• 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:113:123:292:647

Country clubs are for profit though, yes?

Actually , Country clubs are for profit though - No.

If you were to research it most true "country clubs" are organized under the provisions of IRS Code 501 as "non-profit". They have membership requirements, they do not operate "for profit" (which doesn't mean they don't have or handle large assets or cash), they are not mananged by an "owner" for that owners profit - they have elected Boards of Directors by the membership, their funds are not controlled for the profit of an owner - they are managed by finanical representatives selected by the Board and through membership.

There are many "country clubs" though incorporated under general for profit provisions (there was one near where I grew up). They were owned and operated by a family. Anyone could walkup pay green fees and play. You could buy a "membership" which allowed you unlimited rounds of golf and the ability to reserve Tee Times and the attached restruaunt was open to the public. As such they would have not qualified as a "private club" for Public Accommodation purposes.


So there can't be a bakery called Resurrection Loaf or Jesus has Risen that had strict membership regulations that are staunchly enforced? If not, why can other businesses or private clubs discriminate?

You are asking what the law should be, I'm discussion the law as it is. Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws in general as applied to private entities, Public Accommodation laws should only apply to government entities. But that is a different discussion.

The elected Representatives of the Legislatures and the Congress have passed such laws and they have been upheld through state judicial review up to and include State Supreme Courts as a valid function of State governments to regulate commerce within their States under the 10th Amendment and Federal Public Accommodation laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Just say'n that a for profit bakery owned and operated for the profit of the owners isn't likely to succeed trying to claim "private club" status under the legal definitions and applications of "private club". They could try, and some have, but the only people that normally end up happy with the results are the lawyers for the individual trying to get special privileges to evade discrimination laws.

And as noted in the link I provided, private clubs created for the purpose of evading anti-discrimination laws will not normally be recognized as exempt from the law. Take the BSA for example - truly a non-profit organization (even though it is large), organized and run by it's members, managed through an elected Board of Directors - and recognized as a "private club" if you will and not subject to anti-discrimination laws (SCOTUS case). They can keep out Atheists and gays all they want.



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

Are you anti discrimination folks okay with a gym only open to women?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Are you anti discrimination folks okay with a gym only open to women?

"But that is for their mental and physical safety."
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

No, you didn't. All I'm asking is where is this lie you are ferring to. Simply repeating that I lied again and again does not prove your case.

It's what he does. He has accused me (and many others) of "lying" too.

The funny thing was that when someone else indicated he was calling me a liar, he claimed he didn't. As if he truly didn't realize that a liar is just someone that says (or posts) lies. It's quite surreal.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Oh hell no I wouldn't either.

Just so you know, if I go into a Detroit barber shop and say, "Cut my hair, nigger", I expect you to file an anti-discrimination suit on my behalf...after you deliver my eulogy.

I would suggest you don't do that... but I know you live life on the edge.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Who pays property taxes? Are they funded with public money? If no, then it's private. Just because you want access to other people's property doesn't make it public property.

I never said it was public property. I said it was a business open to the public. Once you open it to the public then you have to abide by public policies... Do you think that restaurants should be able to deny black people, or gays, the right to dine there as well?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "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."

As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.

This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.

Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I think you completely miss the point. You're conflating discrimination and free speech. A business which operates publicly is required to abide by discrimination laws which clearly state that nobody can be denied service based solely on gender, race, or sexual orientation. This is law. The reason the judge ruled this way is because the state law is clear and there is extensive precedent. It's not like some extreme liberal judge just said "what the heck, I like gays! Let's give those bakers hell!"

On the other hand, religious freedom and the freedom of speech are both extremely well protected in the United States. An example for each: Scientology is considered a religion and it is allowed to operate even though it's obviously a money hungry cult. Other countries aren't so generous to them. And the Westboro Baptist Church continues to go around the country saying things that nobody likes and yet the only thing the government has done to stop them is say they have to picket a little further away from funerals than they previously had been. Free speech law hasn't really changed at all in hundreds of years.

Discrimination isn't speech, it's bigotry. Allowing businesses to discriminate makes people less free, not more. There's a reason the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it wasn't because business owners were too free, it was because minorities were treated as subhuman and thus they had limited freedom.
It shocks me how many people want to go backward thinking it's forward
.




It not only doesn't shock me, it doesn't even surprise me that some people (Mostly Libertarians.) in the USA think that they will take the USA back to the pre-1964 Civil Rights Act days.

But it's not going to happen because too many Americans want to see the USA go forwards, not backwards.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "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."

As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.

This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.

Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.


Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(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.​



No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.

In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.



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

The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "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."

Of course, there is no harm caused to anyone by not selling them a cake.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.

Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(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.​



No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.

In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.



>>>>
FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.

If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?

And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Just that the claim was that their feeling was hurt.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.

If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?

And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.


I find it funny, you try to equate the wedding cake to claiming that is what I said then call it absurd. Classic strawman.

Face it. You got spanked for dumb post which mis-characterized what Public Accommodation laws do. Deal with it.



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

I find it funny, you try to equate the wedding cake to claiming that is what I said then call it absurd. You got spanked for dumb post which mischaracterised what Public Accommodation laws do. Deal with it.



>>>>
Then what did you say?

Is refusing to bake a wedding cake a discrimination against your disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry according to your so-called "Public Accommodation law"?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

Then what did you say?

What I said was very clear. Businesses are not required to provide goods and services they don't normally supply. This business normally supplied wedding cakes. Under the law they are required to sell them in a non-discriminatory manner.

The Muslim caterer who routinely supplies only Halal compliant goods, is not required to go out and supply non-Halal items (such as pork). However if the Muslim caterer DOES normally supply port products, then they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer based on the customers disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry per Colorado law.

Is refusing to bake a wedding cake a discrimination against your disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry according to your so-called "Public Accommodation law"?

It's not "my so-called 'Public Accommodation Law'", it is the Colorado Statute 24-34-601 on the subject.


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

When the bakery advertizes and sells wedding cakes then refuses to sell it/them to customers who are gay because they they are getting married, that would be discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And it's not "my so-called 'Public Accommodation Law'", it is the Colorado Statute 24-34-601 on the subject.


>>>>
So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?

Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

What I said was very clear. Businesses are not required to provide goods and services they don't normally supply. This business normally supplied wedding cakes. Under the law they are required to sell them in a non-discriminatory manner.

The Muslim caterer who routinely supplies only Halal compliant goods, is not required to go out and supply non-Halal items (such as pork). However if the Muslim caterer DOES normally supply port products, then they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer based on the customers disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry per Colorado law.



It's not "my so-called 'Public Accommodation Law'", it is the Colorado Statute 24-34-601 on the subject.


>>>>
What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?

Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?

You have changed the argument. If you are a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies then you are required by law to serve the ANY FEMALE customer that wants your service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies be she white, black or lesbian.

Where you get that all of a sudden the photographer has to take nude pictures is beyond illogical.

What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?

How does this scenario even makes sense? If he makes religious cakes then he has to make other religious cakes. If a Muslim baker makes religious cakes of Jesus or Moses then he would be required to make one of Mohammed.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

I never said it was public property. I said it was a business open to the public. Once you open it to the public then you have to abide by public policies... Do you think that restaurants should be able to deny black people, or gays, the right to dine there as well?

Why do you people keep thinking this is some secret catch.

Private is private, a private business can deny its business to anyone, you have no right to another man's property or labor. Instead of government force, you need to employ intelligent consumerism to elicit the necessary changes in local business.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

But it's not going to happen because too many Americans want to see the USA go forwards, not backwards.

Then you don't need the rules. If so many of you want "the USA to go forward" you do not need to point the guns of government and the private property holder. You have enough consumer force to make the changes without resorting to force of government. So thanks for agreeing with me. Hahahaha
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

You have changed the argument. If you are a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies then you are required by law to serve the ANY FEMALE customer that wants your service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies be she white, black or lesbian.

Where you get that all of a sudden the photographer has to take nude pictures is beyond illogical.



How does this scenario even makes sense? If he makes religious cakes then he has to make other religious cakes. If a Muslim baker makes religious cakes of Jesus or Moses then he would be required to make one of Mohammed.
No, I did not change the argument. You refused to concede the point.

Where did I even state about NOT "to serve the ANY FEMALE customer that wants your service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies be she white, black or lesbian"?

And where did I state that the muslim baker only baked religious cakes?

You said, the muslim baker is "required to make one of Mohammed". Do you know what this is going to cause world wide? Isamic bloodbath.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?

Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?

Depends.

If you either get volunteers or hire models to go to the beach and take their pictures, then sell them. Nope.

However if you advertize that you take naked pictures on the beach under contract. Probably.

If you don't advertize, don't list it as one of the available portrait settings, and don't routinely supply such work. Nope.

Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?


It's not "my interpretation", it the way the law is written and the judges decision based on the law passed by the Colorado Legislature.

Please stop trying to make this about me.

What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?

Don't now. However I think there would be a good case to be made that such a baker does not provide offensive decorations in general an therefore wouldn't be required to do such a cake.

You can "What if" all day long. In the case which is the subject of this thread the baker refused to provide equal access to standard good and services that he did supply - in this case a wedding cake.


A similar case (i.e. someone claiming "artistic" exemption) was Elane Photography v. Willcock from the New Mexico Supreme court, this may help you -->> http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf


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

It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.

No it isn't at all. It would be more akin to a muslim caterer refusing service of a product that he normally produces every day to a non-muslim custom, simply because they aren't muslim. Your analogy is completely off-base. Nobody is asking this baker to bake anything other than that which he normally produces in the course of business.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647

No it isn't at all. It would be more akin to a muslim caterer refusing service of a product that he normally produces every day to a non-muslim custom, simply because they aren't muslim. Your analogy is completely off-base. Nobody is asking this baker to bake anything other than that which he normally produces in the course of business.

And nobody is entitled to what that baker bakes.
 
Back
Top Bottom