CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay...

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

There are 16410 comments on the Gateway Pundit story from Dec 8, 2013, titled CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail. In it, Gateway Pundit reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Gateway Pundit.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5784 Jan 26, 2014
The Libertarian Party on Today's Issues

"Libertarians believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5785 Jan 26, 2014
Grab your 6th grade civics text and familiarize yourself with the Constitution.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5786 Jan 26, 2014
I love it when idiots cite decisions that actually disprove their assertions.
Reverend Alan wrote:
"Respondents argue that compelling them to prepare a cake for a same-sex
wedding is equivalent to forcing them to “speak” in favor of same-sex weddings – something they are unwilling to do. Indeed, the right to free speech means that the government may not compel an individual to communicate by word or deed an unwanted message or expression. West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943)(compelling a student to pledge allegiance to the flag “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control”); Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 715 (1977)(compelling a motorist to display the state’s motto,“Live Free of Die,” on his license plate forces him “to be an instrument for fostering public adherence to an ideological point of view he finds unacceptable.”)
Did you miss the next paragraph, twinkle toes?

"The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected “speech,” or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify
as “speech,” as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968)(“We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the
conduct intends thereby to express an idea.”)6 The undisputed evidence is that Phillips
categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage. After being refused, Complainants immediately left the shop. For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.7 Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious. The act of preparing a cake is simply not “speech” warranting First Amendment protection."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5787 Jan 26, 2014
""" As Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker illustrated, a free market punishes those who decide to discriminate."" "
Any chance a Nobel Prize-winning economist might know what he is talking about?
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That would negate the government's authority to punish those who discriminate, if necessary, how exactly? Their role is in discouraging by rule of law such acts from occurring in the first place.
I believe this is the first post where you were not insulting and did not call anyone any names.

You assume facts not in evidence: That the government HAS authority to punish people who discriminate.

You discriminate all the time when you refuse to go out with certain guys you do not find attractive. When you go to McDonald's instead of Burger King. Etc.

Was the baker arrested because he refused to do something he didn't want to do?

You have never really answered that, all you do is change the subject and say he broke the law. Why do you feel good about forcing people to do things they do not want to do? Maybe we can stop discrimination of McDonald's by forcing every one who has a last name starting with B to shop at Burger King instead of McDonald's. If we want the government to force "Utopia" on us then why not?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5788 Jan 26, 2014
""" As Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker illustrated, a free market punishes those who decide to discriminate."" "
Any chance a Nobel Prize-winning economist might know what he is talking about?
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That would negate the government's authority to punish those who discriminate, if necessary, how exactly? Their role is in discouraging by rule of law such acts from occurring in the first place.
WRONG! People lead and the government follows. You have the cart in front of the horse. Gays were winning acceptance in America long before the Government tried to force it by passing laws against the rights of bigots.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5789 Jan 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That would negate the government's authority to punish those who discriminate, if necessary, how exactly? Their role is in discouraging by rule of law such acts from occurring in the first place.
"""...I have to wonder whether it is even necessary for Congress to legislate a social change which is already occurring. 87% of Fortune 500 companies already have such policies in place, as do over 50% of the top federal contractors. According to the Left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP), seven out of ten small businesses already have anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation in effect, as do six out of ten small businesses..."" "

All of this is happened before the government decided to pass laws. Gays were already winning because it was the right thing to do. Forcing the hold out bigot business to comply turns people who don't like gays into people who hate gays.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5790 Jan 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
Was the baker arrested because he refused to do something he didn't want to do?
The baker wasn't arrested, you moron. He was sued, and has lost. He will lose any appeals he choses to file as well, because he broke the law of the state of Colorado.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5791 Jan 26, 2014
"""...I have to wonder whether it is even necessary for Congress to legislate a social change which is already occurring. 87% of Fortune 500 companies already have such policies in place, as do over 50% of the top federal contractors. According to the Left-leaning Center for American Progress (CAP), seven out of ten small businesses already have anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation in effect, as do six out of ten small businesses..."" "

Six out of ten small businesses already have anti-discrimination policies in place. And then the government passes laws forcing people to do what they are already doing.

Decent honest people lead and the government follows. You have the cart in front of the horse.

And screw all those bigot companies who are too "Christian" to behave decently and do the right thing. Screw them. Don't shop at them. Let the free market work. Put them out of business with your shopping dollars.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5792 Jan 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Would you fu**ing well stop pretending to know what it's like being gay or what is best for our community? People who hate gays don't need a reason; our existence is enough. To secure our rights, we ignore the haters. Listening to your logic, Rosa Parks should have shut the hell up, sat in the back, and the KKK would be no more. Doesn't work that way.
<quoted text>
Your memory fails you. I have described several incidents in here where I was mistaken as the gay lover of my gay cousin and discriminated against. My gay cousin lives in my house. I know what is best for America and what is best for America is best for gay people. And these are not my ideas about what is best, but tried and tested ideas which can be verified by people with the ability to use logic and are able to reason.

Rosa Parks did the right thing. She refused to obey an unfair, unjust, unconstitutional law by refusing to move to the back of the bus as the law required. To support her all blacks stopped riding the buses and when the city went broke and the drivers had no job to go to, the government got rid of the unfair, unjust unconstitutional laws.

You are so determined to punish that minority who hates you, you can't see the joy in celebrating those who don't. You are every bit as bad as those who hate you for hating them back and advocating every possible form of revenge to stick the knife in them and twist it, and keep twisting it. And you complain about the Christians who believe they are going to be watching you from heaven while you are burning in the pits of hell when you are just like them doing to them what they do to others. You love to watch people suffer and you refuse to admit they are suffering. Forcing people to do things they do not want to do is wrong. It was wrong to make Rosa Parks move to the back of the bus and now you are making bigots move to the back of the bus. You refuse to admit you are just like your enemies.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5793 Jan 26, 2014
Rosa Parks did the right thing. She refused to obey an unfair, unjust, unconstitutional law by refusing to move to the back of the bus as the law required.

Just like the baker refused to obey an unfair, unjust, unconstitutional law by refusing to bake a wedding cake.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5794 Jan 26, 2014
Are you a lawyer or a constitutional scholar? What qualifies you to tell us what Constitutional rights aren't?
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, I have an education and you don't, which automatically puts me ahead of you. I'm giving my opinion, which you reject anyway, and which you'd reject if I were chief justice of the SCOTUS. You aren't interested in bona fides, you only seek affirmation.
<quoted text>
Non-responsive and irrelevant.

In other words, NOTHING qualifies you to tell us about the rights our Constitution protects, as all you have is your opinion. An uninformed and misinformed opinion.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5795 Jan 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Alan harasses believers but cannot recognize his own cultish behavior in service to the great god "constitutional republicanism." He angrily dismisses any arguments that would offend his lord god, regardless of their veracity.
<quoted text>
I do harass those pew warming homophobes and I do an excellent job of it. The Constitution is a much better God than the one who says gays shall be put to death.

What argument have you presented that is anything more than your opinion?

When we remove the name calling and the insults you really aren't saying much. And what you are saying you just admitted is your opinion and nothing more.

So, what is wrong with going to the experts? Those who actually know what they are talking about?

""No right is absolute except in the mind of an adolescent. The classic example of a restriction on freedom of speech is screaming “fire” in a crowded space. Likewise if you were giving a speech to a mob enraged by the rape of a teenage girl and produced someone who was accused of that rape, it is easy to see that inciting the crowd to a lynching is likewise an invalid exercise of freedom of speech.""

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5796 Jan 26, 2014
"an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.""
cpeter1313 wrote:
Which is why this idiot can't be considered an authority. Until declared unconstitutional by a court, any statute has the force of law. Your cult rejects reality...always a bad sign.
<quoted text>
Non-responsive and irrelevant!

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5797 Jan 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
I never said he couldn't have an opinion. But neither can he be considered an authority on the subject, which is how you used him.
<quoted text>
Of course I used him as an authority: He is an authority on the subject and his INFORMED opinion is much more valid and reliable than your misinformed and uninformed opinion.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5798 Jan 26, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sweetie, whether you like it or not, being homosexual, perfectly normal and perfectly natural and you really have no idea what it is you are raving about.
And what? She should just accept your word on it? Do you have any proof, facts or evidence? Your deeply held beliefs are no more valid than are hers.

You refuse to see that there is a better way, so continue on with the petty bickering.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5799 Jan 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Since there are millions of kids who have grown up with gay parents or knowing gay people and have suffered no problems at all, I'll need to see a citation where knowing about homosexuality is as bad as raping a kid.
Teenagers certainly can metabolize alcohol; they just do so at a slower rate so it takes less time for them to feel the effects. Most teen pregnancies are regarded as risky because their bodies are already in metabolic and hormonal flux. But teens of the same age having sex is rarely treated as a crime, because you'd have to arrest both of them, and nothing is accomplished.
<quoted text>

You are not qualified to tell us about that unless you are a gay parent. Are you? Unless that citation you demand includes every single child ever raised by a gay couple you will not accept it so why bother to ask? You also are not qualified to tell us about how teen aged children metabolize alcohol. What qualifies you to tell us about the rate teens feel the effects? And what qualifies you as an expert on teen pregnancy and hormones?. Where is your citation that nothing is accomplished by arresting both teens involved in a sexual relationship?

Until you provide you credentials and citations you are just presenting another of your dog and pony shows for which you are well known.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5800 Jan 26, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Well, that's 100% wrong, but you don't care about facts, so why debate it?
<quoted text>
Yes, she is completely wrong. But where are your facts to disprove her "facts"?

There is a better way but you refuse to have anything to do with it, so please continue the petty bickering.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5801 Jan 26, 2014
You don't know the difference between a constitutional right and a legislative law.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5802 Jan 26, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
You don't know the difference between a constitutional right and a legislative law.
Is that the best you can do?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#5803 Jan 26, 2014
"""John Stuart Mill argued that “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” The question for libertarians on gay marriage then becomes: can the government force one group of people to suffer harm through a loss of their freedom, if it is safeguarding another group against harm through loss of theirs?

A person’s answer to that may well depend on where they think the greater harm is being done here – whether it’s with the gay couple for the harm caused by the perceived slight, or with the baker for his loss of religious freedom, and on which side they sit. Either way the answer is only an opinion – and by ruling one way or the other, the government is taking a side in the debate.

The lawyer defending the Colorado baker had this to say to reporters:“American citizens should not have to live in fear of a prison sentence merely for disagreeing with the government’s opinion. All Americans should remain free to honor God in our lives and in our work. The government has no business threatening Americans with jail time for simply exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms of religion and speech. Every American, whatever you think about this issue, should fear a government that ignores the First Amendment in order to exercise this kind of power over its citizens.”

I think she’s bang on the mark. To my mind, where harm can be argued in either direction, the only course of action open to the government is to allow complete freedom of personal choice: gay couples who choose to marry should be allowed to do so, but Christian bakers who don’t want to support that marriage through their work should likewise be allowed freedom of expression."""

Austin Petersen http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/religious-c...

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
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr whatgod 17,242
News Police: Kenyan Catholic priest arrested for sodomy 1 hr Just Think 11
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 3 hr Wondering 757
News The Internet is mad at Chelsea Handler for "ant... 3 hr Wondering 27
News Gay basher Kathryn Knott forced to fork over a ... 3 hr Wondering 26
News Former OKC Mayor blames homosexuality for moral... 3 hr anonymous 563
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 27,280
News 83% of Russian people consider gay sex a repreh... 16 hr Huck 14
More from around the web