Page 166 of 173 FirstFirst ... 66116156164165166167168 ... LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,660 of 1723

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

  1. #1651
    Wading Through Bull****
    shagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,493

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

    It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
    Could It Be Semantics Generating This Mess We're In?

  2. #1652
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
    Get serious. Its not even CLOSE to the analogy you claim. A better analogy would be for a Jewish Baker to bake a wedding cake for a Christian customer. Its not like these guys asked the baker to bake a cake depicting erect penises and one guy performing oral sex on the other. They asked for the same type of wedding cake that this baker normally provides. It ABSOLUTELY had to do with the customers.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #1653
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
    They can't recognize the concept of adults refusing to do what they are told. Many aging adolescents prefer to spend their lives in a 'nanny state', and want everyone else to do the same.

  4. #1654
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    It sounds like the baker had an issue with the requested cake, not the customers (assuming i got the facts right) and that they'd have no problem baking cakes for them, just not an overtly gay wedding cake. to hyperbolize it.... imagine asking a devout jewish baker to bake and decorate a cake displaying hitler (OMG godwin!) with his hand on the gassing lever and his foot on a the head of a dead emaciated prisoner? If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.

    What it sounds like is something that was made up.

    The baker and the couple never even got to the point of deciding what cake or how it would be decorated. As soon as the couple introduced themselves and indicated that the cake was for their wedding the conversation ended. (On this the baker and the couple agree.)

    Any discussion of "rainbow" cakes, and "overtly gay wedding cake", or "hyperbolized" cake are fictitious and made up.

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
    Hitler is not a race, creed, marital status, sex, sexual orientation of ethnicity. Refuse the cake order all you want.

    Quote Originally Posted by shagg View Post
    If the baker unilaterally refused to serve gay customers it would be different.
    In correct, the law requires "Full and Equal" treatment. A restaurant would also be in violation if they presented a menu to the white patrons and said order anything you want. To the black customers they gave a menu with only Fried Chicken.

    They didn't unilaterally refuse to serve the black customer, but they would still be in violation.



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-12-13 at 03:37 PM.

  5. #1655
    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
    Thank you. That's pretty obvious, not sure why you said it. But thank you anyway.

    Here is one for you. I like Dell computers, I don't represent all computer users.


    >>>>
    If it's pretty obvious to you then you should know that your argument about discrimination based on sexual orientation is without merit.

    Ya, great that you like Dell. Do people have problem against Dell or all computer users? NOPE. So, what's your issue?

  6. #1656
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 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
    If it's pretty obvious to you then you should know that your argument about discrimination based on sexual orientation is without merit.

    Ya, great that you like Dell. Do people have problem against Dell or all computer users? NOPE. So, what's your issue?

    It's not "my" argument that the discrimination was based on the sexual orientation of the customers in the Colorado case. That was the ruling of the presiding judge. Just as it was the ruling of the presiding Judge in the New Mexico case, the appellate judges in New Mexico, and the New Mexico Supreme Court. It was also the decision of the presiding Judge in the similar Washington case. In all three cases (two bakers and one photographer), at different levels, the recognition was that the basis of discrimination was sexual orientation in violation of that state Public Accommodation laws.


    >>>>

  7. #1657
    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
    It's not "my" argument that the discrimination was based on the sexual orientation of the customers in the Colorado case. That was the ruling of the presiding judge. Just as it was the ruling of the presiding Judge in the New Mexico case, the appellate judges in New Mexico, and the New Mexico Supreme Court. It was also the decision of the presiding Judge in the similar Washington case. In all three cases (two bakers and one photographer), at different levels, the recognition was that the basis of discrimination was sexual orientation in violation of that state Public Accommodation laws.


    >>>>
    I don't know about the other cases. Just this baker case, the judge is clearly wrong. In my first post here I had already pointed his basic flaws.

  8. #1658
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 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
    I don't know about the other cases. Just this baker case, the judge is clearly wrong. In my first post here I had already pointed his basic flaws.

    Your first post in the tread was an appeal to emotion by use of taking a small snippet out of context -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1062652946

    The law however is available here -- COCODE

    The Judges full ruling is available here -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f..._2013-0008.pdf



    The ruling was fully correct based on the law, the arguments, and the precedents from higher courts. That doesn't mean the ruling can't be appealed and eventually the SCOTUS allowed to update the precedent applicable to the lower courts.

    However that doesn't mean the Judge was "wrong" given the confines of his position. Just because we may disagree with Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses, that doesn't mean that he was "wrong" either.


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-12-13 at 05:08 PM.

  9. #1659
    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
    Your first post in the tread was an appeal to emotion by use of taking a small snippet out of context -->> http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1062652946

    The law however is available here -- COCODE

    The Judges full ruling is available here -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f..._2013-0008.pdf



    The ruling was fully correct based on the law, the arguments, and the precedents from higher courts. That doesn't mean the ruling can't be appealed and eventually the SCOTUS allowed to update the precedent applicable to the lower courts.

    However that doesn't mean the Judge was "wrong" given the confines of his position. Just because we may disagree with Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses, that doesn't mean that he was "wrong" either.


    >>>>
    There is nothing emotional about my position. It is your position that is an appeal to emotion. For instance, the judge talked about "hurt" but there's no constitutional right to protect your emotion from being hurt. He also talked about discrimination against gays due to their sexual orientation but he ignored the fact that the baker was willing to bake the gay couples any other cakes just not the one for the gay wedding that he wanted no part of due to his religious belief. Besides that the baker didn't discriminate the particular gay couples or the majority of the whole class of gay people who never intended to settle down with only one partner in a marriage. What the baker refused to have any part of was the "event" to which the lifestyle must not be compelled upon someone who want no part of it let alone an antithesis to his religious conviction, which is protected by the Constitution and triumphs any state laws or your misinterpretation thereof. Clearly the judge misinterpreted the state law to include particular "event".

  10. #1660
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:10 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
    There is nothing emotional about my position. It is your position that is an appeal to emotion. For instance, the judge talked about "hurt" but there's no constitutional right to protect your emotion from being hurt. He also talked about discrimination against gays due to their sexual orientation but he ignored the fact that the baker was willing to bake the gay couples any other cakes just not the one for the gay wedding that he wanted no part of due to his religious belief.
    Which if you review the law is irrelevant. The baker refused to provide the "full and equal" array of goods and services as required by the law. The Judge was not "wrong" about that. Selling all cake types to straight customers and all **but** wedding cakes to gay customers is not in compliance with the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Besides that the baker didn't discriminate the particular gay couples or the majority of the whole class of gay people who never intended to settle down with only one partner in a marriage.
    What?

    Ah - ya the baker did discriminate against this particilar gay couple. He refused to provide them the same goods and services.

    What this whole "majority of the whole class of people" is I'm not understanding. The law doesn't require that he discriminate against every gay person in the United States before being in violation of the law. It only take one customer (or in this case couple).

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    What the baker refused to have any part of was the "event" to which the lifestyle must not be compelled upon someone who want no part of it let alone an antithesis to his religious conviction, which is protected by the Constitution and triumphs any state laws or your misinterpretation thereof. Clearly the judge misinterpreted the state law to include particular "event".
    Psst - Again, stop trying to make it about "me" and "my interpretations". This is the application of the case law from multiple states (Washington, Colorado, New Mexico) and the SCOTUS which have ALL upheld Public Accommodation laws in which they have been found Constitutional.

    Here again is the law:

    "(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."


    There is no "event" exception that I see in the law. If there is please point it out.

    The law clearly states that businesses must provide "Full and Equal" access to goods and services. It does not say there are special exceptions for this "event" or that "event".



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-12-13 at 06:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

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