• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    36
no.. my argument is "force" cannot be used on a citizen, when that citizen has not violated the rights of another or has not caused a heath or safety issue, and has not violated tax law.

the federal government [congress] has no authority in the life's liberties property of the American people.--federalist 45


Tell you what go out and rent a space, get some signage for "E.B.'s Florist Shop", but advertizements in the paper, set up your web site, order your stock and sell it to the public.

Place a prominent sign in the window "No Blacks Served".

When you get to court tell the Judge "I have not violated the rights of another, since I'm a florist shop there is no health and safety issue, and I pay taxes on my income and other than that the State has no power to regulate my business".

Report back to us on how it went OK?


>>>>
 
Tell you what go out and rent a space, get some signage for "E.B.'s Florist Shop", but advertizements in the paper, set up your web site, order your stock and sell it to the public.

Place a prominent sign in the window "No Blacks Served".

When you get to court tell the Judge "I have not violated the rights of another, since I'm a florist shop there is no health and safety issue, and I pay taxes on my income and other than that the State has no power to regulate my business".

Report back to us on how it went OK?


>>>>


you and I already came to terms on this the issue.

you believe as I do people, people should not have there property controlled by government...is it being done ? ..yes it is.

does it defy the founding principles of America...... yes.

arguments by me are raised because some people will believe anything they are told by the media or other people, instead of reading,.... what rights are, what kind of government was created.

I am not one of those who because some judge, president or politician says things are legal, that makes them legal....
 
Given that the judge was determining whether a law was broken as opposed to whether a law was constitutional or whatever, yes the judge ruled correctly. It doesn't necessarily make the law correct or right.
 
Given that the judge was determining whether a law was broken as opposed to whether a law was constitutional or whatever, yes the judge ruled correctly. It doesn't necessarily make the law correct or right.

Exactly. Just because the regulation of commerce is within the powers of the State, does not mean that the State should regulate commerce on this issue.

The mantra that "It's unconstitutional" will not be changing the law, what will change the law is convincing legislatures that it is the correct thing to do.


>>>>
 
No, what I'm saying is that the argument that Public Accommodation laws are a violation of the 13th Amendments prohibition against Slavery and what "Involuntary Servitude" conditions when people owned people either for live (Slavery) or for a specified period measured in years is a shameful and embarrassing comparison.

Involuntary servitude is forcing people into service for another person. I don't see why the courts would all of a sudden be "original intent" when it comes to the 13th amendment when they can't be arsed to do so when it comes to any other part of the document. Hell, when it comes to public accommodation laws the courts put business in the 14th amendment and like usual believe the commerce clause gives them the power to control business.

The man in the case in question didn't even say his condition was anything like black slavery, but that he was forced into service for another human being, which is true.

Still, I laugh at the entire thing. The 13th amendment outlaws all slavery and involuntary servitude, but the courts want to hold to the idea it's only about black slavery that was chattel slavery. If it was really only meant to act on chattel slavery then exactly why didn't it just ban chattel slavery? haha..

Then again, the wording by itself is stupid. The amendment basically slavery twice and apparently the authors didn't realize it.
 
Last edited:
COCODE

Colorado Statute 24-34-601
(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



>>>>

a place of public accommodation of which a private business is not.
 
Myself, I think that most anti-discrimination laws should be found to be unconstitutional. Freedom of association assumes freedom of disassociation. Are we free, or only free to do as we're told?
 
COCODE

Colorado Statute 24-34-601
(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



>>>>
a place of public accommodation of which a private business is not.

Sorry that is incorrect.

The bakery is a business engaged in sales (and offering services) to the public (since you want to do the whole "bolding" thing):

"(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public;"​


Hope that helps.


>>>>
 
being offended is not in the constitution, laws are not based on emotion.

you have no right to food, clothing, housing, water.


Why did you post your message only to turn around and deny it.
 
My only legal conflict is does the state law supersede a possible violation of First Amendment right to practice their faith as they define practicing their faith. If so, the way around that is to dissolve the for-profit bakery and set up an faith-based non-profit organization that bakes wedding cakes. Or probably more practical if its that big of a concern for the bakers, discontinue the bakery's wedding cakes service altogether and just bake bread, cookies and pastries; then set up a separate faith-based non-profit that rents space from the for-profit at the same facility that only bakes wedding cakes for traditional Christian weddings.
 
My only legal conflict is does the state law supersede a possible violation of First Amendment right to practice their faith as they define practicing their faith. If so, the way around that is to dissolve the for-profit bakery and set up an faith-based non-profit organization that bakes wedding cakes. Or probably more practical if its that big of a concern for the bakers, discontinue the bakery's wedding cakes service altogether and just bake bread, cookies and pastries; then set up a separate faith-based non-profit that rents space from the for-profit at the same facility that only bakes wedding cakes for traditional Christian weddings.


1. A faith based, for Profit, business masquerading as a "non-profit" as a means of sidestepping anti-discrimination laws isn't probably going to fly under the laws of incorporation at both the state and federal levels.

2. The second option (i.e. remove wedding cakes from the menu - allthough without the "non-profit" dodge) would be perfectly fine. No business is required to provide goods and services to a specific customer if they don't provide them to any customer(s).



>>>>
 
a place of public accommodation of which a private business is not.

According to the state statute a private business is a public accommodation.

As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
From your link.
 
1. A faith based, for Profit, business masquerading as a "non-profit" as a means of sidestepping anti-discrimination laws isn't probably going to fly under the laws of incorporation at both the state and federal levels.

2. The second option (i.e. remove wedding cakes from the menu - allthough without the "non-profit" dodge) would be perfectly fine. No business is required to provide goods and services to a specific customer if they don't provide them to any customer(s).



>>>>


If the barkers truly see their cake baking service as a function of Christian ministry, I can't see anything legally wrong with setting up a separate non-profit entity that exclusively services traditional Christian weddings, but I'm not a lawyer.

BTW: If it were me I'd sell cakes to anybody. There are a lot of things Christian object to on moral grounds that we inadvertently have a hand in. The act of eating cake is not a sin, to my understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom