Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Just because a business opened in 1995 does not mean that the only laws which apply when evaluating the legality of its operation in 2013 are those which existed in 1995. The act in question occurred in 2012; four years after the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was amended to include sexual orientation.
Not the point.
The straw man Disneydude was erecting was based on the idea the Baker agreed to serve homosexuals buy opening a business. It's an absurd claim on it's face. but even IF we were to accept it, the ex post facto provision would render the argument null.
If you cling to the Constitution then you should recognize both the authority and obligation of the State to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment by creating and enforcing anti-discrimination law.
You must have a unique 14th amendment.
Mine reads;
{
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]
}
Not a word about bakers being forced to sell cakes to homosexuals.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
And that trumps the 13th Amendment? Damn...
A business license is a contract with the State.
Bunk.
