- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 9,249
- Reaction score
- 3,194
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Ask them.Then why do you suppose TWO courts DID find discrimination?
Ask them.Then why do you suppose TWO courts DID find discrimination?
Ask them.
Then why are you asking me?No need, they have ALREADY published their opinions...
Of course you are against civil rights.The court should just start inching toward striking down the civil rights act in total as a violation of the constitution, which it obviously is since it has forced all kinds of questionable “rights” that were never subjected to the amendment process
Just pull his business license if he can't follow the business policies/laws.Sexual orientation is a protected class in Colorado.
I doubt it. Probably targeted the business and was hoping for this outcome.
Pressing you to establish that discrimination occurred isn't a deflection. It's the entire point.
Where does it say that?
Whether frosting color is "protected speech" is divorced from the question as to whether discrimination occurred.
I do not have to prove what someone else would have done.Can you present any evidence at all that the man was denied service that someone else would have received based on his identification as a transgender woman?
I guess you have nothing else to say about it, then. Feel free to waddle on out of this thread.
Can a church refuse to hire a gay priest because it conflicts with their teachings?Discrimination against a protected class is not allowed. The 1st amendment DOES NOT give a person the right to discriminate.
That doesn't mean they aren't two different questions. I don't know that baking a cake with a specific color on the inside and another on the outside is "speech." Phillips' attorneys seem to have conceded it was not. It was a separate question as to whether discrimination occurred.Not according to the court of original jurisdiction nor the appeals court. They decided that it mattered.
Possibly, yes, because some people can't let a guy just do his thing.If he cannot keep his religion to himself, then he is going to go out of business.
No, you don't, because that's not the question. The question is whether a person was denied "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" of the shop on the basis of their gender identification. Since no one's presented any evidence that Phillips would have made a cake for a gender transition celebration for a person of some other gender identification, that question, by default, must be answered in the negative.I do not have to prove what someone else would have done.
Now you're catching on. It wasn't because of his identification as a transgender woman.The baker refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders.
Apples and oranges.Can a church refuse to hire a gay priest because it conflicts with their teachings?
That doesn't mean they aren't two different questions. I don't know that baking a cake with a specific color on the inside and another on the outside is "speech." Phillips' attorneys seem to have conceded it was not. It was a separate question as to whether discrimination occurred.
Possibly, yes, because some people can't let a guy just do his thing.
Once again, you are missing the point. The decision is not based on what Phillips might have done for somebody else. The case was decided based on Phillips refusal to make a cake because the party who wanted it was transgendered. The color of the icing on the cake is not protected speech.No, you don't, because that's not the question. The question is whether a person was denied "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" of the shop on the basis of their gender identification. Since no one's presented any evidence that Phillips would have made a cake for a gender transition celebration for a person of some other gender identification, that question, by default, must be answered in the negative.
Now you're catching on. It wasn't because of his identification as a transgender woman.
The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one eitherThat's an interesting position given this has NOTHING to do with the federal civil rights act...
The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one either
But we are talking about the first amendment. Apples to apples.Apples and oranges.
We are not talking about a church.
Will you make up your mind? You just said Phillips "refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders." Now you go back and say it was because the customer identified as transgender.We are talking about a public business that refused a customer because they were transgendered.
But can you grasp that "did discrimination occur" and "are the colors of the cake protected speech" are two different questions?No, the colors of the cake are NOT speech. Both the court of original jurisdiction and the appeals court both stated this point quite emphatically.
How is he forcing his beliefs on anyone else?The man cannot discriminate based on his religious belief system. He has no legal right to force his beliefs on others.
And women have no constitutional right to an abortion. That's why the proposition lost in court.That is why he lost in court.
No, that's the entire point. That's what discrimination is. If a black guy drove up to an auto shop that exclusively serviced Fords and demanded they service his Mercedes, it doesn't matter at all if the shop employees are the most racist people you'll ever find. They don't service Mercedes vehicles. The customer was refused no service on the basis of his race that any other person would have received, so no discrimination occurred.Once again, you are missing the point. The decision is not based on what Phillips might have done for somebody else.
The refusal was based on the event. Even you acknowledged this fact.The case was decided based on Phillips refusal to make a cake because the party who wanted it was transgendered.
But we are talking about the first amendment. Apples to apples.
Will you make up your mind? You just said Phillips "refused to bake the cake because it was a celebration cake for the purpose of changing genders." Now you go back and say it was because the customer identified as transgender.
But can you grasp that "did discrimination occur" and "are the colors of the cake protected speech" are two different questions?
His refusal to make a cake because his religion believes differently than those requesting the cake is exactly that.How is he forcing his beliefs on anyone else?
And women have no constitutional right to an abortion. That's why the proposition lost in court.
I imagine you'll disagree on that conclusion, but the point is that "he lost in court so he's wrong" isn't much of a debate point. If you're going to just parrot the lower opinion, just give up. We can read it just fine for ourselves.
No, that's the entire point. That's what discrimination is. If a black guy drove up to an auto shop that exclusively serviced Fords and demanded they service his Mercedes, it doesn't matter at all if the shop employees are the most racist people you'll ever find. They don't service Mercedes vehicles. The customer was refused no service on the basis of his race that any other person would have received, so no discrimination occurred.
The refusal was based on the event. Even you acknowledged this fact.
When you're ready to discuss the issue instead of just asserting your correctitude, I'll be here.blah blah blah, I'm right and you're wrong because I say so
There were no state public accommodation laws before the CRA?The entire legal underpinning of non discrimination cases on private actors stems from the CRA. If it’s struck down on the reason it’s wholly unconstitutional then states couldn’t enforce one either
When you're ready to discuss the issue instead of just asserting your correctitude, I'll be here.