• 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
So then your only defense against prejudice is popular opinion. Well what if prejudice is the popular opinion? What's your answer if Jim Crow isn't a law, but simply what people do? Keep in mind, before separate but equal, a lot of businesses simply wouldn't serve blacks at all. Whole segments of their own communities were closed to them. You're saying that's perfectly fine because there's no official law about it. That's extremely short sighted.

You can't force people to believe a certain way, you can't make them not run their mouths, you can't force what they do with their property so long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. It's an artifact of freedom. People will do stupid crap, people will believe stupid crap, and we on whole must act intelligently enough to still affect the system. I'm not saying these actions are fine, but thought control is something that's not proper arena of government.
 
you show you do not even know the basics of what rights are about.

your examples are health and safety reasons, which i already stated government can use force on.

government can use force on crimes and health and safety.

it cannot use force, becuase someone made you mad, sad, hurt your feelings, made you feel unwanted......emotion is not part of law.

No, you don't. You have the bizarre theory that lack of food, housing, medical care etc denied because of race isn't a health and safety issue.

HERE'S A CLUE. LOOK IT UP. Without food people die. I guess you didn't know that.
 
You can't force people to believe a certain way, you can't make them not run their mouths, you can't force what they do with their property so long as they aren't infringing upon the rights of others. It's an artifact of freedom. People will do stupid crap, people will believe stupid crap, and we on whole must act intelligently enough to still affect the system. I'm not saying these actions are fine, but thought control is something that's not proper arena of government.

So a person doesn't really have freedom in a place where the majority decides, unofficially, to oppress them? That's basically your point. That a town full of people can just decide not to rent homes to blacks, Jews, or gays? Because that's the popular opinion, it's completely acceptable? They can just run someone out of town? They shouldn't be required by law to rent to them regardless of the bigotry, hire them, sell them food, or anything? It's fine so long as they aren't using government power to hurt people? That's moronic. "We don't serve your kind here" is not what this country is about.
 
No, you don't. You have the bizarre theory that lack of food, housing, medical care etc denied because of race isn't a health and safety issue.

HERE'S A CLUE. LOOK IT UP. Without food people die. I guess you didn't know that.

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

you have no right to food, clothing, housing, water.
 
So a person doesn't really have freedom in a place where the majority decides, unofficially, to oppress them? That's basically your point. That a town full of people can just decide not to rent homes to blacks, Jews, or gays? Because that's the popular opinion, it's completely acceptable? They can just run someone out of town? They shouldn't be required by law to rent to them regardless of the bigotry, hire them, sell them food, or anything? It's fine so long as they aren't using government power to hurt people? That's moronic. "We don't serve your kind here" is not what this country is about.

it happens in the senate every day
 
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).

Where in the anti discrimination laws does it state that a private business cannot refuse service to anyone he'd like on any grounds he wants? That is what bothers me about this. This man is being forced to provide his services to someone that he doesn't want to. Now I don't agree with his reasonings for not helping this couple, however, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell someone how to run their business like this.
 
Yes, it was a correct ruling.

But I wonder if it would have been different if the bakers were Muslims.

Or if the roles were reversed and the gay couple were the bakers and objected to heterosexual Christians.

Regardless, it seems bad policy in general to buy food from people who hate you.
 
Where in the anti discrimination laws does it state that a private business cannot refuse service to anyone he'd like on any grounds he wants? That is what bothers me about this. This man is being forced to provide his services to someone that he doesn't want to. Now I don't agree with his reasonings for not helping this couple, however, the government shouldn't be allowed to tell someone how to run their business like this.

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



>>>>
 
Yes, it was a correct ruling.

But I wonder if it would have been different if the bakers were Muslims.

Or if the roles were reversed and the gay couple were the bakers and objected to heterosexual Christians.

Regardless, it seems bad policy in general to buy food from people who hate you.


Actually there was a case involving Muslim cab drivers a few years ago, had to do with them refusing fares at an airport (that required special permits) for people (a) they thought had been drinking, (b) were carrying any alcohol, (c) anyone with a pet dog, and (d) handicapped persons with service dogs.

The same type of people that are today defending the baker are the same one blasted the Muslims saying they should be fired.


>>>>
 
Actually there was a case involving Muslim cab drivers a few years ago, had to do with them refusing fares at an airport (that required special permits) for people (a) they thought had been drinking, (b) were carrying any alcohol, (c) anyone with a pet dog, and (d) handicapped persons with service dogs.

The same type of people that are today defending the baker are the same one blasted the Muslims saying they should be fired.


>>>>

So, what happened to the Muslims?

I doubt the generalization is true. Can you provide us with a list of people who called for the Muslims to be fired yet defended the bakers?
 
So, what happened to the Muslims?

IIRC they lost.

ETA: Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News

I doubt the generalization is true.

Feel Free.

Can you provide us with a list of people who called for the Muslims to be fired yet defended the bakers?

I wasn't on this board 6 years ago. It was a different board, so no I can't pull a "list".

I said the "same type", not the same people. And yes the same type of people were against Muslim freedom of religion yet support this baker. Then there are the same types of people that support Christian symbology at tax payer expense yet didn't want to allow a privately funded Mosque in New York City because it was to clos
 
Last edited:
13th amendment --Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "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.".

Colorado constitution:
Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Section 26. Slavery prohibited. There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self�executing....

..not enforced
 
Last edited:
Section 30b. No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation. Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self�executing....

..not enforced

Section 30b of the Colorado Constitution is based on a 1992 ballot initiative, it is not enforced because it is not Constitutional.


>>>>
 
Section 30b of the Colorado Constitution is not enforced because it is not Constitutional.


>>>>

yes I know ..I noted it in my post, even the people of Colorado, thru constitutional amendment know it is wrong to apply force to people. who have committed no crime, or threaten anyone's health or safety
 
yes I know ..I noted it in my post, even the people of Colorado, thru constitutional amendment know it is wrong to apply force to people. who have committed no crime, or threaten anyone's health or safety

You said "not enforced" which implies the law is/was valid, just not enforced. A new administration (i.e. Governor) could choose to start enforcing it if you will. That isn't correct, the law is not active because it's unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

I'm not sure where you get that from. Question 2 only applied to Gays, it didn't repeal their Public Accommodation laws. Using that logic they then agreed (because it wasn't part of the Amendment) that it was OK to apply force to people. who have committed no crime, or threaten anyone's health or safety if the discrimination was based on race, creed, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, age, or marital status (those provisions already in the law).

Question 2 did not say what you say it said, in actually it said that force is OK, just not to protect the gays.


>>>>
 
I'm not sure where you get that from. Question 2 only applied to Gays, it didn't repeal their Public Accommodation laws. Using that logic they then agreed (because it wasn't part of the Amendment) that it was OK to apply force to people. who have committed no crime, or threaten anyone's health or safety if the discrimination was based on race, creed, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sex, age, or marital status (those provisions already in the law).

Question 2 did not say what you say it said, in actually it said that force is OK, just not to protect the gays.


>>>>

I did not say it did, the Colorado constitution and our federal constitution state, no person can be put into involuntary servitude unless a crime has been committed and the person convicted.

discrimination is not a CRIME, it is a statutory law, code....not criminal law.
 
I did not say it did, the Colorado constitution and our federal constitution state, no person can be put into involuntary servitude unless a crime has been committed and the person convicted.

The 13th Amendment argument is horsepoop. Public Accommodation laws require no person to enter into involuntary servitude as understood under the framing of the 13th Amendment. Involuntary servitude was basically temporary slavery (in other words indentured servants that "sold" themselves into temporary slavery for a specified period of time. The business is free to offer or not offer their goods and services, the law simply requires that it offer those goods and services equally. If they don't want to provide those goods and services they are free to not offer them.

A much better argument, IMHO, is that the violate the property rights of the owner in deciding to whom they will provide those goods and their labor, but that is a different argument.

discrimination is not a CRIME, it is a statutory law, code....not criminal law.

Didn't say it was a Crime, it's illegal but that is something different. Something does not have to be CRIME (since you want to shout) to be illegal.

Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good example. It is illegal to enter into Civil Marriage in 30+ States, but it is not a crime under criminal law. There are Civil Laws and Criminal Laws, something in violation of Civil Law is still illegal, but it need to by a crime under Criminal Law.



>>>>
 
The 13th Amendment argument is horsepoop. Public Accommodation laws require no person to enter into involuntary servitude as understood under the framing of the 13th Amendment. Involuntary servitude was basically temporary slavery (in other words indentured servants that "sold" themselves into temporary slavery for a specified period of time. The business is free to offer or not offer their goods and services, the law simply requires that it offer those goods and services equally. If they don't want to provide those goods and services they are free to not offer them.

A much better argument, IMHO, is that the violate the property rights of the owner in deciding to whom they will provide those goods and their labor, but that is a different argument.



Didn't say it was a Crime, it's illegal but that is something different. Something does not have to be CRIME (since you want to shout) to be illegal.

Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good example. It is illegal to enter into Civil Marriage in 30+ States, but it is not a crime under criminal law. There are Civil Laws and Criminal Laws, something in violation of Civil Law is still illegal, but it need to by a crime under Criminal Law.



>>>>

the law is question is a statute..its CO code.

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.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "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

indentured servitude continued in America until the beginning of the 20th century
 
Last edited:
the law is question is a statute..its CO code.

I know, I've provided the code citation and the text multiple times.

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.

Thank you for the lesson but I already knew that.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes involuntary servitude illegal under any U.S. jurisdiction whether at the hands of the U.S. government or in the private sphere, except as punishment for a crime: "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

indentured servitude continued in America until the beginning of the 20th century

Thank you again, but everything in the above is irrelevant. Public Accommodation laws are not Indentured Servitude under the usage of the term in the 13th Amendment.

The owner of the business opened the business VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing). They VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) determined what goods and/or services to offer to the public. They can VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) stop offering their goods and services to the public. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business that has VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) decided to offer goods and services to the public must do so in a non-discriminatory manner for the conditions outlined in the law.

Trying to state a legal case that Public Accommodation laws will be found unconstitutional based on the 13th Amendment is just barking up the wrong tree. Every State in the Union has Public Accommodation laws and they have been reviewed by all levels of state courts and upheld as a proper function of the powers under of the State under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce within that state. Colorado has had a Public Accommodation law for over 100 years. The federal Public Accommodation law has been reviewed and upheld by all levels of the federal courts including the Supreme Court and been found valid (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States).


I didn't shout, it was to show it must be criminal, discriminate is not a criminal offense.

Again, for something to be illegal it does not have to be a criminal offense.

Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good example. It is illegal to enter into Civil Marriage in 30+ States, but it is not a crime under criminal law. There are Civil Laws and Criminal Laws, something in violation of Civil Law is still illegal, but it need to by a crime under Criminal Law.


>>>>
 
Section 30b of the Colorado Constitution is based on a 1992 ballot initiative, it is not enforced because it is not Constitutional.

How can it be in the constitution and not be constitutional? You mean under the federal constitution?
 
VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing).

Good Lord, how tiresome. A suggestion: Use italics to emphasize, that way you don't have to issue a disclaimer every time.
 
It looks like a legal decision based on an unconstitutional law that the supreme court thinks to be constitutional.

It seems to have the same quality as forcing people to pay for abortions, when they pay taxes or insurance fees.
 
I know, I've provided the code citation and the text multiple times.



Thank you for the lesson but I already knew that.



Thank you again, but everything in the above is irrelevant. Public Accommodation laws are not Indentured Servitude under the usage of the term in the 13th Amendment.

The owner of the business opened the business VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing). They VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) determined what goods and/or services to offer to the public. They can VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) stop offering their goods and services to the public. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business that has VOLUNTARILY (not shouting of course, just emphasizing) decided to offer goods and services to the public must do so in a non-discriminatory manner for the conditions outlined in the law.

Trying to state a legal case that Public Accommodation laws will be found unconstitutional based on the 13th Amendment is just barking up the wrong tree. Every State in the Union has Public Accommodation laws and they have been reviewed by all levels of state courts and upheld as a proper function of the powers under of the State under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce within that state. Colorado has had a Public Accommodation law for over 100 years. The federal Public Accommodation law has been reviewed and upheld by all levels of the federal courts including the Supreme Court and been found valid (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States).




Again, for something to be illegal it does not have to be a criminal offense.

Same-sex Civil Marriage is a good example. It is illegal to enter into Civil Marriage in 30+ States, but it is not a crime under criminal law. There are Civil Laws and Criminal Laws, something in violation of Civil Law is still illegal, but it need to by a crime under Criminal Law.


>>>>


if you read the story
regarding the case, its states...that the judge is an "administrative law judge"

since the case is the state , taking the bakery to court, thats makes it "public law", and not civil law.

Public law comprises constitutional law, "administrative law", tax law and criminal law, as well as all procedural law.

Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century, as legislative bodies worldwide created more government agencies to regulate the increasingly complex social, economic and political spheres of human interaction.

administrative law focuses on arbitration of the two parties, ..........while criminal law focuses on the punishment of the individual.

AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
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.

has the bakery owner been convicted of a crime, will he have a "Record" of conviction for the rest of his life.........."No" its not a criminal case.
 
I love mashed potatoes.




Buttery mashed potatoes and gravy next to a nice rib-eye steak are mighty hard to beat.

If the baker in this case wants to take this to the U.S. Supreme Court he might be able to do that but my guess is that he would lose.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom