Page 48 of 173 FirstFirst ... 3846474849505898148 ... LastLast
Results 471 to 480 of 1723

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

  1. #471
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    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.
    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
    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."
    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.
    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.
    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
    Hardly. If you must be provided service then ultimately the business must use their resources to make this happen.
    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.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #472
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado, U.S.A
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    464

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

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    So you also believe that blacks should choose a different lunch counter...and Rosa Parks should have chosen a different means of transportation....right?
    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.
    War is not a tool to satisfy your emotional outbursts.

  3. #473
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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 by Henrin; 12-08-13 at 12:35 PM.

  4. #474
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    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.edu...n%20history%22

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  5. #475
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    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.edu...n%20history%22
    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 by Henrin; 12-08-13 at 12:45 PM.

  6. #476
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,253

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

    If you open your doors for business, then you cannot discriminate.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  7. #477
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,253

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I honestly don't care when the idea was created. It was still created by law and has no natural connections to speak of.
    You don't seem to care for the law much at all if it limits bigotry and discrimination.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  8. #478
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    You don't seem to care for the law much at all
    No, I honestly don't. There is hardly anything about it that is desirable.

  9. #479
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    You don't seem to care for the law much at all
    Or facts
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #480
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Or facts
    The only thing I said that could be seen as wrong is my interpretation of freedom of association, but I believe my view is a logical one. If you are to protect the association of groups than you must concern yourself with the interaction of persons to make it possible to protect.

Posting Permissions

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