• 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
Lursa said:
1.) I also agree. However IMO, blacks and probably women would STILL be waiting to be treated equally in our society. The intrusion of govt in these cases advanced their positions in society in years instead of decades.

And as you said, we need an educated society. In this case the govt intrusion assisted, accelerated, that education. Is it fair that Americans who ALREADY DESERVE to be treated equally, have to wait for the ignorant and intolerant to catch up? If ever? The fed govt is charged with protecting the minority over the will over the majority.
Click to expand...

agreed and the argument could be made they still are waiting, of course its much better but im just saying the argument could be made
 
AGENT J said:
agreed and the argument could be made they still are waiting, of course its much better but im just saying the argument could be made
Click to expand...

I certainly dont think that racism has 'ended.' Nor marginalization of women.
 
Lursa said:
I also agree. However IMO, blacks and probably women would STILL be waiting to be treated equally in our society. The intrusion of govt in these cases advanced their positions in society in years instead of decades.

And as you said, we need an educated society. In this case the govt intrusion assisted, accelerated, that education. Is it fair that Americans who ALREADY DESERVE to be treated equally, have to wait for the ignorant and intolerant to catch up? If ever? The fed govt is charged with protecting the minority over the will over the majority.
Click to expand...
also on a side not and this doesnt have to do with you or anybody here just somethign i notice about LANGUAGE in general


i have to ask what factually makes it "intrusion" as a negative?

when government intrudes to prevent rape its not called an "intrusion" in a negative light

its just based on feelings and not facts

Government putting the rapist in jail and protecting rights and enforcing laws was great because i know the victim and the hell with that criminal

Government giving this shop owner a fine (he wasnt fined just saying) and and protecting rights and enforcing laws was bad and intrusive because i dont like that law and i want to discriminate and that owner isnt a criminal he is a hero

it makes me laugh how people can paint a picture and ignore facts. ANd im not claiming im not guilty of it, im sure in my life i have done the same just something interesting ive noticed on many topics lately.
 
Lursa said:
I certainly dont think that racism has 'ended.' Nor marginalization of women.
Click to expand...

of course not, me niether because that would make us both very foolish and factually wrong ;)
 
ernst barkmann said:
whether these actions you speak are right or wrong, it does not matter.....of coarse i think they are wrong, however my feelings do not play a part in law.

every person has his rights to life liberty and property, and government has no moral authority to force people to do things against their will.

it violates the founding principles, the u.s. constitution, and state constitutions.

when we create laws, based on our feelings we are doomed, becuase who decides who feelings are going to be used.

everyone's feelings are not the same.

government is made up of people, .are those elected.. morality superior to the population, becuase they hold a term of office.
Click to expand...

The right to property is not based on moral authority. It is based on law alone. That is my opinion but it is certainly not the same as life or liberty. And the law already curtails our rights in the first 2 based on benefit/damage to society.

Laws that curtail free speech such as not being able to yell Fire! in a crowd.

Laws that enable us to curtail the right to liberty when you commit a crime...again, this is to protect society.

I see anti-discrimination laws much the same. Not without their drawbacks, but definitely enhancing the rights of Americans that are deserving more than harming those that do not agree.
 
AGENT J said:
also on a side not and this doesnt have to do with you or anybody here just somethign i notice about LANGUAGE in general


i have to ask what factually makes it "intrusion" as a negative?
Click to expand...

I almost reconsidered using it for that very reason...that it usually has negative connotations. But I went with it anyway. It is accurate and that intrusion can be seen from both sides.
 
Lursa said:
I almost reconsidered using it for that very reason...that it usually has negative connotations. But I went with it anyway. It is accurate and that intrusion can be seen from both sides.
Click to expand...

yep its just one of those things that people can latch emotion onto when its just a word with no REAL factually meaning other than its definition.

Its like the word cult, all religions are cults but again its one of those words that people assume with negativity or SOME of its definitions have negativity so some dont like that.
 
Lursa said:
The right to property is not based on moral authority. It is based on law alone. That is my opinion but it is certainly not the same as life or liberty. And the law already curtails our rights in the first 2 based on benefit/damage to society.
Click to expand...

the DOI... the bill of rights, all state you have right to life liberty and property..in fact its mentioned twice in the constitution...property is the corner stone of ALL RIGHTS........without property...... you have no rights at all.


Lursa said:
Laws that curtail free speech such as not being able to yell Fire! in a crowd.
Click to expand...


incorrect, and this is used to many times..........you are held accountable, for the the harm you may do death/ pain of injury, loss of revenue, .......but not your words.


Lursa said:
Laws that enable us to curtail the right to liberty when you commit a crime...again, this is to protect society.
Click to expand...

government can curtail your rights when you infringe on others rights

but government has no authority to apply force to you when no crime has been committed, or health and safety in not involved.



Lursa said:
I see anti-discrimination laws much the same. Not without their drawbacks, but definitely enhancing the rights of Americans that are deserving more than harming those that do not agree.
Click to expand...

you have no right to be served, and the constitution, forbids involuntary servitude....it is governments only that cannot discriminate.

when you discriminate [ non violate], you are engaging in an emotional action, government has no authority becuase of how i behave emotionally.......i can be an A-HOLE, its none of the governments business.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the DOI... the bill of rights, all state you have right to life liberty and property..in fact its mentioned twice in the constitution...property is the corner stone of ALL RIGHTS........without property...... you have no rights at all.

incorrect, and this is used to many times..........you are held accountable, for the the harm you may do death/ pain of injury, loss of revenue, .......but not your words.




government can curtail your rights when you infringe on others rights

but government has no authority to apply force to you when no crime has been committed, or health and safety in not involved.





you have no right to be served, and the constitution, forbids involuntary servitude....it is governments only that cannot discriminate.

when you discriminate [ non violate], you are engaging in an emotional action, government has no authority becuase of how i behave emotionally.......i can be an A-HOLE, its none of the governments business.
Click to expand...

Those are mostly your interpretations and you are welcome to them. Also, you made a point I hadnt really realized before but supports my case.

however you are ignoring the HARM to individuals and society that discrimination does and that is what the laws are based on. This is the priority that the govt is placing on PEOPLE'S EQUAL rights over PROPERTY rights.

So then you disagree with the fight for civil rights that blacks and women fought that the govt supported with laws that advanced their acceptance and equality in our society?

You can. I dont. I believe that American that DESERVE equal rights shouldnt have to wait until all individuals in a society are willing to recognize it. The feds responsibility OVER the states is to protect the minorty from the majority.
 
AGENT J said:

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 must “cease and desist from discriminating” against 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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...


anyone find any more facts to add or more quotes from the ruling, i tried again for a little while but still cant find the complete ruling.

Id really like to read more about the illegal discrimination part and all the references and factual support it has.

PA has a site where most rulings are posted eventually but i couldnt find one that interactive for Colorado.
 
AGENT J said:
anyone find any more facts to add or more quotes from the ruling, i tried again for a little while but still cant find the complete ruling.

Id really like to read more about the illegal discrimination part and all the references and factual support it has.

PA has a site where most rulings are posted eventually but i couldnt find one that interactive for Colorado.
Click to expand...



Here is the Judges ruling -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


>>>>
 
Lursa said:
Those are mostly your interpretations and you are welcome to them. Also, you made a point I hadnt really realized before but supports my case.

however you are ignoring the HARM to individuals and society that discrimination does and that is what the laws are based on. This is the priority that the govt is placing on PEOPLE'S EQUAL rights over PROPERTY rights.

So then you disagree with the fight for civil rights that blacks and women fought that the govt supported with laws that advanced their acceptance and equality in our society?

You can. I dont. I believe that American that DESERVE equal rights shouldnt have to wait until all individuals in a society are willing to recognize it. The feds responsibility OVER the states is to protect the minorty from the majority.
Click to expand...


you have your individual rights.

however your individual rights do not include forcing other people to serve you, wait on you , using their time or labor...it is unconstitutional.

the civil rights act for government is constitutional...however for citizens it is unconstitutional.

the constitution itself states specifically, that the federal government has only authority over 4 classes of people..pirates counterfeiter traitors and tax cheats.....it has NO authority over any other person.

again.... government cannot create laws which violate life, liberty and property....these are the founding principles.
 
ernst barkmann said:
whether these actions you speak are right or wrong, it does not matter.....of coarse i think they are wrong, however my feelings do not play a part in law.

every person has his rights to life liberty and property, and government has no moral authority to force people to do things against their will.

it violates the founding principles, the u.s. constitution, and state constitutions.

when we create laws, based on our feelings we are doomed, becuase who decides who feelings are going to be used.

everyone's feelings are not the same.

government is made up of people, .are those elected.. morality superior to the population, becuase they hold a term of office.
Click to expand...

Every time you stop at a stop sign, the government has "forced you to do something." That argument is nothing unless you advocate total lawlessness.
 
joko104 said:
Every time you stop at a stop sign, the government has "forced you to do something." That argument is nothing unless you advocate total lawlessness.
Click to expand...

driving is not a right, its privilege...

there are rights and privileges in our constitution, and your state constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the DOI... the bill of rights, all state you have right to life liberty and property..in fact its mentioned twice in the constitution...property is the corner stone of ALL RIGHTS........without property...... you have no rights at all.
Click to expand...

??? That has been changed and updated many times...to make things more equal for Americans.

That's why you no longer have to have property to vote, for instance.

ALL Americans are deserving of equality whether they own property....any property...a car, an iPod, a farm, a condo....or not. When you rely on property as a basis, then you end up using the property as a benchmark, a ruler, a way to dole out things that should be the SAME for all.
 
joko104 said:
1.)Sexual orientation is inherently discriminatory, except for bisexuals. Law cannot change that no matter how it is written.

2.) I see a problem with having "obscenity" criminal laws as a necessity to protect anti-discrimination laws. While a business cannot sell sex, it can sell settings for it. In my opinion should be able to too. I would not agree to outlawing group sex. Would you? What about then at vacation spots? Can there be a gay swingers hotel of gay swinger activities that they do not allow hetero, men etc to participate since they don't fit into the sexuality?

3.) For example, is a prostitute - whether it legal or not - also committing a violation of anti-discrimination laws upon orientation by refusing to have gay sex or refusing to have heterosexual sex? It is "business" and such refusal would be "discriminatory" upon sexual orientation.

4.) What about a personal's website that allowed people to select the race of the person they were looking to met?
Nearly all allow a person to select the sexual orientation of the gender they are looking for. Is that a business that is engaging in illegal discrimination - have segregation of people by orientation?

5.) I just don't think when it comes to sexuality itself it can be as neatly regulated as you think without it in some regards becoming a new oppression, in the sense of "no, you can't have a setting for lesbian orgies because that discriminates against men and heterosexuals." Thus, it becomes sexual morality policing against gays claiming it is to protect them.

6.) The Supreme Court has recognized the unique natures of sexuality, specifically in the Hooter's lawsuit, in which the court ruled that men don't have "hooters" so Hooters can refuse to hire men as servers due to the nature of sexuality and orientation. If so, then why can't a business cater to the sexuality of gays too? And that is what that hotel I referred to does, but in a different sense. The business is about gay sexuality.

7.)I think the hotel met the legally or ethical "rule" by renting us a room, although that isn't why she did. She did so because of my wife. And I don't think the proviso of "but he (me) can't go in the lesbian sexuality and romance area." Do you really disagree with that?

8.)Legal absolutism "for the principle of it," can go too far.

9.) Finally, just like there was (still is somewhat) affirmative action for African-Americans to allow "catching up," should there be a fashion of affirmative action for gays? There are virtually NO settings where heterosexuals are harassed or belittled by gays for being hetero. There are 100,000 places where gays are harassed and belittled by heteros because they are gay. In some settings and regions, if gays can't have their own place, they may have no place at all.

10.)How many bars have "ladies night?" Do you think men then have the basis for a class action suit?
Click to expand...

1.) i have no clue what you are referring to, im talking about legal stuff
2.) laws are laws reasoning doesnt matter
3.) no law broken
4.) no law broken
5.) well since its no different than heterosexuality in that regard i dont see why not, homosexuality doesn't create something new, we already deal with it
6.) good lord those examples arent even close but again it all depends on the law. You have to read rulings like htat and understand them there are loops holes and if you can find one for your hotel youll be in luck but i dont see one nor am i aware of any that would fit, search it maybe there's on out there and your in luck. You could corner the market!
7.) dont know the laws in flordia but you have to remember her reasoning is what important. if it was about you being hetero then thats an issue if it was about not having you mad as hell beating on her desk when one of your kids say an naked adult that is very different. again i dont know what the motivation was im just saying

for instance this guy could simply not do ANY wedding cakes and that would be fine under the law. Now of course he would actually have to do that

8.) i agree but anti-discrimination laws certainly arent that way by any definition what so ever
9.) well see like many you have the wrong definition for AA.

government AA/EO doesnt not allow special treatment all though many falsely believe it does. AA/EO protects us all.
Now have some bisuness, colleges etc. given minorities boasts etc and claimed it was their AA program? yes absolutely but it factually had nothing to do with reall AA/EO and some of those places also got caught doing the ILLEGAL things they were doing and had to pay the price.

Orientation is already protected in many areas under laws "related too" AA/EO and theres a bill to include it nationally that will eventually pass.

10.) no they do not because thats not illegal

anyway anythign directly on topic you'd like to discuss
 
AGENT J said:
1.) i dont understand at all? theres no bending of the rules
2.) yes the same as straights if they, the couples have laws they cant cross and the on lookers have laws they can cross.

in most cases it would be obscenity laws for the couple and harassment/assult for the on lookers

3.) society is educating itself and standing up against bigots and or people in favor of denying rights

4.) interesting

5.) no if it breaks the law, its really that simply and soon these will be national laws

6.) yes it can as long as its based on the nudity issue and not gender discrimination. again its all what the law allows

7.) not sure how you come to this conclusion why is it any different than a straight romantic opportunity and socializing, i dont understand what you are saying

8.) yes it would but again i have no clue how you arrive at the conclusion they cant co exist

9.) again depending on the law state doesnt need gay marriage to have anti-discrimination laws, colorado doesnt

10.) not true i dont know about flordia but yes may places and companies and states etc have martial status as a anti-discrimination group

11.) this is true of everything but the proper thing to do is always protect rights and equality. The rest you deal with later
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation is inherently discriminatory, except for bisexuals. Law cannot change that no matter how it is written.

I see a problem with having "obscenity" criminal laws as a necessity to protect anti-discrimination laws. While a business cannot sell sex, it can sell settings for it. In my opinion should be able to too. I would not agree to outlawing group sex. Would you? What about then at vacation spots? Can there be a female gay swingers hotel of female gay swinger activities that they do not allow hetero, men etc to participate since they don't fit into the sexuality?

For example, is a prostitute - whether it legal or not - also committing a violation of anti-discrimination laws upon orientation by refusing to have gay sex or refusing to have heterosexual sex? It is "business" and such refusal would be "discriminatory" upon sexual orientation.

What about a personal's website that allowed people to select the race of the person they were looking to met?
Nearly all allow a person to select the sexual orientation of the gender they are looking for. Is that a business that is engaging in illegal discrimination - have segregation of people by orientation?

I just don't think when it comes to sexuality itself it can be as neatly regulated as you think without it in some regards becoming a new oppression, in the sense of "no, you can't have a setting for lesbian orgies because that discriminates against men and heterosexuals." Thus, it becomes sexual morality policing against gays claiming it is to protect them.

Can Hooters hire more women servers than men because only women have "hooter?" Can a strip club not have equal amount of time on the stage for men and women? Could a strip club refuse to allow gay strip-act routines? Does it have to have an equal number of hetero male stripper acts, hetero female-stripper acts, gay male stripper acts, gay female stripper acts, bisexual stripper acts and transsexual stripper acts? Or to not discriminate, not have any such acts at all, nor have any music or songs that taylor to an orientation? Do radio stations have to play romance songs in equal number that are about straight romance and gay romance?

Why can't a business cater to the sexuality of gays too? And that is what that hotel I referred to does, but in a different sense. The business is about female gay sexuality. So how does a man fit into that business without disrupting it on a sexuality level?

I think the hotel met the legally or ethical "rule" by renting us a room, although that isn't why she did. She did so because of my wife. And I don't think the proviso of "but he (me) can't go in the lesbian sexuality and romance area." Do you really disagree with that?

Legal absolutism "for the principle of it," can go too far.

Finally, just like there was (still is somewhat) affirmative action for African-Americans to allow "catching up," should there be a fashion of affirmative action for gays? There are virtually NO settings where heterosexuals are harassed or belittled by gays for being hetero. There are 100,000 places where gays are harassed and belittled by heteros because they are gay. In some settings and regions, if gays can't have their own place, they may have no place at all.

How many bars have "ladies night?" Do you think men then have the basis for a class action suit?
The

I think the hotel met the legally or ethical "rule" by renting us a room, although that isn't why she did. She did so because of my wife. And I don't think the proviso of "but he (me) can't go in the lesbian sexuality and romance area." Do you really disagree with that?

Legal absolutism "for the principle of it," can go too far.

Finally, just like there was (still is somewhat) affirmative action for African-Americans to allow "catching up," should there be a fashion of affirmative action for gays? There are virtually NO settings where heterosexuals are harassed or belittled by gays for being hetero. There are 100,000 places where gays are harassed and belittled by heteros because they are gay. In some settings and regions, if gays can't have their own place, they may have no place at all.

How many bars have "ladies night?" Do you think men then have the basis for a class action suit?
 
Lursa said:
??? That has been changed and updated many times...to make things more equal for Americans.

That's why you no longer have to have property to vote, for instance.

ALL Americans are deserving of equality whether they own property....any property...a car, an iPod, a farm, a condo....or not. When you rely on property as a basis, then you end up using the property as a benchmark, a ruler, a way to dole out things that should be the SAME for all.
Click to expand...

the USSC only recognizes rights, congress does not create rights......there are those listed in BOR, however those are not rights, the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government that it shall created any law which infringes on rights....one being property.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

you have NO right to have PROPERTY, only to pursue it.

america is not a collective society, we do not have collect rights, they are individual rights.

equity means ......equity under the laws government has created, meaning all law must apply to everyone equally,.

citizens and businesses, do NOT MAKE LAWS, why are you applying constitutional law to a citizen or business
 
A curiousity is that some bisexuals see the expression LGTB as entirely wrong. It should be SLGT. Straight, lesbian, gay and transsexual. All those "discriminate entirely on orientation (possible exception for transsexuals). Bisexuals do not. So why are they put into the category of gays? Gays and heteros exactly and equally discriminate based upon gender. Nor do all gays and lesbians accept bisexuals. Moreso heteros don't, but also some homosexuals don't either.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the USSC only recognizes rights, congress does not create rights......there are those listed in BOR, however those are not rights, the bill of rights are restrictions on the federal government that it shall created any law which infringes on rights....one being property.



The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

you have NO right to have PROPERTY, only to pursue it.

america is not a collective society, we do not have collect rights, they are individual rights.

equity means ......equity under the laws government has created, meaning all law must apply to everyone equally,.

citizens and businesses, do NOT MAKE LAWS, why are you applying constitutional law to a citizen or business
Click to expand...

And the govt has seen it necessary to step in an protect the individual rights of some group so they would be treated equally.

To protect the minority from the majority (Reader's Digest version)....which supersedes state's rights.

again, I see the benefits accrued from the civil rights movement and anti-discrimination laws. So IMO, they are acceptable.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the DOI... the bill of rights, all state you have right to life liberty and property..in fact its mentioned twice in the constitution...property is the corner stone of ALL RIGHTS........without property...... you have no rights at all.
Click to expand...

Your messages are becoming so bizarre and detached from any actual political issue I see no point to your rant, other than just that - to rant. Clearly, you totally distain the Declaration of Independence about equality.
 
Lursa said:
And the govt has seen it necessary to step in an protect the individual rights of some group so they would be treated equally.

To protect the minority from the majority (Reader's Digest version)....which supersedes state's rights.

again, I see the benefits accrued from the civil rights movement and anti-discrimination laws. So IMO, they are acceptable.
Click to expand...

You will always find angry white men on forums furiously raging the Confederacy was right and they want it back. It comes down to that. They cannot accept their side lost the war.
 
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

§ 24-34-601(1), C.R.S........state code. or statutory law.

not criminal law.

Summary
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



13th--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.

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.
 
joko104 said:
Your messages are becoming so bizarre and detached from any actual political issue I see no point to your rant, other than just that - to rant. Clearly, you totally distain the Declaration of Independence about equality.
Click to expand...

LIFE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY ARE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.........how can the government make laws which infringe on them, if no crime has been committed, or their is no health or safety issue?

you need to understand what equity is.

it is equality under the law.....NOT EQUALITY BY LAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom