Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
It shows that the baker was willing to serve the gay people, even those having the gay wedding, just not be compelled against his religious belief to provide something against his religious principle, which by the way is protected by the Constitution.
No, the fact that baker would have sold cupcakes to the individuals seeking a wedding cake is irrelevant as you just showed yourself. You just varified that the baker did not provide full and equal access to the businesses goods and services as required by the law.
(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
The baker denied via an unlawful act equal and full access to their goods and services.
When there is a conflict between State or Federal laws versus the Constitution, you should know which one should give way, right?
Yep the Constitution. However Public Accommodation laws have never been found unconstitutional. As a matter of fact they have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and found Constitutional.
And yet in this case, the baker did not discriminate against the whole class of gay people...
The illegal act performed was against that same sex couple, the "whole class of gay people" doesn't factor into the case at all. The baker denied full and equal treatement to that couple because of their sexual orientation.
Now, regarding the judge, he didn't just err in his decision. He violated the baker's Constitutional right to exercise his religious belief as protected by the Constitution when he compelled the baker to bake the wedding cake for the gay wedding.
He was an Adminstrative Judge at a hearing not a State Civil or Criminal Judge, he is not allowed to rule a law is unconstitutional.
His ruling now goes to the State Director that overseas illegal discrimination conducted by business, if the Director rejects the Judges opinion - he can dismiss the case. On the other hand if he accepts the Judges opinion - then the injunction will be in place against continued unlawful discrimination. The next step after the Directors ruling then is for the Baker to challenge the decision in regular court. Success there is highly unlikely as we've seen in other state courts (i.e. Elane Photography) and at the Supreme Court (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) that Public Accommodation laws have been upheld as a valid exercise of regulation of commerce.
I'm not going to read any further of your post just to re-harsh to death the same old same old. What I have just stated above is more than enough to refute your argument on this case. And I'll leave it at that even if you won't.
You haven't refuted anything. You made claims about how "it's unconstitutional" for Public Accommodation laws to regulate business practices of businesses but have not cited even one case where a Public Accommodation law was overturned in any court. You have not argued the law as it's written, you have not whown where anything in the Judges ruling was incorrect.
I disagree with the premise of the law and if given the option would vote against it just like Goldwater Voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the inclusion of Federal Public Accommodation in that act. My opinion though of what the law should be is different then discussing what the law actually is.
It might help if you learned the difference yourself.
>>>>