Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[NYcarbineer]

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?

.

Don't those people read the news?

 

[G.T.]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

 

[rightwinger]

Colorado still doesn't get it

Those two proposals will appeal to the fag haters in the state, but the courts have already said what they believe

 

[Syriusly]

Just shut up and submit. Or we'll make sure you pay the consequences.

America, 2015.

Oh well, just thought I'd toss it out there.

.

America: demanding business's follow the law since 1776.

"Businesses".

And this isn't about the law. This is about people choosing to file a complaint because they want to intimidate and punish.

When I see you filing complaints about illegal aliens I'll take that silly argument seriously. Let me know, huh?

.

This is absolutely about the law. The only reason why you are objecting is because the persons asking to be served are homosexuals.

Once again- customers go to a business- ask to pay the business money for their goods or services- business says "No we don't serve your kind"- customer then files complaint with the State about business that is not complying with the law.

No different than the business that refused to accommodate the disable veteran.

 

[PratchettFan]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

It doesn't. That comes from the respective governments, authorized by the Commerce Clause for the feds and the 10th Amendment for the states. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the feds and states from doing that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

No, they want them to do their jobs, what they do to earn the money. How unreasonable of those faggots...

No shoes, no shirt, no service a very common practice in many a business. In the USA we still have a right to tell militant gays targeting our businesses to fuck off!

No, you do not, if their request is nearly the same as any other customer. Serve one, serve all. Time to grow up now.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

No, they want them to do their jobs, what they do to earn the money. How unreasonable of those faggots...

No shoes, no shirt, no service a very common practice in many a business. In the USA we still have a right to tell militant gays targeting our businesses to fuck off!

Just like you have the right to tell militant Blacks or militant Jews or Militant Christians to fuck off- you don't serve their kind!

Just that you will be breaking the law(where the law covers gay customers) and probably will cost you thousands of dollars.

 

[martybegan]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

There is the right to free exercise of religion, explicit in the document. To remove that right, under strict scrutiny you have to find some compelling government interest in doing so. In the case of say hotel rooms during travel, the interest is a person travelling could be harmed by not finding a room when they need it. So the time sensitivity is a factor in the government's interest. One can look at grocery sales as another government interest, i.e. sustenance. A person can be harmed if they cannot get food.

There is no actual harm when a gay couple has to go to another baker. the service to be provided is not time sensitive, nor necessary for life. Nor is the discrimination systemic, or government mandated.

Thus the right to free exercise of these people is not trumped by the right to free commerce by said gay couple.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Businesses follow rules, and we, as s society, get to set those rules because without what we provide there would be no business. Quid Pro Quo...

 

[BluesLegend]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

 

[martybegan]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

It doesn't. That comes from the respective governments, authorized by the Commerce Clause for the feds and the 10th Amendment for the states. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the feds and states from doing that?

The 1st amendment is incorporated to the States by the 14th, you can't use the 10th to take away rights given by the 1st.

Again, where is the compelling government interest in removing a person's 1st amendment rights in these cases?

 

[NYcarbineer]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its the completely one sided and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Take the tinfoil off your head and start dealing with the real world. That isn't it.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Public Accommodation laws have been on the books since the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Christians don't get special exemptions from the very same laws that say it is illegal to discriminate against Christians.

And by 'targetting' you mean- trying to pay a business money for their goods and service.....yeah will you target me that way?

 

[martybegan]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Businesses follow rules, and we, as s society, get to set those rules because without what we provide there would be no business. Quid Pro Quo...

We follow the constitution, which sets the rules, and more importantly which rules are not allowed in the game.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Gays have plenty of common ground with the Christians who aren't anti-gay bigots.

 

[g5000]

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Kind of like the way blacks went after all the racists when they gained their civil rights.

Perfectly understandable, and the racists had it coming to them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

It doesn't. That comes from the respective governments, authorized by the Commerce Clause for the feds and the 10th Amendment for the states. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the feds and states from doing that?

The 1st amendment is incorporated to the States by the 14th, you can't use the 10th to take away rights given by the 1st.

Again, where is the compelling government interest in removing a person's 1st amendment rights in these cases?

The 1st and business doesn't spend a lot of time together,. In business what you do is greatly limited. Stand on the street corner if you want to preach, that's not what a business does...

 

[Syriusly]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

Reading the second- yeah this is not actually going to happen either

The second measure would require the state to maintain a list of businesses willing to provide services to same-sex and transgender couples, so that those opposed could contract with them.

Imagine if Colorado passed a law requiring the state to maintain a list of business's willing to provide services to African Americans?

Or to Jews?

Or to Native Americans?

Would those be 'compromises'?

or we can just let people refuse to provide non-necessary services like this at their discretion, and be done with it. Let the market handle it.

see my last post.

And see MY last one. Most of the other groups are A-OK with going to people who WANT to provide such services, it seems recently gays are the ones who are deciding everyone has to service them of be fined into oblivion.

"it seems' because they are the ones getting the press.

Others have used the laws over time and for the same purpose- pretty common for handicapped to use the law.

Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today announced a $20,000 consent decree that resolves a lawsuit alleging that a Park City, Utah, condominium association and its management company violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a resident’s request for a reasonable accommodation.


The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 21, 2011, in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleges that the Fox Point at Redstone Association, Property Management Systems and on-site property manager Derek Peterson refused to grant a reasonable accommodation so that Thomas Burton, a disabled combat veteran of the first Gulf War, could keep a small dog in the condominium he rented to help him cope with the effects of depression and anxiety disorder. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants refused to waive their pet fees and insurance requirements and issued multiple fines that eventually led to the non-renewal of Burton’s lease.


Under the consent decree, which was entered by the U.S. District Court in Utah, the defendants will pay $20,000 in monetary relief to Burton. Additionally, the defendants will attend fair housing training; implement a new reasonable accommodation policy that does not charge pet fees to owners of service or assistance animals and does not require them to purchase liability insurance; and comply with notice, monitoring and reporting requirements.

That's the best you can do? Really? A condo Associations fight over dogs?

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

 

[martybegan]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

It doesn't. That comes from the respective governments, authorized by the Commerce Clause for the feds and the 10th Amendment for the states. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the feds and states from doing that?

The 1st amendment is incorporated to the States by the 14th, you can't use the 10th to take away rights given by the 1st.

Again, where is the compelling government interest in removing a person's 1st amendment rights in these cases?

The 1st and business doesn't spend a lot of time together,. In business what you do is greatly limited. Stand on the street corner if you want to preach, that's not what a business does...

That's how you see it, because you are a small tiny man who gets off on government forcing other people to follow your views.