• 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]

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

The case that I cited was decided 49 years ago.

Since then most people in the USA accept the 1964 Civil Rights Act as settled law.

But a few people still try to swim upstream.

Not my problem.

That should be fun to prove considering the provisions in question have never had majority support.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

It is basically throwing the entire concept of rights in the trash and only valuing slavery.

Who is the slave here and whose rights are being threatened?
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Who is the slave here and whose rights are being threatened?

The business owner is the slave and their rights are violated.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

for godsake just let them eat cake...
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

for godsake just let them eat cake...

They can get their cake from willing participates.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

They can get their cake from willing participates.

tough crowd tonight....
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

They can get their cake from willing participates.

That would seem to be fair enough. It's not the case that Gays are being denied the right to buy cakes in Colorado.
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

If you would go to the link that I provided and do a little reading you would learn that the U.S. Supreme Court required the Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.

IOW the court threw the Libertarians property rights ideas in the trash can.

From the opinion:

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.

Thus while I agree with the Court that Congress in fashioning the present Act used the Commerce Clause to regulate racial segregation, it also used (and properly so) some of its power under 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I repeat what I said earlier, that our decision should be based on the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby putting an end to all obstructionist strategies and allowing every person - whatever his race, creed, or color - to patronize all places of public accommodation without discrimination whether he travels interstate or intrastate.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Wrong.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is supported by the majority of the citizens of the USA

You do realize I brought up a totally different question, right? Since the question pertains to only certain provisions of the law the polling question should reflect that and not ask them on approval of the entire law.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

"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.

The very first paragraph shows how this decision is beyond the scope of the law. Unless CO has added sexual orientation to the above list through state law or state constitutional amendment, this case does not apply at all to the judgement described.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Heres more articles on this win of equal rights:

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Washington Post
Judge orders baker to serve gay couples despite his religious beliefs | Fox News
Judge rules wedding cake shop must serve gays, despite owner's religious beliefs - Long Island Top News | Examiner.com
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples - U.S. News
Colorado baker discriminated by denying gay couple wedding cake: judge - Chicago Tribune
Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com
Judge orders Colo. cake-maker to serve gay couples - The Denver Post

heres some quotes from the ruling/judge from the varies links

when i can find the actual rulling ill post it too

“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.

“Conceptually, [Mr. Phillips's] 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.


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.

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses,” Judge Spencer said in his written order. “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.”

so theres lots of reading for everyone and it seems the fact remains the owner broke the law and illegally discriminated against others infringing on their rights

next time the shop owber will no better and wont break the law and violate peoples rights
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The very first paragraph shows how this decision is beyond the scope of the law. Unless CO has added sexual orientation to the above list through state law or state constitutional amendment, this case does not apply at all to the judgement described.

CO has added sexual orientation to the list through state law
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

The very first paragraph shows how this decision is beyond the scope of the law.
Unless CO has added sexual orientation to the above list through state law or state constitutional amendment, this case does not apply at all to the judgement described
.




Colorado law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Read about it here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/colorado-governor-signs-sexual-orientation-anti-discrimination-bill

Does anyone really think that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever say that law is unconstitutional?
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

CO has added sexual orientation to the list through state law

correct just like many other states, corporations and most large cities
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

just for some back ground and info


Twenty-one states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

and in many states that dont most major cities do
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
for example PA doesnt do this yet but heres the cities towns and states that do:
There are 33 PA Municipalities that protect citizens based on sexual orientation and in most places gender identity as well, other protected classes vary in these municipalities:

Of the 15 Largest Pennsylvania Cities, 12 have inclusive Non-Discrimination Laws
The 12 Largest Pennsylvania Cities in order of population, that already have a non-discrimination laws that includes sexual orientation *and in most cases, gender identity*.

1. Philadelphia* - pop. 1,526,006 (passed this law in 1954, amended 2002)

2. Pittsburgh* - pop. 305,704 (passed this law in 1992, amended 2005)

3. Allentown* - pop. 118,032 (passed this law in 1964, amended 2002)
4. Erie (as part of Erie County) - pop. 101,786 (passed this law in 2002)
5. Reading* - pop. 88,082 (passed this law in 1955, amended 2009)
6. Scranton - pop. 72,485 (passed this law in 2003)
7. Bethlehem* - pop. 71,329 (passed this law on June 21st, 2011)
8. Lancaster* - pop. 55,381 (passed this law in 1991)
10. Harrisburg* - pop. 47,196 (passed this law in 1992)
12. York - pop. 40,862 (passed this law in 1998)
13. State College* - pop. 38,420 (passed this law in 2008)
15. Easton* - pop. 26,080 (passed this law in 2007)
And these 18 PA towns and 2 PA counties also have fully inclusive non-discrimination laws all these laws were passed since 2002 when New Hope was the 1st of the small towns to do so: New Hope*, Swarthmore*, Lower Merion Township*, West Chester*, Landsdowne*, Doylestown*, all of Erie County*(2002), all of Allegheny County*(2009), Haverford*, Conshohocken*, Springfield Township* and Newtown Borough, Whitemarsh Township* (passed Nov. 17, 2011), Jenkintown* (passed Nov. 26, 2011), Susquehanna Township* (passed Dec. 8, 2011), Cheltenham Twnship* (passed Feb. 15, 2011), Abington Twnship* (passed April 11, 2012), East Norriton* (passed July 24, 2012), Upper Merion Township* (passed Sept. 13, 2012), City of Pittston* (passed May 28, 2013), Bristol* (passed Sept. 9, 2013)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so while its not state wide yet its getting there one way or another

heres another example of texas:

The following Texas municipalities have ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation: Austin, Brownsville, Houston, Dallas, Dallas County, El Paso, Fort Worth, El Paso, Grand Prairie, Lubbock, San Antonio, and Walker County.



also about 85% of fortune 100, 500 and 1000 companies have these policies also



so again equal rights is winning and its coming the writing is on the wall
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I guess in some peoples worlds the right to force people into service for them must be equally protected. Obviously we can't have equal rights unless people can have slaves.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

I guess in some peoples worlds the right to force people into service for them must be equally protected.
Obviously we can't have equal rights unless people can have slaves.




That might be obvious to you but it is not obvious to me.




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
Last edited:
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

That might be obvious to you but it is not obvious to me.

It must be obvious to you since you support slavery.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Colorado law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Read about it here: LifeSiteNews Mobile | Colorado Governor Signs Sexual Orientation Anti-Discrimination Bill

Does anyone really think that the U.S. Supreme Court will ever say that law is unconstitutional?

Then the decision was a correct one for that state. The state decided to add sexual orientation to their special classes and that comports fine with the US Constitution. The state is the "decider" on this issue. As repugnant as I find being forced by law to do business with those I would choose not to - this is a legitimate decision in light of the state's chosen position.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

That is an egregious lie for which you can provide no proof.

You support the law, yes? If so, then there is your proof.
 
Re: Colorado Judge: Bakery Owner discriminated against gay couple [W:123]

Like I said, you have no proof.

You have lost this argument.

If you support the law then you must support involuntary servitude and thus slavery.
 
Back
Top Bottom