Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

I don't really get it, as far as I can see, Colorado does not have a bakery menu codified through the legislature, so under what authority does anyone in Colorado think they can force a business owner to provide specific menu items? Does this mean I can go to a bakery and demand Swahili flat bread and if refused, I can sue? As far as I know there is no codified menus in any state, thankfully, that is what allows us to have all the diversity in food services. Yet somehow some groups now think they have the authority to demand menu items? This is pure un-American folly...

 

The fact that you took the time to type this out without even giving your narrative a moments thought is indicative of the agenda surrounding this issue.

They did not request a product he did not have — they requested a product that is advertised to the general public. If he sold Swahili flat bread to everyone but <insert protected group> then it would be a similar comparison. Since he doesn’t, it isn’t.

No one is attempting to mandate products but rather to have equal access to goods and services offered.

 

They can ask for the same product any other customer can buy, they can't force him to use his artistic services in a way he refuses. No different than if a neo-Nazi demanded a cake decorated with a swastika with Happy Birthday der Fuhrer.

You know, someone on the Right would never force a Lefty to make any kind of food that would offend the Lefty, say a Trump birthday cake, since we know they are so immature you can bet they would spit in it, yet Lefties never worry about that, they must know the Right would never stoop that low.

 

It was YOU that mentioned "blonds vs brunettes!" Why the hell do you think it was me?

 

I'm looking forward to him counter suing and not dropping the case. By harassing him they are violating his civil rights. The DOJ needs to get after them for that.

 

Too bad. Change the Constitution if you can..........

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

Unfortunately, the state says that he is violating the civil rights of the gay couple and now this transgender person.

 

That said, I don't want a situation where religious people are given more protection under the law than a secular person who refuses to bake a cake for a same sex wedding in the name of conservative, traditional American family values. This would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Then the FBI needs to investigate for civil rights violations by the state of Colorado.

 

I am so sick of these cakewars.. in the good ol days you use to settle it in under 15mins with a food fight

 

If I said a couple of decades ago that in order to sell a cake in the US you are going to respect the way your customer makes sex you would probably never believe me... The world has changed. So if you are going to laugh at a fairy tale of 'Snow-black and 7 dwarves of 7 different genders' it is going to be a felony. But to think of - it all started with a campaign to prevent bullying of people on the assumption they have a different sexual behaviour comparing to majority. I would say it was performed a completely wrong way, which is a far too serious cultural mistake.

 

I don't think that "inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out," as some people say. But that totalitarian is there inside a lot of them.

 

Why would it be the FBI's job?

 

"Makes sex?"

 

I did not say it was you ?... it was an example of a preference that met the dictionary definition of discrimination that you posted but is not actually discrimination. Hence why it is often the case that one can not rely on dictionary definitions.

This is what I mean - you seem to have not read parts of posts - and this was a short one - like 3 lines.

 

What are you referring to when you say "not according to the courts?" What are you saying is not according to the courts?

 

The State of Colorado is violating the Cake Makers 1st Amendment rights as well as the Civil Rights Act.

 

Back to the Hudderite colony for you. You put up a definition of discrimination - a definition of the word that is not the type of discrimination we are talking about - not discrimination in the legal sense of the word under discussion.

By the definition you posted - preferring blonds over brunettes or peaches over plums would constitute discrimination - but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking to the legal definition of discrimination.

Notice how nice I was in previous posts despite you posting a definition that was out of context with respect to the conversation - nicely explaining how the definition you used was not correct. Now this is hitting my threshold of pain with respect to mindlessness. You are asking a question that has already been answered. Is this your first time encountering a word that has more than one meaning ?! .

Don't force me to post the twisted sister video again.

 

Don’t worry, it’s coming.

 

My point was the the baker WAS found guilty of discrimination in the legal sense. Do you acknowledge that?

 

The Baker was not found guilty.

 

By the state of Colorado? I don't think you know the first thing about this case.

 

So the FBI investigates Constitutional violations?

 

That is simply false. Clearly a gay wedding cake is a different product, otherwise gays would just buy normal wedding cakes. What we are seeing is unelected judges codifying menus with absolutely no legislated authority to do so. Such activism is unconstitutional and goes against every thing the separations of powers was set up for...

 

You and I will have long since expired from old age before that ever happens.