- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,703
- Reaction score
- 11,539
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
no.. my argument is "force" cannot be used on a citizen, when that citizen has not violated the rights of another or has not caused a heath or safety issue, and has not violated tax law.
the federal government [congress] has no authority in the life's liberties property of the American people.--federalist 45
Tell you what go out and rent a space, get some signage for "E.B.'s Florist Shop", but advertizements in the paper, set up your web site, order your stock and sell it to the public.
Place a prominent sign in the window "No Blacks Served".
When you get to court tell the Judge "I have not violated the rights of another, since I'm a florist shop there is no health and safety issue, and I pay taxes on my income and other than that the State has no power to regulate my business".
Report back to us on how it went OK?
>>>>
Given that the judge was determining whether a law was broken as opposed to whether a law was constitutional or whatever, yes the judge ruled correctly. It doesn't necessarily make the law correct or right.
No, what I'm saying is that the argument that Public Accommodation laws are a violation of the 13th Amendments prohibition against Slavery and what "Involuntary Servitude" conditions when people owned people either for live (Slavery) or for a specified period measured in years is a shameful and embarrassing comparison.
COCODE
Colorado Statute 24-34-601
(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
>>>>
a place of public accommodation of which a private business is not.COCODE
Colorado Statute 24-34-601
(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
>>>>
being offended is not in the constitution, laws are not based on emotion.
you have no right to food, clothing, housing, water.
My only legal conflict is does the state law supersede a possible violation of First Amendment right to practice their faith as they define practicing their faith. If so, the way around that is to dissolve the for-profit bakery and set up an faith-based non-profit organization that bakes wedding cakes. Or probably more practical if its that big of a concern for the bakers, discontinue the bakery's wedding cakes service altogether and just bake bread, cookies and pastries; then set up a separate faith-based non-profit that rents space from the for-profit at the same facility that only bakes wedding cakes for traditional Christian weddings.
a place of public accommodation of which a private business is not.
From your link.As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.
1. A faith based, for Profit, business masquerading as a "non-profit" as a means of sidestepping anti-discrimination laws isn't probably going to fly under the laws of incorporation at both the state and federal levels.
2. The second option (i.e. remove wedding cakes from the menu - allthough without the "non-profit" dodge) would be perfectly fine. No business is required to provide goods and services to a specific customer if they don't provide them to any customer(s).
>>>>
Why did you post your message only to turn around and deny it.
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?