Baker must make gay cakes

[theDoctorisIn]

Then explain how forcing a baker to provide a service he doesn't supply just because the customer is gay is legal.

You keep repeating that, yet his website (and even the name of his business) seem to disagree with you.

Whether or not he makes wedding cakes now, there's no question that he did back in 2012, when this lawsuit actually happened.

Unless you have some sort of evidence that he is currently discriminating you really can't argue that the ruling is appropriate, especially the part about keeping lack of innocent third parties simply to satisfy a commission that has no legal authority to impose any types of sanctions.

The ruling isn't about what is happening "currently", it's because of what already happened, a year ago.

What do you mean by "keeping lack of innocent third parties..."? I'm having a hard time parsing the sentence.

 

[Noomi]

He made wedding cakes at the time, did he not?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

Oh the baker can do wedding cakes. He just can't offer wedding cake services to the public. Read the statute again. It's about advertising not actual service.

You should read the law again "advertising" isn't listed at all. If the business provides the goods and services to the public then they are required to provide them equally. Now say the baker takes "wedding cakes" off his web site, but he still takes referrals from wedding planners and walk-in customers, that then is a good offered to the public.

He might think he's being cute, but if he refused to sell the same cake to a black couple, a Muslim couple, a Mexican couple, or a same-sex couple then a complaint can be filed. The cognizant state organization that oversees Public Accommodation laws could then investigate - if the bakers books show such services are being provided, then he's in violation of the law. Now if he want's to actually stop selling cakes as a function of the business - no problem. Even if he bakes a wedding cake for his niece privately and not as a function of the business - no problem.

Of course he could keep no records of such transactions in his business books, but if found out about it by the IRS he's have other issues - namely tax evasion.


>>>>

 

[theDoctorisIn]

>


Some people think they are cute with their sophistry that the baker didn't refuse service to gays, they could buy other products - just not a wedding cake.

But this is a legal decision and so one should understand what the law says:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) 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, al status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

At the time of the infraction, the owner refused to sell the same-sex couple a wedding cake. A product that the baker routinely offered and sold in his business open to the public. Read the law, it is illegal to withhold "directly or indirectly" the "full and equal" goods and services" offered. It doesn't say you can offer goods A, B, and C to everyone and item D to only a subset of customers. That is not full and equal service.

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

It has nothing to do with being cute, he no longer sells wedding cakes to the public., thus refusing to make a gay couple a wedding cake is not discrimination.

He has not said that he "no longer sells wedding cakes". He's said that currently he is not, due to too much business from "supporters".

 

[Katzndogz]

This is why I won the lawsuit filed against me by a lesbian couple when I refused to paint their portrait. They could never prove that I advertised portrait services to anyone. The fact that I did indeed provide commission artistry services was not relevant. I never advertised such services. Once the bakery stops advertising wedding cake services to the public game over. There Is No Way the baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple even if it is proved that wedding cakes are a substantial part of the bakery's income. That is exactly what the statute says.

 

[AntiParty]

Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings


You have to, or else!
\

I remember in the bible where it stated, "Let those without sin NOT create a cake for the sinners!". I'm glad I'm not a sinner like gays...

Do not judge or be judged was a bias statement, we all know that (R)ight?

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is why I won the lawsuit filed against me by a lesbian couple when I refused to paint their portrait. They could never prove that I advertised portrait services to anyone. The fact that I did indeed provide commission artistry services was not relevant. I never advertised such services. Once the bakery stops advertising wedding cake services to the public game over. There Is No Way the baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple even if it is proved that wedding cakes are a substantial part of the bakery's income. That is exactly what the statute says.

Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


One from their web site just moments ago. They call this one "Wedding Petals".



>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm directly responding to what the baker said.

Apparently you didn't get the whole story, what a surprise.

What part did I miss?

The part where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has no authority to impose sanctions of ay type other than clearing a plaintiff to sue.

http://cdn.colorado.gov/cs/Satellit...goBlobs&blobwhere=1251971365934&ssbinary=true

 

[Quantum Windbag]

He isn't being "forced" to bake a cake for any wedding. The wedding in question happened a long time ago.

He's being "forced" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, nothing more.

Which explains why they want a list of everyone who walks out of the store without buying anything exactly how?

What are you talking about?

Is that more of the story you didn't get?

 

[TheOldSchool]

This is why I won the lawsuit filed against me by a lesbian couple when I refused to paint their portrait. They could never prove that I advertised portrait services to anyone. The fact that I did indeed provide commission artistry services was not relevant. I never advertised such services. Once the bakery stops advertising wedding cake services to the public game over. There Is No Way the baker can be forced to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple even if it is proved that wedding cakes are a substantial part of the bakery's income. That is exactly what the statute says.

You should run for office. If your story isn't, as I suspect, complete bullshit then you'd be a shoe in for office in the shittier states of the nation

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Umm...

This is his website: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP | great cakes since 1993 | 303.763.5754

And we all know websites are always up to date and accurate, don't we?

Are you still trying to claim that at the time of the wedding, Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't make wedding cakes?

No, I am arguing that the sanctions imposed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is what this thread is all about, inappropriate and illegal. You are the one that is stuck in the past, not me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You keep repeating that, yet his website (and even the name of his business) seem to disagree with you.

Whether or not he makes wedding cakes now, there's no question that he did back in 2012, when this lawsuit actually happened.

Unless you have some sort of evidence that he is currently discriminating you really can't argue that the ruling is appropriate, especially the part about keeping lack of innocent third parties simply to satisfy a commission that has no legal authority to impose any types of sanctions.

The ruling isn't about what is happening "currently", it's because of what already happened, a year ago.

What do you mean by "keeping lack of innocent third parties..."? I'm having a hard time parsing the sentence.

That is because you don't have all the facts.

In its decision, the panel required Phillips to submit quarterly reports for two years that show how he has worked to change discriminatory practices by altering company policies and training employees. Phillips also must disclose the names of any clients who are turned away.

Civil rights commission says Lakewood baker discriminated against gay couple - The Denver Post

Did you notice that the Commission actually provides the training it suddenly says that he has to provide, for a fee? If this wasn't a government agency you might call the ruling a way to drum up business. Since it is, you might even call it a conflict of interest.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

>


Some people think they are cute with their sophistry that the baker didn't refuse service to gays, they could buy other products - just not a wedding cake.

But this is a legal decision and so one should understand what the law says:

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) 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, al status, national origin, or ancestry.

COCODE​

At the time of the infraction, the owner refused to sell the same-sex couple a wedding cake. A product that the baker routinely offered and sold in his business open to the public. Read the law, it is illegal to withhold "directly or indirectly" the "full and equal" goods and services" offered. It doesn't say you can offer goods A, B, and C to everyone and item D to only a subset of customers. That is not full and equal service.

The baker is not being forced to bake wedding cakes for anyone. If he chooses to provide such goods as part of his business, only then is he required to offer them equally. So if he dosen't want to do wedding cakes for same sex couples, not a problem - just don't do wedding cakes.



>>>>

It has nothing to do with being cute, he no longer sells wedding cakes to the public., thus refusing to make a gay couple a wedding cake is not discrimination.

He has not said that he "no longer sells wedding cakes". He's said that currently he is not, due to too much business from "supporters".

Currently as in no longer?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge's finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.

State law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

What part of “state law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation” do conservatives not understand.

The ruling is supported by Constitutional case law which clearly states that religious beliefs may not be used to justify violating an otherwise just and proper law (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)), as well as Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing government to enact public accommodations measures designed to safeguard the markets (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)).

Businesses are subject to all manner of necessary and proper regulatory measures, the Colorado law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation among them, where such measures are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional and in no way ‘violate’ religious practice.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And we all know websites are always up to date and accurate, don't we?

Are you still trying to claim that at the time of the wedding, Masterpiece Cakeshop didn't make wedding cakes?

No, I am arguing that the sanctions imposed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is what this thread is all about, inappropriate and illegal. You are the one that is stuck in the past, not me.

Seems to me that's exactly what you've been arguing:

Panel: Baker must make cakes for gay weddings You have to, or else!

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

That baker looks like a butch gay, so I don't understand why he wouldn't bake for his own kind.

Oh, that's right. His religious beliefs do not override sexual orientation. Good.

Excellent, odd that he no longer makes wedding cakes but will appeal. His views are shared by 20th century fascists, communists, and 21st century Russins. He could move there, except Archbishop Kirill, (Putin's confessor) says there are no Christians in the US, and favors Russian Orthodox as well.

Why is it odd? If you had a business, and were being forced to provide a service you don't provide to the public simply because some asshole came in and demanded it, wouldn't you appeal the ruling? Or would you simply bow down to the infinite wisdom of the state?

How is refusing to serve gay people "exercising religion"?

He isn't refusing to serve gay people, he is refusing to bake a cake, which just happens to be something he doesn't do for anyone. That should be easy even for a brain dead bigot to understand.

How is refusing to serve gay people "exercising religion"?

It isn't, he will not be forced to solicit business in the gay community, nor do anything but abide by the law. His religious beliefs will not be infringed.

He has to bake a gay wedding cake even though he doesn't bake cakes, how is that a normal application of the law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you notice that he doesn't even bake cakes as part of his business, yet he still has to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Tell me how that isn't slavery.

He isn't being "forced" to bake a cake for any wedding. The wedding in question happened a long time ago.

He's being "forced" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, nothing more.

He's no longer discriminating. He no longer offers wedding cake. Although if a friend asked him he'd do it.

As long as his advertisement is by private appointment, the baker is fine.

But if he advertises publicly he does wedding cakes, then he must serve everybody.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It has nothing to do with being cute, he no longer sells wedding cakes to the public., thus refusing to make a gay couple a wedding cake is not discrimination.

He has not said that he "no longer sells wedding cakes". He's said that currently he is not, due to too much business from "supporters".

Currently as in no longer?

Currently as in "not now".

 

[Zander]

It seems to me that the some in the LGBT community are simply never happy.

A small but very vocal minority do no seek mere equality.. NO!! they want to be fully accepted, AND celebrated!

Sorry kids, sometimes people don't like you, or your fabulous lifestyle.

PS: Socially progressive and responsible Gays are all "gluten free" these days.... they don't even go to bakeries - Hey Gays!! Please stop harassing Bakeries!!

 

[WorldWatcher]

He isn't being "forced" to bake a cake for any wedding. The wedding in question happened a long time ago.

He's being "forced" not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, nothing more.

He's no longer discriminating. He no longer offers wedding cake. Although if a friend asked him he'd do it.

As long as his advertisement is by private appointment, the baker is fine.

But if he advertises publicly he does wedding cakes, then he must serve everybody.

If you visit his web site he's still offering wedding cakes.



>>>>

 

[MikeK]

I'd pack up and move my business elsewhere.

Aside from denying one's own latent homosexuality I don't understand the reason for such pronounced anti-gay activism. I find the category of homosexuals referred to as in-your-face flamboyant faggots, rather annoying, but aside from them why should anyone care about someone else's sexual habits. I frankly wouldn't care if someone chose to marry a farm animal. As long as it does me no harm, so what?

When we lived in Brooklyn our next-door neighbors were a gay couple who owned a local restaurant. They were among the nicest people I've ever known, personable, friendly, funny, they were wonderful to our girls and were very helpful neighbors. It really seems kind of nuts that someone would dislike them only because they are homosexual.