Last Updated:September 15 @ 08:07 pm

Judge orders Colo. wedding cake baker to serve same sex couples

By Associated Press

DENVER - A baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony must serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs or face fines, a judge said Friday.

The order from administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer said Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver discriminated against a couple "because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage."

The order says the cake-maker must "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against shop owner Jack Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission last year on behalf of Charlie Craig, 33, and David Mullins, 29. The couple was married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake to celebrate in Colorado.

The commission is expected to certify the judge's order next week.

Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Phillips had argued that making cakes for gay wedding ceremonies violates his Christian beliefs.

Mullins and Craig wanted to buy a cake in July 2012, but when Phillips found out the cake was to celebrate a gay wedding, he turned the couple of away, according to the complaint.

A similar case is pending in Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that an Albuquerque business was wrong to decline to photograph a same-sex couple's commitment ceremony.

Colorado has a constitutional ban against gay marriage but allows civil unions. The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.

---

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 7.9/10 (34 votes cast)
Judge orders Colo. wedding cake baker to serve same sex couples, 7.9 out of 10 based on 34 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

56 Comments

  1. Scruffy-USN-RetiredComment by kerryp
    December 7, 2013 @ 8:18 am

    Oops….you mean I put salt in your cake instead of sugar.
    “The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.”
    But the 1st Amendment does!
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

    The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (87 votes cast)
    • spatcher1Comment by spatcher1
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:34 am

      Ice all the cakes with ex-lax, give it a couple days then throw the clothes away. Problem solved!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (25 votes cast)
    • yaki534Comment by yaki534
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:50 am

      Yes, please make the cake. Use lots of salt and put alum in the frosting. There is no law against that.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (26 votes cast)
    • jfrayComment by jfray
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:03 am

      What happened to a private business and the right to refuse service to anyone post a sign and I hear visine is a pretty good laxitive

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (25 votes cast)
    • ssoldieComment by ssoldie
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:35 am

      I would put an equal amount of salt peter,for ever cup of sugar.Just the 1% of the HOMOSEXUAL jerk’s, wanting to control the lives of other people thru the corrupt government we have at this time. By the way can one obtain ‘salt peter’ anymore, hope so,Oh! heck double the amount.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (23 votes cast)
    • snattlerakeComment by snattlerake
      December 7, 2013 @ 12:13 pm

      Using a generic cake mix and icing from the supermarket, I’d just make sure the cake was well done before it was iced…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (17 votes cast)
    • GoldminerComment by Goldminer
      December 7, 2013 @ 12:17 pm

      Exactly! Serve a lousy cake and make sure they pay you, too.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (17 votes cast)
    • flyerComment by flyer
      December 7, 2013 @ 1:05 pm

      Check out the Battle of Athens TN.
      No doubt the same battle needs to occur all over OUR country.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (13 votes cast)
    • trumper2Comment by trumper2
      December 7, 2013 @ 2:17 pm

      exlax, salt, alum, salt peter and those other things mentioned aren’t quite good enough. I’d put in a lot of syrup of ipecac, it makes you throw up. That might ruin the reception.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (16 votes cast)
    • deckapeComment by deckape
      December 7, 2013 @ 3:45 pm

      Saltpeter is a wives tale.. it is used in food today and been in use since the middle ages.. make the cake so when cut it falls apart so people would get to eat crumbs.. any contamination, the baker could face charges for poisoning, make the cake ****** as possible, which I think he will probably do..

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (9 votes cast)
    • TaquoshiComment by Taquoshi
      December 7, 2013 @ 7:03 pm

      I would not, repeat, would not add syrup of ipecac to the cake. It’s an emetic and taken in larger doses, can cause heart problems.

      Personally, I’d subcontract the cake out to a third party and be done with it.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (7 votes cast)
  2. gentlemanjimComment by gentlemanjim
    December 7, 2013 @ 9:26 am

    One more part of the constitution just bit the dust. One piece at a time this country is going to H*ll.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (54 votes cast)
    • rockcutComment by rockcut
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:46 am

      You have shown very little understanding of the Constitution. If one is going to serve the PUBLIC then one has no right unter the Constitution to deny anyone service. Sorry you are out in left field.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.3/5 (44 votes cast)
    • daveevad1Comment by daveevad1
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:51 am

      Custom production of a wedding cake (no doubt with two groom dolls or two bride dolls on top) isn’t the same kind of public accommodation as selling a commodity product.

      Such a groupthink mindset as rockcut espouses will result in businesses moving away from “public” accommodation and to “private” contracting. Nuanced, perhaps, but effective.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (21 votes cast)
    • crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:52 am

      rockcut

      Perhaps I misread your post.

      But under the Constitution, nobody can force any business to provide goods or services if the owners choose, for whatever reason, to refuse the transaction.

      No person has any “Right” to do business, or even freely associate with any other person because the other person has the FREEDOM to choose his associations.

      You have little understanding of the underpinnings of the foundation.

      “Governments” cannot discriminate, but private business owners can… and DO on a regular basis.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (46 votes cast)
    • mudguyComment by mudguy
      December 7, 2013 @ 12:23 pm

      Rockcut
      Then people who post a sign “No Shirt No Service” they still have to serve shirtless people.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (21 votes cast)
    • nvrickComment by nvrick
      December 7, 2013 @ 12:35 pm

      This ruling is insane. If this stands, the next thing you know, the gov’t will think they can force us all to buy health care ins…oops.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (30 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 7, 2013 @ 4:11 pm

      “You have shown very little understanding of the Constitution. If one is going to serve the PUBLIC then one has no right unter the Constitution to deny anyone service” Comment by rockcut

      You show you have never read it

      The Constitution does not give you rights. It exist to be a fence around government power.

      Its weakness is its dependence upon the people being smart enough to read it

      You are FREE to buy and sell with ANY who are WILLING to do business with you.

      Forcing people to compromise their beliefs is never a good thing. If a little force is good then a lot would be better

      Homosexuals are destroying their only protection by abusing it, the rule of law, to push their agenda

      If one can force someone to work against their will, how is that different than slavery?

      Because they were paid?

      Slaves were given food, clothing and shelter too

      So if they were paid more than it would have been okay to force them to work against their will?

      Forcing someone to do the work of baking a cake is slavery

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (22 votes cast)
    • mudguyComment by mudguy
      December 7, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

      Jota
      And then e have DHS that declares a Constitutional free zone around. and we let them do it. borders.http://www.infowars.com/dhs-constitution-free-zones-inside-us-ignored-by-media/

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  3. whodunitComment by whodunit
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:10 am

    The baker and business owner, Mr. Phillips, needs to fight this even further. This is a very dangerous precedent. The judge in the case just trumped the First Amendment, and he has no business doing so. He cannot be allowed to do this.

    As for the gay couple — they’ve got plenty of bakers to choose from. They’re merely going after this man to further their own selfish agenda.

    This needs to be stopped. Now.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (72 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 7, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

      “needs to fight this even further”
      “a very dangerous precedent” Comment by whodunit

      This is NOT a precedent, it is an abuse of power

      And they do not need to do anything. They are under no obligation to obey, in fact, they have a duty to not obey illegal orders.

      The judge is acting outside the law and needs to be jailed

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (24 votes cast)
  4. crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:21 am

    “The civil union law, which passed earlier this year, does not provide religious protections for businesses.”

    Maybe it doesn’t allow the ‘business’ to discriminate, but the owers of the business have a built in protection in the NOT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF portion of the First Amendment.

    This clearly the judges own agenda, aided and abetted by the aclu in its continued quest to destroy any value systems in America.

    The owner needs to continue and appeal this abberation and misuse of the law for personal reasons.

    And the first successful appeal he should immediately file a civil suit against the aclu and the judge for a minimum 100 million dollars and demand a local trial in font of a fully informed jury.

    Provide the jurors with thier Rights, Powers, Duties and Responsibilities through paid advertising, leaflets, posters in public areas, etc.

    Since the juicial system is corrupted in this State and the federal level, the best chance if for the People to rise up and bitchslap the judge and the aclu.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (44 votes cast)
  5. sacheveraljames42Comment by sacheveraljames42
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:24 am

    Mr. Phillips needs our support and encouragement to fight this arbitrary ruling by a judge who obviously is ignorant of the Constitution and individual rights. In my opinion, Judge Spencer is the typical left-wing, liberal judge who has never had his head out of a book and actually worked for a living dealing with all kinds of people in his own business. Notwithstanding that, this judge needs to recalled by the people of his district. In the meantime, Mr. Phillips should close his business and offer to do his services gratis to people of his choosing. If they wish to make a contribution for his efforts, then so be it. I think most contributions will be close or more to the amount he would collect if he was still operating a “public business.” The law has become the oppressor for free people and we must stop it at all costs when it threatens and curtails our liberty. RECALL!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (31 votes cast)
    • daveevad1Comment by daveevad1
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:46 am

      “…this judge needs to be recalled.”

      This isn’t an elected official, it’s a bureaucrat with an ego problem. We need to rein in the powers afforded to such people.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (25 votes cast)
    • crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:20 am

      daveevad1

      That is precisely why it needs to go in front of a fully informed jury.

      “Administrative law judge” is nothing less than a hired hitman to provide a ‘sense of legality’.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (21 votes cast)
    • freedomforallComment by freedomforall
      December 9, 2013 @ 10:57 pm

      @ sacheveraljames42

      Your argument sounds good, the issue is that the judges rule on the readings of the laws. If the interpretations of the laws are red in favor of the left, these are the rulings that the jury must use to decide right from left. It is the law that has to be challenged at this point. I agree that no one should be forced to do work that they choose not to do, even for pay. The question of course is why would someone want something from someone that does not want to provide it?
      I believe that constant pressure on someone would be harassment. This is what the ACLU does daily( harass). Forcing citizens to do what they really do not want to do. No pursuit of Happiness here anymore.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  6. daveevad1Comment by daveevad1
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:26 am

    “Administrative law judge”? “Civil rights commission”?

    Time to appeal this one to a real court.

    And, given the ridiculous turn Colorado has taken, time to move the business to a real state.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (33 votes cast)
  7. nateComment by nate
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:37 am

    Besides the fact that this is sooo wrong on so many levels. Who would be stupid enough to actually eat a cake that was forced to be made against someones wishes or beliefs,enjoy -fools

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (27 votes cast)
    • daveevad1Comment by daveevad1
      December 7, 2013 @ 10:48 am

      Liberals don’t just think you can be forced to do the things they want done, you can be forced to like them. They live in Orwell’s world of “groupthink” and can’t comprehend individual initiative, liberty, or the right to independent thought.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (23 votes cast)
    • whodunitComment by whodunit
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:12 am

      So true, Nate. I think this is why they had food tasters in Medieval times . . . Forcing someone to make a cake that you’re going to eat? That’s even dumber than trying to force someone to go against their religion and make the cake in the first place.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (26 votes cast)
    • sam236Comment by sam236
      December 7, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

      Where does this craziness stop? Will the gays be back in court, suing the baker because the cake he was forced to bake “wasn’t good enough’” was too dry, the decorations weren’t up to par, etc? Do we really want to put the courts into the role of food critics? If there was only one baker in the community, that would be one thing, but I’m sure there are plenty of other bakers willing to do the job. The couple is just forcing their beliefs on others.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (21 votes cast)
  8. lkplumleyComment by lkplumley
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:49 am

    This is curious to me. I agree that a walk-in business that is open to the general public cannot refuse to serve someone because they are gay (stores, restaurants, gas stations, etc.) But a personal service is different. Can someone be required to perform a service that they do not wish to perform for someone else regardless of their reason? Can a poor Democrat gardener refuse to schedule and cut the grass of a rich Republican on principle alone? Can a Catholic carpenter refuse to remodel a Kosher kitchen for a Jew? As ridiculous and unfair as these examples may seem, I am not persuaded that ANYBODY can be forced to perform a personal service for someone else. When Westboro Baptist Church disrupted a funeral in Oklahoma, all of the participants’ tires were mysteriously flat afterwards and all merchants refused to come to help them. Can a towtruck be forced to drive out to tow them or change their tires regardless of his reasons for choosing not to do so? I am just saying that a personal service is different. I think the bakery cannot refuse to wait on them and sell them a cake, but I also do not think they can be forced to bake one for them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (20 votes cast)
    • crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:08 am

      “Discrimination” abounds in every city and town across the nation.

      Governments ‘discriminate’ against prospective businesses by requiring exhorbitant fees and building requirements and limitations.

      Businesses ‘discriminate’ by simply not opening an outlet in any neighborhood they deem unworthy of too risky.

      Some put up signs that say:
      “No shirt
      no shoes
      no service”

      I walked into a cafe one day that had a sign.

      “We reserve the Right to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason.”

      And they are completly within their Rights because their business is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

      And their business is PRIVATE BUSINESS and they get to set the rules.

      Government has no authority or power to infringe or force ‘compliance’ with any law that is/was created to “force acceptance” of that which is unacceptable to the business owner.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (27 votes cast)
    • kendude512013Comment by kendude512013
      December 7, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

      lkplumley, you are ignoring God’s law that tells Christians not to partake in other people’s sins, such as homosexuality. A Christian that provides services to a homosexual marriage is disobeying Gods’ laws, and giving support to the homosexual lifestyle. They are, in effect saying, “I support the sin of homosexuality”. When mans laws, such as so-called “discrimination” laws, contradict God’s laws, God’s laws overrule them. Yes homosexuals who run businesses have every right to refuse service to someone, just as Christians can. There are laws in this country that in effect say that if you speak out against the homosexual lifestyle, you are guilty of “discrimination”. But God’s word calls homosexuality SIN, and Christians are to do the same, no matter what unbelievers think or say. We are do what is right in God’s sight, not man’s. There are also laws that exist to protect discrimination against Christians. Why is it that when Christians are discriminated against because of their biblical beliefs, that this is COMPLETELY IGNORED by the courts? Why is it OK to discriminate against Christians, but not homosexuals? Because the homosexual community is given special treatment, that’s why. God calls the act of homosexuality a perversion and a act of evil and sin, and so the Christian must obey God. Man can pass all the laws he wants, and redefine human behavior all he wants, and ignore God’s laws all he wants, and call speaking out against evil behavior “discriminating” against someone. The bottom line is, God calls the shots, NOT MAN, as far as what is evil, and what is not. Your choice, and anybody else choice to ignore God’s laws and God’s word, and even PASS LAWS, does not change the FACT that He is the MORAL AUTHORITY, NOT MAN. He is, and always will be . There is NOTHING mankind can do to change that. Christians might be going against some man made law, but not God’s law . Their choice to refuse service can be supported biblically. God’s laws, and how He DEFINES evil and good behavior, will ALWAYS overrule any law that men or governments pass, regardless of whether men or governments acknowledge Him or not.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 7, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

      “I think the bakery cannot refuse to wait on them and sell them a cake, but I also do not think they can be forced to bake one for them.” Comment by lkplumley

      Why cannot they refuse? What is compelling them to have to accept? Could it be the gun to their head?

      Any time force is used it is against freedom, regardless of how well intended or noble one thinks the reason

      This case is most definitely NOT about discrimination, but rather who gets to decide when, where, who, what, and how one can discriminate. The fact this baker was chosen means all other bakers were discriminated against. Shouldn’t they file a lawsuit and force the gay couple to HAVE to buy a caked from them.

      Which proves the point, it depends on who you are

      Which is the very definition of tyranny
      Arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (12 votes cast)
  9. oldsaltydawgComment by oldsaltydawg
    December 7, 2013 @ 11:36 am

    I would tell the Judge with ALL DISRESPECT INTENDED Shove your order where the GOOD LRD SPLIT you and then close my business down and move to a state not ruined by IDIOTS and MORONS who do not know the Constitution or their jobs. The Judge CANNOT void the people’s CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS no matter how far up ******’s backside the Judges head is shoved.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (19 votes cast)
  10. johnnylingo62Comment by johnnylingo62
    December 7, 2013 @ 11:37 am

    $$- gay service fee $3000 extra, still want to buy a cake from me?
    This is a free market system-this is not a communist country. The consumer has multiple choices to buy a cake-but one from someone who supports or doesn’t care about where the cake is served… the buyer and the seller determine the value of their product. If the government is going to “force” a merchant to sell, then they should also “force” the buyer to pay whatever price the merchant asks for payment- and the buyer can’t refuse. No logic to this type of
    reasoning.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (21 votes cast)
  11. bullwhiteComment by bullwhite
    December 7, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

    At what time frame did it become impossible to refuse to do business with someone? How can the courts overstep the labor (personal property rights, in my opinion)of a person who decides that they cannot provide the service or product that the customer is SEEKING. It makes no sense what is happening in our culture. I’ve started thinking that the 180 degree rule is in play.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (11 votes cast)
  12. grantjr67Comment by grantjr67
    December 7, 2013 @ 1:13 pm

    It amazes me how little people here understand the Constitution. Yes, the first amendment gives you the freedom of expression and religion. It does not give you the right to run a business. Just like you don’t have a right to a driver’s license. If you want either, there are laws that must be obeyed.

    If you want to run a business that is open to the public, then you must follow the laws. Mainly the Civil rights act of 1964. You act like this ruling is new. This has been a law for over 40 years. Now, the business owner can hang a sign in his business saying. “I will bake a cake for homosexual weddings. But let it be know that I find you and your wedding to be an abomination to God. May you spend eternity in Hell for your sins.” They still have to make the cake though.

    So, if you hate this ruling, stop whining about the Constitution. You are going to lose. Get involved in politics and get the laws changed.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.8/5 (10 votes cast)
    • shedobComment by shedob
      December 7, 2013 @ 6:51 pm

      Using your logic, I would have a right under non-discrimination, Civil Rights laws to order a ham sandwich at a Jewish deli or at a Muslim restaurant? For the restaurant owner to refuse to make it for me would be discrimination and they gave up their right to religious freedom when they opened their business?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (10 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 7, 2013 @ 7:38 pm

      “It amazes me how little people here understand the Constitution. Yes, the first amendment gives you the freedom of expression and religion.” Comment by grantjr67

      Yes, it is amazing. The Constitution does not “give” you or any one else rights

      “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”

      You might want to read the “Federalist Papers” They argued it was unnecessary to include the Bill of Rights because they said in the year 2013, grantjr67 would make the mistake of believing the Constitution gave him his rights, rather than it being a means to explicitly define the powers of the Federal government.

      Looks like they knew what they were talking about. Just amazing!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      December 7, 2013 @ 7:54 pm

      “Mainly the Civil rights act of 1964″ Comment by grantjr67

      And would you mind citing which part of the law you think supports what you are saying?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (5 votes cast)
    • daveevad1Comment by daveevad1
      December 8, 2013 @ 4:19 pm

      Before you pontificate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, public law 88-352, I suggest you read the actual text of it – especially Title II, which applies to public accommodations.
      It covers restaurants and similar establishments which serve food for on-premise consumption. This typically does not include custom bakeries which produce a product to be delivered to another location.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (5 votes cast)
  13. MutantoneComment by Mutantone
    December 7, 2013 @ 1:29 pm

    is it just me are did they shop around to other states to spread their perversion?
    “married in Massachusetts” but wanted their cake from Colorado
    “Washington state, where a florist is accused of refusing service for a same-sex wedding. In New Mexico”
    does that not place it under the interstate commerce clause and fall under federal laws?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  14. crustyoldgeezerComment by crustyoldgeezer
    December 7, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

    The biggest reason garbage like this goes on is because the court system since the 1930′s has brainwashed and omitted the Powers of the Jury.

    A “fully informed Juror” is one that has studied and knows and understands the how and why this was allowed to happen.

    The Juror has the RIGHT to not only determine innocence or guilt, but also to judge whether or not the law is valid, equally applied across the spectrum, applied fairly in each case indivdually…
    And most importantly, to Protect The Citizens from a tyrannical government edict.

    The Constitution guarantees every Citizen the Right to trial by a Jury of the people.
    The government is forced to bring activities such as this before a JURY, NOT an ‘administrative judge’.

    Now people. Do you want a jury of people that are not smart enough to get out of jury duty?

    Or do you want a jury that knows knows and understands the Rights, Duties, Responsibilities and OBLIGATION to their fellow Citizens?

    Jury Duty is the most important action any Citizen can take because that is the only way to curtail government intrusion and destruction or ALL the Rights, Liberties and FREEDOMS we ‘used to’ enjoy in this nation.

    fija(dot)org.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (12 votes cast)
  15. Mort_fComment by Mort_f
    December 7, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

    Obviously, Solomon was not the judge. And all the lawyers involved give credence to the fact that the law is an ***.

    You want to force me to bake you a ‘special’ cake, against my wishes? Fine. You will get a special cake, and I hope you enjoy it. But do remember that ‘special’ does incur special prices, and unless your specifications are extremely exact, then you have left yourself to my ‘artistic’ license. I hope that you, and your guests, truly enjoy it.

    Yes, I am repeating others.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (9 votes cast)
  16. prairelivingComment by praireliving
    December 7, 2013 @ 2:46 pm

    Seems to me that business owners are going to be asking the following questions before they agree to provide services:
    Your name?
    Your grooms/brides name?
    Where is the wedding going to be held?
    When?
    What type of cake/photos/flowers/etc. (depending on what service they provide) are you looking for?
    And a few other questions to try to discern what type of couple they are dealing with.

    Then follow it up with the statement (or something like it of): I don’t have my calendar updated and I will need to get back to you as to whether I will be able to provide services for your wedding.

    If the names don’t jive or after a quick Google search the provider can tell what type of couple it is they can either be ‘unable to provide service for you’ or ‘happy to participate in your day’.

    Forcing someone to provide a service is crazy. To suggest that other businesses don’t discriminate is untrue. Try going into a fancy restaurant in dirty, smelly clothes or walk into a store with no shirt or shoes or take small kids into a china shop…I am quite sure you’ll be asked to leave in a big hurry.

    Of course, asking someone who is morally against your lifestyle is just asking for problems and having your day ruined.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (13 votes cast)
  17. middlegroundComment by middleground
    December 7, 2013 @ 3:15 pm

    Let me get this complaint into focus. An administrative judge, who is an employee of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and thus an employee of the executive branch of government, has decided what constitutes a violation of the law without recourse to a real court with its built in protections. I see a real danger in this process. It is normal for those appointed to a Committee on Civil Rights to have a vested interest and not the “judicial impartiality required to give real justice to the accused”. In other words Colorado has set up a kangaroo court that will look for discrimination which is probably staffed by those who view all actions as evidence of discrimination. This cake baker was set up so the Civil Service Commission could show their fangs and it should never be allowed to act in this manner. Discrimination, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder and is in itself an organization with built in bias.

    We don’t need more than 7 divisions of government and all of them need to deal with real issues rather than illusion, For example, agencies to organize and improve the nation’s human resources, industrial resources, defense resources and 4 others agencies charged with moving the nation forward and improve the abilities of its citizens.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  18. sengalComment by sengal
    December 7, 2013 @ 3:51 pm

    Judges should refrain from handling frivolous lawsuits like this one.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (11 votes cast)
  19. nax777Comment by nax777
    December 7, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

    Another example of the separation of church and state power’s as rewritten by an earlier SCOTUS. Individual acceptance and rejection is a matter for government body’s to decide.
    http://www.numbersusa.com / http://www.goooh.com

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  20. kendude512013Comment by kendude512013
    December 7, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

    Whether or not people acknowledge God and His RIGHT to call the shots about right and wrong, His laws still trump ANY LAWS, including the US Constitution, if they contradict what He says. Period. Like it or not, agree or disagree. GOD is the FINAL AUTHORITY over man. So if a follower of Jesus Christ has to choose between obeying man’s laws, or God’s, it obvious what he MUST do. Like I said earlier, and I know people will COMPLETELY IGNORE what I’m saying, God’s law tells Christians not to partake in other people’s sins, such as homosexuality. A Christian that provides services to a homosexual marriage is disobeying Gods’ laws, and giving support to the homosexual lifestyle. They are, in effect saying, “I support the sin of homosexuality”. When mans laws, such as so-called “discrimination” laws, contradict God’s laws, God’s laws overrule them. Yes homosexuals who run businesses have every right to refuse service to someone, just as Christians can. There are laws in this country that in effect say that if you speak out against the homosexual lifestyle, you are guilty of “discrimination”. But God’s word calls homosexuality SIN, and Christians are to do the same, no matter what unbelievers think or say. We are do what is right in God’s sight, not man’s. There are also laws that exist to protect discrimination against Christians. Unfortunately in today’s society, just about everything God calls righteous behavior, the world calls it evil, and almost everything God calls evil behavior, the world calls it good. A SAD TESTAMENT OF HOW FAR DOWN THE MORAL TOILET WE’VE GONE. Mankind has been at war with GOD since the beginning of creation, and in the end, when Christ returns, if you are against Him, you will be judged, period. Whether or not you like it or agree with it. That is the UNSTOPPABLE destiny of the person who rejects God and His rule. You will lose. You will not win. It’s high time to come to your senses and stop fighting God. He had the first word, and He will have the last…

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (10 votes cast)
  21. gmhouchensComment by gmhouchens
    December 7, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

    A similar case occurred in Ypsilanti, MI several years ago. A local baking firm was ordered to bake for a gay-lesbian affair or lose their business license.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  22. linnComment by lina
    December 7, 2013 @ 9:52 pm

    To the good, decent people of the states that forced same sex counterfeit marriage on you:

    If you own a business and if you’re a Christian, you will be forced by the government to violate your First Amendment rights and will be forced to participate in this same sex counterfeit marriages.

    Consult a lawyer and have a contract drawn up to present to the sodomites when they insist that you violate your Christian faith.

    The contract will inform the sodomites that you’re a Christian and Christianity is a faith which is 24/7, 365 and can’t be “taken off” at will like a piece of garment. The contract will inform the sodomite that you’re aware that they can force you to participate in a sin with lawsuits, harassment, intimidation, bullying, boycotts, etc. Therefore, if they insist in forcing you to violate your First Amendment rights and your Christian conscience by forcing you to provide your services, they will be made aware that having to work under those conditions of stress, anxiety, duress, strife, and guilt, you will not be able to guarantee the quality of your services or your product. The total cost of the services, plus a $5,000 gratuity, will be due and payable up front with no guarantees and no refunds . . . sign here.

    Don’t know how the government could take action against you since you informed the customer of the possible quality – or lack of quality- of your services up front . . . and the customer still insisted on using your services and signed a contract.

    Now, if you’re a baker and you accidentally put Ex-lax instead of chocolate in the “wedding” cake, that would make for a very interesting and messy honeymoon night. LOL LOL

    And if they try to boycott your business or your suppliers, sue the sheet out of them . . . and hopefully, the decent people of will support you like they supported Chick-fil-a.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (10 votes cast)
    • ssoldieComment by ssoldie
      December 7, 2013 @ 11:34 pm

      Lina, I just read this and agree with you as I finally found a soul mate who use’s the right words to describe what the homosexual’s are sodomites. Ex-Lax is good and it really work’s.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  23. deckapeComment by deckape
    December 7, 2013 @ 10:59 pm

    hows about find the date they need the cake by and take a 2 week vacation with their date in the middle of it, or make it 5 days before and explain it coinsides with his vacation and for them come and pick it up.. so it sits and drys out.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (5 votes cast)
  24. braines57Comment by braines57
    December 9, 2013 @ 9:37 am

    The sad part about this is that the baker, acting within his Constitutionally guaranteed rights, should not have to defend himself for his choice. He should not have to incur the legal expenses, time lost from work, etc. to defend himself against this type of harassment. I say he doesn’t need to bake a cake of any kind and let the chips fall where they may. This judge is obviously some libtart trollop who is attempting to intimidate the the baker into doing something which goes against his beliefs. I would refuse and tell them all to bite my big toe.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer