Colorado baker is back in court over cake refusal for transitioning person

Originally posted by Robtard
As much as I don't like bending in the way of bigotry, this a**hole should be allowed to refuse service.

But it is funny how some people still defend his guy's bigotry by trying to make it be something else. It's clearly the "gay" and "transgender" aspects this guy has a problem with. If I went in there and asked for the same exact cake and said "it's for my twins' first birthday", he'd have no problem with the order.

This ******* has agreed to make cakes for a wedding of two dogs, a pagan solstice party, a divorce party, and a celebration of having multiple children out of wedlock. So let's not pretend this is about the First Amendment, when it's just cosigning his anti-LGBT bigotry.

And the Truth starts to come out.

The Left are truly Fascist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also let's not pretend this second lawsuit is in good faith. This transgender attorney is obviously targeting him.

She obviously didn't stumble into his bakery unaware looking for a cake, she obviously wants to **** this dude over.

Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

Quite frankly, politically I don't care about whether or not I would've made the same choice as him (I would've baked the cake), I don't care about his reasons (whether it's legitimate religious conviction or some mighty eeeeevvvviiiillll bigotry).

It's his business, his property, his artistic expression, his labor. It's his, not the government's, not the public's, not the collective's. His. It's his.

I believe an exchange of property must be consensual on both ends. Nobody else should force him to accept their money and force him to bake a cake for them any more than he should be able to take their money out of their pockets and bake them a cake they didn't ask for.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

If a kid uses a convincing fake id, you'd better believe it.

Maybe you've heard of Traci Lords. A lot of heads were on the chopping block, because she was fooling the industry for years. Only thing that saved them, was the government themselves were fooled, when she applied for a passport.

Which means they had to go after themselves. Best to just drop it, they enforce the rules, not play by them.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Quite frankly, politically I don't care about whether or not I would've made the same choice as him (I would've baked the cake), I don't care about his reasons (whether it's legitimate religious conviction or some mighty eeeeevvvviiiillll bigotry).

It's his business, his property, his artistic expression, his labor. It's his, not the government's, not the public's, not the collective's. His. It's his.

I believe an exchange of property must be consensual on both ends. Nobody else should force him to accept their money and force him to bake a cake for them any more than he should be able to take their money out of their pockets and bake them a cake they didn't ask for.

Yup. 👆

I've already covered the argument extremely thoroughly. Your right to expression does not supersede my right to not express. Ever. Never.

He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument.

Originally posted by Impediment
He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument.

Not according to the law in Colorado.

Yes. In Colorado. The Business Owner is a SLAVE to the Whims of their Customers.

Truly Leftist are Horrible, HORRIBLE People.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Not according to the law in Colorado.

Supremacy clause in the US Constitution and the precedence now established by the US Supreme Court means that those Colorado laws are null in cases that are similar to the original case.

The Law in Colorado means jack, now. He can always appeal to any Federal District Court and win every single time, now. As long as he stays within the bounds of the original ruling.

Edit - Also, at this point, people who continue to bring up similar cases may be guilty of tortious interference. 👆

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Who the **** cares? If a convenience store is suspected of not verifying the age of customers to whom it sells alcohol, and someone attempts to purchase alcohol to confirm whether that is true, do you cry, "Boo hoo, the customer did not enter that transaction in good faith, the poor convenience store is being targeted, because there is suspicion it is not complying with the law?" Get the **** out of here with that noise.

Stop getting triggered like a b*tch over a cake.

Originally posted by Surtur
Stop getting triggered like a b*tch over a cake.

In Colorado it is your God Given Right to do Just That Apparently.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]In Colorado it is your God Given Right to do Just That Apparently. [/B]

He's exactly the kind of person I could see pulling some shit like this on a place they know won't take the order lol.

Yeah. Is there No Vid of them walking in to the store and trying to act like they caught this guy in a full on GOTCHYA moment?

Really shocked if their isn't.

Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way....these cakes could just be so crazy good that you absolutely lose your mind and act like a little b*tch if denied one.

I bet science could figure this out, and you know who loves science?

Originally posted by Impediment
He has the right to refuse service.

End of argument.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Also again, I'm a pretty devout Christian... I would've baked the ****ing cake for them.

Whether or not he should've made the cake isn't the issue I'm speaking to, the issue I'm speaking to is whether or not he should have a choice to make the cake or not make the cake, and I support his liberty 100%

If his beliefs were that strong he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that. his problem is saying his refusal is because of their status.

IOW, he's a bigot and a moron. not a good combination.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If his beliefs were that strong he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that. his problem is saying his refusal is because of their status.

IOW, he's a bigot and a moron. not a good combination.

I feel like if I legit just want a cake and I ask for some custom cake to celebrate my "change" and I hear "no thanks" I'd just go "okay" and leave. But if I'm there because I know the guys history and I want to play the victim? I'm going to continually press him for a reason why he is refusing me service until I get one.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel like if I legit just want a cake and I ask for some custom cake to celebrate my "change" and I hear "no thanks" I'd just go "okay" and leave. But if I'm there because I know the guys history and I want to play the victim? I'm going to continually press him for a reason why he is refusing me service until I get one.

The request was obviously done in bad faith, which is why I called both sides bigots earlier. it's just the baker is also a moron for giving them ammo. he should have just said "no thanks" and left it at that.

The Left hates People of the Christian Faith. That is what this is really about.