Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[WorldWatcher]

The law overreaches into the business owner's constitutional right. It should be challenged if it hasn't already.

Pubic Accommodation laws have been challenged and upheld at both the Federal and State court levels.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything they liked.

 

[Ibentoken]

The law overreaches into the business owner's constitutional right. It should be challenged if it hasn't already.

Pubic Accommodation laws have been challenged and upheld at both the Federal and State court levels.


>>>>

Were they the same circumstances here, where the law overreaches into constitutional rights?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything they liked.

No they couldn't. The owner wouldn't see them a wedding cake, even if they had one premade in the case.

A correct statement would have been "Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, that was reserved only for different-sex couples."



>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything they liked.

Of course. The business was targeted. The trash are using a law to force Christians to submit. It's pretty sick shit.

 

[Ibentoken]

Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything they liked.

No they couldn't. The owner wouldn't see them a wedding cake, even if they had one premade in the case.

A correct statement would have been "Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, that was reserved only for different-sex couples."



>>>>

You're lying. I read the story. The owner said he would gladly sell them a wedding cake. You lost your credibility.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The law overreaches into the business owner's constitutional right. It should be challenged if it hasn't already.

Pubic Accommodation laws have been challenged and upheld at both the Federal and State court levels.


>>>>

Were they the same circumstances here, where the law overreaches into constitutional rights?

Pretty much the exact same circumstances but it was a Photographer instead of a Baker -->> http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoNMSCopinion.pdf

They appealed the decision to the SCOTUS and the rejected the case which means that the NM Supreme Court decision stands as the final word (at leasat in NM).

IIRC Federal Public Accommodation provisions (originally implemented in the CRA of 1964) were upheld in the case of Heartland of Atlanta motel v United States (BTW - Federal PA laws presently don't include sexual orienation).



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything they liked.

No they couldn't. The owner wouldn't see them a wedding cake, even if they had one premade in the case.

A correct statement would have been "Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, that was reserved only for different-sex couples."



>>>>

You're lying. I read the story. The owner said he would gladly sell them a wedding cake. You lost your credibility.

Not lying, go back and read the stories again. The owner said he would sell them other products (premade cakes, cupcakes, brownies, etc) - not that he would sell them a wedding cake.

From the legal procedings citing the Phillip's refusal to sell them other products but not a wedding cake.

"Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding."​

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/initial_decision_case_no._cr_2013-0008.pdf


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

Word of advice...

........................ Before you try calling someone a liar, make sure they can't back up their claim. It makes you look silly.




>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

No they couldn't. The owner wouldn't see them a wedding cake, even if they had one premade in the case.

A correct statement would have been "Any gay person could walk into that bakery and buy anything as long as it wasn't a wedding cake, that was reserved only for different-sex couples."



>>>>

You're lying. I read the story. The owner said he would gladly sell them a wedding cake. You lost your credibility.

Not lying, go back and read the stories again. The owner said he would sell them other products (premade cakes, cupcakes, brownies, etc) - not that he would sell them a wedding cake.



>>>>

You're still lying. He said he would not DESIGN a wedding cake for them. He never said he would not sell them a cake.

 

[BlindBoo]

Public businesses use public services, such is the law. Though what is termed "re-education" is actually explaining what PUBLIC means to this business, which no doubt wants police & fire protection, sanitary water, and all the other "goodies" the public provides. Gay citizens are taxed as part of the public, should gay Americans pay less taxes because of public businesses wherein they are refused service?

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no ******* clue what a "public business" is, but I assume it's your new PC-speak for "We allow you the privilege of working, peon" - paid taxes in order to provide themselves and the community with things like police, fire departments, etc. Now, if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

Every rationalization they use leads to one conclusion, "I can use the government to force you to accept me"

Actually I think it's more like "Gay people in Colorado(and a few other states) can use the States Law to punish businesses who discriminate against gay people"

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're lying. I read the story. The owner said he would gladly sell them a wedding cake. You lost your credibility.

Not lying, go back and read the stories again. The owner said he would sell them other products (premade cakes, cupcakes, brownies, etc) - not that he would sell them a wedding cake.



>>>>

You're still lying. He said he would not DESIGN a wedding cake for them. He never said he would not sell them a cake.

Wrong, see the legal paperwork. I was in the process of editing the previous post.


>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

Not lying, go back and read the stories again. The owner said he would sell them other products (premade cakes, cupcakes, brownies, etc) - not that he would sell them a wedding cake.



>>>>

You're still lying. He said he would not DESIGN a wedding cake for them. He never said he would not sell them a cake.

Wrong, see the legal paperwork. I was in the process of editing the previous post.




>>>>

Show the legal paperwork.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're still lying. He said he would not DESIGN a wedding cake for them. He never said he would not sell them a cake.

Wrong, see the legal paperwork. I was in the process of editing the previous post.




>>>>

Show the legal paperwork.

Already did, link is below the quote.


>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

He also said he would not design Halloween cakes. When is a witch going to sue him?

 

[BlindBoo]

Just remember it was Obama and the democrats who brought us re-education camps. What next? Stalag 18?

I'm pretty sure it's the Colorado State law that applies here, not the anti-chryst, opps I mean Obama.......

You think all laws are just and should be obeyed?

No. Over generalize much?

 

[Ibentoken]

Wrong, see the legal paperwork. I was in the process of editing the previous post.




>>>>

Show the legal paperwork.

Already did, link is below the quote.


>>>>

I apologize.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Show the legal paperwork.

Already did, link is below the quote.


>>>>

I apologize.

S'OK, we all get hot once in awhile.

Good on ya.


>>>>

 

[Ibentoken]

I'm pretty sure it's the Colorado State law that applies here, not the anti-chryst, opps I mean Obama.......

You think all laws are just and should be obeyed?

No. Over generalize much?

We agree. I'm not over generalizing. I'm making a point and you agree with it.

 

[martybegan]

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no ******* clue what a "public business" is, but I assume it's your new PC-speak for "We allow you the privilege of working, peon" - paid taxes in order to provide themselves and the community with things like police, fire departments, etc. Now, if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

Every rationalization they use leads to one conclusion, "I can use the government to force you to accept me"

Actually I think it's more like "Gay people in Colorado(and a few other states) can use the States Law to punish businesses who discriminate against gay people"

So **** winning hearts and minds, lets ruin people who disagree with you.

You enjoy your progressiveness with a side of fascism, I see.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just remember it was Obama and the democrats who brought us re-education camps. What next? Stalag 18?

I'm pretty sure it's the Colorado State law that applies here, not the anti-chryst, opps I mean Obama.......

You think all laws are just and should be obeyed?

All laws are valid until determined otherwise by a court.