Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[BluesLegend]

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

That is actually a very good point. Why would you even want a cake from someone who didn't want to bake it for you? Why ruin your wedding day knowing the wedding cake was baked by a Christian who disapproves of gays and gay weddings? Weird.

Why would a black guy want a job at a company that didn't want black people working there?

I see your side is back to the black crutch since they can't make a gay argument.

 

[G.T.]

Unnecessary.

If you want to run a business in public, then follow the civil rights act.

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

Thays correct, theres a larger and way more valid point in regards to humanity in general.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

That is actually a very good point. Why would you even want a cake from someone who didn't want to bake it for you? Why ruin your wedding day knowing the wedding cake was baked by a Christian who disapproves of gays and gay weddings? Weird.

One of the brides had gotten a cake for another wedding from this bakery (her mother's wedding, I believe). Apparently the cake was good enough and the service was good enough that she chose this bakery for her own wedding. Why would she assume that the baker would refuse and call her an abomination? And why on earth should she put up with something that is clearly against the law?

Boo hoo someone would rather you take your business elsewhere

And the need to do so is entirely unnecessary. Do your fucking job, it's for money, not God.

 

[martybegan]

A weasel answer from a weasel.

The fundamental principle of laws is weasely now?

Referring only to "the law" and not the reason behind the law is.

Woolworth's was only following "the law" when it had segregated lunch counters. By your argument, those were right, and just and should be followed, because big daddy government knows best.

First I'll ask you to prove that Woolworth's was required by state law to refuse service to blacks.

Then I would like you to prove to me that once it became against federal law to refuse service to blacks, that Woolworth was somehow not obligated to obey that law.

That's two tasks for you.

Well here is Alabama's law as an example:

Examples of Jim Crow laws - October 1960 - Civil Rights - A Jackson Sun Special Report

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

and woolworth is covered because it was clearly defined as a PA, as seen below. I don't see bakers providing a contracted service are covered.

Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

42 U.S. Code 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation US Law LII Legal Information Institute

And once federal law had rendered that state statue unenforceable, then what was Woolworth's legal obligation?

Under federal law, they had to take all comers at their lunch counter, in particular because of this:

any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

Considering the systemic nature of the discrimination, made by these laws, things such as this were necessary to correct the past issues.

This isn't applicable to a few bakers not wanting to bake cakes, it is not systemic, it is not government mandated, and a contracted service such as this is not a public accommodation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Well, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Well, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Give it up, faggot, you lost...

 

[Ravi]

looks to me like our residents homophobes are in the third stage of grief!
ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

Considering I have no issue with SSM if it was voted in by the State legislatures, your broad brush doesn't hit me.

Try again.

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

 

[martybegan]

looks to me like our residents homophobes are in the third stage of grief!
ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

Considering I have no issue with SSM if it was voted in by the State legislatures, your broad brush doesn't hit me.

Try again.

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

PA laws as you want them legislate the right to free exercise of religion away, so I guess those have to go, right?

 

[mdk]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Well, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Keys' Hysterics IS the Joining of One Butt and One Hurt.

 

[BluesLegend]

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

That is actually a very good point. Why would you even want a cake from someone who didn't want to bake it for you? Why ruin your wedding day knowing the wedding cake was baked by a Christian who disapproves of gays and gay weddings? Weird.

One of the brides had gotten a cake for another wedding from this bakery (her mother's wedding, I believe). Apparently the cake was good enough and the service was good enough that she chose this bakery for her own wedding. Why would she assume that the baker would refuse and call her an abomination? And why on earth should she put up with something that is clearly against the law?

Boo hoo someone would rather you take your business elsewhere

And the need to do so is entirely unnecessary. Do your fucking job, it's for money, not God.

You seem especially desperate for me to repy to a post so I took pity on you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

That is actually a very good point. Why would you even want a cake from someone who didn't want to bake it for you? Why ruin your wedding day knowing the wedding cake was baked by a Christian who disapproves of gays and gay weddings? Weird.

One of the brides had gotten a cake for another wedding from this bakery (her mother's wedding, I believe). Apparently the cake was good enough and the service was good enough that she chose this bakery for her own wedding. Why would she assume that the baker would refuse and call her an abomination? And why on earth should she put up with something that is clearly against the law?

Boo hoo someone would rather you take your business elsewhere

And the need to do so is entirely unnecessary. Do your fucking job, it's for money, not God.

You seem especially desperate for me to repy to a post so I took pity on you.

Couldn't give a fucking damn...

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see a middle ground here

How is giving up your hard fought right to same sex marriage a middle ground?
How is giving up your right to be served in a public business a middle ground?

Exactly. It isn't middle ground. It's second class ground.

You just won the lottery

How about you agree to a "middle ground" and give me half?

 

[Mac1958]

Neither end of the spectrum believes in a middle ground and we're more and more divided as a result.

Well, congratulations folks, you're evidently getting what you want.

.

 

[Ravi]

looks to me like our residents homophobes are in the third stage of grief!
ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

Considering I have no issue with SSM if it was voted in by the State legislatures, your broad brush doesn't hit me.

Try again.

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

PA laws as you want them legislate the right to free exercise of religion away, so I guess those have to go, right?

No one's free exercise of religion is gone.

 

[G.T.]

Neither end of the spectrum believes in a middle ground and we're more and more divided as a result.

Well, congratulations folks, you're evidently getting what you want.

.

Both sides getting legal marriage is most definitely middle ground.

 

[Ravi]

Neither end of the spectrum believes in a middle ground and we're more and more divided as a result.

Well, congratulations folks, you're evidently getting what you want.

.

The middle ground you proposed isn't middle ground. Back a couple of years ago you more than likely could have gotten gays to agree to civil unions that had the same rights as married couples. But no, that didn't suit you. Barn door has closed.

 

[mdk]

Neither end of the spectrum believes in a middle ground and we're more and more divided as a result.

Well, congratulations folks, you're evidently getting what you want.

.

The first proposal isn't a middle ground. It doesn't even offer the same rights as marriage. Either way I doubt these proposals go anywhere.

 

[martybegan]

Considering I have no issue with SSM if it was voted in by the State legislatures, your broad brush doesn't hit me.

Try again.

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

PA laws as you want them legislate the right to free exercise of religion away, so I guess those have to go, right?

No one's free exercise of religion is gone.

Says you. Said baker has to participate in a wedding that goes against their moral code. They have lost their free exercise of religion by being forced to participate or be fined by the government, and probably put out of business.
Free exercise is not limited to the clergy, or going to church, or what you do behind closed doors.

 

[Syriusly]

You agree of course that the condo association had the right to discriminate against the disabled veteran?

if you wanted an example of the tyranny of petty authority, you picked a perfect one with regards to condo associations.

And they were discriminating against the dog, which I'm not sure is even discrimination.

No- they violated the disabled Veterans legal rights by refusing to accommodate his dog.

You agree of course with the condo association?

if they applied the fee to everyone who wanted a dog, I don't see how they got hit on PA. If anything it was an ADA violation.

It's discrimination against pet owners, who I am not sure are a protected class (yet).

I disagree with the Condo association on making fees for dogs, but to me they have the right to do it.

And the difference between PA laws and ADA laws are?

They come from different laws passed at different times?

Both tell business's that they cannot discriminate against specific groups.

Good- or bad?

 

[Ravi]

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

PA laws as you want them legislate the right to free exercise of religion away, so I guess those have to go, right?

No one's free exercise of religion is gone.

Says you. Said baker has to participate in a wedding that goes against their moral code. They have lost their free exercise of religion by being forced to participate or be fined by the government, and probably put out of business.
Free exercise is not limited to the clergy, or going to church, or what you do behind closed doors.

If they can't abide by local laws they should have picked a different business. No one forced them into the wedding cake business. And no religion forbids baking a gay couple a wedding cake.