Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

AGENT J said:

1.)wrong again i simply quoted the wrong prefix, that is factually Colorado law whether you like it to not and it is about businesses serving the public. :shrug:
2.) nope its called illegal discrimination as the facts and judge prove
3.) nope the bakery isnt being forced to do business the bakery isnt being allowed to conduct itself ILLEGALLY huge difference it actually government success. Im very happy they protected the rights of my fellow americans and didnt allow the owner do break the law and infringe on others rights.

Click to expand...

Perhaps if you organize your thoughts in a more clear manner it would be easier to respond to what you said.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

The people that sued were not employees, so you are 110% off base in EVERYTHING you just wrote. They wanted a bakery to make a cake, the bakery said no. That's called freedom, to force the bakery (or any business) to do business they do not want to is government force at it's worst.

Click to expand...

just to keep you from making another mistake and being 110% wrong again

DORA Division of Civil Rights - Public Accommodations Discrimination





[/QUOTE]

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:

another post about ME and not the topic.

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's because you can't deal with the topic and won't debate.. You just refer back to the court case.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

Perhaps if you organize your thoughts in a more clear manner it would be easier to respond to what you said.

Click to expand...

translation: you got nothing thats what i thought

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

Perhaps if you organize your thoughts in a more clear manner it would be easier to respond to what you said.

Click to expand...

More organized than numbered? LOL

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

I'm still waiting for you to figure out how to use the quote thing and organize your thoughts in a readable manner.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

Perhaps if you organize your thoughts in a more clear manner it would be easier to respond to what you said.

Click to expand...

I like optimism as much as the next guy but...

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Grant said:

1.)Perhaps that's because you can't deal with the topic
2.) and won't debate.. You just refer back to the court case.

Click to expand...

1.) i deal with the topic just fine, i love it when illegal discrimination loses, seems some dont though
2.) theres nothing to debate, im not interested in debating opinions, fantasies and philosophies when facts are being discussed
3.) that among other things

if you would like talk opinions, fantasies and philosophies feel free, im just interested in the facts of this case, sorry this bothers you lol

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

I'm still waiting for you to figure out how to use the quote thing and organize your thoughts in a readable manner.

Click to expand...

when you are done deflecting and trying to make me the topic feel free to actual post something on topic but since you were proven factually wrong i guess you wont

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Grant said:

I like optimism as much as the next guy but...

Click to expand...

I guess I forgot why I was ignoring him before… a bunch of random strings of partial thought. Time to add him back I guess.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

I guess I forgot why I was ignoring him before… a bunch of random strings of partial thought. Time to add him back I guess.

Click to expand...

still got nothing on topic? no facts to support you and your posts that were factually proven wrong?

well let me remind you of the topic:

Arbo said:

1.)The people that sued were not employees, so you are 110% off base in EVERYTHING you just wrote.
2.) They wanted a bakery to make a cake, the bakery said no. That's called freedom
3.), to force the bakery (or any business) to do business they do not want to is government force at it's worst.

Click to expand...

1.) factually false because they dont have to be employees
DORA Division of Civil Rights - Public Accommodations Discrimination

2.) nope its called illegal discrimination not freedom and its a criminal and the criminal was punished

3.) the bakery was not forced to do business they were forced to not break the law, to not illegally discriminate. Its actually government success! A criminal loses.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

AGENT J said:

well let me remind you of the topic:

Click to expand...

So still no coherent thoughts, and just edited quotes. Bye.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292]

Arbo said:

So still no coherent thoughts, and just edited quotes. Bye.

Click to expand...

translation: you still got nothing

your post was 100% factually wrong proven by links and facts. Let us know when you can post any facts supporting your failed post and again PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.

the topic is discrimination and the bakery.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:

not to mention there is no force :shrug:

Click to expand...

wrong!

this is case of discrimination, it is not a crime.

if government states that a one citizen MUST serve another citizen, that is involuntary servitude, and it is unconstitutional

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

CriticalThought said:

Except for the part where he violated state law.

Click to expand...

discrimination laws are statute law and is subordinate to constitutional law.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

ernst barkmann said:

1,)wrong!

2.)this is case of discrimination, it is not a crime.

3.)if government states that a one citizen MUST serve another citizen, that is involuntary servitude, and it is unconstitutional

Click to expand...

1.) facts disagree with you and prove you wrong

2,) yes illegal discrimination is a crime unless the definition of the word changed, its breaking the law which is again a crime

crime
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general

: an act that is foolish or wrong

3.)nope because thats not what happened

what actually happened is the government is not allowing the owner to commit crimes, break the law, illegally discriminating and or infringe on the rights of others
the ruling was"cease and desist from discriminating”

these are the facts as pointed out in the case and ruled on by the judge

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:

1.) facts disagree with you and prove you wrong

2,) yes illegal discrimination is a crime unless the definition of the word changed, its breaking the law which is again a crime

crime
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general

: an act that is foolish or wrong

3.)nope because thats not what happened

what actually happened is the government is not allowing the owner to commit crimes, break the law, illegally discriminating and or infringe on the rights of others
the ruling was"cease and desist from discriminating”

these are the facts as pointed out in the case and ruled on by the judge

Click to expand...

wrong, discrimination is NOT criminal law, it is statutory law........you failed right away on that one.

if it had been criminal law, the owner would have been handcuffed and taken to jail, and they were not.


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."

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." Onerous long term alimony and spousal support orders, premised on a proprietary interest retained by former marital partners in one another's persons, have also been allowed in many states, though they may in practice embody features of involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

AGENT J said:

this guy CHOSE to participate in the PUBLIC REALM which has rules and laws that regulate it and they are the same for us all.

Click to expand...

The fact remains that the business, and all its assets, are private property, owned by citizens, and not by the government.

What does the Constitution have to say about compelling the public use of private property? See the Fifth Amendment.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, as it appears in volume 42 of the United States Code, beginning at section 2000e. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111-2) amend several sections of Title VII. In addition, section 102 of the CRA (which is printed elsewhere in this publication) amends the Revised Statutes by adding a new section following section 1977 (42 U.S.C. 1981), to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Cross references to Title VII as enacted appear in italics following each section heading. Editor's notes also appear in italics.

u.s. code.... is statutory law



Colorado Civil Rights Division

Investigation The Colorado Civil Rights Division is charged with investigating claims of alleged discrimination. Discrimination is defined as adverse treatment based upon a person's protected group status. Enforcement activities are conducted by Division Investigators.

Dispute Resolution The Division's Alternative Dispute Resolution Unit provides netural mediators who assist parties in attempting to resolve their dispute through mediation, including conciliation. Often, mediation results in a mutually beneficial resolution that saves both parties time and resources.

Training (click to review subject matter and enroll in Civil Rights Division classes in Employment and Fair Housing). The Civil Rights Division provides outreach and education to the citizens of Colorado about anti-discrimination laws and issues. The Division works with public and private organizations in conducting educational programs to eliminate interpersonal or intergroup tensions.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (click to access upcoming Commission meetings link and Agendas when published) is a seven-member bipartisan panel whose mission is to: conduct hearings involving illegal discriminatory practices; advise the Governor and General Assembly regarding policies and legislation that address illegal discrimination; review appeals of cases investigated and dismissed by the Division; and adopt and amend rules and regulations to be followed in the enforcement of the state's statutes prohibiting discrimination.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

ernst barkmann said:

wrong, discrimination is NOT criminal law, it is statutory law........you failed right away on that one.

if it had been criminal law, the owner would have been handcuffed and taken to jail, and they were not.


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."

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." Onerous long term alimony and spousal support orders, premised on a proprietary interest retained by former marital partners in one another's persons, have also been allowed in many states, though they may in practice embody features of involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

We find no merit in the remainder of appellant's contentions, including that of "involuntary servitude." As we have seen, 32 States prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodations. These laws but codify the common-law innkeeper rule which long predated the Thirteenth Amendment. It is difficult to believe that the Amendment was intended to abrogate this principle. Indeed, the opinion of the Court in the Civil Rights Cases is to the contrary as we have seen, it having noted with approval the laws of "all the States" prohibiting discrimination. We could not say that the requirements of the Act in this regard are in any way "akin to African slavery." Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328, 332 (1916).

Click to expand...

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

sangha said:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Click to expand...

If you force someone into service for someone else you are forcing them into servitude. Sorry, but that is involuntary servitude and thus slavery. Keep quoting that bit of nonsense by the courts all day, but it won't change that fact. The logic and the understanding of slavery in the ruling is faulty.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Bob Blaylock said:

The fact remains that the business, and all its assets, are private property, owned by citizens, and not by the government.

What does the Constitution have to say about compelling the public use of private property? See the Fifth Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.​

Click to expand...

The business is a public accommodation, and the govt's power to regulate such establishments has been a matter of law since before the constitution was written

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

"Does the owner of private property devoted to use as a public establishment enjoy a property right to refuse to deal with any member of the public because of that member's race, religion, or national origin? As noted previously, the English common law answered this question in the negative. It reasoned that one who employed his private property for purposes of commercial gain by offering goods or services to the public must stick to his bargain. It is to be remembered that the right of the private [379 U.S. 241, 285] property owner to serve or sell to whom he pleased was never claimed when laws were enacted prohibiting the private property owner from dealing with persons of a particular race. Nor were such laws ever struck down as an infringement upon this supposed right of the property owner.

"But there are stronger and more persuasive reasons for not allowing concepts of private property to defeat public accommodations legislation. The institution of private property exists for the purpose of enhancing the individual freedom and liberty of human beings. This institution assures that the individual need not be at the mercy of others, including government, in order to earn a livelihood and prosper from his individual efforts. Private property provides the individual with something of value that will serve him well in obtaining what he desires or requires in his daily life.

"Is this time honored means to freedom and liberty now to be twisted so as to defeat individual freedom and liberty? Certainly denial of a right to discriminate or segregate by race or religion would not weaken the attributes of private property that make it an effective means of obtaining individual freedom. In fact, in order to assure that the institution of private property serves the end of individual freedom and liberty it has been restricted in many instances. The most striking example of this is the abolition of slavery. Slaves were treated as items of private property, yet surely no man dedicated to the cause of individual freedom could contend that individual freedom and liberty suffered by emancipation of the slaves.

"There is not any question that ordinary zoning laws place far greater restrictions upon the rights of private property owners than would public accommodations [379 U.S. 241, 286] legislation. Zoning laws tell the owner of private property to what type of business his property may be devoted, what structures he may erect upon that property, and even whether he may devote his private property to any business purpose whatsoever. Such laws and regulations restricting private property are necessary so that human beings may develop their communities in a reasonable and peaceful manner. Surely the presence of such restrictions does not detract from the role of private property in securing individual liberty and freedom.

"Nor can it be reasonably argued that racial or religious discrimination is a vital factor in the ability of private property to constitute an effective vehicle for assuring personal freedom. The pledge of this Nation is to secure freedom for every individual; that pledge will be furthered by elimination of such practices." Id., pp. 22-23.

Click to expand...

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

sangha said:

The business is a public accommodation, and the govt's power to regulate such establishments has been a matter of law since before the constitution was written

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us how? Please enlighten us on how a trade dispute clause between the listed members can regulate the affairs between businesses and their consumers.

I would also like to know how private property can be open to the public and decided as such by the government without violating property rights. Do you realize that is a violation of the very foundation of property that is to control the use and access of that property? The very idea that the government can violate the very foundation of property and maintain freedom is laughably stupid. That statist nonsense is rejected and seen and decided as nonsense.

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

ernst barkmann said:

1.)wrong, discrimination is NOT criminal law, it is statutory law........you failed right away on that one.

if it had been criminal law, the owner would have been handcuffed and taken to jail, and they were not.

2.)
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."

The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." Onerous long term alimony and spousal support orders, premised on a proprietary interest retained by former marital partners in one another's persons, have also been allowed in many states, though they may in practice embody features of involuntary servitude.

Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

1.) weird can you point out where i said its "criminal law"
i said its a crime and he is a criminal which is factual true, you lie fails

if you disagree simply quote me saying it was "criminal law" can be done because it never happen

facts defeat your post again

2.) nothing here changes the fact that Involuntary servitude :shrug:
you are free to have your opinion but thats factually not whats going on

let me know when you have any facts that support your claim

Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

sangha said:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Click to expand...

how do you explain, government forcing people under coercion to serve other people, or be forced out of business?

if i do not serve a person, ...have i violate life liberty or property ....no i have not.

however it government forces me to serve another citizen, ..it is violating the founding principles of life, liberty and property.

this case you cite is using commerce as it tool, ...commerce is the buying and selling of goods, ...it is not serving people...no one has the right to be served.

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."