- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,922
- Reaction score
- 11,898
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Country clubs are for profit though, yes?
So there can't be a bakery called Resurrection Loaf or Jesus has Risen that had strict membership regulations that are staunchly enforced? If not, why can other businesses or private clubs discriminate?
Are you anti discrimination folks okay with a gym only open to women?
No, you didn't. All I'm asking is where is this lie you are ferring to. Simply repeating that I lied again and again does not prove your case.
Are you anti discrimination folks okay with a gym only open to women?
Oh hell no I wouldn't either.
Just so you know, if I go into a Detroit barber shop and say, "Cut my hair, nigger", I expect you to file an anti-discrimination suit on my behalf...after you deliver my eulogy.
Who pays property taxes? Are they funded with public money? If no, then it's private. Just because you want access to other people's property doesn't make it public property.
I think you completely miss the point. You're conflating discrimination and free speech. A business which operates publicly is required to abide by discrimination laws which clearly state that nobody can be denied service based solely on gender, race, or sexual orientation. This is law. The reason the judge ruled this way is because the state law is clear and there is extensive precedent. It's not like some extreme liberal judge just said "what the heck, I like gays! Let's give those bakers hell!"
On the other hand, religious freedom and the freedom of speech are both extremely well protected in the United States. An example for each: Scientology is considered a religion and it is allowed to operate even though it's obviously a money hungry cult. Other countries aren't so generous to them. And the Westboro Baptist Church continues to go around the country saying things that nobody likes and yet the only thing the government has done to stop them is say they have to picket a little further away from funerals than they previously had been. Free speech law hasn't really changed at all in hundreds of years.
Discrimination isn't speech, it's bigotry. Allowing businesses to discriminate makes people less free, not more. There's a reason the Civil Rights Act was passed, and it wasn't because business owners were too free, it was because minorities were treated as subhuman and thus they had limited freedom..It shocks me how many people want to go backward thinking it's forward
The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
As far as I know, there's no Constitutional right not to be hurt emotionally. Also, the baker did not refuse service because the customers were gay. No, like he said, he was willing to bake them birthday cakes or baby shower cakes, just not wanting to be a part in their gay marriage celebration that defies his religious belief. It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.
This ruling set a very bad precedent that can cut both ways. Now, all you have to do to force atheists to attend church every Sunday or get them to participate in Christian holiday celebration is to go hunt for atheist professional writers. photographers, videographers, etc and engage their service with the demand that they attend church every Sunday and take notes of the sermons for the required projects. If they refused service then had the judge issue an injunction to compel them to comply based on this stupid ruling.
Now, they can't refused, can they? Or they would have to pay a fine just like this baker.
The judge's justification for his ruling sounds so ignorant. He said: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.Another person that doesn't understand what Public Accommodation laws mean.
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(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 or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.
No, the law does not mean that a Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli is suddenly required to sell pork products to customers. Why? Because those pork products are not routinely stocked or sold as part of the offerings of the establishment. What the law means is that **IF** that Muslim (or Jewish) caterer/restaurant/Deli **DID** stock and sell such items they cannot discriminate on who they sell them to based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, martial status, national origin, or ancestry. No business has to go out and start supplying things they don't normally supply as part of their routine business practices.
In this case, the baker routinely supplied and advertized for the sale of wedding cakes. Because he refused to supply the same "full and equal" access to goods and services supplied by the business to other customers he was found in violation of the Colorado Law passed by the Colorado Legislature by a Colorado Judge.
>>>>
FYI, wedding cake isn't an individual or a group, disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. So, your argument is absurd.
If a customer walks into a muslim bakery and demand to have a cake frosted with a caricature of the prophet mohammad with a bomb sitting on his head using whatever are in stock, would that be ok for the judge to compel the muslim baker to bake the customer a terrorist depicting mohammad caricature cake?
And like I said, the ruling cuts both ways.
Then what did you say?I find it funny, you try to equate the wedding cake to claiming that is what I said then call it absurd. You got spanked for dumb post which mischaracterised what Public Accommodation laws do. Deal with it.
>>>>
Then what did you say?
Is refusing to bake a wedding cake a discrimination against your disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry according to your so-called "Public Accommodation law"?
So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?When the bakery advertizes and sells wedding cakes then refuses to sell it/them to customers who are gay because they they are getting married, that would be discrimination based on sexual orientation.
And it's not "my so-called 'Public Accommodation Law'", it is the Colorado Statute 24-34-601 on the subject.
>>>>
What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?What I said was very clear. Businesses are not required to provide goods and services they don't normally supply. This business normally supplied wedding cakes. Under the law they are required to sell them in a non-discriminatory manner.
The Muslim caterer who routinely supplies only Halal compliant goods, is not required to go out and supply non-Halal items (such as pork). However if the Muslim caterer DOES normally supply port products, then they cannot refuse to sell them to a customer based on the customers disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry per Colorado law.
It's not "my so-called 'Public Accommodation Law'", it is the Colorado Statute 24-34-601 on the subject.
>>>>
So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?
Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?
What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?
I never said it was public property. I said it was a business open to the public. Once you open it to the public then you have to abide by public policies... Do you think that restaurants should be able to deny black people, or gays, the right to dine there as well?
But it's not going to happen because too many Americans want to see the USA go forwards, not backwards.
No, I did not change the argument. You refused to concede the point.You have changed the argument. If you are a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies then you are required by law to serve the ANY FEMALE customer that wants your service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies be she white, black or lesbian.
Where you get that all of a sudden the photographer has to take nude pictures is beyond illogical.
How does this scenario even makes sense? If he makes religious cakes then he has to make other religious cakes. If a Muslim baker makes religious cakes of Jesus or Moses then he would be required to make one of Mohammed.
So, if I'm a professional photographer or artist who advertises and sells my service of taking or painting portraits of beautiful bodies of gorgeous young ladies, am I required by law to serve the gay customers and go to the gay nude beach to take pictures or paint portraits of their naked bodies?
Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?
Do you see the problem with this law by your interpretation?
What about forcing a muslim baker to frost a mohammad caricature on the cake? Is it a discrimination on race, religion or what not if non-complaint due to his islamic religious prohibition?
It's just like trying to force a muslim caterer by judicial fiat to cook a non-muslim customer a pork sausage on demand. It's outrageous. If the judge can't discern the basic fact nor understand the basic principle, he's not fit to be sitting on the bench.
No it isn't at all. It would be more akin to a muslim caterer refusing service of a product that he normally produces every day to a non-muslim custom, simply because they aren't muslim. Your analogy is completely off-base. Nobody is asking this baker to bake anything other than that which he normally produces in the course of business.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?