PDA

View Full Version : Baker Who Refused Same-sex Couple Must Take Sensitivity Training




Constitutional Paulicy
06-07-2014, 11:47 PM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Jack-Phillips-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-638x358.jpg

Baker Who Refused Same-sex Couple Must Take Sensitivity Training
Written by Dave Bohon
Friday, 06 June 2014 18:10


A Colorado baker found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple must go through sensitivity training as part of his penance and rehabilitation. In December of last year, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, guilty of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig when he told them in July 2012 that he couldn't bake a cake to celebrate their supposed marriage because homosexual behavior conflicted with his Christian beliefs.

more here... http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/18431-baker-who-refused-same-sex-couple-must-take-sensitivity-training

VIDEODROME
06-07-2014, 11:59 PM
Ridiculous. It's his business he should have the simple right to turn away customers for any reason. Especially for something as frivolous as a cake. It's not as if any real harm was done to anyone.

libertariantexas
06-08-2014, 12:18 AM
This is ridiculous. The baker has been a bigot for 50+ years. What makes the judge think this old fool is going to learn anything from a class?

bunklocoempire
06-08-2014, 12:37 AM
A Colorado baker found guilty of discrimination for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple must go through sensitivity training as part of his penance and rehabilitation. In December of last year, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, guilty of discriminating against same-sex couple Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig when he told them in July 2012 that he couldn't bake a cake to celebrate their supposed marriage because homosexual behavior conflicted with his Christian beliefs.

Jake Phillips is obviously not the owner of his bake shop. See you at Galt's Gulch Jake.

puppetmaster
06-08-2014, 12:42 AM
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Jack-Phillips-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-638x358.jpg

Baker Who Refused Same-sex Couple Must Take Sensitivity Training
Written by Dave Bohon
Friday, 06 June 2014 18:10



more here... http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/18431-baker-who-refused-same-sex-couple-must-take-sensitivity-training

They would have to send my ass to jail

Vanguard101
06-08-2014, 12:56 AM
Sensitivity training? Lol wut

Anti Federalist
06-08-2014, 01:27 AM
This is ridiculous. The baker has been a bigot for 50+ years. What makes the judge think this old fool is going to learn anything from a class?

Maybe some electro-shock therapy would be more effective?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 01:36 AM
And of course the ACLU took up the case for the redacted. None of these redacted will rest until everybody redacted.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 01:49 AM
They would have to send my ass to jail

Yep. There are just certain things in life where you draw a line. I would never plea bargain, do community service, or sit in one of these classes.

The owner should have made the cake, taken a big shit inside, and then smashed it in the tattletales' faces. They probably would've asked for seconds though. LOL.

coastie
06-08-2014, 04:06 AM
"Must".


You know, I learned a long time ago (24, in boot camp), that anytime someone else tells you that you must will do...something...

...or else...


You are the slave.

FFS For Fucks' Sakes, America -


Wake up...please.

coastie
06-08-2014, 04:14 AM
They would have to send my ass to jail
Nope


Yep. There are just certain things in life where you draw a line. I would never plea bargain, do community service, or sit in one of these classes.

The owner should have made the cake, taken a big shit inside, and then smashed it in the tattletales' faces. They probably would've asked for seconds though. LOL.

Nope.

WHYYYYY ROT IN A FUCKING CAGE TO PROVE A POINT[/IA]-AND THEN BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT BY [I]EVERYONE AFTER A FEW, SHORT INTERNET WEEKS OF CHEST THUMPING???????

:confused:

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 04:41 AM
Nope



Nope.

WHYYYYY ROT IN A FUCKING CAGE TO PROVE A POINT[/IA]-AND THEN BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT BY [I]EVERYONE AFTER A FEW, SHORT INTERNET WEEKS OF CHEST THUMPING???????

:confused:


I was speaking of people who plea. So you either plea or you fight. You can fight in a courtroom or you can fight when they come for you. You can also leave.

I have fought already. I love beating somebody at their own game, but the game is terribly rigged. Would I do it again? Who knows? Would I leave a state? Possibly, because I could support my family from afar. But I also hate the idea of running away.

I know I would not do community service or sit in a class. It's just undignified.

I'm just saying that everybody has their own line to draw. It will vary depending on circumstances and gumption and possibly being able to come back and fight another day.

Origanalist
06-08-2014, 06:42 AM
Maybe some electro-shock therapy would be more effective?

It might work, maybe a couple years of hard labor will get those silly idea's out of his head.

Religious freedom, what kind of a crazy notion is that anyway?

pcosmar
06-08-2014, 07:08 AM
This is the same guy that claimed "religious convictions and then agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding.

Someone want to explain the sanctity of Dog Marriage to me?

This idiot got bit in the butt by his own Stateism.

JK/SEA
06-08-2014, 07:21 AM
Maybe some electro-shock therapy would be more effective?

hmmmm.....perhaps a 'friendly tazing?....

UtahApocalypse
06-08-2014, 07:21 AM
So would there be outrage if a KKK group went to a black baker and he refused to make them a cake?

Voluntarist
06-08-2014, 07:36 AM
xxxxx

Spikender
06-08-2014, 09:37 AM
This is the same guy that claimed "religious convictions and then agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding.

Someone want to explain the sanctity of Dog Marriage to me?

This idiot got bit in the butt by his own Stateism.

I'm not familiar with this case, but what's so statist about a guy agreeing to make a cake for a dog wedding and not a homosexual wedding?

It's up to him to choose what events to bake cakes for.

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-08-2014, 09:56 AM
sensitivity training is a euphemism for being sent to a reeducation camp.

William Tell
06-08-2014, 10:13 AM
This is the same guy that claimed "religious convictions and then agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding.

Someone want to explain the sanctity of Dog Marriage to me?

This idiot got bit in the butt by his own Stateism.
Free association is NOT Statism. He has the right to do business, or not, with anyone for any reason.

ZENemy
06-08-2014, 10:20 AM
Annnnnnnnnd once again South Park is educated about previous events making their episodes almost prophetic.


South Park: Season 6, Episode 14 The Death Camp of Tolerance

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0705969/


Mr. Garrison does what he can to get fired for being gay so he can sue the school for millions of dollars. This turns out to be easier said than done because the parents and school staff feel they have to be tolerant no matter what. When Mr. Garrison learns about discrimination lawsuits, he hires a new teaching assistant named Mr. Slave and tries everything to get fired for being gay. When the students complain, they are sent to sensitivity training. Meanwhile, a gerbil named Lemmiwinks navigates his way through the perilous world of Mr. Slave's body. Written by Mike

http://www.hulu.com/watch/250013

Basically anyone that doesn't approve of Mr. Garrisons displays of S&M no matter how over the top are not tolerant of "gays" and must recieve4 sensitivity training.

They should have showed the Jury (if there was one?) this episode.

PaulConventionWV
06-08-2014, 10:22 AM
This is the same guy that claimed "religious convictions and then agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding.

Someone want to explain the sanctity of Dog Marriage to me?

This idiot got bit in the butt by his own Stateism.

Do you just call people statist when you don't like them? Care to define statism and how this guy falls in that category?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 10:21 PM
Per the guidelines for RPF, comments should not be made that "promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals".

From a marketing perspective, the Liberty Movement (and the individuals in it) should not be portraying itself as unwelcoming of those who have a homosexual lifestyle. Using the derogatory labels highlighted (though redacted) from the quote in the original post puts up the "Not Welcome Here" sign. Avoiding the derogatory labels isn't political correctness - it's merely good marketing.

The "homosexual lifestyle." Yes, that's a brilliant non-derogatory label that should win over plenty of new members.

Keep up the good marketing.

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 10:25 PM
Yep. There are just certain things in life where you draw a line. I would never plea bargain, do community service, or sit in one of these classes.

The owner should have made the cake, taken a big shit inside, and then smashed it in the tattletales' faces. They probably would've asked for seconds though. LOL.

You forget that this guy is a Christian. He doesn't actually want to offend them for its own sake. He just doesn't want to endorse a same-sex wedding.

As for "sensetivity training" I advise Sola_Fide, Nang, and myself as counselors:p

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 10:29 PM
The "homosexual lifestyle." Yes, that's a brilliant non-derogatory label that should win over plenty of new members.

Keep up the good marketing.

No, its not derogatory. Its identifying sin as sin.


Nope



Nope.

WHYYYYY ROT IN A FUCKING CAGE TO PROVE A POINT[/IA]-AND THEN BE FORGOTTEN ABOUT BY [I]EVERYONE AFTER A FEW, SHORT INTERNET WEEKS OF CHEST THUMPING???????

:confused:

I'd go to the sensetivity training and tell the "sensetivity trainer" to repent of teaching people to be sensetive toward a disgusting and anti-godly lifestyle, not to mention being a shill for supposedly almighty "government."

I'd go to jail, but at least I'd have a chance to teach everyone not to be sensetive.

Which is why I recommend this guy accept me as his sensetivity counselor. I guarantee you he will be less "sensetive" when he's done:p

NewRightLibertarian
06-08-2014, 10:36 PM
This is no big problem according to the Cathy Reisenweitz wing of liberty movement. We have to take in consideration the feelings of the groups the market is mean to. That's what's important, not freedom or property rights.

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 10:41 PM
This is no big problem according to the Cathy Reisenweitz wing of liberty movement. We have to take in consideration the feelings of the groups the market is mean to. That's what's important, not freedom or property rights.

lol!

I assume Cathy Reisenweitz isn't much of a libertarian? (I don't know who she is.)

Its absurdly unlikely that there won't be some baker who would sell to a gay couple in 2014. Even if that were the case, it wouldn't change a thing. But it isn't the case. There are a ton of bakers who are OK with homosexuality. These people didn't really need a cake that they couldn't get. They just wanted to ruin this poor old man's life. That's absolutely repulsive.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 10:41 PM
No, its not derogatory.



What's a homosexual lifestyle?

Tod
06-08-2014, 10:42 PM
This is the same guy that claimed "religious convictions and then agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding.

Someone want to explain the sanctity of Dog Marriage to me?

This idiot got bit in the butt by his own Stateism.

Considering that the state does not even recognize dog marriages and that a dog marriage clearly has nothing serious to do with religion but is just a bit of cute fun for the dog owners and their friends (and hopefully the dogs get some tasty treats and affection out of it to make it at least tolerable for them too), what does this have to do with statism?

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 10:44 PM
From the judge:


In his ruling against Phillips, Spencer wrote that the baker had “no free speech right to refuse because [he was] only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech. It is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree.” He added that “at first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”




And at second, third, and fourth blush, it still seems reasonable. This judge is a political whore. And the ACLU is filled with political whores.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 10:44 PM
Would that baker make a cake for the woman who married her dog?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 10:45 PM
What's a homosexual lifestyle?

The term is being used to distinguish from people who have homosexual attractions but do not act on them. Its being used to describe people who are sexually or romantically involved with their own gender.

Mind you, the people who would use that terminology (including myself) almost universally disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. People who don't disagree with it usually don't see the need to distinguish between practicing and non-practicing. But the intent is not to denigrate gay people.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 11:00 PM
The term is being used to distinguish from people who have homosexual attractions but do not act on them. Its being used to describe people who are sexually or romantically involved with their own gender.



So if a heterosexual man gets sexually involved with a woman before marriage, would that be referred to as the heterosexual lifestyle?

Christian Liberty
06-08-2014, 11:13 PM
So if a heterosexual man gets sexually involved with a woman before marriage, would that be referred to as the heterosexual lifestyle?

I've never heard that description, but that wouldn't really be an accurate descriptor either, because a heterosexual man who chooses to wait until marriage to get involved sexually with a woman would also be living a "heterosexual lifestyle."

I'm not going to beat around the bush: "homosexual lifestyle" is certainly intended to show disapproval, and I doubt anyone who is OK with homosexual sex is going to use the term. But its not an attack like words like "***", "slut" "whore" and so forth are attacks (BTW: my use of the word "whore" to describe the ACLU and the judge in this case was a deliberate personal attack.)

Rothbardian Girl
06-08-2014, 11:21 PM
This is no big problem according to the Cathy Reisenweitz wing of liberty movement. We have to take in consideration the feelings of the groups the market is mean to. That's what's important, not freedom or property rights.

This is a ridiculous insinuation; thanks for misrepresenting the views of a lot of people. I think Mises himself got it right when he said:
The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the- continuously changing- state of the market are the value judgments of these individuals and their actions as directed by value judgments.

I'd say your implication that proper libertarians cannot be concerned with people's "feelings" is wrong. The market is not the end-all, be-all; it's the forces that shape markets, i.e., "feelings", that are.

Please note that I am not arguing for governmental force here. The judge in this case is clearly an idiot. The point I do want to make is that there is a libertarian case for supporting people that don't always enjoy an optimal outcome due to what essentially boils down to "distorted" human action.

pcosmar
06-08-2014, 11:25 PM
Free association is NOT Statism. He has the right to do business, or not, with anyone for any reason.

I realize that.. And I do not endorse the States action.

But neither do I endorse this mindless bigot using the state to attempt to push an agenda that relies on state sanctioned marriage.
And using religiosity to push it when he has been shown to be a rank Hypocrite.

.

LibForestPaul
06-08-2014, 11:30 PM
Religious organization will be gunned for next. They will submit and will provide abortion and the pill regardless of their morals.
Good!

NewRightLibertarian
06-08-2014, 11:35 PM
I assume Cathy Reisenweitz isn't much of a libertarian? (I don't know who she is.)

Cathy Reisenwitz is a middling attractive 20-something girl who gains attention from talking about how cool it is to be a slut on twitter. She also writes about how feminism is real libertarian and stuff. She's a 'young leader' in the liberty movement who's really outshining those fuddy duds at the Mises Institute, according to some.

Here's a good primer on what she's all about:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/justin-raimondo-smokes-out-absurd.html

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 11:37 PM
I've never heard that description,...



Maybe I could coin the term heterosexual lifestyle to show my disapproval too? After all, premarital sex is a sin just like the homosexual lifestyle. And what if a guy plugs his wife's butt? Is that a lifestyle too? Would that be like a semi-homosexual lifestyle? It is just all so confusing.

Anyhow, my use of the term redacted is much less etymologically ambiguous than all this lifestyle stuff. Seems to me these--uh--litigants want to have it both ways. They want to personally, and financially, attack someone based on emphasizing their identity. They then however, get bent out of shape when somebody emphasizes that same identity.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-08-2014, 11:49 PM
Cathy Reisenwitz is a middling attractive 20-something girl who gains attention from talking about how cool it is to be a slut on twitter. She also writes about how feminism is real libertarian and stuff. She's a 'young leader' in the liberty movement who's really outshining those fuddy duds at the Mises Institute, according to some.

Here's a good primer on what she's all about:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/justin-raimondo-smokes-out-absurd.html


She sounds like a bandwagon doofus who just wants to have a job somewhere. You can always distinguish between people who are really liberty minded vs. the people who like liberty until the game gets a little tough. The latter want all the benefits of liberty without any of the heartache. Sunshine libertarians.

Paulbot99
06-09-2014, 12:09 AM
I realize that.. And I do not endorse the States action.

But neither do I endorse this mindless bigot using the state to attempt to push an agenda that relies on state sanctioned marriage.
And using religiosity to push it when he has been shown to be a rank Hypocrite.

.

I'm confused. Where does the article say he was trying to use the State to push anything? I think you're putting people in groups and judging accordingly.

ClydeCoulter
06-09-2014, 12:54 AM
All for a box of Betty Crockers cake mix and some icing, put together by someone who isn't lazy?

Zee vorld haz gon crdazy!

PierzStyx
06-09-2014, 01:09 AM
Sensitivity training? Lol wut

Reeducation.

pcosmar
06-09-2014, 07:08 AM
I'm confused. Where does the article say he was trying to use the State to push anything? I think you're putting people in groups and judging accordingly.

He was pushing for a ban on Gay State sanctioned Marriage. That was what his stunt was about,, he pushed it to a courtroom State decision,, and lost.
He lost because his religiosity was his basis for his case.. and it was proven to be fraud.

State marriage is a state issue...Regardless of any religious issues.. This is the mistake that was made when marriage was made a state issue.

angelatc
06-09-2014, 07:58 AM
What, the bake shop also sells cigarettes; and fills up boxes with chocolate candy??

Per the guidelines for RPF, comments should not be made that "promote negativity in collectivist mindsets that view humans as members of groups rather than individuals".
From a marketing perspective, the Liberty Movement (and the individuals in it) should not be portraying itself as unwelcoming of those who have a homosexual lifestyle. Using the derogatory labels highlighted (though redacted) from the quote in the original post puts up the "Not Welcome Here" sign. Avoiding the derogatory labels isn't political correctness - it's merely good marketing.

You don't get to speak for the liberty movement in very same breath deciding that all the members must adhere to your values.



Having respect for people that believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior is asking too much for the gay mafia. They can go screw themselves - I'd be in prison if this was me.

PaulConventionWV
06-09-2014, 08:05 AM
The "homosexual lifestyle." Yes, that's a brilliant non-derogatory label that should win over plenty of new members.

Keep up the good marketing.

How is that derogatory? They have a lifestyle in which they practice homosexuality. Seems pretty reasonable.

PaulConventionWV
06-09-2014, 08:09 AM
What's a homosexual lifestyle?

A lifestyle in which one practices homosexuality, perhaps?

angelatc
06-09-2014, 08:11 AM
Considering that the state does not even recognize dog marriages and that a dog marriage clearly has nothing serious to do with religion but is just a bit of cute fun for the dog owners and their friends (and hopefully the dogs get some tasty treats and affection out of it to make it at least tolerable for them too), what does this have to do with statism?


Kind of wish it had been a gerbil wedding, myself.

PaulConventionWV
06-09-2014, 08:12 AM
Would that baker make a cake for the woman who married her dog?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/woman-marries-dog-totally-b-h-article-1.1717772

Probably not... so?

PaulConventionWV
06-09-2014, 08:14 AM
So if a heterosexual man gets sexually involved with a woman before marriage, would that be referred to as the heterosexual lifestyle?

Sure, why not?

PaulConventionWV
06-09-2014, 08:17 AM
I realize that.. And I do not endorse the States action.

But neither do I endorse this mindless bigot using the state to attempt to push an agenda that relies on state sanctioned marriage.
And using religiosity to push it when he has been shown to be a rank Hypocrite.

.

How is he "using the state" again?

Also, how has he "been shown to be a rank Hypocrite"?

Thanks.

TonySutton
06-09-2014, 08:22 AM
The people of the state of Colorado (through their representatives) chose to include this in their Anti-Discrimination Law. I prefer to have the government do less not more but if this is what the people of Colorado want, I guess this is what they get. It seems odd that some people here are attacking the judge. He is simply enforcing the law as the state legislature wrote it. Do you want him to be an activist judge and legislate from the bench?

Christian Liberty
06-09-2014, 09:18 AM
The people of the state of Colorado (through their representatives) chose to include this in their Anti-Discrimination Law. I prefer to have the government do less not more but if this is what the people of Colorado want, I guess this is what they get. It seems odd that some people here are attacking the judge. He is simply enforcing the law as the state legislature wrote it. Do you want him to be an activist judge and legislate from the bench?

laws do not change right and wrong. Enforcing a bad law is wrong. As I said, he's a political whore, using his position to defend extreme statism.

pcosmar
06-09-2014, 09:32 AM
How is he "using the state" again?

Also, how has he "been shown to be a rank Hypocrite"?

Thanks.

Because when "Christians" pushed for marriage Licenses they made marriage a State Issue rather than a religious issue.
They pushed State control of marriage to prevent interracial marriages and Polygamous marriages and marriages within family lines.
And they gave marriage to the State rather than a religious bond it was supposed to be.

Now they want the state to again prevent people from being "married". (gay marriage)

He was shown to be a hypocrite when he approved of making a cake for a dog wedding,, after claiming that he refused to make a customers cake on the grounds that it went against the "sanctity of marriage"..

He proved that it had nothing to do with the sanctity of anything.

Paulbot99
06-09-2014, 11:11 AM
Because when "Christians" pushed for marriage Licenses they made marriage a State Issue rather than a religious issue.
They pushed State control of marriage to prevent interracial marriages and Polygamous marriages and marriages within family lines.
And they gave marriage to the State rather than a religious bond it was supposed to be.

Now they want the state to again prevent people from being "married". (gay marriage)

He was shown to be a hypocrite when he approved of making a cake for a dog wedding,, after claiming that he refused to make a customers cake on the grounds that it went against the "sanctity of marriage"..

He proved that it had nothing to do with the sanctity of anything.

I'm confused. Where does the article say he was trying to use the State to push anything? I think you're putting people in groups and judging accordingly.

And no one truthfully believes that a dog marriage was anything but a cute thing pet owners do. It's kind of silly, but that's kind of the point.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-09-2014, 11:30 AM
How is that derogatory? They have a lifestyle in which they practice homosexuality. Seems pretty reasonable.

Well, according to some people, the term homosexual lifestyle is used to show disapproval. Doesn't sound too reasonable to me if you're--according to another RFPer--trying to market to people for joining a liberty movement.

klamath
06-09-2014, 11:41 AM
The people of the state of Colorado (through their representatives) chose to include this in their Anti-Discrimination Law. I prefer to have the government do less not more but if this is what the people of Colorado want, I guess this is what they get. It seems odd that some people here are attacking the judge. He is simply enforcing the law as the state legislature wrote it. Do you want him to be an activist judge and legislate from the bench?Hmmm, but judges overturning every state law defining marriage as between the opposite sexes including citizen initiatives such as California is not? A really bad issue to try and bring up state rights on.:rolleyes:

Philhelm
06-09-2014, 11:41 AM
So if a heterosexual man gets sexually involved with a woman before marriage, would that be referred to as the heterosexual lifestyle?

No. That's called "normal."

It's only considered to be a "homosexual lifestyle" if kissing and cuddling are involved.

pcosmar
06-09-2014, 12:03 PM
And no one truthfully believes that a dog marriage was anything but a cute thing pet owners do. It's kind of silly, but that's kind of the point.

And what is the difference in baking a cake for the event?

VIDEODROME
06-09-2014, 12:38 PM
Can't we have separation of Church and Cake?

Brett85
06-09-2014, 12:49 PM
I think it's likely that before too long everyone who's a Bible believing Christian will be sent to "reeducation camps."

Christian Liberty
06-09-2014, 01:48 PM
I think it's likely that before too long everyone who's a Bible believing Christian will be sent to "reeducation camps."

When that happens, will you still make excuses for "law enforcement?"

Paulbot99
06-09-2014, 02:08 PM
And what is the difference in baking a cake for the event?

The difference is the context of the event.

klamath
06-09-2014, 02:46 PM
Pretty funny. A real case of a person being sent to a reeducation camp and "Freedom lovers" cheer it on. People are people there is no exclusive unique freedom movement.

helmuth_hubener
06-09-2014, 02:52 PM
I read this thread title as Banker and thought that some bank teller had refused to open a joint account for a same-sex couple.

LibForestPaul
06-09-2014, 02:56 PM
The people of the state of Colorado (through their representatives) chose to include this in their Anti-Discrimination Law. I prefer to have the government do less not more but if this is what the people of Colorado want, I guess this is what they get. It seems odd that some people here are attacking the judge. He is simply enforcing the law as the state legislature wrote it. Do you want him to be an activist judge and legislate from the bench?

So in the past, if a Colorado has a law that all escaped slaves shall be returned to the state from which they came, a Colorado judge should just follow Colorado law? If a law, any law, is in conflict with natural rights, that law is illegal.

Carson
06-09-2014, 04:00 PM
I think the people that couldn't except his, "NO." I don't want to bake you a cake." may be the insensitive ones that may be able to benefit from some training.

This is going to encourage people going to every bakery in town in hopes one or more of them will say, NO. Then when their prayers are answered they are going to have a whine fest about it.

satchelmcqueen
06-09-2014, 04:03 PM
stupid stupid bs. its his right to do as he wishes with his beliefs and his business.

Tywysog Cymru
06-09-2014, 06:36 PM
I think it's likely that before too long everyone who's a Bible believing Christian will be sent to "reeducation camps."

And when that happens, there will still be people on here who believe that conservative Christians are a dangerous threat to liberty.

pcosmar
06-09-2014, 08:08 PM
The difference is the context of the event.

What context. it was a cake for an event.. Both events were "marriages". Both events were purely theatrical.

nayjevin
06-09-2014, 09:26 PM
Be glad that bigots are out in the open about not serving people. That way it's possible to take business elsewhere.

Origanalist
06-09-2014, 09:31 PM
Be glad that bigots are out in the open about not serving people. That way it's possible to take business elsewhere.

Absolutely. I think all "bigots" should be more out in the open, and tell all the offended shit for brains to take their business elsewhere and not have to take sensitivity training for doing so.

nayjevin
06-09-2014, 09:53 PM
Absolutely. I think all "bigots" should be more out in the open, and tell all the offended shit for brains to take their business elsewhere and not have to take sensitivity training for doing so.

I see you didn't come out and state your opinion but rather wrapped it in subterfuge and attempted a credibility by association tactic. Usually direct words are avoided to avoid a direct response.

Bigot:

a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

One who is narrrowly or intolerantly devoted to his or her opinions and prejudices.
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigot

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Don't call me a bigot. That's extremely rude!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bigot

It's more derogatory than I thought.

One could argue that refusing to serve someone is obstinate or intolerant, evidence of devotion to an opinion, or evidence of clearly refusing to accept someone. Likely that person would fall on one side of the argument, and the other side would disagree.

It might make a difference to some that it is not food for survival, but a delicacy.

I don't know the baker. I defend his or her right to do what he or she wishes with the business. I am speaking generally, that I don't want people to go underground with their beliefs to the extent that I don't know where to spend my money ethically, with the greatest potential it will be spent again ethically.

So I should not have used the word bigot. I see it as light years different than shit-for-brains.

Voluntarist
06-11-2014, 05:48 AM
xxxxx

jtap
06-11-2014, 07:21 AM
In retrospect I was thinking were I the baker and knew that refusal to bake the cake would cause all this drama (and for some reason I actually was being stupid about baking a cake for someone the way this guy is), would I not be within my rights to charge whatever fee I deem appropriate for their cake and price it out of the range of what they would be willing to pay and thus send their business elsewhere without having to get the government involved in my life?

The article didn't specifically state it but it seems to reason that the gay couple brought charges upon this guy. It seems to me that regardless of this guy's bigotry people shouldn't be using the legal system to force people to bake them cakes. Isn't that the real problem? There's too many people out there trying to be busy-bodies and using the cops and law to force people to do what they want. People are allowed to be dicks if it doesn't hurt your body or property, are they not?

Occam's Banana
06-11-2014, 09:38 AM
In retrospect I was thinking were I the baker and knew that refusal to bake the cake would cause all this drama (and for some reason I actually was being stupid about baking a cake for someone the way this guy is), would I not be within my rights to charge whatever fee I deem appropriate for their cake and price it out of the range of what they would be willing to pay and thus send their business elsewhere without having to get the government involved in my life?

I very seriously doubt it. In fact, you would probably end up in even bigger trouble.

Not only would you still be guilty of discrimination, but you'd be a "price gouger" to boot (and whatever else they could come up with).

So you'd just be giving them even more rope to hang you with ...

Giuliani was there on 911
06-11-2014, 11:45 AM
This is ridiculous. The baker has been a bigot for 50+ years. What makes the judge think this old fool is going to learn anything from a class?

Yeah what a fool this stupid bigot is for not thinking that homosexuality is a beautiful thing

Spikender
06-11-2014, 11:58 AM
Wow, it's crazy how tore up some people on this forum are that a guy turned away two people he didn't want to bake a cake for.

Maybe I should turn away a lesbian from attending one of my tea parties, that'll get people riled up for sure.

jtap
06-11-2014, 12:38 PM
I very seriously doubt it. In fact, you would probably end up in even bigger trouble.

Not only would you still be guilty of discrimination, but you'd be a "price gouger" to boot (and whatever else they could come up with).

So you'd just be giving them even more rope to hang you with ...


Were it me I would take their money like any other because that's the point of being in business but I sure don't like the idea that as a business owner you can't charge what you want for your services and choose to whom you wish to sell them. It doesn't sound like I want to own a business.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
06-11-2014, 01:07 PM
However, if you were to follow the example you set earlier with the gay epithet (a synonym for a Cadbury candy boxing machine), you'd probably be describing me with epithets such as "p-s-y pounder" or "c--t slimer" (I'm sure you can fill in the "-"s) ... neither of which would fit the forum guidelines.

My so-called "epithets," are reserved for people who have either no respect for themselves or no respect for others. If someone is going to emphasize their identity by perversely using government to further their greedy ends, then they can't cry foul when someone else draws attention to that identity in the same exact way.

It's all beside the point anyway. "Gays" also use these so-called derogatory terms freely, along with all the other so-called epithets. If people in a group can use the term, then I can use the term too. And no, you, as a group, don't get to cry foul when I use the term just because I don't belong to your little club.

Your terms for heterosexual also make no sense because I don't see any heterosexuals suing bakers. Not to mention to terms are just corny anyway.

And don't forget these punks are taking away a person's livelihood. What a twisted world we live in where this is okay, but mere words make everybody flail their arms like a little girl.

pcosmar
06-11-2014, 08:16 PM
What context. it was a cake for an event.. Both events were "marriages". Both events were purely theatrical.

I got a -rep on this post (big whoop)..

I have never agreed with the State position on this.. Not his punishment,, which he pushed the issue to get,, not with the State involvement in Marriage,, that religious people pushed for in the first place.

There would be no marriage license,,and no marriage benefits if they had not given the state jurisdiction long ago..
Now they are trying to use the courts to deny benefits to others,, and lost in court.. (State Venue)

I have no sympathy for a man that is clearly hypocritical,, deeply confused,, or just plain stupid.


Do we even know what "the baker's" position is on the right of free association?

You know,,, If he had used that as an argument in court he may have had a different outcome..
But he didn't.. This case was never about that. This case was about denying services based on Sexual preference for religious reasons.

Had he presented the case differently,, it may have had a different result.

Voluntarist
06-21-2014, 06:42 AM
xxxxx

Antischism
06-21-2014, 09:09 AM
Either everyone is protected against discrimination or no one is. You can't pick and choose who you want to discriminate against while also having laws that protect other people. All that does is create inequality under the law, one which shouldn't exist mind you, but as long as it does, there should never be inequality of this sort. I guarantee you most of these people who want the right to discriminate against homosexuals would throw a shitfit and scream PERSECUTION if there were people fighting for the right to discriminate against Christians. Oh no, in that case, it's religious intolerance and devilry. Can't have that. The gays, though? They're evil, so who cares?

Voluntarist
06-23-2014, 06:00 AM
xxxxx

scottditzen
06-23-2014, 11:22 AM
Maybe I could coin the term heterosexual lifestyle to show my disapproval too? After all, premarital sex is a sin just like the homosexual lifestyle.

Not everyone shares this opinion. Not everyone on here is Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Just sayin.

Voluntarist
06-24-2014, 08:44 PM
xxxxx

scottditzen
06-24-2014, 11:25 PM
Interesting. But my only point is that not everyone believes, or cares, whether or not premarital sex is a sin.


If you're trying to make a correlation between being Christian, Jewish or Muslim and abstaining from premarital sex, then you ought to consider that roughly 85% of the population falls into the first category and roughly 3% (http://waitingtillmarriage.org/4-cool-statistics-about-abstinence-in-the-usa/) falls into the second.

Voluntarist
06-25-2014, 05:52 AM
xxxxx

specsaregood
06-25-2014, 06:07 AM
Absolutely. I think all "bigots" should be more out in the open, and tell all the offended shit for brains to take their business elsewhere and not have to take sensitivity training for doing so.

http://peterga.com/coonChickenInn-LakeCity-03.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coon_Chicken_Inn


The restaurant chain was popular in their day. The restaurant's name (which uses an ethnic slur), trademarks, and entrances of the restaurants were designed to look like a smiling blackface caricature of an African-American porter. The smiling capped porter head also appeared on menus, dishes, and promotional items. Due to change in popular culture and the general consideration of being culturally and racially offensive, the chain has since been discontinued and is now defunct.

Schifference
06-25-2014, 06:25 AM
The baker can fire his employee of 20 years for no reason but must bake a cake for anyone that is willing to pay him to do so.

presence
06-25-2014, 07:03 AM
"Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." (2 Corinthians 6:17, KJV (http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/p/kingjamesvers.htm))

25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. << Leviticus 18:24 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/18-24.html)

He must not make himself unclean for people related to him by marriage, and so defile himself. << Leviticus 20:27 (http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/20-27.html)

James 4:8 Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, (http://biblehub.com/james/4-8.htm)

1 John 3:3 And every man that has this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure. (http://biblehub.com/1_john/3-3.htm)

1 Thessalonians 4:7 For God has not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. (http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-7.htm)

Thessolonians 3 (http://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/4-3.htm)For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;

1 Corinthians 6:18 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-18.htm)
Flee from sexual immorality.

Hebrews 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/13-21.htm)

Acts 15:20,29 But that we write to them, that they abstain from pollutions (http://biblehub.com/acts/15-20.htm)

1 Corinthians 5:9-11 I wrote to you in an letter not to company with fornicators (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/5-9.htm)

◄ (http://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-2.htm) Ephesians 5:3 ► (http://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-4.htm)
Parallel Verses
New International Version (http://biblehub.com/niv/ephesians/5.htm)
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality,



Peter 1:4 (http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-4.htm) to an incorruptible and undefiled inheritance that doesn't fade away, reserved in Heaven for you,
(WEB KJV WEY ASV DBY WBS YLT NAS RSV)

iCorinthians 7:1 (http://biblehub.com/2_corinthians/7-1.htm)Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.


Hebrews 7:26 (http://biblehub.com/hebrews/7-26.htm) For such a high priest was fitting for us: holy, guiltless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

1 Peter 1:15 (http://biblehub.com/1_peter/1-15.htm)
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;

Psalms 119:1 (http://biblehub.com/psalms/119-1.htm) Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
(KJV WBS)


Colossians 3:5 (http://biblehub.com/colossians/3-5.htm)
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality,

Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, (http://biblehub.com/revelation/22-15.htm)

1 Corinthians 6:18 (http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/6-18.htm)
Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

Galatians 5:19 (http://biblehub.com/galatians/5-19.htm)
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;

Voluntarist
06-25-2014, 07:09 AM
xxxxx

Pericles
06-25-2014, 10:05 AM
Reminds me of a quote from my uncle about Army race sensitivity training in the 1970s : "If you aren't prejudiced before starting the classes, you will be by the time you finish them."

scottditzen
06-25-2014, 10:34 AM
In fact, most don't. Even in the highly religious categories there's fewer than 20% who practice premarital abstinence. If NorthCarolinaLiberty is correct, roughly 80% of the highly religious folks are just thumbing their noses at their deities. I wonder if that would warrant not being sold a cake.

Oh ok, I follow ya now. I was confused on the point of belief vs behavior.

helmuth_hubener
07-16-2014, 12:58 PM
Yes, employees have the right to choose to not work for bosses who want help with gay marriages. Or even to choose not to work for bosses who are gay. They should be free to work for whomever they want.

The alternative is that they be unfree.

I do not approve of that alternative. I believe in an employee's right to be free.

Lucille
07-16-2014, 01:48 PM
So did he finish his gay training yet?


"I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory."

For Hope, this was an oddly profound gag, discerning even at the dawn of the Age of Tolerance that there was something inherently coercive about the enterprise. Soon it would be insufficient merely to be “tolerant” — warily accepting, blithely indifferent, mildly amused, tepidly supportive, according to taste. The forces of “tolerance” would become intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/366896/age-intolerance-mark-steyn).

Paulbot99
07-16-2014, 02:19 PM
Got to be reeducated, Comrade. ;)