Posted on 04/06/2015 6:56:37 PM PDT by Coronal
DENVER - Colorado's legal battles between religious freedom and gay rights continue to play out in the not-so-sweet arena of bakery cake requests.
Last week, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Denver's Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack, a Christian from Castle Rock, by refusing to make two cakes with anti-gay messages and imagery that he requested last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedenverchannel.com ...
Let me see if I understand this correctly:
A. A homosexual wants a Christian bakery to make a cake for a homosexual “wedding”. Baker refuses and that is discrimination.
B. A Christian wants a homosexual bakery to make a cake with anti-homosexual “slurs”. Baker refuses and it is NOT discrimination.
Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Welcome to Acirema, where the guilty are rewarded and the innocent are punished.
You were right the first time.
Yes, I commented on the article before I could read it fully, my fault, sorry, I commented prematurely.
Should have read the title more clearly also, lesson learned, read before commemting.
What was supposed to go on the cake?
Thanks. I’ve seen your post 16. No apology necessary. Commenting before reading the full article is a wonderful FReeper tradition.
Lol, I better stay out of it, it’s getting way to confusing, the world being turned upside down.
It doesn’t help that I am using a cell phone and my eye sight is bad.
Can barely see the letters.
It is undeniably a win for freedom that Anzucar Bakery isn't compelled to express a viewpoint it doesn't want to. I'm always against government compulsion.
But how do we square this with the other baker who the government says is required to express a viewpoint it doesn't want to? Honestly, to me, it appears that Colorado says we must first examine the content of the speech to determine whether an individual must be compelled to express the viewpoint. Individuals may be compelled to express viewpoints approved by the government. Viewpoints disapproved by the government are left to the discretion of the individual. This must fail strict scrutiny, and government should not compel expression of a particular viewpoint.
One was to say “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.”
The other was to say “God loves sinners” and “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.”
Another win for political correctness and caprice.
Its a happy diode.
Me too!
She won her case, there won’t be one.
My thoughts. Celebrate this?
Watch the tax audits steam roll in along with every other BG entity barging in making demands.
When the press comes in, do the same thing. When the lawyers call, tell them you never said anything about faggots.
Let them make the case that they are "good" disease-ridden whackjobs, who never touch innocent boys.
Actually, even though you misread it, you are right in that this is a win of sorts, but only if the decision is overturned in the other bakery case so that the Christian bakery is allowed the same right of denial. I don’t want any bakery or flower shop or similar business to be forced to serve a customer it if violates their beliefs. Customers can vote with their feet and if they punish the business by not patronizing it, then so be it. That is how the market works and it should be allowed to do so without judicial meddling.
Probably a couple of 45 year old hairy guys french kissing while groping each other. Or maybe it was a couple of 290 pound lezbos with "I hate men" tattoos doing the kinky stinky. Who knows.
Regarding the title, I did not know rights could be won. I thought rights were god-given and inalienable, and that government could merely codify and protect these rights.
No it is a loss and it was lost on the Purists bridge half a century ago.
Regardless of the ruling, am I the only one that sees a nasty problem with “agencies” staffed by unelected bureaucrats making what amounts to judicial rulings without juries?
Bureaucratic edicts that have the force of law?
Besides the obvious Constitutional issues, who in their right mind wants some government toady with an agenda deciding what you and I can or can’t do? These militant homosexuals are pretty stupid to believe that these bureaucrats are always going to be their ideological pals. They are destroying the rule of legislative law and in the end they too will find themselves behind the eight ball.
This is not being represented, it is being ruled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.