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 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 166

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

  1. #81
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,966

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    read constitutional law, discrimination laws are for only for governments...not the people.

    You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.
    That is correct....EXCEPT the govt has created anti-discrimination laws to create a more equal society. Because it IS the job of the fed govt, as put forth in the Const, to protect the minority from the will of the majority. And this is one of those ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  2. #82
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And sometimes government imposes terms beyond their rightful ability.
    And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    And that's where consumer pressure rules the day. There are just some things we cannot do, or rather shouldn't do, with government force. But it doesn't mean we are left empty handed. A free society requires an educated and participating population and it's our duty to fulfill that. We have more at our disposal than mere government force to elicit proper changes within society and local business.
    Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  3. #83
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post

    You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.
    The classic answer? We the people can exercise the right to prevent you from raising hogs in your backyard for which the stink comes to ours.

    We can exercise the right to prevent you from having dogs that bark all night long on your property.

    We can exercise the right to prevent you from having massive fuel tanks on your land that could blow up and kill us.

    There are piles of rights we can exercise over your land.

    Oh, and we can tax it too.

  4. #84
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?



    Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.

    The distinction is between COMMERCE (public) and private. You can privately discriminate all you want to. You can't in public commerce. A person can't go public for profit while claiming absolute private rights.

  5. #85
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The distinction is between COMMERCE (public) and private. You can privately discriminate all you want to. You can't in public commerce. A person can't go public for profit while claiming absolute private rights.
    Private businesses can't have separate counters for whites and blacks. The distinction you're pointing out is clearly incorrect.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #86
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

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

    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f..._2013-0008.pdf

    WOw thanks again

    I like reading rulings i find them so interesting lol they are usually long and kinda drag on but that's to establish and prove precedent and to cover all aspects.
    This ruling was a very good one and left no stoned unturned.

    I know have even a better understanding of this case and even though it was an easy open shut case its even more solid than it ready was

    some direct qoutes from the 13 page ruling

    "The undisputed facts show that Respondents discriminated against
    Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding
    cake for their same-sex marriage, in violation of § 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. Moreover,
    application of this law to Respondents does not violate their right to free speech or
    unduly abridge their right to free exercise of religion
    . Accordingly, Complainants’ motion
    for summary judgment is GRANTED and Respondents’ motion for summary judgment is
    DENIED."


    At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to
    refuse service to anyone it chooses. 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. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination
    by businesses that offer goods and services to the public.2
    The most recent version of the public accommodation law, which was amended in 2008 to add sexual orientation
    as a protected class, reads in pertinent part:

    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 . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of
    the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
    accommodations of a place of public accommodation.
    Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. (emphasis added).


    A “place of public accommodation” means “any place of business engaged in any
    sales to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail
    sales to the public.” Section 24-34-601(1), C.R.S. “Sexual orientation” means
    “orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or
    another person’s perception thereof.” Section 24-34-301(7), C.R.S. “Person” includes
    individuals as well as business and governmental entities. Section 24-34-301(5),
    C.R.S

    In this case,
    Respondents’ objection to same-sex marriage is inextricably tied to the sexual
    orientation of the parties involved, and therefore disfavor of the parties’ sexual
    orientation may be presumed. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Bray,
    recognized that “some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they
    are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by
    a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A
    tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Id. at 270. Similarly, the ALJ concludes
    that discrimination against same-sex weddings is the equivalent of discrimination due to
    sexual orientation.3

    If Respondents’ argument was correct, it would allow a business that served all
    races to nonetheless refuse to serve an interracial couple because of the business
    owner’s bias against interracial marriage. That argument, however, was rejected 30
    years ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983). In Bob Jones, the Supreme
    Court held that the IRS properly revoked the university’s tax-exempt status because the
    university denied admission to interracial couples even though it otherwise admitted all
    races. According to the Court, its prior decisions “firmly establish that discrimination on
    the basis of racial affiliation and association is a form of racial discrimination.” Id. at
    605. This holding was extended to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in
    Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct.



    AWESOME!

    laws were broken, rights were violated, justice restored
    the facts are this was about DISCRIMINATION, and the owners rights remain in tact nor is there any illegal forced servitude.
    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

  7. #87
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Private businesses can't have separate counters for whites and blacks. The distinction you're pointing out is clearly incorrect.
    No, your distinction is wrong. A "private" business is "public" commerce. By private, I mean your home. You could have separate counters for whites and blacks in your home. You could put a sign reading "no blacks" on your front door too if you want.

  8. #88
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    No, your distinction is wrong. A "private" business is "public" commerce. By private, I mean your home. You could have separate counters for whites and blacks in your home. You could put a sign reading "no blacks" on your front door too if you want.
    So then what was your point? No one is talking about people's homes. We're talking about businesses. This is rules about commerce, not thought police.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #89
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    So then what was your point? No one is talking about people's homes. We're talking about businesses. This is rules about commerce, not thought police.
    I am addressing the constant statement that a business is "private" property. It is in terms of ownership. It is no longer "private" when you open it up to commerce. Then it becomes "public domain." "Commerce" and "private" are contradictions. It really isn't "private" business, but "public" business.

  10. #90
    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 Paschendale View Post
    And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?



    Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.
    Jim Crow laws were actual laws. Government force against free exercise of rights and obvious to any honest man NOT what I was talking about. If fact given everything I stated about the use of government force, you should know I'd be in favor of removing the government force against rights.

    If you want to debate, that's great. But let's keep the dishonest hyperbole and hysteria out of it.
    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 9 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •