Quantcast
U.S. & World

Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples despite religious beliefs

Comments

Return To Article
  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    All the bakeries and florists and caterers and photographers that people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about? They aren't in the business of enforcing moral codes or providing spiritual guidance, they exist to MAKE MONEY. And as such they are obligated to comply with civil rights laws, whether those civil rights law protect people based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

    Perhaps Christians who believe that existing civil rights laws are too burdensome should file suit to have those laws overturned. Who knows, maybe they’ll be successful! Maybe the Supreme Court will determine that civil rights laws interfere with religious freedom and freedom of association. Then we can go back to the days when landlords could refuse to rent to Muslims, and restaurants could turn away Blacks. Christian business owners would be allowed to ask prospective customers which religion or sexual orientation they are, and then pick and choose which customers to serve, and which to turn away.

    You could even call it "American Exceptionalism!"

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    So the government can now dictate all types of economic activity.

    You MUST buy this product- Obamacare- even if you do not want or need it.
    You MUST sell cakes to specific people.

    Is this a FREE country or what?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    The Bible says men should not lie with men. It says nothing about providing goods or services to people who do this.

    The Bible also says that women who divorce shall not get remarried. Does this cake maker also refuse marriage cakes to women getting married who have been divorced? If not then he is cherry picking and not really following what his religion requires any way.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    Re DN Subscriber

    It gets even worse. People in jail and in prison in this country have even less freedoms.

  • future president Logan, Utah
    Dec. 7, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    I used to feel for the LGBT Community. But not anymore, we are talking about a group of people who pride themselves going around suing people. That's what they do and what they are about, if they don't get their they will sue. No wonder the majority of Americans are against them. Stop trying to tear down American small businesses.

    They love attention, "Look at me Look at me!!" They will sue anybody and everybody who gets in their way. How can anybody have compassion for people like this?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    Solution: Charge a ton, make a terrible cake, and soon the word would spread through the gay community don't do business there. They would quit coming.

  • Okieland Edmond, Ok
    Dec. 7, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    These businesses should consider this. Instead of turning these people away refusing to do businesses with them based on their sexual orientation, and thus risking lawsuits, and a smear campaign from the Gay community, maybe they should welcome their business with open arms, disclosing to them that the complete cost of servicing their occasion will be donated (in their honor) to a national Advocacy group for the defense of traditional marriage group or campaign. This will leave the decision up to the engaged couple whether or not they want their $$$ going to support a group that advocates and defends the traditional definition of marriage, and opposes gay marriage.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    If the baker isn't allowed to demonstrate his belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage by not making cakes used in other kinds of marriages, I wonder if any other demonstration of his disagreement with the corruption of traditional marriage by the state's acceptance of homosexual marriage would be considered discriminatory?

    For example, I wonder if they can force the baker to smile when he bakes or sells the cake?

    If he smiles when he sells a cake to a heterosexual couple for their marriage, would it not be a form of illegal discrimination if he doesn't smile, or smile as broadly, when selling a cake to a homosexual couple?

    Perhaps harboring any beliefs or opinions that are opposed to or even divergent from the state's orthodoxy will one day be disallowed. Any such beliefs or opinions must, at a minimum, be unexpressed, in any form. What the great leader dictates we must obey....and we must look like we agree.

    Think N. Korea and the "Dear Leader".

    A very slippery slope.

  • Lbone Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    Mohokat stole my thunder.

    They want cake? Give 'em a cake. A real GOOD cake. A UNIQUE wedding cake.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 7, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    @ Future President
    You wrote: "I used to feel for the LGBT Community. But not anymore"
    Good. We don't need your pity. We demand equality.

    @ Okieland
    I have no issue with your idea. However, how practical that would be?

    The purpose of any business person is to do business. He/she produces a service and/or product put in the market for all those who want it and can afford it. That is the extend of their participation. Going beyond that is not their role, is not required and not welcomed.

    Good for the judge, hopefully this will rid the market of "busybody" bakers, florists, photographers, or whatever.

  • Trys Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    My LDS mission president's son was drafted into the army of his country. He was then assigned to be a bar keeper in the army. Most would say, "He had religious freedom and should not be expected to do something against his own personal moral code or the code of his religion." But, this young man's stance was, "Of course, I do not drink. And, the church has a stance against drinking. But, I will be the best bar keeper they have ever had. I will be the most honest one they have ever had." I APPLAUD this kind of attitude.

    @Okieland: what a perfect way of handing this issue. You are genius for thinking of it!!

  • Coontrariusester mid-state, TN
    Dec. 7, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    That's already three courts in three different states. When are people going to catch on that religion is NOT an excuse for discrimination??

    Nobody forced this guy to get a gay marriage. THAT would have been violating his right to freedom of religion. But there is absolutely NOTHING in the Bible which states "thou shalt not bake cakes for gay people".

    When you take out that business license, you agree to abide by ALL the laws of your jurisdiction. If you don't like those laws, then either work to change them or move to a different jurisdiction.

    No matter what your religion tells you, yes, if you own a business you have to serve blacks. You have to hire women if they are qualified. You have to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled. And if you advertise your services to the general public, you have to serve gay people too.

    And Okieland, I'm with you all the way. There were SOOO many ways that baker could have handled this -- but nooooooo, he had to play "poor religious victim" while completely ignoring all the other "sinners" he bakes for every day. He has only himself to blame.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 7, 2013 2:50 p.m.

    baking a cake or selling flowers "at your store" shouldnt violate a persons religious principles. However, I do feel for the photographer who is forced to attend a gay wedding ceremony. That makes his "participation" much more personal that he should be forced to do. He shouldnt have to do that.

    I dont knwo what the law would allow with regard to charging different amounts for cakes or flowers. I believe these businesses could however, tell their gay customers that they dont deliever to gay ceremonies. Hte quality of the product is not what the gays are after but I would not fault these businesses for not doing a very good job if they feel that strongly about it. I would lose the order, forget to deliever or whatevery else I needed to do, so as to not be forced to attend and participate in one of these gay weddings. They should be free enough to do that.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 3:00 p.m.

    There were other cake makers that they could have went to. They are just trying to force people to accept them, and deny them their right to their religion.

    I don't support the LGBT community if they deny the others their rights.

    Grow up, and go to another cake maker.

  • jrp7sen Logan, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Good.

    God said to serve your fellow man. NOT to serve your fellow man, unless he or she is gay.

    YOU MUST serve the public if you have a contract to do so! If not, what would stop a religious person from not serving an atheist, someone who has had a divorce or had an abortion?

    If religious people are wanting to discriminate so badly against those who are different from them, think different from them, then everyone else should have the right to discriminate against religious people as well! It goes both ways. You can't hog the law and share the basic rights with everyone else.

  • fani wj, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 3:05 p.m.

    @ Baccus0902

    "The purpose of any business person is to do business. He/she produces a service and/or product put in the market for all those who want it and can afford it. That is the extend of their participation. Going beyond that is not their role, is not required and not welcomed."

    The same can be said about gays that seem to bride themselves in causing havoc to business and people that disagree with their lifestyle - no business needs to know you're gay. You can easily place the order leaving the details to you and your partner.

  • Thriller Saint George, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Trading religious rights for gay rights.

    I want to know why a gay couple would want a cake from a business that is morally opposed to their union and has been forced to bake for them. I wouldn't go near the cake thinking the baker spit in it (or worse). If a person or business doesn't like me, for whatever reason, I wouldn't want them forced to like me or provide services to me; especially services that I would be eating later. If you're too childish to do business with me then I don't want to support your business.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber 2
    "You MUST sell cakes to specific people.

    Is this a FREE country or what?"

    You act like this is something new, when really it's just like the Civil Rights Act provisions regarding businesses discriminating based on race.

  • stretchy Salem, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    I have a question for the two gay men in this instance. Surely there are more cake shops than just the one that they targeted. Why not go somewhere else? Take your business elsewhere. This is just another example of the gay/lesbian agenda. I have no sympathy for them or their cause. They want to push this to the extent where people are forced to agree with them and almost to the point of embracing their lifestyle, or they will litigate and sue. Wrong, totally wrong.

  • JLFuller Boise, ID
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    It seems foolish that a businessman would consider his customer's private life before selling his product. Even though the homosexual agenda is evil as I see it, no one is asking the baker to approve of or support it. It isn't as though he was being forced to pay homage or make a donation. It is simply a business transaction. Like the old saying goes, you don't have to take them home to raise.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    There are still horrible people in this world. Sad.
    Let's hope one day humanity will just treat each other well instead of believing humans who lived 3,500 years ago had it all figured out.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    What would happen if the cake maker advertised "Traditional Wedding Cakes for Traditional Weddings; Non-traditional Wedding Cakes for Non-traditional Weddings." That kind of soliciting should protect their right to deliver a markedly different product in markedly different circumstances.

    But the bottom line is, leave Sodom and don't look back -- no matter what!

  • Mark from Montana Davis County, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    The next step will be prosecuting them under federal hate crime laws. That would put them in jail for 18 - 24 months.

  • JimE Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    The judge sounds like a liberal socialist. He has no business getting into this.

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Dec. 7, 2013 5:29 p.m.

    "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Judge Spencer said in his written order.

    Should have stopped right there. Nothing else needs to be said. A business should be able to provide the service to whomever they choose. You will never, ever legislate away the ability for someone to make a choice to provide a service.

    This is a joke. It's actually quite unbelievable that judges feel like they can tell a business what to do. Absolutely horrible decision.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 5:50 p.m.

    I remember when people who printed textbooks would not sell to integrated schools because race-mixing was seen as unnatural and against the will of God. I remember when preachers would not marry a mixed race couple because it violated their religious beliefs. I remember when bus drivers refused to drive integrated busses to integrated schools because it was against their moral ethics and their religious upbringing. Someday I can tell my grandchildren that I remember when gay people could not legally get married because of religious concerns.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 7, 2013 5:57 p.m.

    @ Fani
    you wrote: "no business needs to know you're gay. You can easily place the order leaving the details to you and your partner."

    My dear Fani, I am a gay man and I work at a school system. Do I promote or advertise my sexual orientation? The answer is No! Actually, I seldom talk about my family other than my child (who was enrolled in my school). Yesterday a colleague start asking questions, my answer was, "my life is not a secret but private", it feels rude and sometimes works as a deterrent, yet many people in my school know that I am gay. Why? because they persist in their questions and the gospel teaches me that to lie is a sin.

    Get the connection? Some people ask and they just don't like the answer.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    Dec. 7, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    @ Mark from Montana
    Davis County, UT

    "The next step will be prosecuting them under federal hate crime laws. That would put them in jail for 18 - 24 months."

    I agree with you that that "should be" the punishment. But, we should also understand that for some people it may be hard to adjust to a new reality. So my dear Mark, let's forgive the baker and let him off the hook just with a warning for this time. O.K?

    We LGBT must show the compassion that was seldom shown to us and take the higher road.
    (some sarcasm was included)

  • CBAX Provo, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    More money for my business. It's not my job to make sure my clients/customers are doing this that and the other. Perhaps if I was a gun shop owner and I was selling/donating weapons to know terrorist groups... oh wa

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 7, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    @stretchy --

    "Surely there are more cake shops than just the one that they targeted. Why not go somewhere else? "

    When black college kids sat down at a Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960, there were plenty of other places in town they could have gone to eat instead.

    But, of course, that wasn't the point.

    Do you think those college kids should have quietly accepted the discrimination against them and gone elsewhere? Or do you think they were correct to stand up for their rights as US citizens?

  • iammad ROOSEVELT, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    And so...we are one step closer to the end.

  • Stop The Nonsense El Paso, TX
    Dec. 7, 2013 7:09 p.m.

    I have to agree that it is not within one's rights (freedom of religion) to refuse the business of anyone based on sexual orientation. You have to obey the mandates of the license you receive to own/operate a business, so you should probably know up front if that is going to force you into an uncomfortable situation. (Okieland, props to you for your creative solution.)

    I must say, with discriminatory actions such as these occurring across the US, is it any wonder why people are becoming increasingly anti-Christian? Since when did Christ teach us to mistreat people we disagree with? I do not think it makes you sympathetic to the gay rights just because you have gay customers. Imagine instead of being a baker the person is a doctor with a private practice. "I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable helping you because we will have to discuss your homosexual lifestyle. You're going to need to find a different doctor." Sorry, but I just don't think that would fly, nor do I think that's how Jesus would act.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 7:12 p.m.

    "Solution: Charge a ton, make a terrible cake, and soon the word would spread through the gay community don't do business there. They would quit coming."

    "I would lose the order, forget to deliver or whatever else I needed to do, so as to not be forced to attend and participate in one of these gay weddings."

    "...And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

    I have come to the conclusion that I am still here on this good earth to help the people within my circle of influence to learn to love more unconditionally--the way Jesus taught us to love. Sure, my sexual orientation may make some people uncomfortable, but they are commanded to love and treat me with as much kindness and consideration as they would their straight friends and family members.

  • Jake2010 bountiful, ut
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:02 p.m.

    According to this judge:

    1 - Men's Warehouse MUST carry a select line of dresses...

    2 - Lane Bryant MUST carry men's suits...

    3 - Victoria's Secret MUST carry men's undergarments

    4 - Chick-Fil-A MUST carry beef!

    5 - McDonald's MUST carry steak and shrimp.

    on and on..

    Yes, I respect that gender versus sexual orientation are two different things... The very clear point here is that business does NOT fall under anti-discrimination rules and regulations... It is a FREE MARKET economy... Meaning that as a business owner, I have a constitutionally protect right to refuse service to any one at any time for any reason! This judge should be removed from the bench!

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    Refusing services to someone is waging war on an individual, so is setting someone up for a lawsuit. Both sides are wrong in this one. They are guilty of trying to harm someone they disagree with. Nothing good can come out of this battle.

  • Kralon HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:17 p.m.

    Can't wait until a Judge orders me to allow the burglar in my home as I am discriminating against him because I have locks on my doors!

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:28 p.m.

    The only business that is oppressed in this case is the photographer. I dont know why a gay person would want to force someone to provide such a personal service like this when you know he doesnt want to. I suppose the groups that are supporting this litigation is that they just done want there to be a legal precident that allows businesses to deny services for religous reasons.

    On the off chance that this photographer was forced to attend a gay wedding, I would simply advise him to feel very sick (which would not be a lie) and tell the people he had to leave. Here is your money back.

    The legal fight is worth it. I hope the courts allow an excemption from Obamacare for businesses who dont want to provide every conceiveable birth control method. Same would be true for a pharmacists who doesnt want to sell certain birth control/abortion drugs. Perhaps an exemption could be included for services requiring "participation" at a gay wedding. That would apply to a judge.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    @Jake2010:

    It sounds like you misunderstood the judge's reasoning. He didn't say that a business had to sell items that it didn't usually carry. Instead, to use your analogies, the judge reasoned that:

    1 - Men's Warehouse may not refuse to sell suits to women ...

    2 - Lane Bryant may not refuse to sell women's clothes to Mormons...

    3 - Victoria's Secret may not refuse to sell women's lingerie to African Americans

    4 - Chick-Fil-A may not refuse to sell chicken to people in wheelchairs.

    5 - McDonald's may not refuse to sell hamburgers to Italians.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    No, Jake, according to the judge:

    1 - Men's Warehouse must sell suits to anyone who has the money to make the purchase.
    2 - Lane Bryant CANNOT tell a man who enters the store that he is not allowed to purchase the plus-size dresses the store carries.
    3 - Victoria's Secret CANNOT stop a man from shopping at their store if they question who will be wearing the underclothing.
    4 - Chick-fil-a MUST sell their chicken sandwiches to any customer who wishes to buy one.
    5 - McDonalds MUST sell the McRibb sandwich to anyone who orders one, even if they believe it violates one's religious dietary restrictions.

    The law is about treating customers with fairness. A business license does not grant someone the authority to be the morality police. It's a shame that we need to set laws to force people to treat others the way Christ would, but I guess it helps compel some to a change of heart and be kinder to others.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Dec. 7, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    What if a gay hairdresser refused to cut my hair or a Catholic hospital refused to treat me because I'm LDS? That would be wrong, wouldn't it?

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    Do civil rights trumph religious rights? Or do religious rights trumph civil rights? There is no reason that both sides can't get along, and respect each other.

    If the cake maker respectfully explained his beliefs, and asked them to go elsewhere, they should have. Both could have respected each others rights. I don't know how the cake maker explained his choice to them, but their choice to make an issue out of it hurts both sides, and causes contention.

    Is it possibile for each to respect the others rights?

  • Chris B's momma Idaho Falls, ID
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    Well.now, isn't it great that pot is so readily accessible in Colorado. I see that it has found it's way into the court system there as well.

  • ConstitutionLawoftheLand Cottonwood, AZ
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:10 p.m.

    So the Constitutional right to practice one's religion as one see fit is okay unless the government says otherwise. Or in other words, you can have an opinion and express that opinion unless it disagrees with the opinions of those with evil agendas as this. What ever happened to being able to claim the privilege to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of your own conscience and allowing all men the same privilege? I guess we can just throw the Constitution out the window.

    To:stretchy; the reason they did not take their business elsewhere is because they are hatefully targeting those who differ from them. They ARE forcing people to accept and embrace their lifestyle. It's a no-brainer.

  • desert Potsdam, 00
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:19 p.m.

    There can't be a law and punishment for every step in life that you take.
    (bad judge)
    There is no law of god to punish each person right away, or in this life only.
    (bad baker)
    Some of the punishment comes next life.
    (people don't know what they are doing)

    Could this give us some perspective ?

    The judge was wrong, the baker was, the customer also.
    (all three used force)
    If every one would take some precautions to avoid conflict,
    then all of the above comments are right.

  • ? SLC, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    All this seems to be doing is causing more people to lose their jobs and seeks to curtail free enterprise. I don't know how many places I've seen where upon entering the establishment there is a plaque stating the owner of said business "reserves the right to refuse service to anyone." This seems to apply to any kind of business out there, public or private.

  • PA Gardener Towanda, PA
    Dec. 7, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    Isn't this about obeying the first and great commandment to love God, followed by the second commandment to love our neighbor? Then this case of same-sex marriage discrimination has no relationship with civil rights discrimination.

    I agree with the baker that same-sex marriage is an affront to God. The baker can still love the same-sex couple and bake them their cake. But he has every right to draw the line on aiding and abetting the cause of same-sex unions.

    For that reason, if I were the baker I would agree to bake them their cake, but decline to put any communication on the cake that sends a message contrary my views on marriage.

  • Max Charlotte, NC
    Dec. 7, 2013 10:03 p.m.

    Uh.. so this was the only cake maker in Colorado?

  • Autumn Cook Lehi, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    This is a case of bigotry, for sure! Bigotry against those with politically unpopular views. If a person finds that a business didn't want to serve him for some reason, it would make sense to think the business owner is a jerk, leave, and patronize another establishment.

    The fact that people take the immense amounts of time and money to pursue these cases against small businesses with unpopular conscience objections to certain activities shows a far stronger bigotry by gay rights activists against people who simply want to abide by their conscience, while doing no harm to anyone, than the business-people ever show by politely declining to go against their conscience.

  • Daniel A Kearns, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:25 p.m.

    A possible solution is that these businesses use their right to free speech. They feel strong enough about the subject to go to court over, so they do not consider these forced clients to be friends. As such, to satisfy the law, they enact a policy of serving these same-sex couples, but they don't have to be friendly about it. Make it clear they do not endorse the lifestyle, even view it as morally wrong.

    They could hang a banner making a statement that they are serving these couples under force of a government that does not represent them, and they are being threatened by a court that does not honor their morality, so they must serve these people. That way, the same-sex couple get service, and know the views of those who are serving them, and if it makes them uncomfortable, they can choose another establishment. By doing so, the law will be upheld, and no one will mistake the servers as someone who approves of these weddings. I mean, couldn't hurt much more than going to court. No sense in faking friendliness when there is none. Honesty is the best policy.

  • Viva la Migra American Fork, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:29 p.m.

    I listened to a radio interview from this baker. This gay couple knew ahead of time that this baker didn't make cakes opposed to his religious beliefs. He also refused to make Halloween cakes which depict witches, demons and other things he feels violate his conscious. He offered to sell this couple any other item in his bakery, but he considers his cakes a form of art and politely refused. They gay couple swore at him stormed out of his store.

    Where do you draw the line in a case like this? Could a Nambla proponent compel this baker to create a cake depicting and adult and child together? Could a pornographer compel him to make a cake celebrating her latest film?

    What about other professions? Will website developers be forced to create a pornographic website, or a website which criticizes his own religious beliefs or church if a gay couple makes this request? Perhaps this judge should've weighed the impact on society of this growing number of discontented people who use to courts to attack traditional values and beliefs.

  • Daniel A Kearns, UT
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:44 p.m.

    @ JLFuller,

    A reason serving these people is so objectionable is precisely because it is an implied approval. The guests of an event will forever associate their company with the event that their product was served at. There are many companies which refuse to serve events because they know that it is associated with their approval, such as the Boy Scouts or other traditional groups. So, serving a gay marriage carries an implied approval. It is their private company that is considered as approving the marriage. I can understand why that would be objectionable.

  • Mr. Bean Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 7, 2013 11:51 p.m.

    @?:
    "I don't know how many places I've seen where upon entering the establishment there is a plaque stating the owner of said business 'reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.'"

    Yeah, but that only applies if the customer is drunk, disorderly, shirtless, shoeless, etc. That sort-a thing. If he's black or Hispanic, etc., he can't be denied. I guess we'd call that UN-equal protection under the law.

    @PA Gardener:
    "For that reason, if I were the baker I would agree to bake them their cake, but decline to put any communication on the cake that sends a message contrary my views on marriage."

    I'd decline to put any frosting on it... and use wilted dandelions for decoration.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2013 12:40 a.m.

    "Sure, my sexual orientation may make some people uncomfortable, but they are commanded to love and treat me with as much kindness and consideration as they would their straight friends and family members."

    All are commanded to 'be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.' (Matt 5:48) And perfection does not include the practice of homosexuality. In fact the Bible, which outlines how to obtain perfection, tells that homosexual conduct is sinful. The same-sex attracted maybe aught-a start working toward perfection by reversing homosexual tendencies. It can be done... and has to be done sooner or later, just as tendencies to pornography, pedophilia, incest, and myriads of other sinful conduct can/must be controlled, reversed, expunged. Go for it... and God speed.

    Then wedding cakes can be ordered as a heterosexual, and throngs will cheer.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 2:07 a.m.

    My wife and I are active LDS. She runs a small house cleaning business. For a time she cleaned for a lesbian couple. She only quit cleaning for them because of a scheduling conflict, yet my wife never felt she was compromising her religious beliefs by cleaning for them.

    Should my wife have felt different? If so, how come?

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:12 a.m.

    imE
    Kaysville, UT
    The judge sounds like a liberal socialist. He has no business getting into this.

    .... I am very SAD that this comment got 5 "likes" on a website owned by a Christian Church, where Jesus ought to be at least considered in the minds of the commenters.

    If the Colorado law says "Businesses cannot say 'no' to customers because they are mormon, or Gay, or have purple spots, the judge has an easy and obvious decision.

    Pretending that following Civil Rights laws makes one a liberal socialist sets this country back to the Civil War.

  • anneray Kosciusko, Mississippi
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:28 a.m.

    Move to a state that would allow you to NOT bake a cake or even a cookie. I would not heat the oven to bake anything that would make me deny my God.

  • Meadow Lark Mark IDAHO FALLS, ID
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    Wonderful comment Okieland.

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    As long as a bakery, a florist, a photography studio wants to discriminate, I don't mind at all.

    They have to post a sign in their window and a disclaimer on their marquee: This may look like a business, but it is really a church. Non-members go elsewhere.

  • JMT Springville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    I remember well the now embattled former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff leading the charge to create "Hate Crimes" laws in Utah. I wonder if he envisioned this extreme interpretation of these laws?

  • LeslieDF Alameda, CA
    Dec. 8, 2013 7:49 a.m.

    That the baker claims he is a cake artist, that his lawyer tried (and failed) to claim artistic expression, shows how weak his case was at the outset for a claim to "religious" expression in baking and selling a cake.

    I guess with religious folks, anywhere, anything goes, if they call it the "practice of their religious beliefs."

    A bakery is actually a church, a baker is actually clergy, and selling a cake is solemnizing a marriage?

    Then any couple, straight or gay, marrying anywhere, is also the "practice of a religion" and protected by law.

    When do we all get our tax exemptions?

  • Lilalips Attleboro, MA
    Dec. 8, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    Ok, the way around this is to MARKET yourself as a CHRISTIAN baker, who, on ALL cakes will write faith promoting scriptures…

    then ….does it matter? You are simply evangelizing…People who don't want that won't come to you.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    The National Football League has refused to air an advertisement that supports the Second Amendment (a citizen's right to bear arms). Is this not discrimination? Perhaps the NFL should be taken to court and forced to serve views that are not their own. I would say "two can play this game," but it isn't true in today's politically correct environment. It wouldn't fit the agenda of those currently in power.

  • Denverite Centennial, CO
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    As an owner of a small business, I sympathize with the owner. But the solution is simple: when I _really_ don't want to do a particular job, the price and my turnaround time go _way_ up and I add in extra conditions to get the people to go away.

    Granted, there are businesses where you can't do that--but a specialized cake maker is not one of them.

    I would probably have told them A) I can't have it done on time--way too busy right now, B) if I manage to get it done, it will cost you 10 times normal price because I consider it a rush job, C) it will cost you 10 times more on top of that because yours is the first one of these I've done and it takes a while to get a good solid reproducible design, and (if those 3 are not enough) D) (as someone above suggested) I will only break even on it and donate the profits to some organization supporting traditional marriage.

    These plaintiffs don't seem the type to want the cake under those conditions--so he'd be off the hook without a lawsuit.

  • Larry Chandler CEDAR CITY, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    If people can pick and choose which customers they serve, can a store refuse to serve blacks or LDS members on the sole basis that it violates their religion? And can people simply create a religion that allows all sorts of discrimination or do religions have to register with the state to become "official"?

    If you have groceries in your car and stop for gas on the way home, can the gas station owner (perhaps owned by a Muslim or Jew) refuse to let you fill up on the grounds that you bought pork chops for your family?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    RichardB says;

    "If the cake maker respectfully explained his beliefs, and asked them to go elsewhere, they should have. Both could have respected each others rights. "

    No, that isn't "respecting" the other's rights. It's telling them, I'm NOT going to provide you the product that I provide to others because I think you're icky. That's a "my way or the highway" view; not "mutual respect".

    Please explain why anybody should have to go from one business to another and another to find the product or service that each of those businesses provide to everybody else? What could possibly be a rational reason for it? "Religious beliefs" are not a rational reason for bigotry.

    @ConstitutionLawoftheLand;

    The reason they didn't "take their business elsewhere" is because they expected a baker to bake for them just like he bakes for everybody else. There was no hate involved, except on the part of the baker. Additionally, when the owner obtains a business license, he agrees to set aside some of his "freedom" in order to have the right to operate.

    @?;

    Businesses that "refuse service to anyone" usually have a legitimate reason to refuse that service.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    @Miss Piggie/Mr. Bean/wrz --

    "In fact the Bible, which outlines how to obtain perfection, tells that homosexual conduct is sinful."

    It is not the baker's job to turn away all sinners. Does he do a background check on all his prospective customers? Does he turn away adulterers (divorcees getting remarried)? Does he refuse liars? Ex-convicts?

    Of course not.

    "It can be done..."

    Show us some evidence. Be specific.

    @Viva la Migra

    "I listened to a radio interview from this baker"

    Don't believe everything you hear on the radio.

    @Max --

    "so this was the only cake maker in Colorado?"

    When the black college kids sat down at a Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960, there were plenty of other places in town they could have gone to eat instead.

    But, of course, that wasn't the point.

    Do you think those college kids should have quietly accepted the discrimination against them and gone elsewhere? Or do you think they were correct to stand up for their rights as US citizens?

    Cmon, folks. Three courts in three different states have already made the same judgment. Get used to the idea that religion is NOT an excuse for discrimination.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Autumn Cook says:

    " people who simply want to abide by their conscience, while doing no harm to anyone."

    Riiiiight. It is "no harm" to the person you refuse to serve.

    @Daniel A;

    Bigotry is not "morality". Period. No matter your rationalization.

    There are a lot of people here who, by their comments, believe that it is OK to discriminate against people who are LGBT. They should put themselves in the position of the LGBT couple. If they're overweight, they should ask themselves how they'd feel if the business refused to bake for the obese because it violates the WOW. Or how would they feel if the business refused to serve them because they're Mormon? Or Catholic? Or ...

    You should all walk in the shoes of someone facing this discrimination. See how much you like it.

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    "All are commanded to 'be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.' (Matt 5:48) And perfection does not include the practice of homosexuality. In fact the Bible, which outlines how to obtain perfection, tells that homosexual conduct is sinful."

    It's not our job to decide whether or not we are going to sell a service to somebody based on whether or not we think they are sinners. In fact, I think Christ taught us a good lesson about this in the New Testament...

    "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"

    He reminded us all that we are all sinners, and that He is the ultimate job. It's time we stop the nonsense and let people live their lives according to the free will he granted us all. Let Him be the one to call us to repentance. That will happen only when we have a change of heart--caused by Him.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    They were boycotting an event. Many would consider it discrimination if they would not bake a birthday cake for someone who is homosexual, but a same gender marriage is an event.

    Some people are arguing that they need to keep their morals at home because they are a business. It is ironic, Nelson Mandela died this week and he fought apartheid in South Africa. Part of the reason that apartheid ended is because companies, corporations, stopped investing in South Africa because they had moral objections to apartheid. People running companies should make their decisions based on morals.

    A couple of years ago I said on this forum that gay marriage would be used as way to force Christians or anyone who, for religious or cultural reasons, objects to same gender marriage out of the public forum. The reasoning is that lurking in the background of our society there are some scary right wing types who want to force everyone to think like they do. The issue is no longer about the agenda of gay rights but the agenda of the Gay Right.

  • slow down Provo, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    "Because of who they are"--that is rhetorical bullying. The point is not personal animus; it is a belief about whether a social institution that precedes the state altogether should be radically redefined, and whether it is at all important to have an institution committed to the moral notion of sexual complementarity, to the ideal of gender equality, and to the project of keeping mothers and fathers and children together. It would be refreshing if instead of saying, "you don't like me," people would be more honest and say: "the marriage institution as you understand it simply isn't important." That would be progress. Besides, people who oppose the redefinition of marriage are not opposed to other forms of accommodation. The problem is that nuance is usually discarded in popular discourse on hot political topics. Of course, that's how politics works.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    That is a horrible decision by the judge. A business should have the right to refuse service to anybody, nowadays doing so will just hurt the business that refuses business in the long run. Not only will they lose the business of those they decide not to serve, when other people hear about it, many of them will boycott the business. Frankly I think it is a horribly dumb business move to not serve a person because of his or her sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or any thing else about the person. But if a business wants to do that, the government should not be able to force them to serve anybody.

    If a business doesn't want to serve you due to anything about you the solution is simple: 1) Go somewhere else, thus giving their competitor business 2) Spread the word about how the business won't serve _________ (fill in the blank with the group of people that it will not serve) 3) Watch the business suffer due to decreased business and 4) leave the government (including the judicial branch) out of it because it is none of their dang business what a private business does or doesn't do.

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    What kind of a person can't make another human being a cake? And this violates your belief system how?

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:19 a.m.

    Most couples would have gone elsewhere and most bakeries would have made the cake. Cash is the same regardless of who pays it.

    But both sides had a point to make and an axe to grind. The actions of these 4 people aren't representative of the group - on either side.

  • Just one more opinion Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    I think the idea of taking the order and informing the customer that a portion of their order will go to support traditional marriage is a reasonable idea, but they better do that with each and every customer or I can see that as a form of discrimination and subject to legal action. I'm not a lawyer or business owner, but isn't there a risk of producing an unacceptable product or service also a risky idea? Just feels like doing so is inviting more wrath and in the wrong hands can be a cause to have it bite the person where they sit.

    It would be nice if everyone chose to respect the feelings of others, but if you're going to choose to be in business and have customers who you're not comfortable, you better be /really/ careful how you handle things. People easily get riled up for an assumed slight, I can just imagine what a deliberate act would produce.

    My point: Be wise, be careful, and be sure what you choose to do won't come back and bite you in the end.

    Just a suggestion.

  • a_voice_of_reason Woods Cross, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    This is plain wrong! In the cases highlighted in this story none of the businesses were discriminating in hiring decisions, none were committing any type of hate crime against the gay couples. They made a decision that, due to their religious beliefs, they would not accept payment and would not provide services to these individuals. These individuals could still receive services from any other baker, photographer, and florist. Would an atheist bar be sued for refusing to serve drinks to Christians? I doubt it. Would a rabid Auburn fan's restaurant be sued for refusing service to people wearing Alabama gear? I doubt it. I can understand taking offense and having hurt feelings - I would feel the same if service was refused to me based on my race, religion, age, etc. But, I would not go to the courts thinking that I had a right to be serviced by businesses that did not want my business. I would figure that they were the ones missing out.

  • postaledith Freeland, WA
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    When I drove cab, I had to get a business license. It was my job to get my customer(s) from point A to point B in a timely, safe manner. It didn't matter to me whether they were a CEO or a homeless person. Everyone that stepped into my cab got the same professional service. Most of my customers asked me for my card because they were pleased with my service. I got good tips from being courteous to my customers. I learned this from my dad. He was an OB/GYN. He never judged his patients. He gave them ALL the same professional courteous service. I am a strong gay advocate and I support gay marriage. Most of my friends are gay. I love them to pieces and would do anything for them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    @anneray;

    "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me."

    Sounds like you're going to please your god with your behavior. (not).

  • Steven11421 AUSTIN, TX
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    If this baker (or any business owner) does not have the right to deny selling products to protected classes.

    This baker (and other business owners) do have the right to only sell products they want to make. He should have created a list of his specific products that he is willing to make. When someone comes in and asks for a product that he does not make (Halloween cake or gay union cake) he simply tells them that it is not a product this business produces.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    What if this story was about a Mormon couple denied a wedding cake because their Temple Marriage ritual offended the Baker's religious beliefs? Would the reaction on these boards be the same. You can't claim civil protection for yourself and deny it to others in the same breath folks.

  • jans Pickerington, OH
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Religious people who want to make "conscientous objections" to something that they decided violates their relgious beliefs need to take a note from the Quakers. A Quaker would never get caught in the shenanigans of refusing service to someone based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation, because they know that their observance of their religion is about them, not other people.

    If Christian business owners are going to take a religious stand about customer's personal choices that violate their religious beliefs, they are going to have to start running background checks and interrogating customers about their personal lives - because you know, most people who walk into any store on any given day probably have lied, stolen, cheated, had lustful thoughts, drank too much, took the Lord's name in vain, etc. It's hypocritical to pick and choose which commandments violate your Christan beliefs.

  • Jan Jones West Valley City, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    If this business had been allowed to discriminate against these people, that would have been a slippery slope. Would it next be okay to discriminate against Catholics or Mormons, because you disagree with their religion? Would we go back to the 'good old days' when discriminating against someone for their skin color was allowed? Would the business owner have been allowed to refuse to make a cake with a mixed race couple of top, because they disagree with mixed marriages? I'm glad this is the decision made by the judge.

  • Mack2828 Ft Thomas, KY
    Dec. 8, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    Please stop trying to equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement. It's Apples to Oranges.
    Skin color is a fixed part of a who a person is. The urge to engage in unnatural, biologically unnecessary and frankly sickening sexual acts with ones own gender is not.
    When polled, guess which demographic in the US is most in favor of traditional marriage? Yep, African Americans. Makes you stop and think doesn't it.
    Please just learn to control your unnatural urges and stop trying to legally force everyone in this country to reassure you that what you are doing is okay. Because it's not.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    This is a horrible decision, denying a privately owned business their first amendment rights. The gay couple could care less that this particular baker would not bake a cake for them; they likely went to someone who would do so. What they wanted was to take the baker to court to deny his first amendment under the color of discrimination of a protected right. What this means is that any color of freedom of religion in the Constitution means nothing when a claim is made that it violates a so-called right. The Supreme Court needs to weigh in on this to determine if one's first amendment rights no longer exist when someone who has made a decision toward an alternative lifestyle decides to challenge it. The full meaning of the first amendment is at stake here.

  • Big Bubba Herriman, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 1:15 p.m.

    The whole gay rights movement will end up trampling on religious rights.

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 8, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    @Mack2828 --

    "Please stop trying to equate homosexuality with the civil rights movement. It's Apples to Oranges. "

    Martin Luther King III supports a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi because of their anti-gay 'propaganda' law. He has said, referring to his father, that "I think that as he worked to advocate for civil and human rights, he was talking for everyone, not just for people of color."

    One of the chief architects of MLK Jr's March on Washington was an openly gay man, Bayard Rustin.

    Rev. Bernice King. MLK's daughter, said in 2012 that civil rights included those who are "heterosexual or homosexual, or gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender."

    Coretta Scott King said in 1998: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," she said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people".

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Dec. 8, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    LGBT community-

    Please let me know when this baker doesn't want to bake you a birthday cake or sell you a dozen donuts because of the rainbow sticker in your car. Until then this is not discrimination. He just doesn't want to participate in an event he is against. And he won't force you to cater his religious revival.

    Lets not confuse intolerance for events vs. intolerance for people.

  • kolob1 sandy, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    Let us assume that every businessman is a religious man of some particular faith. To allow them the right to deny their business services to a gay person because of "religious beliefs" is to allow them the right to deny their services to a Mormon because they believe the Book of Abraham is a fake!!

  • Eliyahu Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 2:13 p.m.

    Consider this: the Bible has far more to say about gluttony than about homosexuality. Will this baker refuse to supply someone if some of the wedding party is obese or has a history of overeating? What about racially or religiously mixed-marriages? If those are not in accord with his beliefs, will he refuse to sell to them? If his answer is that he will sell to them, what's the basis for his deciding which "sin" he can condone and which one he cannot? And if he only wants to sell to those who are sinless, he either sells to no one or is denying the verse in his Bible that says all have sinned.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    Am I still living in the country in which I was born? Is this still America? These people ought to be able to do business with anyone they want to or not do business with anyone they don't want to. Does freedom still exist?

  • Mugabe ACWORTH, GA
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    I don't agree with same sex marriages, but I think that this Baker is taking this way to far. Serving food to someone with a different sexual orientation is not a violation of religious freedom. "Blacks" who wanted to go into a restaurant to eat was not a violation of anyone's rights because we were willing to pay for the food, we did not want it free, we wanted to eat in those establishments because our Mothers, Fathers, brothers, aunties, cousins, were in the kitchen cooking and we knew that the food would be good.

    That Baker and the Florists is compounding the problem with this issue. Serve the with the same quality and price as you would anyone else. It's only a wedding, which will last less than a day, how in the world is this a violation of his or her religious freedoms.

    I know that he has served customers who had alcohol at their weddings, no doubt, some of his own faith. I think that this hypocritical and business should not feed this frenzy by filing long fruitless court cases because of this.

  • windsor City, Ut
    Dec. 8, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Seams with all these incidents on the rise that gays and lesbians are enjoying 'throwing out the bate' to businesses and are enjoying it (and are ready to sue) when the businesses bite.

    The men could have simply gone in, chosen a cake, paid for it, and left. Then they could have then used it to celebrate their wedding, or celebrate their mother getting out of jail or anything else.

    But that wasn't good enough--they had to make sure while in the shop that they 'shared' with the owner that this cake was to celebrate their gay wedding. He bit (as they knew he would) right down on the bate---and so here we are.....

  • Really??? Kearns, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 4:25 p.m.

    "They had to make sure while in the shop that they 'shared' with the owner that this cake was to celebrate their gay wedding."

    Unlike all of the heterosexual couples who keep completely silent about whom they are going to marry when meeting with the cake decorator, photographer, or wedding planner.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    @Bebyebe;

    Most couples wouldn't have been told to "go elsewhere". No couple should be told to "go somewhere else".

    @Just one more opinion;

    We LGBT support traditional marriage right alongside other forms of marriage. Go ahead and donate your profit to such a cause, we won't mind. What you really meant to say was you'd donate your profits to an Anti-Gay organization.

    @a_voice_of_reason;

    @Mack2828;

    Sexual orientation is a fixed part of who the person is. Even if it weren't, "icky" is still not a valid reason to discriminate against someone. BTW, religion IS a choice.

    @windsor;

    The word you wanted to use is "bait". We're not evil people, looking to sue anybody and everybody; we're just like you. We want to be able to walk into the neighborhood bakery, that makes wedding cakes, and ask for a wedding cake just like anybody else. Is that too much to ask?

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:18 p.m.

    To the baker,

    Bake me a cupcake and bill me a hundred dollars and then donate the cupcake on my behalf to a local church bazaar and use the hundred dollars to pay the fine.

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:33 p.m.

    I don't understand how this is a thing. A privately owned business can do whatever it wants, reserving the right to serve or not serve anyone. Secondly, why would the "couple" even still want a cake from them?

    There are no "rights" involved, only bullying. That homosexual activists welcome something like this, sneering about how "bigotted" people are who don't believe that marriage is abiut mere sexual fulfillment, is the greatest sign that there's something horribly wrong with this fanatical push to change marriage.

  • sg newhall, CA
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    bake them a burned cake and be done with it. Obviously religious freedom no longer exists. Atheists get away with their beliefs against christians, muslims have their way with the courts, schools, businesses, and obama, but christians are denied their rights and their beliefs. Perhaps America truly is no longer a christian nation thanks to our socialist/marxist judicial system. Shame on the gay community.

  • Northern Logan, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 5:45 p.m.

    I reserve the right to refuse business to any one I feel like. I have and always will.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    ...the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.

    As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. ... prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.

    And others, ...outlaw arbitrary discrimination.

    ...

    Courts also tend not to favor arbitrary discrimination. ...

    None of this means that you absolutely cannot refuse to serve a customer. It simply means that you need a legitimate business reason to do so.

    You can usually refuse service in the following situations:

    When a customer is not properly dressed
    When a customer has been, or is being, disruptive
    When a customer harasses your employees or other customers
    When there are safety concerns
    When you know someone can't, or won't, pay
    When a customer is intoxicated or high
    When you need to protect another customer's privacy

    It's essential to apply these criteria on a bias-neutral basis. Even the most compelling business reason can't overcome obvious discrimination.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    @Jamescmeyer;

    If you're marriage is only about "sexual fulfillment" then I pity you. We marry for love and companionship, the same reasons any heterosexual couple gets married.

  • Miss Piggie Phoenix, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    "Sexual orientation is a fixed part of who the person is."

    Then so is pedophilia, incest, porn consumption propensity, etc. These are all bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is homosexuality.

    "BTW, religion IS a choice."

    So IS homosexual conduct. Please don't think homosexuals cannot marry someone of the opposite sex and engage in the process that produces offspring. I've seen it done.

    @Jamescmeyer:
    "A privately owned business can do whatever it wants..."

    A privately owned business cannot refuse to serve lunch over the lunch counter to blacks. So, I guess a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 8:02 p.m.

    Miss Piggie says:

    "Sexual orientation is a fixed part of who the person is. Then so is pedophilia, incest, porn consumption propensity, etc. These are all bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is homosexuality."

    --- Which one harms other people, surely you can come up with something better than that?

    "So IS homosexual conduct. Please don't think homosexuals cannot marry someone of the opposite sex and engage in the process that produces offspring. I've seen it done."

    --- There is nothing wrong with homosexuality for the homosexual, just as there is nothing wrong with heterosexuality for the heterosexual. You don't like it? Meh, that's your problem. WHY should we have to marry someone other than person we love just to please someone else? Would you do that yourself? If not, Miss Piggie, you have no business asking someone else to do it (it's called hypocrisy).

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    nobody should be FORCED with the threat of fines or jail time to produce ANYTHING. there are THOUSANDS of cake shops. the judge should have thrown the case out without hearing it. as for the cake?? make it the nastiest tasting cake ever made.

  • RichardB Murray, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 8:42 p.m.

    RanchHand--"Religious beliefs" are not a rational reason for bigotry.

    The right to worship as we choose is protected by civil rights also. By not going to another cake maker their attitude would be considered bigoted. They chose the cake maker because of the cake makers strong beliefs to make a point. You can't force people to accept your way of thinking or life choice, and to give up their beliefs.

    Their attitude is two steps back. Both are protected groups, the judge should have seen their motive and decided based on it. They were militant troublemakers.

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:07 p.m.

    Oh so many people still do not understand the point of liberty and freedom. There should be absolutely ZERO laws regarding discrimination or hate. Why? Because you will never ever legislate it away.

    It does not matter that this his a homosexual couple. It could be a Mormon, Catholic, fat, blonde, ugly, tall, black, white, whatever. If a business chooses not to provide a service for someone that is their choice. Who are you to say otherwise? Who are you to force them to provide something to someone they choose not to, whatever their reason?

    It may not be good for business or the nice thing to do but who are you to force someone to do something against their will?

    People are free to make their own choices. Special interest groups, who claim they are about acceptance, want to force others to do something they choose not to. That is what is wrong, forcing others to do what you want them to when they choose not to. How arrogant!

    Again, it may be a bad business decision for them to deny service but that is their choice, not yours. Force is the way of the militant Left

  • U-tar Woodland Hills, UT
    Dec. 8, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    From the comments posted, it seems like there is a lot of hatred and prejudice in the Gay community and their supporters towards those who feel differently than them.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 9, 2013 1:00 a.m.

    What about the CRFB?

    Civil Rights For Bakers

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 9, 2013 2:26 a.m.

    Oh, where oh where is Jesus Christ in so many of these comments?

    A simple recounting of the story from a human point of view:
    1..Two children of God accepted the embarrassment that their State is not ready to legalize their union, so they marry elsewhere, and decide to have a party back home.
    2..The couple went to a baker, and began the joyful process of choosing a cake, until the baker realized they were marrying, and refused them.
    3..The couple, feeling ill-treated, and knowing their State forbids discrimination against Gays, eventually decided to file a complaint. The court had a very easy decision.

    What would Jesus say?

    Some of us dislike mormons, and would not want to do any business with any mormon until there is a church apology for their Prop 8 shenanigans.

    Some of us are not too crazy about people from certain countries, and would prefer to exclude them to save the hassle of their foreign ways.

    Some of us dislike a political party, and do not want to sell to its members.

    Did Jesus not say to treat all of his children as we would ourselves?

    Does He tell you to hide behind Bible quotes?

  • Contrariuser mid-state, TN
    Dec. 9, 2013 6:48 a.m.

    @Miss Piggie --

    "...bad conduct... sorry to opine but so is homosexuality."

    Yet again -- nobody has been able to show that gay marriage harms anyone. We already know that pedophilia etc. do. There's a huge difference.

    If you believe otherwise, please present your evidence.

    "don't think homosexuals cannot marry someone of the opposite sex..."

    I always think it's ironic when someone claiming to support "traditional" marriage encourages people to engage in fraudulent straight marriages which will probably be unhappy and end in divorce. How does encouraging bad marriages "support" the institution of marriage in the long run?

    @Charles S --

    "you will never ever legislate it away."

    You will never legislate murder away, either. Should we therefore take all murder laws off the books?

    "Who are you to say otherwise?"

    It is not we who say otherwise. It is federal law and the US Constitution. Look up the equal protection clause and the Civil Rights Act.

    "Force is the way of the militant Left"

    Yeah, like those evil old lefties who forced the South to free the slaves. How dare they??

    Cmon, people. Three courts in three different states have already made the same decisions. Get the message.

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Dec. 9, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    So many on the Religious Right are obsessed with gay gay gay gay gay gay gay. Why is that one one "sin" that everyone gets so frantic about? If this cake maker were asked to make a cake for someone who was a known adulterer in a previous marriage, would they object to that? I'm guessing not. Maybe someone they knew had been convicted of theft? Someone they knew coveted their neighbor's donkey or took the Lord's name in vain?

    Do you ask everyone you meet if they're gay just to be on the safe side, so you're not somehow implicitly endorsing their "lifestyle" by not shunning them? So many of you are obsessed with singling out gay people and then shrieking about the "Gay Agenda" when someone calls you on your weird preoccupation. How do intelligent people arrive at these attitudes? Oh, yes . . the "spirit" inspires you.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Dec. 9, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    U-tar
    Woodland Hills, UT
    "From the comments posted, it seems like there is a lot of hatred and prejudice in the Gay community and their supporters towards those who feel differently than them."

    Actually, it is very hard to feel polite toward someone who looks down on you, treats you as less than equal, and uses God as an excuse to do so.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 9, 2013 10:13 p.m.

    "July 2012 my son and his fiance; invited me to join them at a bakery for a cake tasting and to discuss a cake design. What should have been a fun and special moment turned into a day I will never forget. The three of us walked into the cake shop and a man at the counter motioned for us to sit at a small table and then joined us. When the man asked whose wedding this was for, and my son said "it is for our wedding," the man said that he does not make cakes for same- sex couples' weddings or commitment ceremonies. When my son said "really?" the man tried to justify his stance by saying he will make birthday cakes or other occasion cakes for gays, just not a wedding cake.

    I just sat there in disbelief. All of the levity that we felt on the drive to the bakery was gone. As I left that bakery, my heart was breaking for my son and his fiance. What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion."
    (Deborah Munn, mother of plaintiff, "It Was Never About the Cake")

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    All government entities should fully abide by anti-discrimination policies. Businesses that contract with the government, or accept government funds, should by and large be required to abide by anti-discrimination laws except where exemptions are logical. Private businesses should be able to discriminate in whatever manner they desire, according to the dictates of their owner's conscience, and let them experience the social, financial, and eternal consequences and judgments of those decisions. I believe that's the spirit and intention of the Constitution, and judgments such as this against the baker are an immoral and unconstitutional violation of the baker's free exercise of conscience.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 10, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    @LetsDebate --

    "judgments such as this against the baker are an immoral and unconstitutional violation of the baker's free exercise of conscience."

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair Housing Act of 1968; the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Equal Pay Act of 1963; the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978; multiple state laws across the country, and more than 50 years of SCOTUS decisions, in addition to the recent state court decisions, ALL say that you're wrong.

    Get the message, people. Religion is NOT a valid excuse for discrimination.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    Contrarius: So is homosexuality a valid excuse for bigotry, hatred, and discrimination? By your posts, it would appear that bigotry and discrimination are OK if you do not agree with something. This is certainly the opinion of the LGBT community.

    Homosexuality and same-sex attraction can be changed. Thousands and thousands of former "gay" people have changed. I know because I no longer struggle with SSA as I did when I was younger. Yet the media refuse to publish this because it is contrary to the LGBT activists' opinions.

    If the cake maker does not make a cake for gay couples, go to another cake maker. This is court-sanctioned bigotry and discrimination of religious beliefs. It is sad that our country has lost what it was founded on and has turned toward immorality and sin...

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    @Contrarius - I said nothing about existing law. I opined about Constitutional intent, which was originally freedom for citizens and limitations on government control. Many believe judges have usurped ultimate authority to twist the constitution to fit personal values, rather than limit government's control over increasingly large amounts of our personal and professional lives.

    Apparently, our country's moving in the direction you prefer. Many feel it's a movement toward fascism and control of thought and reasonable discrimination. Yes - people should have the right to love, hate, embrace, reject any person or group they want.

    I believe in freedom, natural consequences, and reasonable government regulation to ensure public safety. You believe in government coercion and legal punishment for violating what the government compels in terms of how personal values and conscience are expressed through otherwise legal business activities. I think that's an immoral intrusion on conscience. You think it's progress.

    Please get the message: personal conscience - based on religion or ANY other personal belief or value system - should be an unalienable right and a valid reason for discrimination in non-governmental transactions.

    I'll admit you're winning. I'm still free to dislike fascism.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 10, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    @LetsDebate --

    "I opined about Constitutional intent"

    And, again, more than 50 years of legislation and court cases all say that you're wrong.

    It's very very likely that all those SCOTUS and other federal judges know a lot more about the Constitution and "Constitutional Intent" than you do.

    Don't expect to convince anyone that you're right and all those legal experts are wrong just because you say so.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    I think it's very likely that many judges could not care less what the intent of the Constitution is. If they can twist any part of it to justify their agenda, they'll do it. Ginsberg has practically admitted that's how she feels about the Constitution. I think it's very likely the founders would be appalled at the numerous aspects of our lives the government controls today and the freedoms we've allowed to be confiscated. Also, I'm guessing there would be a lot of tea in the harbor if they learned that many citizens pay well over 50% of their income in various taxes, fees, and assessments.

    Don't expect to convince anyone you have a clue about Constitutional intent just because your secular progressive agenda is in sync with today's judiciary. People like you and today's judges are the very reason the Constitution will indeed one day hang by a thread.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    Contrarius -

    Not one of those laws you list specify homosexuality. Making homosexuality a protected class is the product of the last few years of judicial overreach. That separate laws had to be enacted for different groups (race, disability, pregnancy, etc.) shows that these laws were meant to include only those groups they address. The recent trend in liberal judges is to braoden this to include anyone and everyone.

    Legislation is not the mandate of the courts. Yet they scontinue to do in in spite of the Constitution.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    Bob K:

    Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments". Jesus loved all, but did not condone sin. This is precisely what you are expecting - that we condone the sin of homosexuality.

    If you owned a business and told me that you would not serve me bacause I am Mormon, I would pray for you and go somewhere else. I would not demand that a court force you to serve me. I would have that much respect for your opinion, even if I disagree with it.

    Tolerance means tolerating all, not just those we agree with. I hope one day the left will learn this....

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 10, 2013 3:39 p.m.

    @RedWings --

    "Not one of those laws you list specify homosexuality. "

    Neither did LetsDebate when he/she said: "personal conscience - based on religion or ANY other personal belief or value system - should be an unalienable right and a valid reason for discrimination in non-governmental transactions."

    That opens the door to ALL discrimination.

    Remember -- the Constitution was written in part to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. And that means to protect them against discrimination. That WAS an intent of the founders. Remember that bit about "all men are created equal" from the Declaration? Those guys meant it.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Dec. 10, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    @Contrarius - the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness intended by our founders indeed opens the door for private individuals to discriminate in the exercise of their conscience. It allows people stupid enough to be racists today to suffer social ostracization if they don't hide it. It allows gay people to discriminate in their business practices against those who treat them poorly. It gives skinheads the ability to pursue Arian business practices and discriminate against those they despise, and gives Jewish people the right to discriminate against skinheads.

    And in such a setting of freedom, as we strive for a better world, natural consequences will increasingly favor those who love despite differences, and those who can balance inclusion, personal conviction of conscience, and dignity in disagreement. It's possible for a baker who opposes homosexuality to engage in overall inclusive business practices (making birthday cakes for anyone), while holding fast to her convictions (refusing events that offend her conscience), and treating those with whom she disagrees with dignity and respect (politely referring a gay couple to another business that would happily accommodate their wedding).

    Natural striving and consequences change hearts better than judicial coercion.

  • RedWings CLEARFIELD, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    The Contitution was written by white land owners who wanted to preserve their rights as white land owners. Most never wanted to separate from England; what they wanted was equal representation in the British Empire.

    If freedom for all was really the intent, why did Jefferson own slaves? Why didn't he free them? Granted, his slaves had better conditions than most, but a person who truly believes in equal rights for all would have freed his slaves as asked them to remain as employees.

    If the Constitution as written in 1789 was meant to protect everyone from discrimination, why did we need the Civil Rights Act, ADEA, PDA, etc.?

    Revisionist history and judicial overreach aside, a private business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone. Since this cake maker is not the only one in town, the plaintiffs could simply go to another store. That is an expression of tolerance and respect for another's opinion.

    That the LGBT insist on using the courts to bully others shows their moral fiber and true intent. It is not about equality, it is about indoctrination into a specific political and social agenda.

  • Contrarius mid-state, TN
    Dec. 11, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    @Redwings --

    "If freedom for all was really the intent, why did Jefferson own slaves? "

    Hey, LetsDebate is the one who leans so heavily on original intent. Maybe he/she wants to go back to the days of slavery and barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen?

    "Since this cake maker is not the only one in town, the plaintiffs could simply go to another store."

    Once again -- those black college kids at the Walgreens lunch counter could easily have gone somewhere else to eat. Do you think they should have meekly accepted the discrimination against them?

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Dec. 11, 2013 3:21 p.m.

    Unfortunately, some people are simply too cowardly to just admit they do not believe people should be trusted with freedom, and that we're just better off when government coerces what it deems to be proper expressions of thought and conscience in our business dealings. Probably because to put it so bluntly doesn't sound as flowery and pleasant as couching the same ideology in terms of tolerance and peace (which, ironically, they only offer to those who think the same as them).

    Original intent of the Constitution was to have a framework upon which a great nation could grow. A nation, by the way, which could not have been created in its day if anti-slavery founders tried to explicitly outlaw slavery in the Constitution. Since good men could not outlaw slavery and simultaneously form the nation they desired, they created within the Constitution the very principles that would inevitably lead to the downfall of slavery and the rise of women's rights. Very clever and farsighted of our founding fathers, not that I would ever expect some people to ever see the bigger picture.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 1:02 a.m.

    What happened to this country that fought so dearly for freedom? Right or wrong morally, discrimination is something everyone does, and should be allowed to do, on a daily basis. No judge should be allowed to take that away. That is a gross infringement of individual, civil liberties. I know that judges have interpreted The Constitution differently. Shame on them. You should be allowed to sell whatever you have to whomever you want to for whatever reason. If you commit murder, rape, theft, fraud, you should go to jail. If you say your going to do something, and fail to do it, you should be made to do it. Otherwise, the legal system needs to quit harassing people for ideological reasons.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    @MrPlate --

    "Unfortunately, some people are simply too cowardly to just admit they do not believe people should be trusted with freedom"

    @killpack --

    "What happened to this country that fought so dearly for freedom? "

    I'll repeat the same question that nobody here wants to answer:

    Once again -- those black college kids who sat down at the Walgreens lunch counter in Nashville in 1960 could easily have gone somewhere else to eat. Do you think they should have meekly accepted the discrimination against them?

    Or do you think that they were correct to stand up for their rights as US citizens?

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:30 a.m.

    Contrariuserer,

    Do I think they should have meekly accepted the discrimination against them? The answer is, of course not. Discrimination of that kind is immoral, whether it's done by a business or a person. I fail to see how that is a court of law's problem. Last time I checked, courts didn't enforce morality, but criminal, contract and tort law. Very few things are inherently criminal to require criminal punishment e.g., rape, murder, theft, fraud. Saying you are going to do something, and then not doing it isn't criminal, but should require court intervention. Injuring someone unintentionally also isn't criminal but should require the court to make a damages judgment. Other than that, the courts have seriously overstepped their bounds. The black kids in Nashville were definitely correct to stand up for themselves. Kind of like, if someone does something that is morally offensive to me, I should speak out. But, unless someone is committing a criminal act, I would never appeal to a court of law for enforcement of moral issues. Especially given the ideological and even corrupt nature of many judges in this country.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @killpack --

    "Do I think they should have meekly accepted the discrimination against them? The answer is, of course not."

    Good first step.

    So -- you appear to object to the **manner** in which that gay couple stood up for their rights, not the fact that they did so. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation.

    Would you have approved if the gay couple instead sat down in the cake baker's bakery and refused to leave until they were served? That would have more directly paralleled the lunch counter sit-ins.

    "I fail to see how that is a court of law's problem. "

    Harm and adherence to state and US laws and constitutions are the court's problem.

    The cake baker did harm by violating the couple's legally assigned rights to equal protection under their anti-discrimination statutes.

    The cake baker violated state law by discriminating based on sexual orientation.

    "Other than that, the courts have seriously overstepped their bounds."

    The court was enforcing pre-existing state anti-discrimination law. Don't blame the courts for doing their jobs.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:09 a.m.

    @Contraiuser - the PRIVATE business of Walgreens should not have been forced to serve black college kids or anyone else they decided not to serve. And, people opposed to the restaurant could boycott or otherwise bring about change or ruin by other legal mischief. The owners of the restaurant should be exposed as racists and suffer the natural consequences of their bigotry. Rosa Parks, however, should expect that a government-owned bus operation would not discriminate, and rightfully demand the same seating rights as anyone else.

    Any region that continued to engage in widespread racism such as Walgreens should have been allowed to suffer the natural consequence of stagnation and decline within their backwater netherlands while the rest of the nation successfully moved forward in civility, dignity, and enlightenment. If they held to their bigoted traditions and discriminatory practices, they would have watched as their good citizens migrated to other areas of the country, corporations fled or became unwilling to set up shop, their economies nosedived, and they became the pariahs of the nation. Freedom of conscience, and natural consequences.

    Freedom is not always pretty. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice, and toward civility.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    @MrPlate --

    "the PRIVATE business of Walgreens should not have been forced to serve black college kids or anyone else they decided not to serve."

    You are more than 50 years behind the times, Mr. Plate.

    According to your argument, the PRIVATE businesses of slave-owning plantations should have been allowed to keep their slaves, as well.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    'Harm and adherence to state and US laws and constitutions are the court's problem.

    The cake baker did harm by violating the couple's legally assigned rights to equal protection under their anti-discrimination statutes.

    The cake baker violated state law by discriminating based on sexual orientation.'

    Oh, I get it now. So, when someone offends my sense of right and wrong, that is a court matter. Okay. Just making sure. So, next time someone does something that I don't think is right, even if it isn't criminal, tortious, or a breech of contract, I'm going to take it to court. I think they do that in The Middle East. It's called Sharia law. Interesting concept.

  • Contrariuserer mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    @kilpack --

    "Oh, I get it now. So, when someone offends my sense of right and wrong, that is a court matter. "

    Nope. When someone violates the law, that is a court matter.

    That cake baker violated Colorado state law regarding discrimination against customers due to sexual orientation.

    He violated the law. Therefore he ended up in court.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 12:03 p.m.

    @contrariuser - what an utterly ridiculous and insane comparison. Where have I said that private businesses have a right to own other people? Slavery became entirely unconstitutional when rational people finally concluded that black people were indeed human beings. What a dishonest twist of my philosophy on freedom of conscience.

    That you feel following one's conscience to not bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding is comparable to owning slaves says a lot more about your logic than it does about my arguments.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 12:06 p.m.

    So, let me get this straight. There are laws in this country that have nothing to do with criminal activity, contracts, torts but everything to do with moral judgment? And those laws are being upheld by the judicial system? And those laws are being enforced by muscle with badges? Interesting.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 12, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    @killpack --

    "laws in this country that have nothing to do with criminal activity..."

    It's called civil law. You've heard of it.

    From "Criminal and Civil Law" -- "Civil law deals with disputes between private parties, or negligent acts that cause harm to others . For example, if individuals or companies disagree over the terms of an agreement, or who owns land or buildings, or whether a person was wrongfully dismissed from their employment, they may file a lawsuit asking the courts to decide who is right. .... the courts may order the losing party to take corrective action, although the usual outcome is an order to pay damages - a monetary award designed to make up for the harm inflicted. "

    btw -- whatever happened to all the States' Rights advocates we usually see around here?? The Colorado legislature lawfully enacted this legislation. Who are you to say that the states' court was wrong in enforcing the laws of its state??

    @MrPlate --

    "Where have I said that private businesses have a right to own other people? "

    You said private businesses have the right to do as they wish. That's what "freedom" means.

    Either they have it, or they don't.

  • MrPlate Lindon, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    @Contrarius - based on your last curious assertion, as a private business owner, I apparently believe I should be able to:

    Make poison soft drinks.
    Maim people who don't buy my products.
    Steal identities from customers who pay with a credit card.
    Dump my toxic waste into the river.
    Install trap doors and kidnap customers.

    After all, I obviously said private businesses have the right to "do as they wish," right? And anyone who proposes freedom believes there should be no legal controls, right? Does that pass as logical debate at your house? Please quote where I said private business has the right to "do as they wish," because I'm not seeing where I said that. There's quite a difference between having the right of conscience to discriminate (wisely or foolishly) and having the right to "do as they wish" by owning people as you inaccurately twisted my words.

    Your logic has only broken down further with your latest foray into this forum. I'm hoping for a rational argument and honest debate.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 12, 2013 9:07 p.m.

    Contrarius - your interpretation of Mr.Plate's and Killpack's comments defies logic. Although it's obvious that striking down Southern Jim Crow laws worked more quickly than relying on progress through freedom to discriminate and natural consequences, I agree in principle with Mr.Plate. He certainly made no argument even approaching rationalizing slavery. Your attempts to assert Mr. Plate must accept slavery as a tenet of freedom is unbelievably twisted. I don't read anywhere that he says private businesses should be able to "do as they wish" as you claim.

    Clearly you think government should dictate business dealings to a far greater extent than me and others, to the point of even establishing boundaries of personal conscience in business dealings. I think that should not be government's role, even if legislators and judges establish such laws. Just because something is law doesn't make it right, nor does it make someone "50 years behind" to disagree with a law or judicial ruling.

    I think government controls too much. You probably believe it doesn't control enough and will be happy with the next ruling that confiscates yet another freedom of conscience in the name of one-sided tolerance.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    @MrPlate --

    "I apparently believe I should be able to:"

    That's what freedom IS, Mr. Plate. The freedom to choose.

    Do you believe in it or not?

    Where exactly would you place the boundary between acceptable freedoms and unacceptable ones?

    Legality?

    Harm to others?

    Guess what -- discrimination IS illegal.

    Guess what -- discrimination DOES harm others.

    If legality or harm are not your boundaries, then what are they?

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 13, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    @Contrarius - so, freedom IS the ability to choose to poison customers and water supplies, and kidnap and maim people? Did ANYONE say they wanted no laws? You're debating insane straw men of your own imagination.

    I see your automatic fallback position is that since laws have been passed, everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, even though we've been debating whether the laws in fact are appropriate. Yes, legislators have determined that discrimination harms people, but guess what - much of discrimination really only offends people or creates inconveniences. Unfortunately, the courts have determined some groups of people (but not everyone) have a constitutional right to never have their feelings hurt in the marketplace. Since anybody can find bakers who will cater to them, there's no actual harm if one baker decides not to serve someone.

    But yes, the courts have decided this inconvenience is a legal harm. We all get it! The debate here is whether these laws are good or bad for our country. Yes - discrimination IS illegal. We get it. Should it be illegal? That's the question under debate. You seem to think you're right simply because you agree with the law.

  • Contrariusier mid-state, TN
    Dec. 13, 2013 1:01 p.m.

    @DSB --

    "...freedom IS the ability to choose to poison customers..."

    That's pure freedom, alright.

    "Did ANYONE say they wanted no laws?"

    Y'all said you want freedom. That's freedom.

    "You're debating insane straw men...."

    Nope. I'm just trying to make you think about how many limits you actually want on freedom.

    You don't actually want "freedom", as such. You really only want enough "freedom" to allow you to discriminate however you like.

    That isn't really freedom, DSB. That's just bigotry.

    "...your automatic fallback position is that since laws have been passed..."

    That's what we hear from the States' Rights folks all the time, especially when some of us argue for gay marriage in Utah.

    Why does the principle apply to Utah, but not Colorado?

    "...the courts have determined some groups of people (but not everyone)"

    Guess again.

    EVERYONE is protected by anti-discrimination laws. Everyone has a race. Everyone has a gender. Everyone has an age. Everyone has an orientation.

    "Since anybody can find bakers who will cater to them, there's no actual harm... "

    Aaaaaaaand, we're back to the black kids at Walgreens. Should they have eaten lunch somewhere else?

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    So, freedom means no laws. Thanks for making us think Contrarius, because now we know anybody who values freedom is ok with poisoning water and kidnapping people. We just didn't realize that unless we happily accept where the government draws lines for personal conscience, we really just want a lawless free-for-all.

    By your logic, since you want more government control, you must want a totally fascist state where the government determines all appropriate thought and imprisons or executes all violators of politically incorrect thought. After all, you said you want more government control than I do, and that's government control.

    I assume you'd think that's an irrational interpretation of your comments. It's likewise ridiculously irrational to assert that people wanting MORE freedom (not lawless, unfettered freedom, see the difference?) think it's ok to steal identities and own slaves.

    Aaaaaand, you've got more than one answer about the Walgreen's lunch scenario you think is such a troublesome conundrum. It's difficult to intelligently debate someone who can't see the difference between serving lunch to a human being and being forced to cater an event that seriously offends one's conscience.