Post: #1

Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit

A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.

Think of it as reverse conversion therapy (or straight man’s rehab) so that the state can mandate diversity through conformity.

Post: #2

How a wedding cake became a cause.

Ironically, there's a bakery in Denver that specializes in porn cakes for bachelorette parties.

Post: #3

That doesn't seem constitutional. I don't understand why you wouldn't just make cakes for gay people, money is money, regardless of who gives it to you, but the government shouldn't be able to force people to support gays.

Post: #4

I believe the same thing was discussed here:

/thread-31052.html

Post: #5

Agreed Switch. Governments and publicly funded institutions have no right to discriminate, but private firms have every right to discriminate. You have the right to not do business with someone based on a rational or seemingly irrational bias. When you discriminate against someone there is a cost to you, in this case it would be loss of business from not only the gays, but from people who find that bias morally objectionable who will in turn discriminate against your business. If your values are more important than the money you would receive from the people you don't want as customers, then that is your decision and not the courts.

Post: #6

Quote:Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. For the record, same-sex marriage is against the law in Colorado.

So they're not legally allowed to marry, but he's forced to make a cake. Wonderful.

How do they force someone to make a cake, anyway? Do they send policemen over to watch him do it? And would you really want to eat a cake made under those circumstances? I know I'd be very worried about laxative-flavored cake batter.

Post: #7

So they're not legally allowed to marry, but he's forced to make a cake. Wonderful.

How do they force someone to make a cake, anyway? Do they send policemen over to watch him do it? And would you really want to eat a cake made under those circumstances? I know I'd be very worried about laxative-flavored cake batter.
[/quote]

Face-palm. So basically he is being forced by the Government to materially aid two others to breach legislation. At least someone is talking some sense:

"Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.

'We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”'

Anyway, surely the happy couple would love a bukkake cake or something.

Post: #8

(06-03-2014 06:02 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. For the record, same-sex marriage is against the law in Colorado.

So they're not legally allowed to marry, but he's forced to make a cake. Wonderful.

How do they force someone to make a cake, anyway? Do they send policemen over to watch him do it? And would you really want to eat a cake made under those circumstances? I know I'd be very worried about laxative-flavored cake batter.

Well if they were willing to sue just to get the cake made at all, they'll probably have no problems suing over the slightest thing that's wrong with it - citing the same reason of course. The baker better be on his best behavior.

Of course the whole thing is absurd, especially considering customers can discriminate all day long without problems. If the baker was gay and a Christian couple didn't want to patronize him because he is gay, and opted for a straight baker, they can do so and nobody would be the wiser. Or this gay couple could have sought out a gay baker to make their cake, simply because he was gay. Would that have caused an uproar because they discriminated against straight bakers? Hardly.

The fact that people discriminate is yet another hard truth that certain folks can't deal with. Discrimination, like every action, has consequences, and it should be up to individual adults whether or not those consequences are worth their actions.

Post: #9

(06-03-2014 05:50 PM)Enki Wrote:  I believe the same thing was discussed here:

/thread-31052.html

My bad. Looks like it resurfaced in the news because the CO Civil Rights Commission affirmed this past Friday the initial administrative law judge ruling from December.

(06-03-2014 05:57 PM)Katatonic Wrote:  Agreed Switch. Governments and publicly funded institutions have no right to discriminate, but private firms have every right to discriminate. You have the right to not do business with someone based on a rational or seemingly irrational bias. When you discriminate against someone there is a cost to you, in this case it would be loss of business from not only the gays, but from people who find that bias morally objectionable who will in turn discriminate against your business. If your values are more important than the money you would receive from the people you don't want as customers, then that is your decision and not the courts.

Yep, agreed.

The left is always looking to wield the power of the state to enforce their way of life on everyone else. The unicorns and fairy dust utopia they hope for will actually be a totalitarian state that brooks no differing views.

Post: #10

Quote:“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Listen to this sanctimonious language. So it's now legal to have gay re-education camps. It's a private business and the government is basically punishing them for thought crimes. These aren't crimes where you go out and attack someone or stop someone else from prospering. You simply refuse to stick a two men wedding topper on a fucking cake and government wants to shut you down.

These queers are gonna push someone just a little too far one day...

Post: #11

(06-03-2014 06:27 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Quote:“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Listen to this sanctimonious language.

Sounds Orwellian to me - I mean seriously, "the right thoughts"? Jack is apparently guilty of thought-crime and needs some time getting "rehabilitated" in the Ministry of Love.

These people do know 1984 wasn't some kind of manual, right?

Post: #12

The thing for me is about the couple. Why would you want to do business with someone who's basically telling them to fuck off at the end of the day? Normally as a consumer you'd be saying fuck off back to the people telling you to fuck off, and not to force them to basically apologise over the course of 2 years and to still do business with them!! And to do that with the full support of the government? It is starting to become really clear WHO is running shit now.

Post: #13

Although I hate the gay agenda and how it's morally wrong to force a man to bake gay cakes, you can't legally refuse to sell something you're advertising in your shop. Once a gay man walks in your shop and gives you money to purchase the item you are selling, the contract is already made without you having to agree to it. So legally speaking, he can't turn down the money to bake cakes just because it's for a gay wedding.

Post: #14

(06-03-2014 06:37 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  The thing for me is about the couple. Why would you want to do business with someone who's basically telling them to fuck off at the end of the day? Normally as a consumer you'd be saying fuck off back to the people telling you to fuck off, and not to force them to basically apologise over the course of 2 years and to still do business with them!! And to do that with the full support of the government? It is starting to become really clear WHO is running shit now.

Right? Hell I'm afraid to even send food back to the kitchen in the restaurant for fear of what they might do to it.

(06-03-2014 06:47 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  Although I hate the gay agenda and how it's morally wrong to force a man to bake gay cakes, you can't legally refuse to sell something you're advertising in your shop. Once a gay man walks in your shop and gives you money to purchase the item you are selling, the contract is already made without you having to agree to it. So legally speaking, he can't turn down the money to bake cakes just because it's for a gay wedding.

Says who? So what if some Satanists decide that they want a cake with a pentagram on it. Does the Christian baker have the right to refuse that?

Thing is, these queers could've gone and easily found another baker that believes in gay marriage and who would gladly do their cake. These people just want to push the limit of the law and take vengeance against their ideological opponents.

Post: #15

what is this? America is turning into Ontario.

Post: #16

(06-03-2014 06:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Says who? So what if some Satanists decide that they want a cake with a pentagram on it. Does the Christian baker have the right to refuse that?

No he doesn't have the right to refuse. If you sue the Christian baker, you will win. Unless the Christian baker can prove in court that pentragram is obscene. Maybe he can, but in our subject homosexuality is not an obscenity in the eyes of law. So it's illegal to refuse to serve someone just because you don't agree with his views/lifestyle. Same thing with cab drivers, they can't legally refuse to serve you when it's a short ride or a rainy weather etc.

Post: #17

(06-03-2014 05:41 PM)Switch Wrote:  That doesn't seem constitutional. I don't understand why you wouldn't just make cakes for gay people, money is money, regardless of who gives it to you, but the government shouldn't be able to force people to support gays.

You can't deny people on the base of shit if they are a "protected" group.

You can refuse service to anybody and everybody as a private business owner but he fucked up in specifically denying to make a same-sex cake:

Quote:Phillips politely declined, saying he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. He offered to make them any other baked item they wanted.

Even providing a choice or alternative option he already done fucked it up. Its all language and if you cross that magic line the PC-Police (The Courts) will have their way with you.

Simply wording it as "no", "were busy", "orders are backed up", etc.. and he would of been fine. He made it political in mixing his religious views with his business practices (openly) and that left him ripe for this punishment.

Its bullshit but he did it to himself. A simple "no, I have no booking space" and he would of been fine. Don't give reasons to why your denying services, just do it.

Post: #18

Headlines 10 years from now:

BAKER DIRECTED TO UNDERGO MANDATORY ANAL PENETRATION IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE GAY EXPERIENCE

Post: #19

(06-03-2014 07:55 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 06:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Says who? So what if some Satanists decide that they want a cake with a pentagram on it. Does the Christian baker have the right to refuse that?

No he doesn't have the right to refuse. If you sue the Christian baker, you will win. Unless the Christian baker can prove in court that pentragram is obscene. Maybe he can, but in our subject homosexuality is not an obscenity in the eyes of law. So it's illegal to refuse to serve someone just because you don't agree with his views/lifestyle. Same thing with cab drivers, they can't legally refuse to serve you when it's a short ride or a rainy weather etc.

Which is absolutely absurd in anything claiming to be a "free" society. Customers can choose who to do business with for whatever reason (whether we think it a "good" reason or not.) Once you decide to be a seller, though, the government decides who you do and don't do business with. Fucking crazy.

A business transaction should be a free and voluntary exchange between two parties. A seller is "buying" money with their goods/service whenever a sale is made just as much as a customer is buying a good/service with their money.

As soon as it was established legally and socially that business owners don't have the right to freely enter (or not) into transactions, gay shit like what was described in the article was inevitable. That it's only going to get more extreme is also inevitable.

Post: #20

(06-03-2014 08:28 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 07:55 PM)turkishcandy Wrote:  

(06-03-2014 06:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Says who? So what if some Satanists decide that they want a cake with a pentagram on it. Does the Christian baker have the right to refuse that?

No he doesn't have the right to refuse. If you sue the Christian baker, you will win. Unless the Christian baker can prove in court that pentragram is obscene. Maybe he can, but in our subject homosexuality is not an obscenity in the eyes of law. So it's illegal to refuse to serve someone just because you don't agree with his views/lifestyle. Same thing with cab drivers, they can't legally refuse to serve you when it's a short ride or a rainy weather etc.

Which is absolutely absurd in anything claiming to be a "free" society. Customers can choose who to do business with for whatever reason (whether we think it a "good" reason or not.) Once you decide to be a seller, though, the government decides who you do and don't do business with. Fucking crazy.

A business transaction should be a free and voluntary exchange between two parties. A seller is "buying" money with their goods/service whenever a sale is made just as much as a customer is buying a good/service with their money.

As soon as it was established legally and socially that business owners don't have the right to freely enter (or not) into transactions, gay shit like what was described in the article was inevitable. That it's only going to get more extreme is also inevitable.

The idea is, by lighting up your taxi roof sign or putting goods in your shop's shelf with the price on them, you are already offering to engage in a transaction with whomever the buyer is. Your free will to enter in a transaction is involved here. The government is not dictating anything. When someone walks in and offers you cash, he is accepting your offer and the contract is made. Therefore you are obligated to sell or serve regardless of who the customer is. If you refuse to serve or sell, it's a breach of contract.

Post: #21

From the article:

"'“Religious freedom is undoubtedly an important American value, but so is the right to be treated equally under the law free from discrimination,”' she said in a statement.
No, my dear. Religious freedom is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT."

-------

So is the right to be treated equally under the law. The correct argument is that the baker isn't violating Constitutional principles because he isn't a state actor, although Heart of Atlanta might suggest otherwise.

I think he should appeal the ALJ/Civil Rights Commission's ruling. Although he sounds like an asshole and has no real moral imperative to deny gays his services, it's patently unfair to compel him to provide them for customers he doesn't want to cover, let alone force him to undergo sensitivity training. In short, he has the right to be that asshole.

Post: #22

Quote:The idea is, by lighting up your taxi roof sign or putting goods in your shop's shelf with the price on them, you are already offering to engage in a transaction with whomever the buyer is. Your free will to enter in a transaction is involved here. The government is not dictating anything. When someone walks in and offers you cash, he is accepting your offer and the contract is made. Therefore you are obligated to sell or serve regardless of who the customer is. If you refuse to serve or sell, it's a breach of contract.

For the sake of argument, the counter here is that the taxi driver isn't offering a ride on the roof of his cab. The offer is for a ride in which they who accept will follow custom and sit in the seats.

Post: #23

Kosko has it right. It's an absurd situation, but the baker needed to get with the programme and understand the rules of the game.

My father ran a business for several decades and he did actively discriminate against certain groups of people (not necessarily the ones people would think) in hiring. The only answer he ever gave was "there was a more suitable candidate". Not even a more qualified candidate, but a more suitable candidate, because that's more nebulous. Likewise, because of increasingly draconian firing laws, he used staff agencies increasingly. If he didn't like someone they sent to him, he told the agency "that person's services are no longer required" and nothing else. Then it was up to them to deal with the person involved. Regardless, the person didn't get to work for him a second time.

There is going to be a blow back to all of this. There are always unintended consequences and people get around the law, though that makes society as a whole less based upon the rule of law and more based upon the rule of the tribe, which makes every transaction more expensive and society less cohesive. Anyway, I think we're probably close to that tipping point. Once enough key members of the mainstream lose faith in the rule of law, it's game over.

Most ethnic businesses, I am sure, have two sets of books, two sets of prices, two sets of everything. Chinese restaurants have two sets of menus. Chinese businesses always get involved in local Chinese business associations, called hui, and those hui also act as informal banking agents. I can't be the first white guy who has ever walked into an ethnic business and known by the way everyone there looked at me, even though they did not say anything, that 1) I wasn't meant to be there, 2) I was going to get charged a different price. Mainstream (white) ethnic or religious groups have not figured this stuff out in general yet, but they will. There will be winks, nods, people vouching for you and code words in the future.

As for the baker doing something to the wedding cake, if I were the baker, I would not add anything extra to the cake. I'm sure a sample of the cake will be kept and analysed. There's a simpler thing one could do. Simply under or over bake the cake by 10-15 minutes, or add a little too much or too little of a key ingredient.

"Oh sorry, was there a problem with the cake? I'm flat out at the moment, I must have made a mistake."

Post: #24

(06-03-2014 11:23 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  Kosko has it right. It's an absurd situation, but the baker needed to get with the programme and understand the rules of the game.

My father ran a business for several decades and he did actively discriminate against certain groups of people (not necessarily the ones people would think) in hiring. The only answer he ever gave was "there was a more suitable candidate". Not even a more qualified candidate, but a more suitable candidate, because that's more nebulous. Likewise, because of increasingly draconian firing laws, he used staff agencies increasingly. If he didn't like someone they sent to him, he told the agency "that person's services are no longer required" and nothing else. Then it was up to them to deal with the person involved. Regardless, the person didn't get to work for him a second time.

There is going to be a blow back to all of this. There are always unintended consequences and people get around the law, though that makes society as a whole less based upon the rule of law and more based upon the rule of the tribe, which makes every transaction more expensive and society less cohesive. Anyway, I think we're probably close to that tipping point. Once enough key members of the mainstream lose faith in the rule of law, it's game over.

Most ethnic businesses, I am sure, have two sets of books, two sets of prices, two sets of everything. Chinese restaurants have two sets of menus. Chinese businesses always get involved in local Chinese business associations, called hui, and those hui also act as informal banking agents. I can't be the first white guy who has ever walked into an ethnic business and known by the way everyone there looked at me, even though they did not say anything, that 1) I wasn't meant to be there, 2) I was going to get charged a different price. Mainstream (white) ethnic or religious groups have not figured this stuff out in general yet, but they will. There will be winks, nods, people vouching for you and code words in the future.

As for the baker doing something to the wedding cake, if I were the baker, I would not add anything extra to the cake. I'm sure a sample of the cake will be kept and analysed. There's a simpler thing one could do. Simply under or over bake the cake by 10-15 minutes, or add a little too much or too little of a key ingredient.

"Oh sorry, was there a problem with the cake? I'm flat out at the moment, I must have made a mistake."

Very true. The fact is, there's no such thing as a "multi-cultural" society. Not really. Groups with an intact culture, such as the Chinese you mentioned, create/continue it within the physical and legal confines of the larger society.

Humans are inherently tribal. Once that tribal-ness disappears, there is no culture anymore beyond the most superficial elements. Fragmented and disconnected, people become very easy to control by whatever government or authority is in place.

Plus, different races and ethnicities are genuinely different. There's more to it than just surface-level stuff like language, food, etc. Not every group is going to have the same goals, priorities and values. Discrimination is absolutely essential to the existence of genuine culture.

If there is no longer an "other" there is, by definition, no longer an "us," either. This is the liberal paradise: a world in which we are all equal, interchangeable biological units floating through life. A supposed utopia that's really a dystopia, as it's totally counter to human nature.

Multi-culturalism is really post-culturalism. This is the point that a lot of white people, in particular, are already at. They really have no culture besides what's on TV and what they buy at the store. Everybody's just an atomized "individual" flopping around buying shit and taking pictures of it.

Post: #25

You should have the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason. Otherwise, it's called slavery. This gay couple is the moral equivalent of a slaveowner. They have said: "Bake us a cake, or we will use violence against you." The baker does not desire violence with anyone.