And ... here we go again with a Colo. Baker not accomodating all patrons

[listen2me 23 1,825]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

I've never given a muslim or anyone a pass on religious hate.

Like I said maybe not you.  A+ for consistency.  

But does it not seem that way?  Christians get mocked and rolled eyes.  Muslims generally get a pass.  If you mock Islam then it gets attention.  If you mock Christianity it can be a late night bit.  

[squistion 1,947]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

It's lies and hatred, and Jesus would be ashamed of you.

Exactly.

He says:

Quote

I don’t hate, I dislike. 

Which is parsing words and a distinction without a difference in his case. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,930]

What a stupid country we have become. Thanks libtarrds. 

[listen2me 23 1,825]

If its a mom and pop store made up of Islamic immigrants.....this doesn't make it to court.  Id guess.  

[squistion 1,947]

1 minute ago, listen2me 23 said:

If its a mom and pop store made up of Islamic immigrants.....this doesn't make it to court.  Id guess.  

Shouldn't make a difference, it would still be LGBTQ discrimination. 

[listen2me 23 1,825]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

Shouldn't make a difference, it would still be LGBTQ discrimination. 

It shouldn't but we can make an educated guess.  If you want to not lie to yourself anyway.  

[seafoam1 2,799]

38 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's definitely a form of harassment.

I would think a person wouldn't have standing because it's CLEAR they deliberately did it.  This wasn't some innocuous meeting - the plaintiff was searching places out to sue.

Crackpot lawsuits. It's sick this country still puts up with them. 

[Fnord 2,051]

1 hour ago, listen2me 23 said:

What if a religious group walked into a shop unknowingly ran by a person of "pride".  And the group wanted it to say "Christian Latinos for heterosexuality" for an event they were running.  And was turned down?   Would it get the same legs?  

On right wing media you better believe it would. Of course, crap like this happens every day and you don't hear about it. Most people just go on with their lives.

[Maximum Overkill 1,739]

55 minutes ago, squistion said:

Shouldn't make a difference, it would still be LGBTQ discrimination. 

 

 

[seafoam1 2,799]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

On right wing media you better believe it would. Of course, crap like this happens every day and you don't hear about it. Most people just go on with their lives.

Because they should. No lawsuits. You focking liberals just get off of gumming up the courts with garbage like this. 

[listen2me 23 1,825]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

On right wing media you better believe it would. Of course, crap like this happens every day and you don't hear about it. Most people just go on with their lives.

By legs I mean more get to court.   Major mainstream news wouldnt cover it.  It may not even be heard of because the group probably casually goes somewhere else.  

[Maximum Overkill 1,739]

 

0, code F64. 0 covers both “gender identity disorder in adolescence and adulthood” and “gender dysphoria in adolescents and adults.”

[weepaws 3,154]

13 minutes ago, Fnord said:

On right wing media you better believe it would. Of course, crap like this happens every day and you don't hear about it. Most people just go on with their lives.

Judgement 

[weepaws 3,154]

11 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

 

 

Indeed 

[cyclone24 1,912]

2 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Forcing people to use mental illness pronouns is "hate speech"

I don’t disagree, but if you’re running a business, you just have to eat that stuff… just like alienating Customer bases

[CaptainObvious1 324]

3 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

How hard is it to not act like a complete ass hole?  Ridiculous.

Why don't you try one day?

[MLCKAA 540]

3 hours ago, seafoam1 said:

How hard is it to go hang around people that like you and leave others alone? I go to visit friend's places, such as their homes and businesses, and vice versa. I don't go frequent places where I don't like the people.  "I'm suing you for not being nice to me!!" Whatever. Grow up.

It's such a rough world having someone say they won't bake you a cake.  

White people problems, for sure.

[seafoam1 2,799]

1 minute ago, MLCKAA said:

White people problems, for sure.

Sounds ghetto to me. 

[Cdub100 3,836]

11 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

I don’t disagree, but if you’re running a business, you just have to eat that stuff… just like alienating Customer bases

No you don't. 

[jerryskids 6,561]

14 minutes ago, cyclone24 said:

I don’t disagree, but if you’re running a business, you just have to eat that stuff… just like alienating Customer bases

Well... maybe, maybe not.  Often in business, it can be more profitable to focus on a specific demographic.  I spent much of my career convincing various marketing groups that our widget could not be all things to all companies, and instead we should focus on target markets and serve them well.

Crappy analogy, as our widget was nothing like a cake, but my point is that he will lose some business from LGBTQ folks, but gain some from opponents and those who respect his conviction.  Which is better in the cake business, I cannot say.

[cyclone24 1,912]

4 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

No you don't. 

Then dont. Once youve taken enough stands of who you wont do business with….you can close up. Fock them and their bakery 

[jerryskids 6,561]

So, to the case at hand, it seems we have dueling ass holes.  On one side, we have a plaintiff who sought this guy out to create this lawsuit.  If she wanted a blue and pink cake, she could have asked for that without pointing out the celebration of gender transition.  On the other side, we have the defendant, who won't make a blue and pink cake.  There does not seem to be any complex art to such a cake.

As opposed to @weepawsand his cult, I like the Catholic position on trans:

Quote

In this light, the Church recognizes that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, male or female (Gen. 1:26-27). And so we should help people discover their true identities as children of God, not support them in the disordered attempt to reject their undeniable biological identity.

In this light, we should act in love toward those who experience gender identity disorder, and reprove those who engage in name-calling and other uncharitable behavior toward them.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgenderism-0

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty good model for such situations.  This seems like "uncharitable behavior" on the part of the behavior, and as such I disapprove of the baker's position.

The question, of course, is not what I think, but should HE be able to do it.  That's a little thornier.  It seems the plaintiff IMO planned out a good trap for this guy.  

At the end of the day, and I know conservatives here won't like what I'm about to say:  I think time will show the baker to be on the wrong side of history here.  I say this because there are other positions, like medical (hormonal and surgical) transitioning, where I am extremely confident that my opposition will be on the right side of history.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

Symbolic speech cases are a difficult matter when the symbolic speech is ambiguous.  Here there was nothing inherent in the colors request which would have triggered the Baker but the Plaintiff told him that the innocuous colors had symbolism for her, intending that what she told him would trigger him as his position is well known.  Objectively this deliberate test case tests the boundaries of the last ruling in this matter.  Subjectively he maybe does not have to bake her the cake under the prior ruling but the Court will be extremely reluctant to craft a standard which is wholly subjective.  I think the Plaintiff prevails here.  I hope her victory, if she obtains it, warms her.  The Baker is a basically decent man who contributes to his community and she is unwilling to live and let live with him which is sad to me.  I do not share his religious convictions but I don't think his convictions are hurting anyone in a metro area full of Bakers.  It would be one matter if he were the only source of food or baked goods for hundreds of miles, but not in Denver where the options are boundless.  Still, the Court has to craft a ruling which applies to all places of public accomodation.  That is why I have suggested he not be open to the public, generally, in a store, but that he take consignment orders onl,y toutiong the artisanship of his cakes flowing from his faith.

 

Plaintiff is legally correct but not necessarily morally right.  Still, who cannot understand her view that she is stomping out discrimination.  Discrimination which is naturally dying out on its own, but discrimnation none the less, from her point of view.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

 

BTW, if the Baker's position were at all common a LGBTQ(Whatever) Baker could make a killing.  Denver is a big marketplace and my understanding is that the Alphabet demographic is much more affluent on average than the rest of the marketplace and much more likely to purchase artisan baked goods as opposed to Kroeger grocery store items.

[Nomad99 699]

4 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

As long as it’s not hate speech, just make the stupid cake 

So....force someone to pander to another's beliefs or lifestyle?

[weepaws 3,154]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

So, to the case at hand, it seems we have dueling ass holes.  On one side, we have a plaintiff who sought this guy out to create this lawsuit.  If she wanted a blue and pink cake, she could have asked for that without pointing out the celebration of gender transition.  On the other side, we have the defendant, who won't make a blue and pink cake.  There does not seem to be any complex art to such a cake.

As opposed to @weepawsand his cult, I like the Catholic position on trans:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/the-churchs-position-on-transgenderism-0

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a pretty good model for such situations.  This seems like "uncharitable behavior" on the part of the behavior, and as such I disapprove of the baker's position.

The question, of course, is not what I think, but should HE be able to do it.  That's a little thornier.  It seems the plaintiff IMO planned out a good trap for this guy.  

At the end of the day, and I know conservatives here won't like what I'm about to say:  I think time will show the baker to be on the wrong side of history here.  I say this because there are other positions, like medical (hormonal and surgical) transitioning, where I am extremely confident that my opposition will be on the right side of history.

Showing why that believe that the Catholic Church is taking, and those agreeing are against God.  

What is taking place is that weak minded, double minded Jerry’s of this world, who speak godly, but live conformed to this world, they simply are against God’s Word, The Bible.  

Romans 12:2.  Do not be conformed to this World, But be transformed by the renewing of your Mind, That You May prove what is that good abs and acceptable and perfect Will Of God.  

Thats tells us, to abandon the chase for pleasure, possessions, and status, to stop living like Jerry and catholic do, Like Everyone Else.  

God doesn’t make anyone sin, God didn’t make people gay, or to be sinners of any kind, God gave us free will to make choices, to choice Sin, Or God, it’s that simple.  The Catholic Church goes against Romans 12:2, and so does Jerry and most people.  

1 John 3:9.  Whoever has been born of God, does not Sin, For His seed remains in His, And He cannot Sin, Because He has been born of God.  

One isn't born to sin, or sin, one chooses to do so.  1 John 3:9 the Catholic Church is against and so is the wicked Jerry.  

Amen. 

Thanks. 

[weepaws 3,154]

The Bakers is showing himself to be a Christian, he’s not concern on money, which not of God, but of the world, he’s concern about Glorifying God,  For which all others a against God, My God have mercy on Your souls. Amen. 

Thanks 

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

The Baker was asked to add food coloring to the frosting mix and the cake batter.  He has no objections to using food coloring.  When he was told that the routine innocuous task has specific symbolism to the buyer, symbolism non-apparent to the Baker or anyone else for that matter he then refused.  This was not about his beliefs but rather about responding to her beliefs.

[squistion 1,947]

24 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

So....force someone to pander to another's beliefs or lifestyle?

If you don't want to serve the public that you are legally required to serve and not discriminate against (like LGBTQ folks) then don't serve the public.

[cyclone24 1,912]

28 minutes ago, Nomad99 said:

So....force someone to pander to another's beliefs or lifestyle?

You’re not pandering, you’re not agreeing, you’re doing business. That’s the end of your relationship with the person that walks in. They give you money for a service that you provide.
 

You, the owner start injecting your political beliefs into every customer that walks in you are costing yourself money. Maybe you don’t like the shirt someone is wearing or something They said waiting in line. Too bad. 
You are dealing with the public and you’re not going to agree with all of them. If you can’t handle that, don’t provide a public service for your community. Like I would never open a bar and say sorry only republicans can drink here… it’s the same logic. And it’s stupid.

[Thornton Melon 605]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

He shouldn’t have to bake the cake. Full stop. It’s not even a close decision. 
 

 

Agreed... it's a mom-and-pop operation providing a non-essential service. They should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

[squistion 1,947]

1 hour ago, Thornton Melon said:

Agreed... it's a mom-and-pop operation providing a non-essential service. They should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

Sorry, but that doesn't allow a business owner to refuse service to Blacks, Latinos, LGBTQ, Muslims, Jews or any other protected minority (as much as you would like it to). 

[BeachGuy23 642]

1 hour ago, Thornton Melon said:

Agreed... it's a mom-and-pop operation providing a non-essential service. They should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

So all businesses should be able to refuse Catholics for example?

Make them not be able to eat at most restaurants?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,310]

39 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

So all businesses should be able to refuse Catholics for example?

Make them not be able to eat at most restaurants?

 Ok. Would you be fine if a phag donuts shop advertised that their donuts, some were made, on the menu, with a that made the hole before they fried them? To garner the LBQT customers.? 

[Gepetto 1,288]

This one should go to The People's Court.

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

2 hours ago, cyclone24 said:

You’re not pandering, you’re not agreeing, you’re doing business. That’s the end of your relationship with the person that walks in. They give you money for a service that you provide.
 

You, the owner start injecting your political beliefs into every customer that walks in you are costing yourself money. Maybe you don’t like the shirt someone is wearing or something They said waiting in line. Too bad. 
You are dealing with the public and you’re not going to agree with all of them. If you can’t handle that, don’t provide a public service for your community. Like I would never open a bar and say sorry only republicans can drink here… it’s the same logic. And it’s stupid.

What about no women over a size six or over 38?

[Engorgeous George 2,126]

1 hour ago, BunnysBastatrds said:

 Ok. Would you be fine if a phag donuts shop advertised that their donuts, some were made, on the menu, with a that made the hole before they fried them? To garner the LBQT customers.? 

Pretty sure that would be a health code violation anyplace other than California.

[cyclone24 1,912]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

What about no women over a size six or over 38?

Thats just good business lol

[Thornton Melon 605]

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Sorry, but that doesn't allow a business owner to refuse service to Blacks, Latinos, LGBTQ, Muslims, Jews or any other protected minority (as much as you would like it to). 

1. It should...and notice I said "small mom-and-pop operation", which is essentially an individual, who should have the right to run his business as he sees fit.

2. My original post was a reply agreeing with Tim. Why didn't you call him out on it? Is it because he's typically on your side?

3. Protected minority? So, are only minorities protected?

[Thornton Melon 605]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

So all businesses should be able to refuse Catholics for example?

Make them not be able to eat at most restaurants?

All businesses? No, I said small private businesses. Walmart or Applebees shouldn't be able to