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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#8392 Mar 27, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The bakery is a public accommodation and cannot discriminate on the basis of orientation. <quoted text>
Why are you ignoring the fact that these two men were regular customers and were never discriminated against for any reason? A wedding isn't a person, it's an act. The baker, by providing this wedding cake would become a participant. He didn't want to participate in any way, shape or form because same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs. The 1st amendment guarantees his right to practice his religion without government interference.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#8393 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you ignoring the fact that these two men were regular customers and were never discriminated against for any reason? A wedding isn't a person, it's an act. The baker, by providing this wedding cake would become a participant. He didn't want to participate in any way, shape or form because same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs. The 1st amendment guarantees his right to practice his religion without government interference.
I guess it doesn't in Colorado.

I agree that there's a difference between one's orientation and what one does.

The court in Colorado has equated the two, and apparently only for gay people.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8394 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Why are you ignoring the fact that these two men were regular customers and were never discriminated against for any reason?
And you imagine that his not violating the law until he did is an argument in his favor?
Wondering wrote:
A wedding isn't a person, it's an act.
It is? No? Really?
Wondering wrote:
The baker, by providing this wedding cake would become a participant.
Oh no.
Wondering wrote:
He didn't want to participate in any way, shape or form because same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs.
How is that his customer's problem? They have a right to his services as a baker, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Wondering wrote:
The 1st amendment guarantees his right to practice his religion without government interference.
Not an absolute right dear. The state's compelling interest in preventing just this kind of discrimination outweighs his right to practice what he preaches in a place of PUBLIC accommodation. Sorry.

PS, did you know that these same arguments about religious freedom were raised in defense of racial discrimination?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8396 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
Understand the thought and appreciate the response.
If it's a one-man shop, the guy has to bake the cake, else face prosecution, right?
Even if he farms it out (odd concept), he's still (to me) compelled to involuntarily provide his work for benefit of another, under threat.
I'm sure someone brought it up in court.
Thanks
So, the baker was forced to bake a cake and was paid?! My God, we must hurry, it is the end of western civilization!!!

Wait a minute, isn't that what bakeries are established to do?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8397 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
For a fundie hater you sure call down Jesus a lot! Ah good times.
Rev Al and I seem to make you believe in Jesus. This is fun stuff.
It sure is! Once I realized that "they" posted from the level of a deranged 7 year old and that their assertions, insults and name calling were not attempts to come to a new understanding, I had to just stop reading their posts, stepping over them like one would step over dog shit on the side walk. Now I enjoy laughing at their inconsistencies, contradictions, brainwashing and indoctrinations they all insist are absolute truth that should be accepted with out question because that is how the majority lives. Like when if you said the earth wasn't flat, everyone knew you were nuts because all one had to do was look at the earth and one could see with ones own eyes that it was flat and if it were round then people would fall off the bottom. And these who worship government today are just as intolerant to facts and evidence as were the morons who ran the world 2,000 years ago.

Just like the flat earther's of the past, our resident government apologists will be seen as being on the wrong side of history.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8398 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Same for polygamy.
I suppose that's why polygamy is legal, eh?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8399 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Kathwyn is a sniper type troll. Dashes in, insults people, tells them they are wrong without even knowing their position and then cowardly retreating.
If she doesn't like you, you're a homophobe. Typical moron.
And the reasons she might not like you is if you do not worship the government like she does. It used to be the Catholics verses the Protestants and today it is Democrats verses Republicans.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8400 Mar 27, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you ignoring the fact that these two men were regular customers and were never discriminated against for any reason? A wedding isn't a person, it's an act. The baker, by providing this wedding cake would become a participant. He didn't want to participate in any way, shape or form because same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs. The 1st amendment guarantees his right to practice his religion without government interference.
Cake baking is NOT a religious practice.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8401 Mar 27, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
Your translation skills are as inferior as your reasoning skills.
All you've been doing is repeating entire blocks of text, which mean NOTHING. The crap from the opinion site is worthless.
<quoted text>
TRANSLATION: I am starting to understand what you are talking about and quite honestly I can't come up with a single thing to show you are incorrect. I have nothing to refute you with so insulting you is all I have left. And because I am not a nice person I'll call you names too.
Translation provided by His Holiness Reverend Alan
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8402 Mar 27, 2014
DebraE wrote:
<quoted text>
He's trying argumentum ad populum, which is not a rule of logic but a logical fallacy.
He loses again, hardly earth shattering news;0)
Poor Flunkie.... imagine going through life such a dimwit.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8403 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Understand the thought and appreciate the response.
If it's a one-man shop, the guy has to bake the cake, else face prosecution, right?
Even if he farms it out (odd concept), he's still (to me) compelled to involuntarily provide his work for benefit of another, under threat.
I'm sure someone brought it up in court.
Thanks
What was the outcome of the hearing? It was a summary judgment AGAINST the baker.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8404 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Or at least support your prediction just a little tiny bit?
Irrelevant. Ain't that what you say when you are asked for proof, Flunkie?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8405 Mar 27, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
The 10th and 14th amendments, cretin.
<quoted text>
The question was, where does the government get its authority and your "answer" is only a statement that someone wrote and others voted on and is nothing more than a hoax.

Where does the government get its authority to write a 10th and 14th amendment?

It is like asking, where does the baker get his flour and sugar, and you answer, from his bakery, and you think you nailed it. LOL. Come on comrade peter, think a little here. Or better yet think a whole lot.

Who gave the government permission to rule over you? Why do you insist upon being ruled? Why do you find self rule so repulsive? Is it because you suspect that other people are as morally bankrupt as you are?

There is no government, like no government. At least Sheepie admits he is part of the indoctrinated and brainwashed.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8409 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
For a fundie hater you sure call down Jesus a lot! Ah good times.
Rev Al and I seem to make you believe in Jesus. This is fun stuff.
Yes.... I can see where your twisted mind would conclude that nonsense.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8411 Mar 27, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
There are no anti-sodomy laws, moron, because we went through the courts and got them overturned. We are doing the same thing with anti-SSM laws.
<quoted text>
Normal people are outraged that this government you worship passed laws [read threats] against your peaceful activities in the bedroom, in the first place. What a moral outrage that a group of people can organize and call themselves "the government" and then give themselves the power and claim the authority to make you obey its arbitrary threats on your peaceful activities with other consenting adults.

The fact that you accepted the government ruling against your bedroom activities, and then went to the government morons, con-artists and criminals in Congress and asked, pretty please with sugar on it, please do not put me in prison for my peaceful bedroom activities, pretty please with sugar on it.

And just what do you call your groveling before the government? Please sir, just a little freedom, I'll pay my taxes and you can waste them all you want, just don't throw me in a prison with 1,000 horny men for wanting to have sex with a man. I'll be good, honest. I keep voting for you if you stop putting us in prison for our peaceful bedroom activities.

Comrade Peter the groveler.

grov·el
[gruhv-uhl, grov-] Show IPA
verb (used without object), grov·eled, grov·el·ing or ( especially British ) grov·elled, grov·el·ling.
1.
to humble oneself or act in an abject manner, as in great fear or utter servility.
2.
to lie or crawl with the face downward and the body prostrate, especially in abject humility, fear, etc.
3.
to take pleasure in mean or base things.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8413 Mar 27, 2014
cpeter1313 wrote:
It's not a humanitarian award, little boy.
<quoted text>
Irrelevant and non-responsive.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8414 Mar 27, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are sincere in your question. My first response is, why the hell do you condemn me for home schooling,[remember English is my second language] and you went to the wonderful government schools, and you are the one who doesn't know!
Can you see why it is so easy to just dismiss you?
Why don't you do some research and reading on your own? I am using you-tube now to go into more complicated replies because I have less time. Answering you in a two second sound bite is not going to answer you fully. And I want you fully answered.
"""" The legalization of polygamy followed logically from the legal arguments against one man-one woman, as was predicted not just by me, but also by Professor Martha Nussbaum, one of the leading legal advocates for gay marriage,“Polygamy would have to be permitted.”
A U.S. District Court judge has sided with the polgyamous Brown family, ruling that key parts of Utah’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.
Judge Clark Waddoups’ 91-page ruling, issued Friday, sets a new legal precedent in Utah, effectively decriminalizing polygamy.""" "
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/...
Um... polygamy was NOT decriminalized. Cohabitation was. But of course, you would spin it to fit your twisted logic.

Anybody can post a youtube video. What's HILARIOUS is that you somehow have the impression that they have legal standing.

You are free to dismiss me for whatever reason blows your skirt up, Rev. Anal. It doesn't change the facts. You are a hom skoold spoiled brat, without any formal education. i.e. you never learned how to think logically. Anyone that could blame Abraham Lincoln for the poor treatment of black people, or insist we must pass a law to forbid straight men from refusing advances from gay men is proof positive of a defective reasoning process.
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8415 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
No. But another great argument from the peanut gallery! Keep 'em coming. Funny stuff.
Yes you did, Flunkie.

If you can't remember what you write, just trying scrolling back!
Xavier Breath

Brooklyn, NY

#8416 Mar 27, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Circular reasoning. Get a real argument.
Circular reasoning?

ahhahahahaha
ahahahhahahahaha
ahahahahahahhahahaha
ahahahahhahahahahaha

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#8417 Mar 27, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The 13th Amendment seems to be in play here. The baker has been ordered by the court to engage in involuntary servitude.
Your thoughts on that? If you've hit it prior to this, just tell me the post number.
Thanks
The whole scam is the government has no legitimate power or authority. The government gives itself the power and the authority and gets away with it because it threatens parents with prison time if they do not deliver their children to the government indoctrination centers each morning for 12 years so the government can turn children into things like comrade peter.

By what authority can the government order anyone to engage in involuntary servitude?

The government only gets away with its criminal activities because people like comrade peter have been brainwashed and indoctrinate to keep the hoax alive. Comrade peter is a huge government success, he is the perfect government apologist.

If I do not have the right to force you to bake a cake Dan, then where do I get the authority to ask someone else to force you to bake cakes for me?

If comrade peter can't force someone to bake a cake, then how can he vote for people to force someone to bake cakes? The group, the government doesn't have any more authority to force people to do things than peter does. Yet peter insists something magical happens when two people get together and call themselves the government, they have more power and authority than any of the individuals who comprise the group.

It is comrade peter who is insane yet he calls others insane which is exactly what the government brainwashed him to do. He is the perfect little minion.

min·ion
[min-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power.

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 Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 12 min Sorry Hill 2,181
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 28 min Tdo 22,555
News Mexican leftist senators defend battering Trump... 1 hr JohnInToronto 2
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 280
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 43,051
News Vivian Romero is now Montebelloa s first openly... 2 hr testing 1 2 3 tes... 2
News Kentucky Has a Gay Senate Candidate - Does Anyb... 3 hr Frogface Kate 18
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 14 hr Just Think 44
More from around the web