Baker must make gay cakes

[WorldWatcher]

Baker Faces Prison For Refusing To Bake Gay Cake

Here is the Colorado Law regarding violations of Public Accommodation laws:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.​

Instead of reading what some report writes to make a headline, how about showing us where jail time is listed as one of the penalties for violating Public Accommodation laws?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

True, the whole "abandon his faith or go to jail" meme is false. There are perfectly legal options where neither would happen.


On top of that "Jail" isn't even in the offing:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.​

A fine (commission ruling) or pay damages (if it goes to court).

The whole "go to jail" thing is not in the law.




>>>>

He could very well be incarcerated for violating a court order.

Your moving the goal posts. The penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws is a fine. Failure to pay the fine is a separate legal matter.


If I speed and get a fine of $75 dollars and then refuse to pay the fine. The jail time comes from failure to pay the fine, not for speeding.


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

Baker Faces Prison For Refusing To Bake Gay Cake

Here is the Colorado Law regarding violations of Public Accommodation laws:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.​

Instead of reading what some report writes to make a headline, how about showing us where jail time is listed as one of the penalties for violating Public Accommodation laws?



>>>>

For violating a court order...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Baker Faces Prison For Refusing To Bake Gay Cake

Here is the Colorado Law regarding violations of Public Accommodation laws:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.​

Instead of reading what some report writes to make a headline, how about showing us where jail time is listed as one of the penalties for violating Public Accommodation laws?



>>>>

For violating a court order...

Correct, which is different then the penalties that can imposed for discriminating against customers based on race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, or marital status.


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

True, the whole "abandon his faith or go to jail" meme is false. There are perfectly legal options where neither would happen.


On top of that "Jail" isn't even in the offing:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.​

A fine (commission ruling) or pay damages (if it goes to court).

The whole "go to jail" thing is not in the law.




>>>>

He could very well be incarcerated for violating a court order.

Your moving the goal posts. The penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws is a fine. Failure to pay the fine is a separate legal matter.


If I speed and get a fine of $75 dollars and then refuse to pay the fine. The jail time comes from failure to pay the fine, not for speeding.


>>>>

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

 

[WorldWatcher]

He could very well be incarcerated for violating a court order.

Your moving the goal posts. The penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws is a fine. Failure to pay the fine is a separate legal matter.


If I speed and get a fine of $75 dollars and then refuse to pay the fine. The jail time comes from failure to pay the fine, not for speeding.


>>>>

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

Again, I posted the law. Did you see jail time listed as one of the penalties that could be awarded for violation Public Accommodation laws?



Here is a recommendation, when it comes to the law - do a little research and read what the law says instead of believing what some reporter tries to tell you. They are often wrong.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

 

[JimBowie1958]

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

Maybe in the old USA that was true, but this is the new Obamamerica, which might last about three and a half years, lol.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

It was put before the Supreme court. Those very arguments were made. The case was Elane Photography v. Willock.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to review the case making the New Mexico Supreme Court the final word in that case.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

Your moving the goal posts. The penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws is a fine. Failure to pay the fine is a separate legal matter.


If I speed and get a fine of $75 dollars and then refuse to pay the fine. The jail time comes from failure to pay the fine, not for speeding.


>>>>

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

Again, I posted the law. Did you see jail time listed as one of the penalties that could be awarded for violation Public Accommodation laws?



Here is a recommendation, when it comes to the law - do a little research and read what the law says instead of believing what some reporter tries to tell you. They are often wrong.



>>>>

Apparently there's differing versions online of the penalties applicable for violation of public accommodation laws in Colorado...for some reason it looks like they repealed the prison provision last year...

See 24-34-602 (2) below for the initial version.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148/$FILE/200_enr.pdf

SECTION 6. 24-34-601 (1) and (2), Colorado Revised Statutes, are
amended to read:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation.
PAGE 6-SENATE BILL 08-200

(1) 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.

(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 which 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.

SECTION 7. 24-34-602, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to
read:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who
violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to any
citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every disability,
race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin,
PAGE 7-SENATE BILL 08-200
or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full enjoyment
of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said
section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby to be recovered
in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where said offense was
committed. and also

(2) For every such EACH offense such DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (1)
OF THIS SECTION, THE person is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten dollars
nor more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail
for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

(3) A judgment in favor of the party aggrieved or punishment upon
an indictment or information shall be a bar to either prosecution,
respectively; but the relief provided by this section shall be an alternative
to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress
under this section shall not be permitted to seek relief from the commission.

 

[Katzndogz]

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

Mr. Phillips can make all the wedding cakes he wants. He just can't offer them as a service he provides. There's no injunction prohibiting him from making wedding cakes.

 

[Slyhunter]

He can make cakes.
He can sell bride and groom sets separately.
You can assemble your own damn wedding cake.
No court is going to force him to make groom and groom sets.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

Again don't believe what you read in the press, try going to the source documents for a change.

Here is the actual ruling of the Administrative Law Judge from -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


The Judge DID NOT order Mr. Phillips to bake anyone a wedding cake, the ruling was to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, specifically to "Cease and desist from discriminatng against Complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product Respondents would provide to heterosexual couples..."

No fine, no jail time, just a cease and desist order.




Now, if Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't provide wedding cakes to heterosexual couples then they are not required to sell them to homosexual couples. That places him in full compliance with the order and there is no other action needed. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had already indicated that he didn't have problems selling brownies, cookies, or other cakes to homosexuals - so there is no problem.



>>>>

 

[hazlnut]

I love that this homophobe got his ass handed to him.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Apparently there's differing versions online of the penalties applicable for violation of public accommodation laws in Colorado...for some reason it looks like they repealed the prison provision last year...

No, there is no confusion, there are not different versions. The criminal section was repealed.

Once it repealed it's no longer part of the law.


SENATE BILL NO. 184, 2013
Redirecting


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Mr. Phillips can make all the wedding cakes he wants. He just can't offer them as a service he provides. There's no injunction prohibiting him from making wedding cakes.

Correct, he's free to make and give away all the wedding cakes he want's as a private individual.

The order was that Masterpiece Cakes must cease and desist discrimination against same-sex couples. If his cakeshop makes wedding cakes as a function of their business for different-sex couples, then they must also make them for same-sex couples. However if the business doesn't sell them to different-sex couples, then the business is not required to provide them to same-sex couples.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The court order wasn't for any fine, it was a court order issued in December 2013, ordering Mr. Phillips to bake the gay wedding cakes...

Now a Colorado judge has ordered him to bake cakes for same-sex marriages, and if Phillips refuses, he could go to jail

Baker Faces Prison for Refusing to Bake Same-Sex Wedding Cake

Again don't believe what you read in the press, try going to the source documents for a change.

Here is the actual ruling of the Administrative Law Judge from -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


The Judge DID NOT order Mr. Phillips to bake anyone a wedding cake, the ruling was to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, specifically to "Cease and desist from discriminatng against Complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product Respondents would provide to heterosexual couples..."

No fine, no jail time, just a cease and desist order.




Now, if Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't provide wedding cakes to heterosexual couples then they are not required to sell them to homosexual couples. That places him in full compliance with the order and there is no other action needed. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had already indicated that he didn't have problems selling brownies, cookies, or other cakes to homosexuals - so there is no problem.



>>>>

Maybe he'll start a new trend and gays will start ordering fancy cupcakes or cookies instead of cake.

 

[Silhouette]

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

It was put before the Supreme court. Those very arguments were made. The case was Elane Photography v. Willock.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and they declined to review the case making the New Mexico Supreme Court the final word in that case.


Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock


>>>>

No such thing as "the final word" on issues of 1st amendment rights when the case was handled poorly.

Let me guess, the attorneys for the christian baker didn't introduce the premise that gays are a behavior and not a race? Right?

And then, they didn't bring up a person being forced to speak when they don't want to. A first Amendment issue.

They probably just said the person didn't think it was right. Sometimes these attorneys "for" christians make me wonder. I've had more than one attorney in my life throw the case to the other side for money.

I'd try it again. And again. And again. Never give up.

 

[Silhouette]

Again don't believe what you read in the press, try going to the source documents for a change.

Here is the actual ruling of the Administrative Law Judge from -->> https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


The Judge DID NOT order Mr. Phillips to bake anyone a wedding cake, the ruling was to stop discriminating against same-sex couples, specifically to "Cease and desist from discriminatng against Complainants and other same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any other product Respondents would provide to heterosexual couples..."

No fine, no jail time, just a cease and desist order.




Now, if Masterpiece Cakeshop doesn't provide wedding cakes to heterosexual couples then they are not required to sell them to homosexual couples. That places him in full compliance with the order and there is no other action needed. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop had already indicated that he didn't have problems selling brownies, cookies, or other cakes to homosexuals - so there is no problem.



>>>>

The judge cannot order a person to speak up [create a gay wedding cake] in favor of a certain behavior. Behavior and race are not the same thing. We discriminate against behaviors every single day of the week. Will this judge be issuing a "cease and desist" order to restaurants that won't place vomit urns on the tables so bulimics won't feel discriminated against?

The premise is false on all these lawsuits. They start from a false premise and so reach a false conclusion. LGBT is about behavior, compulsive perhaps, but behaviors nevertheless. Start with the correct premise next time to reach a proper finding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

A customer cannot force a business owner not to make a product. And a business owner cannot be forced into "speaking" via his product in favor of a new age cult like LGBT. If we were talking about a race of people wanting two black figures on a cake getting married then, yes. The 14th covers that. However, the 14th does not force people to condone [speak in action] others' behaviors in violation of their 1st Amendment rights.\

Put it to the Supreme Court Wordwatcher. How do you think they'll decide when the premise is known to be "behavior" and not "race"?

The Supreme Court has already ruled with regard to this issue, where the Fifth Amendment’s Liberty Clause protects the right of individuals to make choices about their private lives absent interference by the state, and the 14th Amendment compels the states to recognize and respect the right of citizens to make such personal decisions:

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

individual decisions…concerning the intimacies of [couples’] physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Consequently, there is no difference between the Constitutional protections afforded citizens with regard to their right to make personal life choices and the protections afforded those with regard to race or ethnicity.