-
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:
Yeah, I'm waiting for someone to pay for the genealogy reports to prove whose descendants of slave owners should be billed. And of course the genealogy reports proving that the recipients are actually descendants of slaves.
Some of the posts I read lead me to believe that folks may not have understood the tactic involved. I think some of the "we" know that, others may not. Perhaps they were just venting and I misunderstood.
He is a baker that advertises that he will make personalized wedding cakes for folks getting married. They were folks getting married. He refused them based upon his claim of violating his religious beliefs. Perhaps his beliefs trump their desire for his skill to create them a wedding cake. Perhaps not. We'll never know until the courts and/or legislature decides. Now we may have the courts to decide as the legislature hasn't.
Who was wronged? They claim they were wronged. Are they right? Are they wrong? We may find out what the courts say.
It's idiotic in my world view because that is the world we now live in. If I don't want to enter into a personal service with someone due to a religious or racial bias I have it is very idiotic, today, for me to push the issue to stand on that. Not because I'm wrong or right, but because it gives ammo to the other guy to hit me with. That's just the way it is. When the police question you, ask for your lawyer and shut the hell up. This logic doesn't just apply to criminal issues but potential civil ones as well.
Yes they did ask for a service he offers to provide for the public. THEY are the public. So he hasn't provided that service to other gays, yet.
You are 100% correct that people shouldn't have to worry as much about what they say, but they do have to worry. That is my point. This guy could have avoided the **** storm if he had only gave some other mealy excuse or even none at all. But he didn't.
Let us not forget that your mention of a worldview is a interesting issue. The fact is the religious zealot worldview has been dominant for hundreds of years. Interracial marriage was forbidden due to religious intolerance. Divorce was hugely frowned upon and discouraged due to religious doctrine. My grandfather abused my grandmother severely but back then you just didn't get a divorce. Gays could be put in prison for harming no one but someones belief in God somewhere put buggery on the books. Gays could be murdered and it was OK 'cause Jesus/Mohammad/Etc said so. Women couldn't vote because they weren't equal to men.
I know I've gone off the reservation a bit above but my point is that the Jesus flock has rammed their beliefs through society and the laws and the courts for centuries and now their stranglehold is weakening and being broken away, chipped at.
Whether this is right or not I'm not sure, but I am sure that the stranglehold they have had was not good either.
Regards,
Doug
Personalized wedding cakes, yes. And it is a service he offers to anyone who is getting married (where "married" means the biblical/religious meaning of a covenant joining of one man and one woman). Had either of the men been partaking in such a ceremony, he would have gladly provided that service.
As for what the court decides: it is absolutely a matter of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. If the court decides otherwise, then the court is wrong - both morally (for forcing an individual to violate sincerely held, mainstream religious beliefs) and in contravention to established constitutional protection.
I agree in theory, the problem is that implementing the so-called "protections" ends up being more of a problem than the conspiring was. That is what we're seeing now. In theory, Anti-trust law was supposed to protect consumers.
Yet how is it used in practice? Shaking down corporations for political contributions? Making political hay?
I remember the whole Netscape/Microsoft browser-is-OS nonsense. Was Microsoft conspiring to reduce customer choice? Of course, any company is seeking a way to maximize its profit. But every successful trust only endures because it is still serving the customer.
DeBeers persists as a diamond monopoly because it has been smart enough to leave prices for diamonds at a place where people who want them feel like they aren't being gouged.
Standard Oil was broken up NOT because kerosene prices were too high; to the contrary, kerosene displaced whale oil-- and frankly we're still using gasoline for our cars TODAY-- because it was so cheap relative to every other option. Standard Oil was broken up because Rockefeller got too rich and made too many powerful enemies with his aggressive tactics, not because consumers of oil products were unhappy with the product or prices delivered.
For awhile it looked like Wal-Mart would become a trust of consumer retail. Sam Walton was very much like Rockefeller-- absolutely cutthroat in his approach but justified in his own mind by his obsession with serving the customer a lower price.
It turns out that we didn't need protection from Microsoft. Apple took care of that. And we didn't need protection from Wal Mart. Amazon took care of that.
So in return for "protections" that we don't need, we end up with a large government that rather than being a watchdog over corporate America instead become captured by it and weaponized against political and corporate rivals.
And here we are today. If we hadn't passed all the Civil Rights act stuff in the 1950s and 1960s, where would be we today? Well, I think we'd be in about the same place. Only the South would be a bit poorer, the North a bit richer, and we'd all be a bit freer. People that can move to flee tyranny eventually will and do. And those little tin pot wannabes (Mayors of small Southern Towns) end up the one-eyed man ruling the blind.
There's no need to "protect" us from people "weaponizing" their freedoms so long as OTHER PEOPLE have the freedom-- free of government obstacles-- to give us alternatives. No one can manipulate a free market to preserve his monopoly indefinitely without the aid and assistance of enabling governments.
Let's just say that instead of baking this guy rented shotguns to shoot clays. A couple comes up and wants a pair of 12ga shotguns, no problem. Then they tell you they plan to load their pockets with both 12ga and 20ga shells and grab a handful of "whatever" and cram them in the magazines and just blast away, as is (as they see it) their right. Being a good steward you warn them that this is a recipe for disaster and they shouldn't. They insist that the use of a firearm is as much their right as it is yours so take your thoughts and shove them because they, as the customer, are in charge.
1) Would you rent them one of your shotguns?
2) Because they know what a shotgun is, do you keep your thoughts to yourself to keep from being dragged into court?
3) Not matter if your concern is their safety or your shotgun, are your rights as the owner more or less important than their rights as the one seeking your services?
This seems like a simple mental exercise, or no exercise at all ie: common sense, but think about it...
1) Would you rent them one of your shotguns?
2) Because they know what a shotgun is, do you keep your thoughts to yourself to keep from being dragged into court?
3) Not matter if your concern is their safety or your shotgun, are your rights as the owner more or less important than their rights as the one seeking your services?
This seems like a simple mental exercise, or no exercise at all ie: common sense, but think about it...
AmmoManAaron
Master
^^^This is an excellent post^^^
Making anything custom is entering into a contract. Say a gunsmith offers custom guns...as a customer I go to him to talk about the custom gun I want built. The gunsmith is under no obligation to build me the custom gun I want. We have to negotiate and come to both a product and price that is agreeable to both parties. Maybe he doesn't build custom guns with the specific features I want - I can't/shouldn't sue over that, I just have to go find a different gunsmith who is willing to do the specific custom work that I want. The baker in Colorado doesn't make custom gay wedding cakes and he is within his rights to reject that custom order. For a court to force him to perform that work is morally wrong and, so far, according to the courts it is also legally wrong.
Virtually everything at the foundation of western society is based upon Judeo-Christian beliefs. You really believe that is bad?
Who was wronged? Let the courts decide?
Okay. Jew walks into a bakery and sees a Muslim behind the counter, says he doesn't want to do business with Muslims, turns around and walks out, and gets his order from a different bakery. Who was harmed? Should the courts decide?
A female Jew walks into a bakery and sees a Muslim behind the counter. The baker says, "I don't serve women who aren't wearing a proper hijab (or whatever). I'll serve you if you put one on." The woman walks out of the shop and gets her order filled from a different bakery. Who was harmed? Should the courts decide?
Christian walks into a bakery owned and operated by a gay atheist, and as soon as the baker finds out the customer is a Christian, he refuses to serve the Christian and asks him to leave. The Christian leaves and goes to a different bakery to get his order filled. Who was harmed? Should the courts decide?
A black person walks into a bakery which is owned and operated by a proud white southerner with a confederate flag hung up on the wall. The black person says, I don't do business with white racists, and walks out and gets his order filled at a different bakery. Who was harmed? Should the courts decide?
A white person walks into a bakery which is owned and operated by a black person, with Black Lives Matters posters. As soon as the white person enters the shop the owner says, "No. WHite people have to stand in line and order over there. We don't serve white people from the main counter." The white person leaves and goes to another bakery. Who was harmed? Should the courts decide?
I'm not asking what is legal. I'm asking who was actually harmed? Not offended. Harmed. And I'm asking should the courts decide? What is best for society? On which side should the force of government wield it's power against the other?
In my thinking, in the freest society, no one in any of the examples were actually harmed. They all had the choice to go somewhere else. They all exercised their freedom of association. I'm sure in all cases someone was offended. But it's not the government's place to prevent offense. The government should not wield power on any side unless one side is using its freedoms to oppress the other. I mean real ass oppression, not fake ass SJW phantom oppression. So, if the only bakeries in town are conspiring to prevent an individual or group from using their services, there should be some remedy for that. Same with an org which conspires to effectively shut down a business.
I'm not saying the law should swoop in with guns blazing. I'm not saying such things should be a crime. But either side should be able to sue the other if the other is trying to maliciously ruin them. Businesses shouldn't be able to effectively create social laws that oppress people, like preventing blacks from operating in communities like they did before the CRA, or, say, unpersoning conservatives because they disagree with them. And people shouldn't be able to incite mobs to ruin businesses they disagree with. The people doing the incitement should be able to face legal action in court.
Why is the court wrong here? What if I believe, on religious grounds, that blacks are inferior and treat them in an inferior manner. The courts have ruled I cannot do this. My reasoning is irrelevant. Or what if due to my religious beliefs Budhists are witches and I refuse to serve them in my restaurant, the courts have said I cannot do this. Why is it wrong for the courts to say one bigoted behavior is wrong but another is OK?
Not all of it, but some, as with most things. Most of it, by the way (IMO), isn't truly based upon what Jesus said and preached, but what folks have twisted for their own self interests. What did Jesus say you do with a sinner, versus what people try to justify doing with a perceived sinner. However, religion has been the foundation for some mighty good thinking and some mighty bad thinking.
You are right, again. The courts have gotten involved in a lot of things they shouldn't, BUT THEY HAVE! This is why I keep coming back to the guy being a total idiot! They may well have sued him no matter what he said, but he sure as heck gave them some better ammunition to use against him. Great ammo? I don't know, but better? Definitely!
----------
Not to anyone but in general I believe our laws and regulations have indeed gone too far but I do not deny the State's (ie. government) lawful authority to regulate them. If you are going to serve food the State may regulate it in such a manner that most people will not get sick and die.
I see no problem with the State saying that IF you are going to hang a shingle for business THEN Jesus/Mohammad/Budha/Zoroaster/Krishna may not be used in any way for that business. This in no way inhibits the free exercise of religion as a person. We are a secular State, not one guided by Ecclesiastical Courts or Sharia Law, and I hope to God we remain that way!
I try to imagine a time when Christianity is NOT the majority religion here. It is awfully easy to defend a religious faith based discrimination when it is our own, but when it is someone else's? This is why I don't mind simply supporting the idea, legally, that religion is a personal relationship between a person and their God. But when you go to work you put God in back and don't use him to justify any action, positive or negative.
In thinking about it briefly here I guess I am just not very sympathetic to religious activity outside of the personal activity and/or church/temple/mosque. You're in the government, God goes in the back pocket. You're in the neighborhood association meeting, God gets put away. You're working at a business, God gets put away. You can justify every good thing without needing God to do it.
Regards,
Doug
Why do you have to use straw men to try to make your point? The bakery owner in this case has note stated that homosexuals are inferior or treated them in an inferior manner. The bakery owner in this case did not refuse to serve homosexuals in his bakery.
I also fundamentally disagree that it is bigoted to hold to the belief that homosexual marriage is sinful as defined by the Bible, that a Christian could thus be violating conscience to participate in a homosexual marriage, and that said Christian could reasonably view creative expression via customizing a wedding cake to constitute participation.
(Note that such view is a matter of individual conscience. As a Christian, I do not have such misgivings of conscience. I merely respect as legitimate those who do.)
And you would be wrong. We are a secular state, not an atheistic state. That stance absolutely violates the religious rights of religious business owners. It also violates the basic human rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit. Your stance would deny the livelihood of someone based on religious expression.
You and I seemingly don't have the same understanding of beliefs, faith, and religion. Christianity is not something that is put on like a hat on Sunday morning, and then put away in the closet the rest of the week.
To put a finer point on it: the idea that a religious person should be forced by the state to hide his religious views in public is utterly abhorrent and beyond the pale.
What you advocate here is far more bigoted than anything the baker did.
"Why do you have to use straw men to try to make your point? The bakery owner in this case has note stated that homosexuals are inferior or treated them in an inferior manner. The bakery owner in this case did not refuse to serve homosexuals in his bakery.
I also fundamentally disagree that it is bigoted to hold to the belief that homosexual marriage is sinful as defined by the Bible, that a Christian could thus be violating conscience to participate in a homosexual marriage, and that said Christian could reasonably view creative expression via customizing a wedding cake to constitute participation.
(Note that such view is a matter of individual conscience. As a Christian, I do not have such misgivings of conscience. I merely respect as legitimate those who do.)"
I am not using a straw man, I am using an analogy. Fill in any other reason you want, the baker is refusing service based upon, allegedly, religious doctrine. Religious doctrine can be used, if allowed, to justify any behavior toward one not in the group. The Catholics burned heratics, witches, and any others they deemed "wrong." Muslim fanatics have killed thousands of innocent people recently in the name of religious doctrine.
And he DID refuse to serve them, why do you keep denying this? I know it makes it easier on your position to keep denying thus, but it is true. The bakers offers 50 products for sale to the public. He offers 10 services. He was willing to sell them 50 products. Whoopee, big hairy deal. He was only willing to offer them 5 services, not the full 10 to everyone else. This is refusing to serve them. That he was willing to serve them other products is not relevant at all to the the point that they did not want those other services. Can you at least be intellectually honest in this? Just because he wants to claim this doesn't mean we have to swallow it hook, line and sinker.
"And you would be wrong. We are a secular state, not an atheistic state. That stance absolutely violates the religious rights of religious business owners. It also violates the basic human rights enshrined in our Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit. Your stance would deny the livelihood of someone based on religious expression. "
It violates no such rights. The State says simply, "If you want to go into business, here are the rules." The rules do not rule anyone out based upon some subjective criteria. The rules, and there are too many, say that you cannot discriminate against members of the public based upon certain criteria. If a person cannot handle that then perhaps another line of work would be good for them.
"You and I seemingly don't have the same understanding of beliefs, faith, and religion. Christianity is not something that is put on like a hat on Sunday morning, and then put away in the closet the rest of the week."
I understand that you can have faith 24/7/365. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not you want to wave your faith in someone else's face as a business owner and/or employee. That you cannot do under certain State laws.
"To put a finer point on it: the idea that a religious person should be forced by the state to hide his religious views in public is utterly abhorrent and beyond the pale. What you advocate here is far more bigoted than anything the baker did."
No one is being forced to hide their religious beliefs. This is truly a straw man argument. All that is maybe(?) being said is that you cannot use your religion as the basis for denying service to anyone. You can be a deeply religious Christian, but if you are going to be a criminal defense lawyer you will have to put your religion aside in your work and defend a murderer. If you don't like it then don't become a criminal defense lawyer.
----
I quite agree with the idea that no one should be forced to enter into business with someone they don't want to. I am with everyone on that. Where I diverge is when we are going to support faith as the primary foundation for businesses to deny service to others. IF faith is truly the final arbiter of whom a business can serve then this would allow a great many things to be justified as acceptable, depending upon personal interpretation of scripture.
Perhaps this is an unjustified slippery slope argument, perhaps not.
Regards,
Doug
C’mon Doug. Not wanting to put one’s talents to use doing something you don’t believe in is not a slippery slope to burning people at the stake! It’s not the state’s business to say what people are allowed to believe.
We don’t have to figure out where the line is in what beliefs we allow. In a free society, the only place lines need to be drawn is in actions. We have a way to figure out where that line needs to be drawn where behavioral rights collide. Did it cause harm?
I’ll ask again this way. Did it cause the gay couple harm, after scouring the progressive city for a baker with those religious convictions, to find one who would refuse to put his talents to work designing a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple got what they wanted.
You can say that the baker was an idiot. It seems more evident that the baker followed his convictions. That is a person’s right in a free society. I think you said you’re a Christian. Maybe I’m misremembering. But let’s say you are. You believe a lot of things I don’t. As a Christian there are a lot of convictions about things you’d have that I don’t. But who am I to judge you for what you believe, as long as you don’t harm me or others?
If I am inconvenienced because you turned me away from your businesse because you don’t like fat people. I am not harmed. Inconvenience isn’t harm.
We don’t have to figure out where the line is in what beliefs we allow. In a free society, the only place lines need to be drawn is in actions. We have a way to figure out where that line needs to be drawn where behavioral rights collide. Did it cause harm?
I’ll ask again this way. Did it cause the gay couple harm, after scouring the progressive city for a baker with those religious convictions, to find one who would refuse to put his talents to work designing a cake for a gay wedding. The gay couple got what they wanted.
You can say that the baker was an idiot. It seems more evident that the baker followed his convictions. That is a person’s right in a free society. I think you said you’re a Christian. Maybe I’m misremembering. But let’s say you are. You believe a lot of things I don’t. As a Christian there are a lot of convictions about things you’d have that I don’t. But who am I to judge you for what you believe, as long as you don’t harm me or others?
If I am inconvenienced because you turned me away from your businesse because you don’t like fat people. I am not harmed. Inconvenience isn’t harm.
OK lets do this. the gay couple were looking for a victim. They found one. They intended harm when they started out. It was planned. What part of this can not been seen and figured into the equation.
Not poking you Jamil. Just using your post as a springboard. This is so far off the rails.
Just to clarify. I’m saying the baker did not harm the gay couple. I was not addressing the potential of harm the gay couple did to the baker because the counter argument to Doug’s point isn’t about the harm they may have caused. Of course it would be an easy argument to make that the gay couple intentionally harmed the baker. I think the baker should be able to sue the [STRIKE]Soros[/STRIKE] crap out of the gay couple.
I see your point very clearly and agree. Just used that post as a springboard. I also see that our court system is lost to us. Completely. This should mak that very obvious to anybody with 10% of brain function.
If you're using analogy, then your analogies are reductio ad absurdum. In any way relating to killing the refusal to decorate a wedding cake in a manner that celebrates gay marriage is ridiculous.
You make my case for me. He did not refuse to serve them. He was not unwilling to serve them. He willingly offered all his products and many of his services to them. I know it makes it easier on your position to keep claiming that offering 50 out of 50 products and 5 out of 10 services constitutes refusal of services, but it is true. That they were unwilling to accept his willingness to serve them all of his products and many of his services is not relevant at all to the point that he did not refuse those products and services to them. Can you at least be intellectually honest in this? Just because you want to claim "refusal of service" doesn't mean that we have to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Again you make my point: you advocate the state using its power to prevent someone from pursuing the livelihood of their own choosing.
In what way did the bakery owner "wave his faith in someone else's face"? Further: if a business owner wants to "wave his faith in someone else's face", what business is that of yours? If you don't like it, choose a different business.
And bear in mind that the freedom of association is a constitutionally protected right. If a business owner chooses to associate with those of his own faith, that is his right, and the state is barred from prohibiting it.
I am somewhat astounded that someone who takes the moniker of "Libertarian" would be such a strong advocate for the state wielding its power to control the liberties of individual.
So, where is the line, then? You have said both that no one is being forced to hide their religious beliefs, and also that business owners should not be allowed to "waive their faith in others' faces", and that if business owners cannot conduct their business in a way that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, then they should find another line of work.
Where is your middle ground, and how does that apply to the incident with this bakery owner?
The bakery owner said, essentially: "Here are all of the cakes that I have made; I will gladly sell you one. I will decorate your cake. I simply will not decorate it in a way that specifically celebrates gay marriage, because to do so would violate my religious convictions. (Oh, and here are some other bakers that would gladly do so for you.)"
What would have been acceptable for you, if not that stance? Your position seems to be that the bakery owner should have either violated his conscience by celebrating gay marriage through artistic creation of wedding cake decoration, or else he should find some other line of work.
See back to reductio ad absurdum. Comparing wedding-cake decoration to burning at the stake, killing, etc. is ridiculous, and I simply cannot take such concern seriously.
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- BrentTheBoat
- BeDome
- spencer rifle
- Thor
- tsm
- erbo12
- bwframe
- Doug
- melensdad
- HCRMPD1
- bgcatty
- WhiskE TangO
- ks4197
- Bighoss91
- Springer
- seamonster
- edwea
- JEOgle
- indykid
- bankerken
- Hillbilly
- gottabeoutdoors
- XDdreams
- glockman49
- glocktoys
- red_zr24x4
- birdwing
- Lost Californian
- turnerdye1
- tcecil88
- daddyusmaximus
- Mgderf
- slims2002
- Basher
- blain
- NyleRN
- ditcherman
- Magyars
- CB1911
- grunt soldier
- Ozzy17
- d.kaufman
- Gabriel
- X3r0h0uR
- Indy574
- Gandalf
- Calvin
- Scott58
- bloodandgutsmurphy
- Quiet Observer
