"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[WorldWatcher]

if the bakers portfolio does not include 'gay cakes' then he should not be forced to provide one...

and yes....there are 'gay wedding cakes'......because in one way or another they indicate it is a gay wedding...whether it be rainbows or two plastic grooms on top....

just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?

If a baker sells does sell wedding cakes...

* Then can't refuse them to Asians and because they cannot refuse based on race does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to Jews and because they cannot refuse based on religion does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to sex and because they cannot refuse based on gender does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to older couple and because they cannot refuse based on age does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state marital status is a category, then can't refuse them to divorcee and because they cannot refuse based on marital status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state veterans status is a category, then can't refuse them to someone that service in the military and because they cannot refuse based on veterans status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state sexual orientation is a category, then can't refuse them to lesbians and because they cannot refuse based on sexual orientation does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.​

>>>>

you still haven't answered the question....it's one thing to sell your usual wedding cake creations to any public customer be they gay, muslim, or pervs.....it's quite another thing entirely to force the baker to create new products demanded by those customers....

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

If a baker sells does sell wedding cakes...

* Then can't refuse them to Asians and because they cannot refuse based on race does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to Jews and because they cannot refuse based on religion does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to sex and because they cannot refuse based on gender does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to older couple and because they cannot refuse based on age does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state marital status is a category, then can't refuse them to divorcee and because they cannot refuse based on marital status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state veterans status is a category, then can't refuse them to someone that service in the military and because they cannot refuse based on veterans status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state sexual orientation is a category, then can't refuse them to lesbians and because they cannot refuse based on sexual orientation does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.​

>>>>

you still haven't answered the question....it's one thing to sell your usual wedding cake creations to any public customer be they gay, muslim, or pervs.....it's quite another thing entirely to force the baker to create new products demanded by those customers....

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

After you finish taking the order, pick your nose, give it a little flick and tell the customer you'll handle his order personally

 

[Redfish]

No, its exactly the same thing, the Christian baker does not want to offer muslim or LGBT products in his business, the govt is telling him that he must.

From a business perspective, it's quite a bit different Redfish. That's not a partisan viewpoint. I get that both are reductions to freedom, I understand, however government telling a business they "must serve all patrons" has little to no effect on the company's business model whereas they "must sell all products" will have a SIGNIFICANT effect on the company's business model, finances, etc.

It's two entirely different things - really.

Come on, THINK. telling a business it must serve all patrons is exactly the same as telling it it must sell all products. How can a business serve all patrons without providing the products that all patrons want?

lets go slow, lets talk about a Christian jeweler. How can he serve muslims and jews without offering jewelry with the holy crescent and the star of david?

heres the legal filing from the offended muslim "I went to the jewelry shop and he did not have anything with the holy crescent, I am offended and insulted " "I demand that he be forced to carry jewelry with the holy crescent"

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If a baker sells does sell wedding cakes...

* Then can't refuse them to Asians and because they cannot refuse based on race does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to Jews and because they cannot refuse based on religion does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to sex and because they cannot refuse based on gender does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* Then can't refuse them to older couple and because they cannot refuse based on age does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state marital status is a category, then can't refuse them to divorcee and because they cannot refuse based on marital status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state veterans status is a category, then can't refuse them to someone that service in the military and because they cannot refuse based on veterans status does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.

* In some state sexual orientation is a category, then can't refuse them to lesbians and because they cannot refuse based on sexual orientation does not mean they have to sell one of Obama sucking the Soros dick.​

>>>>

you still haven't answered the question....it's one thing to sell your usual wedding cake creations to any public customer be they gay, muslim, or pervs.....it's quite another thing entirely to force the baker to create new products demanded by those customers....

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

 

[WorldWatcher]

you still haven't answered the question....it's one thing to sell your usual wedding cake creations to any public customer be they gay, muslim, or pervs.....it's quite another thing entirely to force the baker to create new products demanded by those customers....

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

 

[Redfish]

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

thats the way the founders would have seen it.

 

[Unkotare]

What kind of Jerry-Springer, no-class trash has a 'sex' cake at their wedding anyway?

 

[Seawytch]

What kind of Jerry-Springer, no-class trash has a 'sex' cake at their wedding anyway?

Nobody I'm aware of. It was speculation/hyperbole with no basis in reality.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I answered the question you asked which was "just because the baker 'special orders' it does not mean he has to create every type of cake the customer demands.....for example if a customer ordered a cake of Obama sucking the Soros dick does he have to bake it....?"

Even though a baker does special order cakes they are not required to do one of Obama sucking Soros dick. Unless of course they routinley offer special order cakes of dick sucking - then they can't refuse one based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation of the customer.



On the other hand of they do special order cakes they can't refuse based on the religion, age, sex, nationality, or (in many states) sexual orientation.

If a baker doesn't want to do special order cakes, don't do them.



>>>>

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

the law is being twisted by the lefties who want to erase religion and/or conscience of the individual from the public square...

i wonder.....in the future will private business have to operate from a church in order to be private....?

 

[Seawytch]

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....



how do you define 'special order'.....?

are there any limits to special orders...?

if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.



As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.



These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.





****************************************************



Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado

Colorado Revised Statutes

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

) 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.





Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon

Oregon Revised Statutes

659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...



That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.



Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.











I hope that helps.





>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...



the law is being twisted by the lefties who want to erase religion and/or conscience of the individual from the public square...



i wonder.....in the future will private business have to operate from a church in order to be private....?

No it's not being twisted. Some laws say you can't deny service based on sexual orientation. Simple and straightforward. If you sell cakes and flowers, in some localities, you have to sell them to gays.

 

[Moonglow]

What kind of Jerry-Springer, no-class trash has a 'sex' cake at their wedding anyway?

surely not uptight prude prunes like you.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

Not sure where that is coming from, I've provided very specific answers to your questions.

That you may not like those answers isn't really my problem.



Please explain how when the law says "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages" that it's the Judges fault that the businesses owner is found to be in violation of the law when they provide full and equal qoods to one group but only a subset of goods and services to another group?



>>>>

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

Not sure where that is coming from, I've provided very specific answers to your questions.

That you may not like those answers isn't really my problem.



Please explain how when the law says "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages" that it's the Judges fault that the businesses owner is found to be in violation of the law when they provide full and equal qoods to one group but only a subset of goods and services to another group?



>>>>

the Judge is supposed to uphold the Constitution first and foremost when it comes to the law....

if a customer 'special orders' an Easter cake and the baker chooses to comply but refuses another 'special order' for a Satanic cake...the baker is exercising his religious beliefs/personal conscience in the public square...

which does the Judge follow.....the 1st Amendment or the imposition of a new law....?

 

[Seawytch]

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

Not sure where that is coming from, I've provided very specific answers to your questions.



That you may not like those answers isn't really my problem.







Please explain how when the law says "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages" that it's the Judges fault that the businesses owner is found to be in violation of the law when they provide full and equal qoods to one group but only a subset of goods and services to another group?







>>>>

the Judge is supposed to uphold the Constitution first and foremost when it comes to the law....



if a customer 'special orders' an Easter cake and the baker chooses to comply but refuses another 'special order' for a Satanic cake...the baker is exercising his religious beliefs/personal conscience in the public square...



which does the Judge follow.....the 1st Amendment or the imposition of a new law....?

Public Accommodation laws have already been found Constitutional.

Why do keep trying to re ask a question that has been answered? Unless you already make Satan cakes, you'll never be "forced" to make one.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not sure where that is coming from, I've provided very specific answers to your questions.



That you may not like those answers isn't really my problem.







Please explain how when the law says "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages" that it's the Judges fault that the businesses owner is found to be in violation of the law when they provide full and equal qoods to one group but only a subset of goods and services to another group?







>>>>

the Judge is supposed to uphold the Constitution first and foremost when it comes to the law....



if a customer 'special orders' an Easter cake and the baker chooses to comply but refuses another 'special order' for a Satanic cake...the baker is exercising his religious beliefs/personal conscience in the public square...



which does the Judge follow.....the 1st Amendment or the imposition of a new law....?

Public Accommodation laws have already been found Constitutional.

Why do keep trying to re ask a question that has been answered? Unless you already make Satan cakes, you'll never be "forced" to make one.

is that so....? i thought that if you baked a religious cake for one you had to do the same for other religions in order to 'accomodate'.....

 

[KevinWestern]

What kind of Jerry-Springer, no-class trash has a 'sex' cake at their wedding anyway?

Well, I'd imagine it to be a no-class trash Jerry-Springer person.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ok then it appears you believe it comes down to whether a baker offers 'special orders'.....

how do you define 'special order'.....?
are there any limits to special orders...?
if so who gets to define those limits....?

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

the law is being twisted by the lefties who want to erase religion and/or conscience of the individual from the public square...

i wonder.....in the future will private business have to operate from a church in order to be private....?

Nonsense.

The law isn’t being ‘twisted’ by anyone.

Public accommodations laws such as those in New Mexico and Colorado are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, and they violate no one’s religious liberty.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What kind of Jerry-Springer, no-class trash has a 'sex' cake at their wedding anyway?

surely not uptight prude prunes like you.....

come on moon, i mean there are appropriate places for things, dildos at a wedding, while you can have them, understand people will judge you and not take you seriously

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

the law is being twisted by the lefties who want to erase religion and/or conscience of the individual from the public square...

i wonder.....in the future will private business have to operate from a church in order to be private....?

Nonsense.

The law isn’t being ‘twisted’ by anyone.

Public accommodations laws such as those in New Mexico and Colorado are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, and they violate no one’s religious liberty.

so no baker in those states has to create a gay-themed cake upon request if homosexuality is against his religion....?

 

[buckeye45_73]

You seem to be under a misunderstanding here. How "I" define "special order" is irrelevant to the legal question. Whether "I" place limites on "special orders" is irrelevant to the legal question.

As to "who gets to define those limits" it's currently up to the legislatures as Public Accommodation laws have been in existence back into commonl law times and through the history of this country. The currrent crop finds it's roots of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provided for Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level based on interstate commerce and pretty much every State has Public Accommodation laws base on the power of the State to regulate commerce within that State.

These laws have been reviewed and upheld by all level of courts from local to State Supreme Courts and to the SCOTUS. Public Accommodation laws are not new.


****************************************************

Now with that said let's look at a Public Accommodation law from the two recent States where bakers have been an issue:

Masterpiece Cakes, Colorado
Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition
) 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.


Sweetcakes by Melissa, Oregon
Oregon Revised Statutes
659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.​

If you review the the basic premise that for profit business, which is what a place of "public accommodation" is, are required to provide "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" (Colorado) or "full and equal" (Oregon) access to goods and services. The laws don't say they can offer one set of goods and services to one group and refuse those same goods and services to another customer based solely on the customers race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc...

That is what the law says, I may not agree with the law, and in fact I don't agree with the law. However my opinion of what the law should be and the ability to discuss reality as to what the law is are two different things.

Personally I'd like to repeal "Public Accommodation" laws as applied to private business. A private business should be able to refuse goods and services (with very narrow exceptions for medical necessities) and function under their own business model and let the market work things out. Public Accommodation laws should only: (A) apply to government entities as to the goods and services provided to taxpayers, and (B) limit the ability of government entities to buy goods/services or to contract with businesses which function in a discriminatory manner.





I hope that helps.


>>>>

well i guess you can't answer specifics because the answers just aren't there...relativism is like that...

the law is being twisted by the lefties who want to erase religion and/or conscience of the individual from the public square...

i wonder.....in the future will private business have to operate from a church in order to be private....?

Nonsense.

The law isn’t being ‘twisted’ by anyone.

Public accommodations laws such as those in New Mexico and Colorado are perfectly appropriate and Constitutional, and they violate no one’s religious liberty.

Youremright, thats why wemal, love citizens united, eh clay?