Judge Enforces Law: Did this judge rule right according to law and facts?

ernst barkmann said:

NO..i am asking you a question here, and your not answering it........name for me an exercisable right you have on another persons property.

Click to expand...

You have and can exercise the right of equal treatment and the right to not be discriminated against when renting a property that belongs to another, for one thing; or when requesting a public service, such as service in a restaurant... or a bakery... for another.

"Whites Only" establishments have long been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS for decades, and since SCOTUS has extended those rights to homosexuals, they too can exercise the right of equal treatment and the right to not be discriminated against when renting a property that belongs to another, or when requesting a public service, such as service in a restaurant... or a bakery.

Clear enough for you?

joko104 said:

you will always find angry white men on forums furiously raging the confederacy was right and they want it back. It comes down to that. They cannot accept their side lost the war.

Click to expand...

this is an emotional response, and ridiculous....showing me you have no argument.

dianna said:

you have and can exercise the right of equal treatment and the right to not be discriminated against when renting a property that belongs to another, for one thing; or when requesting a public service, such as service in a restaurant... Or a bakery... For another.

"whites only" establishments have long been ruled unconstitutional by scotus for decades, and since scotus has extended those rights to homosexuals, they too can exercise the right of equal treatment and the right to not be discriminated against when renting a property that belongs to another, or when requesting a public service, such as service in a restaurant... Or a bakery.

Clear enough for you?

Click to expand...

read constitutional law, discrimination laws are for only for governments...not the people.

You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.

ernst barkmann said:

read constitutional law, discrimination is only for governments...not the people.

You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS disagrees. You cannot discriminate when renting or selling your own property. You cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., when offering a public service from your own property, such as a restaurant or a bakery. Therefore, you are wrong.

joko104 said:

You will always find angry white men on forums furiously raging the Confederacy was right and they want it back. It comes down to that. They cannot accept their side lost the war.

Click to expand...

Well I dont claim to be an expert on the Constitution and I try to evaluate anything new/different interpretations when I see them. Alot of times I see things I'd 'like' to be true, but arent. Or that I havent seen applied to the current topic.

And things have to be kept in context. I did see his point about the distinction in how that law about yelling fire in a public place is applied, altho I havent looked into it further to verify.

But yeah, he seemed pretty angry. He never even acknowledged the position I claimed.

ernst barkmann said:

read constitutional law, discrimination laws are for only for governments...not the people.

You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.

Click to expand...

That is correct....EXCEPT the govt has created anti-discrimination laws to create a more equal society. Because it IS the job of the fed govt, as put forth in the Const, to protect the minority from the will of the majority. And this is one of those ways.

Ikari said:

And sometimes government imposes terms beyond their rightful ability.

Click to expand...

And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?

Ikari said:

And that's where consumer pressure rules the day. There are just some things we cannot do, or rather shouldn't do, with government force. But it doesn't mean we are left empty handed. A free society requires an educated and participating population and it's our duty to fulfill that. We have more at our disposal than mere government force to elicit proper changes within society and local business.

Click to expand...

Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.

ernst barkmann said:

You have no exercisable rights on another person's property.

Click to expand...

The classic answer? We the people can exercise the right to prevent you from raising hogs in your backyard for which the stink comes to ours.

We can exercise the right to prevent you from having dogs that bark all night long on your property.

We can exercise the right to prevent you from having massive fuel tanks on your land that could blow up and kill us.

There are piles of rights we can exercise over your land.

Oh, and we can tax it too.

Paschendale said:

And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?



Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.

Click to expand...

The distinction is between COMMERCE (public) and private. You can privately discriminate all you want to. You can't in public commerce. A person can't go public for profit while claiming absolute private rights.

joko104 said:

The distinction is between COMMERCE (public) and private. You can privately discriminate all you want to. You can't in public commerce. A person can't go public for profit while claiming absolute private rights.

Click to expand...

Private businesses can't have separate counters for whites and blacks. The distinction you're pointing out is clearly incorrect.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf

WOw thanks again

I like reading rulings i find them so interesting lol they are usually long and kinda drag on but that's to establish and prove precedent and to cover all aspects.
This ruling was a very good one and left no stoned unturned.

I know have even a better understanding of this case and even though it was an easy open shut case its even more solid than it ready was

some direct qoutes from the 13 page ruling

"The undisputed facts show that Respondents discriminated against
Complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding
cake for their same-sex marriage, in violation of § 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. Moreover,
application of this law to Respondents does not violate their right to free speech or
unduly abridge their right to free exercise of religion. Accordingly, Complainants’ motion
for summary judgment is GRANTED and Respondents’ motion for summary judgment is
DENIED."


At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to
refuse service to anyone it chooses. 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. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination
by businesses that offer goods and services to the public.2
The most recent version of the public accommodation law, which was amended in 2008 to add sexual orientation
as a protected class, reads in pertinent part:

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 . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of a place of public accommodation.
Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S. (emphasis added).

A “place of public accommodation” means “any place of business engaged in any
sales to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail
sales to the public.” Section 24-34-601(1), C.R.S. “Sexual orientation” means
“orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or
another person’s perception thereof.” Section 24-34-301(7), C.R.S. “Person” includes
individuals as well as business and governmental entities. Section 24-34-301(5),
C.R.S

In this case,
Respondents’ objection to same-sex marriage is inextricably tied to the sexual
orientation of the parties involved, and therefore disfavor of the parties’ sexual
orientation may be presumed. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Bray,
recognized that “some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they
are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by
a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A
tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Id. at 270. Similarly, the ALJ concludes
that discrimination against same-sex weddings is the equivalent of discrimination due to
sexual orientation.3

If Respondents’ argument was correct, it would allow a business that served all
races to nonetheless refuse to serve an interracial couple because of the business
owner’s bias against interracial marriage. That argument, however, was rejected 30
years ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. U.S., 461 U.S. 574 (1983). In Bob Jones, the Supreme
Court held that the IRS properly revoked the university’s tax-exempt status because the
university denied admission to interracial couples even though it otherwise admitted all
races. According to the Court, its prior decisions “firmly establish that discrimination on
the basis of racial affiliation and association is a form of racial discrimination.” Id. at
605. This holding was extended to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in
Christian Legal Soc’y Chapter of the Univ. of Cal. v. Martinez, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct.



AWESOME!

laws were broken, rights were violated, justice restored
the facts are this was about DISCRIMINATION, and the owners rights remain in tact nor is there any illegal forced servitude.

Paschendale said:

Private businesses can't have separate counters for whites and blacks. The distinction you're pointing out is clearly incorrect.

Click to expand...

No, your distinction is wrong. A "private" business is "public" commerce. By private, I mean your home. You could have separate counters for whites and blacks in your home. You could put a sign reading "no blacks" on your front door too if you want.

joko104 said:

No, your distinction is wrong. A "private" business is "public" commerce. By private, I mean your home. You could have separate counters for whites and blacks in your home. You could put a sign reading "no blacks" on your front door too if you want.

Click to expand...

So then what was your point? No one is talking about people's homes. We're talking about businesses. This is rules about commerce, not thought police.

Paschendale said:

So then what was your point? No one is talking about people's homes. We're talking about businesses. This is rules about commerce, not thought police.

Click to expand...

I am addressing the constant statement that a business is "private" property. It is in terms of ownership. It is no longer "private" when you open it up to commerce. Then it becomes "public domain." "Commerce" and "private" are contradictions. It really isn't "private" business, but "public" business.

Paschendale said:

And you don't think that protecting its citizens from discrimination is part of its rightful ability? Separate but equal, in public and private business, was held unconstitutional. There is precedent for the government doing this, and there is really no way to defend different drinking fountains for people based on race. How do you reconcile this problem?



Consumer pressure didn't end Jim Crow. If that's all you have to protect oppressed people, than any oppression is fine so long as it's in an area where it's popular.

Click to expand...

Jim Crow laws were actual laws. Government force against free exercise of rights and obvious to any honest man NOT what I was talking about. If fact given everything I stated about the use of government force, you should know I'd be in favor of removing the government force against rights.

If you want to debate, that's great. But let's keep the dishonest hyperbole and hysteria out of it.

Lursa said:

I also agree. However IMO, blacks and probably women would STILL be waiting to be treated equally in our society. The intrusion of govt in these cases advanced their positions in society in years instead of decades.

And as you said, we need an educated society. In this case the govt intrusion assisted, accelerated, that education. Is it fair that Americans who ALREADY DESERVE to be treated equally, have to wait for the ignorant and intolerant to catch up? If ever? The fed govt is charged with protecting the minority over the will over the majority.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. There was necessity for a certain amount of government force to protect the rights and liberties of all. Anything relating to state or local laws, discrimination for public services and schools, etc. But would it be like segregated American if we allowed discrimination by private individuals and business? Certainly there would be a nonzero number of segregated business that may be able to persist, but I doubt that would be much above zero. Most of us won't support business like that and without money they go away.

Besides, there are still places today allowed to discriminate and we see what happens there without government law. The last bastions of true elitism and segregation and discrimination, the Country Clubs have reversed course on membership not because the government said so but because of public outcry and money. So obviously we do have what it takes to limit the use of government force while still pushing socially and morally for a freer tomorrow. And that's what it will take to remain free.

Ikari said:

I don't think so. There was necessity for a certain amount of government force to protect the rights and liberties of all. Anything relating to state or local laws, discrimination for public services and schools, etc. But would it be like segregated American if we allowed discrimination by private individuals and business? Certainly there would be a nonzero number of segregated business that may be able to persist, but I doubt that would be much above zero. Most of us won't support business like that and without money they go away.

Besides, there are still places today allowed to discriminate and we see what happens there without government law. The last bastions of true elitism and segregation and discrimination, the Country Clubs have reversed course on membership not because the government said so but because of public outcry and money. So obviously we do have what it takes to limit the use of government force while still pushing socially and morally for a freer tomorrow. And that's what it will take to remain free.

Click to expand...

"Now" Most of us would not now. Back then it was common in many parts of the country and many communities all over. It was even "the norm." It was what people knew and grew up with.

A major reason that changed.....is because of anti-discrimination laws and society HAVING to accept it until it began to seem 'normal.' (Lord it makes me sad to write stuff like that.)

As for the private places you mentioned, I'd have to know specifically what the decisions were based on.

Lursa said:

That is correct....EXCEPT the govt has created anti-discrimination laws to create a more equal society. Because it IS the job of the fed govt, as put forth in the Const, to protect the minority from the will of the majority. And this is one of those ways.

Click to expand...

yes they sure have, placed on governments, not people or business.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

it is equality under the law, NOT....by law.

joko104 said:

The classic answer? We the people can exercise the right to prevent you from raising hogs in your backyard for which the stink comes to ours.

We can exercise the right to prevent you from having dogs that bark all night long on your property.

We can exercise the right to prevent you from having massive fuel tanks on your land that could blow up and kill us.

There are piles of rights we can exercise over your land.

Oh, and we can tax it too.

Click to expand...

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.

DiAnna said:

SCOTUS disagrees. You cannot discriminate when renting or selling your own property. You cannot discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc., when offering a public service from your own property, such as a restaurant or a bakery. Therefore, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

these laws you site, ..they are statutory laws, created by the federal government and state governments.

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.


no law is higher then constitutional law.

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

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.

discrimination is not a crime.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Forced servitude of a private individual in a private business to use their livelihood to produce a product that went towards violating that individuals beliefs is wrong.

The rights of the owner were not respected and the ruling was wrong. It's bigotry, tyranny, and a violation of religious and personal freedoms to be forced to conduct yourself in a manner that goes against your convictions and conscience. You, as an individual in a business should have the right to not be forced into servitude and do things that violate your beliefs/conscience because you exist within an industry. Being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding, or saying "if you refuse you will be punished" isn't a "gay rights" advancement, it's a bullying of the rights of others in the name of "equality" which is essentially forced servitude of private individuals and their businesses. It's wrong, it's not equality, and it is bigoted tyranny.

I wonder how many people would be ok with forcing an openly homosexual run business that provided a service to provide that service for the WBC or some other organization and say that they cannot refuse to put their product/service out there because it's "religious discrimination" even though the owners feel very conflicted and do not want to provide a service that advances an agenda they believe is wrong and not being able to refuse that. Let's say that an openly gay business that support gay rights causes is in the business of designing signs. WBC comes by and asks them to design giant signs filled with gay slurs and hate messages against homosexuals to be used during one of their protests. The owner feels very strongly that such a thing is disgusting, wrong, vile, and does not want to use his business and personal labor and services to promote that and wants to deny a potential paying customer their service. Should they be allowed to do so? Should they be forced into servitude, violate their conscience, use their personal labor and personal image/product to serve the WBC and not be allowed to turn them away or say that "no, I'm uncomfortable with this and I, as an individual business owner, do not want to serve your cause." Since WBC is a religious organization, and since they exist and walked through the door of the business, should they have the right to force the homosexual run business with strong convictions against printing hate messages against homosexuals to print those signs? I think that they shouldn't, I think that the owners should have the right to not use their product to promote something that goes against their values, conscience and beliefs and say that they will not provide their services to the WBC because they do not want to labor and use themselves to advance the agenda of the WBC and print things that are very offensive to them and against their beliefs. The same should apply to a baker that doesn't want to bake a cake to be used in a "wedding" service for homosexual couples because they have strong beliefs that such an act is wrong and do not want to use their personal labor, product, service and business to promote that. It's about respecting the rights and beliefs of others and not forcing them into servitude and to do things, as an individual, that interfere with their personal values and beliefs.

Ikari said:

Jim Crow laws were actual laws. Government force against free exercise of rights and obvious to any honest man NOT what I was talking about. If fact given everything I stated about the use of government force, you should know I'd be in favor of removing the government force against rights.

If you want to debate, that's great. But let's keep the dishonest hyperbole and hysteria out of it.

Click to expand...

So it's fine with you for a community to inflict that kind of harm on a minority so long as they don't make it official? An informal agreement to not serve blacks in a town or county is fine? Power is power, and abuse if that power is the same whether it's written down in a statute or not.

joko104 said:

I am addressing the constant statement that a business is "private" property. It is in terms of ownership. It is no longer "private" when you open it up to commerce. Then it becomes "public domain." "Commerce" and "private" are contradictions. It really isn't "private" business, but "public" business.

Click to expand...

Well, since I wasn't arguing that, why did you address that comment to me? That should have gone to someone like Ernst. A business that opens its doors to the public takes on specific responsibilities to the public, including serving all who come in.

Ruling was wrong, government is forcing servitude and making the owner violate his religous beliefs. One person's rights should not excede the rights of others.

Paschendale said:

So it's fine with you for a community to inflict that kind of harm on a minority so long as they don't make it official? An informal agreement to not serve blacks in a town or county is fine? Power is power, and abuse if that power is the same whether it's written down in a statute or not.

Click to expand...

You mean by not giving them cake? They are free to make their own business and serve their own clientele of their choice. As long as the individual is free, we can exercise all sorts of options that can push forward and avoid this "harm".

Ikari said:

You mean by not giving them cake? They are free to make their own business and serve their own clientele of their choice. As long as the individual is free, we can exercise all sorts of options that can push forward and avoid this "harm".

Click to expand...

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.