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

[hornadylnl]

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.)

That must be in the constitution right next to my right to be on your property.

 

[Bunnykid68]

That must be in the constitution right next to my right to be on your property.

I think it is on the 3rd page maybe

 

[hornadylnl]

I think it is on the 3rd page maybe

It seems my point is lost on the others. We cheer the government when they tell our employers they must allow us to keep guns in our vehicles on their property and then complain when the government tells a business owner they must serve someone they don't want to. Meddling in a business owner's business when it benefits us is a good thing. When it benefits those we disagree with, the government is out of control.

 

[Bunnykid68]

It seems my point is lost on the others. We cheer the government when they tell our employers they must allow us to keep guns in our vehicles on their property and then complain when the government tells a business owner they must serve someone they don't want to. Meddling in a business owner's business when it benefits us is a good thing. When it benefits those we disagree with, the government is out of control.

Sadly, that is the way it usually works. If it benefits me it's good, if it doesn't it is bad

 

[traderdan]

It seems my point is lost on the others. We cheer the government when they tell our employers they must allow us to keep guns in our vehicles on their property and then complain when the government tells a business owner they must serve someone they don't want to. Meddling in a business owner's business when it benefits us is a good thing. When it benefits those we disagree with, the government is out of control.

Truthfully..I believe that a business that is privately owned, has a right to set it's own rules. Having said that, there is a much better argument (in the strength of the 2nd) for carrying an item of self protection,than for forcing a business to serve anyone.

 

[MisterChester]

Why didn't the person being discriminated just go to another baker? While it is true the private business owner can do that, I wouldn't bring my money to him because he discriminates.

 

[dmarsh8]

Why didn't they just make up a non political reason.
How could they prove otherwise.
Oh we're sorry our ovens broke and we cannot fulfill
your order. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Would that work?

 

[Expat]

They should be able to refuse service upon the religious grounds cited. According to the first amendment, they should have the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Apparently they do not.

 

[traderdan]

It seems my point is lost on the others. We cheer the government when they tell our employers they must allow us to keep guns in our vehicles on their property and then complain when the government tells a business owner they must serve someone they don't want to. Meddling in a business owner's business when it benefits us is a good thing. When it benefits those we disagree with, the government is out of control.

Oh we understand the point you were sorta making...It is just a poor example used to make a pretty good argument. Blackhawk said that if a business would take effective steps to ensure his safety..he might disarm. He has a right to be safe. Constitutional law does not give any hint that the "feelings" of loud minority groups must be pandered to..

 

[Bunnykid68]

Oh we understand the point you were sorta making...It is just a poor example used to make a pretty good argument. Blackhawk said that if a business would take effective steps to ensure his safety..he might disarm. He has a right to be safe. Constitutional law does not give any hint that the "feelings" of loud minority groups must be pandered to..

He does not have a right to be safe, just a right to protect himself and that right stops at my property line, don't like it, don't cross that property line.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So, what about signs saying "No Blacks Allowed", "No Jews Allowed", or "No Muslims Allowed", or "No Christians Allowed"?
Would that be ok?

.

Yes. It's their business. I would be sure to frequent someone else's business if I were to come across a business with any of those statements as stated, but I don't know what part of individual property rights you find confusing. If it's their business, you didn't build that. They did. Their business, their rules. If someone chooses not to sell me a car because I am a Christian, I will go elsewhere. If someone chooses not to sell me a piece of land because I am male, then I will choose another parcel elsewhere. If a restaurant has a 'No Whites Allowed' sign, I will eat elsewhere. (If the same restaurant had a 'No Blacks Allowed' sign, I would also eat elsewhere, for the same reason.)

No one in this world is forced at gunpoint to transact business with any entity (except government: yay, taxes). In a free and open market, a wise business owner would transact business with the absolute widest variety of people to improve their profit - and the smartest and most profitable businesses in existence do precisely this - but it is absolutely the choice of any business owner to turn down profit, and remains so, despite your farcical attempt to insinuate that a business owner should ever be forced to do otherwise.

 

[traderdan]

He does not have a right to be safe, just a right to protect himself and that right stops at my property line, don't like it, don't cross that property line.

There is significant difference between your personal dwelling,and a business that is open to the public.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

There is significant difference between your personal dwelling,and a business that is open to the public.

How?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, what about signs saying "No Blacks Allowed", "No Jews Allowed", or "No Muslims Allowed", or "No Christians Allowed"?
Would that be ok?

.

You mean similar to a business like this one? I have zero problems with that.
[h=1]United Negro College Fund[/h]

 

[churchmouse]

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...

I have many friends in t Colorado. They hate the left coast commies and what they are doing to their state.

 

[traderdan]

How?

Rule of law has shown..you do not have a right to smoke in your own business..

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Rule of law has shown..you do not have a right to smoke in your own business..

Yes I do. People who walk into my business may complain about it, government may issue edicts prohibiting it, but it is still my right to do so. Anyone who dislikes smoking can frequent other businesses. Starbucks doesn't have to allow weapons on their property - they are a private business - but it is also within my ability to choose to frequent businesses whose rules align with my own. This isn't rocket science. It is precisely the sort of 'thou shalt' attitude that most people have that have given way to the rising of government encroachment. That guy over there is doing something of which I do not personally approve - and he's on his own property! How do I get him to stop doing that? I know! Government to the rescue!

I remain unconvinced, and will forever be unconvinced of the utility of force to attempt to get someone to accede to my personal desires. Shall I also petition government to have said business change their decor to cerulean blue to align with my interest in their paint? Where does this sort of busybodyness end? It ends in tyranny, is where it ends, as it always has.

 

[hornadylnl]

There is significant difference between your personal dwelling,and a business that is open to the public.

So since this bakery is open to the public, their right to choose who they do business with becomes moot. Got it.

 

[miguel]

[video=youtube;e4ptm6F2KHQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4ptm6F2KHQ[/video]

 

[traderdan]

Roland..I agree with you. Our elected official desire to participate in our slavery.