Attorney for Colo. Baker Calls Gay Se...

Attorney for Colo. Baker Calls Gay Sensitivity Training 'Vague,' 'Lousy,' 'Pointless'

There are 78 comments on the EDGE story from Jun 5, 2014, titled Attorney for Colo. Baker Calls Gay Sensitivity Training 'Vague,' 'Lousy,' 'Pointless'. In it, EDGE reports that:

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission wants a suburban Denver baker to have a little class -- a little class in sensitivity training, that is.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#64 Jun 8, 2014
lides wrote:
No, but both of the people who went to the baker to order a wedding cake were people.
He said HE WOULD SELL THEM ANYTHING BUT A WEDDING CAKE! How f'n stupid are you? He didn't want to be any part of that wedding. A wedding is not a person. No discrimination. You are dumber than an f'n shoe.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#65 Jun 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
He said HE WOULD SELL THEM ANYTHING BUT A WEDDING CAKE! How f'n stupid are you? He didn't want to be any part of that wedding. A wedding is not a person. No discrimination. You are dumber than an f'n shoe.
It's not legal to refuse to sell them the wedding cake if he sells them to others. We as a society decided decades ago that retail establishments cannot pick and choose which customers they will serve, and which potential customers they will not serve.

And we're better for it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#66 Jun 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
He said HE WOULD SELL THEM ANYTHING BUT A WEDDING CAKE!
And in denying them that service that he regularly provides to others, only because they are a gay couple is in violation of Colorado law.

Tell me, Wondering, why are you so often defending those who broke the law? Even you admit they denied the service, there is no question their actions violate the law of the state of Colorado. That is just a matter of fact.
Wondering wrote:
How f'n stupid are you?
I'm not the one trying to defend an idiot who broke the law, who further lost their claim in court, which was subsequently unanimously upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

It appears the only stupid one here is you for not being able to understand the obvious.
Wondering wrote:
He didn't want to be any part of that wedding.
They didn't ask him to be part of the wedding, they asked him to bake a cake.
Wondering wrote:
A wedding is not a person.
You are the only one raising the claim that it is. No one else has made this foolish assertion.
Wondering wrote:
No discrimination.
Wondering, did he bake them the wedding cake, or did he deny service because it was a gay wedding. If it is the former, then there was no discrimination; if, on the other hand, it was the latter, then they were discriminated against.

If you can't understand this basic concept then you really have no business claiming anyone else is stupid.
Wondering wrote:
You are dumber than an f'n shoe.
I'm not the idiot arguing that weddings aren't people when no one made that argument, and arguing that no discrimination took place when a court and review board have both found that it did.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#67 Jun 8, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And in denying them that service that he regularly provides to others, only because they are a gay couple is in violation of Colorado law.
Tell me, Wondering, why are you so often defending those who broke the law? Even you admit they denied the service, there is no question their actions violate the law of the state of Colorado. That is just a matter of fact.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one trying to defend an idiot who broke the law, who further lost their claim in court, which was subsequently unanimously upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
It appears the only stupid one here is you for not being able to understand the obvious.
<quoted text>
They didn't ask him to be part of the wedding, they asked him to bake a cake.
<quoted text>
You are the only one raising the claim that it is. No one else has made this foolish assertion.
<quoted text>
Wondering, did he bake them the wedding cake, or did he deny service because it was a gay wedding. If it is the former, then there was no discrimination; if, on the other hand, it was the latter, then they were discriminated against.
If you can't understand this basic concept then you really have no business claiming anyone else is stupid.
<quoted text>
I'm not the idiot arguing that weddings aren't people when no one made that argument, and arguing that no discrimination took place when a court and review board have both found that it did.
You are dumber than a shoe.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#68 Jun 8, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
retail establishments cannot pick and choose which customers they will serve,
That's right. They aren't people, they have no brain. Reminds me of lides. It is people that make these decisions. People have rights. He has a 1st amendment right to practice his religion without government interference.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#69 Jun 8, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. They aren't people, they have no brain. Reminds me of lides. It is people that make these decisions. People have rights. He has a 1st amendment right to practice his religion without government interference.
What a ridiculous argument. Each citizen's right to "practice his or her religion" extends only as far as the next citizen's legal and constitutional rights begin. If you made a passing grade in high school government or civics class, then you know that.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#70 Jun 8, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
What a ridiculous argument. Each citizen's right to "practice his or her religion" extends only as far as the next citizen's legal and constitutional rights begin. If you made a passing grade in high school government or civics class, then you know that.
Well, that's not exactly true. Even if your practices in your religion don't interfere with someone else's constitutional rights, it can still be prevented if it's unpopular.

For instance, many religions used to sacrifice animals in their religious practices. Including the Jews as we all know. Now try doing that to a cat or dog, in the middle of a field, 10 miles from the nearest person, and if someone finds out about it, you're going to be under arrest.

Freedom Of Religion is not absolute even if you are not infringing on someone else's rights.

While it is certainly illogical, we as a society have decided that it is ok to kill certain animals under certain conditions, and have made it illegal to kill other animals under certain conditions.

I became a strict vegetarian for religious reasons more than 15 years ago, because I believe it is immoral to kill God's animals. And eat them. Some may agree with me. Others may not.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#71 Jun 8, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's not exactly true.
What part of my statement wasn't "exactly true"? Huh? Quote me.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#72 Jun 8, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of my statement wasn't "exactly true"? Huh? Quote me.
"Each citizen's right to "practice his or her religion" extends only as far as the next citizen's legal and constitutional rights begin. "

If a person in the U.S. wants to ritually sacrifice a cat or dog for their religious reasons, that would be illegal even though it infringes on nobody else's legal and constitutional rights.

Go to a dog pound. Get a cat or dog. Kill it in your backyard. Throw it on your barbecue and burn it and say whatever religious words you want, and see if you don't get arrested for doing so, even though you are infringing on nobody's rights.

Better yet, don't go to the dog pound. Just get a cat and keep it pregnant and throw the kittens on the barbecue every time you want to practice your religion. See if the cops don't show up.

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#73 Jun 8, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Each citizen's right to "practice his or her religion" extends only as far as the next citizen's legal and constitutional rights begin. "
If a person in the U.S. wants to ritually sacrifice a cat or dog for their religious reasons, that would be illegal even though it infringes on nobody else's legal and constitutional rights.
Go to a dog pound. Get a cat or dog. Kill it in your backyard. Throw it on your barbecue and burn it and say whatever religious words you want, and see if you don't get arrested for doing so, even though you are infringing on nobody's rights.
Better yet, don't go to the dog pound. Just get a cat and keep it pregnant and throw the kittens on the barbecue every time you want to practice your religion. See if the cops don't show up.
So you're simply ADDING to what I said, not refuting it. And in making your inane (and insane point), you're going off-topic and out-of-context.

What is wrong with you? I'm asking seriously. Are you on drugs? Do you drink too much? Are you suffering from dementia? Because you definitely are not in your right mind. You creep me out, and you always have. We're discussing the exercising of religion IN TERMS OF OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, and you choose to go off on a tangent about animal sacrifice. Do you not realize how sick, demented and warped that is?

There are a lot of people that I habitually disagree with, but very few for whom I have absolutely no respect. Congratulations. You belong in the latter category.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#74 Jun 8, 2014
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're simply ADDING to what I said, not refuting it. And in making your inane (and insane point), you're going off-topic and out-of-context.
What is wrong with you? I'm asking seriously. Are you on drugs? Do you drink too much? Are you suffering from dementia? Because you definitely are not in your right mind. You creep me out, and you always have. We're discussing the exercising of religion IN TERMS OF OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, and you choose to go off on a tangent about animal sacrifice. Do you not realize how sick, demented and warped that is?
There are a lot of people that I habitually disagree with, but very few for whom I have absolutely no respect. Congratulations. You belong in the latter category.
I stand by what I said. Not only that, as usual, it was Fair. And Balanced.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#75 Jun 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You are dumber than a shoe.
Wondering, an intelligent person could offer a rational rebuttal of an argument. You, on the other hand, decided to offer an ad hominem attack that is worthy of the playground in grade school.

Is that the best you can do, troll?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#76 Jun 9, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it was a good question too, but you're the only one who greed with me.
(And it only got up to 106 F here today !:)(Wait til springtime ends and summer comes and it gets hotter.:())
Some like it hot, some like it cold....

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#77 Jun 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What if he did? I'm sure that the baker doesn't quiz people on the status of their marriage.
He didn't refuse to serve gays. He refused to participate in a gay wedding.
Actually, the baker wasn't invited to participate in the wedding at all. He was simply asked to do what he claims to do for a living--bake a wedding cake and be paid for it. There's no reason he shouldn't have simply done that.

And you're totally delusional if you believe that refusing to bake wedding cakes ONLY for gay couples is different than refusing to serve gays. How many non-gay people have same-sex weddings??

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#78 Jun 9, 2014
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the baker wasn't invited to participate in the wedding at all. He was simply asked to do what he claims to do for a living--bake a wedding cake and be paid for it. There's no reason he shouldn't have simply done that.
And you're totally delusional if you believe that refusing to bake wedding cakes ONLY for gay couples is different than refusing to serve gays. How many non-gay people have same-sex weddings??
That's right.

Since: May 14

Location hidden

#79 Jun 10, 2014
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
His conscience was more important to him than any profit Most all people do not like the government bossing them around. And he won. He does not have to bake any gay wedding cakes. He said he would not bake one and he won't be baking any. All this nonsense and the bottom line is nothing has changed, he won't be baking gay wedding cakes. He got around the government.
If he really won he'd still be baking wedding cakes for straight people.
Soapbox Hero

Springfield, MA

#80 Jun 10, 2014
Yakitori wrote:
<quoted text>
If he really won he'd still be baking wedding cakes for straight people.
The Homofascists are victorious.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#81 Jun 11, 2014
Soapbox Hero wrote:
<quoted text>
The Homofascists are victorious.
Appeal to emotion fallacy.

You lose.

Try again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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 Study: Children Of Same-Sex Parents More Likely... 2 min Katrina 36
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 2 min Big C 15,910
News Transgender Ken doll cake triggers outrage afte... 17 min Packer Fan 9
News Navy names ship after gay rights advocate Harve... 41 min Naval Contemplation 189
News This gay Senate candidate is running in the lan... 45 min Wondering 61
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Wondering 38,774
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,960
More from around the web