Participate in Gay Wedding… or Go to Jail for a Year

chick1-web

Because freedom isn’t free. It has to be taken away. And then redistributed to persecuted groups like two bored gay men whose idea of love involves suing people.

Once upon a time there was a country with freedom of religion. A country where you couldn’t just compel someone to violate their religion because some member of a designated victim insisted that it had a compelling need to violate someone else’s religious freedom.

That was America. It was a nice place. Unfortunately we all seem to live in Sweden now with moral panics about guns and shotgun gay weddings.

A Colorado bakery owner illegally discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake for the pair last year because of his Christian religious beliefs, a judge ruled on Friday.

Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer ordered Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to accommodate sex-couples or face fines and other possible penalties.

“The complainants can sue him civilly in the regular courts system or he can potentially be prosecuted by the district attorney for up to twelve months in jail.”

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling. “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.”

What exactly is the cost to society of a business informing people who want to engage in something that isn’t a marriage that they can just hit up any of the large number of bakeries who will be happy to make a cake for their marriage to a bridge, another man, a tree or themselves?

(Yes, all of those are actual things.)

And should the “hurt” really outbalance the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

But Masterpiece Cakeshop’s horrifying wave of discrimination doesn’t end there.

Martin added that Phillips is a devoted Christian who has an unwavering faith. She said he is a person of such deep faith that he won’t even bake Halloween-themed treats – at all.

Sure, at first blush you might think that a baker should be allowed to refuse to bake Halloween-themed treats. But think of the hurt feelings of the witches and warlocks who come in wanting them… and the cost to society.

If Philips can be forced to bake a gay wedding cake… why not a cake with a pentagram on it? Why not a cake that says Allah Akbar or God is Dead?

If we’ve decided that religious freedom doesn’t exist except to protect mosques from government surveillance, then where is the line drawn?

 

 

  • John William Thompson

    plaster the faces of the two gays in the media and what city they live in. Then explain how the judge is taking religious freedom away. SUE the judge and sue the gays

    • Diane Pugh

      I so agree!!!!!! Sue the Judge and sue the gays!!!!

      • Neil Cameron

        On what grounds?
        Suing for the sake of suing without legal grounds is just a complicated way of throwing money into a hole.
        Just sell the damned cake.

        • Parque_Hundido

          On the grounds that I find the antics of screeching right wing homophobic bigots to be highly entertaining. Especially when they sue. Seen the ACLJ much lately? Non-stop hilarity. “Sue the gays!!!” You can’t make this stuff up!

          • Diane Pugh

            Everyone has a right to their opinion…whether it offends YOU or not!!!!! Dont like people who dont accept homosexuality? TOO BAD!!!!! Get over it!!!!!

          • Parque_Hundido

            Who said anything about “not liking” right wing anti-gay bigots? I find them amusing. For example, I like your screeching, third-grade use of all caps and exclamation marks. Right wing loonies entertain me!

          • Diane Pugh

            Not everything is in caps…only the pertinent things. Just a little english lesson for ya, there, Parque!!!! Learn it…know it…speak it.. Oh, and BTW, who died and made you the thought police???? Laughable!!!!! Lefties like you are so humorous!!! Remember, we laugh at you, too!!! You definitely took your stupid pill this morning.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry, God does not speak in all caps. Ever. I would suggest that you learn English before giving tips to others. You cannot laugh at us because we all know that right wing nutjobs don’t have any sense of humor. Do you think Sarah Palin’s humor is on purpose? Of course not. Only lefties manage to be funny on purpose. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. God made it so.

          • Diane Pugh

            Awwwww..are you waaaah waaahing now? Everyone knows that liberalism is a mental disease. I suggest you seek help for your affliction. Also, I am done with you. I see no reason to continue a conversation with a total idiot.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m sorry, your poor English and third grade demeanor make it difficult to understand what you’re trying to say. Why don’t you try a little quiet time? When you collect your thoughts and can write in complete sentences, you can come back and share your little thoughts. How does that sound?

        • Diane Pugh

          It’s not about a cake….it’s about what you believe in!!! The baker had the right to refuse service. Go buy your cake somewhere else!!!!!!

          • Neil Cameron

            The courts disagree with you. The legislation is clear: no discrimination in commercial contracts.
            A bakery is not a religion.

            The almighty cupcake would constitute idolatry in the eyes of any Christian.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The Constitution is even clearer. No violation of Freedom of Religion.

          • Neil Cameron

            A bakery is not a religion.
            Commerce is not religion.
            No violation of religious freedom has occurred.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Bakeries are run by individuals. Individuals do not give up their Constitutional rights to Freedom of Speech and Religion when they set foot in a business.

          • Neil Cameron

            Go on, build your segregationist theocracy, and deny gays access to the commercial enterprises you dont want them accessing.
            Reminder: segregation didnt work out so well last time round. It wont this time either.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The only theocracy here is that of the left which insists on violating Freedom of Religion by forcing those who believe otherwise to participate in its gay ceremonies.

    • Timmogul7

      Nah, save money AND time, ship both their twinkle toe butts into the deep inner city of Detroit and let em sue their way out.

    • Gee

      The ruling is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment and yes the baker does have the right to sue for violating his civil rights

      • Chilidawg

        How is the first amendment violated? this is a bakery, not a church.

        Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

        • Gee

          Their right to practice their religion was taken away. That is how it was violated.

          The government does not have a right to compel anybody to conduct business – the baker is not a slave

          • Chilidawg

            “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

            — Antonin Scalia

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It is a First Amendment case whether you accept that or not.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Unfortunately, this case is being tried in a court of law, not inside your head. So no, this is not a first amendment case :( Again, you should really learn basic concepts before you try to write. And base your work on verifiable facts, not the rantings you hear from crazies. Too much crazy in your posts. You’ll never win like this. People might dismiss you as a desperately cranky right wing homophobic troll. :(

          • Nick

            You can’t argue an anti0dsicrimination case in a bubble. Every type of case where there’s a ruling, the ruling MUST be compliant with other rights and areas of the law or else its grounds for appeal.

          • Harald Eigerson

            Parque you’re wrong. NAACP vs. Alabama started out about being about fourth amendment rights but SCOTUS ended up ruling in favor of the NAACP on freedom of association (that’s covered in the first amendment) and a right not to have rights taken away without due process (that’s section one of the fourteenth amendment). Given enough time and patience I could quote you a lot more material but it would be wasted because 1) more than likely you’ve seen the same material and 2) even though we might see the same thing we’re going to have different interpretations because of our respective world views.

            I used to have a militant atheist democrat friend who regularly wore a T shirt with most of the first amendment on it. After I pointed out the part where it said the government shall not impede the free exercise thereof (of religion) he wore it a whole lot less. It was also an epiphany for me as well. For him it wasn’t enough that I respect his religious view. From his point of view I wasn’t in my right mind and that the government should be granted power to protect me from myself and decide what was the best use of my resources.

            Individually you guys are just obnoxious. When you guys achieve a critical mass large enough to control government you guys are downright dangerous. In the last century people like you have been responsible for the premature deaths of over 130 million people. By you guys I mean militantly atheistic socialists.

          • Parque_Hundido

            You’re right. The entire point of the LGBT movement is to destroy you. I’m so hurt, shocked and devastated that you figured this out. Whatever will we do????

          • P.

            Parque_Hundido, there is a saying in law: “When the facts are with you, pound the facts. When the law is with you, pound the law. When neither the facts nor the law are with you, pound the table.” By resorting to merely insulting Daniel Greenfield, all you have done is the “pound the table”. I discussed Chilidawg’s out-of-context use of a quote from Employment Division v. Smith above. Such a post discusses both facts and law. First Amendment law is most often a matter of trying to balance seemingly conflicting rights by accomodation and, when no accommodation is possible (?no other bakery within a 500 mile radius of Metropolitan Denver?) deciding which right has more standing under the law. The Free Exercise of religious conviction is specifically protected under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. Wedding cakes from a SPECIFIC baker (when dozens of other bakers were easily available) is NOT specifically guranteed by the First Amendment. I have no problem with gay marriage. The last gay wedding I was invited to occurred 3 weeks ago. However, I am wise enough to know that gay rights are not advanced by trampling over other people’s First Amendment religious rights and then dismissing their religions convictions with what amounts to intolerant hate speech: .. “desperately cranky right wing homophobic troll”. Tolerance is a two-way street. As an Hispanic, I love my traditional “lechón asado” but it would never occur to me to seek out a Kosher Jewish caterer to provide it (when dozens of Hispanic caterers are available) and then, when my specific order was refused for religious reasons, accuse the Jewish caterers of being anti-Hispanic bigots and drag them into Court because I want my “lechón asado” from THAT caterer just to rub a religious Jewish face with grasitas. …. “No había otro lugar para conseguir tu lechón asado? …. Claro que si. Pero lo que yo quería era fastidiar y tormentar a un judío religioso. Que divertido!”

          • Parque_Hundido

            No. While it sounds like you’ve been watching a lot of courtroom dramas, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this is a first amendment issue. No court case, no ruling, no shred of evidence would possibly indicate that. I’m not sure what it would take to get this into the heads of these right wing homophobic bigots, but it doesn’t really matter. It’s only a first amendment case for Danny and his high school debate friends. Not in the real world.

          • Gee

            Okay let’s take a similar case.

            Say a person wanted a Rum Cake – and the baker was Muslim, Mormon or Baptist. Would they have grounds to sue if the baker refused? If not, why not? How would that be different?

            Remember Gay Marriage is not a civil right under Federal Law.

            I pose this as neither a Christian, nor do I oppose gay marriage.

          • tagalog

            I would reply to Antonin Scalia: Since when is government free to regulate religious belief and religious expression?

          • A Z

            Chilidawg • 6 days ago

            Yawn.

            Birthers have nothing.

            (Other than bigotry and blind hatred)
            ____________________________________________

            I went thru 6 days worth of comments and this one topic was you concern.

            After all that and your comment about birther, I think I know enough about you to not want to know you.

            I would rather put my life in the hands of some random person drawn from 7 billion people in the world than in yours. The odds would be better for good treatment.

            Birther? really?

          • Neil Cameron

            The federal constitution has full jurisdiction over all of Colorado law.

          • Chilidawg

            And the state is allowed to expand upon those rights.

            The following is from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act

            Places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person’s sexual orientation, including transgender status.

            … A public accommodation is any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public

            This is in no way a violation of anyone’s federal rights.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Actually a public accommodation was originally defined as a hotel, motel or public eatery

          • Parque_Hundido

            Yes, and slaves were once counted as less than full citizens. What’s your point?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your examples are exactly alike.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Good thinking skills Danny. Now, care to explain your plagiarism for us?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You mean the one that never existed.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, I mean the article where you were caught red handed plagiarizing research. You’ll never be a journalist if you don’t learn the rules. Sorry.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You mean the thing that didn’t happen. Right. Gotcha.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No I mean the instance when you were caught red handed plagiarizing research from the CDC. You failed to credit your sources, which you also managed to misquote. If you’re going to plagiarize, you should at least plagiarize text you understand. Very sophomoric error. I wouldn’t be surprised if you get kicked off the high school debate team.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            By “plagiarizing” you mean

            1. The material I put in quotation marks

            2. Described as coming from the CDC

            3. With a link going to the CDC

          • Parque_Hundido

            I certainly hope you made those changes after it was repeatedly pointed out that you failed to cite the CDC and had failed to reference the sourvpce of the research, made available to the public on the CDC’s website. Being known as a liar, a plagiarist and a homophobic bigot is not the way I would like to see you end your high school years Danny. You should shape up while there’s still hope.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The CDC was cited all along.

            You fail at trolling.

          • Parque_Hundido

            No, you only added the citation after being repeatedly told that you needed to do so. You plagiarized the research. You also misquoted and misunderstood it. Danny, you’re never going to be successful until you learn to take responsibility for your mistakes and learn from your errors! Do you want to spend the rest of your days writing these awful little pieces for your high school debate club? I didn’t think so. You have to own up to your errors in judgement and express regret BEFORE you get caught red handed.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Wrong again.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’ve touched a nerve because I’m right. That’s why you’re reacting so strenuously. I’m glad you made the change – that least acknowledges that you understand that plagiarism is a problem that you should not be exhibiting. Next we can work on your honesty.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And still wrong.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Again, we need to work on your honesty. Your plagiarism incident isn’t the only reason we have to doubt your honesty Danny. That’s why this incident bothers you so much.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The wrongness. It continues.

          • Parque_Hundido

            The sooner you take responsibility for your lying and plagiarism, the sooner you can work toward becoming a productive, upright citizen. The longer you wallow in your lies, the longer your reputation will suffer.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            You should probably give up the wrongness and lie-wallowing then.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Sorry Danny, you’ve committed the act of plagiarism, you lied about it, and you even did all of this in the service of your poorly written little debate pieces. Very sad. You will need to learn shame. Seems like you have a lot of lessons you’ll need to learn.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So far you’re the only one lying. Keep up the good work.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Well, this isn’t the first time you’ve been caught lying, is it? Plagiarism is just a fancy way to say lying. Are you really content to be known as a hate mongering liar? Wouldn’t you feel better if you did a little growing up? I know you crave respect, but lying isn’t going to get it. Growing up is hard, but it’s time, don’t you think?

          • Chilidawg

            No where in the federal constitution is the act of selling someone a cake defined as a religious act.

          • P.

            Chilidawg wrote: “No where in the federal constitution is the act of selling someone a cake defined as a religious act. ” === In the days of the German Kaiser there was a German saying that “In America, everything that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. In Germany, anything that is not specifically allowed is prohibited.” It is the logic of the Kaiser’s Germany that you have just used. By that logic, any Free Speech that is typed or put on the Internet is not protected by the First Amendment since neither typewriters nor word processors nor the Internet was mentioned or even invented when the First Amendment was written. Nowhere in the Constitution is the smoking of peyote by Native American religion specifically mentioned as a relious act but it IS recognized as a First Amendment protected religious act. You actually expect EVERY allowed act to be SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Consitution? What kind of irrational lunacy is that? The Consitution would run into the millions of pages to describe every possible act that is specifically allowed. That would be Kaiser’s Germany on steroids. In this bakery, Halloween cakes were also refused because Halloween cakes were not generic cakes without religious implications. Halloween cakes were cakes that specifically celebrated Halloween and celebrating Halloween violated the religious beliefs of the baker. I have absolutely no problem with Halloween but they have a First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion Clause right to have a religious-based problem with Halloween and refuse my “Happy Halloween!” cake order. At a bakery run by Catholic nuns or at a Kosher Jewish caterer, is baking a generic chocolate cake a religious act? No. Is forcing those Catholic nuns to bake a cake that says “Celebrate Abortion on Demand!” for a Planned Parent hood office party an act that crosses religious lines. Yes. Is forcing the Jewish Kosher caterer to provide Hispanic traditional roast pork for an Hispanic wedding an act that crosses religious lines. Yes. However, if you frame it in terms of “The Jewish caterer refused service to a Hispanic family” or “Catholic nuns refused black office workers service” then your position is so utterly simplistic that your position becomes worthless for lack of any meaningful context. As far as Colorado “prohibiting” anything, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that the First Amenment trumps Colorado law. This ruling begs for appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and some First Amendment rights organization may decide to fund such an appeal.

          • Chilidawg

            You are missing the point. For example you state:

            ” Is forcing the Jewish Kosher caterer to provide Hispanic traditional roast pork for an Hispanic wedding an act that crosses religious lines(?)”

            Since a Jewish caterer would not have pork to sell to anyone, let alone a Hispanic family, the comparison is invalid. In that case, the Jewish caterer would be justified in refusing to comply with the customers request.

            On the other hand, if the Jewish caterer offered latkes to thier Jewish customers, but refused to sell them to a gentile customer, then that would be discrimination.

            That is what happened with the baker.

            He sells cakes to one group, but not the other.

          • JIMMYPALMIERI

            HE CAN PRACTICE WHATEVER RELIGION HE LIKES. HE SIMPLY CANNOT SELL OR BE A BUSINESS TO A SELECT FEW OF THE PUBLIC. HE LOSES. THE END. THERE IS A LITTLE LAW KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL ANTI DISCRIMINATION ACT. THIS TRUMPS ALL GOD, SATANS, BOOKS, BIBLES, ZEALOUTS, ETC. THE END. OVER AND DONE. IT WILL CONTINUE TO PROTECT ALL PEOPLE FROM RELIGIOUS TYRANNY

          • Chilidawg

            Please don’t type in all capital letters. It is most anoying

            Further, the particular law is the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act that specifically prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation

            The federal law, unfortunately is not as road in its definitions of protected classes.

          • P.

            @Chilidawg, you are specifically quoting Employment Division v. Smith which is a totally different case with totally different circumstaces. In law, you cannot just pick out-of-context quotes from one case and then apply them as you please to any other specific case. In that particular case, a religious plaintiff filed a complaint against the State of Oregon to FORCE the state to give him benefits despite his use of peyote in religious services (which use WAS recognized as a protected religious right under the First Amendment). A lower Oregon Court actually SIDED with Smith. The Oregon Supreme Court ALSO sided with Smith stating that preserving the “financial integrity” of the workers’ compensation fund was outweighed by Smith’s religious freedom. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, the states are not REQUIRED to do so by giving benefits. For example, a state COULD ,but would not be REQUIRED to, block street traffic to accomodate a Mexican-American Catholic procession to celebrate the Feast of Guadalupe. In this bakery case, a religious baker that has even refused Halloween cake orders is now being REQUIRED to help celebrate an activity (a gay wedding) that his religion believes is sinful, thereby violating the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion clause. Can gay, pro-choice advocates now demand a cake from a bakery run by Catholic nuns saying “God Does Not Exist and Abortion Is Not a Sin” ? It is also silly to say that a lower Court’s ruling by a Judge means that this is or is not a First Amendment case. Lower Court decicisions are routinely overturned by higher Courts. That is why higher Courts exist. In Employment Division v. Smith, the lower Court in Oregon and the Oregon Supreme Court both ruled FOR the religious Smith’s demand for benefits from the State of Oregon. In regards to “Colorado law”, Federal law and the Constitution trump state law under the Supremacy clause. That is why, when the Oregon Employment Division initially LOST in the Oregon Supreme Court, the State of Oregon’s Employment Division had to go to the Federal level to protect itself from Oregon’s own law.

          • Chilidawg

            The government has the right to regulate commerce.

            “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

            — Antonin Scalia

          • tagalog

            I would reply to Antonin Scalia: Since when is government free to regulate religious belief or religious expression?

          • Chilidawg

            Their right to practice their religion was taken away,

            No it wasn’t.

            No one has the right to discriminate against another person, no matter what religion they profess to belong to.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Yes, they do! I have an absolute right to deal with others or not as I choose. These anti-discrimination laws all violate the rights of property and free association.

          • Chilidawg

            Not if you operate a business.

            your rights as an individual do not apply to a business.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So the First Amendment was only meant to apply to individuals?

          • tagalog

            The First Amendment applies to corporations also, although government may regulate commercial speech under its police powers. But making a cake for a homosexual marriage doesn’t seem to have much of an impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.

          • Minicapt

            You really should go back and reread Mr Justice Scalia’s statement of opinion, and parse out its meaning, especially his use of adjectives. He isn’t ruling that all must practice fudge-packing.

            Cheers

          • tagalog

            The First Amendment says, in pertinent part, “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof…”

          • tagalog

            Yes, they do. See Doe v. Bolton, on precisely that issue vis-à-vis the right to abortion and conscientious objection thereto.

          • Wibbins

            So? We have the freedom of association; I don’t believe the government should force people to be segregated, and unlike a lot of people, I don’t believe the government should force people to integrate, if someone wishes to not serve a specific clientele base that’s their decision, that clientele will simply find a business that will gladly accept the client. Guess what we call that ‘dawg? The Free Market in a Free society.

          • NAHALKIDES

            And therein lies the disagreement – my rights should extend to my business, and until relatively recently in this country, they did. You shouldn’t give up your rights just because you go into business – people should be and are of right free to enter into voluntary arrangements with others to their mutual benefit, without the intervention of busybodies like yourself who feel you’re smarter than everyone and should be able to dictate to the rest of us.

          • Chilidawg

            Your rights do not all extend to your buisness. Your buisness is subject to specific regulations.

          • Jakareh

            What on earth is a “buisness”? Could it be that the supercilious pedant who mocked others for confusing two homonyms can’t spell a second-grade word?

          • Neil Cameron

            Your business is a legal entity that must comply with the rules of such artificial legal entities.
            You however are free not to be in the building when the business sells a cake to a pair of homosexuals. You are also free to donate any profits you earn from the legal entity’s sales of cakes to homosexual couples to whichever charity you choose.
            Or not, if you prefer to keep them and pay tax on them.

          • NAHALKIDES

            At least you’re more or less honest about your fascism. But understand what you’re claiming: that you have a right to put a gun to my head and use physical force to compel me to deal with people whom I choose not to. I’m not sure where you think you get that right – it seems to me that business transactions are strictly between the parties to the transaction, meaning – it’s none of your damned business! And one of these days, we’re going to teach people like you to mind your own business.

          • tagalog

            So a kosher butcher shop must hire a gentile butcher who knows nothing about butchering meat so that it is kosher?
            An airline can’t develop a written policy that prohibits its pilots or airline hosts/hostesses from cross-dressing while they await a sex change operation?

            Really?

          • Neil Cameron

            How is baking cakes a practice of religion?
            Were they prevented from praying, attending church, reading the scriptures or shutting up shop on the Sabbath? No they were not.

            The government has not compelled them to do business. The law has compelled them to desist from using sexual orientation as a justification for rejecting a commercial contract.
            They remain free to choose not to make cake at all. They remain free to refuse a contract ON LEGITIMATE GROUNDS. There is no compulsion to conduct business, they are free to choose to do business if the want.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Religion is a set of moral and ethical values. Forcing people to participate in someone else’s ceremony that violates their values… just because the religion of the left sanctifies gay marriage is not how a country founded by religious dissenters runs.

          • CaoMoo

            The problem is too many people see religion as going to church and not what it actually is ones ethical and moral code by which they lead their life. Religion is ones way of life. Otherwise it’s having a form of godly devotion but proving false to it’s power.

            It also pains me that so many who slam religion, christians, and the bible have never read it and have no understanding of what it says.

          • Nick

            Yep, I see contractual issues at play here as well. You can’t direct people to do business with people they wish NOT to do business with, this is why FINES are the preferred method of judicial sanction. Send this guy to prison for a year, he’ll appeal and get an instant stay of the prision term and Robert Spencer’s order will be ammended while he’s being publicly rebuked from all sides including the judge who ammends his rediculous order. Next he’d be ordering guys like Jack Phillips to sleep with the damn gay couples.

    • Patriot077

      Do it before CO passes laws that protect sexual preference but not religious freedom – like Oregon & Washington have done.

    • Parque_Hundido

      That’s pretty airtight logic right there. Let me guess, you’re one of the ace lawyers from ACLJ? You’ve been too busy defending the attorney who’s awaiting trial for using her own daughter in a child porn ring? Thought so.

    • Chilidawg

      “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

      — Antonin Scalia

      • NAHALKIDES

        But government is not supposed to have an absolute and arbitrary power over private business.

        • Chilidawg

          the bakery is not a “private business.”

          It operates in a public marketplace and as such is subject to the laws governing such businesses.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It is a private business. The term you’re looking for is public accommodation. Which a bakery isn’t.

          • Wibbins

            Public as in out in the public, not publicly owned as in government owned.

          • tagalog

            Please explain why bakery is not a private business.

            A bakery is public in that it is open to the general public, and, like any business, may freely choose to contract with anyone, with the exception that it is not free to refuse to contract with people based solely upon their race, color, sex, religion, or place of national origin. Nothing in either that law or the case law promulgated under it bars any business from refusing to contract with people based on their sexual orientation, which is, as yet, not included under the rubric “sex” as the term is used in that Act.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Your view completely negates the very idea of private property. And even the “public accomodation” theory, which Daniel mentions, is basically wrong (Hotels, etc.). That was the entering wedge of statism, so that now Fascists like yourself confidently bleat about how businesses should be governed by arbitrary edicts (not truly “laws” as that concept was understood at the time of this nation’s founding).

          • Chilidawg

            You have a naive understanding of what “private property” is. I would suggest looking up the concept of a “bundle of sticks” in relation to property rights. The government does have the authority to regulate private property. Zoning laws being a perfect example.

            In the case of a buisness like a bakery, the restrictions are even greater and the number of sticks in the bundle are fewer.

            For instance, the buisness has to obtain a buisness licence and is subject to the restrictions of that license.

            A bakery is subject to public health laws.

            The physical facility must comply with local building codes.

            And the buisness must comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

            This is not an arbitrary edict by the judge. It is an application of existing Colorado law to the actions of the baker.

          • Jakareh

            “In the case of a buisness like a bakery, the restrictions are even greater and the number of sticks in the bundle are fewer.”

            Yes, it’s true! Our laughable little tyrant can’t spell “business” and yet he imagines himself the arbiter of how private businesses should be run in the state of Colorado.

          • NAHALKIDES

            Nope, it’s you who don’t understand what private property is, and you display your ignorance with the examples you chose:
            1. Why should anyone need a license to go into business?
            2. Public health – there can be some laws regarding the prevention of communicable diseases from being spread even in a private business, but that has nothing to do with “anti-discrimination” laws.
            3. Building codes are generally a huge mistake that prevents innovation in building technology, much the way medieval guilds held back innovations in blacksmithery.
            4. Who a business owner deals with is up to him. The state has no right to enact “anti-discrimination” laws. The fact that they did doesn’t make it right.

          • Chilidawg

            “1. Why should anyone need a license to go into business?”

            ——
            Seriously?

            Are you kidding me?

            You don’t know the answer to that question?

          • Harald Eigerson

            By that logic your private home is not private property since in most areas it must comply with local building codes and health concerns in the form of hook up to local utilities such as water, sewage and electrical services. You know what, Chilidawg might be right. The left may already have effectively abolished private property without impeding the government’s ability to suck the life force out of you and still maintain the illusion of private property.

          • Chilidawg

            “By that logic your private home is not private property since in most areas it must comply with local building codes and health concerns in the form of hook up to local utilities such as water, sewage and electrical services. “

            —-

            now you are getting it.

            Property ownership is often likened to a bundle of sticks. each stick represents a particular right in the property.

            we never hold all the sticks, because some are held by the state or by others.

            For instance, you may have a utility easement, or the city may hold an easement for the ROW.

            also, the right of the state to tax the property, is one right that is held by the commons.

      • celticmom3

        seriously is this the only guy you can HIDE behind? And Mr. chilidawg you better be damn glad that your mother was a “birther”, since when is any one person better than anyone else?
        I thought you gays where anti-hate? So how come you hate so much?! You want and demand all of the freedoms you can until you get your feelings hurt and then you go straight to hate, for the love of love and freedom just go find another bakery!

        • Chilidawg

          Sorry, but the “find another bakery” argument is invalid.

          This bakery violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

          That is the crux of the issue.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The crux of the issue is that Freedom of Religion supersedes any gay lobby mandates

  • le

    Any business has the right to refuse business to anyone. They don’t need a reason, and they have to do is refuse. This had always been in America. Too damned bad the queers want to put people in jail. And friggin muslim also. This is America and we do have our rights.

    • laura r

      small businesses DO have a right to refuse. ive been refused by several housepainter contractors. they said job too small, or were busy for 3 months a wait list. i also refused them! can they sue me? either they were too expensive, or they wanted to cut corners use cheaper materials. best to not talk personal stuff, just say youre booked. caseclosed.

    • NoWay

      Wake up. You have no rights in this country.

      • anarchyst

        Not entirely true. IF YOU ARE WHITE AND CHRISTIAN, you have no rights. As attorney general Eric Holder. He has declared that “civil-rights “protections DO NOT APPLY TO WHITES.

  • Arizona

    Fine….bake the cake for them. Doesn’t mean it has to “taste” good ! Use salt instead of sugar. In all seriousness……this country is becoming a joke. Depressing…….

    • A Z

      Then the government will get test buyers of services and start judging the cakes and launching lawsuits.

    • laura r

      why would they want someone to bake a cake for their wedding who now dispises them? a wedding shouldnt have bad feelings. im not sure of this outcome, did the gays sue? win big bucks? then happily hire someone else? its a scam, we all know this. the bakers should have kept his mouth shut, & said “i am booked, i have a full year” end of case.

    • LEL

      It’s the principal, not the cake.

      • Chilidawg

        Who? Is this a bakery school?

    • Chilidawg

      Such an action by the baker would certainly result in him facing a civil suit (if not a criminal complaint as well) that would probably put him out of business.

      Is that what you are looking for?

      • Arizona

        OH PLEASE !!!! Chilidawg….. THE HOMOS will force them out of business ! Is this the first that you have read on how this crap works ??? Get a clue !!! And NO Im not looking for the bakery to go out of business ! Im looking for the gays to step off their thrones and realize that not EVERYONE has to cater to them !!! Is that too much to ask of today’s society ?????? Apparently to you it is !!! Smh……

  • BobWhitakerisokay

    I’ll bet most conservatives who deplore this situation applaud “civil rights”, i.e., forced integration and White/non White “assimilation”, aka intermarriage. They won’t see that “civil rights” paved the way for “gay rights”. When freedom of association ended in 1964 all of this crap was inevitable.

    • Gee

      Refusing service based upon race is not a civil right. Based upon religion it is.

      • Zachary Lucido

        Can I discriminate based on not liking someone? The writer sounds like an ass, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I am not comfortable with this ruling.

      • BobWhitakerisokay

        Refusing service based on race ended decades ago by “civil rights”, aka destruction of freedom of association. Refusing service based on religion is simply a continuation of same.

        • defcon 4

          Unless you’re muslime.

    • http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com KMDay

      Then a socialist who owns a business as NO RIGHT, based on your comment to deny a White Supremacist services either, correct?

      • BobWhitakerisokay

        “Civil Rights” is a scam and fraud which was created to destroy freedom of association, especially for the White majority. In a non “civil rights” world he could refuse a “white supremacist” or anyone else without fear of reprisals. By the same token, this baker could refuse to serve “gays” or anyone else without fear of law suits or jail.

    • http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com KMDay

      I would also assume, based on your comment that it is against Civil Rights to have a month solely dedicated to Black History month and another to Hispanic history month. Save the, “every other month is white history month” comment; there is no dedicated WHITE History month; there is no dedicated White Congressional Caucus or White only TV network, etc…etc…etc… so, if I use your comment, all of what they have been doing, including Affirmative Action is factually a violation of Civil Rights for clearly no one is being treated equally with any of the above I have mentioned.

    • LEL

      Good grief, another white supremest. You’re still free to associate with whatever you choose Bob, and you needn’t concern yourself about who someone else marries.

      • anarchyst

        It’s “supremacist”–NOT “supremist”. Learn how to spell. It’s evident that you attended an all-black urban public school.

        • The March Hare

          Wow, I hope I don’t accidently fat-finger some reply to you so I don’t get smeared. So you think a misspelled word indicates attendance of an all black urban public school. Can you spell “Bigot”?

          • anarchyst

            . . . and PROUD of it. Thank you for noticing. See my post above. You might learn something.
            PROUD WHITE RACIST (according to some). . .

          • Joseph Narcisse Bouche’

            I think you missed the Hare’s point: You are basing your entire opinion of that person’s personality, personal opinions, attitude, future job prospects, education and skin color on a misspelled word. That doesn’t seem a bit — presumptuous to you?

          • anarchyst

            I “call ‘em like I see ‘em” . . .
            Best regards,

        • LEL

          Well I guess we know you know how to spell, now let’s see if you can get that brain on the right track.

  • A Z

    Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig just look creepy. You just know there was major bullying in their school days and their psyches were squished.

  • LolKatzen

    Just outrageous! In the US too, where you have constitutionally protected freedoms (or I thought you did). Unlike my home Canada. But this DOES sound like a story from Sweden. Terrible.

  • johannesarcher

    will a butcher shop be sued if he doesn`t sell Halal ??

    • http://specfriggintacular.wordpress.com KMDay

      Very Very good point!

    • The March Hare

      Halal meats could be in the tray right next to the pork chops.

      • LEL

        Well then the Halal meats wouldn’t be Halal meats silly.

        • The March Hare

          Gee, maybe… maybe… you’re sort of getting it. I know, I should have put LOL at the end. What does LEL stand for? Lets Everybody Laugh?

    • Chilidawg

      That is a false analogy.

      a butcher shop either sells a product or it does not. It can not discriminate on who it sells it’s product to. If the bother shop were to refuse to sell any products to muslims, then they would be liable, just as this bakery is.

      that is the issue here.

      The bakery is not permitted to discriminate on who they sell their products to based on their sexual orientation.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        Masterpiece Cakeshop was asked to fulfill an order. A butcher shop can be asked to fulfill an order.

        • tagalog

          And both a bake shop and a butcher shop may refuse to contract or serve a person based upon religious belief, such as a kosher butcher shop refusing to cater to non-Jews, or hire butchers who don’t know how to be kosher.

      • Wibbins

        So if someone asks for a cake that is way to complicated, or they are so problematic, or hell the baker is working on 200 cakes during a rush period the baker says “I’m sorry, but I cannot fulfill your order, here’s a refund” You’d probably support the person suing for discrimination

      • Joey

        No, you’re wrong. The bakers in question do not have a no gays policy. They have said that they would bake them a wedding cake, brownies, whatever. Just not a wedding cake. It is the nature of the event that they object to.

        It’s analogous to some white supremacist asking for a white power cake, then when the bakery refuses, claiming that the bakers won’t serve white people.

        This bakery serves gays. No one is being “discriminated” against here, except the business owners of course.

        • Joey

          Sorry, my mistake. They said they would bake them a birthday cake, not a wedding cake.

          • Joey

            Hey Chilidawg: Curves offers service–exercise–to women only. Why can they refuse male customers? If they offer a service to women, they have to offer it to men, right?

        • Chilidawg

          They refused to offer a particular service that they offer to others.

          It is discrimination.

          No amount of equivocation on the extent of the refusal can change that.

          What if it were an interracial marriage and they offered if the same refusal and the same arguments in support of their refusal?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The service they offer is limited to men and women getting married.

            It does not include assorted people staging their own copycat imitation weddings.

            At no point did they offer cakes for cat weddings, gay weddings or polygamous marriages.

          • Chilidawg

            The service that they provide is selling cakes

            Period.

            That is all that matters here.

          • Joey

            No it’s not all that matters here. What matter is the two creepy homosexuals in question have no right to extract another person’s labor by force. The person selling her labor has a right under the first and thirteenth amendment to the constitution to refuse. They are raping her rights and you are cheering them on.

          • Chilidawg

            You have no idea what you are babbling about.

            The Colorado Anti-discrimination law is quite explicit in that it prohibits the kind of action taken by the bakery.

          • Joey

            Yes, homosexuals are a protected class. Special protections is what they have sought and what they have received.

            But you’re going to have to work on your reading comprehension. These people have said that they will serve “gays.” They object to gay weddings and therefore they do not wish to take part in them. They will, however, bake them brownies or a birthday cake. They do NOT have a “no gays” policy.

            I’m not comparing “gays” to white supremacists. I’m comparing “gays” to white people. Refusing to make a white supremacist cake is not the same thing as refusing to make any product for any white person. The same principle is at work here.

            Check the 13th amendment to the constitution. It prohibits involuntary servitude. That is what this is, and it trumps your puny statute.

        • Chilidawg

          —–

          “It’s analogous to some white supremacist asking for a white power cake, then when the bakery refuses, claiming that the bakers won’t serve white people.”

          ——-
          No, it is not analogous.

          Gays and transgender people are a protected class under the Colorado anti-discrimination act. White supremacists are not.

          It is as simple as that.

          The law says that the bakery can not discriminate against someone for being gay.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Ah so we only violate the First Amendment for protected classes.

    • Neil Cameron

      Why would they? If they don’t offer Halal to anybody, they are not discriminating by refusing to offer it to Muslims.
      The baker is offering wedding cakes. A cake is a cake irrespective of whether it is being sold to heterosexuals or homosexuals.
      If gay wedding cakes needed special sprinklings of fairy dust which would have to be brought in specifically in order to make them gay, then that would be a cake which is not offered to the general public and so the baker would not be discriminating by saying “no sorry”. But, alas, there is no such thing as fairy dust, and there is nothing specifically different about gay wedding cake to differentiate it sufficiently from straight cake to render it a separate unusual “not our skill set” product..

      • Daniel Greenfield

        A wedding cake is for a ceremony between a man and a woman. It is a cake specifically designed for a specific occasion which this was not.

        • Neil Cameron

          There is no different=ce between a wedding cake for a straight couple and a wedding cake for a gay couple, unless you specifically commission a gay specific aspect to the cake.
          Cake is cake.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Yes there is. There is a generic case. And there is an occasion cake for a specific occasion.

            A wedding cake can only be for an actual wedding. Two men can’t marry each other.

          • Neil Cameron

            Under civil law they can in some jurisdictions.
            Gay marriage is coming to a jurisdiction near you soon!

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Followed by man-boy marriage.

          • Neil Cameron

            Actually no.
            The “boy” cannot give legal consent, unless the “boy” is legally no longer a “boy”. Which would make it man – man marriage.
            Any man – boy “marriage” would be an infringement on the rights of the boy and on the rights of his legal guardians.
            Law (civil & criminal) is structured around defending and protecting the rights of citizens.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The gay rights movement just lowers the age of consent, as they tried to do in Germany.

          • Neil Cameron

            Hogwash.
            Reminder: The age of Consent in Vatican State is 12.
            Vatican State is a Christian Theocracy.
            Perhaps before pointing fingers, the Christian world should clean up its own household first.

          • Neil Cameron

            @ Daniel Greenfield

            Tatchell was expressing opinion on a public discussion on the issue.
            That public discussion was sparked by Prof John Ashton spearheading a campaign to lower the age of Consent. Ashton is no LGBT activist, he is an NHS Public Health Director.
            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24976929

            In typical anti LGBT fashion you are simply blaming the gays for a movement that is not theirs, but for which they have an opinion on.

            You do realize that by hanging on every word any member of the LGBT community says, and by falsely attributing everything that happens in society to LGBT, you are making your conspiracy theory about gays invading and taking over the world into a self fulfilling prophesy?
            If it is your actions which render it self fulfilling, who is it who is causing the detriments you claim are occurring in society?
            Perhaps you all should not focus so heavily on us gays, or you might end up appointing us in charge of, and responsible for EVERYTHING.

            Which is not exactly what you want is it?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            His opinion was pro-pedophilia. And gay rights activists have a long history of pushing pedophilia.

            Pedophilia is a notorious part of the homosexual lifestyle.

            Age of consent “reform” is the next “human rights issue” for gay rights activists.

  • BillyHW

    Dear gays, this is why people hate you. You’re welcome.

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      Perfectly stated …

    • Parque_Hundido

      Dear homophobic bigots, this is why you’ll end up broke. You’re welcome!

      • Tim Rafferty

        Dear homosexual bigots, that is the reason your turds slip out.

      • LogicNotHuff

        Yes, smart people fear the homosexual movement because they are godless violent liars. Matthew Shepherd was murdered by homosexuals in homosexual-on-homosexual violence. Homosexual is a NAZI movement.

      • LogicNotHuff

        Yes, smart people fear the homosexual movement because they are godless violent liars. Matthew Shepherd was a victim of a homosexual.

        • Parque_Hundido

          I would definitely advise you to fear homosexuals. They’ve got you outwitted, they’re better at using the media and if it were ever put to a vote, people who invoke Matthew Shepard as a means of justifying bigotry will be the first to be voted off the island. Bye bye!

          • LogicNotHuff

            Marxist Media that brought you Adolf Obama is the same Marxist Media that blathers about homosexual special favors. We know they are Marxist and demonic and we know homosexuality is demonic because the Bible tells us so. Turn to Jesus. Go find a good woman. Jesus loves you.

          • Parque_Hundido

            How do you type with all the tin foil on your head?

          • tagalog

            Because he’s not archy?

          • ThomasDanielFrain

            Is that Matthew Shephard, the meth dealer robbed & killed by two “friends” when a dope deal went wobbly, or are there more victims of that name?

            I know the party line is that he was murdered solely for being gay, but there’s a lot more to the story.

            Read some articles on the case written in the last couple of years and wake up.

            Just because something is repeated ad nauseum does not make it true.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Oh, another revisionist who wants it invoke Shepard’s name as a means of justifying anti-gay bigotry. Did you receive a call from central casting? Did they tell you to walk on stage sounding like a raving lunatic or was that your touch?

          • ThomasDanielFrain

            Didn’t bother to read the news, eh?

            Okay, blunder on, bro. Keep hating for hate’s sake.

            I haven’t the time.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Poor thing. The tin foil hat must be on too tight to notice that the only ones who see things your way are either behind bars or appearing as paid guests on FOX. You should use your time to better yourself rather than listen to these cranky right wing homophobes. Just saying.

      • Joey

        Thank you Parque, for making it known what we already knew. You want to make “homophobic bigots” broke or prisoners. You’re vindictive.

        If the state forces this baker to make them a wedding cake, she is already their prisoner.

        • Parque_Hundido

          Don’t be so dramatic. I don’t want these people to go to prison, but look how they behave! They can’t even run a business without running afoul of the law. This is Darwinian, really. Think of it this way: by violating the law, homophobic bigots are doing us the favor of removing themselves from society. It’s a pity we have to pay for prison, but I guess nothing worth having is totally free.

          • Harald Eigerson

            You are a Darwinian dead end if you stop to think about it.

          • Parque_Hundido

            Well, if you really stop to think about it, you don’t seem to understand evolutionary theory. Back to school for you! Learn how higher order vertebrates reproduce at the population level. Good luck with your studies!

  • camp7

    Bake the darn gay cake and add all the legal costs, associated personal time and a healthy profit margin to the price tag. If they refuse to pay file suit for civil wrong, mental anguish and defamation of character.

    Then make a publicized donation to the Alliance Defending Freedom. Send the grand total of all the ‘social’ costs to Judge Robert Spencer and reporting editor.

    • NoWay

      No. Stand firm.

      • camp7

        Since they’re not receptive to constitutional principal – make it hurt — make them PAY.

        • Chilidawg

          who is the constitutional principal?

          what school does he run?

      • LEL

        Yes stand firm. It’s the principal, not the freaking cake.

    • Chilidawg

      your legal advice sucks.

      • camp7

        Please don’t analogize my legal advice with you’re sexual obsessions.

        Thank you.

    • camp7

      I’m not arguing principal. If the proprietor stands firm that is commendable in my opinion. But if the owner does not comply with the court’s decision and is fined to the extent it jeopardizes the business than other options should be considered.

      Obviously these gay characters are looking for public sympathy for their alleged ‘victimization’. If the owner appeals this case to a higher court she/he is running the risk (and expense) of loosing to another politically correct judge or jury. The cost could be unbearable. All I’m saying is, the owner can use another strategy to stay in business. By offering the gay cake with all the (real) costs attached she/he can reverse the role of being a defendant to being compliant and now having legal leverage. At that point in time the owner’s accumulating costs to produce the cake would probably be several thousand dollars. Most likely, the gay couple would not pay for the cake and file another lawsuit for discrimination.

      Then it gets more convoluted because the court would need to determine what the real costs to the owner actually are. Almost as confusing as the
      the moronic decision by Judge Spencer to subjectively qualify “cost to society”. Force the court into quantifying the costs. The proprietor can quantify her/his cost because they are documented for disclosure. In the meantime this whole issue of denying the couple a cake is invalid and dissolves the controversy of their original claim. The predicted outcome is the court will force the owner to charge a determined ‘reasonable’ cost for the cake or decide that the couple must pay the cost in full, including the owner’s suffered defamation of character. After two years of litigation the public has long lost interest, defeating the gay couple’s motive of promulgating special rights.

      • tagalog

        I respectfully disagree. One way to deal with a repugnant law is to ignore it. Let the sheriff arrive to haul you off to jail. Make sure the news media know all about it, along with any powerful people or organizations that sympathize with your position so they can be there to witness the power of the state being used to oppress you.

        • camp7

          Point taken tag. “There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter.” ~ Charles Kingsley

  • JeremyBeadleswitheredhand

    there really isn’t any reason to sue. Many businesses rely on positive word-of-mouth and simply putting it out there that she doesn’t make cakes depending on your persuasion would not only prevent other people from being offended, but it would also most likely turn other people off going there as well (REVENGE!!). If she is going to let her personal prejudice damage her business, that is her problem, there are plenty more cake shops.

    it would be much better for her if she Actually put it in writing what she will and will not do, then this wouldn’t happen, or at the least people couldn’t sue.

    • Patriot077

      Really? No reason to sue? What about his civil rights under the Bill of Rights? You know, the one that gives all of us the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion and the right to exercise that freedom?
      There are plenty of bakeries they could have gone to that would gladly make wedding cakes for anyone and everyone because they do not have this religious conviction. And that is fine. To each his own, except when gay activists decide that it isn’t okay for others to have differing beliefs.

      • The March Hare

        Absolutely right. This suit isn’t to get a cake, it is to make a case and establish precedence for businesses to be forced into going against their own beliefs to satisfy the desires of others.

        • LEL

          Dah !
          I’d like to see the issue go to the Supreme Court (before obama gets to make a new appointment).

  • Biff Henderson

    Concerning personal freedoms does this add too or take away the fudge factor? I can’t keep up…

  • Patriot077

    This happened last year in Portland also. The bakery stood it’s ground but they ended up closing their dream bakery because the tolerant left was so hateful and vengeful. Now the wife is trying to run a much smaller business from their home. Oregon has laws protecting sexual persuasion but apparently nothing to protect religious freedom. Homosexuals have civil rights but people of faith do not.
    A flower shop in Washington state is being sued by two homosexual men who were refused wedding flowers. The AG even jumped on the bandwagon and filed his own suit.
    IMHO, most people are accepting of people regardless of their preference, but this could easily swing the other way if the activists keep pressing for their rights to suppress yours.

  • john700

    He should have made the cake very salty.

    • Chilidawg

      hmmmm, let’s think about this for a minute. you want the bakery to deliberately violate the court order by producing an inedible cake. Such an action would probably result in sever civil fines being assessed against the bakery. I doubt that the bakeries insurance company would pick up those costs, the bakery would be forced out of business.

      Is that what you are suggesting?

      • john700

        he should have made it salty before any court order

        • Chilidawg

          Then he could have faced a civil suit for breach of contract.

          • tagalog

            No; it would have been for a defective product.

          • john700

            It would have been like me suing you for being stupid.

      • Jakareh

        “sever” civil fines? What’s that, they cut off your hand as you’re passing them the check?

        “I doubt that the bakeries insurance company would pick up those costs, the bakery would be forced out of business.” What you want here is “bakery’s”. Learn how to distinguish the possessive from the plural. Also, this is a run-on sentence.

        You like to nitpick what others write, but two can play that game.

  • roccolore

    Gay fascists hate freedom. And they’re all silent on that lying lesbo from New Jersey.

    • tagalog

      You mean Dayna what’s-her-name, who made up the lying story about the people who didn’t leave her a tip (they did) and supposedly wrote her a message criticizing her lifestyle?

      • roccolore

        Yeah, that one.

  • Edward

    Make them go and live in Iran and then they will have something to moan about.

  • Jenny

    And why not tell that black couple that they can buy their cakes elsewhere? The Jewish couple? What about that little girl with the pagan mother who just wants to buy a cupcake? You don’t want to make anti-Obama racist cakes, fine, that defends people’s rights. But you can’t deny people the right to shop in your store based on their skin color or orientation or religion. Or just name your shop Christian Cakes and then nobody will want to shop there. Simple.

    • Tim Rafferty

      If that was the only bakery available I might agree, but in fact there were many available options.

      • Chilidawg

        Immaterial.

        That does not excuse violation of the law.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      No one is denying them the right to buy a ready made cake. They are being denied the option of ordering a wedding cake for something that isn’t a wedding.

      • Parque_Hundido

        Danny, you don’t appear to have learned your lesson! Not only did you plagiarize in the other article, but you’ve reverted to basing your articles on unsubstantiated feelings and opinions. When are you going to learn to read a court case? The couple in this instance was victorious – and the bigots who refused them service are appropriately facing legal sanction. When will you learn to check your opinions against verifiable facts? You’ll never make it to journalism school if you continue like this.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          Troll better.

          • Parque_Hundido

            That’s not exactly taking responsibility for your act of plagiarism, is it? If you want to graduate and go on to study to be a journalist, you really ought to learn to take responsibility for your mistakes, of which this little piece is a good example.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            Your trolling is still weak. I did try to help you polish it up.

          • Parque_Hundido

            I’m not sure you’re “articles” are really anything beyond trolling at this point. I don’t think you’ll graduate and you certainly won’t become a journalist at this rate. When will you take responsibility for your act of plagiarism? No holiday break for you!

        • tagalog

          Well, the homosexuals won in an administrative hearing, not at a court trial. Administrative law judges are well-known here in Colorado (and probably everywhere else) to be a mightily mixed bag as far as competence is concerned.

    • Joseph Narcisse Bouche’

      It is against the law (at least in some states?) to refuse a person the use of your lavatory in your establishment. (Supermarkets, for instance) That is understandable insofar as it’s virtually a medical necessity to excrete waste.

      A cake, however–? I believe that you SHOULD be able to refuse to serve someone based solely upon his skin color. And if the people hate it, they’ll boycott your establishment and you will fail. That is democracy at work: People vote with their dollar.

    • tagalog

      Anybody can shop in the store. They want a cupcake, fine. But when they want a custom job, then other factors come into play.

  • Parque_Hundido

    This is an excellent decision that reaffirms state sovereignty in regulating commerce and reinforcing civil rights. Discuss!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Onward to true communism!

      Forward!

    • tagalog

      The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to the states great power, all right, but when it comes to the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution and the laws promulgated thereunder are the supreme law of the land.

  • Atruebeliever

    Interesting….. Religion is a choice. You choose to be a believer plain and simple. You have the freedom to believe but that’s where it stops. Taking your personal beliefs and forcing it on others is simply wrong. We live in a country that has freedom of Religion and that means all Religions as well as no Religious belief at all. So that if you think means freedom from religion. When one decides to serve the public they do not have the right to take their religious choice and force it by discriminating against those that don’t share it. When are you going to stop shoving Christianity an every American yet scream and have a temper tantrum when a new Mosque opens….. remember Freedom of Religion within our Constutition have the exception that it means only Christianity. Religion also doesn’t give it the right to discriminate. No this isn’t being a totalitarian it is your idea that your faith give you the right to discriminate that makes you the totalitarian. Wake up and see the hypocrisy in your words.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Homosexuality is also a choice. Why should one choice trump another?

    • Bigfoot Steve

      I’m guessing the irony in your post will fly right over your head,lol. I guess I missed the news report detailing how the bakery owner took these two gay guys to court to force them to accept Christianity.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Taking your personal beliefs and forcing it on others is simply wrong. ”

      In your mind a coerced bakery transaction is what? Who is forcing what in this transaction?

      Go and think a bit.

      “When one decides to serve the public they do not have the right to take their religious choice and force it by discriminating against those that don’t share it.”

      They are not “serving the public.” They’re baking SPECIALTY goods. Non-fungible products.

      We have a bunch of indoctrinated idjits that think they understand the constitution.

  • Diann

    again – the majority being ruled by the minority.. something wrong here…

    • Chilidawg

      No, the majority is being prevented from infringing upon the rights of the minority. That is exactly what is supposed to happen in America.

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The rights of the minority are not being infringed upon here. The rights of the majority are.

        • Chilidawg

          What right are you claiming? The right to oppress a minority?

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The right not to engage in behaviors that violate your religion.

          • tagalog

            Actually, when it comes to GLBT folks, they aren’t protected -yet- by federal antidiscrimination laws and may be discriminated against without having to be concerned with federal punishment.

            State laws may prohibit discrimination against GLBT folks, but then they run afoul of the First Amendment.

  • Chilidawg

    this is a bakery, not a church.

    The bakery can not discriminate under the laws of the state.

    Too bad, so sad.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Religion doesn’t end at the church.

      • Chilidawg

        “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

        — Antonin Scalia

        • Daniel Greenfield

          That last sentence is the key point since the case you’re referencing dealt with otherwise criminal behavior.

          • Chilidawg

            Discrimination is against Colorado law.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            All discrimination is against the law in Colorado? I’ll never hire a professional to do anything, or even go there.

            We can’t discriminate between good and bad pilots, or apparently anything. That’s against the law in Colorado. Good to know. I guess they’re fatalists.

          • tagalog

            You mean I can’t discriminate between buying the Rocky Mountain News and the Colorado Springs Gazette? Or a Milky Way bar versus a Snickers bar just because I like one better than the other? I think you probably mean INVIDIOUS discrimination.

        • tagalog

          Government is not free to regulate conduct based on religious belief or expression.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      A bakery can’t discriminate between customers willing to pay for the product and those that are not? A bakery can’t discriminate between vandals and clients?

      Nobody can discriminate any more. No thinking allowed.

    • Jakareh

      It’s one word, “cannot”.

  • Chilidawg

    So what if the bakery had a “Whites Only” policy?

    • anarchyst

      I like it!

      • Chilidawg

        Ah, so you admit that you are a bigot.

        At least you are honest about it.

        • anarchyst

          Not a “bigot”–a “realist”. Show me one black-run municipality that works. Can’t be done. . .

  • LEL

    Some interested organization should get this ruling to the Supreme Court before obama gets to make any new appointment.

    • Chilidawg

      “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

      — Antonin Scalia

      (but then again, Scalia has been known to flip flop his opinions to satisfy his ideology)

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “…that government is free to regulate.”

      • tagalog

        Scalia surely recognizes that conduct grounded in religion is not to be freely regulated by government.

        Although interestingly enough, he’s the Supreme Court justice who didn’t bother to read the Affordable Care Act before he ruled on its constitutionality.

  • anarchyst

    Situations like this are good reasons why the 1964 “Civil ights (for some) act” (which destroyed freedom of association) is evil and should be repealed. A business (and individuals) should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

  • Kathy Koppin

    I have no problem with gays..some of my favorite people have been gay, but they are being used by the left. Also, why do some people have rights and not others?

  • anarchyst

    “Racism” is a made-up word that was introduced by the inventors of communism . . . in order to destabilize non-communist cultures and make them ripe for takeover.

    True “racism” is desirable as it promotes the advancement of the culture and forges a “common bond” between the members of the race and does not denote superiority or inferiority, only commonality of culture and purpose.

    Every race is expected to promote and advance its own culture; hence, the “congressional black caucus” for blacks and la raza for Hispanics.

    It is only whites that are expected to shed all vestiges of racial cohesiveness.
    Guess which race maintains the most racial and cultural cohesiveness yet decries racial cohesiveness by whites??
    Guess who started the NAACP and ran it till the 1970s??
    You guessed it . . . jews

    EVERY ethnic group and race was enslaved at one time or another…in fact, slavery is still practiced today, arabs enslaving blacks, primarily by muslims… where is the outrage from the “black community”??
    Given the state of just about every African country today, black Americans should be glad that their ancestors were brought here…that being said, “we should have picked our own cotton”…

    I am tired of being called a racist bigot. Yes I discriminate…with what I buy, what I eat, my music, movies, TV shows and who I associate with. I also discriminate in how I choose my friends and associates. It is my right to do so. If you are black and I decide that I don’t like you, so what? …I just don’t like you. You could be white or hispanic and I might not like you either. Color has little to do with it…Character does…your values…the things you like in life etc.

    I am tired of black history month…black colleges…black scholarships, black pride, the congressional black caucus, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama and his wife. I am tired of special treatment–contract set-asides, affirmative action, civil-rights laws that apply to minorities only–ask “attorney general” Eric Holder…who has stated that blacks cannot be “racist” and that “civil-rights” laws and “protections” DO NOT APPLY to whites

    Whites have “bent over backwards” to “level the playing field”–it turns out that blacks want the “level playing field” all to themselves…and make excuses for their own social dysfunctionality. White altruism (which NO OTHER RACE POSSESSES) will spell the end of white society…you can bet that when whites are a “minority” in 50 years or so, the same laws and special privileges that are applied to certain minorities today will NOT be afforded to whites…

    I love my country (what’s left of it), I served in our military and I love what America is supposed to stand for…freedom and liberty for EVERYONE. I didn’t get to go to college…my parents were the “white” (which automatically put me at a disadvantage) for me to qualify for a grant but if I had been black or a “person of color”…not white…the state would have paid my tuition…now why is that? It surely is not fair…yet blacks say I am racist because I question it…it has gotten ridiculous…

    As a white American, I DON’T CARE anymore. You can call me “racist”–don’t be surprised when I respond with a heartfelt “thank you for noticing” and shake your hand.

    • Chilidawg

      —-

      “”Racism” is a made-up word that was introduced by the inventors of communism . . . in order to destabilize non-communist cultures and make them ripe for takeover.”

      ——-

      You are nuts.

      Were you aware of that?

      • anarchyst

        Your name-calling proves my point . . .
        Refute my assertions. Trouble is, YOU CAN’T. What I have spoken is absolute TRUTH. I would suggest that you get out of mom’s basement and see what the real world is about.

  • LogicNotHuff

    Leftist thugs. Democrat Party is NAZI’s of America. Democrat Party is evil. Scream it from the rooftops.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Please do. Th Dems need as many of you as possible.

  • defcon 4

    What happens if a gay muslime asks a imam to preside over their marriage and that imam refuses?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I don’t know but don’t be surprised to see a lot of blood before it’s over.

    • CaoMoo

      there would be two unidentified corpses in the news most likely.

  • anarchyst

    Man-on-boy sexual “behavior” is predatory pedophilic homosexual conduct. Attempting to “sweeten” the term (and avoid offending homosexuals) by calling it “sexual child abuse” does NOTHING to put the blame where it really belongs. The Catholic priest and Penn state “sexual abuse” scandals were nothing more that predatory pedophilic homosexual behavior that is standard fare for homosexuals. Ask any homosexual when they first knew they were homosexual and you will find that ALL of them were preyed upon as children by adult homosexuals . . .

    It is easier to look the other way when one sees acts of homosexuality or pedophilia because: there are now homosexual clubs in our high schools, “pride parade” photos in our media, Supreme Court decisions accepting homosexuality,
    open homosexuals allowed in our elite military, and a president (no capital “P”) who promotes the gay lifestyle and will not defend DOMA ( male and female marriage only) but endorses same gender marriage!
    There is no such person born as a homosexual- those who claim this sexual orientation are certainly not born that way-but enjoy the pleasures of disgusting, disease spreading sexual acts!

  • anarchyst

    Pedophilia is inextricably linked with homosexuality…Adult homosexuals look out for young boys so that their impressionable minds can be convinced that homosexuality is “OK”.
    The horrific Catholic Church “child abuse” scandal was really about older homosexuals having the “opportunity” to “recruit” young boys into their “lifestyle. The “mainstream media” was complicit in changing the “name of the game” by calling it “child sexual abuse” rather than outright homosexual “recruiting”. The term for a homosexual “recruiting specialist” is “chickenhawk. These pedophiles want to get to the younger males BEFORE their sexual mores and ethics are fully formed. They convince the young person that their behavior is normal.

  • Habbgun

    Isn’t funny how all the Libertarians just dropped out of sight as soon as the Government started throwing its weight around against religion. Remember when gay “marriage” was supposedly simply the recognition the government didn’t have the power to regulate belief. That we would be free to recognize our own beliefs and live in our own spheres and that this so-called “marriage” would not harm anyone. Guess its so-called “Libertarianism” as well.

  • Chilidawg

    “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate.”

    — Antonin Scalia

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “…that government is free to regulate.”

      The government is not entirely free to regulate themed cake production.

      • tagalog

        Or religious belief or expression.

        • Chilidawg

          The baker is free to believe whatever he wants, he just can not use that to justify a violation of the law.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The only law that matters here is the Constitution

      • Chilidawg

        This has nothing to do with the nature of the service or product.

        It’s a buisness transaction and thus covered under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “This has nothing to do with the nature of the service or product.”

          Is prostitution legal in Colorado?

          “It’s a buisness transaction and thus covered under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.”

          That’s the partisan view. We know.

  • mam646

    Hey, I thought we weren’t supposed to force our views on others. What happened to the liberal meme: if you don’t want a gay wedding, don’t have one??

    • Chilidawg

      So the baker is being prevented from forcing his religious views on others.

      What’s the problem here?

      • mam646

        So he has to succumb to the forced views of the homosexuals? There are countless of bakers including, I have no doubt, those that purposely cater to gay weddings. So are you against forcing your views on others or aren’t you? Or are you like the typical liberal – it’s only “okay” if YOU do it?

        • Chilidawg

          How is baking a cake “succumb(ing) to the forced views of the homosexuals?”

          it’s a business transaction. As such, he is subject to the laws governing such transactions.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            He is being forced to participate in a ritual that is against his religion.

            Should he be forced to bake cakes with pentagrams on them as well?

          • Chilidawg

            Yes. And a Star of David, or a crescent moon, Kokapelli, Vishnu, Buddha, the Emperor of Japan etc.

            That is the whole point. Under the laws under which he has been granted his business license, he can not discriminate.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And newspapers should be forced to accept every advertisement.

            They can’t discriminate. Right.

          • Parque_Hundido

            This is rich coming from a plagiarist! What do you know about journalism or standards?

          • Chilidawg

            Your analogy is false. You are trying to compare apples to dump trucks.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            So are we limiting First Amendment violations to bakers? Can a Catholic magazine be forced to carry a pro-gay marriage ad?

          • tagalog

            Yes he can. He just can’t discriminate against certain classes of people.

          • Chilidawg

            Refusing to sell a product to a gay couple is one of the things that he is prohibited from doing under Colorado law.

          • Habbgun

            Perfect! You know what. Here is a new day to celebrate. The death of Heliogabalus, day. A day of remembrance for when Rome had rare sanity and got rid of a truly corrupt emperor and his followers. We’ll have a cake that says they died as they had lived and maybe some really awful figurines on top. Then if we so feel like it we’ll seek out gay bakers and make them create a cake to our satisfaction. How about it pal?

          • Chilidawg

            Festivus for the rest of us.

          • Habbgun

            That’s the spirit!!!! Now let’s design the cake. Should the roman soldiers be edible?

          • mam646

            They’re not refusing service because they’re gay. No one cares if you’re gay – no one asks if you’re gay. You go in and buy a cake. You’re done. But a Christian refusing a gay “wedding” based on their religious beliefs is something else. Eventually gays are going to force their views on a protected class that has higher priority than they do (that is, Muslims) and the whole thing will come full circle.

          • Chilidawg

            Your fantasies are weird

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “it’s a business transaction. As such, he is subject to the laws governing such transactions.”

            It’s also a service with an element of artistry. He doesn’t want to have his reputation tainted by perpetuating deception. Baking a themed cake is not generally fungible. Artistic output is not generally fungible.

            I would have baked a cake for an authentic hetereo wedding and explained that that is the product being offered.

            Or he could have offered a cake and let the clients put their own top on it, etc.

            That’s where you have to draw the line with unsensible people to prove you’re not discriminating against GAY PEOPLE, you simply don’t want to have your work supporting activities that contradict your own faith.

          • Chilidawg

            The fact is that he refused service in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

            No amount of equivocation about “artistry” will change that fact.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            And the fact that he is compelled to violate his religion on behalf of the State Church of Marx is a violation of the First Amendment which trumps any tinpot gay lobby acts

          • Chilidawg

            What part of what religion states:

            “Thou shalt not sell cakes to gay people!”

            Selling a cake is not a religious act.

            It is a secular one.

            This is a buisness transaction, and as such, it is subject to Coloreado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.

            It’s really that simple.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The fact is that he refused service in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.”

            It’s not clear at all.

            “No amount of equivocation about “artistry” will change that fact.”

            It’s not equivocation just because you don’t understand.

          • Chilidawg

            He even admitted it in court.

            Trying to dress it up as a religious issue is just a smokescreen.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He even admitted it in court.”

            It’s not clear where the legal lines are drawn. It’s controversial.

            “Trying to dress it up as a religious issue is just a smokescreen.”

            Perhaps for some. But there are legitimate questions of balancing the rights of citizens that disagree. Some transactions can be legally coerced and other’s can’t.

          • tagalog

            No business person is required to do business with any customer who walks through the door.

          • Chilidawg

            In Colorado, the law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation.

        • Chilidawg

          He has to follow the law. And in Colorado, he can not discriminate against a person for geeing gay, for being Jewish or Muslim, for being non-white, etc.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        How did he force his views on others?

        • tagalog

          In fact, it’s the homosexual view that is being forced on others who don’t subscribe to it.

        • Chilidawg

          By not selling the same product that he offers to non-gay couples.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Every heard the saying about willing buyer and willing seller?

            But in any case, the dispute was over a custom product not withing the offerings of the bakery. If they just wanted a “wedding cake” I’m sure they could get one. They asked for a “gay wedding cake” which is a different product. Similar, but not fungible. Otherwise the client would not have bothered specifying that it was for a “gay wedding.”

            So who is forcing their views here? Who filed the lawsuit?

          • Chilidawg

            That is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever read. A cake is a cake.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That is one of the most ridiculous arguments that I have ever read. A cake is a cake.”

            It’s ridiculous that you have no answer. If it wasn’t a distinct cake why did the baker need to be informed?

            I’ve bought plenty of stuff from bakers. Some custom, most not. Some bakers will make literally anything possible, including porn themes. Should that be compulsory too?

            What if I’m out of town and I need a large phallic cake. Should I demand that the nearest baker make it to my specifications? And if they don’t cooperate I’ll inform them it’s for my gay wedding and they must comply.

            You only mock it because you have no answer. Your bluff has failed. Fungible cakes can be purchased anywhere by anyone. Custom products are limited by their very nature. That’s a separate issue from who is buying it. Usually.

            But gays want special privileges pretending that gay wedding cakes are fungible., but not so fungible that they can just walk in and order a cake without specifying its use or design.

      • tagalog

        Suppose all your posts supporting the rights of GLBT types were deleted because the people who run this website didn’t agree with you? Would you find that a problem?

  • AG

    The mistake made by the baker’ s attorney is making the religious first amendment argument. He should have simply based the case on the long held “Innkeeper’ law” and not have made a big deal over the religious aspect since as Daniel shows, it is fashionable to discriminate against Christians. Had this activist judge ruled against the Inn Keepers law, it would have created enormous issues as bartenders would no longer be able to refuse service to intoxicated people.

    • Chilidawg

      So, you think they should have argued that the plaintiffs were intoxicated?

      Are innkeepers allowed to discriminate against someone based on race?

      No.

      And under Colorado law, they are not allowed to discriminate against someone for being gay.

      FAIL

      • Apada

        He wasn’t discriminating against them for being GAY, Chili. He was refusing to take part in the wedding, the MARRIAGE, which is NOT covered under discrimination. He proved this by saying he had no problem serving THEM, he just wouldn’t be a part of the WEDDING. BIG difference.

        • Chilidawg

          He was not taking part in the wedding, he was selling them a cake.

          It is a buisness transaction.

          • Apada

            My understanding was that he was asked to make them a cake, not simply sell them one already made, but I’m not positive about that. I think there is a difference in those two things. Knowingly making a wedding cake for a wedding you don’t condone for religious reasons, to me is different than simply selling them a cake that was made and sitting in a cooler. Subtle difference, maybe stupid difference, but different nonetheless.

          • Chilidawg

            From the act in question:

            Places of public accommodation may not deny any person participation, entry, or services based upon the person’s sexual orientation, including transgender status.
            … A public accommodation is any place of business engaged in offering sales or services of any kind to the public,

            Thus it doesn’t matter if the cake is pre-made or custom made

          • Apada

            Again he is not refusing them service based on their sexual orientation. He serves them and sells to them even though they are gay. He is refusing to participate in the “marriage.” It is the MARRIAGE he is against, not their sexual orientation. Why is this so hard for you to see?

          • Apada

            This is WAY too close to Conscientious Objector. “The objection must be founded on deeply held moral, ethical, and religious convictions about right or wrong.” No court has the right to take that away from a person. The threats to much more important things that will come of this down the line are HUGE.

          • Chilidawg

            Bovine fecal matter.

            The baker is a bigot and so are those who defend him.

          • Apada

            Great job judging, idiot. I’m GAY AND POOR AND A FEMALE AND NON-RELIGIOUS AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE BLACK, NATIVE AMERICAN, IRISH, ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND F. CANADIAN! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Who do I think I’m better than? Who am I intolerant of other than idiots? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

          • Apada

            Oh my lord. STILL lmao. Thanks for that. I needed it.

          • Chilidawg

            Take your meds, please.

          • Chilidawg

            He is NOT participating in a marriage ceremony. He is selling a cake.

            Since when has selling a cake been part of a marriage ceremony?

            Under what religion is it decreed that you can’t get married unless a baker sells you a cake?

          • Apada

            The act of making the cake, of creating it, requires the person making it to ruminate, think about, consider, “take part in” the marriage. If he is made to do this, he will spent inordinate amounts of time spiritually, morally, and ethically distressed. This participation, in effect, shows support and agreement with the event. It is therefore different from him simply selling them a cake that he “finds out” later is for the purpose of a SS marriage. This is the kind of detail that matters to places like the Supreme Court and often is ignored by lower court judges. Plus, not everyone in America thinks money is an equal trade-off for the things we hold sacred. This is not MY belief (the anti-gay marriage thing) but I do believe no one should be made to perform ANY act that they find spiritually or emotionally distressing.

          • Chilidawg

            “The act of making the cake, of creating it, requires the person making it to ruminate, think about, consider, “take part in” the marriage. If he is made to do this, he will spent inordinate amounts of time spiritually, morally, and ethically distressed. This participation, in effect, shows support and agreement with the event. “

            Hoo boy! (Rolls eyes)

            Too bad this case isn’t going to go anywhere. I would truly pay to see someone try to float that argument in court.

          • Apada

            This is something COMMONLY discussed in SC issues. They DO consider the reality of things like this because this is the nature of humans. We are not automatons. We think, contemplate, consider, feel, etc. Why do you think there even IS a defense that considers “moral and ethical beliefs?’ Just because you don’t have the ability to feel, doesn’t mean others (most others) don’t. That’s what the whole argument is ABOUT. For instance, I am involved in animal care. If I owned a bake shop and someone came in who believed in animal sacrifices and ordered a cake depicting the murder of animals, I would refuse service. Period. Why? Because it would cause me extreme distress to try to create this cake while also considering the POINT of it – the murder of animals which I find morally and spiritually wrong.

    • tagalog

      If it were me, I would argue the common-law right to freedom of contract.

      • Chilidawg

        The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act supersedes.

        Too bad, so sad.

        • tagalog

          Got any case law on how the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act trumps the right to freedom of contract?

          • Chilidawg

            The concept of Freedom of Contract requires that the two sides come to a mutual agreement. That did not happen in this case, thus freedom of contract is not applicable.

          • Chilidawg

            Freedom of Contract requires a contract.

            The Bakery refused to sell the cake.

  • the mad hatter

    all he has to do is tell the judge he was offended by them and refuse to serve them–buy them being gay was not the problem–and start a lawsuit.war

    • Chilidawg

      So, you want him to lie to the judge?

      He has already stated that his refusal was based on religeous grounds.

  • orfan

    Excuse me for asking, but, if “the court has never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law…” How is it that muslim cab & bus drivers can refuse to take people with seeing eye dogs because it is against their religion? Seems to me that we have to start protesting more…

    • Chilidawg

      Can drivers that refuse to take seeing eye dogs are violating the law as well.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    We need a cake law.

    • Parque_Hundido

      Why? The one Colorado has seems to work quite well.

  • ampersand

    What a couple of fruitcakes!

  • Dave Burke

    Doesnt the bakery have the right to charge as much $ as they want to make such a cake? If it was my business I’d say “Sure mate, we make gay cakes. They cost $10,000. How many do ya want?”

    • Chilidawg

      That would violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination Act as well.

    • Apada

      Yes he does but he’d have to make that the price for everyone. He can, however, give discounts to certain groups without that being considered discrimination. :)

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “He can, however, give discounts to certain groups without that being considered discrimination. :)”

        Isn’t that ironic.

  • Apada

    This judge is going to have to eat his verdict if they take this to the Supreme Court. The man is clearly not discriminating against gays because he serves them, no problem. He is refusing to take part in the MARRIAGE. That is not discrimination. This judge is an absolute freaking idiot. IDIOT! I’d sue that judge for violating my right to my religion and I’d make that cake with THE worst ingredients known to man. And that couple should rot in hell for being such hypocrites. They have no problem stomping all over someone else’s rights while falsely accusing someone of violating theirs. Pigs.

  • Apada

    It’s also not uncommon for stupid judges to have their decisions overturned by the Supreme Court. I’ve seen it a LOT. These lower court judges (admin law judge, lol) often think they are smarter than they actually are. It’s kind of funny to see the SC basically say, “Sorry, judge, you are WRONG” and overturn the the stupid decision. I hope to GOD they take this higher. It’s so obviously not discrimination.

    • Chilidawg

      I doubt that this would go that far. But dream on.

      • Apada

        It should go that far. This man has a right to refuse to engage in ANY activity that he feels morally uncomfortable with. As a matter of good form, nobody should even be trying to force a person to do something they don’t want to do, especially if it is something on this “sacred” a level. Just like the article points out, we MUST watch what we are doing and not get caught up in our own cause because it can come back to bite us in the rear later on. If this judge gets away with this, then it opens all kinds of doors that should not be opened. It isn’t about these people being gay. He in no way refused them business simply because they were gay. He refused to make them a wedding cake. How can you NOT see the difference? It’s the wedding he is opposed to and that is HIS right. These guys are so worried about themselves and their own cause that they don’t even stop to consider things like what are mentioned in the article. Will he now have to make cakes denying his own God? Supporting Al Qaeda? (It’s someone’s religious belief). No matter how shallow we might think this guy is, he should not be forced to do anything he doesn’t want to do with his own business. And how can anyone demand other to respect their “walk” when they are not respecting others’ walks? Infringe on freedom of speech. Infringe on religion. What’s next? One thing you can be sure of – it WILL come back to bite them in the arse if they don’t watch out.

  • Neil Cameron

    Comply with commercial law, or don’t do commerce. It is a simple matter.
    Commerce is not religion.
    If you want to protect your commercial activities using the religious protections then you are attempting to build a shop where only a religious institution should be. Unilaterally setting up shop in a church is unacceptable, even in Christianity.
    Play by the rules, or don’t play.
    If you insist on playing it your way with discrimination, you are free to find somewhere more conducive to your way of doing commerce. Somewhere like Uganda or Zimbabwe.
    Good luck with your business ventures.

    • Apada

      You shouldn’t be required to leave your religion at home if you own a business. This has already given the green light to certain groups who run scams by going into businesses provoking and verbally assaulting employees in hopes of getting kicked out of the store so they can then sue for “discrimination.”

      • Neil Cameron

        Security cameras would reveal the scam for what it is.

        • Apada

          Nope. The company is so miserly they don’t have sound on the video so all you can see is and exchange between the employee and the customer. LOL. Meanwhile, the employee gets ripped to shreds (verbally) and hopefully, can recognize it for what it is before decking the person! :) The group will send different people in to do the same thing to each different sales person at different times.

  • Apada

    They need to use Conscientious Objector grounds. “The objection must be founded on deeply held moral, ethical, and religious convictions about right or wrong.” If you can be excused from participating in military service based on the above argument, it should be just as good for participating in a “marriage” ceremony, especially given that the state itself refuses to allow them. What hypocrisy.

  • http://ohanlan.com/ Kate O’Hanlan, MD

    When a person gets a license from the state to conduct a business, they have to follow the business code. The code says that a business must offer its services to all citizens without discrimination. End of discussion.
    If those bakery folks knew that they could never bake a cake for a gay couple, they should not have advertised that they make cakes. That is how they can manage their religious views if their religion makes teaches discrimination.
    Same with the gynecologists who refused to inseminate a lesbian couple: they violated the code. They should not have offered insemination services to some women, but refused it to lesbians.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      They make wedding cakes. They don’t make cakes for people who want to pretend to have a fake wedding.

      • Chilidawg

        No. They bake cakes. What their customers do with them after they receive them is none of the bakery’s buisness

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Draw a sketch of this cake you envision as being fungible. Then we’ll see who the half-wit is.

    • Apada

      Wonder why it was perfectly “legal” for the Cake Boss to refuse to make a cake with naked people on it? The mother nixed the idea b/c it was “in bad taste” in her opinion. Some people believe the naked human body is sacred and beautiful. Still, it came down to what the baker was comfortable with. If anything, it is discriminating against the baker to force him/her to do something he/she is morally, ethically, spiritually against. The couple is totally hypocritical. They want THEIR feelings and opinions and tastes to be respected but they have no qualms with insulting and disrespecting someone else’s feelings or opinions. Now THEY are the ones getting “special” treatment BECAUSE they are gay, which is the definition of discrimination! The gay couple and the judge are discriminating against this baker by making him do something he is deeply against JUST because the couple is gay. This is exactly what cheapens a minority’s cause. The cause itself is a good and right one, but people like this pervert it and ruin the goodness and validity of it. If you want “respect for people’s differences (liberties)” then YOU must respect their liberties as well. If the man doesn’t want to make a cake supporting SS marriage, we should respect it (or hate it) but take our business elsewhere.

  • Madu

    Those judges first need to be removed from office and then given a lesson on American constitution. Jeez! I hope the baker sues the court itself.

    • Chilidawg

      It is not a federal issue, it is a matter of state law.

      The act of selling someone a cake is not a religeous act, it is a buisness transaction.

  • Nick

    The judge went too far. Its called “Specific Performance” the type of order given by this judge. Courts in free and democratic Common Law legal jurisdictions do not impose themselves on people like that especially on economic actors and consciencious objectors like that. If he’s guilty of an offence under Colorado statute a fine would have been appropriate. This smacks of a judge who let his/her personal beliefs regarding homosexuality cross over into the execution of their professional duties. If the baker sticks to his belief then you have essentially made him a lesser known version of “Mohamed Ali” (re: his refusal to fight in Vietnam). If this guy decides NOT to bake the cake and sit in jail for contempt of a judicial order, the press coverage not to mention rallies by Christian churches and groups nationawide would make this judge look like a lunatic not to mention expose gays to further ridicule and contempt in advertantly. The 700 Club and John Hagee Ministries and other such groups would see their ratings soar. A real judge then would end up releasing the guy varying the order to a fine and admonish both the baker for his legal transgressions and the judge for playing “Judge Judy” and bringing the Colorado Bar into disrepute.
    That’s how I see it playing out.

    • Apada

      I agree 100% Nick.

  • George B from Maine

    Simple solution: I would put salt, or something in the stupid cake, .to make sure it is inedible, and give it to them free of charge. Surely, I won’t see them back at my door.

    • Chilidawg

      That would be a good way for the baker to get sued.

      It probably would not do his buisness much good, as who would trust him after that?

      • Apada

        He’s already getting sued. Might as well be for a REAL reason.

        • Chilidawg

          It’s one thing to refuse service to someone, it’s another to try to poison someone out of spite. Deliberately making the cake in edible would open him up to criminal charges as well as ruin his buisness.

          Who would trust him after that? I wouldn’t.

          • Apada

            Who said anything about poisoning?

          • Chilidawg

            selling an inedible food item.

            How do you know that someone won’t have an adverse reaction to whatever is put in?

            furthermore, I suspect that the judge would look on that type of action by the baker as contempt of court.

            Judges have very little patience for that type of behavior wand would likely come down on the baker like a ton of bricks.

          • Apada

            Too bad there’s a little thing called PROOF that even this judge would need in order to convict someone of a crime. It’s not, btw, a crime being a sucky cake baker. After all, when a person is under duress, suffering mental anguish and distress from being forced for hours on end to do something he believes in his heart to be wrong, mistakes can easily be made. This is fact. It seems to me you don’t know very much about the human psyche. Besides that, if you can’t see how dangerous it is for a citizen to be forced into doing something that he/she feels is morally and ethically wrong, then further discussion is pointless. People like you who are short-sighted and self serving are the reason we have so little freedoms left in this country right now. All you can see is your immediate goal without considering the long-term consequences. When that same standard is used against you, when you are forced to do something you deeply feel is wrong, you’ll be singing a different tune.

  • Chilidawg

    This is a simple discrimination case. The bakers attempts to turn it into a first amendment case won’t work.

    They never have in the past.

    • Apada

      Yes, it is discrimination but it is a discrimination against the baker. They are trying to force him to perform an act he is morally, spiritually, and ethically against just BECAUSE the customers are gay.

      • Chilidawg

        He refused to sell a cake.

        That is his only job, to sell cakes.

        Once he accepts payment for the cake, the cake brlongs to the customer. What they chose to do with it is their business, not the bakers. Nothing in the act of selling a cake to a customer implies any other religeous meaning to the transaction of cake for cash.

        Furthermore, the stupid statement by the baker that he would sell a cake for a dog wedding completely erodes his religeous justification.

        Show me where animal weddings are part of accepted religious practice.

        • Apada

          Not SELL. MAKE, CREATE. It’s different, to me, if they wanted to buy a cake and move on.

          • Apada

            It’s also different, to me, if the baker made the wedding cake and was in the process of selling it to them when he discovered it was for a SS wedding. That’s different, too.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Who told you that all “discrimination” is illegal?

      • Chilidawg

        I never said that.

        However, since you seem to be confused as to what is legal and what is not, allow me to post the following from the Colorado Revised Statutes:

        It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

        Does that help your understanding of the issue?

  • Chilidawg

    He is selling a cake.

    Cakes are not part of a marriage ceremony.

    • Apada

      Correction – MAKING a wedding cake. It is an ACT that the hypocrites are trying to force on him despite it being against what he believes is right or wrong based on his moral, ethical, and spiritual beliefs. This is good enough to exempt a man from military service (a law) and should be good enough for cake making. They can go elsewhere. They can buy a pre-made cake and decorate it however they want. Instead, they are trying to force him to violate his own beliefs simply because they are gay and want their way. This is discrimination against the baker.

      • Chilidawg

        Making a CAKE.

        The baker has no say in what it used for.

        Furthermore, a CAKE is not a religeous item. It had no religeous significance in the marriage ceremony.

        The bakers refusal is based on nothing more than petty, small minded maliciousness.

        The whole “dog wedding” comment just proves that point. It is not about religion, it’s about trying to oppress and discriminate against a group of people he personally disapproves of.

        • Apada

          Maybe so. I don’t know the man or the couple. But they should not have the right to force him to perform ANY act that causes him extended distress. That’s not the same as selling them a cake that has already been created. There is no thought, contemplation, etc. involved in that where there IS in making it specifically for the thing he is spiritually against. NOBODY should be forced to “do” anything they don’t want to do. Period. What kind of people would even WANT to force him to do it? Talk about malicious (and spiteful).

          • Apada

            And the dog thing could matter, I agree. Do we know the circumstances surrounding that? Did he “say” he would do it to someone or did he actually do it? Was it a joke or were the people seriously going to “marry” a dog couple? In a defense, that matters. If it was a joke, then it is something he knows in his heart and mind is not real. He would therefore not be in distress or at odds in his heart and mind while making the cake because he would know it was fake, not real, a joke. Again, that is different because it evokes an entirely different internal feeling for the duration of the making of the cake.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Do you realize that virtually all wedding cakes are customized? If they wanted a standard fungible cake they would have ordered it that way. No need to mention “gay” or even “wedding” if they just wanted one of those “A4″ – or whatever – cakes.

          • Chilidawg

            So what? Discrimination is discrimination. The bakery even admitted that they would have been willing to bake a cake for a “dog wedding.” This is pretty clear evidence that the bakery’s discrimination is based solely on the fact that the customers are gay.

            Under the Colorado Anti-Duscrimination Act, a place of public accomidatuon (I.e. like a bakery) can not discriminate against a person based on gender identity (I.e. for being gay).

            The law is quite clear on this issue. No amount of equivocating over the type of cake will change that fact.

            The bakery lost the case.

            They can waste money trying to appeal the decision, but if their lawyer truly has their best interests in mind, he will no doubt advise them that they are unlikely to prevail on appeal.

            All the bakery did was lose money on this.

            Hopefully, other business owners will pick up on this and such blatant acts of discrimination will become a thing of the past.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Discrimination is discrimination.”

            Lawful discrimination vs. unlawful discrimination. That’s what the controversy is about. You don’t win by conflating and pretending there is no such thing as lawful discrimination.

            I think you’re not following the logic.

            “All the bakery did was lose money on this.”

            But for you it’s not enough to let nature take it’s course. You have to manufacture victimhood and you want the government involved any time you don’t get your way.

  • Chilidawg

    Here is the law in question, from the Colorado Revised Statutes
    ——–

    It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

  • Chilidawg

    Once again, a cake is a cake.

    The baker is not allowed to discrimate against gay customers simply because they are gay.

    That is why he LOST in court.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Answer the question smartass: Must bakers make any cake upon demand? Any cake to any specification or are there limits to the end product? Can a baker turn away any cake request under any circumstances?

      “Once again, a cake is a cake.”

      That’s why bakeries all over the land simply pull out the standard cakes when people ask for virtually anything.

      Can I have a large phallic cake?

      Sure, here it is.

      That’s just a round cake!

      Hey, a cake is a cake. Get lost, unless of course you’re gay. Then you can have anything you want of course.

      • Chilidawg

        quit trying to confuse the issue with immaterial bovine fecal matter.

        in this case, the couple asked for a wedding cake, the same as another wedding cake.

        they were denied based on who they are in violation of Colorado Law.

        they sued and won.

        too bad, so sad.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          If they asked for a completely fungible product they should have gotten it. If they asked for a custom product, that was up to the baker to decide.

          “they were denied based on who they are in violation of Colorado Law.”

          Nobody denies the outcome. We’re questioning the justice of the outcome. Emotions have nothing to do with it. Or at least they’re not supposed to.

          • Chilidawg

            All wedding cakes are basically the same. The only differences are size and the flavor of the filling.

            If you are going to argue that a wedding cake is not completely fungible, then the specific performance remedy ordered by the judge is appropriate.

            In any case, the baker got off lightly as being irdered to provide a cake is going to be cheaper for him than paying civil penalties.

          • Chilidawg

            Actually, I reread the court decision.

            The baker was ordered to cease from refusing to cater to same sex couples.

            Since the original incident happened in July 2012, I doubt that he has to do anything right now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All wedding cakes are basically the same. The only differences are size and the flavor of the filling.”

            Of course they are. I’m just being difficult. Here’s your gay wedding cake:

            http://www.alandart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/WeddingCake-775×1024.jpg

  • JIMMYPALMIERI

    Let this baker appeal and sue back!!!!!!! AND HE WILL LOSE AND LOSE AND LOSE BECAUSE HE IS WRONG. DONE . OVER AND OUT. RELIGION DOES NOT TRUMP THE LAW. THE END!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    The failure of understanding is probably on the part of the people who continue to use the word discrimination as if all “discrimination” is illegal.

    Now as to where that line is drawn, that’s precisely what this and many other cases hinge upon. So throwing around statements like “you can’t discriminate” are just stupid attempts to short circuit the discourse probing where that line is drawn and where it should be drawn.

  • Jim Todino

    This is incredibly disturbing. Our cherished American values are being corroded by cultural radicals that hate what our forefathers had created for us.

  • Luke

    While the bakery is not a church, the individuals who run the bakery had
    religious convictions about homosexuality. The bakers were willing to
    offer the homosexual couple other cakes for other special occasions,
    like one for a birthday, except the wedding cake. These bakers were sued
    because they did not want to support an event they were against not
    because the couple were gay. Tough luck if the couple’s feelings were
    hurt, the singe on their fragile ego is temporary and they could easily
    find another service with out a fuss. If I am able to ignore slights
    made against me through out my life, why can’t this couple?