Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to serve gay couple

[Idaho Conservative]

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

And you would be okay with this dude denying services to your parents because they were interracial?

Dude, you're entitled to your own opinions and ideology, but that's just f***** up.

He is trying to use emotional appeal in federal policy. Surely you can understand how one legally supports what one morally opposes?

Good to know that some people would be okay with someone denying services to an interracial couple.

I would, as the child of an interracial couple.

I'm also a child of an interracial couple, and this is an example of when "sticking to principles" results in incredibly idiotic conclusions.

My principles do not compromise or yield, except where they depend upon the faulty and changing ideas and facts of man. Call me whatever names you like, but that won't change my mind.

Yes, I can understand Concept in principle, however to apply that in practice to public businesses being able to deny services on the base of race is, I reiterate f****** stupid. Reread The Heart of Dixie case and realize this country and its free market economy are much much stronger due to a robust reading of the Commerce Clause.

 How in the name of bleeding Christ anyone can believe otherwise, morally, legally, philosophically, or for s**** and grins, after 50 years of the most patently indisputably successful and Society improving decision that the Congress and Supreme Court have ever put into action, at least during the century, is unreal to me.

For folks who do so saying I'm not racist I'm just very libertarian and my view of what government can restrict, your little better than a cross burning Klansman. Weather One support for doing so is based on a speech by Lester Maddox or reading Ayn Rand, the end result is still every bit as ugly, an American, and frankly anti-free Enterprise. The ability of consumers to freely choose goods and services is the basis of the free market according to Adam Smith, people not just the right of businesses to be dicks to people who don't look like them and their family. Barry Goldwater may get venerated now and again because he moderated and was willing to tell Jerry Falwell on the religious right to go to hell, and even though he probably didn't have a racist bone in his body, at least compared to any other man of his age in generation, he was still the racist best friend in government for his pushing a dead wrong policy.

And what the heck is a "public business"?  If I own a store, I is my property and not public in any way.  You saying the right to refuse service to and one, the right to own one's labor=racism shows profound ignorance on your part.  And you are a Republican? 

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

[Idaho Conservative]

I am ok with requiring a publicly-traded corporation to provide services equally to members of the public because a corporation is simply a legal entity with the sole purpose of delivering a profit to its shareholders.   However, I privately owned company should have the absolute right to refuse service to anyone, even to protected classes.   In terms of the masterpiece case, I am 100% on the side of the baker.  It is not the baker imposing his beliefs on the gay couple by not baking them a cake, it is the gay couple imposing their beliefs on the baker by trying to use the government to punish the baker for simply refusing a cake to their wedding.  The government should not be involved in this stuff at all. This is a private dispute between two parties.  This does not belong in any courtroom.  

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Yes, you're so smart that you just admitted that you believe it's ok go discriminate against others because they should have the right to discriminate. Amusing if it wasn't so sad.

Add to that, all your arguments are clearly going against the civil rights act because any business accept those that are left public corporations should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. Bring back to "no blacks" " no Jews" signs.

You are implying that it is not smart of me to express my belief the government shouldn't coerce private business owners into conduct they don't want to take part in.  Am I supposed to be ashamed of that belief?
I looked at your political compass numbers and it is pretty interesting to see how you, a fiscal centrist and social authoritarian, and me a fiscal conservative and social libertarian stack up on this issue.  According to the numbers I am 8 points to the left of you socially.  Fascinating.
Also, I don't oppose the civil rights Act of 1964, I only oppose Title II and parts of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   Most of the act was to prohibit the federal government, states, and municipalities from discriminating on the basis of race, religion, sex, national origin, etc.  I support those parts wholeheartedly.  In fact, I would even be in favor of adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act as long as Title II were repealed and Title VII were amended to no longer apply to private employers.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

  Of course the California leftist chooses not to debate the actually issue and cries "racist."   From my experience when someone resorts to insulting his opponent in a debate, it usually means he has no real arguments and has to resort to that. Classic.
The definition of racist according to the dictionary is:  a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
How is saying the government should not force business owners into a transaction they don't want to be in= saying one race is batter than another?   Race has nothing to do with property rights.  I am a colorblind person (not literally) and believe our laws must not take race into account.  Supporting laws that require businesses to discriminate of course is racist but simply not wanting any law on the matter is not racist.  Please try to respond next time with facts instead of inaccurate insults.

[Idaho Conservative]

On the one hand, forcing businesses to provide services to EVERYONE is problematic.
On the other- the mere notion of someone being denied service for his race/sexual orientation is repulsive and definitely against the principles we should have as democratic nations. Also, if one lives in a town where all bakeries won't provide him service because he's black or because he's gay- that is a terrible thing and he should be able to get service.
In conclusion- add sexual orientation to anti-discriminatory laws that already include race etc. LGBTQ people should be just as protected as people of color. A business should be able to deny service if the customer is being mean or violent- but if a baker wants to deny services because the customer is gay or black, which are exactly the same in terms of the lack of choice a person has over his birth, then let the damned baker pay a nice fine. A wedding gift, you could say.
Also, Wulfric-
You're making weird exceptions. Why is it just ok to deny services for a wedding and not ok otherwise? This is extremely weird. And lastly:

No Business should ever be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, or sex (that's just sex, not sexual orientation or gender identity, although I do support some CSR protections for those groups.).

So now you're making an exception for sexual orientation or gender identity? Ok to discriminate based on it, but not on sex or race? This is worse than weird, this is bizarrely bigoted.

Helping with a wedding is basically indicating one's full approval of a relationship coming into existence. No other occasion or service rises to that level.

Okay, hypothetically, should a devout Catholic cashier be able to refuse to sell condoms? Or maybe just refuse to sell them to gay couples?

Should an accountant be able to refuse to help a married homosexual couple file their taxes jointly?

Should a religious bridal shop owner be able to refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian?

Should a devout realtor be able to refuse to sell a home to a newlywed homosexual couple, where they'll live together?

Should a mattress store owner be able to refuse to sell a mattress to a gay couple, knowing that it will be where they'll consummate the marriage?

Should a small hotel manager be able to refuse to allow a gay couple's wedding party to stay in his hotel's rooms?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Now replace homosexual with black, and see yourself becoming a racist.
But or course, homophobia is ok because of religion. The feelings of religious people are ALWAYS the most important.

I'm too smart to fall for you trick.  You are trying to get me to be inconsistent and be ok with discrimination against gays but not blacks.   I am a consistent libertarian and support the right to refuse service to any protect class.  I am a white, straight, male and if a business owner wants to reuse service to me because of any of those characteristics, the power to them.  Special snowflakes get their feelings hurt and go crying al the way to the courthouse to impose their ideology on others.  My common sense solution is simple, go to another baker or make your own cake.  I have baked cakes before, it is not all that difficult.  Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal and other forms of discrimination shouldn't be.  The government must provide all services equally to everyone but private business owners don't have that same responsibility.

Congratulations .... you're a racist.

  Of course the California leftist chooses not to debate the actually issue and cries "racist."   From my experience when someone resorts to insulting his opponent in a debate, it usually means he has no real arguments and has to resort to that. Classic.
The definition of racist according to the dictionary is:  a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
How is saying the government should not force business owners into a transaction they don't want to be in= saying one race is batter than another?   Race has nothing to do with property rights.  I am a colorblind person (not literally) and believe our laws must not take race into account.  Supporting laws that require businesses to discriminate of course is racist but simply not wanting any law on the matter is not racist.  Please try to respond next time with facts instead of inaccurate insults.

No, not really.
You were just wishy-washy and you were questioning yourself if you were "a racist" or not ("Consistent libertarianism on this issue isn't racist.  It is only racist is you believe racial discrimination should be legal ...).
I just wanted to save you the cost and time of seeing a shrink, and just give it to you "straight."

I was demonstrating how my viewpoint is not racist.  This has nothing to do with race.  After all this thread is all about gay wedding cakes.

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

[Idaho Conservative]

Its always been interesting to me that the people who feel the need to moralise about ECONOMIC FREEDOM (which is a nonsense term to describe liberal economics anyway, but I won't get started on that) and talk about how discrimination isn't that bad and you can go elsewhere to get services always tend to be people that, eh, don't really ever face discrimination so don't know the consequences of it.  Its incredibly easy to moralise about something which you never really have to suffer...

One thing that was brought up earlier in the thread was the hotel thing; since that actually was a relatively big thing five years or so ago when a B&B owner basically refused to let a couple that he'd sold a room to stay there because he didn't approve of two men sleeping together.  Their legal defence was basically that it was because they disapproved of unmarried couples (which I think may have included civil partnerships because this was before marriage equality) sharing a double room together, but the court elected to rule against them mostly because they admitted to never refusing a straight couple a room on that basis (probably because they didn't ask the question), which seriously hurt that argument.  The laws here are different (although Freedom of Religion is protected by the ECHR and the Human Rights Act; precedent is that when a business or person is providing services to people and that service isn't exempt under the Equality Act (which is basically things like religious ministers or those in spiritual positions, hiring actors or models for a role where you need a specific type of person, where you might have certain cultural sensitivities to meet such as hiring only men to interview male survivors of domestic violence or on a hotline for men currently experiencing domestic violence and vice versa, very sensible things) then you have to meet the provisions of the equality act, which ban discrimination based on gender, race, disability sexual orientation, gender identity and age.  The US naturally does not have Federal anti-discrimination laws, and even though Colorado does have state laws on the subject they are on sketchier ground because the precedent allows for a much wider definition of the Freedom of Religion to include acts done through a business since that's seen as an extension of the person rather than a separate legal entity.  I mean in my eyes the couple are on the right side of this; but its certainly not a case that they're sadly guaranteed to win...

Actually the US does have non discrimination laws (unfortunately) but they don't apply to sexual orientation on a national level.   You mention that the morality of private property is not valid but what other moral issue is there here?  Yes there can be a moral debate whether private businesses should service all but to me it is immoral to force them to do so.  Also have a moral authority on this subject because I own property and would not want to be force do anything with my property that goes against my morals.   You have a right to one persons labor, and that person is you.   I guess in Belgium they have different world views on these issues, especially considering anti discrimination laws frequently pass unopposed in other countries but in America they always have many opponents like me.   I fail to understand these world views, especially in European countries which profess to be very live and let live and socially liberal, except when it comes to economic freedom and property rights.

[Idaho Conservative]

The problem most people aren't getting about this case is that this isn't just about cakes - having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent. Sure, it's cakes today. But what if every business owner decides to stop serving/catering to LGBT?

Laws are normative, they apply to everyone. Thus, they must not just work "for the current situation" where just one specific baker refuses to make a cake. They must work in a theoretical situation as well - what if every baker in a town refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because they disagree with it? What if every baker refused to bake a cake for an interracial couple's wedding because they claim their religion disapproves of it? What if every bake refused to bake a cake for a wedding between a man and a divorced woman? Even if these scenarios don't exist in real life, the law put in place must be able to provide a solution in them.

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

[Idaho Conservative]

"having such a ruling on the books creates a legal precedent" That's the idea.  It is good to have such rulings a precedent because it will have far reaching effects.  My dream Is this sets off a set of dominoes which eventually can strike down Title II of the Civil Rights Act and numerous state and local ordinances.  One this happens, there will be no more religious freedom issues with small businesses.  At least if I were on the court, I would rule that way.

Thank God you're not.

same to you

[Idaho Conservative]

If a person's religious belief that gay sex is a sin is bigotry, is that also true for religious beliefs that drinking alcohol is bigotry?

Social liberalism is getting more and more extreme.

Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic of a person. Choosing to drink alcohol is conduct.

To which you will respond that what is being disapproved of is the conduct of engaging in gay sex.

To which I will point out that plenty of bigots in the 50s argued that they had no problem with black people but opposed interracial sex on religious grounds.

Again, the issue in this case is not limited to discrimination against gay couples. The issue at stake in this case is whether a state legislature may regulate these types of personal services via anti-discrimination legislation, or whether all such measures must give way to first amendment claims of business owners.

Here, Colorado chose to add sexual orientation to the longstanding list of impermissible bases for discrimination that previously included race, sex, religion, age, disability, etc. To my knowledge Colorado has not added "use of alcohol" to that list. If you lived in Colorado, you would certainly have the right to petition your state legislature to change either of those facts. But what the baker in this case is asking for is for that law, passed by a democratically elected legislature, to be struck down by a court.

I disagree with the assertion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic.  I have no idea what causes homosexuality but I highly doubt that babies are born gay.

As for the comparison to interracial marriage, I don't think the two are comparable.  Opponents of interracial marriage twisted the Bible to make it fit into their cultural worldview.  Interracial marriage is actually in the Bible (Moses' wife was black).

Discrimination against homosexuals is when someone says "Gays can't buy my cakes."  It is not discrimination for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.  By Colorado's logic, it would be discrimination to refuse to bake a cake for a polyamorist wedding when that becomes legal.

Liberals say that sexual orientation and being in a gay wedding are closely related and the law protects the right to cake.   However also in CO, a baker refused to make an anti gay cake.  The state ruled that it was not discrimination based on religion.  If you think about it, a religious belief against homosexuality and religion are intertwined so anti discrimination law should have protected the right to an anti gay cake.  Saying we will serve gays but not service same-sex weddings is like saying we will serve Christians but not provide cakes for certain beliefs such as anti gay ones.  This is why saying, "we have the right to refuse service to anyone, deal with it." is so much simpler.  Liberty works best.

LOL.
One is asking for a cake for love, the other for hate.
Are you that daft ?

The gay couple in the masterpiece case is so loving that they took the baker all the way to the courthouse after they didn't get their cake.  My solution is simple, be a man and go to a different store.
 Still, you can't formulate persuasive or logical arguments, just belief statements of identity politics and vague discussion of love and hate.  In your name you call yourself a moderate but moderates generally don't debate by crying "racist."  Are you from the SF Bay area?  Only there would you be considered a moderate.

You are ignorant. Just because you take someone to court does not mean you "hate" the other party. It's just that an injustice has been committed, and the parties seek the courts to find resolution.
Sometimes, a debate comes down to simple issues, like love and hate. Of course you cant except that, because you have such a sh**tty life full of hatred, that it hurts you just to hear the word "love." I mean listen to yourself .... you are so hung-up on the definition of a "moderate" and then trying to find some obtuse link to it with "the SF Bay area." Really ?
LOL. I just laugh at people like you.

Uhhh.... still no logical arguments about why a business should or shouldn't be forced to participate in a gay wedding.  I never said the gay couple hated the Christian baker (but get real. they absolutely do)  No injustice was committed except for that Colorado law that was passed that made this a legal issue at all. No, I don't laugh back at you because I realize people like you vote for people that make laws that affect ME.  Your state does send some great people to congress like Doug LaMalfa, Tom McClintock, and Dana Rohrabacher though.   Doesn't make up for Kamala Harris and Pelosi........  At least you reverting to profanity and name calling shows that I am winning the argument and you know it.  Roasted.

[Idaho Conservative]

Do you think they should be forced to provide that cake?

[Idaho Conservative]

I don't get the purpose of suing to have the right to give your money to someone that hates you.

I don't get this either. Why would one do business with a company that rejects them for being gay? What good is there in giving them your money to help them turn a profit and stay in business?

Because if enough people feel entitled to do so, you end up getting kicked out of the market for who you are, and then that's a problem.

Where is this true of? There's probably a very tiny subset of situations where you have a gay couple in a rural area where there's only one bakery in town and only that bakery makes cakes and denies them service.

For the most part there's other options available.

And for those who don't have those options? Sucks for them? What if we were talking about Jim Crow laws? Would you say the same?

Who are these people who don't have options and why? Is it cuz they live in an extremely small town isolated rural area where there's only one bakery in town who won't serve them? I highly doubt these people couldn't just go to the media and either force the Baker into making them one or get enough press coverage to make a gofundme to pay somebody to come into town to bake them their own cake. Giving that person money is a far better endeavor then giving money to some homophobic douchebag dontcha think?

Also LOL at comparing this to black people and Jim Crow. Holy sh*t that comparison is beyond stupid.

Not getting some dumb cake for a wedding from a local Baker has got to be one of the whitest of white bread, first world middle class problems a federal circuit court has dealt with in American history. It's like snobby San Francisco hippies found a pet issue to play with and it escalated out of control.

Not being served in a public business because of who you are and the owners and communities antipathy towards your type, be at a cake shop, restaurant counter, bus station, or other Private Business, yes is the exact definition of Jim Crow.

If some 1962 Bakery in Mississippi told a young black couple waiting to get married to get out of there store cuz they don't serve ns oh, you wouldn't consider that Jim Crow?

What is a "public business"?  something is not public unless it is owned and ran by the government.  People just say "public business"  because they don't want to say they are in favor of forcing a private business to provide services against their will.  
Also, being refused at a private business is not Jim Crow.  Jim Crow was a set of laws passed by Southern States that enforced racial segregation in both public spaces and private businesses. They forced businesses to segregate customers by race.  If the business refuses service on their own volition, that aint Jim Crow, it is just refusal of service.  In my ideal system, we would have maximum liberty.   The government would treat everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, ect.  However, privately owned businesses would have the right to refuse service to anyone, except for large, incorporated, crucial services like a utility or mega corporation like Wal-Mart.
I find it interesting that I agree on this issue more with some of the Democrats on this thread than Badger, the Ohio Republican.