Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I guess it's not a good time to be a baker.

Bakery that refused to ice cake with anti-gay slogans calling homosexuals 'detestable' is slapped with 'religious discrimination complaint' and threat of a court case

Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colorado, received request for homophobic cake

Elderly man asked for icing of two men with an 'X' over them, plus the word 'detestable' and the phrase 'god hates homosexuals'

They said they could give him icing to design the Bible-shaped cake himself

Infuriated, he stormed out, contacted his attorney, filed official complaint

The bakery now has two months to file a response to avoid court case


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915147...e.html#ixzz3PBDf1uue

Will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

I see no reason why the same "public accommodation" laws that compel involuntary servitude in the case of Masterpiece Bakery shouldn't apply in this instance . . .

It sure would be nice if people would just stop being d&$ks to each other instead. Why have that kind of message on a cake? Why think that at all? Why sue over it? Why not live and let live?

If you force a business to make a cake for a gay couple, you set a precedence to force a business to make a cake for an anti-gay person as well.

It's wrong. There are other bakeries. Go to one that will make the cake you want.

Wicked wrote: It sure would be nice if people would just stop being d&$ks to each other instead. Why have that kind of message on a cake? Why think that at all? Why sue over it? Why not live and let live?

It's too bad that the "progressive" community fails to take that tack and apply it to others, isn't it? If they would, if they had, we likely wouldn't be seeing this effort undertaken.

For the record, I support the bakers in both instances. Our federal Constitution prohibits involuntary servitude and a made to order cake is a contractual issue, not one of "public accommodation", and as such the individual is free to decide whether they wish to be hired for the task or not. Were our courts to stick to applying the laws instead of attempting to rewrite them to achieve a desired social outcome, there would be no issue with either baker refusing to be hired to produce a custom cake they didn't wish to produce.

Nobody that matters wrote: If you force a business to make a cake for a gay couple, you set a precedence to force a business to make a cake for an anti-gay person as well.

It's wrong. There are other bakeries. Go to one that will make the cake you want.

I agree, it's a sticky situation. Which is worse? Forcing a business to provide something for someone they don't want because it's discrimination, or forcing a business that doesn't want to provide something because it's discrimination? The problem isn't what the business chooses to do or not do, it's the discrimination and that's what needs to be fixed in this society.

PrintSmith, the same can just as easily be said for some conservatives who want to force their values upon the rest of us with restrictions on birth control, laws deciding who can marry and who can't, whether climate change or evolution can be taught in science classes, their rants against Muslims - where does it end? Notice I didn't say conservatives need to stop being d**ks, I said everyone needs to stop being d**ks to each other. That means it applies to both sides, and trying to stick to one side only doesn't fly in the face of reality these days (though I'd contend that conservatives are a helluva lot worse with their hypocrisy on this, but hey, we're probably not going to agree on that part). If you want to put blinders on and condemn one side only, nothing is ever going to get better.

You are seriously going to bring up birth control? It is an elective choice to chemically sterilize one's self in virtually every instance. You pay for your elective choices out of your own pocket, not the "collective" pocket. When it is a medical treatment for a medical problem, and no, fertility is not a medical problem that needs to be treated, then the medication needed to treat the medical condition should be covered by insurance. That is a common sense application. If you want to label it as conservative, I'm good with that too. Sure beats the heck out of making it a no cost prescription that everyone who buys insurance has to chip in for even if they are well past the age where there is any reasonable possibility of becoming pregnant.

Who can marry? That's a joke, right? Do you think that a brother and sister should be allowed to marry? How about a father and daughter or mother and son? First cousins? Should 2 guys and one woman be allowed to tie the knot? How about one man and five women? Spare me the nonsense wicked, please. The left wants to dictate who can and who cannot marry just as much as the right does when all is said and done. Neither of them want to get government out of marriage.

What I said was that if the left had left Masterpiece Bakery alone we wouldn't have to be dealing with this issue as a result. I can't help it if the truth bothers you or offends your sensibilities.

Final point is this. People are going to discriminate, daily. What brand of car you drive, what type of clothes you wear. How someone smells or chooses to wear their hair. The freedom to discriminate is the freedom to associate with who you choose to associate with. Guess what, individual freedom includes the ability to be a bigot if you wish to be one. Bigotry is always ugly, and I personally choose to avoid bigots of any stripe when able, but that decision, too, is discriminatory, isn't it.

Some posts were split out and moved here: mymountaintown.com/forum/29-the-ring/324...ou-don-t-ring#331608

To claim that the two cases are comparable is ridiculous. In the earlier case, CRS 24-34-601 makes it quite clear that refusal to provide services that are offered to the public at large to individuals based solely on their sexual orientation is unlawful. That law is not applicable in the recent case. In the Azucar case, the bakery did not refuse services that are offered to the public at large to the individual who was wanting hate speech written on bible shaped cake. Hate speech is not a protected class under CRS 24-34-601. The baker went above and beyond their legal duty in offering to provide the cake, and to provide the icing and tools to enable the individual to place their hate speech on their cake. The baker did not discriminate based on the creed of the potential cake purchaser, she refused to ice the cake with hate speech.

Even though certain individuals are claiming that the hate speech is a religious right and must be accommodated, no reasonable person would agree. If the baker had refused to inscribe a biblical verse on the cake, then an argument could be made that the refusal was based solely on the basis of the creed of the purchaser. But to claim that hate speech is protected as religious speech is not supported by the law.

Simply put, in this case, the baker did not refuse to inscribe the cake with hate speech based on the creed, or any other protect status of the purchaser, but based on her refusal to support hate speech.