Page 164 of 173 FirstFirst ... 64114154162163164165166 ... LastLast
Results 1,631 to 1,640 of 1723

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

  1. #1631
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    I see what you mean regarding my take on discriminating the baker's religion, sorry was in hurry trying to do several chores at one time.

    I should say violating his religious belief through the judicial power. I think it's totalitarian tactics for the judicial branch to force a private business owner to cater to an event that runs contra to one's religious principle.

    The baker was NOT discriminating the gay customers. He just just refused to be a part of the event. Event is not a person.

    With regards to female bodies, as a professional photographer or artist I would serve the ladies, gay or straight, no difference. Just no men, gay or straight. Can the court force me to do otherwise?

    I think I need to take a break and get busy with my other chores.
    I have to go pick up my kids soon too... in a way the government violating his religious belief through judicial power. But it is with his consent. He consented to opening a business knowing full well that discrimination is illegal. :shrugs:

    No, he was discriminating against the gay customers. He was not a part of any event. He was baking a cake for the event. Ever see Tanked or Cake Boss or any of those shows? Could you imagine an episode of Tanked where they show them NOT making a fish tank when part way through the interview they find out they are gay? Sure we will build you the best tank eva! Oh! You are gay. Sorry... we won't build you the tank now.

    With regards to photography? I am not sure, to be honest. If you were a female photographer only, for some reason, I can't see how or why you should have to. A photographer takes wedding photos only and you go up and say, hey take a picture of me and my dog. He says, that is not my business... that is fine. You make wedding cakes and say no to one person for the reason of sexual orientation then that is discrimination.
    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. #1632
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 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
    Please quote me from the Bible regarding your claim.

    The claim wasn't that it was accurate, the claim is that people used the Bible as justification to discriminate against interracial couples.

    " At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [p3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 199, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

    Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

    Richard Perry LOVING et ux., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute

    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-11-13 at 09:43 PM.

  3. #1633
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    If it was a frivolous lawsuit, the case would have been dismissed. Since the couple won the case, it is a priori evidence that the case wasn't frivolous.

    BTW - it wasn't a "lawsuit", the couple did not file in Civil Court. They logged a complaint with Colorado equivalent of the EEOC.


    >>>>
    What are you talking about? Frivolous lawsuits get through once in awhile.

    You know, Colorado doesn't even recognize gay marriage, and y'all are worried about cake. Denying gay marriage IS government force against right (marriage contract is a government issued and recognized contract), and we're going to cry over some cake? Priorities people!
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #1634
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:12 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,809

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

    Quote Originally Posted by stonewall50 View Post
    Actually you do. So why say that?
    You are calling me a liar.

    I don't remember you being a prick...

    Have a nice day.
    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.

  5. #1635
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 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
    Like I said, there is no legitimate basis for that. So why are you beating a dead horse?
    Are the moral convictions of a racist who wants to discriminate against black people to be held as less valid than the moral convictions of someone that wants to discriminate against gays as long as they claim it's because of their personal religious beliefs?


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-11-13 at 09:44 PM.

  6. #1636
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 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 Ikari View Post
    That certainly is the law. Not exactly just since one has no right to another's property or labor, but laws don't always have to be just.
    Many people seem to not realize that what they think the law should be and what in reality the law is are two different things.

    I discuss what the law is. Would it surprise you to learn I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws on the basis that the usurp the property rights of the owner? Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in their entirety as they apply to customer service for private business.

    However I don't support "special privileges" for someone to be able to claim a religious exemption to the law which narrowly targets only homosexuals. Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and apply equally to all.

    Justice Scalia points out in Emloyment Division v. Smith:

    "Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

    Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

    (Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

    are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

  7. #1637
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 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 Ikari View Post
    Wedding cake is certainly a subset of Cake....you do know what cake is, yes?
    Why yes I do. The claim was the baker would sell any cake to any customer. When in fact the baker would only sell any cake to straight customers, he would sell any cake **OTHER** than a wedding cake to gay customers.

    Logically speaking then the baker would not sell any cake to any customer because if that were true he would have sold a wedding cake to the gay customer - and this thread wouldn't exist.


    >>>>

  8. #1638
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Many people seem to not realize that what they think the law should be and what in reality the law is are two different things.

    I discuss what the law is. Would it surprise you to learn I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws on the basis that the usurp the property rights of the owner? Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in their entirety as they apply to customer service for private business.

    However I don't support "special privileges" for someone to be able to claim a religious exemption to the law which narrowly targets only homosexuals. Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and apply equally to all.

    Justice Scalia points out in Emloyment Division v. Smith:

    "Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

    Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

    (Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

    are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
    Are they? Curves allows only women, but because men are not protected class it's OK. I'm really fine with it in general, but it's not an equal application of government force.

    I can respect the desire to move the law to reflect a proper use of force that is equally held to everyone, I want the same thing. But I argue that the law is innately unjust and that for proper use of government force, we can only protect the rights and liberties of the individual; not make up more. Religion should be protected as it is necessary to do so, a persons religious beliefs respected...or rather endured, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. And since one has no right to another's property or labor, I cannot accept it as proper use of government force.

    Free is not easy, it's not quick, it's not safe. We bear the responsibility of upholding societal morals through our own actions. We can't cry to government for everything, we won't be able to do anything if we do. We are responsible to our fellow Americans and to accept their rights and liberties, to do what's necessary through personal action and will to uphold what is right, and to turn to government only in the protection of rights. There's no other way to remain free.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #1639
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,848

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Are the moral convictions of a racist who wants to discriminate against black people be held as less valid than the moral convictions of someone that wants to discriminate against gays as long as they claim it's because of their personal religious beliefs?
    You can not legislate racism or bigotry toward certain groups away. People will always have a belief or an opinion that others may find bigoted. That's life. But when you have discrimination laws that recognize only one group's so called rights while denying another their rights protected under the Constitution then you have bad law.

  10. #1640
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 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 Ikari View Post
    Are they? Curves allows only women, but because men are not protected class it's OK. I'm really fine with it in general, but it's not an equal application of government force.
    When a Public Accommodation law includes "Sex" men are included. Male is one of the two sexes ya know.


    >>>>

Posting Permissions

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