No need to apologize. I agree with this sentiment. Little to no chance that this cake request was coincidental. I was referring to the "submission to the "tolerance" party" part of your post. I may have missed it, but didn't see an overtly anti-conservative bent in the thread (emphasis on overt).
So then it's cool if the hotel owner refuses to let 2 black gay dudes stay at his hotel because his 'faith' says homosexuality is a sin?
You're entering muddy waters here. Many a sandwich maker would disagree with you. Ever hear of artisan sandwiches?
Again, I don't think it's fair in this instance to refer to an intolerant "side." It's not that simple. This is not a strict liberal/conservative issue imo.
Not discounting your perspective about Biblical text, but it gets tricky when courts start interpreting religious text or declaring which claimed religious beliefs are “valid” and which are not.
They are not breaking the law based only on the sign, but you’d have to question just who would post such a sign and why. It’s not a sign you would see at the vast majority of public facing businesses. It *is* the type of sign you’d imagine posted by someone butthurt over civil rights. That type of sign was pretty common after segregation was made illegal, so instead of plain language segregation (no colored, no fags, no Jews, etc) they would attempt to use “coded” segregation such as this to indicate they still didn’t want to serve certain groups. What would make it illegal is if a pattern of discrimination were established (I.e. if they exercised their “right” not to serve in a way that systemically excluded people based on what is defined as protected).
I’m open-minded here. Can you cite which anti-discrimination law specifically that the baker is violating? I would like to do more research.
If I was gay, I would appreciate the baker’s sign. I would much rather go to a gay-friendly caterer to have my wedding cake made than someone who secretly held religious views against homosexuality. The gay-friendly caterer will inevitably do a better job on my wedding cake.
2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition 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. 2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 3 - :: Colorado Civil Rights Division - Commission - Procedures :: § 24-34-301. Definitions "Sexual orientation" means an individual's orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another individual's perception thereof.
LOL. Yes, it is. As I've already demonstrated in this thread, some segregationists argued that integration violated their "faith." As I discussed earlier with other people, if you want to argue the cake is speech, the ornateness of the cake matters.
Are you alleging that being gay or transgender is akin to being a Klansman? Okay, I am getting back to you. He refused service here. He refused service to the gay couple in the wedding cake case. If a Black person went to a motel and the motel said, "Our guest rooms are for white people only, but you can sleep in one of the tents we put up out back," that is absolutely refusing service, just as much as this baker refusing to bake the cake these people are asking for is. I just have to stop and laugh at you calling us "intolerant" as you defend a baker who has violated Colorado's version of the Civil Rights Act by refusing to serve members of the LGBTQ community. Oh yes, we are certainly intolerant of bigoted Christians. You got us. Courts aren't allowed to inquire into the genuineness of the religious doctrine. They're only allowed to determine if the religious belief is genuine (i.e., does the person actually believe this). So no, I'm not just going to say let racists claim religious belief to justify denying service to interracial couples.
Thank you for citing. I suppose the question now is where this law and a person’s religious views allow for exemption of sorts. As one law can’t strip another of their 1st amendment rights. Sounds like something that will have to be adjudicated in court and could go either way. Therefore, I would say the baker hasn’t violated the law at this stage, as this will inevitably have to be adjudicated and of course, baker is innocent until proven guilty.
LOL, that is not what he is saying at all. That you have to twist his argument into something he’s not claiming tells me you’re at a loss here otherwise. You’re fine to disagree with him, but you just totally changed what he said.
The world is full of jerks. I’ve found it’s best to get over it and move on to folks who are not jerks. If you’re one who cries about every jerk you encounter in life, you’re simply going to lose a lot of respect with your peers.
Sure, but this is a message board and people are actually defending this baker. I think it's ok to call jerks out. If it were me, and the baker refused to serve me because he disagreed with my totally legal life style, I'd tell him what I thought of him and move on to another baker that has the decency to respect others. I wouldn't bring a lawsuit against the guy. But to each their own.
I wouldn't even tell him what I thought, because in my mind, the baker here would be doing me a favor. Unless he was rude to me personally first, I would have no issues with what the baker did, if I was a gay man. I'd rather someone I'm paying good money to design a very important cake for me be up front and honest and let me know if there is a problem so I could locate a caterer that's going to do a better job on my cake. It's a win win if you ask me. I'm not sure what the issue here is other than someone trying to get a payday with a lawsuit. Why would you want a baker begrudgingly making your wedding cake just because the law requires him to?
This is just funny. Thank you baker, for doing me a favor by telling me you won't make a wedding cake for me because I'm gay. I guess all those pre civil rights racists were just doing Black people a favor too, by not serving them. It really is the same issue, regardless of your attempts to minimize it.
There again, you can't make a counter-argument against it without taking it on a completely different track (ie race, black people and civil rights). It's not the same thing. And yes, instead of crying about it, I'd be happier to find a caterer that was enthusiastic about my wedding.
