'State-sanctioned kidnapping': California bill would give therapists power to take children over 12 from parents 'without accusation, evidence ...

[martybegan]

Looks like you are trying to come up with a definition to find and exemption that isn't there.

Here's the PA Law for Colorado.

Discrimination | Colorado Civil Rights Division

ccrd.colorado.gov

Coloradans are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of all goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered to the public, regardless of protected class.

Nope, contracted services are covered.




Really, when did this happen? I'll happily bring the marshmallows.

That law is the one being fought over at the SC.

It's unconstitutional because it doesn't account for 1st amendment rights.

 

[hadit]

Looks like you are trying to come up with a definition to find and exemption that isn't there.

Here's the PA Law for Colorado.

Discrimination | Colorado Civil Rights Division

ccrd.colorado.gov

Coloradans are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of all goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations offered to the public, regardless of protected class.

Nope, contracted services are covered.




Really, when did this happen? I'll happily bring the marshmallows.

Sure, just not gun stores. Gun stores are supposed to deny customers service if the minimum wage racist clerk thinks they look crazy and might shoot someone.

 

[JoeB131]

That law is the one being fought over at the SC.

It's unconstitutional because it doesn't account for 1st amendment rights.

Yeah, here's the problem. SCOTUS didn't strike it down the first time Philips showed up at their door, and they probably won't this time.

Imagine if you would, a world where you can break the law because you claim a religious exemption.

I want to murder my ex-boss. I can declare myself a follower of the Aztec Pantheon, and therefore have the right to kill my enemy using an obsidian knife.

or this kind of chaos at the checkout line.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, here's the problem. SCOTUS didn't strike it down the first time Philips showed up at their door, and they probably won't this time.

Imagine if you would, a world where you can break the law because you claim a religious exemption.

I want to murder my ex-boss. I can declare myself a follower of the Aztec Pantheon, and therefore have the right to kill my enemy using an obsidian knife.

View attachment 775529

or this kind of chaos at the checkout line.

They made Colorado take into account free exercise, which they didn't do so it will be right back with the court.

Argumentum ad absurdum, bringing in the human sacrifice thing. shows you have not argument other than your hatred of religion.

And again, point of sale vs. contracted service.

The whole point of constitutional rights like free exercise is the government has to have a really compelling reason to intervene AND has to use the minimum level of intervention to achieve the desired outcome.

"Bake this cake or else" doesn't meet either of those requirements.

 

[JoeB131]

They made Colorado take into account free exercise, which they didn't do so it will be right back with the court.

Argumentum ad absurdum, bringing in the human sacrifice thing. shows you have not argument other than your hatred of religion.

Not at all.
Sacrificing other human beings to please an imaginary sky pixie is silly.
So is refusing to serve someone because an imaginary sky pixie tells you butt sex is icky.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if Philips was just honest that he just thinks the butt sex is icky and it has nothing to do with religion.

We also wouldnt' be having this conversation if a baker refused to provide a service to an interracial couple on his twisted interpretation of the bible.

And again, point of sale vs. contracted service.

Nowhere in the CO law. Also, Philips kind of stepped in it when he agreed to bake the trans cake, until he found out what it was for.

The whole point of constitutional rights like free exercise is the government has to have a really compelling reason to intervene AND has to use the minimum level of intervention to achieve the desired outcome.

"Bake this cake or else" doesn't meet either of those requirements.

Equality. I'd call that a compelling reason.

 

[hadit]

Not at all.
Sacrificing other human beings to please an imaginary sky pixie is silly.
So is refusing to serve someone because an imaginary sky pixie tells you butt sex is icky.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if Philips was just honest that he just thinks the butt sex is icky and it has nothing to do with religion.

We also wouldnt' be having this conversation if a baker refused to provide a service to an interracial couple on his twisted interpretation of the bible.



Nowhere in the CO law. Also, Philips kind of stepped in it when he agreed to bake the trans cake, until he found out what it was for.



Equality. I'd call that a compelling reason.

Yet a racist, minimum wage clerk in a gun store is supposed to have authority to deny black customers service because he thinks they're going to kill someone.

 

[martybegan]

Not at all.
Sacrificing other human beings to please an imaginary sky pixie is silly.
So is refusing to serve someone because an imaginary sky pixie tells you butt sex is icky.
We wouldn't be having this conversation if Philips was just honest that he just thinks the butt sex is icky and it has nothing to do with religion.

We also wouldnt' be having this conversation if a baker refused to provide a service to an interracial couple on his twisted interpretation of the bible.



Nowhere in the CO law. Also, Philips kind of stepped in it when he agreed to bake the trans cake, until he found out what it was for.



Equality. I'd call that a compelling reason.

Race and sexuality aren't the same, despite the left's attempt to equivocate them.

It's not all about you JoeBlow, despite your narcissism.

That duplicity is the activists fault, not his.

 

[JoeB131]

Race and sexuality aren't the same, despite the left's attempt to equivocate them.

How are they not?

You can't control your sexual orientation any more than you can control your race, your gender or your eye color. Well, I guess you can control your gender, but not without lots of surgery...

PA laws also protect religion, which is a choice.

 

[martybegan]

How are they not?

You can't control your sexual orientation any more than you can control your race, your gender or your eye color. Well, I guess you can control your gender, but not without lots of surgery...

PA laws also protect religion, which is a choice.

Bisexuality gives lie to your first statement.

And the "nature vs nurture" question has never been solved, and may even have multiple answers.

Again, a PA isn't "any time money changes hands"

 

[JoeB131]

Bisexuality gives lie to your first statement.

No, not really. You clearly don't understand what Bisexual means.

It does not mean 'Hey, today I'm into chicks, but next week I might be into dudes."
It means you are always attracted to both.

And the "nature vs nurture" question has never been solved, and may even have multiple answers.

So until you can definitely prove it is "nurture", you should give them the benefit of the doubt.

Again, a PA isn't "any time money changes hands"

No, it's not. It is, however, applicable to any business. If you offer a service, you have to offer it to everyone.

 

[martybegan]

No, not really. You clearly don't understand what Bisexual means.

It does not mean 'Hey, today I'm into chicks, but next week I might be into dudes."
It means you are always attracted to both.


So until you can definitely prove it is "nurture", you should give them the benefit of the doubt.




No, it's not. It is, however, applicable to any business. If you offer a service, you have to offer it to everyone.

I could me that as well. Everyone tries to fit all examples of something into a set definition.

I personally think only women can be bisexual, once you are a guy that takes dick, or a guy that gives dick to another guy, you be gay.

Why should that theory get the benefit of the doubt? Nope.

No, you don't. That is made up rules by people trying to force their morals on others.

 

[JoeB131]

I personally think only women can be bisexual, once you are a guy that takes dick, or a guy that gives dick to another guy, you be gay.

That has to be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE population, perhaps the major portion of the male population, has at least some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. In addition, about 60 per cent of the pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities, and there is an additional group of adult males who avoid overt contacts but who are quite aware of their potentialities for reacting to other males.

So by your l logic, 60% or more of the male population is gay because they did the ghey stuff once.

No, you don't. That is made up rules by people trying to force their morals on others.

Dude, I've provided you the text of the CO-PA law. It says what it says. You might not like that is what it says, but that's your hangup.

 

[martybegan]

That has to be the dumbest thing you've said yet.

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE population, perhaps the major portion of the male population, has at least some homosexual experience between adolescence and old age. In addition, about 60 per cent of the pre-adolescent boys engage in homosexual activities, and there is an additional group of adult males who avoid overt contacts but who are quite aware of their potentialities for reacting to other males.

So by your l logic, 60% or more of the male population is gay because they did the ghey stuff once.



Dude, I've provided you the text of the CO-PA law. It says what it says. You might not like that is what it says, but that's your hangup.

Any studies on sex are biased all to hell, because of the nature of the topic.

Sorry, but the only penis I am a fan of is my own. Your milage may vary, however.

Jim crow laws had text as well, and they were unconstitutional. Your point is moot.

 

[JoeB131]

Any studies on sex are biased all to hell, because of the nature of the topic.

Sorry, but the only penis I am a fan of is my own. Your milage may vary, however.

Actually, it's been proven that violently homophobic men are often latent homosexuals... which probably explains a lot of your posts.

Jim crow laws had text as well, and they were unconstitutional. Your point is moot.

Clearly written unconstitutional portions..

Again, you have to remember why SCOTUS didn't strike it down. Because a rule of "I can break any rule I want as long as I can claim a religious exemption" would be chaotic, at best.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, it's been proven that violently homophobic men are often latent homosexuals... which probably explains a lot of your posts.



Clearly written unconstitutional portions..

Again, you have to remember why SCOTUS didn't strike it down. Because a rule of "I can break any rule I want as long as I can claim a religious exemption" would be chaotic, at best.

It's been alluded to, never proven. and any study that did so would be one of those sociology studies of dubious value at best.

They didn't strike it down because they gave Colorado a chance to apply free exercise compliance to their choice. They didn't, and it will go back to the SC.

 

[JoeB131]

It's been alluded to, never proven. and any study that did so would be one of those sociology studies of dubious value at best.

They didn't strike it down because they gave Colorado a chance to apply free exercise compliance to their choice. They didn't, and it will go back to the SC.

And if we had a normal SC, this wouldn't be a problem. They'd uphold PA laws.

Sadly, we have Uncle Thomas, Rapey Kavanaugh and Serena Joy on this one... so anything goes.

But if they want to open the absurdity of throwing out established laws on religious grounds, have at it.

 

[martybegan]

And if we had a normal SC, this wouldn't be a problem. They'd uphold PA laws.

Sadly, we have Uncle Thomas, Rapey Kavanaugh and Serena Joy on this one... so anything goes.

But if they want to open the absurdity of throwing out established laws on religious grounds, have at it.

We have a normal SC, not a progressive hack one.

It's not throwing the laws out, it's balancing the laws in the face of free exercise concerns.

Even these bakers don't deny point of sale goods to anyone, which is the point of PA laws.

 

[JoeB131]

We have a normal SC, not a progressive hack one.

It's not throwing the laws out, it's balancing the laws in the face of free exercise concerns.

Even these bakers don't deny point of sale goods to anyone, which is the point of PA laws.

Point out in the CO PA law where there's an exemption for contract services... thanks.

 

[badger2]

Yeah, here's the problem. SCOTUS didn't strike it down the first time Philips showed up at their door, and they probably won't this time.

Imagine if you would, a world where you can break the law because you claim a religious exemption.

I want to murder my ex-boss. I can declare myself a follower of the Aztec Pantheon, and therefore have the right to kill my enemy using an obsidian knife.

View attachment 775529

or this kind of chaos at the checkout line.

Sorry, not all genes are equally endowed, at the cash register or anywhere else. It's not the victim-scapegoat's fault if the tranny was born with a clitoris (larger [italics]) than a penis.

 

[martybegan]

Point out in the CO PA law where there's an exemption for contract services... thanks.

The point is there should be allowance for free exercise and other constitutional rights, and there are none. hence the suing.