• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Hatuey said:
That's not what freedom of association stands for. Nobody is forcing you to join a group of any sort.
Click to expand...

associate: to be together with another person or group as friends, partners, etc. The right to associate can not only apply to group relations, but must also apply to individual relations.

Against their will? No one is forcing them to set up a business.
Click to expand...

That really has nothing to do with the individual relations of people and the desire to not provide service to them. If you must fall back on contracts that are forced on people if they desire to start a business then I would not consider your argument a strong one.

If the business is open to the public, you have a right to patron it. Don't like it? Move somewhere else. Mexico's nice. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, there is no such thing as a business open to the public. The very idea is ludicrous. The property is private and as such no one has the right to patron it except the owner of the property.

Now you're just making things up to see what sticks.
Click to expand...

Hardly. If you must be provided service then ultimately the business must use their resources to make this happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

If you offer a service, it must be available to anyone willing to pay for it.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Manc Skipper said:
If you offer a service, it must be available to anyone willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

that's what she said
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

JJB3333 said:
OK im sorry but this is just stupid. Im not saying its right that he is discriminating, but segregation happens all over the place every day. Just pick another bakery instead of sueing the guy for it. Half the time i thing they just want the money and barely give a crap about the segregation.
Click to expand...


So you also believe that blacks should choose a different lunch counter...and Rosa Parks should have chosen a different means of transportation....right?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
I'm all for gay marriage and equality of opportunity and such, but sorry, the judge got this one VERY wrong. What the judge did was set a precedent that businesses have no right to decide what business they do or do not do. All you need is one agenda drive asshole to bitch about any business not doing what they want them to do, and bam, lawsuit. Idiotic. That is not America, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Right.....how dare blacks bitch about white restaurant owners refusing to serve them at their lunch counters! Bring back white only drinking fountains as well....right?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Right.....how dare blacks bitch about white restaurant owners refusing to serve them at their lunch counters! Bring back white only drinking fountains as well....right?
Click to expand...

Were they not trespassing on private property?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Higgins86 said:
that's what she said
Click to expand...

No, I imagine that is what her client said and what she denied.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Manc Skipper said:
If you offer a service, it must be available to anyone willing to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Let us know when you all start protesting and suing stores for the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' policies. Oh wait, that would require consistency on your parts.

disneydude said:
Right.....how dare blacks bitch about white restaurant owners refusing to serve them at their lunch counters! Bring back white only drinking fountains as well....right?
Click to expand...

That's all you have? Is the misrepresentation intentional or just do to your lack of comprehension?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Henrin said:
Were they not trespassing on private property?
Click to expand...

Its not "private property" when you open up a business to the public. Sorry....try again.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:
Let us know when you all start protesting and suing stores for the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' policies. Oh wait, that would require consistency on your parts.



That's all you have? Is the misrepresentation intentional or just do to your lack of comprehension?
Click to expand...

Not a misrepresentation at all. You said it....or are you just a Cafeteria Discriminator?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Its not "private property" when you open up a business to the public. Sorry....try again.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the property is owned by the government? I was unaware of this.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Henrin said:
Oh, so the property is owned by the government? I was unaware of this.
Click to expand...

Owned...no....regulated...yes.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Owned...no....regulated...yes.
Click to expand...

If they do not own it then the business is owned by private individuals and thus private property.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Henrin said:
If they do not own it then the business is owned by private individuals and thus private property.
Click to expand...

Its not private property....its a business open to the public. Sorry....try again.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Not a misrepresentation at all. You said it....
Click to expand...

Fell free to quote where I said it. Exactly in quotes, word for word. Not your misinterpretation again, as we already have that.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
Its not private property....its a business open to the public. Sorry....try again.
Click to expand...

No. All types of property are only accessible to those that the owner of the property permits. Private property is owned by private individuals and thus those private owners have sole say on who enters and uses the property.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

sangha said:
It's privately owned, but customers are not trespassing
Click to expand...

No. If the owners of the property do not desire certain individuals to enter their property and they do anyway those individuals are trespassing.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Henrin said:
associate: to be together with another person or group as friends, partners, etc. The right to associate can not only apply to group relations, but must also apply to individual relations.
Click to expand...

What partnership/friendship/group are you entering as a merchant? None.

Right to get together for a legal common cause or purpose without interference. While a government may not prohibit its citizens from joining a particular organization, the organization may be prohibited from accepting some and excluding others. Freedom of religion is included under freedom of association.

Read more: What is freedom of association? definition and meaning
Click to expand...

Sigh:

Freedom of Association and Assembly legal definition of Freedom of Association and Assembly. Freedom of Association and Assembly synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

When the right to be free from compelled association is exercised on the basis of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, competing constitutional rights clash. Such was the dilemma faced by the Court in roberts v. united states jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984). The Jaycees is a national organization whose bylaws limited full membership to men age eighteen to thirty-five. When a group of women challenged their exclusion, this policy was held unconstitutional. The Court found that the state's interest in eliminating gender discrimination outweighed the male Jaycees' interest in freedom from compelled association. Although the Court reiterated its position that freedom of association is fundamental, it also stated that such freedom is not absolute: "Infringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms."
Click to expand...

There isn't even a single case of where "individual relationships" are addressed under freedom of association cases. Which makes your statement completely ignorant of what it actually entails.

That really has nothing to do with the individual relations of people and the desire to not provide service to them. If you must fall back on contracts that are forced on people if they desire to start a business then I would not consider your argument a strong one.
Click to expand...

A repetition of an ignorant statement stemmed from your ignorance of what "freedom of association" stands for.

No, there is no such thing as a business open to the public.
Click to expand...

Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw

Government-owned/operated facilities and services. Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

- See more at: Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw
Click to expand...

Hardly. If you must be provided service then ultimately the business must use their resources to make this happen.
Click to expand...

Still making things up to see what sticks? Okay here, I'll 'splain to ya slowly: As you're not using these resources without paying for them, you have no right to begin using them. If people could use these resources without paying, you'd have a point. As they don't, you don't. :shrug:
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

disneydude said:
So you also believe that blacks should choose a different lunch counter...and Rosa Parks should have chosen a different means of transportation....right?
Click to expand...

not at all. You people think that the entire country wanted to segregate against black's, but many people did not. Can you imagine if every single black that was segregated against befor the 60's just decided to sue for the littlest things?

The blacks cant help being black so they should not be segregated against for something they cant change. But if you decide to deviate from the national standard of acceptance, you should be ready to get hit with an assault of segregation, even though it is technically illegal.

And yes, as most people in the world are straight or single, being gay/lesbian has not become nationally accepted. For us not to segregate against this the government would have t force every human being on the planet to be bi. Anything less will cause segregation.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Hatuey said:
What partnership/friendship/group are you entering as a merchant? None.

Sigh:

Freedom of Association and Assembly legal definition of Freedom of Association and Assembly. Freedom of Association and Assembly synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

A repetition of an ignorant statement stemmed from your ignorance of what "freedom of association" stands for.
Click to expand...

If you do not protect individual relations then you can not very well protect relations of a group of individuals. I'm sorry that you are too dense to see it. The amendment must protect both or neither at all.

Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw
Click to expand...

Yes, the government came up with the concept out of thin air to control private property. In reality there is no such thing as private property that is open to the public.


Still making things up to see what sticks? Okay here, I'll 'splain to ya slowly: As you're not using these resources without paying for them, you have no right to begin using them. If people could use these resources without paying, you'd have a point. As they don't, you don't. :shrug:
Click to expand...

What do you think the business is going to use to provide you lunch or any other service? They must use the resources on stock to provide you any service. Since I'm forced to provide them service it follows that I'm forced to use my resources to make this happen. Just because the consumer pays me doesn't mean that you haven't declared a right to use other peoples property and resources without the owners permission.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The idea that businesses open to the public had to serve anyone (within reasonable limitations) dates back to 17th century common law. The claim that this legal principle was created by the govt in the 20th century is an ignorant claim

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed...QgQMwAA#search="public accommodation history"

Under English common law, it was the duty of-a common carrier to
serve all persons without imposing unreasonable conditions. The
English courts considered that "a person [who] holds himself out to
carry goods for everyone as a business . .. is a common carrier,"' and
that any member of the public may create a contract with the carrier
by accepting its general offer. The rule remains the same today.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

sangha said:
The idea that businesses open to the public had to serve anyone (within reasonable limitations) dates back to 17th century common law. The claim that this legal principle was created by the govt in the 20th century is an ignorant claim

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed...QgQMwAA#search="public accommodation history"
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care when the idea was created. It was still created by law and has no natural connections to speak of. It is merely a concept created to control property and does nothing to support the interests of property owners.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom