Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

Gipper · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Leave it to liberals to praise totalitarian law.

Do as we say. Individual liberty is not allowed. Your opinion is not allowed.

You have no rights that we don't allow you to have.

Peter King · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Grant said:
My son is Gay and I know that he and I would both believe this guy to be a jerk. Letting people know this owners attitude though the internet, the media, etc. is the best way to handle people like this. Going through the courts is where one side rights is going to harm another sides rights. There are better ways to handle this than the courts.

I think it is wonderful you are so accepting of your son, some parents go insane when they find out one of their children is gay.

I think that going to the courts is a good thing because it sets a precedent and will hopefully make other companies think twice before acting in a bigoted manner.

AGENT J · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
1.)I think it is wonderful you are so accepting of your son, some parents go insane when they find out one of their children is gay.

2.) I think that going to the courts is a good thing because it sets a precedent and will hopefully make other companies think twice before acting in a bigoted manner.

1.) I agree 100%

2.) I also agree, not to mention IMO not sending criminals to court just helps perpetuate the problem. Court is exactly where they deserve to be.

Henrin · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
I think it is wonderful you are so accepting of your son, some parents go insane when they find out one of their children is gay.

I think that going to the courts is a good thing because it sets a precedent and will hopefully make other companies think twice before acting in a bigoted manner.

We should consider ourselves possessing the ability to shop at establishments that don't discriminate. Since we have the ability to spread the word of these establishments and people are generally in agreement that discrimination is bad there is little reason for law here. We can handle this on our own.

The property in question is not your property and you have no say on who they permit on it, but the money you use in the market place is and so is your facilities. Use them and stop insisting on acting on the rights of other people.

JJB3333 · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
I am glad that the black population stood up for themselves. All bigotry is wrong and everyone is entitled to their civil rights. You are obviously living in the past century. Nobody is talking about forcing every human being to be bi...that is just a silly argument. What we are saying is that in 2013, it is no ok to be a bigot any longer...and the courts are going to continue to strike down discrimination every time it rears its ugly head. Welcome to the 21st Century JJB.

ya welcome to 2013 disney dude. And news flash unless their is absolute equality everywhere, even the courts discriminate. That is what i mean by forcing everyone to be bi, it is the only way o end all segregation and discrimination. If that is not achieved then gays and lesbians and blacks and immigrants and EVERYONE will always have to live with being discriminated against.

MarineTpartier · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
My point essentially boils down to this: Can a business benefit from all the benefits provided through tax monies and still deny the tax payers patronship on the mere basis of race, gender, sexuality? If yes then it sets up the groundwork for an illogical society where a tax payer can choose to pay taxes depending on who it helps. As that premise is illogical and contrary to the notion of what it means to live within a society, there are only three options left for a business:

1) businesses completely stop using societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus freeing themselves from public accommodations status. (Unlikely)
2) businesses continue to use societal benefits/taxes/privileges thus maintaining public accommodations status. (Very likely)
3) businesses cease to exist if they do not conform to what it means to live within a society.

Henrin said:
So basically you impose taxes on them, you impose a contract on them, and then because of both of these things you imposed on them you get to control them. Nonsense. Shear and utter nonsense.

Go ahead though, try to convince me that because you imposed force on someone that other forces are warranted. You know it's nonsense I'm sure, but go ahead anyway.

The great thing about statism is that the foundation of the idea is a fallacy.

:yt.....

Peter King · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
We should consider ourselves possessing the ability to shop at establishments that don't discriminate. Since we have the ability to spread the word of these establishments and people are generally in agreement that discrimination is bad there is little reason for law here. We can handle this on our own.

The property in question is not your property and you have no say on who they permit on it, but the money you use in the market place is and so is your facilities. Use them and stop insisting on acting on the rights of other people.

I am sorry but I disagree, with that kind of reasoning there would still be businesses with "whites only" signs in the windows. There was not only a need for such a law but also a justification for anti-discrimination laws.

It may not be my property, but as long as a property houses a commercial business it has to keep to the laws of the United States and one of those laws is that it is not legal for them to discriminate. And I am not insisting on acting on the rights of other people. I am insisting judges sentence/smack down companies who are bigots when it comes to human rights of other.

Cardinal · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
So basically you impose taxes on them, you impose a contract on them, and then because of both of these things you imposed on them you get to control them. Nonsense. Shear and utter nonsense.

Go ahead though, try to convince me that because you imposed force on someone that other forces are warranted. You know it's nonsense I'm sure, but go ahead anyway.

The great thing about statism is that the foundation of the idea is a fallacy.

Yeah, but it's always the gays that are the last straw. That's what I think is hilarious.

AGENT J · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Cardinal said:
Yeah, but it's always the gays that are the last straw. That's what I think is hilarious.

dont forget there are many that claim that THIS time its magically different that those other things.

Henrin · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
I am sorry but I disagree, with that kind of reasoning there would still be businesses with "whites only" signs in the windows. There was not only a need for such a law but also a justification for anti-discrimination laws.

It may not be my property, but as long as a property houses a commercial business it has to keep to the laws of the United States and one of those laws is that it is not legal for them to discriminate. And I am not insisting on acting on the rights of other people. I am insisting judges sentence/smack down companies who are bigots when it comes to human rights of other.

I will never understand this human rights argument. I know the argument well from school, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to me. I am student of philosophy and have read hundreds of books on it, and more than I should have on property and it's history, but I can't figure out how this argument makes sense. All types of property, be that your body, your house, your business, or even your land work on the same principle. Just as you have sole claim to control access to your body, you also have sole claim to control access to your house, your business, or your land. No one can say to you that you must invite someone else into your body, your house, your business or your land and no one can act on them without violating your right to property.

The people you speak of that can be discriminated against never had a just claim to be on the property or to service for that matter, so what rights are we really talking about here? If people have control over access to their property then they must in turn have the power to discriminate against who they chose when dealing with the use of it.

If people however used the resources open to them to get the word out about places that discriminate then these businesses would not find it in their interest and the problem you speak of would be minimal at best. These businesses I highly doubt would ever grow to be anything more than a small town business with a small base of consumers.

Henrin · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Cardinal said:
Yeah, but it's always the gays that are the last straw. That's what I think is hilarious.

I'm a libertarian, so you know, I was always against it.

Lursa · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
Let us know when you all start protesting and suing stores for the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' policies. Oh wait, that would require consistency on your parts.

Shoes and shirts are not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Race and gender are. In Colo, sexual orientation is.

Arbo · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Lursa said:
Shoes and shirts are not covered under anti-discrimination laws. Race and gender are. In Colo, sexual orientation is.

Yet again showing government has no business dishing out such laws, as they don't cover ALL discrimination. Just those they are trying to buy votes from.

Lursa · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

JJB3333 said:
not at all. You people think that the entire country wanted to segregate against black's, but many people did not. Can you imagine if every single black that was segregated against befor the 60's just decided to sue for the littlest things?

The blacks cant help being black so they should not be segregated against for something they cant change. But if you decide to deviate from the national standard of acceptance, you should be ready to get hit with an assault of segregation, even though it is technically illegal.

And yes, as most people in the world are straight or single, being gay/lesbian has not become nationally accepted. For us not to segregate against this the government would have t force every human being on the planet to be bi. Anything less will cause segregation.

If blacks had sued, they would have received more attention, created more adverse consequences for racism, and possibly gained the advantages of segregation sooner. When something is WRONG, it cant be wrong to fight it.

And gays do not decide to be gay. They ARE gay and it doesnt matter if it is 'socially' or 'nationally' accepted. THey are a minority and deserve equal rights.

And the bold is one of the craziest things I've ever read on this topic. Gays are integrated throughout our society now, everywhere. The govt had almost nothing to do with it. Most of the time you are not even aware of it.

But there are areas where gays do not have equal rights...and that is what the gay marriage issue is about.

AGENT J · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

JJB3333 said:
1.)not at all. You people think that the entire country wanted to segregate against black's, but many people did not. Can you imagine if every single black that was segregated against befor the 60's just decided to sue for the littlest things?

2.)The blacks cant help being black so they should not be segregated against for something they cant change. But if you decide to deviate from the national standard of acceptance, you should be ready to get hit with an assault of segregation, even though it is technically illegal.

3.)And yes, as most people in the world are straight or single, being gay/lesbian has not become nationally accepted.

4.)For us not to segregate against this the government would have t force every human being on the planet to be bi. Anything less will cause segregation.

1.) what do you consider "little" things? being denied equal rights is never littler and the reason blacks didnt "sue" before the 60s is because there had to be legal precedence to win on, a reliable system that would consistently fight for them and then there was the "little" thing of they might not live out the week depending on who they sued, who they were and where they lived. Just saying

2.) a person cant change their sexual orientation so it fits the national standard what ever that is

3.) doesnt need nationally accepted, women and minorities as equal still isnt accepted by many

4.) this makes no sense i dont even know what you are trying to say

Bodi · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
I will never understand this human rights argument. I know the argument well from school, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense to me. I am student of philosophy and have read hundreds of books on it, and more than I should have on property and it's history, but I can't figure out how this argument makes sense. All types of property, be that your body, your house, your business, or even your land work on the same principle. Just as you have sole claim to control access to your body, you also have sole claim to control access to your house, your business, or your land. No one can say to you that you must invite someone else into your body, your house, your business or your land and no one can act on them without violating your right to property.

The people you speak of that can be discriminated against never had a just claim to be on the property or to service for that matter, so what rights are we really talking about here? If people have control over access to their property then they must in turn have the power to discriminate against who they chose when dealing with the use of it.

If people however used the resources open to them to get the word out about places that discriminate then these businesses would not find it in their interest and the problem you speak of would be minimal at best. These businesses I highly doubt would ever grow to be anything more than a small town business with a small base of consumers.

Because it isn't just a private property issue... it is a societal issue. Business that operate with the public are not really "private" either. As such they must abide by laws that affect the public. Nobody is saying that you have to let anybody into your house... since that is different. You could open a business that only sells honey to a company and nobody would argue that you have to let people you don't want on the property to observe. Hell, it is like a winery. Wineries that have various growing areas don't have to let anybody on that property... but the Winery itself that gives tastings and sells wine has to since it is open to the public.

Bodi · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
Let us know when you all start protesting and suing stores for the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' policies. Oh wait, that would require consistency on your parts.

*sigh* because shirts and shoes are a health and safety issue, not a discrimination one. Silly Arbo.

Arbo · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Bodhisattva said:
*sigh* because shirts and shoes are a health and safety issue, not a discrimination one. Silly Arbo.

They are an imaginary 'safety' issue… there is nothing unsafe about not wearing shoes or a shirt into most any store.

Lursa · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
I've asked you what kind of partnership/group/belief a person is forced to adopt in a one time transaction. You can't show which? Good.

According to you. :shrug: - I'd say social welfare and harmony is a pretty good concept to base such laws upon.

The law begs to differ.

Lol, you're being purposely obtuse. You yourself claimed this

Again, how do you have a right to use them if you must pay for them? Even the government would argue you can't use a resource like say a bedroom at a hotel without first paying for it. So how is it you have a right to use the resource when the concept of rights is in part dependent upon there being no fee to exercise them? Lol. You're way out of your league again.

He prefers that businesses be allowed to serve spoiled food, keep unclean, unhealthy facilities, not be subject to safety laws that protect employees and customers, etc. All things that are part of the laws governing businesses and are the foundation for the business licenses that business owners voluntarily sign.

Henrin · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Bodhisattva said:
Because it isn't just a private property issue... it is a societal issue. Business that operate with the public are not really "private" either. As such they must abide by laws that affect the public. Nobody is saying that you have to let anybody into your house... since that is different. You could open a business that only sells honey to a company and nobody would argue that you have to let people you don't want on the property to observe. Hell, it is like a winery. Wineries that have various growing areas don't have to let anybody on that property... but the Winery itself that gives tastings and sells wine has to since it is open to the public.

Yes, I'm aware that people see it as a societal issue. I don't much respond to those kind of arguments. I much better prefer balancing rights against rights and not against needs or desires of society. If I accepted your argument here I would need to accept other arguments on a societal standing and almost all those are to the most part socialist trash or busy body nonsense that doesn't interest me.

TheNextEra · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
They are an imaginary 'safety' issue… there is nothing unsafe about not wearing shoes or a shirt into most any store.

You MAY think it is an imaginary issue, but it DOES fall under a HEALTH issue whether you like it or not. Hence, it isn't a discriminatory issue.

Bodi · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
They are an imaginary 'safety' issue… there is nothing unsafe about not wearing shoes or a shirt into most any store.

Shoes is pretty basic for health and safety. A non-covered foot that gets injured is a law suit. And to those that it isn't health and safety (food establishments and such) it would be a public decency thing. It is not discrimination to require certain levels of clothing because all one has to do is get required clothing and they can go in. That is why businesses are allowed dress codes. Pretty much same thing.

Your analogy is bad. Just deal with it.

Henrin · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Lursa said:
He prefers that businesses be allowed to serve spoiled food, keep unclean, unhealthy facilities, not be subject to safety laws that protect employees and customers, etc. All things that are part of the laws governing businesses and are the foundation for the business licenses that business owners voluntarily sign.

I don't believe I have ever talked on those issues.

sangha · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
I will never understand this human rights argument.

For once I agree with you

Grant · Dec 8, 2013

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Peter King said:
I think it is wonderful you are so accepting of your son, some parents go insane when they find out one of their children is gay.

I think that going to the courts is a good thing because it sets a precedent and will hopefully make other companies think twice before acting in a bigoted manner.

He would have too much pride to go to court over an issue like this, but he would certainly let people know of this baker's attitudes.

Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

Gipper

Peter King

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Henrin

JJB3333

Active member

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate

Peter King

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Henrin

Henrin

Lursa

Tenacious

Arbo

Lursa

Tenacious

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Arbo

Lursa

Tenacious

Henrin

TheNextEra

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Henrin

sangha

Grant

Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Active member

Haters gon' hate

Respected On All Sides

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Tenacious

Tenacious

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Tenacious

Just waiting for my set...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency