The very first paragraph shows how this decision is beyond the scope of the law. Unless CO has added sexual orientation to the above list through state law or state constitutional amendment, this case does not apply at all to the judgement described."Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [379 U.S. 241, 285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.
Heres more articles on this win of equal rights:
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge rules wedding cake shop must serve gays, despite owner's religious beliefs - Long Island Top News | Examiner.com
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Colorado baker discriminated by denying gay couple wedding cake: judge - Chicago Tribune
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post
heres some quotes from the ruling/judge from the varies links
when i can find the actual rulling ill post it too
“The undisputed facts show that Respondents (Phillips) discriminated against Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage,” Judge Spencer wrote.
“Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage,” wrote Judge Spencer.
The order says the cake-maker must “cease and desist from discriminating” against gay couples. Although the judge did not impose fines in this case, the business will face penalties if it continues to turn away gay couples who want to buy cakes.so theres lots of reading for everyone and it seems the fact remains the owner broke the law and illegally discriminated against others infringing on their rights“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “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.”
next time the shop owber will no better and wont break the law and violate peoples rights
Colorado law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Read about it here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/col...imination-bill
Does anyone really think that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever say that law is unconstitutional?
Last edited by shrubnose; 12-07-13 at 03:46 PM.
just for some back ground and info
Twenty-one states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and in many states that dont most major cities do
for example PA doesnt do this yet but heres the cities towns and states that do:
There are 33 PA Municipalities that protect citizens based on sexual orientation and in most places gender identity as well, other protected classes vary in these municipalities:
Of the 15 Largest Pennsylvania Cities, 12 have inclusive Non-Discrimination Laws
The 12 Largest Pennsylvania Cities in order of population, that already have a non-discrimination laws that includes sexual orientation *and in most cases, gender identity*.
1. Philadelphia* - pop. 1,526,006 (passed this law in 1954, amended 2002)
2. Pittsburgh* - pop. 305,704 (passed this law in 1992, amended 2005)
3. Allentown* - pop. 118,032 (passed this law in 1964, amended 2002)
4. Erie (as part of Erie County) - pop. 101,786 (passed this law in 2002)
5. Reading* - pop. 88,082 (passed this law in 1955, amended 2009)
6. Scranton - pop. 72,485 (passed this law in 2003)
7. Bethlehem* - pop. 71,329 (passed this law on June 21st, 2011)
8. Lancaster* - pop. 55,381 (passed this law in 1991)
10. Harrisburg* - pop. 47,196 (passed this law in 1992)
12. York - pop. 40,862 (passed this law in 1998)
13. State College* - pop. 38,420 (passed this law in 2008)
15. Easton* - pop. 26,080 (passed this law in 2007)
And these 18 PA towns and 2 PA counties also have fully inclusive non-discrimination laws all these laws were passed since 2002 when New Hope was the 1st of the small towns to do so: New Hope*, Swarthmore*, Lower Merion Township*, West Chester*, Landsdowne*, Doylestown*, all of Erie County*(2002), all of Allegheny County*(2009), Haverford*, Conshohocken*, Springfield Township* and Newtown Borough, Whitemarsh Township* (passed Nov. 17, 2011), Jenkintown* (passed Nov. 26, 2011), Susquehanna Township* (passed Dec. 8, 2011), Cheltenham Twnship* (passed Feb. 15, 2011), Abington Twnship* (passed April 11, 2012), East Norriton* (passed July 24, 2012), Upper Merion Township* (passed Sept. 13, 2012), City of Pittston* (passed May 28, 2013), Bristol* (passed Sept. 9, 2013)
so while its not state wide yet its getting there one way or another
heres another example of texas:
The following Texas municipalities have ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: Austin, Brownsville, Houston, Dallas, Dallas County, El Paso, Fort Worth, El Paso, Grand Prairie, Lubbock, San Antonio, and Walker County.
also about 85% of fortune 100, 500 and 1000 companies have these policies also
so again equal rights is winning and its coming the writing is on the wall
I guess in some peoples worlds the right to force people into service for them must be equally protected. Obviously we can't have equal rights unless people can have slaves.
Last edited by shrubnose; 12-07-13 at 04:33 PM.