Baker must make gay cakes

[martybegan]

Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

So now he is not judging on a point of law, (what he is supposed to do) but on a point of faith, and the application of said faith. I can't seem to recall the part of the US and state constitutions that make judges the arbiters of a persons belief structure, and their adherence to said belief structure.

And I noticed you deleted my first point, which is the one that renders the judges position on this moot.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

So now he is not judging on a point of law, (what he is supposed to do) but on a point of faith, and the application of said faith. I can't seem to recall the part of the US and state constitutions that make judges the arbiters of a persons belief structure, and their adherence to said belief structure.

And I noticed you deleted my first point, which is the one that renders the judges position on this moot.

#1 He didn't judge on a point of faith, he judge based on Colorado Statute 24-34-601(2) which makes it illegal to discriminate against customers based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.


#2 I deleted your Bible reference because it's irrelevant to secular law.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

So now he is not judging on a point of law, (what he is supposed to do) but on a point of faith, and the application of said faith. I can't seem to recall the part of the US and state constitutions that make judges the arbiters of a persons belief structure, and their adherence to said belief structure.

And I noticed you deleted my first point, which is the one that renders the judges position on this moot.

The wedding cake for the dogs was not a stamp of legitimacy from him as a societal value. At best it was a joke.

Gay weddings are not a joke. They are an attempt to legitimize an entire subculture. And this is what the Bible forbids under punishment of eternal damnation in Jude 1 of the New Testament of Jesus Christ.

I know you know the crucial difference.

The judge cannot interpret a religion. However, he can interpret whether or not a legal demand made upon another person by LGBT cultees violates key edicts of his faith, such as the dire mandate of Jude 1. He can interpret whether or not the baker's 1st Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

The legal equivalent would be for secular groups trying to force a convent of nuns running a hospital to perform abortions. If abortions are legal in a given state, what legal grounds do nuns have to refuse performing them if they provide all other ob/gynecological medical services?

It's OK. Go ahead and answer. Their legitimate defense is their 1st Amendment right to not perform the mortal sin of murder and be damned to hell forever.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The legal equivalent would be for secular groups trying to force a convent of nuns running a hospital to perform abortions. If abortions are legal in a given state, what legal grounds do nuns have to refuse performing them if they provide all other ob/gynecological medical services?

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The legal equivalent would be for secular groups trying to force a convent of nuns running a hospital to perform abortions. If abortions are legal in a given state, what legal grounds do nuns have to refuse performing them if they provide all other ob/gynecological medical services?

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent with the hospital nuns is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance. They provide pregnancy assistance but simply refuse to assist with the ones that request termination before live birth.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The legal equivalent would be for secular groups trying to force a convent of nuns running a hospital to perform abortions. If abortions are legal in a given state, what legal grounds do nuns have to refuse performing them if they provide all other ob/gynecological medical services?

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

So now he is not judging on a point of law, (what he is supposed to do) but on a point of faith, and the application of said faith. I can't seem to recall the part of the US and state constitutions that make judges the arbiters of a persons belief structure, and their adherence to said belief structure.

And I noticed you deleted my first point, which is the one that renders the judges position on this moot.

#1 He didn't judge on a point of faith, he judge based on Colorado Statute 24-34-601(2) which makes it illegal to discriminate against customers based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.


#2 I deleted your Bible reference because it's irrelevant to secular law.



>>>>

and yet the judge included in his decision that the person did one thing with the dog wedding and something else with the same sex wedding, thus bringing the consistency of the persons faith into question. So the judge recognized he had to come up with a reason besides "the law said so. " If that was not the case then why did the judge just not say "its the law" and instead try to rationalize that the baker's faith was not consistent? Maybe its because he realizes that there are 1st amendment implications with regards to this question, and amendments trump laws any day of the week.

 

[Katzndogz]

Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

Because dogs can't really get married. It's a parody. Now if you want to make same sex marriages unlawful and a parody of traditional marriages you have a point. If we taught that dogs need marriage equality, then you have a point. You may even have a point on the day that people want to marry their dogs legally. Right now there is no point in equating same sex marriage with doggy marriage.

 

[Peach]

At the time, Phillips told Denver's KDVR that his religious beliefs prevented him from serving the couple, and admitted to refusing service to other same-sex couples. But in December, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer rejected that reasoning, noting that Phillips's shop had previously agreed to make a cake for the wedding of two dogs, rendering his supposed religiously based opposition moot.

It certainly is a SINGULAR "faith", yes.

It is hilarious that you libs are supporting and using as an example a judges opinion that compared queer weddings with the marriage of dogs.

The Court noted the claims of Phillips' faith are open to question, at best.

 

[martybegan]

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

And I've said before that how in the hell is a contracted service like providing a wedding cake to a private event a "public accommodation" If the people just came in and bought a cake and to be used on their own for the wedding and were told i will not sell to you because of X, that would be violating public accommodation, But a contracted service is not. Just because you run a business doesn't mean you are a public accommodation like a restaurant, a hotel, or a walk in store.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unlike the judge, the baker can tell the difference between people and dogs.

Yes he can tell the difference between people and dogs. He didn't have a problem with providing a wedding cake to dogs but did for people.


>>>>

Because dogs can't really get married. It's a parody. Now if you want to make same sex marriages unlawful and a parody of traditional marriages you have a point. If we taught that dogs need marriage equality, then you have a point. You may even have a point on the day that people want to marry their dogs legally. Right now there is no point in equating same sex marriage with doggy marriage.

Colorado doesn't have Same-sex Civil Marriage so the couple couldn't get legally married there either.\


The violation of the law wasn't a function of Civil Marriage, it was a function of Public Accommodation law.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

And I've said before that how in the hell is a contracted service like providing a wedding cake to a private event a "public accommodation" If the people just came in and bought a cake and to be used on their own for the wedding and were told i will not sell to you because of X, that would be violating public accommodation, But a contracted service is not. Just because you run a business doesn't mean you are a public accommodation like a restaurant, a hotel, or a walk in store.

Because under Colorado law it is a place of Public Accommodation:

"Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(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."​

Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place located at 3355 S Wadsworth Blvd, Lakewood, CO 80227. You walk into their store and meet with the owner, you sit at table and review their menu of offerings which includes wedding cakes that they make as a service that they sell. They charge for the goods (the cake) and the service performed (design and decoration).

They have a place (storefront) and they are engaged in offering services to the Public. Under Colorado law that makes them a Public Accommodation.



>>>>

 

[Peach]

Not even an "legal equivalent".

Scenario #1 - Baker Does Not Provide Wedding Cakes
Under this scenario a baker then is not "forced" to selling wedding cakes to anyone. If he dosen't offer wedding cakes at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #2 - Baker Does Provide Wedding Cakes
Baker does offer wedding cakes as a function of his business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) he cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".

Scenario #3 - Nuns Do Not Provide Abortions
Under this scenario a Nun then is not "forced" to perform abortions for anyone. If she dosen't offer abortions at all, then there is no refusal based on the class of the customer.

Scenario #4 - Nun Does Provide Abortions
The Nun does offer abortions as a function of her business model. Then under Colorado Revised Statute 24-34-601(2) she cannot refuse to sell an abortion a customer based on the customers "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".




Bakers that don't selling wedding cakes, aren't required to sell wedding cakes under Public Accommodation laws. Nuns that don't perform abortions aren't required to perform abortions under Public Accommodation laws.


#1 and #3 are equivalent scenarios, you though tried to equate #2 and #3.


>>>>

How can you be so intellectually dishonest and still sleep at night?

You KNOW the crucial distinction for purposes of religious obejection is GAY vs normal wedding cakes. The equivalent is making abortion preganancy assistance vs normal pregnancy assistance.

I made my arguments from Jude 1 and from the perspective of changing the matrix. You pretend as if none of those words were written and go on to be a lawyer and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Shame on you.

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

Baker Bigot has stated he will appeal; though as you noted, the law remains the same.

 

[martybegan]

I dismiss your words from Jude 1 because they are irrelevant to the case. What mattered in the ruling was his behavior which clearly violated the law as it's plainly written. Now I encourage him to appeal the decision and attempt to get Colorado's Public Accommodation law over turn so that any business owner can discriminate against any customer for any reason. More power to him.

Secondly you are the one dishonestly trying to frame the question about Nun's and being forced to perform abortions. Hell the baker isn't even required to sell wedding cakes. The limitation based on Public Accommodation law is that if a business VOLUNTARILY CHOOSES to provide a good or service, then they cannot discriminate based on "disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry".



>>>>>

And I've said before that how in the hell is a contracted service like providing a wedding cake to a private event a "public accommodation" If the people just came in and bought a cake and to be used on their own for the wedding and were told i will not sell to you because of X, that would be violating public accommodation, But a contracted service is not. Just because you run a business doesn't mean you are a public accommodation like a restaurant, a hotel, or a walk in store.

Because under Colorado law it is a place of Public Accommodation:

"Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(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."​

Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place located at 3355 S Wadsworth Blvd, Lakewood, CO 80227. You walk into their store and meet with the owner, you sit at table and review their menu of offerings which includes wedding cakes that they make as a service that they sell. They charge for the goods (the cake) and the service performed (design and decoration).

They have a place (storefront) and they are engaged in offering services to the Public. Under Colorado law that makes them a Public Accommodation.



>>>>

Then that makes the Colorado law asinine, and it should be repealed. Any law that forces a person to perform something they consider immoral or face governmental sanctions is a law for fascists and assholes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And I've said before that how in the hell is a contracted service like providing a wedding cake to a private event a "public accommodation" If the people just came in and bought a cake and to be used on their own for the wedding and were told i will not sell to you because of X, that would be violating public accommodation, But a contracted service is not. Just because you run a business doesn't mean you are a public accommodation like a restaurant, a hotel, or a walk in store.

Because under Colorado law it is a place of Public Accommodation:

"Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(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."​

Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place located at 3355 S Wadsworth Blvd, Lakewood, CO 80227. You walk into their store and meet with the owner, you sit at table and review their menu of offerings which includes wedding cakes that they make as a service that they sell. They charge for the goods (the cake) and the service performed (design and decoration).

They have a place (storefront) and they are engaged in offering services to the Public. Under Colorado law that makes them a Public Accommodation.



>>>>

Then that makes the Colorado law asinine, and it should be repealed. Any law that forces a person to perform something they consider immoral or face governmental sanctions is a law for fascists and assholes.

I don't disagree that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, I encourage it. But to claim (a) the bakery isn't a place of Public Accommodation is false, it fits the definition, or to (b) claim the Administrative Law Judge applied the law incorrectly is also false.

It's now up to Mr. Phillips to challenge the administrative decision in State court.



>>>>

 

[Mac1958]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

 

[martybegan]

Because under Colorado law it is a place of Public Accommodation:

"Colorado Revised Statutes
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(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."​

Masterpiece Cakeshop is a place located at 3355 S Wadsworth Blvd, Lakewood, CO 80227. You walk into their store and meet with the owner, you sit at table and review their menu of offerings which includes wedding cakes that they make as a service that they sell. They charge for the goods (the cake) and the service performed (design and decoration).

They have a place (storefront) and they are engaged in offering services to the Public. Under Colorado law that makes them a Public Accommodation.



>>>>

Then that makes the Colorado law asinine, and it should be repealed. Any law that forces a person to perform something they consider immoral or face governmental sanctions is a law for fascists and assholes.

I don't disagree that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, I encourage it. But to claim (a) the bakery isn't a place of Public Accommodation is false, it fits the definition, or to (b) claim the Administrative Law Judge applied the law incorrectly is also false.

It's now up to Mr. Phillips to challenge the administrative decision in State court.



>>>>

Then why did the judge bring up the whole dog thing in the first place? If its a matter of law, and the law doesn't recognize any exceptions barring the ones listed, why go there?

 

[WorldWatcher]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

On the other side of the coin the Baker could have chosen not to offer wedding cakes and then there would have been no need for him to discriminate against homosexuals.

If he didn't offer wedding cakes to the public for sale, Public Accommodations laws never had to enter into it.


>>>>

 

[jillian]

.

I see some here are still pretending this is about public accommodations.

This is about a homosexual couple who could have chosen to work with someone who wanted to work with them, but instead chose to punish this guy for not conforming to their worldview.

Public accommodation laws never had to enter into it.

.

and here you are still pretending it isn't about rightwing bigotry couched as religious belief

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why did the judge bring up the whole dog thing in the first place? If its a matter of law, and the law doesn't recognize any exceptions barring the ones listed, why go there?

How many times are you ging to ask the same question Marty to get the same answer?


He mentioned the willingness to make a wedding cake for dogs to show the capricious application of the individuals beliefs. If weddings are for one man and one woman and he refused homosexuals because they don't fit the definition, it's hypocritical to then make one for a pair of dogs.



>>>>