[Tom C]

In my book of life's rules to live by... it contains the rule: "Never upset the cook before you have your meal" (actually mine is shortened to "Don't **** off the cook").


If for some reason you do not like the service (for whatever reason) don't fight it out with the person who will be soon making your food.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Tom C

In my book of life's rules to live by... it contains the rule: "Never upset the cook before you have your meal" (actually mine is shortened to "Don't **** off the cook").


If for some reason you do not like the service (for whatever reason) don't fight it out with the person who will be soon making your food.

Beware the kitchen's revenge!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

They got their five minutes of fame.

Speaking of weather, I have sweat dripping from places that shouldn't be dripping. Probably not getting any catcalls today...........Oh, wrong thread.

There's a right thread for that? What am I missing!

[redwitch]

This case isn’t the end of the issue. There are a few other cases going before the Supreme Court to decide whether civil rights or religious freedom will prevail. This was decided on a very limited basis — that a government entity cannot ignore religious beliefs (a commissioner made some disparaging remarks about religion when ruling that the baker should in fact have baked the cake.

Given the logic that it is okay to refuse to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc. due to the sexual preferences of the couple, does that mean the baker can refuse an interracial couple? Or a black couple? How about if they don’t speak English? What if they’re Catholic? The Civil Rights Act was created for a reason. LGBT people are to be accorded the same rights as you or me. So, if he’s selling to the public, why should he be able to discriminate and other companies can’t?

As to the gay couple just going to another baker, why should they and why should they shut up? Originally, they didn’t file a civil suit against the baker, they went to a local commission to have it rule whether this was discrimination. The commission said it was. The baker appealed. The ACLU appeared for the gay couple. So, they should just keep quiet and accept discrimination? I’m missing something or you guys are.

[Bjeanj]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Old folks convertible road rally yesterday - had to put the heater on. Also the furnace went on here in the Adirondack's last two nights. I'll just have to suffer. It is 55 degrees now at 1:30 pm. Think I'm going to light a fire.

Went to the pool today. According to my weather app, it’s 91, with a heat index of 105. How is that possible so early in June?!

PS. Am ignoring any political commentary.

[manaboutown]

IMHO the case was a set up, just as was the shakedown case that cost The Villages the Life long Learning College. Those two homosexuals entered that bakery to force a baker to violate his religious beliefs. They wanted their rights to take precedence over his rights. As for the ACLU, I find it revealing that it chose to back the homosexuals' "right" to force a baker to provide a homosexual wedding cake over his right to follow his religious beliefs in his business in a state in which same sex marriage may not be recognized or maybe even legal.

The two men got married in Massachusetts where same sex marriage is legal but wanted the cake baked in Colorado for their reception in Colorado where same sex marriage may not be recognized or legal? The whole story smells.

It's like going to a kosher deli and asking for a ham sandwich and a glass of milk!

Ridiculous lawsuits seem to be quite the trend these days. Man sues hundreds over disability violations | abc7.com

[Spikearoni]

Originally Posted by redwitch

This case isn’t the end of the issue. There are a few other cases going before the Supreme Court to decide whether civil rights or religious freedom will prevail. This was decided on a very limited basis — that a government entity cannot ignore religious beliefs (a commissioner made some disparaging remarks about religion when ruling that the baker should in fact have baked the cake.

Given the logic that it is okay to refuse to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc. due to the sexual preferences of the couple, does that mean the baker can refuse an interracial couple? Or a black couple? How about if they don’t speak English? What if they’re Catholic? The Civil Rights Act was created for a reason. LGBT people are to be accorded the same rights as you or me. So, if he’s selling to the public, why should he be able to discriminate and other companies can’t?

As to the gay couple just going to another baker, why should they and why should they shut up? Originally, they didn’t file a civil suit against the baker, they went to a local commission to have it rule whether this was discrimination. The commission said it was. The baker appealed. The ACLU appeared for the gay couple. So, they should just keep quiet and accept discrimination? I’m missing something or you guys are.

You are not missing a thing

[My Post]

Originally Posted by redwitch

As to the gay couple just going to another baker, why should they and why should they shut up? Originally, they didn’t file a civil suit against the baker, they went to a local commission to have it rule whether this was discrimination. The commission said it was. The baker appealed. The ACLU appeared for the gay couple. So, they should just keep quiet and accept discrimination? I’m missing something or you guys are.

The "local commission" was not elected. They appointed themselves.

Their views are meaningless legally or otherwise.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by My Post

The "local commission" was not elected. They appointed themselves.

Their views are meaningless legally or otherwise.

No wonder the commission treated that baker so miserably. It is a kangaroo court with an agenda!

Colorado Civil Rights Commissioners

Anthony Aragon, Democrat, Representing State or Local Government Entities, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Miguel "Michael" Rene Elias, Republican, Representing Community at Large, Pueblo (term expires: 3/13/20)
Carol Fabrizio, Unaffiliated, Representing Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Charles Garcia, Democrat, Representing Community at Large, Denver (term expires: 3/13/21)
Rita Lewis, Democrat, Representing Small Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
Jessica Pocock, Unaffiliated, Representing Community at Large, Colorado Springs (term expires: 3/13/20)
About the Commission

Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state Senate to serve four-year terms. They are selected from across Colorado and represent both political parties. Two commissioners represent business (one of whom represents small business), two represent government, and three represent the community at large. At least four of the commissioners are members of groups who have been or might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, or age.

As for the governor who appoints the members of this commission, Colorado has legalized marijuana. As a result all sorts of problems such as increasing vehicular deaths are resulting and he is lying to cover up the mess.

Governor Hickenlooper is dead wrong about pot in Colorado

[Shimpy]

Originally Posted by Tom C

"Don't **** off the cook").

That's why I don't send back anything to the kitchen.

[John_W]

Paraphrasing part of the opinion by the majority judge. Forcing the baker to bake a cake would be equal to forcing an artist to paint a picture. There is a creative process involved, which is different from most discrimination cases where all things are equal.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by redwitch

This case isn’t the end of the issue. There are a few other cases going before the Supreme Court to decide whether civil rights or religious freedom will prevail. This was decided on a very limited basis — that a government entity cannot ignore religious beliefs (a commissioner made some disparaging remarks about religion when ruling that the baker should in fact have baked the cake.

Given the logic that it is okay to refuse to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc. due to the sexual preferences of the couple, does that mean the baker can refuse an interracial couple? Or a black couple? How about if they don’t speak English? What if they’re Catholic? The Civil Rights Act was created for a reason. LGBT people are to be accorded the same rights as you or me. So, if he’s selling to the public, why should he be able to discriminate and other companies can’t?

As to the gay couple just going to another baker, why should they and why should they shut up? Originally, they didn’t file a civil suit against the baker, they went to a local commission to have it rule whether this was discrimination. The commission said it was. The baker appealed. The ACLU appeared for the gay couple. So, they should just keep quiet and accept discrimination? I’m missing something or you guys are.

You're blurring the lines in your post.....the decision was based on religious beliefs, refusing a black couple, a non-english speaking couple etc has no basis in religion. It was a narrow decision, let it be that rather than trying to expand it into an area that was not part of, or relates to, the decision.

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Beware the kitchen's revenge!

Yes, beware! One of my sons worked in a restaurant kitchen when he was in high school. He told us that if a customer ticked off a waitress, cook, etc., his food would be spit upon and then delivered to him. After I learned about this, I always took great care to never complain to any of the help. If it was bad enough, I did not return to that restaurant.

[EPutnam1863]

Originally Posted by John_W

Paraphrasing part of the opinion by the majority judge. Forcing the baker to bake a cake would be equal to forcing an artist to paint a picture. There is a creative process involved, which is different from most discrimination cases where all things are equal.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by JoMar

You're blurring the lines in your post.....the decision was based on religious beliefs, refusing a black couple, a non-english speaking couple etc has no basis in religion. It was a narrow decision, let it be that rather than trying to expand it into an area that was not part of, or relates to, the decision.

I agree with you. Whether or not people agree with his religious convictions, they are his religious convictions and they are not illegal.