Baker Who Refused Same-sex Couple Must Take Sensitivity Training

[Brett85]

I think it's likely that before too long everyone who's a Bible believing Christian will be sent to "reeducation camps."

[Christian Liberty]

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]

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

The difference is the context of the event.

[klamath]

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]

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]

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]

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]

stupid stupid bs. its his right to do as he wishes with his beliefs and his business.

[Tywysog Cymru]

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]

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]

Be glad that bigots are out in the open about not serving people. That way it's possible to take business elsewhere.

[Origanalist]

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 $#@! for brains to take their business elsewhere and not have to take sensitivity training for doing so.

[nayjevin]

Absolutely. I think all "bigots" should be more out in the open, and tell all the offended $#@! 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 $#@!-for-brains.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[jtap]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

xxxxx

[Antischism]

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 $#@!fit 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]

xxxxx

[scottditzen]

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]

xxxxx

[scottditzen]

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% falls into the second.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[specsaregood]

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

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]

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.