View Poll Results: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

Voters
39. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    24 61.54%
  • No

    9 23.08%
  • I love Mashed Potatoes!

    12 30.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 166

Thread: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

  1. #21
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,916
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) well hopefully i never have to find out but yes i hope id be capable
    2.) thanks
    3.) I loved it too and there was so much like that stuff that was so "taboo" and "evil" thank god were wiser and more educated now eventhough we still have a way to go.

    4.) awesome and beautiful, civility and human like its supposed to be. !
    Exactly, love conquers all if one can love. I do think some people never can understand love, to them it is just another 4 letter word, much like hate.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  2. #22
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    NO..i am asking you a question here, and your not answering it........name for me an exercisable right you have on another persons property.
    lol make it bigger next time with colors it wont change anything

    you made a statement, i pointed out the fact that it was an opinion, then i asked you the question, thats how it works. Dont like it? move along lol ill repeat it one last time.

    law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence all disagree, what "facts" are you basing this opinion on?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #23
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Exactly, love conquers all if one can love. I do think some people never can understand love, to them it is just another 4 letter word, much like hate.
    that so seems to be the case with some
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  4. #24
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    second paragraph
    Then 2nd paragraph doesn't mention commerce, although I imagine it's there.

    Not sure of my opinion on this.
    For example, when we traveled to Key West on a holiday weekend, we had not made reservations and came in around midnight. We stopped at at least 2 dozen motels with managers to lazy to turn on the "NO" on their "vacancy" signs. Found a room for $500 (a luxury hotel) and the next night a quaint one in the heart of it. It was a very small old charming hotel specifically for lesbians (really) I don't remember the "coded" language signs at check-in and we hadn't notices those.
    The owner at the desk hinted all around it until my wife picked up what she was saying. To this my wife asked to talk to her privately. This resulted in an OK, but that I was not to enter a certain shielded outdoor swimming pool & small bar area. Women could go nude there.

    ^ Was any of that illegal? Unethical? Not wanting to lease hotel rooms to heterosexuals because the hotel was also geared around gay romance and sexuality in both a wider sense than just as hotel and for a sense of privacy - that gay women only wanted other women galking at and flirting with them in their home-away-from-home? The limited number of rooms meant any room not going to a gay woman or women reduced "the party" of it.
    I don't think there was anything wrong it limited those staying to gays.

  5. #25
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    1.) Then 2nd paragraph doesn't mention commerce, although I imagine it's there.

    Not sure of my opinion on this.
    For example, when we traveled to Key West on a holiday weekend, we had not made reservations and came in around midnight. We stopped at at least 2 dozen motels with managers to lazy to turn on the "NO" on their "vacancy" signs. Found a room for $500 (a luxury hotel) and the next night a quaint one in the heart of it. It was a very small old charming hotel specifically for lesbians (really) I don't remember the "coded" language signs at check-in and we hadn't notices those.
    The owner at the desk hinted all around it until my wife picked up what she was saying. To this my wife asked to talk to her privately. This resulted in an OK, but that I was not to enter a certain shielded outdoor swimming pool & small bar area. Women could go nude there.

    ^ Was any of that illegal? Unethical? Not wanting to lease hotel rooms to heterosexuals because the hotel was also geared around gay romance and sexuality in both a wider sense than just as hotel and for a sense of privacy - that gay women only wanted other women galking at and flirting with them in their home-away-from-home? The limited number of rooms meant any room not going to a gay woman or women reduced "the party" of it.
    I don't think there was anything wrong it limited those staying to gays.
    public accommodations covers that, while i already knew that, i looked up some info real quick for just an FYI

    What does the expanded Colorado
    Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?


    Places of public accommodation may not
    deny any person participation, entry, or
    services based upon the person’s sexual
    orientation, including transgender status.

    What is a “place of public accommodation”?

    A public accommodation is any place of
    business engaged in offering sales or
    services of any kind to the public, as well
    as any place offering facilities, privileges,
    advantages or other accommodations to
    the public. Typical examples of public
    accommodations include, but are not
    limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
    hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.


    2.) i understand but the question is about law and facts vs the rulling fyi
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #26
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    lol make it bigger next time with colors it wont change anything

    you made a statement, i pointed out the fact that it was an opinion, then i asked you the question, thats how it works. Dont like it? move along lol ill repeat it one last time.

    law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence all disagree, what "facts" are you basing this opinion on?
    an exercisable right is a right a person chooses to exercise.

    i can choose to:

    bare a firearm, or not.

    pray or not

    protest of not

    assembly or not

    use my freedom of speech or not.

    its my choice.

    when your on another persons property, you do not have any exercisable rights......you cannot exercise free speech, pray, assemble, protest , bare a firearm, becuase it is not your property, you must get permission from the owner to engage in any of these rights.

    the USSC has NEVER RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO BE SERVICED.

    constitutional law: 14th amendment--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.

    MY state constitution -- 36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition

    Section 36. A. This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

    B. This section does not:

    1. Prohibit bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

    2. Prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal monies to this state.

    3. Invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

    C. The remedies available for a violation of this section are the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, as are otherwise available for a violation of the existing antidiscrimination laws of this state.

    D. This section applies only to actions that are taken after the effective date of this section.

    E. This section is self-executing.

    F. For the purposes of this section, "state" includes this state, a city, town or county, a public university, including the university of Arizona, Arizona state university and northern Arizona university, a community college district, a school district, a special district or any other political subdivision in this state.


    no where does it say a citizen or a business cannot discriminate......this from two constitutions.


    name for me a right which you can exercise on another person's property?

  7. #27
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Let's start with the federal public accommodations non-discrimination law, which is 42 U.S.C. 2000a of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. .....is U.S. CODE. IT IS STATUTORY LAW

    Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.


    13th amendment--Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

  8. #28
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    an exercisable right is a right a person chooses to exercise.

    i can choose to:

    bare a firearm, or not.

    pray or not

    protest of not

    assembly or not

    use my freedom of speech or not.

    its my choice.

    when your on another persons property, you do not have any exercisable rights......you cannot exercise free speech, pray, assemble, protest , bare a firearm, becuase it is not your property, you must get persiion from the ower to egage in any of these rights.

    the USSC has NEVER RECOGNIZED THE RIGHT TO BE SERVICED.

    constitutional law: 14th amendment--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.

    MY state constitution -- 36. Preferential treatment or discrimination prohibited; exceptions; definition

    Section 36. A. This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

    B. This section does not:

    1. Prohibit bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

    2. Prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal monies to this state.

    3. Invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

    C. The remedies available for a violation of this section are the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, as are otherwise available for a violation of the existing antidiscrimination laws of this state.

    D. This section applies only to actions that are taken after the effective date of this section.

    E. This section is self-executing.

    F. For the purposes of this section, "state" includes this state, a city, town or county, a public university, including the university of Arizona, Arizona state university and northern Arizona university, a community college district, a school district, a special district or any other political subdivision in this state.


    no where does it say a citizen or a business cannot discriminate......this from two constitutions.


    name for me a right which you can exercise on another person's property?
    so your answer is NO, you do not have any FACTS that make your statement anything more than opinion

    so what you just did is post some general info that is known, then you access from it based off your SUBJECTIVE OPINION that your statement is fact.
    But theres nothign in your post that makes your statement fact, its your subjective opinion.

    Thats not what i asked you, i didnt ask you to give me your opinions to support your statement, i want facts.

    people on this same topic in other threads quote things in law and then they say in their OPINION this is a violation of freedom of religion BUT they have no FACTS to prove that. This is all you just did.

    When you can id like FACTS please. Please provide the facts that make your statement 100% true.

    Until you can answer this question theres nothing to discuss. Law, rights, facts, court cases and court precedence, even this ruling all disagree with your opinion but if you can actually come up with some thats when ill reply. good luck!
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #29
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    public accommodations covers that, while i already knew that, i looked up some info real quick for just an FYI

    What does the expanded Colorado
    Anti-Discrimination Act now prohibit?


    Places of public accommodation may not
    deny any person participation, entry, or
    services based upon the person’s sexual
    orientation, including transgender status.

    What is a “place of public accommodation”?

    A public accommodation is any place of
    business engaged in offering sales or
    services of any kind to the public, as well
    as any place offering facilities, privileges,
    advantages or other accommodations to
    the public. Typical examples of public
    accommodations include, but are not
    limited to, hotels, restaurants, stores,
    hospitals, clinics, and health clubs.


    2.) i understand but the question is about law and facts vs the rulling fyi
    As a question of law and fact, obviously it was a correct ruling if such a law applies to commerce to the public. A judge, of course, can decide a law is unconstitutional, but trial judges rarely do.

    Where it gets sticky is when you get to area of private clubs and organizations that are not entirely public. And as an ethical question, not legal question. I'm looking it as a question of ethics/morality, and why I gave that example. COULD hotels all put up signs saying "NO HOMOSEXUALS ALLOWED!"
    No, that would be unethical/wrong.
    Could a hotel say, " WE HAVE A POOL BAR AREA EXCLUSIVELY FOR GAY WOMEN"?
    I think so, because that actually is about the sexuality itself in real terms.

    "Sexual orientation" is different than race, because it also involved actions. Same with religion. So I have no problem with the judge popping that business - because it was the owner saying "I won't do business with gays because they are gay." I could see a cake maker refusing to put the symbol of a religion the owner doesn't agree with IF his/her religion says that would be a sin or sacrilege.

    The hotel I gave had that coded rule not because they won't do business with heterosexuals because they are heterosexuals or with men because they are men. Rather, because their hotel is more a club for gay women around romance and intimacy for gay women. She gave us a room at a far corner that had a direct locked entrance to the street (all the hotel rooms have doors only to the interior of the entirely shielded little hotel.

    Other than respecting the restricted pool area (she had only asked that I don't go in that area being a guy), we did walk about the hotel and even ate breakfast in the little dining room. I was the only guy. Only one dike raised a fuss for a moment, but the other women told her to knock it off and apologized for her.

    It is unfortunate that hard laws and rules have to be passed, rather than people just acting decent towards each other.
    Last edited by joko104; 12-11-13 at 11:15 PM.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

    Yes
    No
    I love mashed potatoes
    Attachment 67158094

    Now let me be clear what Im asking. The fact is we have national equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws. Then on top of that states, counties, cities, towns, corporations and many orgs have minimum these same laws/rules/ordinances and policies but also expand them in different ways.

    Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws in employment, housing and public accommodations prohibits such discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, creed, religion, disability (mental and physical), marital status (housing and public accommodations only), marriage to a co-worker (employment only), and age (employment only).

    With these laws and protections of rights factually in place for all the other categories and factually in place in Colorado did the judge rule properly?

    If you think all equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist, this ain’t the thread for you because that isn’t the topic.
    I want to know if people think the judge made the right ruling based on facts and law.

    We can discuss if you think orientation should be grouped with the others though.

    Here’s some quotes from his ruling.:
    I haven’t found the whole ruling yet, id really like to read it if anybody has it please post it and or let me know.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    “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."

    The order says the cake-maker mustcease and desist from discriminatingagainst 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.Judge Spencer shot down the constitutional arguments, noting that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. "Conceptually, 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.

    "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."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now for me this is pretty easy,this is about illegal discrimination and violating rights and nothing else.

    Its factual a matter of civil/legal/equal rights as supported by law, rights, court cases, court precedence, constitutions and even the ruling above vs illegal discrimination.

    In the public realm we all have laws and rules we must follow, we all have rights, and they are the same for ALL OF US. Nobody gets special treatment nobody gets to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.

    The owner CHOSE to get a business license and agree to its terms and follow the rules and laws that come with that.
    The owner CHOSE to commit a crime and break law and he had to face the consequences of that.

    In reality he actually got off light, he broke the law and violated the rights of others and was simply given a cease and desist order to not longer break the law and illegal discriminate.

    Now he was asked if he would be willing to go to jail over this and he said “You know if that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” well, happy trails Jack because that’s is where criminals tend to end up when they get caught breaking the law.

    Sorry he is entitled to his opinion but as a Christian myself I see zero logic in breaking the law and zero wrong with selling cake to gays, theres nothing sinful about that. This is simply very stupid and poor foresight and Jack has nobody to blame but himself.

    It actually blows my mind that SOME of the same people that don’t accept religion as a reason to break the law, illegally discriminate and violate equal rights some how magically think its ok when it comes to "queers faggots and dykes” treat them as a lesser and give them the same rights we all have or at least protect them. How absurd, and severely transparent those particular people are.

    Links:
    Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
    Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
    Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
    Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
    Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado
    Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News
    Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
    Cake Shop Owner Tells Fox News He
    It Was Never About the Cake | Deborah Munn
    Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress
    The judge ruled according to the law as written. But the law in general doesn't mesh with the ideals of rights, liberties, and a restricted government. No one is entitled to the property or labor of others.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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