ACLU sues baker for discrimination

Walter L Newton wrote:

archer wrote: I believe those that find themselves in an illogical corner painted themselves there. But, as is the fashion now, blame it on progressives . Seems to me that whenever some conservatives find themselves in the wrong, they blame liberals for putting them there. Just my opinion Walter, don't get your jockey shorts in a bunch over it.

You mean progressive were not primarily responsible for anti-discrimination laws? In that case, It's nice to see you give the conservatives some credit.

The civil rights Act of 1964 was passed by a bipartisan majority of both parties including 80% of the Republicans. It was primarily opposed by Southern Democrats led by the racist Strom Thurmond who then switched parties along with the other Southern Democrats as part of the Nixonian southern strategy.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Walter L Newton wrote:

archer wrote: I believe those that find themselves in an illogical corner painted themselves there. But, as is the fashion now, blame it on progressives . Seems to me that whenever some conservatives find themselves in the wrong, they blame liberals for putting them there. Just my opinion Walter, don't get your jockey shorts in a bunch over it.

You mean progressive were not primarily responsible for anti-discrimination laws? In that case, It's nice to see you give the conservatives some credit.

The civil rights Act of 1964 was passed by a bipartisan majority of both parties including 80% of the Republicans. It was primarily opposed by Southern Democrats led by the racist Strom Thurmond who then switched parties along with the other Southern Democrats as part of the Nixonian southern strategy.

It's nice to see you give the conservatives some credit.

How about this for irony? They go after one baker for refusing to make a wedding cake, small beans, if you ask me, but it is still illegal in Colorado for gays to marry. Shouldn't the ACLU and the suing couple work instead on overturning the amendment instead of picking on a small time baker? I am really surprised this hasn't gone back on the ballot, maybe this year?

Dog -

I'm the wrong person to ask. My views are based on my libertarian views, rather than my faith. AND - as I noted earlier - I'd make the cake.

The responsibility of the evangelical Christian is to talk about Christ, and to act like him to the best of our ability. On this topic - I'm unaware of Jesus ever mentioning homosexuality. Most (but not all) of the scriptural references to homosexuality mention it in a hedonistic context. This has even led some Christians to conclude that hedonism is the sin, rather than homosexuality. (a debate for another day).

Ultimately, my theology stems from 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (look it up, if you like). I'm of the "engage" rather than "isolate" side of the evangelical world. Do I feel homosexuality is contrary to G-d's design? Yes. Nonetheless, I'm not without my own challenges, so I'm not prepared to cast the first stone. (and that WAS in the teachings of Jesus). In my world-view ---- your walk is a matter between you and G-d

---

and unless you've invited me to chime in in the context of a brethren, it will stay that way.

What I'm defending is not religion (I'm not fond of religion, anyway - it's man-made). What I AM defending is the ability for an individual to make their own choices. I don't like government to intrude - and I'm fairly broad in my thinking - - so broad that most evangelicals would disagree with me.

To respond to your rationale, I don't think the baker prevented the couple from celebrating ---- he simply did not wish to join their celebration. Were he to sell the couple something generic, I don't think he'd mind at all, since he is not making any statement. By actually making a wedding cake - he is effectively creating something that makes a statement. The baker was opposed to making that statement - and I support his freedom to make that choice.

I'd note that in the Judeo-Christian system of thinking ---- one of the most sacred abilities endowed on human-kind is the ability to create. Along with the ability to create comes the responsibility to create good things. The baker apparently did not feel he was creating something good --- and I can understand that. The so-called progressives feel it's their duty to deprive the baker of the freedom to make such a choice.

I hope this explains my thinking. Obviously, the state courts don't agree ----

Went down to Masterpiece today and bought some apple caramel danishes to take to work with me as part of the show of support for the baker and his rights organized by none other than Peter Boyles over at 710 KNUS, a man who both supports homosexual rights and for people to have the right to choose for whom they will labor, as is the case with the vast majority of those who populate this forum . At least a hundred people were there at the same time I was, the line stretched out of the building and around the corner, and it had been that way all morning long. I, along with all who were there, stood in line for over 45 minutes to make my purchase. I watched the man in front of me purchase a single cherry danish, the last one that they had, and then leave the proprietor a Benjamin to help the baker fight for his right to decide who he was going to labor for.

I tell you, when I see so many people come to the aid of one who has been wronged it just makes me all warm inside, it renews my spirit, it gives me hope. The baker and his whole staff were humbled by the outpouring of support that they received this morning. They were working their keisters off in the chaos and smiling ear to ear the entire time. They thanked each and every person there for coming out in support of them and I heard one of them remark that they felt blessed to see such a tangible sign that they were not alone.

PrintSmith wrote: Went down to Masterpiece today and bought some apple caramel danishes to take to work with me as part of the show of support for the baker and his rights organized by none other than Peter Boyles over at 710 KNUS, a man who both supports homosexual rights and for people to have the right to choose for whom they will labor, as is the case with the vast majority of those who populate this forum . At least a hundred people were there at the same time I was, the line stretched out of the building and around the corner, and it had been that way all morning long. I, along with all who were there, stood in line for over 45 minutes to make my purchase. I watched the man in front of me purchase a single cherry danish, the last one that they had, and then leave the proprietor a Benjamin to help the baker fight for his right to decide who he was going to labor for.

I tell you, when I see so many people come to the aid of one who has been wronged it just makes me all warm inside, it renews my spirit, it gives me hope. The baker and his whole staff were humbled by the outpouring of support that they received this morning. They were working their keisters off in the chaos and smiling ear to ear the entire time. They thanked each and every person there for coming out in support of them and I heard one of them remark that they felt blessed to see such a tangible sign that they were not alone.

Thank goodness those hundred people don't make law. I listened to Boyles show this morning. All I heard was a hundred people who are wrong.

I'm surprised that you support involuntary servitude Walter. Would you like to explain to me how a wedding cake is not a matter of contract but a matter of public accommodation? The creation of the cake is a contract matter, isn't it? I mean, the cake isn't sitting in the display awaiting a purchaser the way a sheet cake is, or maybe the fresh muffins and danishes are. I would agree that to refuse to sell them an item that is created with no purchaser is mind falls under the public accommodation laws, and I agree that it would be wrong for Phillips to refuse to sell them same. I contend that a made to order cake, however, a one off item that is made for a specific purchaser according to the terms and conditions of a contract between the two interested parties, falls under the heading of contract, not public accommodation.

Not that the administrative judges ruling really changes much. All Phillips needs to do is tell those interested in having him bake a wedding cake that he only does that as a subcontractor for wedding planners and such to avoid the injustice of being told he must involuntarily labor for anyone who walks through his doors, against his will, against his conscience because some people will never be satisfied until they have absolute control over even the most minute details of your life.

PrintSmith wrote: I'm surprised that you support involuntary servitude Walter. Would you like to explain to me how a wedding cake is not a matter of contract but a matter of public accommodation? The creation of the cake is a contract matter, isn't it? I mean, the cake isn't sitting in the display awaiting a purchaser the way a sheet cake is, or maybe the fresh muffins and danishes are. I would agree that to refuse to sell them an item that is created with no purchaser is mind falls under the public accommodation laws, and I agree that it would be wrong for Phillips to refuse to sell them same. I contend that a made to order cake, however, a one off item that is made for a specific purchaser according to the terms and conditions of a contract between the two interested parties, falls under the heading of contract, not public accommodation.

Not that the administrative judges ruling really changes much. All Phillips needs to do is tell those interested in having him bake a wedding cake that he only does that as a subcontractor for wedding planners and such to avoid the injustice of being told he must involuntarily labor for anyone who walks through his doors, against his will, against his conscience because some people will never be satisfied until they have absolute control over even the most minute details of your life.

Boy... you complicate everything with pseudo-constitutional-claptrap and expect someone to swallow it lock, stock and Thomas Jefferson.

It's a retail store. It would be the same as if I went into King Soopers bakery department and asked for a cake that read "Walter and Mike, good luck on the marriage" and they refused because of the gay theme of the cake I am requesting.

It's a RETAIL store (I'll say it again for emphasis), Masterpiece is a retail store, they can't refuse service because someone wants something for a gay function. Period.

All your contract bull crap is bunk. It has nothing to do with the subject. And you haven't quoted ONE case law to prove your point.

Get back to us when you can do that!!!

And there are some items in the store which are baked ahead of time for resale to any member of the public, a public accommodation that falls under laws which bear that moniker. That is not what we are talking about here at all.

We are talking about a one off custom creation for a specific individual. That is not what is generally referred to as retail Walter and you know that as well as I do. That is custom fabrication, that is an item contracted between two parties. That would be like saying that if I went to a gunsmith and asked them to make me a gun, from scratch, starting with nothing more than raw materials that had to be worked and formed and machined to my exact specifications that the gunsmith and I were engaged in a retail transaction and not a contractual one. Do you hear how little sense that makes? The logic doesn't change because it is a baker instead of a gunsmith, a cake instead of a firearm and involves homosexuals instead of me. A one off custom creation is not a retail item Walter, to claim that it is to further an ideological agenda is to sever any ties to reality as it exists.

PrintSmith wrote: And there are some items in the store which are baked ahead of time for resale to any member of the public, a public accommodation that falls under laws which bear that moniker. That is not what we are talking about here at all.

We are talking about a one off custom creation for a specific individual. That is not what is generally referred to as retail Walter and you know that as well as I do. That is custom fabrication, that is an item contracted between two parties. That would be like saying that if I went to a gunsmith and asked them to make me a gun, from scratch, starting with nothing more than raw materials that had to be worked and formed and machined to my exact specifications that the gunsmith and I were engaged in a retail transaction and not a contractual one. Do you hear how little sense that makes? The logic doesn't change because it is a baker instead of a gunsmith, a cake instead of a firearm and involves homosexuals instead of me. A one off custom creation is not a retail item Walter, to claim that it is to further an ideological agenda is to sever any ties to reality as it exists.

Has nothing to do with the facts.

Quote me case law to prove your point. Not your supposed-made-up-because-Printsmith-is-saying-it-then-it-has-to-be-true-fact nonsense.