Page 154 of 173 FirstFirst ... 54104144152153154155156164 ... LastLast
Results 1,531 to 1,540 of 1723

Thread: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

  1. #1531
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,804

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Oh hell no I wouldn't either.

    Just so you know, if I go into a Detroit barber shop and say, "Cut my hair, nigger", I expect you to file an anti-discrimination suit on my behalf...after you deliver my eulogy.
    I would suggest you don't do that... but I know you live life on the edge.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  2. #1532
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:12 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,804

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Who pays property taxes? Are they funded with public money? If no, then it's private. Just because you want access to other people's property doesn't make it public property.
    I never said it was public property. I said it was a business open to the public. Once you open it to the public then you have to abide by public policies... Do you think that restaurants should be able to deny black people, or gays, the right to dine there as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  3. #1533
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

    As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.

    This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.

    Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.

  4. #1534
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    I think you completely miss the point. You're conflating discrimination and free speech. A business which operates publicly is required to abide by discrimination laws which clearly state that nobody can be denied service based solely on gender, race, or sexual orientation. This is law. The reason the judge ruled this way is because the state law is clear and there is extensive precedent. It's not like some extreme liberal judge just said "what the heck, I like gays! Let's give those bakers hell!"

    On the other hand, religious freedom and the freedom of speech are both extremely well protected in the United States. An example for each: Scientology is considered a religion and it is allowed to operate even though it's obviously a money hungry cult. Other countries aren't so generous to them. And the Westboro Baptist Church continues to go around the country saying things that nobody likes and yet the only thing the government has done to stop them is say they have to picket a little further away from funerals than they previously had been. Free speech law hasn't really changed at all in hundreds of years.

    Discrimination isn't speech, it's bigotry. Allowing businesses to discriminate makes people less free, not more. There's a reason the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it wasn't because business owners were too free, it was because minorities were treated as subhuman and thus they had limited freedom.
    It shocks me how many people want to go backward thinking it's forward
    .



    It not only doesn't shock me, it doesn't even surprise me that some people (Mostly Libertarians.) in the USA think that they will take the USA back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act days.

    But it's not going to happen because too many Americans want to see the USA go forwards, not backwards.

  5. #1535
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

    As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.

    This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.

    Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.

    Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.

    Colorado Revised Statutes
    24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

    (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.



    No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.

    In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.



    >>>>

  6. #1536
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
    Of course, there is no harm caused to anyone by not selling them a cake.

  7. #1537
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.

    Colorado Revised Statutes
    24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

    (2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.



    No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.

    In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.



    >>>>
    FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.

    If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?

    And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.

  8. #1538
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Just that the claim was that their feeling was hurt.

  9. #1539
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.

    If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?

    And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.

    I find it funny, you try to equate the wedding cake to claiming that is what I said then call it absurd. Classic strawman.

    Face it. You got spanked for dumb post which mis-characterized what Public Accommodation laws do. Deal with it.



    >>>>

  10. #1540
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    I find it funny, you try to equate the wedding cake to claiming that is what I said then call it absurd. You got spanked for dumb post which mischaracterised what Public Accommodation laws do. Deal with it.



    >>>>
    Then what did you say?

    Is refusing to bake a wedding cake a discrimination against your disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry according to your so-called "Public Accommodation law"?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •