Colorado Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training...

[Ge_Tech]

do you agree with the govt making private business force people to sell their services?

Do you agree, if I have an apartment house, I can deny rooms to blacks, latinos, people with kids etc?

[Reer43]

Do you agree, if I have an apartment house, I can deny rooms to blacks, latinos, people with kids etc?

Yes.

[Reer43]

Yes.

I don't agree with the actions, but it's his private property - he can choose who he wants to rent to.

[Ge_Tech]

I don't agree with the actions, but it's his private property - he can choose who he wants to rent to.

It is too bad the law doesn't agree with you.

[Enso]

I'm 100% on the "that's bull****" side after giving it some more thought

My initial reaction is this. But, a question. If this were a black couple, people would probably stand behind the black couple and their right to sue would they not?

So, if we are to believe that being born gay is as natural as being born black (are who you are), then on that precedent does this have more merit?

And, in addition...as homosexuality becomes more integrated - that is that homosexuality is viewed not as some deviant lifestyle, but just who people being who they are and they gain more social acceptance, are we going to allow people the right to deny them service based on religious reasons?

This is something society is going to have to decide.

[Judgment]

State of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws = can't refuse service in your own business.

2nd Amendment right of the Constitution = you can ban guns from your establishment.

[HELIX35]

My initial reaction is this. But, a question. If this were a black couple, people would probably stand behind the black couple and their right to sue would they not?

So, if we are to believe that being born gay is as natural as being born black (are who you are), then on that precedent does this have more merit?

And, in addition...as homosexuality becomes more integrated - that is that homosexuality is viewed not as some deviant lifestyle, but just who people being who they are and they gain more social acceptance, are we going to allow people the right to deny them service based on religious reasons?

This is something society is going to have to decide.

The denying black people service was one of my biggest arguments, so believe me when I say I see its merit and still struggle with it

But you have to look at the other side of that same coin. If the KKK walked into your bakery and wanted a cake with a burning cross that said "**** negroes" at the bottom and you refused, should you be legally obligated to make it else face discrimination charges?

[bking10]

Why can't the gay couple just buy a cake from someone else? Nope, lets force someone to do something because I'm offended they don't agree with my beliefs

[Enso]

But you have to look at the other side of that same coin. If the KKK walked into your bakery and wanted a cake with a burning cross that said "**** negroes" at the bottom and you refused, should you be legally obligated to make it else face discrimination charges?

That is an excellent point. I absolutely would not want to have to serve them and then go to tolerance of anti-tolerance class.

As a counter, what argument fits the case better? Being in the KKK is a choice were as being gay is not. KKK is promoting intolerance and hate. A gay couple just wants to buy a cake and go on with their lives. Does this fact trump that viewpoint?

[Enso]

Why can't the gay couple just buy a cake from someone else? Nope, lets force someone to do something because I'm offended they don't agree with my beliefs

Well, if intellectual discussion is allowed in this place, that is what a few of us are trying to figure out for ourselves.


I personally would tend to lean towards allowing people the right to exercise religious freedom therefore deny service on those grounds, but that is a very slippery slope.

[HELIX35]

That is an excellent point. I absolutely would not want to have to serve them and then go to tolerance of anti-tolerance class.

As a counter, what argument fits the case better? Being in the KKK is a choice were as being gay is not. KKK is promoting intolerance and hate. A gay couple just wants to buy a cake and go on with their lives. Does this fact trump that viewpoint?

Apply the same to the Westboro Baptist Church asking for a "god hates ***s" cake and you refusing


They have every religious freedom defense imaginable

[metroins]

I feel like a fine should have been imposed.

I don't agree with the sensitivity training or being forced to make the cake.

[MediaDeit]

America isn't doing so well lately. Shyt like this makes it feel like we are just like any other European nanny state

This is what gets you, the fact that a business cannot discriminate against gay couples.... this is the big thing that twists your panties in a bunch, not the NSA, not the lack of action in congress, not the supreme court allowing corporations to pay infinite amounts to politicians... nope, what gets you going is that you can't discriminate against gays....

[Aynom]

do you agree with the govt making private business force people to sell their services?

Wal-Mart is a private. Think about why that matters.


That aside, to other people:

The KKK and the anti-gay shop owner are on the same side of the spectrum so a role reversal analogy in which it is the otherwise normal person's chance to discriminate against the KKK means nothing because society's ethics has a tendency to deem both the KKK and anti-gay shop owner as wrong and thus it would be okay to say no to the KKK just as it is for Uncle Sam or the gay couple to "punish" the anti-gay shop owner's business.

Either way, this issue is just a massive social issue and has not much objective bearing. I just find it hilarious that it's your American right to be selfish and that somehow usurps other American's very same right.

[BEATINGU]

As a counter, what argument fits the case better? Being in the KKK is a choice were as being gay is not

We can debate whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition, but I think we can both agree that getting married to someone of the same sex, or engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice. It's sickening that someone who does not approve of homosexual marriage for legitimate and sincerely held religious beliefs should be forced to directly participate in a homosexual marriage by providing them with a custom made gay-marriage cake.

[neuergriff]

Do you agree, if I have an apartment house, I can deny rooms to blacks, latinos, people with kids etc?

In general, as long as you live in the home and have no more than 4 units, you are permitted to discriminate in the US. There are some exceptions, such as retirement communities.

[Aynom]

We can debate whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition, but I think we can both agree that getting married to someone of the same sex, or engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice. It's sickening that someone who does not approve of homosexual marriage for legitimate and sincerely held religious beliefs should be forced to directly participate in a homosexual marriage by providing them with a custom made gay-marriage cake.

Someone who does not hold the same belief can still participate in the same religion as the person who is anti-samesex marriage. And I'm not quite sure how a cake is that emotionally important. The cake won't exist after it is eaten and you may never have to see the people you made the cake for again.

[neuergriff]

Well, if intellectual discussion is allowed in this place, that is what a few of us are trying to figure out for ourselves.


I personally would tend to lean towards allowing people the right to exercise religious freedom therefore deny service on those grounds, but that is a very slippery slope.

One of the justifications for segregation in the south was Biblical. Leviticus 25:44 and I Timothy 6:1 were two of the Biblical justifications. It was a violent, nasty and ugly system where people were denied medical care, housing, food, insurance, education and even transportation.

[HELIX35]

Wal-Mart is a private. Think about why that matters.


That aside, to other people:

The KKK and the anti-gay shop owner are on the same side of the spectrum so a role reversal analogy in which it is the otherwise normal person's chance to discriminate against the KKK means nothing because society's ethics has a tendency to deem both the KKK and anti-gay shop owner as wrong and thus it would be okay to say no to the KKK just as it is for Uncle Sam or the gay couple to "punish" the anti-gay shop owner's business.

Either way, this issue is just a massive social issue and has not much objective bearing. I just find it hilarious that it's your American right to be selfish and that somehow usurps other American's very same right.

Aside from the absurdity in the rest your post, no, it is not a social issue. It contains significant legal ramifications.

[Bhavasita87]

ITT, a bunch of people who want to force people to conform to their moral standards in their private affairs.

Your "its a business, so its different" is completely arbitrary. It is as totally arbitrary as me saying "it's a public park, so the normal free speech doesn't apply", or "its a public beach, so free speech doesnt apply the same". The "taxes" argument is just as pathetic.

The thing is that it goes both ways. All this boils down to is people raging over behavior in other's private affairs that they don't like, so they want to ban them. What happens when someone else decides that something YOURE doing in your own affairs is bad and should be stopped?

I mean, really, the basic principle here is no different from banning speech because you find it morally offensive. And even with our tradition of free speech, we have lots of "we shouldnt allow people to say (insert X morally offensive thing)".

[Aynom]

Aside from the absurdity in the rest your post, no, it is not a social issue. It contains significant legal ramifications.

I'll wait for you to explain your claim.

And the law is partly a product of the ethics of the people who passed them. It is a social issue.

[Reer43]

Private property rights are dying in this country.

Your business is an extension of your home. You should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason, that's how a free society works.

Should a Christian school be required by the govt to hire or enroll gays, Hindus, Buddhists, atheist, etc.? Obviously not.

If a business is owned by a gay dude who hates Christians, Muslims, etc... should he be required to hire or serve Christians and Muslims? No. He can hire whoever he wants.


If a business doesn't want your business, because they are racist, they are only hurting themselves.

There is no reason for the Federal govt to get involved. This isn't the 50s anymore. If somebody puts a "White's only sign" in front of their business, their PR will be absolutely destroyed and they will probably end up going under as people start boycotting and taking their business elsewhere. And honestly, why would you even want to give money to somebody who is a POS?

If a company like Chipotle suddenly decided to stop serving black people, they would lose a crapload of money from the black people who would no longer go there, from the masses of boycotters who would inevitably stop giving them business. They'd also have a lot of companies refuse to do business with them. Credit card processing companies like FirstData would inevitably refuse to process credit card/debit card transactions for them and Chipotle becomes a cash only business overnight. Whoever supplies some of their ingredients would probably stop selling to chipotle and instead start selling to new companies that are popping up to provide an alternative to Chipotle.

[ElMariachi]

The guy said he's just going to stop offering wedding cakes period.

[Enso]

Apply the same to the Westboro Baptist Church asking for a "god hates ***s" cake and you refusing


They have every religious freedom defense imaginable

One of the justifications for segregation in the south was Biblical. Leviticus 25:44 and I Timothy 6:1 were two of the Biblical justifications. It was a violent, nasty and ugly system where people were denied medical care, housing, food, insurance, education and even transportation.

Well, that gives that argument the nuke pretty much doesn't it...When I said slippery slope, I was thinking more like rain on concrete...not banana peels on top of ice.

The ideal scenario would be to allow it, but those people be in the minority so getting service would not be an issue. In San Francisco, they would have plenty of options. In Utah, yeah...not very many at all.

It's hard balancing freedom and protecting people from discrimination. This is why as great as Libertarianism is as a philosophy, it is very hard to implement broad scale politically.

[mntbikedude]

The denying black people service was one of my biggest arguments, so believe me when I say I see its merit and still struggle with it

But you have to look at the other side of that same coin. If the KKK walked into your bakery and wanted a cake with a burning cross that said "**** negroes" at the bottom and you refused, should you be legally obligated to make it else face discrimination charges?

That's a good point. My personal opinion is that in the case of this type of thing the free market can take care of this. Meaning that the economic backlash of not baking the cake for gays should solve most of these types of issues. As liberal as I am and as much as it pisses me off when people do **** like this. I also don't want the government going in and forcing someone to do that or to have to undergo sensitivity training. I do fully and completely support protests and boycotts to deal with companies that want to discriminate against people.

[Enso]

If a business doesn't want your business, because they are racist, they are only hurting themselves..

This is true because society has progressed to the point that discriminating against blacks is no longer acceptable. It is still acceptable in most parts to discriminate against gays.

It is very hard to allow people freedom of choice and action and still have peoples rights protected. As dull of a blade the Government can be, it is a necessary 'evil' so to speak sometimes to protect people from mob rule Democracy.

The only answer is education, but in some parts of the country, that type of education is from the devil (sarcasm of course).

[Aynom]

Private property rights are dying in this country.

Your business is an extension of your home. You should be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason, that's how a free society works.

Should a Christian school be required by the govt to hire or enroll gays, Hindus, Buddhists, atheist, etc.? Obviously not.

If a business is owned by a gay dude who hates Christians, Muslims, etc... should he be required to hire or serve Christians and Muslims? No. He can hire whoever he wants.


If a business doesn't want your business, because they are racist, they are only hurting themselves.

There is no reason for the Federal govt to get involved. This isn't the 50s anymore. If somebody puts a "White's only sign" in front of their business, their PR will be absolutely destroyed and they will probably end up going under as people start boycotting and taking their business elsewhere. And honestly, why would you even want to give money to somebody who is a POS?

If a company like Chipotle suddenly decided to stop serving black people, they would lose a crapload of money from the black people who would no longer go there, from the masses of boycotters who would inevitably stop giving them business. They'd also have a lot of companies refuse to do business with them. Credit card processing companies like FirstData would inevitably refuse to process credit card/debit card transactions for them and Chipotle becomes a cash only business overnight. Whoever supplies some of their ingredients would probably stop selling to chipotle and instead start selling to new companies that are popping up to provide an alternative to Chipotle.

News flash: Most people are in fact, law abiding citizens (for the most part).

These cases are rare and thus the state or federal government intervenes.

Chick-Fil-A still serves everyone despite it's origin and belief of its founders. People need to suck it up.

[Enso]

We can debate whether or not being gay is a choice or a genetic disposition, but I think we can both agree that getting married to someone of the same sex, or engaging in homosexual intercourse is a choice. It's sickening that someone who does not approve of homosexual marriage for legitimate and sincerely held religious beliefs should be forced to directly participate in a homosexual marriage by providing them with a custom made gay-marriage cake.

Just curious. Does a gay wedding cake require two guys PIITB on top of the cake, or can it just be a regular cake? And, if any old wedding cake will suffice...how would making them one cause a religious person guilt or emotional distress?

You don't have to agree, but you can still serve unless you are just trying to be self-righteous. Doesn't God reserve final judgement and not man? Isn't that the command?

[HELIX35]

I'll wait for you to explain your claim.

And the law is partly a product of the ethics of the people who passed them. It is a social issue.

Maybe by the fact that the law is directly involved?

Courts are supposed to follow the law, not opinion.

[Fiyero]

They don't have to be consistent to YOUR standards.

If they're not consistent, then it proves what a sham their cries of religious freedom are since they're not practicing their religion anyway. It merely solidifies the fact that they want to be able to discriminate against gay people. Their religion is irrelevant.

In which case, start arguing this legally from the standpoint of being able to discriminate against anyone, instead of pulling the Christian persecution card.