- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?
Yes
No
I love mashed potatoes
Now let me be clear what Im asking. The fact is we have national equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws. Then on top of that states, counties, cities, towns, corporations and many orgs have minimum these same laws/rules/ordinances and policies but also expand them in different ways.
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).
With these laws and protections of rights factually in place for all the other categories and factually in place in Colorado did the judge rule properly?
If you think all equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist, this ain’t the thread for you because that isn’t the topic.
I want to know if people think the judge made the right ruling based on facts and law.
We can discuss if you think orientation should be grouped with the others though.
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for me this is pretty easy,this is about illegal discrimination and violating rights and nothing else.
Its factual a matter of civil/legal/equal rights as supported by law, rights, court cases, court precedence, constitutions and even the ruling above vs illegal discrimination.
In the public realm we all have laws and rules we must follow, we all have rights, and they are the same for ALL OF US. Nobody gets special treatment nobody gets to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.
The owner CHOSE to get a business license and agree to its terms and follow the rules and laws that come with that.
The owner CHOSE to commit a crime and break law and he had to face the consequences of that.
In reality he actually got off light, he broke the law and violated the rights of others and was simply given a cease and desist order to not longer break the law and illegal discriminate.
Now he was asked if he would be willing to go to jail over this and he said “You know if that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” well, happy trails Jack because that’s is where criminals tend to end up when they get caught breaking the law.
Sorry he is entitled to his opinion but as a Christian myself I see zero logic in breaking the law and zero wrong with selling cake to gays, theres nothing sinful about that. This is simply very stupid and poor foresight and Jack has nobody to blame but himself.
It actually blows my mind that SOME of the same people that don’t accept religion as a reason to break the law, illegally discriminate and violate equal rights some how magically think its ok when it comes to "queers faggots and dykes” treat them as a lesser and give them the same rights we all have or at least protect them. How absurd, and severely transparent those particular people are.
Links:
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
Cake Shop Owner Tells Fox News He
It Was Never About the Cake | Deborah Munn
Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress
Yes
No
I love mashed potatoes
Now let me be clear what Im asking. The fact is we have national equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws. Then on top of that states, counties, cities, towns, corporations and many orgs have minimum these same laws/rules/ordinances and policies but also expand them in different ways.
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).
With these laws and protections of rights factually in place for all the other categories and factually in place in Colorado did the judge rule properly?
If you think all equal protection laws and anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist, this ain’t the thread for you because that isn’t the topic.
I want to know if people think the judge made the right ruling based on facts and law.
We can discuss if you think orientation should be grouped with the others though.
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."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for me this is pretty easy,this is about illegal discrimination and violating rights and nothing else.
Its factual a matter of civil/legal/equal rights as supported by law, rights, court cases, court precedence, constitutions and even the ruling above vs illegal discrimination.
In the public realm we all have laws and rules we must follow, we all have rights, and they are the same for ALL OF US. Nobody gets special treatment nobody gets to break the law and infringe on the rights of others.
The owner CHOSE to get a business license and agree to its terms and follow the rules and laws that come with that.
The owner CHOSE to commit a crime and break law and he had to face the consequences of that.
In reality he actually got off light, he broke the law and violated the rights of others and was simply given a cease and desist order to not longer break the law and illegal discriminate.
Now he was asked if he would be willing to go to jail over this and he said “You know if that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” well, happy trails Jack because that’s is where criminals tend to end up when they get caught breaking the law.
Sorry he is entitled to his opinion but as a Christian myself I see zero logic in breaking the law and zero wrong with selling cake to gays, theres nothing sinful about that. This is simply very stupid and poor foresight and Jack has nobody to blame but himself.
It actually blows my mind that SOME of the same people that don’t accept religion as a reason to break the law, illegally discriminate and violate equal rights some how magically think its ok when it comes to "queers faggots and dykes” treat them as a lesser and give them the same rights we all have or at least protect them. How absurd, and severely transparent those particular people are.
Links:
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple | ACLU - Colorado
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings - ABC News
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
Cake Shop Owner Tells Fox News He
It Was Never About the Cake | Deborah Munn
Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress
Last edited: