Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • terrehautian

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 6, 2012
    3,491
    84
    Where ever my GPS says I am
    Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News

    A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.



    My only issue with the ruling is that I believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want. They shouldn't be free from any negative publicity, though.

    I do wonder why the people who sued are wanting this bakery so much, or are they just trying to make a political point? If I was refused service, I would simply go to media, social media etc. and find another business who wants my service. If I was the bakery, my price for the service the people who served who I am being forced to cater to would be appropriate to the whole ordeal (as in major money versus regular fees). I bet they would sue then, again.

    PS, I did search and found nothing and if this font/color comes out weird, I have no idea why.
     

    heavyhitter1k

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2012
    197
    18
    Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News




    My only issue with the ruling is that I believe businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want. They shouldn't be free from any negative publicity, though.

    I do wonder why the people who sued are wanting this bakery so much, or are they just trying to make a political point? If I was refused service, I would simply go to media, social media etc. and find another business who wants my service. If I was the bakery, my price for the service the people who served who I am being forced to cater to would be appropriate to the whole ordeal (as in major money versus regular fees). I bet they would sue then, again.

    PS, I did search and found nothing and if this font/color comes out weird, I have no idea why.

    ^^ THis
     

    Jarhead77

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jan 23, 2012
    1,390
    38
    Noblesville
    Unfortunately Colorado has been inundated with "immigrants" from California and, according to "native" Coloradans, they have infiltrated the guberment to the point that, yes, it does look like eastern Ca. They're not happy...talk to some of them...
     

    TRWXXA

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 22, 2008
    1,094
    38
    Would anybody here actually eat a cake some activist judge ordered the bakery to make for you?

    Rule of life #22: Do not f*** with the people who handle your food.


    How about this sign?

    "Traditional wedding cake: $1200.00
    Same-sex wedding cake: $12,000.00"

    And let the free market prevail.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    I think I have to agree with a couple folks upthread: if I were being forced to bake a cake for people I had refused service - for whatever reason - the result would not (shall we say) be my best work. Or even edible. Or even look appetizing. Note to judge: "You said I had to service them; you never said it had to be _good_ service."
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    A government big enough to force business owners to allow guns on their property is big enough to force business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve.
     

    Mark 1911

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jun 6, 2012
    10,931
    83
    Schererville, IN
    So, what about signs saying "No Blacks Allowed", "No Jews Allowed", or "No Muslims Allowed", or "No Christians Allowed"?
    Would that be ok?

    .

    It's their business. Wrong shouldn't always be the same thing as illegal.

    Unfortunately, "right and wrong" do not always align with "legal and illegal", especially true in our day. In a society that has lost its sense of the former, what is the basis of the latter?
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    A government big enough to force business owners to allow guns on their property is big enough to force business owners to serve customers they don't want to serve.

    If a business (or government) is willing to take steps to guarantee my personal safety while I'm in their establishment, I'm perfectly willing to disarm temporarily. But if they aren't willing to take steps to guarantee my personal safety, they have no moral right to demand I disarm myself, even temporarily. And yes, a government that is big enough to force business owners to serve anyone they don't wish to serve IS too big.
     

    hornadylnl

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 19, 2008
    21,505
    63
    If a business (or government) is willing to take steps to guarantee my personal safety while I'm in their establishment, I'm perfectly willing to disarm temporarily. But if they aren't willing to take steps to guarantee my personal safety, they have no moral right to demand I disarm myself, even temporarily. And yes, a government that is big enough to force business owners to serve anyone they don't wish to serve IS too big.

    So a business has to serve you? You have a right to have a weapon on their property even if they don't want you to?
     

    traderdan

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 20, 2009
    2,016
    48
    Martinsville
    So a business has to serve you? You have a right to have a weapon on their property even if they don't want you to?

    In a word...YES. We have the natural right of self-defense.A Constitutional amendment..If you are doing business with the general public,and you deny them the right to be armed..You are infringing upon their right. (For the sake of argument.)
     
    Top Bottom