Page 167 of 173 FirstFirst ... 67117157165166167168169 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,670 of 1723

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

  1. #1661
    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
    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.



    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).



    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".



    >>>>
    There's no denying the judge is completely wrong. There was no discrimination against the gay couples or any gays for that matter. You keep refusing to acknowledge that it was the event that contradicts the baker's religious belief that was the core of the matter. Your misinterpretation of the law was laid out for you to see, but as always you refused to acknowledge it and thus we are just going in repeat circles on and on and getting nowhere.

    If I bring my foreign car to some car repair shops where the shop owners told me they don't service or repair foreign cars, are they discriminating me because of my nationality? Of course not.

    All I have to do is bring my car to a car repair shop which service and repair foreign cars. I can't dictate to any particular car repair shop and insist they repair my foreign car whether they like it or not.

    BTW, how long does it take for the case to wind up in court? And were these gay couples just not getting any wedding cake elsewhere for their wedding or did they just post-pone their wedding until this case is all settled all the way to the supreme court? So that they could get this particular baker to bake them some friggin gay wedding cake?
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 12-12-13 at 06:30 PM.

  2. #1662
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 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's no denying the judge is completely wrong.
    Ah - ya there is. According to the law the Judge made the correct decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    There was no discrimination against the gay couples or any gays for that matter.
    Let me get this straight (no pun intended).

    The baker would sell any cake to straight customers (couples), but would not sell the same cake that he would sell to a straight couple - and you claim there was no discrimination? Now that's just being obtuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    You keep refusing to acknowledge that it was the event that contradicts the baker's religious belief that was the core of the matter.
    That's because the "event" is irrelevant. The baker sold wedding cakes, weddings are an event the baker supplied cakes for, the customers wanted to purchase a wedding cake. It wasn't the "event" that was the reason for the no sail, it was the customers that weren't allowed to purchase the wedding cake. "Events" don't purchase cakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Your misinterpretation of the law was laid out for you to see, but as always you refused to acknowledge it and thus we are just going in repeat circles on and on and getting nowhere.
    Again it's not "my interpretation of the law", its what is written in the law, applied by multiple courts at multiple levels in multiple states and by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    It seems to be you do not want to acknowledge that Public Accommodation Laws have been around for over 100 years, they have been reviewed by lower courts, state courts, state Supreme Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States and been found to be valid exercise of the States (and in some cases Federal) governments powers to regulate commerce. Banking on the SCOTUS overturning the laws is not a good bet, instead we need to work to repeal such laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    If I bring my foreign car to some car repair shops where the shop owners told me they don't service or repair foreign cars, are they discriminating me because of my nationality? Of course not.
    Let's assume you are Irish, just for the sake of your analogy.

    I agree they aren't. Because the domestic car dealer does not repair foreign cars. Public Accommodation laws do not require that a business provide goods or services that are not normally supplied. The foreign car shop (if it) dosent repair domestic cars is not required to provide such a service to any customer. However if the car shop you take the foreign car to does repair foreign cars and refuses to repair your car because you are Irish, then that is discrimination based on National Origin which is in violation of the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    All I have to do is bring my car to a car repair shop which service and repair foreign cars. I can't dictate to any particular car repair shop and insist they repair my foreign car whether they like it or not.
    Correct. However you have ignored the reason they refused to repair your foreign car.

    If the shop refuses because they are backed up, because they are closing for the holidays and everyone will be on vacation, or for any other of a variety of reasons - that's it. However if the shop tells you they won't repair your car because you are Irish that is in violation of the law. You can then report them for violating the law after having your car towed to a different repair shop.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    BTW, how long does it take for the case to wind up in court?
    Usually months.

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    And were these gay couples just not getting any wedding cake elsewhere for their wedding or did they just post-pone their wedding until this case is all settled all the way to the supreme court? So that they could get this particular baker to bake them some friggin gay wedding cake?
    They probably did get a cake at another location.

    That does not preclude them reporting the bakery for unlawful discrimination. You are under the misunderstanding that the report of offense is intended to make the business to fill that specific order. Usually it's not, it's simply to report the violation of the law.


    >>>>

  3. #1663
    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 disneydude View Post
    People are entitled to live in a society where businesses are not free to discriminate, yes...absolutely. That is one of the foundations of this country. We do not support bigotry and discrimination. Sorry...but that's the American way.
    That is not one of the foundations of this country, it was to create a government which held our rights and liberties. Freedom. There are bigots in a free society and a man has no right to another man's property or labor. It's not the American way.
    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. #1664
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

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

    It's nice to know that so many people here support compulsory sales.

    In all the business/accounting/contract law classes I've taken, which are multiple, a contract made under duress is voidable. My professors forgot to tell me that it's not the case when the government is the party forcing the duress.

    It goes to show what I've said for the longest time - the only true monopoly is the government.

  5. #1665
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    That is not one of the foundations of this country, it was to create a government which held our rights and liberties. Freedom. There are bigots in a free society and a man has no right to another man's property or labor. It's not the American way.
    You have a rather distorted view about the foundations and values of this country (then again you sit in your house thinking that the big bad government is around every corner with their guns drawn.....so it kinda explains it).


    Our rights and liberties involve being free of discrimination and bigotry. Sorry...but that's life.
    <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>

  6. #1666
    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
    Ah - ya there is. According to the law the Judge made the correct decision.



    Let me get this straight (no pun intended).

    The baker would sell any cake to straight customers (couples), but would not sell the same cake that he would sell to a straight couple - and you claim there was no discrimination? Now that's just being obtuse.



    That's because the "event" is irrelevant. The baker sold wedding cakes, weddings are an event the baker supplied cakes for, the customers wanted to purchase a wedding cake. It wasn't the "event" that was the reason for the no sail, it was the customers that weren't allowed to purchase the wedding cake. "Events" don't purchase cakes.



    Again it's not "my interpretation of the law", its what is written in the law, applied by multiple courts at multiple levels in multiple states and by the Supreme Court of the United States.

    It seems to be you do not want to acknowledge that Public Accommodation Laws have been around for over 100 years, they have been reviewed by lower courts, state courts, state Supreme Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States and been found to be valid exercise of the States (and in some cases Federal) governments powers to regulate commerce. Banking on the SCOTUS overturning the laws is not a good bet, instead we need to work to repeal such laws.



    Let's assume you are Irish, just for the sake of your analogy.

    I agree they aren't. Because the domestic car dealer does not repair foreign cars. Public Accommodation laws do not require that a business provide goods or services that are not normally supplied. The foreign car shop (if it) dosent repair domestic cars is not required to provide such a service to any customer. However if the car shop you take the foreign car to does repair foreign cars and refuses to repair your car because you are Irish, then that is discrimination based on National Origin which is in violation of the law.



    Correct. However you have ignored the reason they refused to repair your foreign car.

    If the shop refuses because they are backed up, because they are closing for the holidays and everyone will be on vacation, or for any other of a variety of reasons - that's it. However if the shop tells you they won't repair your car because you are Irish that is in violation of the law. You can then report them for violating the law after having your car towed to a different repair shop.



    Usually months.



    They probably did get a cake at another location.

    That does not preclude them reporting the bakery for unlawful discrimination. You are under the misunderstanding that the report of offense is intended to make the business to fill that specific order. Usually it's not, it's simply to report the violation of the law.


    >>>>
    It's getting very tiresome for me to have to repeat myself over and over again to the same old points you kept recycled ad nauseam.

    Bottom line is:

    1. gay couples committing to marriage is a small percentage of the whole gay community and therefore do not represent the whole calss.

    2. Refusal to bake wedding cake for gay couples planning to get married does not constitute discrimination against the whole class of gay people and since the baker was willing to bake any other types of cakes to any gay people including the gay couple in question, it is therefore not a discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation.

    3. The baker's refusal to bake gay wedding cake for gay couples was due to the sole reason of not wanting to be compelled to participate or contribute to any part of the gay lifestyle that runs antithesis to his religious belief. The couples being gay is just incidental.

    4. Per #2 and #3 above, there is therefore no violation of the state law you cited, which was about discrimination against the whole class of protected class of people and not particular event.

    5. The judge and you are wrong.

    That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.

  7. #1667
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    It's getting very tiresome for me to have to repeat myself over and over again to the same old points you kept recycled ad nauseam.

    Bottom line is:

    1. gay couples committing to marriage is a small percentage of the whole gay community and therefore do not represent the whole calss.
    Amazing ain't it considering gay marriage has only been recognized by a handful of states in the last ten or so years.

    2. Refusal to bake wedding cake for gay couples planning to get married does not constitute discrimination against the whole class of gay people and since the baker was willing to bake any other types of cakes to any gay people including the gay couple in question, it is therefore not a discrimination against gays based on sexual orientation.
    Why is a wedding cake any different? They make cakes for a living.

    3. The baker's refusal to bake gay wedding cake for gay couples was due to the sole reason of not wanting to be compelled to participate or contribute to any part of the gay lifestyle that runs antithesis to his religious belief. The couples being gay is just incidental.
    No. the couples being gay is the whole deal


    That's my opinion. Take it or leave it.
    I'll leave it.

  8. #1668
    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 baker had no problem whatsoever of baking cakes for gay people, therefore it isn't being gay the issue. It is not being forced into being a contributing part to something against his religion being the issue. Good that you will leave it since you people aren't really interested in reason anyway.

  9. #1669
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The baker had no problem whatsoever of baking cakes for gay people, therefore it isn't being gay the issue. It is not being forced into being a contributing part to something against his religion being the issue. Good that you will leave it since you people aren't really interested in reason anyway.
    What are the bakers contributing? They are getting paid.

  10. #1670
    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

    Do I even have to spell it out for you? And I thought you gonna leave it? Guess not.

Posting Permissions

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