No pizzas for gays!

[Boxlicker101]

The point is that the very same arguments were made to justify refusing service to black people that are being made to justify refusing service to the LGBT community.

Same bigotry, different target.

Without disagreeing with you about bigotry, there is no federal law making any LGB a protected group. There is a law about gender, so a T might be able to successfully claim violation of civil rights. I doubt there has ever been a court case about this.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Except that's not true. Same sex unions existed then, certainly in the period covered by the new testament.

Were they actually solemnized marriages or just shackups?

I don't now what the NT says about gay sex, but I am quite sure if there were strictures against it, people violated them, just as they did those against committing adultery.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm fairly certain you missed the point.

I refuted this post and answered the question included in it:

Originally Posted by about_average View Post

Yes, a business should be allowed to refuse service to any customers they want.

Or did the US decide there was a problem with that?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm curious about something. If a straight couple wanted to get married and they went to a baker, who was gay, to order a wedding cake and they wanted the cake to be emblazoned GOD HATES FAGS would the baker be allowed to refuse to provide the service?

Not that I would ever do such a thing but, if the baker refused, would he be violating the civil rights of the couple?

Probably this would be one of those instances where an exception would be made.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm curious about something. If a straight couple wanted to get married and they went to a baker, who was gay, to order a wedding cake and they wanted the cake to be emblazoned GOD HATES FAGS would the baker be allowed to refuse to provide the service?

Not that I would ever do such a thing but, if the baker refused, would he be violating the civil rights of the couple?

Probably this would be one of those instances where an exception would be made.

Yes, the baker could refuse, because that's actively hate speech. Not the same thing as just baking a cake with a standard decorating.

The more iffy question is whether the baker of the first instance (not believing in gay marriage) could be required to put a figurine of two grooms on top of the cake. No, if the baker doesn't do that service at all. Iffy if the baker does do that service and actually has a two-groom figurine in stock (like maybe they buy in sets and groom-groom figurines are included in the sets and the baker hasn't discarded them). Probably not otherwise.

The kicker, though, is that it's all affected by the specific state laws.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Send for the wahhhh stretcher, and the wahhhmbulance.

Pity the miserable hater that tried to get a "hate cake" from the Azucar Bakery in Denver.

Marjorie Silva, owner of Denver's Azucar Bakery, told The Associated Press after the case was filed that she agreed to make a Bible-shaped cake, but balked when the man showed her a piece of paper with what she considered hateful words about gays that he wanted written on the cake. He also wanted the cake to have two men holding hands and an X on top of them, Silva said.

She said she would make the cake, but she declined to write his suggested messages, telling him she would give him icing and a pastry bag so he could write the words himself. Silva said the customer didn't want that.

Someone's words$

"...apparently wasn’t good enough for the blithering wingnut Jack, so he ran off and cried to the Colorado Civil Rights Division about his religious freedom being violated, because one of the sacraments of his church is apparently eating cake with anti-gay messages written on the top."

The Colorado Civil Rights Division has officially told him to fuck off:


Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled Friday that Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack because the baker offered to bake the cake and let the customer write his own message, which the baker considered derogatory.

http://m.gazette.com/colorado-offic...efusal-did-not-violate-rights/article/1549160

http://wonkette.com/581997/colorado...ake-death-to-fags-cakes-how-is-that-even-fair

 

[Busybody]

the REAL question is

would GAZE g to a MUSLIM baker? NO!

why then go where they may be turned down, where there are dozens of other locations to choose from?

WHY?

WE KNOW

W
H
Y

seems so many pretend to IGNORE this question

easier to IGNORE then to answer, isn't it?

 

[about_average]

I refuted this post and answered the question included in it:
[/B]

Not really. Many people (probably most if you put them on the spot asking for a reason) didn't want to serve "coloreds" because it went against god.

 

[about_average]

Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled Friday that Azucar Bakery did not discriminate against William Jack because the baker offered to bake the cake and let the customer write his own message, which the baker considered derogatory.

http://m.gazette.com/colorado-offic...efusal-did-not-violate-rights/article/1549160

http://wonkette.com/581997/colorado...ake-death-to-fags-cakes-how-is-that-even-fair

Ha! Perfect!

 

[Busybody]

Yes, a business should be allowed to refuse service to any customers they want.

http://abhmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WeWashForWhitePeople.jpg

Or did the US decide there was a problem with that?

who is refusing what to who?

 

[about_average]

Were they actually solemnized marriages or just shackups?

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites’ departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated.

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

I don't know all the legal ramifications of a same sex union in the ancient world, but today, in the US, married or not married (as recognized by the state) has definite ramifications for a couple.

In any case, this law isn't about marriage, the law is about being able to refuse service to someone because of the way you interpret your holy book.