IIRC (unless there was a subsequent ruling), didn't the federal court determine that the state of Colorado (not the plaintiffs/claimants) acted with bias toward the bakery owner?
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Denver Bakery Refuses Service to Gay couple, sued and lost in court....
- Thread starter terrehautian
- Start date
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!
Member Benefits:
IIRC (unless there was a subsequent ruling), didn't the federal court determine that the state of Colorado (not the plaintiffs/claimants) acted with bias toward the bakery owner?
This is a very difficult issue to address: where can the State deny the right to refuse service? Can it be on race, creed, colour, religion? These have mostly been accepted, mostly but not all.
You have said there is no harm, and I concede that in my opinion in this case, to a point.
Let us use a hopefully similar analogy. I take my three (3) kids who are four (4), five (5) and seven (7) years olde to the bakery on December 20th. The kids want to get a nice, pretty cake for Santa on Christmas. I agree and take them to the nearest bakery. Unbeknownst to me the bakery owner is of very strong religious convictions who does not support things not in their religion. I'll pick on Jehovah Witness in this case as Christmas is not celebrated by them. When I go in with my kids to talk to the baker about what they want to put on the cake we are all told by the baker that she won't do it because there is no such thing as Santa Claus, he is just made up.
Now the seven (7) year olde isn't so bad, but the younger kids are truly distraught and upset by hearing this. We leave, I'm PO'd at the gal but decide to take my business elsewhere. However, the kids are so upset they don't want to go anywhere else.
In this scenario are you saying there is ZERO harm done? That ruining the kids Christmas and all future ones is just too bad and there is no trauma? Is emotional harm not harm? Can being emotionally traumatized not hurt someone even worse than physical pain?
I'll even use my own personal story to make the point. Some years ago, as you know, I was shot. I did something incredibly idiotic and got shot in the hand by my goddaughter. I was physically wounded. My wounds have healed. She was traumatized by the event. Who's trauma has lasted longer? I don't know, but I will think about that and wonder about that and regret that until the day I die.
I won't copy it on here but read a poem by Countee Cullen "Incident." Here is a link (warning: language): http://holyjoe.org/poetry/cullen.htm
Yes, I am a Christian. I try to always keep in mind that my Christianity is based upon faith, and nothing more. As such, what I believe is "true" is not really "true," at least not in the same sense as a scientific fact is true. What is "truth" to me isn't necessarily "truth" to anyone else, even Christians. If there were some verifiable facts to back up what I or anyone else believed then it wouldn't be faith, but rather an acceptance of facts. This is why I have little sympathy for someone who wants to open a business to the public then foist their religion upon that very public. I will not try to foist my faith upon others, so they sure better not try to foist it upon me.
I believe Churchmouse echoed my earlier thought. The gay couples action is simply a tactic. We cannot disagree with it as it is used all the time. This is how Heller challenged DC and won. This is how McDonald challenged Chicago and won. This is how RU-486 was made legal, bu someone first illegally bringing it into the country, admitting it, and being arrested.
Anyway, I'm not upset about this issue much, only that my sympathy level for someone trying to foist their religion on someone else through their business is very low.
Regards,
Doug
That is EXACTLY what happened! The court found that Colorado acted with bias, and as such their treatment of the baker was unfair.
They did not address at all the larger question of whether the State of Colorado had the lawful authority to fine him.
SCOTUS kicked the can down the road on the big issue.
Regards,
Doug
- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
Where did the foisting occur? At the refusal to violate one's own religion for the appeasement of someone else?
The claimed "harm" in this instance does not involve providing or not providing service; rather, the claimed "harm" is the proprietor's revelation that Santa Claus isn't real.
I'm also not sure that the claimed "harm" actually constitutes legally actionable harm, given that every child who once believed that Santa Claus was real later endured the experience of coming to terms with the realization and acceptance that Santa Claus is not, in fact, real - and every single one of those children endured that experience with no actual harm.
If your beliefs and experience as a Christian are based solely upon faith and nothing more, then I truly feel sad for you. You are claiming that, as a Christian, you have never personally experienced the transformative power of Christ in your own life, the leading and comfort of the Holy Spirit - much less, anything truly miraculous. As for scientific evidence: there is no work more reliable as a historical text than the Bible, and it's not even close - not by several orders of magnitude. There is considerable archaeological and other evidence of (and to date, not a single bit of reliable evidence to contradict) the people, places, and events described in the Bible.
I don't think it is your intent, but this comes across as incredibly hostile toward those who exercise their right of freedom of religious expression.
First, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand (the bakery owner did not "foist his faith" on the gay couple). As such, one could easily conclude that you consider any expression of one's faith whatsoever in the public domain constitutes "foisting", and is thus unacceptable.
Second, regardless of how you choose to exercise your right of freedom of religious expression, you have no right to dictate to others how they exercise that same right. To use an analogy: you are the concealed carrier who advocates against open carry - you choose to hide your firearm when you carry; therefore, everyone else must do so, as well.
And yet, the claim that the bakery owner "foisted his religion" on someone else through his business is utterly specious. He did no such thing. To claim otherwise is to imply an intolerance for any religious expression while publicly conducting business. You leave no middle ground.
I wonder what Jesus thought of Zaccheus "foisting his faith" on those whom he had once wronged, by making restitution with them after deciding to follow Jesus.
This is the biggest issue I have with Doug's stance.
Foist (v): impose an unwelcome or unnecessary thing or person on.
The claim is that, by offering for purchase any of his available products, as well as those custom services that were not a violation of a sincerely held religious belief, but politely declining to offer a custom service that violated a sincerely held religious belief, the bakery owner was imposing an unnecessary or unwelcome faith/religion/belief upon the gay couple. That claim espouses an untenable, intolerant, and unacceptable position.
Wait, WHAT??? I... I... need some time alone.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,friend.
I hear range time helps?
Imposing something on someone else would be more like a gay couple seeking out a bakery whose owner who disagrees with them so they could force the baker to do the thing he disagrees with. To say that declining to do something is imposing one’s beliefs is essentially taking the position that one has a right to another’s labor.
I'll take all my Santa-themed Christmas decorations as targets. Santa is a lie!
I have no idea, you can ask him when you get there.
The foisting is telling them they are wrong and placing social pressure upon them. It isn't physical, or violent, or illegal. But to deny that people applying social pressure isn't foisting seems a bit naive to me.
You are correct. They are trying to foist their beliefs on him as well. I'm not saying one side is clean in this and the other is dirty. Never have.
There are two (2) philosophies colliding here. One is that a business may decide to deny service to a member of the public, this power is not in question. What is in question is the reasoning as to why the service is being denied.
The States general claim, as I understand it, is that the public should have a reasonable expectation of service anywhere they go within the State. Are you sick? You can go to any hospital and/or health care provider and they may not deny you service, especially emergency service. It wasn't always this way in America if you were black, but it is today. Is your car running out of gas? You can pull into the nearest gas station and fill up, provided you have money to pay. You cannot be denied service based upon certain arbitrary and irrelevant markers such as skin colour or how you worship God or whether you worship at all, or whether the attendant believes you are a sinner or not.
It is this knowledge of accessible service that promotes a free market and gives the public an understanding of where and when they can receive service.
Side #2 claims that if a person based religious beliefs may deny service to any they want to do so. Their claim is that personal faith trumps all other considerations while operating a business for the public.
Clearly there is support for both sides of the issue within the Constitution. This is not uncommon at all. Constitutionally protected rights regularly conflict with each other. Freedom of expression v/s freedom to sleep at night. Freedom to express ones self v/s public nudity. Freedom to get drunk v/s public safety on the roads.
Please note that he is no longer providing wedding cakes, at least not at this time. If he is truly a man of faith, why stop? Just because his lawyer presumably told him to back off for now doesn't mean a man of conviction should do so. I guess he has more respect for the secular than he has let on.
Regards,
Doug
PS - This is my first attempt after all this time to multi quote. It worked! Woohoo!
I let myself be bullied into clearing my list. I am getting a headache now.
Christians prevented a true social justice utopia for too long, they must be beaten into submission.
What I said:
How you replied:
It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Clearly, my comment acknowledged emotional harm. I merely expressed doubt that such harm constitutes legally actionable harm.
There is no natural or legal right not to be offended or to have one's feelings hurt, nor is or should there be legal protection for such.
I stand by what I said, but that is a rabbit hole well off-topic for this topic. Should there be any interest in discussing it further, my PMs are open.
And yet, every single business owner has that right, and that right is constitutionally protected. Your position here is totalitarian: no expression of religion whatsoever when conducting public business. I'm not making the absolute; you are. I have asked for where the line is drawn, and this is where you have chosen to draw it.
Your position is thus wrong, and diametrically opposed to everything our country was founded upon.
He did not judge them. He put no pressure on them. His reason for denial was not foisting; it was explanation.
What is your position here regarding what he should have done? There are only so many options:
1. Deny custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, explain reason why
2. Deny custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, do not explain why
3. Provide custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, thereby violating his conscience
4. Not offer any custom cake decoration services
(Note: #4 is apparently where he has landed currently - a position for which you further ridicule and criticize him.)
You miss the analogy. When CC (or OC) advocates attempt to use the power of the state to force their choice on others, they are wrongly "foisting" their choice. You are doing the same with your views regarding Christianity, by condoning the use of the power of the state to force a bakery owner to interact with the public in the manner you choose with respect to his freedom of religious expression.
That's not "little" middle ground; that's NO middle ground. It also deflects from my question. I didn't ask where the middle ground is on "serving the entire public" (something that is not at issue because - and I repeat myself - the bakery owner did not refuse to serve anyone); rather, I asked where the middle ground is on freedom of religious expression when conducting public business.
Where is that middle ground?
You express an odd hostility toward the religion to which you claim to adhere.
Please quote where the bakery owner told the gay couple that they were "wrong", and describe where he placed "social pressure" upon them. At this point, you're just making things up.
No. You still misstate the situation. The bakery owner did not deny service (and I'll be very clear, the term "deny service" implies and intends a binary: either service is offered or it is denied) to the gay couple. The bakery owner offered both products and services to the gay couple.
It is this knowledge of accessible service that promotes a free market and gives the public an understanding of where and when they can receive service.
Are you hungry? Do you want a cake? You can go into this bakery owner's bakery and purchase a cake - even as a gay couple.
You continue to misstate this position. Outside of the "any business owner should be free to deny service to anyone for any reason at any time" philosophy, who is advocating the claim you make here?
You are too intelligent for such repeated misstatement to be anything other than obtuse. Either you know that you are erecting a straw man, or else you are so biased against anyone who would dare express their faith while conducting public business that you can't tell the difference.
Again with the hostility (this time mixed with condescension, for added flavor). Your question is as absurd as the conclusion you draw from it. You seem to have deeply internalized animosity toward this bakery owner, and it is clouding your ability to discuss the underlying issue.
How you replied:
It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. Clearly, my comment acknowledged emotional harm. I merely expressed doubt that such harm constitutes legally actionable harm.
There is no natural or legal right not to be offended or to have one's feelings hurt, nor is or should there be legal protection for such.
I stand by what I said, but that is a rabbit hole well off-topic for this topic. Should there be any interest in discussing it further, my PMs are open.
And yet, every single business owner has that right, and that right is constitutionally protected. Your position here is totalitarian: no expression of religion whatsoever when conducting public business. I'm not making the absolute; you are. I have asked for where the line is drawn, and this is where you have chosen to draw it.
Your position is thus wrong, and diametrically opposed to everything our country was founded upon.
He did not judge them. He put no pressure on them. His reason for denial was not foisting; it was explanation.
What is your position here regarding what he should have done? There are only so many options:
1. Deny custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, explain reason why
2. Deny custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, do not explain why
3. Provide custom cake decoration celebrating gay marriage, thereby violating his conscience
4. Not offer any custom cake decoration services
(Note: #4 is apparently where he has landed currently - a position for which you further ridicule and criticize him.)
You miss the analogy. When CC (or OC) advocates attempt to use the power of the state to force their choice on others, they are wrongly "foisting" their choice. You are doing the same with your views regarding Christianity, by condoning the use of the power of the state to force a bakery owner to interact with the public in the manner you choose with respect to his freedom of religious expression.
That's not "little" middle ground; that's NO middle ground. It also deflects from my question. I didn't ask where the middle ground is on "serving the entire public" (something that is not at issue because - and I repeat myself - the bakery owner did not refuse to serve anyone); rather, I asked where the middle ground is on freedom of religious expression when conducting public business.
Where is that middle ground?
You express an odd hostility toward the religion to which you claim to adhere.
Please quote where the bakery owner told the gay couple that they were "wrong", and describe where he placed "social pressure" upon them. At this point, you're just making things up.
No. You still misstate the situation. The bakery owner did not deny service (and I'll be very clear, the term "deny service" implies and intends a binary: either service is offered or it is denied) to the gay couple. The bakery owner offered both products and services to the gay couple.
It is this knowledge of accessible service that promotes a free market and gives the public an understanding of where and when they can receive service.
Are you hungry? Do you want a cake? You can go into this bakery owner's bakery and purchase a cake - even as a gay couple.
You continue to misstate this position. Outside of the "any business owner should be free to deny service to anyone for any reason at any time" philosophy, who is advocating the claim you make here?
You are too intelligent for such repeated misstatement to be anything other than obtuse. Either you know that you are erecting a straw man, or else you are so biased against anyone who would dare express their faith while conducting public business that you can't tell the difference.
Again with the hostility (this time mixed with condescension, for added flavor). Your question is as absurd as the conclusion you draw from it. You seem to have deeply internalized animosity toward this bakery owner, and it is clouding your ability to discuss the underlying issue.
I don't think it's that difficult. I don't deny that there is a line to be drawn where the state can limit the right to refuse service, but I also think that the line is drawn on an improper dimension. The CRA of 1964 started us off with race, creed, color, religion, national origin, and there's an implied etcetera in that strategy laid out in 1964 because there are endless dimensions of identity which could be added to the protected list, until you get to the point where we're at the level of the individual. That's where I'm proposing we go now. Let's skip all that group identity nonsense and create a rational sustainable criteria based on actual harm. The acceptance of the current list of protected classes is only relevant to the point of is. It is the case most people, especially people who most value equality, accept group identities as the proper dimension to draw the line.
However, that's not the fairest place to draw the line. Why should one class be protected and another not. What happens when classes collide? For example, the freedom to practice one's religious beliefs vs the right for gay people to be served anywhere they please. It's irrelevant to the point of a criteria based on fairness that race, creed, religion, whatever, is generally acceptable now. There's a better criterion. Actual harm. The proper place to draw the line is when someone weaponizes their freedoms against others to produce harm. The problem with society prior to 1964 was that individuals weaponized their right to freedom of association to harm black people. They exploited their businesses and their freedom of association to purposely, maliciously, exclude or marginalize black people. The problem that led to the CRA of 1964 would have been better solved with an individualist solution to prevent that.
Yes. In that scenario there is ZERO actual harm done that especially, the business is responsible for.
Nope. Not in this case.
None that is the responsibility of the shop owner. If you raise your kids such that a baker not wanting to acknowledge Christmas harms them worse than physical pain, that's on you, not the baker. Life is full of disappointments. Part of parenting is allowing our kids to experience disappointments so that we can use those as teaching moments. That's how we build children into competent, resilient adults capable of navigating life without being shut down by simple obstacles, like dealing with businesses who don't want to do business with you.
You're trying to find examples which make the point that "harm" goes beyond phyiscal, but none of these examples really make that point. In the former, I don't think you can make the case that the JW baker should by law, have to bake Christmas stuff so that your kids won't be traumatized. That's not harm. In the latter case, yes, your goddaughter is traumatized that she caused you that harm. All you can do is continually remind her that you caused it, not her.
But none of that is relevant to what we're talking about. I don't deny that emotional trauma can be worse than physical trauma, and that emotional harm is harm too. What we're arguing about here is whether that's sufficient criteria to legally place responsibility. I'm not saying the harm has to be physical. A community of businesses trying to impose their own standards on the rest of the community through the power of their business is arguably harm. It's not democratic.
I understand that I'm using imprecise language to express my position, but hopefully you and others will get the point. If you ban together to ally with all the other bakeries in town, especially by coercing other businesses using the power of your associations, to rid the community of Christmas baked goods, so that individuals in the community are effectively subjected to a defacto ban on baked goods, THATS harm. Not physical harm. But it is harm.
Everyone whether religious or not holds some things sacred. When it comes to the sacred things, "truth" can't override the sacred, so truth becomes the sacred thing. That's just human wiring. Plenty of studies have been conducted which supports that conclusion. The notion of "equality" is sacred to some. For those people, there is no objective truth which can override that. Because we all have at least some beliefs that are sacred, and those sacred beliefs are diverse, it's better to order a society on something more objective. Then we don't have to worry about people using tactics to gain legal preference for their sacred thing. Sometimes, like the CRA of 1964, the wrong thing can relieve some truly objective injustice. But then at some point it goes far beyond an objective betterment, and become tyrannical, like gays trolling those who disagree with their lifestyle to throw the law in their faces.
Last edited:
This is all so ridiculous. Just go to another baker. Everything is now a hate crime.....crime is crime. I truly believe "whites" need to be included in all hate crime laws. Whites, christians, people with glasses, people over 50, people under 5.......we, as a country are dying; moving further away from what originally brought us all together.
Sad...
Sad...
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- Mauser Fanatic
- BeDome
- singlesix
- glocktoys
- RobC1981
- actaeon277
- dieselrealtor
- INDY45
- Bassat
- 812 rimfire
- SmokeMedic
- tetter
- Ingomike
- typarker
- radar8756
- TheGrumpyGuy
- RangeJunkie
- cmstuard
- skybbgzh
- Lee11b
- gcoop
- JEOgle
- Kaardomos
- Blacknight179
- Defensive Shooting Concepts
- model1994
- 63PGP
- GSPBirdDog
- Libertarian01
- cobber
- Will0369
- ChristianPatriot
- maxipum
- Irish354
- roibroker
- steveIU
- Meatstick
- shibumiseeker
- medavis428@
- swamptick
- red_zr24x4
- Iurobz
- jy951
- papa6x
- DDadams
- Basher
- BehindBlueI's
- Cameramonkey
- NICKT93
- ws6guy
