View Full Version : Colorado Wedding Cake Baker Willing To Go To Jail Over Same Sex Marriage Controversy
AuH20
12-13-2013, 10:09 AM
This Colorado judge is bonkers trying to force this guy to do something he doesn't want to do.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/12/Christian-Baker-Willing-to-Go-to-Jail-for-Declining-Gay-Wedding-Cake
aGameOfThrones
12-13-2013, 10:20 AM
precedent, precedent, precedent. You either bake cakes with us, or you bake cakes against us. Who's the Happy fellow(Gay) that will put this man in jail for not baking you a Fucking Cake?
AuH20
12-13-2013, 10:22 AM
precedent, precedent, precedent. You either bake cakes with us, or you bake cakes against us. Who's the Happy fellow(Gay) that will put this man in jail for not baking you a Fucking Cake?
Pretty much. This has nothing to do with wedding cakes at this juncture. It's about state control. They want us to hop, when they say "hop."
jmdrake
12-13-2013, 11:00 AM
Because they're aren't any gay chefs in Colorado. :rolleyes:
shane77m
12-13-2013, 11:00 AM
http://youtu.be/KR3MgIPxb38
2:30
juleswin
12-13-2013, 11:08 AM
Because they're aren't any gay chefs in Colorado. :rolleyes:
Oh no, its not about the cake, I am sure there are dozens of bakeries(gay and straight owned) who are dying to get their business but this is not about any cake. But if they make this baker to spend 1 night in jail, it will backfire big time on them.
Brian4Liberty
12-13-2013, 11:24 AM
It's always a great idea to force people to make your food at gunpoint... :rolleyes:
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/tard-grumpy-cat-good-sad-13529885618.jpg
phill4paul
12-13-2013, 11:50 AM
Time to bake a cake with a file in it. SMFH.
Origanalist
12-13-2013, 12:46 PM
http://iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/tard-grumpy-cat-good-sad-13529885618.jpg
Good what?
Good what?
for having a spine
torchbearer
12-13-2013, 12:53 PM
They'd have to kill me. I will not be compelled to make anything for anyone.
WM_in_MO
12-13-2013, 12:59 PM
If I knew it would get fair coverage I would resist the whole way making then drag me to jail.
dannno
12-13-2013, 01:01 PM
These gay people are ruining it for all the other gay people who simply want to be treated fairly under the law.
HOLLYWOOD
12-13-2013, 01:06 PM
I wonder how much this has cost the taxpayers so far?
Bake the fucking 'Fruit Cake' or go to jail! Sorry, I just couldn't resist... 'tis the season yah know.
'Land of the Free'... yeah, right :rolleyes:
'They hate US for our freedoms'... yeah, right :rolleyes:
aGameOfThrones
12-13-2013, 01:08 PM
I really would like to see a group of people who are gay defend this guy's Right not to bake a cake.
All your cakes belong to the state.
Putting aside my beliefs about weddings and gay people, these people are obviously lawsuit trolls, EVERYBODY KNOWS there is literally no shortage of wedding services, and most are probably owned and operated by very gay friendly hipsters. They could have chosen a better vendor, but they chose to pursue a lawsuit and make everybody unhappy.
Origanalist
12-13-2013, 01:24 PM
I really would like to see a group of people who are gay defend this guy's Right not to bake a cake.
Crickets...
http://commitnesstofitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bueller.jpg
All your cakes belong to the state.
Cake, no S. Just like ALL YOU BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
Petar
12-13-2013, 01:35 PM
Dude should bake the damn cake but then put some anal beads in it or something.
Danke
12-13-2013, 01:40 PM
Dude should bake the damn cake but then put some anal beads in it or something.
"Natural Flavoring" Castoreum
jonhowe
12-13-2013, 01:45 PM
I am about as pro same-sex marriage as anyone around, but this is atrocious. This judge should be jailed for life for even suggesting such a ruling.
Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who to bake cakes for?
I am about as pro same-sex marriage as anyone around, but this is atrocious. This judge should be jailed for life for even suggesting such a ruling.
Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who to bake cakes for?
Sadly, this is not too far from the wrong path we've already taken.
We're already not allowed to refuse service to black people and gay people if you owned a store or restaurant.
Courts may have tried to justify some of this by saying certain services are "essential" or hard to find competitors and replacements, but wedding cakes and photography just ain't one of them. This isn't a conspiracy theory and I don't believe there is any end goal, I believe the philosophy from egalitarians is exactly that : you don't get to make rules for your own business, if you want to make money, you're subject to regulations, taxes, you're free to run your own hobby with friends, but if you open your door and advertise to serve the public, you've surrendered a lot of your private property rights.
Acala
12-13-2013, 02:18 PM
Not meaning to question the guy's motives, but this is perhaps the single best publicity a wedding cake maker has EVER had. He will be ordering flour by the truck load.
Not meaning to question the guy's motives, but this is perhaps the single best publicity a wedding cake maker has EVER had. He will be ordering flour by the truck load.
Unless they colluded, which is probably illegal when you're suing somebody, I highly doubt the guy wanted this publicity, even if it's ultimately good for him.
Being sued and losing isn't usually a good price to pay for publicity, some people end up losing their business before people can reach him for new opportunities. it's incredibly risky, especially when he could've won solid business to begin with if he took the gay couple's business first.
Acala
12-13-2013, 02:58 PM
Unless they colluded, which is probably illegal when you're suing somebody, I highly doubt the guy wanted this publicity, even if it's ultimately good for him.
Being sued and losing isn't usually a good price to pay for publicity, some people end up losing their business before people can reach him for new opportunities. it's incredibly risky, especially when he could've won solid business to begin with if he took the gay couple's business first.
He's got free legal counsel. The worst that happens is they toss him in the can for a few days. And chances are the order will be vacated because the law upon which it was based has been repealed, if I understand the facts correctly.
ObiRandKenobi
12-13-2013, 03:02 PM
oh god.
idiom
12-13-2013, 03:09 PM
I am about as pro same-sex marriage as anyone around, but this is atrocious. This judge should be jailed for life for even suggesting such a ruling.
Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who to bake cakes for?
Someone here was getting pretty uppity that the government wasn't forcing banks to give accounts to people who trade with bitcoins...
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 03:34 PM
Can a homosexual baker refuse to bake a cake for a wedding?
juleswin
12-13-2013, 03:44 PM
I really would like to see a group of people who are gay defend this guy's Right not to bake a cake.
Me too, but it takes a lot of guts to be the lone voice against the types causing all the ruckus. Most ordinary people want to live their lives undisturbed, they do not want the media attention and possibly attacks that will come their way for challenging the gay machine. Seeing as I have never challenged or confronted Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton types any of the many times they've decided to use my presumed victim-hood as an excuse to step on the soap box, I too understand why some will be reluctant to speak up.
Also, sometimes the silent majority want to believe that ignoring these clowns will make em go away. It doesn't always work out that way :(
Henry Rogue
12-13-2013, 03:45 PM
Someone here was getting pretty uppity that the government wasn't forcing banks to give accounts to people who trade with bitcoins...Yes, but it wasn't the person you quoted in this thread. Just thought your post needed to be clarified.
juleswin
12-13-2013, 03:46 PM
Can a homosexual baker refuse to bake a cake for a wedding?
No, the same way a black baker cannot refuse the business of a KKK member. This is the argument Rand should have used to shut Rachel Madcow up. The whole law removes any kind of control for ones own business.
No, the same way a black baker cannot refuse the business of a KKK member. This is the argument Rand should have used to shut Rachel Madcow up. The whole law removes any kind of control for ones own business.
Legally they cannot, but good luck getting prosecutors and lawyers to uphold it. There is the law, then there's selective enforcement.
He's got free legal counsel. The worst that happens is they toss him in the can for a few days. And chances are the order will be vacated because the law upon which it was based has been repealed, if I understand the facts correctly.
If you're suggesting it's easy and worth it, I challenge you to try it yourself (and don't tell me you don't own a business or can't). Things may ultimately work in his favor, but for the time being, he's a waste of his time.
Acala
12-13-2013, 04:14 PM
If you're suggesting it's easy and worth it, I challenge you to try it yourself (and don't tell me you don't own a business or can't). Things may ultimately work in his favor, but for the time being, he's a waste of his time.
What exactly is it that you think is such a hardship?
Matthew5
12-13-2013, 04:15 PM
This has been law for quite some time (especially with federal protection of LGBTQAI persons), why does this surprise anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
But anyone who talks about the root of the problem is deemed a racist.
(BTW, not directed at RPF, just some of the comments in the OP)
What exactly is it that you think is such a hardship?
Do it and find out. People who run businesses generally don't like to waste time on controversy if they have enough things to do.
juleswin
12-13-2013, 04:24 PM
Legally they cannot, but good luck getting prosecutors and lawyers to uphold it. There is the law, then there's selective enforcement.
Oh, I have seen these petty tyrants go after cutie pie girl scouts for opening lemonade stands because it violated some zone code. They wont have any problem going after some black baker especially after the ACLU catches a wind of it.
PaulConventionWV
12-13-2013, 04:31 PM
for having a spine
Doesn't really fit with the grumpy cat theme.
PaulConventionWV
12-13-2013, 04:32 PM
These gay people are ruining it for all the other gay people who simply want to be treated fairly under the law.
Gay people are treated fairly under the law. Keep in mind, this isn't the first time this controversy has arisen.
Acala
12-13-2013, 04:55 PM
This has been law for quite some time (especially with federal protection of LGBTQAI persons), why does this surprise anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. Unless there was some very recent change I heard nothing about . . .
Acala
12-13-2013, 04:57 PM
Do it and find out. People who run businesses generally don't like to waste time on controversy if they have enough things to do.
That's non-responsive. If I thought the publicity would bring people to my door in droves, as this will, I would be glad to spend time on it.
dannno
12-13-2013, 05:05 PM
Someone here was getting pretty uppity that the government wasn't forcing banks to give accounts to people who trade with bitcoins...
Banks are a monopoly industry supported by government, they should serve everybody as long as they operate that way.
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 05:43 PM
Banks are a monopoly industry supported by government, they should serve everybody as long as they operate that way.
So your answer to too much government is...more government.
LibForestPaul
12-13-2013, 06:11 PM
He does not have a spine; he has a soul, that God bestowed upon him, which he will not defile. Just as other Christians have been persecuted throughout history, so too is this man. May his Lord and Savior watch over him and keep him safe from evil.
Oh, I have seen these petty tyrants go after cutie pie girl scouts for opening lemonade stands because it violated some zone code. They wont have any problem going after some black baker especially after the ACLU catches a wind of it.
what you're saying then is that opportunities for open racists to troll black business owners never exist, or else it'd be a free controversy and publicity stunt waiting to happen. After all, what's ACLU known for? Defending Skokie rally (never happened again).
So your answer to too much government is...more government.
yes, defensive government, the best justification for government. People are bad so we need government to protect us.
That's non-responsive. If I thought the publicity would bring people to my door in droves, as this will, I would be glad to spend time on it.
Contradicted yourself, LOL. You DID say you think publicity would bring people to your door in droves, so what's stopping you? Did you just retract your claim that it's the easiest and best publicity since there's no hardship? Did I misread you?
dannno
12-13-2013, 06:20 PM
So your answer to too much government is...more government.
No my answer to too much government is to reduce it. However as long as it exists services should be available equally.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. Unless there was some very recent change I heard nothing about . . .
Correct, the law itself back then did not, but the principle would be upheld by today's standards, since homosexuals, and increasingly, transgendered and possibly disabled would be covered, the law and its derivatives basically now use the phrase "protected minority group" which is very inclusive.
In this country, businesses pretty much can only discriminate based on dollars. With certain exceptions, such as senior communities being allowed to openly discriminate against not senior aged people, while HOAs cannot "discriminate" against people with too many dogs even if there's an explicit rule they agreed to (thanks to ADA, HIPAA), disabled people can quite literally override any law or private agreement.
No my answer to too much government is to reduce it. However as long as it exists services should be available equally.
Services are privately provided, how do you make it equal without forcing people to lose their property rights?
juleswin
12-13-2013, 06:37 PM
Services are privately provided, how do you make it equal without forcing people to lose their property rights?
Banks are basically a public institution in America, they get FDIC protection, they are frequently bailed out by the people. So with banks, its either you dismantle the whole banking system as we know it or you force em not to discriminate against bitcoin users. The easier option will be to force em to accept bitcoin users.
If you want to discriminate, make sure you are independent of the public money as possible.
Matthew5
12-13-2013, 09:18 PM
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. Unless there was some very recent change I heard nothing about . . .
Well, not originally, of course, but there's laws for employment and housing. And federal employees and military now I suppose.
alucard13mm
12-13-2013, 09:59 PM
I havn't been keeping up with this but...
Why is a private business being forced to serve someone?
IF it is a public government entity, I would understand... somewhat.
Matthew5
12-13-2013, 10:19 PM
I havn't been keeping up with this but...
Why is a private business being forced to serve someone?
IF it is a public government entity, I would understand... somewhat.
Since the 60's, any business that is open to the public cannot discriminate. I believe the only loop hole is if you're a private, members-only business.
Christian Liberty
12-13-2013, 10:29 PM
Can a homosexual baker refuse to bake a cake for a wedding?
He should be able to, logically.
No, the same way a black baker cannot refuse the business of a KKK member. This is the argument Rand should have used to shut Rachel Madcow up. The whole law removes any kind of control for ones own business.
Correct.
So your answer to too much government is...more government.
To me this is like calling a libertarian who supports infanticide laws a hypocrite. It just doesn't make any sense.
I don't believe in government... like... at all. But while they exist, I'm OK with forcing government agencies (Note that I said GOVERNMENT agencies, not private ones) not to discriminate for stupid reasons.
Since the 60's, any business that is open to the public cannot discriminate. I believe the only loop hole is if you're a private, members-only business.
Its a different law, but the same logical concept. The CRA of 1964 made this inevitable.
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 10:46 PM
To me this is like calling a libertarian who supports infanticide laws a hypocrite. It just doesn't make any sense.
Libertarians aren't against laws...
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 10:47 PM
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect homosexuals from discrimination. Unless there was some very recent change I heard nothing about . . .
Colorado state law prohibits discrimination against homosexuals.
Christian Liberty
12-13-2013, 10:52 PM
Libertarians aren't against laws...
Yes, I realize this. Which was exactly my point.
Brett85
12-13-2013, 11:13 PM
I'm suprised that no one here took the side that the ACLU is on this time. Usually you have at least a few people who feel that social liberalism should always trump libertarianism.
Christian Liberty
12-13-2013, 11:17 PM
I'm suprised that no one here took the side that the ACLU is on this time. Usually you have at least a few people who feel that social liberalism should always trump libertarianism.
I for one are glad there wasn't any serious idiocy in this thread;)
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 11:23 PM
I'm suprised that no one here took the side that the ACLU is on this time. Usually you have at least a few people who feel that social liberalism should always trump libertarianism.
Gary Johnson fans are too busy getting stoned to post tonight.
RickyJ
12-13-2013, 11:32 PM
Lawyers have the right to not take a case or defend somebody. They have a business just like this man has business and this baker has a right to pick and choose who he would like to do business with just like a lawyer does.
Christian Liberty
12-13-2013, 11:41 PM
Gary Johnson fans are too busy getting stoned to post tonight.
Would Gary ever have supported something like this? I was never a "fan" of his, but I would have voted for him in 2012, and would probably do the same thing in 2016 if the other options sucked as badly as they did in 2012. He was never great, but I thought he was moderately acceptable.
If what you are saying here is true, that would change my perception pretty significantly.
juleswin
12-13-2013, 11:48 PM
I'm suprised that no one here took the side that the ACLU is on this time. Usually you have at least a few people who feel that social liberalism should always trump libertarianism.
You shouldn't be, the people you are talking about oppose govt discrimination. In this case, it is a private business doing the discriminating, had it been govt doing the same thing, you will see those same people speaking up.
If you want to discriminate, keep it in the private arena
eduardo89
12-13-2013, 11:57 PM
Would Gary ever have supported something like this?
Depends on how stoned he is.
Christian Liberty
12-14-2013, 12:11 AM
Depends on how stoned he is.
I don't do pot, but then, I don't make a living off drone bombing people either. I wish Obama would do the former instead of the latter;)
Banks are basically a public institution in America, they get FDIC protection, they are frequently bailed out by the people. So with banks, its either you dismantle the whole banking system as we know it or you force em not to discriminate against bitcoin users. The easier option will be to force em to accept bitcoin users.
If you want to discriminate, make sure you are independent of the public money as possible.
What is the criteria for which you can force them to accept bitcoin users? must they accept all currency?
Keith and stuff
12-14-2013, 01:47 AM
Willing to do civil disobedience? Awesome. He reminds me of Henry David Thoreau and a dozen people in Keene, New Hampshire. I'm glad he is sticking to his principles, even though he looks retarded and will (rightfully) be made fun of for 100s of years.
Acala
12-14-2013, 07:32 AM
Contradicted yourself, LOL. You DID say you think publicity would bring people to your door in droves, so what's stopping you? Did you just retract your claim that it's the easiest and best publicity since there's no hardship? Did I misread you?
Where did you get the idea that I run a small business? You have gone off the track. IF I owned a small business, which I don't, and I had a chance for massive free publicity that was targeting my main clientele I would jump all over it.
Acala
12-14-2013, 07:35 AM
Correct, the law itself back then did not, but the principle would be upheld by today's standards, since homosexuals, and increasingly, transgendered and possibly disabled would be covered, the law and its derivatives basically now use the phrase "protected minority group" which is very inclusive.
In this country, businesses pretty much can only discriminate based on dollars. With certain exceptions, such as senior communities being allowed to openly discriminate against not senior aged people, while HOAs cannot "discriminate" against people with too many dogs even if there's an explicit rule they agreed to (thanks to ADA, HIPAA), disabled people can quite literally override any law or private agreement.
To my knowledge, there is currently no Federal law that prohibits private businesses from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. If you know of one, cite it and prove me wrong.
Brett85
12-14-2013, 08:23 AM
You shouldn't be, the people you are talking about oppose govt discrimination. In this case, it is a private business doing the discriminating, had it been govt doing the same thing, you will see those same people speaking up.
If you want to discriminate, keep it in the private arena
I've seen people here argue in favor of banning the private practice of gay conversion therapy and argue in favor of laws that prevent employers from refusing to hire homosexuals. So that's why I thought there would be at least a few people here who would take the side of the gay couple and the ACLU on this one.
WM_in_MO
12-14-2013, 08:44 AM
I've seen people here argue in favor of banning the private practice of gay conversion therapy and argue in favor of laws that prevent employers from refusing to hire homosexuals. So that's why I thought there would be at least a few people here who would take the side of the gay couple and the ACLU on this one.
Absolutely not. The cakes made by the baker are his property (Product of his skills + labor + time) and are his to sell to whom he wishes at a price agreed upon by himself and the buyer (aka the market). This case sets precedent that you cannot refuse to sell your property to someone that wants to buy it.
beaven
12-14-2013, 08:55 AM
I am about as pro same-sex marriage as anyone around, but this is atrocious. This judge should be jailed for life for even suggesting such a ruling.
Since when does the government have the right to tell someone who to bake cakes for?
This was the point of gay marriage. The question was never legalization. After Texas vs. Lawrence, nowhere in the US was gay marriage against the law. Nobody would be thrown in jail, fined, or otherwise coerced by the government for participating in a gay marriage. No, this was about RECOGNITION. Mandate the government recognize the marriage means mandating EVERYONE recognize it, damn their freedom of conscience. First "legalization" then force. Those who are the movers and shakers behind the movement don't care about everyday gay people-- they just want to screw over every way possible (pun intended) religious people who do not agree with their lifestyle choices. They want respite from their burdened consciences. And revenge.
PaulConventionWV
12-14-2013, 09:00 AM
Banks are a monopoly industry supported by government, they should serve everybody as long as they operate that way.
Hopefully banks will become obsolete with the rise of bitcoin, thus eliminating the ambiguity that comes with deciding whether banks are a legitimate private institution or a branch of government.
PaulConventionWV
12-14-2013, 09:06 AM
No my answer to too much government is to reduce it. However as long as it exists services should be available equally.
I really despise this idea that we need to provide things equally through government. Nobody was ever entitled to equality. If the government oversteps its bounds into somebody's business, it needs to get its ass BACK over those bounds, not drag the other foot with it so that all things are equal. Instead of focusing on dragging the other foot so that everything seems equal, why don't we focus on pushing government back? If the government providing a service is wrong, then providing that service equally is no less wrong. The solution is not to rally for equality and THEN rally for independence from government tyranny, the solution is to stop government and solve both problems simultaneously.
Brett85
12-14-2013, 09:11 AM
Absolutely not. The cakes made by the baker are his property (Product of his skills + labor + time) and are his to sell to whom he wishes at a price agreed upon by himself and the buyer (aka the market). This case sets precedent that you cannot refuse to sell your property to someone that wants to buy it.
I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately the 1964 Civil Rights Act set that precedent. But like someone said earlier, if anyone dares to oppose even a single provision of that act, they're deemed a "racist." If the couple coming into the bakery had been a black couple, and the owner of the bakery refused to sell them a cake, they would've been prosecuted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is where this all started and where the government took away freedom of association, but unfortunately we aren't allowed to oppose that law without being attacked in a very personal way.
Forcing someone to make food for you when they don't want to is a good way to end up with food poisoning.
WM_in_MO
12-14-2013, 10:16 AM
I wish I could agree with you, but unfortunately the 1964 Civil Rights Act set that precedent. But like someone said earlier, if anyone dares to oppose even a single provision of that act, they're deemed a "racist." If the couple coming into the bakery had been a black couple, and the owner of the bakery refused to sell them a cake, they would've been prosecuted under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is where this all started and where the government took away freedom of association, but unfortunately we aren't allowed to oppose that law without being attacked in a very personal way.
Yes, it was set before this incident, but now we have someone actually serving jail time.
It's a perfect example to drive home another message about property rights.
Where did you get the idea that I run a small business? You have gone off the track. IF I owned a small business, which I don't, and I had a chance for massive free publicity that was targeting my main clientele I would jump all over it.
what's stopping you from owning a small business? you obviously don't see the hardship in it (ordering flour by the trucks, what a problem to have!)
why is it so wrong for me to conclude you don't because you can't, which is why you think it's easy and feel comfortable saying what you do, you most likely know nothing about running a business.
"I don't run a small business, but I sure as hell know how easy to is to get free publicity and good business opportunities, so I won't do it and won't prove i mean what I say, I'll just sit and talk"
To my knowledge, there is currently no Federal law that prohibits private businesses from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. If you know of one, cite it and prove me wrong.
You are probably right, that there isn't a statutory law that prohibits it, but case law either has been established or will be if it ever came up again. This is evident based on how far gays have come to become equal, from employment non-discrimination to marriage rights.
ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY LLC v. WILLOCK depended on state law New Mexico Human Rights Act
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nm-supreme-court/1642684.html
LibForestPaul
12-14-2013, 04:24 PM
CRA does NOT deal with sexual orientation. There ARE state laws, however, that do force businesses to operate with those of deviant sexual persuasions. ( I consider trans-genders deviants). However, as mentioned above, the forcing of the recognition of gay marriage, gay unions, may be now come under the religous protections guaranteed under CRA. Since marriage by many is considered religious. As can seen by the passions this arouses in those of strong religious backgrounds. By forcing the recognition of gay matrimony, one forces potential issues under the CRA. Which may be, as noted above, by design.
Brett85
12-14-2013, 04:54 PM
CRA does NOT deal with sexual orientation.
The CRA doesn't specifically deal with sexual orientation, but it set the precedent that the government can force private businesses to serve people they don't want to serve and sell products to people they don't want to sell to. The push to extend that same policy to homosexuals is just the logical progression/extension of the principle established with the passage of the CRA.
Brett85
12-14-2013, 04:55 PM
Duplicate post.
CRA does NOT deal with sexual orientation. There ARE state laws, however, that do force businesses to operate with those of deviant sexual persuasions. ( I consider trans-genders deviants). However, as mentioned above, the forcing of the recognition of gay marriage, gay unions, may be now come under the religous protections guaranteed under CRA. Since marriage by many is considered religious. As can seen by the passions this arouses in those of strong religious backgrounds. By forcing the recognition of gay matrimony, one forces potential issues under the CRA. Which may be, as noted above, by design.
transgenders ARE deviants, and they are part of the "LGBTQ" community, which includes people of different sexual orientations as well as people who identify as a different gender and people who've undergone surgery for sex correction.
MelissaWV
12-14-2013, 06:31 PM
That's non-responsive. If I thought the publicity would bring people to my door in droves, as this will, I would be glad to spend time on it.
I think what others are trying to get through your head is that it is very difficult to bake cakes from jail.
I think what others are trying to get through your head is that it is very difficult to bake cakes from jail.
he thinks that'll never happen, which might be true at the end, but he already knows.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.