Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones' Conclusion:
Quote:
... The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as “others.” This case is about one such product—a pink and blue birthday cake—and not compelled speech.
If you're gay and want to be married go to a gay-friendly church (Unitarian or Episcopal maybe) or to a court, if you want a gay wedding cake go to someone who actually WANTS TO BAKE IT. Not rocket science. Simple, just don't be a jerk.
The above referred to a previous case about a same sex couple, but it applies to this case, too, I think.
I also wonder why any member of the LGBTQ community would ever go to any baker who is not tolerant. It seems to me that there would be many ways to sabotage a cake without being detected. (Spitting into the batter, for example? And, no, that did not come out of my imagination, but I have heard similar stories about how restaurant cooks deal with customers who send food back. Yecchhh! I personally will not send food back; I simply won't go to that restaurant again.)
No one was asking the baker to engage in gay sex, just to make a cake.
It is not necessarily discrimination when one is discriminating in their decision process.
The cake is an affront to some beliefs and that is what counts here.
I also wonder why any member of the LGBTQ community would ever go to any baker who is not tolerant. It seems to me that there would be many ways to sabotage a cake without being detected. (Spitting into the batter, for example? And, no, that did not come out of my imagination, but I have heard similar stories about how restaurant cooks deal with customers who send food back. Yecchhh! I personally will not send food back; I simply won't go to that restaurant again.)
Eh...I really don't care. On the one hand someone wants to discriminate because he wants to "interpret" a mistranslated book about an imaginary guy in the sky....and the other person knowingly goes to this crackpot's business and orders something he/she knows the person is not going to make.
It is not necessarily discrimination when one is discriminating in their decision process.
The cake is an affront to some beliefs and that is what counts here.
Uncertain what you mean here? Are you saying that discrimination is justified if the person discriminating really, really objects to the excluded group?
Whether or not explained by one's religious beliefs, it would seem to undermine the entire idea of civil rights.
In my opinion he is an artist being forced to create art that conveys a message that he does not want his name associated with. He did not care that she was trans, he only cared about the message conveyed by the cake.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.