Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
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.
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
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),
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
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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville