CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail

Dec 8, 2013 Full story: Gateway Pundit 16,392

Gay activists protest the Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012. Owner Jack Phillips now faces charges for not baking a cake for the gay couple.

Full Story

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5679 Jan 25, 2014
Rick in Kansas: The baker is of the mistaken assumption that as a business owner, he enjoyed an absolute right to discriminate against those he does not morally approve of. Neither the Constitution of the state of Colorado or that of the United States recognizes such a right, nor should they.

ALAN: The Constitution of the USA absolutely guarantees the right of association. Laws were passed that go against the Constitution forcing people to do things they do not want to do.

Rick in Kansas: The couple has a right to his services whether he gives his moral approval to their sexual orientation or any other suspect classification under the law.

ALAN: In a socialistic utopia they do, but under the Constitution they do not. Look you can keep lying about the Constitution and refuse to read the document but it does not change the contents of the Constitution. And quite honestly I am tired of your totalitarian beliefs.

Rick in Kansas: It is an obligation of the state to try to prevent this sort of behavior by business owners.

ALAN: The State has no such obligation. Their obligation is to protect our rights, rights you want to destroy.

Rick in Kansas: The public should be able to be in public without having to worry about random acts of ugly bigotry.

ALAN: Christians say they should be able to be in public without having to worry their children might see two men kiss.

Rick in Kansas: A business owner's problems with somebody's race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, etc, shouldn't have to be the public's problem.

ALAN: So now you are the public?

Rick in Kansas: When folk don't behave on their own, laws are enacted to address the problem.

ALAN: And those laws go against the Constitution and makes things worse. Government can't solve anti-gay discrimination. It isn't the government who is bring an end to discrimination against gays it is gays themselves and the government is following; gays lead and the government follows. Only what the government does is after the fact, costs too much, and makes things worse.

Rick in Kansas: If he doesn't wanna do wedding cakes for the gay folk, he doesn't have to be in the wedding cake business, because they do have the same right to one as everyone else.

ALAN: You do not know what a right is. You do not have the right to the fruits of my labor. Nor do you have the right to force me to do anything.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5680 Jan 25, 2014
Rick in Kansas: In the Libertarian utopia he believes in,

ALAN: See how dishonest you are? I said that Utopia is NOT one of our options. If you are not going to be honest there is no point in educating you.

Rick in Kansas:....all bigots have an absolute right to their bigotries ....

ALAN: Absolutely. You discriminate against females when you are looking for a sex partner.

Rick in Kansas:...and should feel free to practice what they preach without fear of repercussion.

ALAN: What does that man? Is this another distortion of the facts?

Rick in Kansas: Those on the receiving end of such acts should accept them graciously and wander off to play Russian Roulette with another business's bigotries, because businesses enjoy the absolute right to kick somebody's __________ ass out for whatever reason turns them on.

ALAN: You got it.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5681 Jan 25, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Which are philosophies, not realities. None of those people determine the way rights are handled in this country..
<quoted text>
Irrelevant but correct. Non-responsive but correct.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5682 Jan 25, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The bill of rights as interpreted by that author, nothing more.
<quoted text>
I made that perfectly clear that it was a translation into modern English.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5683 Jan 25, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
How about you grow the hell up, already?
<quoted text>
Why didn't you deal with my question?

We need a law prohibiting straight males from discriminating against gay males for sex partners. If we can force bakers to bake cakes then we should be able to stop men from discriminating against men and force them to accept gay men as sex partners when gay men want them as sex partners.

Where is your outrage that straight men discriminate against you? They only accept women as potential sex partners making you gays feel bad, resentful at their bigotry. We must put an end to this bigoted discrimination immediately, we need a law! And we need it now.

Miss Mary Agnes: Gee, handsome, you are hot.

Mr. Straightman: I am not interested in having sex with a man, I only serve females.

Miss Mary Agnes: DISCRIMINATION! You bigot, how dare you make me feel bad about being gay. I will not stand for this, I am going to the government and they will either put you in prison for a year or force you to fuk me. I want justice! The Constitution give me the same rights as women and I want to get fukd and you are a bigot for not agreeing to do it.

Mr Straightman: Go find a gay to fuk you.

Miss Mary Agnes: I do not want a gay man, I want you. I am free to discriminate against gay men but you are not free to discriminate against them. I want you and you had bettered agree to it or I am calling the police. We are going to put an end to this bigotry once and for all.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5684 Jan 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it ironic how the right is the side of personal accountability, until they aren't.
http://www.datingtips.com/relationships/gay-l...

There are some gay men who tend to lean more towards straight men compared to fellow gays and you cannot blame them. After all, straight guys have this certain “swagger” about them, making them more attractive among gay men as much as the opposite sex. However, gay men should always bear in mind that no matter how much we would like to believe, most straight men are not gays hiding in the closet that needed to “get out” by having a rendezvous with a gay guy acting like a straight male.

Sure, there are possibilities coming from our wild sexual imagination that there could be an odd chance that a straight guy would want to hit the showers with your after hours of lifting weights in the gym, but gay men should not let their imagination get the best of them. Too much fantasizing about straight boys would only influence the way you date and see other men. Besides, it appears that you have discounted every other gay man out there.

Take note that gay men, like any other people of sexual preference, are as varied as a Swedish smorgasbord. There are plenty of good-looking single gay guys and bisexual men that are “straighter” than the straightest men you know. It is best not to be too picky in dating gay men, as you may actually find the one that actually fits your romantic and intimate needs.

Besides, going out with a straight guy may come as a form of “trophy” for you; that you have successfully chased a nearly impossible catch. You may even end up dumping the poor guy as you search for other straight guys to prey on because, after all, you have already accomplished your mission towards the first guy.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5685 Jan 25, 2014
Asked on Yahoo: Why do gay people discriminate against others? WHY DO SOME GAYS, WHO ARE ALWAYS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, GO AROUND DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE OF OTHER RACES. HOW CAN YOU TREAT SOMEONE THE EXACT WAY YOU DON'T WANT TO BE TREATED, IT IS SO DAMN STUPID. HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE ANALYZED?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Unfortunately, bias and discrimination are common no matter who the people are. Your point though is very valid. The people who are victims of bias and discrimination should know better than to treat others that way. And in the gay community there is A LOT of bias and discrimination within the community. Those who don't like trans-people, those who don't like certain gay men or lesbians because of how they look, those who believe in monogamy who don't like those who believe in open relationships (and vice versa), those who don't like the "stereotype" flaming guys or the "dykes". The list goes on and on. Until the gay community and the human race as a whole, grow up and realize that it is the diversity that gives life it's splendor and glory, we all will be held back from what humanity can achieve. If you don't care for a person for who they are or some aspect of their "being", then just be polite and keep your contact to a minimum. Don't be rude and don't use it as an excuse to hurt them.
Source(s):
My own philosophy of life.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5686 Jan 25, 2014
Why Do Gay Guys Hate Other Gay Guys?

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2012/12/10...

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5687 Jan 25, 2014
Why Are Gay Men So Judgemental Of Each Other?

http://www.homorazzi.com/article/why-are-gay-...

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5688 Jan 25, 2014
Why Do Gay Men Hate Each Other?

http://thoughtcatalog.com/madison-moore/2013/...

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5689 Jan 25, 2014
Why Do Gay Guys Hate Other Gay Guys?

http://www.gay.net/hot-topics/2012/12/10/why-...

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5690 Jan 25, 2014
Just found this:

why do gays hate the fat people?
Posted by: gaysarenotnice

Gays claim they want acceptance and tolerance from everyone, yet they are the least tolerant of others. Gays are extremely critical people, especially about other people's appearances- most noticeably anyone who is overweight. They say crude remarks about many women as well. Gays seem to be hypocrites in many ways. Demanding acceptance for their lifestyle, yet critical of anyone else who doesn't fit their view.

ALAN: I have noticed this often. Too many times gays have been mean cruel and nasty to my gay cousin right in front of the two of us. We have left gay places because of this.

Some bitchy queen came up to me and asked me to dance and I said no and suggested he ask my cousin to dance. This bitchy queen looked at my cousin and said right in front of us, "Honey, I'd rather have a root canal."

My cousin is nice looking but he is not built well. I tried to get him to join me lifting weights and all when we were teens but he just hated it. Later this same bitchy queen asked me if I'd change my mind about dancing with him and I said, "Honey, I'd rather have a root canal."

He went off to complain about how rude people were these days.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5691 Jan 25, 2014
another yahoo question: Why are gay men so rude?
So there is this boy who goes to my school who is gay, and all he does is make fun of girls to their face and make fun of what they are wearing, and tell them how ugly their clothes are. sometimes he says rude things to me and i just wanted to know how to handle it.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
That guy wishes he was a woman. Can't stand to look at them because it reminds him that he is a man.

ALAN: Interesting comment.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5692 Jan 25, 2014
Gay Bar Refuses Straights

A San Francisco gay bar has banned bachelorette parties, saying "any celebration of straight marriage" is banned, according to LA Weekly.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5693 Jan 25, 2014
How many laws has the US Supreme Court declared unconstitutional?

Answer:
The list would be too long for this format. The US Supreme Court has declared a total of 1,315 laws (as of 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available) unconstitutional using the process of judicial review.

The first time the Court declared a federal law unconstitutional was in Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion for Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803), in which he asserted Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional because it extended to the Supreme Court an act of original jurisdiction not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5694 Jan 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Why Do Gay Guys Hate Other Gay Guys?
http://www.gay.net/hot-topics/2012/12/10/why-...
Alan, why do you spend every waking hour commenting on gay topix forums and trolling gay websites?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5695 Jan 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Asked and answered.
Not only have you not answered, you have not attempted to do so. Congratulations, Alan, you are a moron.
Reverend Alan wrote:
http://www.datingtips.com/rela tionships/gay-lesbian/gay-dati ng/gay-men-chasing-straight-me n/
Reverend Alan wrote:
Why Do Gay Guys Hate Other Gay Guys?
http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2012/12/10...
Reverend Alan wrote:
Why Are Gay Men So Judgemental Of Each Other?
http://www.homorazzi.com/article/why-are-gay-...
Reverend Alan wrote:
Why Do Gay Men Hate Each Other?
http://thoughtcatalog.com/madison-moore/2013/...
Wow, somebody is a closet case.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5696 Jan 25, 2014
Unconstitutional Laws
By The Famous Brett Watson

In countries like the USA and Australia which have constitutions, there is the concept of a law being constitutional or not. There's probably a similar system in the UK, despite their lack of a written constitution, but I'm not personally familiar with it. In circumstances such as these, the body of lawmakers will sometimes enact a law which is later challenged on constitutional grounds, and the case will usually be taken to the appropriate Supreme Court. That court will be the final arbiter of whether or not the law is in fact compatible with the constitution, and thus allowable as a law.

The good old USA has a strong recent history of its lawmakers attempting to frame unconstitutional laws. A well-publicised example was a thing called the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in June of 1997. The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which is functionally similar, was then passed in October of 1998. The constitutionality of this law was also challenged on the same basic grounds as the CDA. As I understand it, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled it unconstitutional (in June 2000), and the government is appealing to the Supreme Court for that ruling to be reversed (Ashcroft v. ACLU).

If, as seems entirely possible, COPA is ruled unconstitutional for similar reasons to its predecessor, can we expect the US government to try again? They appear to be taking the approach that they should be able to ram something of dubious constitutionality into the lawbooks if they try often enough. This strikes me as despicable: lawmakers in countries like these are supposed to uphold their constitution, not wilfully push its limits. If the constitution in question needs changing then the lawmakers should propose the necessary changes rather than attempting to make unconstitutional laws. But what's to keep them on the straight and narrow in this sense? Not a lot, it seems.

Fortunately, I have a cunning plan.

Politicians that repeatedly propose and vote in favour of laws which are later deemed to be unconstitutional demonstrate themselves to be unfit for office. We should therefore keep track of who framed the various laws, and who voted for and against them. If a law is later deemed to be unconstitutional, this should count as a demerit against the persons responsible for framing the unconstitutional part, and also to some extent against those who voted for it. This would necessitate the keeping of precise records as to how each member voted on each issue, but that sounds like a good idea to me in and of itself, and would be easily facilitated by simple technological devices.

If a politician accumulated a sufficient number of demerit points, he or she should be expelled from public office for life, having demonstrated an inability to uphold the oath of office. The exact measure of these demerit points is a matter for discussion; my only suggestion is that the threat of expulsion be real enough to keep the bastards honest, as we sometimes say here in Australia. Lawmakers should be making an effort to keep laws constitutional, not trying to enact unconstitutional ones.

Perhaps with that particular threat hanging over them, they might treat their duty towards the constitution with the serious respect it deserves.
Public Domain: the author waives copyright on this log entry. Other sources (if any) are quoted with permission or on the principle of "fair dealing" and retain their original copyrights.

ALAN: My thought is we need a death penalty for those in government who support unconstitutional laws.

“THERE IS NO GOD”

Since: Feb 09

Northern California

#5697 Jan 25, 2014
Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd....

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5698 Jan 25, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
ALAN: My thought is we need a death penalty for those in government who support unconstitutional laws.
Like laws preventing same sex couples from having equal protection of the law to marry?

I quite agree. Perhaps, we could extend your suggesting to include those in the citizenry who champion such laws? Your gurney awaits.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 5 min Handsome Homie 68,618
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 8 min Poof1 6,153
Pastors opposed to gay marriage swear off all c... 10 min Rick in Kansas 76
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 11 min Reverend Alan 3,162
Supreme Court Has 'Tipped Its Hand' In Favor Of... 12 min Poof1 51
Religious freedom bill coming to Indiana 17 min Rick in Kansas 18
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 43 min Frankie Rizzo 5,321
Prison Sex, Nude Selfies, Science, and Scandals... 16 hr Belle Sexton 2
More from around the web