If you're gay, no cake. Fine, I'll tell the gov so they can force you to bake me one

[aGameOfThrones]

DENVER (AP) — A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.

As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom.

"Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it's something that we champion at the ACLU," said Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint on behalf of the couple. "We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone's personal religious beliefs don't justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere."

The attorney for Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, sees it differently.

"We don't believe that this is a case about commerce. At its heart, this is a case about conscience," said Nicolle Martin. She said the matter is important because it will serve as an example for future cases across the country as more gay couples gain legal recognitions for their relationships.

"It brings it to the forefront. I just don't think that we should heighten one person's beliefs over and above another person's beliefs," she said.

Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the couple said Phillips told them he wouldn't make one for them when he found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got married in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to the complaint.

"We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified," Mullins said. He said he vented his frustration on Facebook and was surprised at how "the story ended up catching fire," with responses from local media and bloggers in other countries posting about it.

"We felt that the best way to honor the support that they had given us was to follow this complaint through," he said. In the process, the ACLU said they found out about two other gay couples who had been refused a wedding cake from the same shop. Both have written affidavits in support of the discrimination claim.

http://news.yahoo.com/colo-gay-discrimination-alleged-over-wedding-cake-195825831.html

[ObiRandKenobi]

Shouldn't the ACLU be on the other side?

[amy31416]

Shouldn't the ACLU be on the other side?

Yeah. That's part of the problem with the ACLU.

Another issue is that I have no idea why a gay couple would try to force people to make them a cake because they have something against being gay. It would never even occur to me to file a suit against someone for being against heterosexuality--I'd just walk away and not give them my money.

[RM918]

Yeah. That's part of the problem with the ACLU.

Another issue is that I have no idea why a gay couple would try to force people to make them a cake because they have something against being gay. It would never even occur to me to file a suit against someone for being against heterosexuality--I'd just walk away and not give them my money.

The mindset here is they want these people punished for insulting them and they get the government to validate their beliefs by punishing whoever insulted them. It shows them that whoever did this to them is objectively wrong.

What they should do is tell this guy to go to hell and spread the word, let him deal with the loss of business. And really - why would they want to give a guy money who won't respect their relationship?

[jonhowe]

I consider myself a 'gay marriage advocate' for the most part. THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT PEOPLE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE ARE AFRAID OF! Unless that is a publicly funded bakery, these people should lay off.

[Occam's Banana]

[...] I have no idea why a gay couple would try to force people to make them a cake [...]

You got that right! It just does NOT seem like a good idea to me ...

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/26/38/b6adeb1d79629112047fcfbbe0774f80-find-the-toenail-cake.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

I consider myself a 'gay marriage advocate' for the most part. THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT PEOPLE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE ARE AFRAID OF! Unless that is a publicly funded bakery, these people should lay off.

As a Christian who doesn't want others to tell me what to do, and does not want to tell others what to do, this bothers me.

This is a religious freedom issue and you're giving social conservatives ammunition.

Personally I don't really care about the SSM issue, I want government out of the marriage issue, if they're going to be involved I advocate them not changing the one man one woman definition but I don't feel that strongly about an issue that has little impact on my life.

Until the radicals make it have an impact.

How dlo you deal with that? I honestly don't know.

[otherone]

Maybe the baker assumed they knew how to bake?

[EBounding]

I first thought, "Why would you want to give money to a bigoted business?" But that's not their agenda. These same-sex activists want to use the state's monopoly of force to punish people that don't agree with their lifestyle. They better be careful though. There's going to come a day when the state's monopoly of force is going to be used against them (and everyone else).

[TonySutton]

Don't complain about the gays. Complain about the straight politicians in Colorado who passed the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

[TonySutton]

As a Christian who doesn't want others to tell me what to do, and does not want to tell others what to do, this bothers me.



A lot of gays feel the same way when Christians try to tell them how to live their lives. They learned a lesson from the Christians who like to use government force against gays by not allowing them to have a state sanctioned marriage. Now the gays are using the government for revenge. I think it is called blowback.

[Nobexliberty]

Anti gay banzai coming, someone will call for gays to be exucuted in public because of this.

[mcrow]

I don't have a problem with someone being gay but given the vast majority of them seem to be clearly liberal this sort of thing was very predictible. Now that gay marriage is becoming legal in many places (as it should) the liberal gays will be looking to sue everyone. They'll start sueing churches for not doing their weddings and anyone elese who chooses not to do business with them. It would be good if people just realized that if people don't like to do business with gays they should just tell all their friends (if they don't like it) and pass the word around, the market will take care of itself.

[Icymudpuppy]

As a business, this is how I would do it... Obviously, wedding cakes are a custom affair, usually quoted individually, much like the custom home repair work I do. When someone calls me that I don't want to work for, I quote 3-5 times higher than my normal price. Most will think the price is absurd and go look elsewhere. The few that hire me anyway, well, the extra money makes up for the distaste I have working for them.

[mcrow]

As a business, this is how I would do it... Obviously, wedding cakes are a custom affair, usually quoted individually, much like the custom home repair work I do. When someone calls me that I don't want to work for, I quote 3-5 times higher than my normal price. Most will think the price is absurd and go look elsewhere. The few that hire me anyway, well, the extra money makes up for the distaste I have working for them.

Probably the best solution, then you probably avoid getting sued.

[helmuth_hubener]

The libertarian solution is obvious. Non-libertarian Christians/traditionalists have no leg to stand on, since they do not consistently support freedom of association.

"So do you support the 'right' of a business to refuse to serve blacks, Pastor Family-Values?"

"No, of course not, but stop changing the issue. That's completely different."

"No, Pastor, it's not. You're just behind the times. Gays today are like blacks 50 years ago. You're just a bigot who's behind the times."

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yeah. That's part of the problem with the ACLU.

Another issue is that I have no idea why a gay couple would try to force people to make them a cake because they have something against being gay. It would never even occur to me to file a suit against someone for being against heterosexuality--I'd just walk away and not give them my money.


You'd think. My thoughts went like this... "FFS, take the money and bake them a cake." "FFS, go buy a cake someplace else."



The mindset here is they want these people punished for insulting them and they get the government to validate their beliefs by punishing whoever insulted them. It shows them that whoever did this to them is objectively wrong.

What they should do is tell this guy to go to hell and spread the word, let him deal with the loss of business. And really - why would they want to give a guy money who won't respect their relationship?


Sounds about right to me.

[pcosmar]

Two thoughts,,

First,, Those ordering the cake were looking to deliberately make a point.. Or the Bakery would have no reason to believe it was not just another wedding cake.
They apparently pushed the "Gay, in your face" wedding. (instead of ordering a cake without unnecessary details)

And the bakery could have made them a cake. But left off any artistry,, or flair. Nothing unhealthy,, a plain or poorly decorated cake,, to say we really don't want your business.

Government interference is one big reason that I would never want to own a business.

[TonySutton]

Personally in my business I take the money and run, but I am a greedy free marketer.

[helmuth_hubener]

Government interference is one big reason that I would never want to own a business.

Just do it from some less-horrible-for-business jurisdiction, like China. That's what everyone else does.

[John of Des Moines]

The libertarian solution is obvious. Non-libertarian Christians/traditionalists have no leg to stand on, since they do not consistently support freedom of association.

"So do you support the 'right' of a business to refuse to serve blacks, Pastor Family-Values?"

"No, of course not, but stop changing the issue. That's completely different."

"No, Pastor, it's not. You're just behind the times. Gays today are like blacks 50 years ago. You're just a bigot who's behind the times."

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by someone of the same sex and that is/was the basis of his refusal?

[TonySutton]

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by someone of the same sex and that is/was the basis of his refusal?

What if the bakery owner was sexually attacked as child by somoeone of color and is/was the basis of his refusal?

[lib3rtarian]

Just take their money and bake them a shitty cake and they won't come back. What's the problem?

[FrankRep]

Anti gay banzai coming, someone will call for gays to be exucuted in public because of this.

Silly statement.

[tod evans]

As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse to provide my services to anyone for any reason I choose.

Don't like it?

There's the door!

[TonySutton]

As a business owner I reserve the right to refuse to provide my services to anyone for any reason I choose.

Don't like it?

There's the door!

Unfortunately Colorado passed a law that does not allow you to legally refuse business for ANY reason.

[pcosmar]

Refusing to serve someone because of their skin color is a vestige of slavery thus illegal (KKK Act of 1871 - or was it 1872? I forget).


ACTUALLY no.

That was meant to dismantle the KKK. Racial segregation was often proscribed by law until the 1960s. (Jim Crow Laws)
The Civil Rights Act went too far,, and should have simply overturned all the Jim Crow laws. And then let folks work it out.
The forced integration has actually done more harm.

[Pericles]

The mindset here is they want these people punished for insulting them and they get the government to validate their beliefs by punishing whoever insulted them. It shows them that whoever did this to them is objectively wrong.

What they should do is tell this guy to go to hell and spread the word, let him deal with the loss of business. And really - why would they want to give a guy money who won't respect their relationship?

Just like they showed Chick-Fil-A their economic power. When publicizing a dispute with the policy of a business, and therefore, appealing to the public to support you cause, you really need to understand where the public is on the issue.

That made the tactics of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s effective. The same tactics would not have been so successful in the 1850s and 1860s.

[helmuth_hubener]

Just take their money and bake them a shitty cake and they won't come back. What's the problem?

But is that the *only* acceptable action? What's the problem with taking a stand for your beliefs? What's the problem with freedom of association?

[Fox McCloud]

A lot of gays feel the same way when Christians try to tell them how to live their lives. They learned a lesson from the Christians who like to use government force against gays by not allowing them to have a state sanctioned marriage. Now the gays are using the government for revenge. I think it is called blowback.

Not totally convinced of this---I think it's just ingrained in a lot of people, these days, regardless of which group you're part of, conservative, liberal, or what not...to go running and crying to the government every time someone does something they don't like (or against them/perceived against them) if they believe they can "punish" the other person or get some kind of compensation out of it. This doesn't seem unique to me in any case.

[Antischism]

Meh, people try to sue for lots of different reasons, gay or not. I'm sure hardcore so-cons will use this type of article as ammunition to fuel their 'gaytred' though.

[ThePenguinLibertarian]

The libertarian solution is obvious. Non-libertarian Christians/traditionalists have no leg to stand on, since they do not consistently support freedom of association.

"So do you support the 'right' of a business to refuse to serve blacks, Pastor Family-Values?"

"No, of course not, but stop changing the issue. That's completely different."

"No, Pastor, it's not. You're just behind the times. Gays today are like blacks 50 years ago. You're just a bigot who's behind the times."
THIS IS THE SHIT I HATE. No, my beliefs are not behind the times. And gays are not the blacks. If that was, gay people would be poor and disenfrachised by condescending straights. Why not privatize marriage? It takes away power from the government and leave people be. That is more libertarian than HUR DUR SOCIAL JUSTICE crap.

[affa]

I don't have a problem with someone being gay but given the vast majority of them seem to be clearly liberal....

according to who, the media? it's an issue of physical attraction, not a political stance. however, the christian right has made a big deal out of treating them like 5th class citizens going straight to hell, so yea, I'm sure a lot of the politically ambivalent among them lean left by default. Most people aren't vested enough into politics to discern the difference between social and economic issues. So, for example, you have 'conservatives' complaining about, say, tattoos, and thinking only 'liberals' get them. It's all a bunch of hooey.

Re: this case. I don't blame the couple for complaining. It's what our society trains us to do. Other minorities only got theirs when they grew so loud that people started to listen...

I certainly would have preferred they just organize a boycott or something rather than involve the state, but expecting them to be silent and just move along when they're mistreated isn't a particularly appealing option to me. If I went into a store and they turned me away because of how I looked, I'd be pissed, even if i do think they should be able to do it. And just because I think they should be able to do it, doesn't mean I think I should just shut up and take it... because part of a business being allowed to restrict customers is dealing with the resultant backlash against them.

[affa]

And gays are not the blacks. If that was, gay people would be poor and disenfrachised by condescending straights.

I think you're absolutely missing the point of the comparison. If you think gay people haven't been radically mistreated in our society, even beat to death for the way they were born (not unlike lynchings), then you haven't been paying attention. The reason they "aren't poor", etc, is due to two major reasons -- 1) many have been trained since adolescence that they need to hide their true selves behind a 'straight' exterior, and 2) double income, no kids.

But having to 'hide' from who you are, verses not being able to hide your race, isn't exactly an upgrade. Sure, it lowers direct abuse/condescension, but it's got it's share of issues (self-worth, etc).

I know a lot of gay couples. They're all wonderful people. And a good portion of our country looks down on them, thinks they're 'perverts' going to hell, and the destroyers of [society, marriage, etc]. What a load of bollocks. They're people. Yes, some are flamboyant. Guess what? Some people are flamboyantly straight, too. People are different.

[Southron]

I predicted this sort of stuff would happen several years ago. Militant homosexuals will never be content until you are run out of business for thinking their degenerate lifestyle is sinful.

[mcrow]

according to who, the media? it's an issue of physical attraction, not a political stance. however, the christian right has made a big deal out of treating them like 5th class citizens going straight to hell, so yea, I'm sure a lot of the politically ambivalent among them lean left by default. Most people aren't vested enough into politics to discern the difference between social and economic issues. So, for example, you have 'conservatives' complaining about, say, tattoos, and thinking only 'liberals' get them. It's all a bunch of hooey.

Re: this case. I don't blame the couple for complaining. It's what our society trains us to do. Other minorities only got theirs when they grew so loud that people started to listen...

I certainly would have preferred they just organize a boycott or something rather than involve the state, but expecting them to be silent and just move along when they're mistreated isn't a particularly appealing option to me. If I went into a store and they turned me away because of how I looked, I'd be pissed, even if i do think they should be able to do it. And just because I think they should be able to do it, doesn't mean I think I should just shut up and take it... because part of a business being allowed to restrict customers is dealing with the resultant backlash against them.

Given that the vast majority of gays vote for liberals I would say it is a correct assumption that most gays are liberals. I happen to be a devote Catholic and a Libertarian. The thing is people misunderstand the Catholic stance on damnation, hell and gays. Correct, but often misunderstood(even by many Catholics) stance is that:

#1-Having sex with a person of the same sex is a sin. There is no way around it if you believe in the bible, it is very clear in the bible that it is a sin. However, simply being attracted to someone of the same sex isn't a sin.

#2- We are all sinners and gay sex is a sin but sex outside of marriage is a sin as well, people often forget that.

#3- We are given free choice by God. This is why I believe that Catholicism is the most compatible with Libertarianism of all forms of Christianity. Catholics believe that God has not predetermined our lives, prefers us to make our own choices. This is also where I think the Church is wrong in pushing for laws that reflect Christian teachings. Matthew 22:21 says""So give back to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.", which IMO indicates the seperation of church and state plus highlights the freedom God gives us in when Jesus himself recognizeseperation.


As far as gays being offended, get over it. People are offended every day and don't sue over it. There are many, many places that have no problem making a cake for anyone, take your buisness elsewhere, FFS.