEEN chiefly getting both vital mother and father from the contract. That was radically-revised in 2015 outside due process because they, as required specifically from the Infancy Doctrine case law, did not have any unique representation at the contract-revision hearing. You yourself admit that the contract was radically-revised in 2015 as to the male/female father/mother requirements.

 

[Pop23]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

What is there to think about? Except that the parties be legally able to enter into a contract, and that they not be too closely related, there is no other requirements to enter into this contract (and that is all it is - a contract - not much different than any other). The meaning of Same-Sex is not all that complicated. It is equally available to Males, Females, Homosexual and Heterosexual alike.

As to your question, I will have to put some thought into it.

Well while you're thinking, remember that the word "parties" includes children who share benefits from the contract. Their benefits HAVE ALWAYS BEEN chiefly getting both vital mother and father from the contract. That was radically-revised in 2015 outside due process because they, as required specifically from the Infancy Doctrine case law, did not have any unique representation at the contract-revision hearing. You yourself admit that the contract was radically-revised in 2015 as to the male/female father/mother requirements.

I will think about it. There are several issues that need thought.

I find it a real head scratcher that it takes male and female components to create a child, but for some reason the need of those components are no longer a requirement at birth? The implications of that alone could be incredible in more ways than one.

 

[Silhouette]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

What is there to think about? Except that the parties be legally able to enter into a contract, and that they not be too closely related, there is no other requirements to enter into this contract (and that is all it is - a contract - not much different than any other). The meaning of Same-Sex is not all that complicated. It is equally available to Males, Females, Homosexual and Heterosexual alike.

As to your question, I will have to put some thought into it.

Well while you're thinking, remember that the word "parties" includes children who share benefits from the contract. Their benefits HAVE ALWAYS BEEN chiefly getting both vital mother and father from the contract. That was radically-revised in 2015 outside due process because they, as required specifically from the Infancy Doctrine case law, did not have any unique representation at the contract-revision hearing. You yourself admit that the contract was radically-revised in 2015 as to the male/female father/mother requirements.

I will think about it. There are several issues that need thought.

I find it a real head scratcher that it takes male and female components to create a child, but for some reason the need of those components are no longer a requirement at birth? The implications of that alone could be incredible in more ways than one.

Part of the Infancy Doctrine case law supports psychological needs. I'm assuming you've at least heard of studies done that prove a lack of a father to boys is detrimental. Single parenthood at least provides the hope of a father returning. "Gay marriage" promises the extinguishment of that hope forever: to parties (kids) who share that contractual bind. There is no contract binding anything in single parenthood. There is instead hope still present. Not so with "gay marriage". It's gone as a matter of new law.

 

[Pop23]

And he did. I see you still haven't come to grips with the whole idea that the Supreme Court opened Marriage up to more than gays.

I want you to really think about what you just said. Because it's an excellent point.

Now I want to ask you a question: do you think that that revision of the original marriage contract was legal from the standpoint of children, who, in Obergefell 2015, page 15 of the Opinion, the Court said share benefits of the marriage contract with adults (and therefore are legally defined as parties to the contract)? As a primer before you answer the question: The Infancy Doctrine requires that no contract shared between adults and children may contain terms onerous to the children. Given that the MAIN benefit to children was always getting BOTH vital mother and father from marriage; that was DONE AWAY WITH systematically. And importantly, it was done away with without children having their own counsel uniquely briefing the court on the proposed radical-revision.

So, do you think Obergefell was arrived at legally or outside due process? Can the government (the USSC judicially-legislating) create a contract that harms children directly who share in that contract? Or is that creation a violation of law re: the Infancy Doctrine or other child-harm statutes?

What is there to think about? Except that the parties be legally able to enter into a contract, and that they not be too closely related, there is no other requirements to enter into this contract (and that is all it is - a contract - not much different than any other). The meaning of Same-Sex is not all that complicated. It is equally available to Males, Females, Homosexual and Heterosexual alike.

As to your question, I will have to put some thought into it.

Well while you're thinking, remember that the word "parties" includes children who share benefits from the contract. Their benefits HAVE ALWAYS BEEN chiefly getting both vital mother and father from the contract. That was radically-revised in 2015 outside due process because they, as required specifically from the Infancy Doctrine case law, did not have any unique representation at the contract-revision hearing. You yourself admit that the contract was radically-revised in 2015 as to the male/female father/mother requirements.

I will think about it. There are several issues that need thought.

I find it a real head scratcher that it takes male and female components to create a child, but for some reason the need of those components are no longer a requirement at birth? The implications of that alone could be incredible in more ways than one.

Part of the Infancy Doctrine case law supports psychological needs. I'm assuming you've at least heard of studies done that prove a lack of a father to boys is detrimental. Single parenthood at least provides the hope of a father returning. "Gay marriage" promises the extinguishment of that hope forever: to parties (kids) who share that contractual bind. There is no contract binding anything in single parenthood. There is instead hope still present. Not so with "gay marriage". It's gone as a matter of new law.

It only makes sense that a child would be more well rounded being raised in a home with the two biological units that created the child.

Interesting.

 

[Silhouette]

It only makes sense that a child would be more well rounded being raised in a home with the two biological units that created the child.

Interesting.

More importantly, it has been proven to be so: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
(pdf page 6, document page 10, left hand side)

For more on the Infancy Doctrine: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(visit pages 50-53 especially). ** note that the requirement at the very bottom of page 53 was not met in Obergefell. I think creating a contract-revision that removes the hope for life of either a mother or father qualifies as "extraordinary circumstance" in a civil trial.

 

[dblack]

I know most of you are just here for the usual bigot pissing match (rainbow warriors vs christian soldiers). But has anyone given any thought to the actual topic? Discrimination is a legitimate means of social moderation. It's how the vast majority of social issues are resolved. If you think someone is 'doing it wrong' (ie you disagree with them), you're free to discriminate differently. This is how we get along in a pluralistic society without resorting to oppressive government.

 

[mdk]

More importantly, it has been proven to be so: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf
(pdf page 6, document page 10, left hand side)

For more on the Infancy Doctrine: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(visit pages 50-53 especially). ** note that the requirement at the very bottom of page 53 was not met in Obergefell. I think creating a contract-revision that removes the hope for life of either a mother or father qualifies as "extraordinary circumstance" in a civil trial.

It's cute that you keep peddling these lies after all these years. This obsession of yours is unhealthy.

 

[Silhouette]

I know most of you are just here for the usual bigot pissing match (rainbow warriors vs christian soldiers). But has anyone given any thought to the actual topic? Discrimination is a legitimate means of social moderation. It's how the vast majority of social issues are resolved. If you think someone is 'doing it wrong' (ie you disagree with them), you're free to discriminate differently. This is how we get along in a pluralistic society without resorting to oppressive government.

The "actual topic" is the seed or root of the topic. That root is Obergefell's miscarriage of due process. There would be no conversation here without Obergefell because Colorado's law derived from it and rose from it. See my last post for details on the "legitimacy" of Obergefell as applicable "law"...

 

[dblack]

I know most of you are just here for the usual bigot pissing match (rainbow warriors vs christian soldiers). But has anyone given any thought to the actual topic? Discrimination is a legitimate means of social moderation. It's how the vast majority of social issues are resolved. If you think someone is 'doing it wrong' (ie you disagree with them), you're free to discriminate differently. This is how we get along in a pluralistic society without resorting to oppressive government.

The "actual topic" is the seed or root of the topic.

Nope. The topic is outlined in the OP. I'm not playing topic cop here - you're free to continue your war with the homos - but I'm still interested in discussing the topic.

 

[mdk]

I know most of you are just here for the usual bigot pissing match (rainbow warriors vs christian soldiers). But has anyone given any thought to the actual topic? Discrimination is a legitimate means of social moderation. It's how the vast majority of social issues are resolved. If you think someone is 'doing it wrong' (ie you disagree with them), you're free to discriminate differently. This is how we get along in a pluralistic society without resorting to oppressive government.

The "actual topic" is the seed or root of the topic. That root is Obergefell's miscarriage of due process. There would be no conversation here without Obergefell because Colorado's law derived from it and rose from it. See my last post for details on the "legitimacy" of Obergefell as applicable "law"...

Colorado's public accommodation covering gays predates Obergefell.

 

[Pop23]

I know most of you are just here for the usual bigot pissing match (rainbow warriors vs christian soldiers). But has anyone given any thought to the actual topic? Discrimination is a legitimate means of social moderation. It's how the vast majority of social issues are resolved. If you think someone is 'doing it wrong' (ie you disagree with them), you're free to discriminate differently. This is how we get along in a pluralistic society without resorting to oppressive government.

The "actual topic" is the seed or root of the topic. That root is Obergefell's miscarriage of due process. There would be no conversation here without Obergefell because Colorado's law derived from it and rose from it. See my last post for details on the "legitimacy" of Obergefell as applicable "law"...

Colorado's public accommodation covering gays predates Obergefell.

The date of ill conceived law is still just the date of ill conceived law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This whole question is just crazy.

On June 26, 2015, the date of the Obergfell decision, this, and thousands of other Bakers were afforded a chance at a new market to serve. That market is same-sex weddings.

Most Bakers opted to start a new line of product to satisfy this new market, while a tiny minority opted not to add this line of product.

Read again from above. What Obergfell did was open marriage to "same-sex" couples. NOT GAY COUPLES ONLY.

I have read nowhere that this Baker would bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual same-sex couple, he simple does not offer the service regardless of sex or sexuality. He makes no distinction.

On the other hand, he supplies cake to opposite sex couples, regardless of the sexuality of those couples. Both could be straight, one could be straight and the other homosexual, both could be gay, he cares not. I've read nothing that indicates that he questions the sexuality of these couples, he simply bakes the cake as it is a product he offers.

#1 There was no "new product line" - bakers supplied wedding cakes or not. The difference was the customers.

#2 You just proved that the baker was in violation of the Colorado Public Accommodation laws by differentiating based on the sexual composition of the couples - the law also restricts discrimination base on sex. If he would sell to man/woman couple but not man/man (or woman/woman) that is discrimination by sex.


>>>>