BullKurtz
Gold Member
- Banned
- #641
Here is the applicable law -->> COCODE
Please identify that "stipulation".
Actually no real reason to look, it's not there and is irrelevant to the case as the individual was not refused service for "no shirt or no shoes".
Well you may want to actually read the law in question.
If the baker offers CUSTOM orders for wedding cakes as part of their normal routine business operations - then under the law - now he isn't allowed to refuse CUSTOM orders based on the criteria listed in the law.
The law requires "Full and Equal" access, offering full services to heterosexuals and only restricted services to homosexuals.
BTW - Why are we capitalizing "CUSTOM"?
Not for the same reason you use your ">>>>>" as a trademark. Once again you show your complete lack of understanding any of this and divulge your statist tendencies which led me to believe what I believed earlier. No "happily married republican" carries the kind of dogma you do here. There is no "law" that established what the baker considers one CUSTOM order from another. It is his right as an American citizen to practice his religious faith and when that faith is challenged by something asked of him that he finds despicable, he has every right to refuse. Some asswipe judge finding to the contrary only means more expense to him to appeal....which is what the ACLU relies on to bully individuals....it's too expensive to bother with so we win. The "no shirt/shoes/service" example is a valid reminder a business owner can control who he'll do business with. I doubt a man entering a store barefoot and refused serivce has ever filed a lawsuit against the owner....they would put on some form of footwear and return if they wanted to buy what he had for sale. The same way these queers could have ordered a cake without the connotation they wanted him to include. They were looking for trouble is what's going on here. If a NAMBLA member walked in and asked him to depict anal intercourse between a man and boy on a cake, by your reasoning he would be forced to make it. This is ridiculous and why the left has hijacked the courts to accomplish what no legislator would dare try to; stealing our liberties by proxy.
Sorry...
Colorado Code 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 or,
The above was passed by the legislature, not by the courts.
You're asking the court to INTERPRET what the law says....I'm done here, fuck off phony lawyer.