The cake non-bakers were politically correct

[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.

#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.


>>>>

#1 There definitely was a "new product line". It happened in 2015. It has a date and a time. Prior to which, it didn't exist. The very definition of the word "New", even the SCOTUS in their ruling used the phrase "same sex" a completely new legal concept.

#2 He does not provide the cake, and you have yet to define the bias that he makes.

Is it a bias against females? If so, then why is he also not providing the service to males?

If it's a bias against males, then why is he not providing the service to females?

If it's a bias against homosexuals, then why is he not providing the service to heterosexuals?

If it's a bias against heterosexuals, then why is he not providing the service to homosexuals?

But then again

He does provide Traditional Wedding cakes to all an any, does not care if they are homosexual or heterosexual.

To Homosexual Males
To Homosexual Females
To Heterosexual Males
To Heterosexual Females

If he had a bias, then he would not supply the traditional, or the type of Wedding Cake established prior to 2015, to Homosexuals.



Two thoughts, this is the PERFECT example of poorly written law. You say that the Baker has a bias, but he still serves those he is somehow biased against? Huh?

And, this is an example of government over reach. The Government, and you, are inflexible in acknowledging that we have conflicting "rights" and the damage caused by each party in this.

To the same-sex couple their damage is what? At the most, not having cake, or baking their own cake.

To the Baker, his firm belief that by making a cake, he will burn in hell for eternity.

Now, I understand that you don't want to look at the Bakers point of view, you could care less that the Baker, being forced to bake the cake and burn for eternity as reality. But I am far less concerned about your view of reality than I am concerned about his view of reality.

Then again, I express empathy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two thoughts, this is the PERFECT example of poorly written law. You say that the Baker has a bias, but he still serves those he is somehow biased against? Huh?

I haven't said jack about his "bias" as I don't care about his "bias".

His "bias" is irrelevant to his rights of property and association. As such he should be able to discriminate against any customer he wishes for whatever reason he wishes (which is what renders his "bias" irrelevant). The religious shop owner and gay shop owner should be treated the same under the law. Either can refuse service.

And, this is an example of government over reach. The Government, and you, are inflexible in acknowledging that we have conflicting "rights" and the damage caused by each party in this.

Again making shit up. Where have I not recognized "conflicting rights". I think that BOTH the religious shop owner and gay shop owner should be able to exercise their rights equally. If each can exercise their rights of property and association equally then religion isn't part of the picture.

Now, I understand that you don't want to look at the Bakers point of view, you could care less that the Baker, being forced to bake the cake and burn for eternity as reality. But I am far less concerned about your view of reality than I am concerned about his view of reality.

I see the bakers point of view. If rights of property and association are respected by the government for both shop owners (the baker and a gay shop owner) then there is no need to provide special rights to the religious shop owner.



>>>>

 

[jknowgood]

I sure as hell wouldn't want someone to bake a cake for me who hated me.

Holy cow we agree on something.