-
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!
Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647]
- Thread starter disneydude
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,520
- Reaction score
- 11,253
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
The number of gay couples getting married is irrelevant to the situation at hand. The case is about a single couple.
It doesn't have to be discrimination against the whole class of people, it only needs to be discrimination against that couple for the item for sale.
And you put your finger on the exact point as to why the baker was in violation of Colorado Statute 24-34-601. He was willing to sell any cake to a straight couple or individual but only some cakes to a homosexual couple. That statute indicated that "Full and Equal" services must me provided. He refused to proved the same services.
There are no exceptions listed under the law as to WHY the discrimination occurred, the discrimination itself is what is against the law. Actually the couple being gay was the core reason the baker wouldn't make the cake. If they weren't gay, he have made the wedding cake.
#1 is irrelevant and #2 & #3 are an incorrect interpretation of the law as demonstrated by multiple states in multiple cases involving essentially the same issue.
Actually the Judges decision was in line with the law and precident. Under the law the Judge made the right call.
Now he could have been an activist Judge and disregarded the law, but that is not what judges are supposed to do.
Well of course your welcome to your opinion. However your opinion does not comport with the law.
Some people are just not willing to separate what they think the law **should** be from reality.
Have a good day.
>>>>
The number of gay couples getting married is irrelevant to the situation at hand. The case is about a single couple.
It doesn't have to be discrimination against the whole class of people, it only needs to be discrimination against that couple for the item for sale.
And you put your finger on the exact point as to why the baker was in violation of Colorado Statute 24-34-601. He was willing to sell any cake to a straight couple or individual but only some cakes to a homosexual couple. That statute indicated that "Full and Equal" services must me provided. He refused to proved the same services.
There are no exceptions listed under the law as to WHY the discrimination occurred, the discrimination itself is what is against the law. Actually the couple being gay was the core reason the baker wouldn't make the cake. If they weren't gay, he have made the wedding cake.
#1 is irrelevant and #2 & #3 are an incorrect interpretation of the law as demonstrated by multiple states in multiple cases involving essentially the same issue.
Actually the Judges decision was in line with the law and precident. Under the law the Judge made the right call.
Now he could have been an activist Judge and disregarded the law, but that is not what judges are supposed to do.
Well of course your welcome to your opinion. However your opinion does not comport with the law.
Some people are just not willing to separate what they think the law **should** be from reality.
Have a good day.
>>>>
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Whether paid or not, it's still contributing to the event.
For instance, if someone hired you, who is an expert in bomb building, to build a pipe bomb so he could murder someone, by law are you not contributing to the crime of murder? Can you then tell the judge and jury that since it's a transaction where you are getting paid for your service and that you weren't on-site at the murder scene to attend the murder event therefore you are not held accountable for the murder?
Of course not.
Same for a christian who believe that he will one day have to answer to God about his contribution to the abomination God spoke about in the Bible that he should have no part thereof.
OK.
Whether paid or not, it's still contributing to the event.
For instance, if someone hired you, who is an expert in bomb building, to build a pipe bomb so he could murder someone, by law are you not contributing to the crime of murder? Can you then tell the judge and jury that since it's a transaction where you are getting paid for your service and that you weren't on-site at the murder scene to attend the murder event therefore you are not held accountable for the murder?
Of course not.
Same for a christian who believe that he will one day have to answer to God about his contribution to the abomination God spoke about in the Bible that he should have no part thereof.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
It shows that the baker was willing to serve the gay people, even those having the gay wedding, just not be compelled against his religious belief to provide something against his religious principle, which by the way is protected by the Constitution.
When there is a conflict between State or Federal laws versus the Constitution, you should know which one should give way, right?
And yet in this case, the baker did not discriminate against the whole class of gay people because of their sexual orientation. He simply refused to be forced to contribute to an event which violates his religious principle. As such, the baker did not even violates the State law you cited.
Now, regarding the judge, he didn't just err in his decision. He violated the baker's Constitutional right to exercise his religious belief as protected by the Constitution when he compelled the baker to bake the wedding cake for the gay wedding.
I'm not going to read any further of your post just to re-harsh to death the same old same old. What I have just stated above is more than enough to refute your argument on this case. And I'll leave it at that even if you won't.
Yes, it is relevant.
It shows that the baker was willing to serve the gay people, even those having the gay wedding, just not be compelled against his religious belief to provide something against his religious principle, which by the way is protected by the Constitution.
When there is a conflict between State or Federal laws versus the Constitution, you should know which one should give way, right?
And yet in this case, the baker did not discriminate against the whole class of gay people because of their sexual orientation. He simply refused to be forced to contribute to an event which violates his religious principle. As such, the baker did not even violates the State law you cited.
Now, regarding the judge, he didn't just err in his decision. He violated the baker's Constitutional right to exercise his religious belief as protected by the Constitution when he compelled the baker to bake the wedding cake for the gay wedding.
I'm not going to read any further of your post just to re-harsh to death the same old same old. What I have just stated above is more than enough to refute your argument on this case. And I'll leave it at that even if you won't.
Last edited:
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Wow....where do you come up with these completely unrelated analogies? Serious dude......
and BTW if this guy truly WERE a Christian he would exhibit more Christlike behavior. This guy is "Christian" in name only.
Wow....where do you come up with these completely unrelated analogies? Serious dude......
and BTW if this guy truly WERE a Christian he would exhibit more Christlike behavior. This guy is "Christian" in name only.
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Absolutely....they would have to bake a cake.
Absolutely....they would have to bake a cake.
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,520
- Reaction score
- 11,253
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
No, the fact that baker would have sold cupcakes to the individuals seeking a wedding cake is irrelevant as you just showed yourself. You just varified that the baker did not provide full and equal access to the businesses goods and services as required by the law.
The baker denied via an unlawful act equal and full access to their goods and services.
Yep the Constitution. However Public Accommodation laws have never been found unconstitutional. As a matter of fact they have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and found Constitutional.
The illegal act performed was against that same sex couple, the "whole class of gay people" doesn't factor into the case at all. The baker denied full and equal treatement to that couple because of their sexual orientation.
He was an Adminstrative Judge at a hearing not a State Civil or Criminal Judge, he is not allowed to rule a law is unconstitutional.
His ruling now goes to the State Director that overseas illegal discrimination conducted by business, if the Director rejects the Judges opinion - he can dismiss the case. On the other hand if he accepts the Judges opinion - then the injunction will be in place against continued unlawful discrimination. The next step after the Directors ruling then is for the Baker to challenge the decision in regular court. Success there is highly unlikely as we've seen in other state courts (i.e. Elane Photography) and at the Supreme Court (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) that Public Accommodation laws have been upheld as a valid exercise of regulation of commerce.
You haven't refuted anything. You made claims about how "it's unconstitutional" for Public Accommodation laws to regulate business practices of businesses but have not cited even one case where a Public Accommodation law was overturned in any court. You have not argued the law as it's written, you have not whown where anything in the Judges ruling was incorrect.
I disagree with the premise of the law and if given the option would vote against it just like Goldwater Voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the inclusion of Federal Public Accommodation in that act. My opinion though of what the law should be is different then discussing what the law actually is.
It might help if you learned the difference yourself.
>>>>
No, the fact that baker would have sold cupcakes to the individuals seeking a wedding cake is irrelevant as you just showed yourself. You just varified that the baker did not provide full and equal access to the businesses goods and services as required by the law.
(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
The baker denied via an unlawful act equal and full access to their goods and services.
Yep the Constitution. However Public Accommodation laws have never been found unconstitutional. As a matter of fact they have been challenged all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and found Constitutional.
The illegal act performed was against that same sex couple, the "whole class of gay people" doesn't factor into the case at all. The baker denied full and equal treatement to that couple because of their sexual orientation.
He was an Adminstrative Judge at a hearing not a State Civil or Criminal Judge, he is not allowed to rule a law is unconstitutional.
His ruling now goes to the State Director that overseas illegal discrimination conducted by business, if the Director rejects the Judges opinion - he can dismiss the case. On the other hand if he accepts the Judges opinion - then the injunction will be in place against continued unlawful discrimination. The next step after the Directors ruling then is for the Baker to challenge the decision in regular court. Success there is highly unlikely as we've seen in other state courts (i.e. Elane Photography) and at the Supreme Court (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States) that Public Accommodation laws have been upheld as a valid exercise of regulation of commerce.
You haven't refuted anything. You made claims about how "it's unconstitutional" for Public Accommodation laws to regulate business practices of businesses but have not cited even one case where a Public Accommodation law was overturned in any court. You have not argued the law as it's written, you have not whown where anything in the Judges ruling was incorrect.
I disagree with the premise of the law and if given the option would vote against it just like Goldwater Voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of the inclusion of Federal Public Accommodation in that act. My opinion though of what the law should be is different then discussing what the law actually is.
It might help if you learned the difference yourself.
>>>>
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,509
- Reaction score
- 31,081
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Where in Christianity does it say "Thou needst not bake a big cake for a gay wedding, but cupcakes are OK?
Where in Christianity does it say "Thou needst not bake a big cake for a gay wedding, but cupcakes are OK?
Phil_Osophy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,450
- Reaction score
- 454
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Where in any religion does it say that you are entitled to other peoples businesses?
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
There is one key distinction =Nobody is using religion as the basis to make that argument...whereas the bigot baker IS trying to use religion as the basis to promote his bigotry.
There is one key distinction =Nobody is using religion as the basis to make that argument...whereas the bigot baker IS trying to use religion as the basis to promote his bigotry.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
yet the judge did not rule it had to be perfect, if I were that baker it would not be either, it might even be late
yet the judge did not rule it had to be perfect, if I were that baker it would not be either, it might even be late
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
And you risk even further lawsuits and consequences as a result of continuing to discriminate based on your bigotry. Yea.....good luck with that one.
And you risk even further lawsuits and consequences as a result of continuing to discriminate based on your bigotry. Yea.....good luck with that one.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
cakes turn out bad all the time, guess you aren't familiar with the kitchen
cakes turn out bad all the time, guess you aren't familiar with the kitchen
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
absolutely...but bigotry patterns can be traced. Its really not that difficult.
absolutely...but bigotry patterns can be traced. Its really not that difficult.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
OMG the cake did not turn out well, that is bigotry:shock::roll::lamo
OMG the cake did not turn out well, that is bigotry:shock::roll::lamo
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Don't be facetious. You were the one claiming that you would purposefully make sure the cake didn't turn out well or was late....and yes....purposefully ruining a cake or any other product because you don't like a person's skin color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.....is bigotry. I'm surprized you didn't understand that.
Don't be facetious. You were the one claiming that you would purposefully make sure the cake didn't turn out well or was late....and yes....purposefully ruining a cake or any other product because you don't like a person's skin color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.....is bigotry. I'm surprized you didn't understand that.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
burden of proof falls the the customer that pissed their pants about a specific bakery instead of just going to another, I am surprise you can't figure that out on your own
burden of proof falls the the customer that pissed their pants about a specific bakery instead of just going to another, I am surprise you can't figure that out on your own
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
And as I indicated...a bigot might get away with it once, twice or a few times, but it is pretty simple to show a pattern of bigotry and discrimination. Why do you feel that people should not be allowed to eat in a restaurant simply because of the color of their skin? Why should they "just have to go to another"?
And as I indicated...a bigot might get away with it once, twice or a few times, but it is pretty simple to show a pattern of bigotry and discrimination. Why do you feel that people should not be allowed to eat in a restaurant simply because of the color of their skin? Why should they "just have to go to another"?
Phil_Osophy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,450
- Reaction score
- 454
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Because nobody is entitled to the property (including business) of others.
Because nobody is entitled to the property (including business) of others.
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Fortunately, you are just flat out wrong. Nobody in America has the right to deny service based on bigotry. That is the law whether you like it or not.
Fortunately, you are just flat out wrong. Nobody in America has the right to deny service based on bigotry. That is the law whether you like it or not.
Phil_Osophy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 1,450
- Reaction score
- 454
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
The democrats said the same thing about slavery. And here they are, advocating slavery again. So when you agree with the law, you just resort to "its the law, big daddy govt says so". But if you dont agree with the law, then its "govt can be wrong". But not one of you have made a valid argument as to what entitles you to anothers property or labor other than "if they do business with someone, that automatically entitles me", or "its not nice", or "big daddy govt says so", or "its better for society for the state to control your property and labor".
The democrats said the same thing about slavery. And here they are, advocating slavery again. So when you agree with the law, you just resort to "its the law, big daddy govt says so". But if you dont agree with the law, then its "govt can be wrong". But not one of you have made a valid argument as to what entitles you to anothers property or labor other than "if they do business with someone, that automatically entitles me", or "its not nice", or "big daddy govt says so", or "its better for society for the state to control your property and labor".
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
must you lie when you run out of debate intelligence, no one here stated what you just posted
must you lie when you run out of debate intelligence, no one here stated what you just posted
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 5,660
- Reaction score
- 1,252
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
resturants refuse service all the time for no shirts or shoes, some people just need to grow up
resturants refuse service all the time for no shirts or shoes, some people just need to grow up
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
That's exactly what you are saying Rocketman.....sorry, but we have a right as a society to say that you cannot impose your bigotry just because you don't like someone's skin color or gender or sexual orientation. You seem to think its ok...but it isn't. Sorry.
That's exactly what you are saying Rocketman.....sorry, but we have a right as a society to say that you cannot impose your bigotry just because you don't like someone's skin color or gender or sexual orientation. You seem to think its ok...but it isn't. Sorry.
disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:113:123:292:647
Oh really....blacks just need to "grow up" and accept the bigotry of the white restaurant owner who refuses to serve them because of the color of their skin? Sorry...but that is not acceptable in America...and if the bigots don't want to comply with the law...then the answer is simple, don't open a restaurant. Period.
Oh really....blacks just need to "grow up" and accept the bigotry of the white restaurant owner who refuses to serve them because of the color of their skin? Sorry...but that is not acceptable in America...and if the bigots don't want to comply with the law...then the answer is simple, don't open a restaurant. Period.