Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake

[jknowgood]

Better than you jacking off to your Obama posters, but the baker was being forced to make a decorated gay cake, so again what's your point?

The point is, which you are having such a hard time understanding, they both get the cake but the message is up to the buyer to make happen. Reasonable people can see the difference between Happy Birthday Suzy and Kill All Faggots, but I'm betting that you can't however the courts, no so dumb as you.

So the baker for the gay wedding could've just sold them a blank cake? If so we agree.

If you mean a blank Wedding Cake, that is correct. He was not required to do the artwork of two men screwing each other or stock gay wedding cake toppers.

Well they tried to force him to do it and that's what I was against. The baker sold them goods prior to the couples request for a wedding cake.

It's a cake. He bakes cakes, for all comers, period. Who marries who is none of his damn business since his business is baking cakes.

The gay couple made it his business. Like I said I see nothing wrong with him selling them a blank cake, but they wanted him to cater it, and he has the right to refuse.

 

[Nosmo King]

jknowgood

I'm a straight male. But I am not 'anti-gay'. To me, homosexuals pose no threat. If they want to enter a stabilizing institution like marriage, it does not threaten the existence of my marriage at all. Homosexuals do no harm, they commit no crimes by simply being homosexual, they are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Why would anyone think that repressing homosexuals is anywhere close to the right thing to do? Why do you count yourself among the 'anti-gay'?

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Actually we believe that your kind is the cause of that. Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

Which rights should be excluded for homosexuals and why?

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood

I'm a straight male. But I am not 'anti-gay'. To me, homosexuals pose no threat. If they want to enter a stabilizing institution like marriage, it does not threaten the existence of my marriage at all. Homosexuals do no harm, they commit no crimes by simply being homosexual, they are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Why would anyone think that repressing homosexuals is anywhere close to the right thing to do? Why do you count yourself among the 'anti-gay'?

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Actually we believe that your kind is the cause of that. Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

Which rights should be excluded for homosexuals and why?

Civil unions would give them every right as anyone else. They don't have the right to force someone to do something they don't want to. Got it?

 

[Nosmo King]

jknowgood

I'm a straight male. But I am not 'anti-gay'. To me, homosexuals pose no threat. If they want to enter a stabilizing institution like marriage, it does not threaten the existence of my marriage at all. Homosexuals do no harm, they commit no crimes by simply being homosexual, they are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Why would anyone think that repressing homosexuals is anywhere close to the right thing to do? Why do you count yourself among the 'anti-gay'?

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

You know that's both fear mongering and a hollow strawman argument.

Here's why:

Marriage is a contract issued by the state to establish a 'next-of-kin' relationship WHERE NO PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. That eliminates the incestuous marriage argument posed by so many shallow intellects.

Marriage is a contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That eliminated the bestiality argument so many poor logicians pose.

What is a shame is so many people, without the capacity to thoroughly think out an argument are so vocal and so very wrong can oppose something that is so right in a free society.

 

[Nosmo King]

Actually we believe that your kind is the cause of that. Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I wonder if you can actually feed yourself, I don't hate anyone. Liberals cannot say that.

So you want to claim you don't hate anyone, but you just hate to see certain types of people have equal rights.

Yes, that's so much nicer...

Who said I hate, I disagree there is a difference. I was wanting to compromise, but you couldn't have that.

Which rights should be excluded for homosexuals and why?

Civil unions would give them every right as anyone else. They don't have the right to force someone to do something they don't want to. Got it?

The same arguments were posed by White business owners in the Jim Crow south. And they were wrong in their bigotry too.

Civil unions are, basically, separate but equal. And we have seen by historical precedent that there is seldom equality is such arraignments, wouldn't you agree?.

 

[jknowgood]

jknowgood

I'm a straight male. But I am not 'anti-gay'. To me, homosexuals pose no threat. If they want to enter a stabilizing institution like marriage, it does not threaten the existence of my marriage at all. Homosexuals do no harm, they commit no crimes by simply being homosexual, they are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Why would anyone think that repressing homosexuals is anywhere close to the right thing to do? Why do you count yourself among the 'anti-gay'?

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

You know that's both fear mongering and a hollow strawman argument.

Here's why:

Marriage is a contract issued by the state to establish a 'next-of-kin' relationship WHERE NO PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. That eliminates the incestuous marriage argument posed by so many shallow intellects.

Marriage is a contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That eliminated the bestiality argument so many poor logicians pose.

What is a shame is so many people, without the capacity to thoroughly think out an argument are so vocal and so very wrong can oppose something that is so right in a free society.

It's called a will, anyone can make one. I am a single male. I have a will which states who gets what. No marriage involved. Since the start of liberalism our society has gone down hill.

 

[Nosmo King]

jknowgood

I'm a straight male. But I am not 'anti-gay'. To me, homosexuals pose no threat. If they want to enter a stabilizing institution like marriage, it does not threaten the existence of my marriage at all. Homosexuals do no harm, they commit no crimes by simply being homosexual, they are no more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

Why would anyone think that repressing homosexuals is anywhere close to the right thing to do? Why do you count yourself among the 'anti-gay'?

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

You know that's both fear mongering and a hollow strawman argument.

Here's why:

Marriage is a contract issued by the state to establish a 'next-of-kin' relationship WHERE NO PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. That eliminates the incestuous marriage argument posed by so many shallow intellects.

Marriage is a contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That eliminated the bestiality argument so many poor logicians pose.

What is a shame is so many people, without the capacity to thoroughly think out an argument are so vocal and so very wrong can oppose something that is so right in a free society.

It's called a will, anyone can make one. I am a single male. I have a will which states who gets what. No marriage involved. Since the start of liberalism our society has gone down hill.

What?!? What on God's green Earth does a will have to do with the establishment of a next of kin relationship as provided by the marriage contract?

A will provides the distribution of processions after death.

I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about.

 

[jknowgood]

I don't hate gay people. I think the idea of it is sick, but what people do in their lives is their business. Lately though they want it to be my business. I was for civil unions for gays, give them every right heterosexuals get when they are married. Not good enough, they want to be married. Which is supposed to be between a man and woman under God. I'm tired of it being shoved in my face, that's it. Gays have redefined marriage, now we are fixing to have a blood related father and daughter getting married and they plan to have kids. So congratulations! Liberals are making our society a cess pool.

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

You know that's both fear mongering and a hollow strawman argument.

Here's why:

Marriage is a contract issued by the state to establish a 'next-of-kin' relationship WHERE NO PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. That eliminates the incestuous marriage argument posed by so many shallow intellects.

Marriage is a contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That eliminated the bestiality argument so many poor logicians pose.

What is a shame is so many people, without the capacity to thoroughly think out an argument are so vocal and so very wrong can oppose something that is so right in a free society.

It's called a will, anyone can make one. I am a single male. I have a will which states who gets what. No marriage involved. Since the start of liberalism our society has gone down hill.

What?!? What on God's green Earth does a will have to do with the establishment of a next of kin relationship as provided by the marriage contract?

A will provides the distribution of processions after death.

I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about.

You can also put in your will for someone whoever you choose to make medical decisions if you can't.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I think he has to sell them cakes, but I don't know about having to write the messages in frosting the couple wants. This will be a messy fight.

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake - Yahoo News

The baker will win because he's protected by free speech. You're right that it would be illegal to sell him a cake, not illegal to refuse to write something on the cake. This Jack guy's no more than a pathetic clown looking for his 15 minutes.

Would not be illegal to refuse to sell him a cake. Guy owns the restaurant, has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Incorrect

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm surprised it's not that O'Keeffe guy trying to pull off another one of those fake outrage scams......

 

[Nosmo King]

Do you believe in separate but equal? Because that is what civil unions are. And who said anything at all about incestuous marriage? That is not an issue in the marriage equality debate.

And what precisely is being shoved in your face?

And God is for churches. Marriage licenses are issued by the state. Churches may sanctify marriage, not control access to the protections and benefits of the marriage contract as issued by the state.

and I might remind you of your own words: what people do in their lives is their business

Redefining marriage will affect us all. Soon we will have weirdos marrying their dogs. Our society is going to hell in a hand bag. We will soon have kids being born between fathers and daughter's, and liberals will claim it as normal. Between two consenting adults, sick.

You know that's both fear mongering and a hollow strawman argument.

Here's why:

Marriage is a contract issued by the state to establish a 'next-of-kin' relationship WHERE NO PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP EXISTS. That eliminates the incestuous marriage argument posed by so many shallow intellects.

Marriage is a contract between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. That eliminated the bestiality argument so many poor logicians pose.

What is a shame is so many people, without the capacity to thoroughly think out an argument are so vocal and so very wrong can oppose something that is so right in a free society.

It's called a will, anyone can make one. I am a single male. I have a will which states who gets what. No marriage involved. Since the start of liberalism our society has gone down hill.

What?!? What on God's green Earth does a will have to do with the establishment of a next of kin relationship as provided by the marriage contract?

A will provides the distribution of processions after death.

I'm not entirely sure you know what you're talking about.

You can also put in your will for someone whoever you choose to make medical decisions if you can't.

A fat lot of good that will do! The will is executed AFTER someone dies.

 

[BlindBoo]

Post any stance BY ME that conflicts with the above, or stfu and quit making a fool of yourself.

Did you support forcing a baker to cater a gay wedding?

If the caterer is a business offering wedding catering to the public, then yes - they cannot discriminate against same sex weddings any more than they could discriminate against a Jewish wedding, or a mixed race wedding.

Okay, then if the other baker writes anything on his cupcakes, then he cannot discriminate either.

Yes he can because he is only defining the content of his products available for sale, not discriminating against a person or group of persons.

The baker that was forced to bake the gay cake, the cake was offensive to him, but since you disagree with him. He had to do it. You agree with the other baker, so he doesn't have to follow the same guidelines. Your wrong.

No in reality he wasn't force to bake the cake, he didn't, and was found in violation of the law and relieved some kind of punishment for it. But he was not forced to bake a gay wedding cake. He lost, imo, because it was for a gay wedding, not because there was a defamatory message against a protected class of people that the couple wanted. I'm sure the Civil Rights division will rule in this bakers favor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think he has to sell them cakes, but I don't know about having to write the messages in frosting the couple wants. This will be a messy fight.

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake - Yahoo News

You can't have it both ways selective liberal equal protection supporters! If you force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then a baker must bake a cake for an anti-gay event (something I find as deplorable)!

The fellow is going to have to prove a long time held religious position and demonstrate he actually is going to get married. Otherwise it is theft of services by hoax.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let us see if liberals extend their tolerance to people they don't agree with.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Let us see if liberals extend their tolerance to people they don't agree with.

We already do. And tolerance stops at intolerance.

 

[GHook93]

I think he has to sell them cakes, but I don't know about having to write the messages in frosting the couple wants. This will be a messy fight.

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake - Yahoo News

You can't have it both ways selective liberal equal protection supporters! If you force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then a baker must bake a cake for an anti-gay event (something I find as deplorable)!

Yes, and she offered to bake the cake, as was required. What she did not offered to do was help him spread his hatred, but he never wanted the cake in the first place, he just wanted to make his very weak and inaccurate point.

So when the Christian baker (which I am not Christian) states they will bake the cake (as many will do), but they won't put on the two 2 men or 2 women then a hypocrite asswipe like you is AOK with that?

Regardless of what you think, if you support in your liberal anti-Christian hypocrisy that right of the government to force a Christian baker into baking the cake they don't want to bake, then you are a hypocrite to see this differently.

I fully support this bakers right to REFUSE this deplorable people's business, but then I also believe the Christian baker has the right to say no to a gay wedding.

They might get away with that if their policy was to put NO figures on any of their cakes.

Or, they might not stock cake toppers for gay weddings, which is perfectly fine since they are not required to however if they do then you sell to anyone with money in hand, period.

BS. The court case held they have to accommodate the gay couple that sued!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You can't have it both ways selective liberal equal protection supporters! If you force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then a baker must bake a cake for an anti-gay event (something I find as deplorable)!

Yes, and she offered to bake the cake, as was required. What she did not offered to do was help him spread his hatred, but he never wanted the cake in the first place, he just wanted to make his very weak and inaccurate point.

So when the Christian baker (which I am not Christian) states they will bake the cake (as many will do), but they won't put on the two 2 men or 2 women then a hypocrite asswipe like you is AOK with that?

Regardless of what you think, if you support in your liberal anti-Christian hypocrisy that right of the government to force a Christian baker into baking the cake they don't want to bake, then you are a hypocrite to see this differently.

I fully support this bakers right to REFUSE this deplorable people's business, but then I also believe the Christian baker has the right to say no to a gay wedding.

They might get away with that if their policy was to put NO figures on any of their cakes.

Or, they might not stock cake toppers for gay weddings, which is perfectly fine since they are not required to however if they do then you sell to anyone with money in hand, period.

BS. The court case held they have to accommodate the gay couple that sued!

By baking a wedding cake, which they already do, but not for fags eh and therein lies the problem, which we have solutions for.

 

[Seawytch]

I think he has to sell them cakes, but I don't know about having to write the messages in frosting the couple wants. This will be a messy fight.

Denver baker sued for refusing to write anti-gay slogans on cake - Yahoo News

You can't have it both ways selective liberal equal protection supporters! If you force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then a baker must bake a cake for an anti-gay event (something I find as deplorable)!

Does a bookstore have to sell Bibles?

In the real world I would say if the book store owner didn't want to sell bibles. He shouldn't.

In the real world he doesn't have to.

 

[Seawytch]

They are required, by law, to bake the cake if they bake cakes. They are not required to do anything beyond that.

And the choices of two adults in this case are really none of your business now are they? At least that's what your kind usually says eh?

the choice of the other guy and the baker is also none of your business. Liberals made the case you cannot discriminate no matter what. The baker forced to bake the gay cake, that was offensive to him, but not to you. Had to do it. The baker that is trying to be forced to to something that is offensive to him, but not the customer. You agree with this baker so he doesn't have to comply with the law the other baker does. That's not right. Try to be consistent.

They are both required to bake and sell cakes, if they bake and sell cakes. That's it. Neither is required to put the artwork on showing you jerking off to Sarah Palin pictures, got it now?

Better than you jacking off to your Obama posters, but the baker was being forced to make a decorated gay cake, so again what's your point?

The point is, which you are having such a hard time understanding, they both get the cake but the message is up to the buyer to make happen. Reasonable people can see the difference between Happy Birthday Suzy and Kill All Faggots, but I'm betting that you can't however the courts, no so dumb as you.

So the baker for the gay wedding could've just sold them a blank cake? If so we agree.

A blank wedding cake.