Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[Silhouette]

Does he have to make a nazi cake for nazi customers or a pedophile themed cake for pedos or a yassir Arafat themed cake? Will they order a gay cake shop to make a cake celebrating banning gay marriage?

If gay marriage is not legal in Colorado, or was made faux-legal by judicial fiat or legislative fiat outside the Will of the Governed there, the cakeshop owner must appeal on the grounds that you cited above and on religious objection. Quasi-gay "rights' vs freedom of religion at the SCOTUS level means they will weigh that constitutional question.

 

[Dragonlady]

The right of religious freedoom is not absolute. Warren Jeffs was convicted of rape because marrying 13 year old girls and having sex with them is illegal, and Jeffs' defense that such a prohibition was an infringement on his religious freedom was denied. Your right to religious freedom ends when your freedom infringes on the constitutional rights of others.

You cannot have blood sacrifice in your religious rituals because blood sacrifice is against the law, even if your church preaches it as necessary. You are free to worship as you please, but you cannot incorporate a church which ritualizes illegal practices in order to violate the law.

If you believe that being gay is a sin, you have the right to believe that, but it doesn't give you the freedom to break the law and refuse service to gays. And claiming that baking a cake is a sin just won't fly.

 

[BillyZane]

I don't force my creed on you or your family or in your schools, or in the court yard. And I expect the same. Keep your creed away from me...it's sick, it's destructive, no society has survived it.

Really??? Canada has had legalized gay marriage for more than 10 years and our society is doing just fine. In fact, according to the United Nations, Canada is a happier, healthier, and more liveable society than the United States. We have a lower crime rate, fewer murders, and we live longer.

Studies show that certain umm changes are happening which might change those numbers

Canada?s Black Population | ELLIOT LAKE News

 

[BillyZane]

The right of religious freedoom is not absolute. Warren Jeffs was convicted of rape because marrying 13 year old girls and having sex with them is illegal, and Jeffs' defense that such a prohibition was an infringement on his religious freedom was denied. Your right to religious freedom ends when your freedom infringes on the constitutional rights of others.

You cannot have blood sacrifice in your religious rituals because blood sacrifice is against the law, even if your church preaches it as necessary. You are free to worship as you please, but you cannot incorporate a church which ritualizes illegal practices in order to violate the law.

If you believe that being gay is a sin, you have the right to believe that, but it doesn't give you the freedom to break the law and refuse service to gays. And claiming that baking a cake is a sin just won't fly.

blah blah blah

Let's see who have this backwards

I believe you have the right to do business with anyone who wishes to do business with you

You believe you have the right to FORCE people to do business with you.

Notice only one of us is forcing someone and actually removing their freedom.

Could you be FORCED to eat at say Chik Fil E even if you disagreed with their religious beliefs?

No, then why pray tell should they be FORCED to serve you if they don't agree with yours?

 

[Dragonlady]

Could you be FORCED to eat at say Chik Fil E even if you disagreed with their religious beliefs?

No, then why pray tell should they be FORCED to serve you if they don't agree with yours?

It's called discrimination. What if you decide you don't like black people, or Jews, or Italians. You cannot put up a sign which says "No blacks, Jews or Italians served". If you open your doors to the public, you must serve ALL members of the public even if they walk into your store wearing Nazi uniforms. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, is illegal.

If you don't like that law, you are quite free to find some other way of making your living that doesn't involve serving the general public.

 

[BillyZane]

Could you be FORCED to eat at say Chik Fil E even if you disagreed with their religious beliefs?

No, then why pray tell should they be FORCED to serve you if they don't agree with yours?

It's called discrimination. What if you decide you don't like black people, or Jews, or Italians. You cannot put up a sign which says "No blacks, Jews or Italians served". If you open your doors to the public, you must serve ALL members of the public even if they walk into your store wearing Nazi uniforms. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, is illegal.

If you don't like that law, you are quite free to find some other way of making your living that doesn't involve serving the general public.

That law is COMPLETELY unconstitutional.

You can't find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the federal government is given the authority to tell people they can't discriminate.

You ESPECIALLY can't find anywhere that gives the government the authority to tell people they can discriminate, but not for certain reasons.

I own a business. I can hang a sign up that says

"No people who smell bad"

that's discrimination, but perfectly legal.

I can't hang up a sign that says

"no jews"

How is one discrimination any more of the federal government's business than the others?

You of course can not logically answer that question.

 

[Nosmo King]

Could you be FORCED to eat at say Chik Fil E even if you disagreed with their religious beliefs?

No, then why pray tell should they be FORCED to serve you if they don't agree with yours?

It's called discrimination. What if you decide you don't like black people, or Jews, or Italians. You cannot put up a sign which says "No blacks, Jews or Italians served". If you open your doors to the public, you must serve ALL members of the public even if they walk into your store wearing Nazi uniforms. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, is illegal.

If you don't like that law, you are quite free to find some other way of making your living that doesn't involve serving the general public.

That law is COMPLETELY unconstitutional.

You can't find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the federal government is given the authority to tell people they can't discriminate.

You ESPECIALLY can't find anywhere that gives the government the authority to tell people they can discriminate, but not for certain reasons.

I own a business. I can hang a sign up that says

"No people who smell bad"

that's discrimination, but perfectly legal.

I can't hang up a sign that says

"no jews"

How is one discrimination any more of the federal government's business than the others?

You of course can not logically answer that question.

You have no idea what you're talking about. People who smell bad are not a protected class, are they? They can change the status of their aroma.

If your business is open to the public, it must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC!

Bigotry is not a protected class because bigots can change their attitudes. It usually takes a monetary loss to the bigot. Money makes the difference. Bigoted attitudes are taught. An attitude of tolerance is bought.

 

[Dragonlady]

I own a business. I can hang a sign up that says

"No people who smell bad"

that's discrimination, but perfectly legal.

I can't hang up a sign that says

"no jews"

How is one discrimination any more of the federal government's business than the others?

You of course can not logically answer that question.

That's because "no smelly people" is not discriminatory. You would ban white smelly people as well as black, Jewish and gay smelly people. People who smell bad can cause others to feel ill so it is only logical that you don't want people getting sick in your store. OTOH, a person who is smelly can go home, take a bath and change their clothes and then you will serve them.

Banning Jews is discriminatory because it doesn't matter if they are nice, clean, sweet smelling and offend no one. You are banning them because of prejudice and that is illogical, wrong and hurtful. The law says you cannot refuse service on the basis of race. If you can't bring yourself to obey the law, you can't operate a business which serves the public.

 

[koshergrl]

Gay isn't a race.

 

[BillyZane]

I own a business. I can hang a sign up that says

"No people who smell bad"

that's discrimination, but perfectly legal.

I can't hang up a sign that says

"no jews"

How is one discrimination any more of the federal government's business than the others?

You of course can not logically answer that question.

That's because "no smelly people" is not discriminatory. You would ban white smelly people as well as black, Jewish and gay smelly people. People who smell bad can cause others to feel ill so it is only logical that you don't want people getting sick in your store. OTOH, a person who is smelly can go home, take a bath and change their clothes and then you will serve them.

Banning Jews is discriminatory because it doesn't matter if they are nice, clean, sweet smelling and offend no one. You are banning them because of prejudice and that is illogical, wrong and hurtful. The law says you cannot refuse service on the basis of race. If you can't bring yourself to obey the law, you can't operate a business which serves the public.

What are you talking about? Banning smelly people CERTAINLY is discriminatory.

Here, I looked up the word for you

dis·crim·i·na·to·ry
adjective \dis-ˈkri-mə-nə-ˌtȯr-ē, -ˈkrim-nə-\

: not fair : unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
Full Definition of DISCRIMINATORY
1
: discriminative 1
2
: applying or favoring discrimination in treatment
— dis·crim·i·na·to·ri·ly adverb
See discriminatory defined for English-language learners »
See discriminatory defined for kids

The ONLY difference is you are okay with kind of discrimination and not another.

I ask once again, WHERE in the COTUS is the federal government granted the authority to make ANY form of discrimination illegal? WHERE, please point me to the specific area where such power is given, and keep your OPINIONS to yourself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That law is COMPLETELY unconstitutional.

Actually, Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found to be completely constitutional, but at the federal and state levels.

See Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States from a federal perspective and Griego v. Oliver (New Mexico) from a state perspective.

You can't find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the federal government is given the authority to tell people they can't discriminate.

This isn't a case where the federal government did anything, the violation was under State law.

You ESPECIALLY can't find anywhere that gives the government the authority to tell people they can discriminate, but not for certain reasons.

Since you point out it's not in the COTUS, then the 10th Amendment would apply correct?

Colorado enacted laws in it's code to regulate commerce, a power held by the states.

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.
(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation...​

I own a business. I can hang a sign up that says

"No people who smell bad"

that's discrimination, but perfectly legal.

Correct.

I can't hang up a sign that says

"no jews"

How is one discrimination any more of the federal government's business than the others?

The difference is that religion is a characteristic where it is illegal for a business to discriminate against.

You of course can not logically answer that question.

I just did.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I ask once again, WHERE in the COTUS is the federal government granted the authority to make ANY form of discrimination illegal? WHERE, please point me to the specific area where such power is given, and keep your OPINIONS to yourself.

And I'll answer again, this is not a Federal case.

The complaint was filed under Section 24-34-601 (Discrimination in places of public accommodation) of th eColorado Code and under the 10th Amendment States are empowered to regulate businesses operating within that State.


>>>>

 

[BillyZane]

I ask once again, WHERE in the COTUS is the federal government granted the authority to make ANY form of discrimination illegal? WHERE, please point me to the specific area where such power is given, and keep your OPINIONS to yourself.

And I'll answer again, this is not a Federal case.

The complaint was filed under Section 24-34-601 (Discrimination in places of public accommodation) of th eColorado Code and under the 10th Amendment States are empowered to regulate businesses operating within that State.


>>>>

I actually have no qualms with STATE laws, for the exact reason you stated. My opinions only relate to the FEDERAL laws.

CONGRESS has NO right to criminalize prejudice, as that power is not given them in the COTUS

The states are not so encumbered.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I ask once again, WHERE in the COTUS is the federal government granted the authority to make ANY form of discrimination illegal? WHERE, please point me to the specific area where such power is given, and keep your OPINIONS to yourself.

And I'll answer again, this is not a Federal case.

The complaint was filed under Section 24-34-601 (Discrimination in places of public accommodation) of th eColorado Code and under the 10th Amendment States are empowered to regulate businesses operating within that State.


>>>>

I actually have no qualms with STATE laws, for the exact reason you stated. My opinions only relate to the FEDERAL laws.

CONGRESS has NO right to criminalize prejudice, as that power is not given them in the COTUS

The states are not so encumbered.

It's called discrimination. What if you decide you don't like black people, or Jews, or Italians. You cannot put up a sign which says "No blacks, Jews or Italians served". If you open your doors to the public, you must serve ALL members of the public even if they walk into your store wearing Nazi uniforms. Discrimination on the basis of race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation, is illegal.

If you don't like that law, you are quite free to find some other way of making your living that doesn't involve serving the general public.

That law is COMPLETELY unconstitutional.

You can't find ANYWHERE in the COTUS where the federal government is given the authority to tell people they can't discriminate.

The law you said was "COMPLETELY unconstitutional" was Colorado Statute 24-34-601.

Why do you keep going on about Federal laws, when this thread is about Colorado law?



>>>>

 

[Dragonlady]

Banning smelly people is not discriminatory if you go by your definition of discrimination.

: not fair : unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people
Full Definition of DISCRIMINATORY

You are allowed to treat smelly people differently because your other customers may be offended by or allergic to their smell. There is nothing "unfair" about such a decision, especially because the individual can always go home, bath, change into clean clothes and eliminate the offending smell. Thus it's not discrimination to refuse service to such a person, since you will serve them once they clean up.