Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[martybegan]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

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?

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.

 

[Syriusly]

Call to Houston Motel 6 leads to class-action lawsuit - Houston Chronicle

A disabled Army veteran has filed a class-action lawsuit against the parent company of Motel 6, alleging that the hotel chain does not comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.


In the lawsuit filed in the South District of Texas in Houston, plaintiff Dana Bowman alleges that he called a Motel 6 in Houston prior to a business trip and asked if the hotel's pools had access facilities for the disabled. The motel's staff informed him that there were no such facilities there, according to the suit.


Bowman, a retired Army sergeant first class, filed the class-action lawsuit on May 20 against G6 Hospitality Property LLC, parent company of Motel 6.


"The defendant's pools do not have a fixed pool lift or other acceptable means of entry for disabled persons, notwithstanding that such modifications are readily achievable," according to the lawsuit, filed by Dallas attorney Eric G. Calhoun of Travis & Calhoun.

"The defendant's hotels, which are places of public accommodation, have barriers to use of the pools," the suit alleges. The hotel chain failed "to design, construct and/or own or operate hotel facilities that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, disabled people.

 

[g5000]

The bigots are hiding behind Christianity to cover up their hateful bigotry. No one is fooled. Their bigotry has nothing to do with religion. They are a STAIN on religion. They are no different than a Klansman with a cross on his robe.

You wouldn't truck with a Klansman, would you?

Then why are you fools defending these assholes and calling them Christians?

 

[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?

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.

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

 

[Syriusly]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

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?

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?

 

[g5000]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and blasphemers and infidels and worshippers of false idols. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry toward a select group.

Figure it out!

 

[martybegan]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

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?

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.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

 

[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?

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?

You have already agreed they can by bringing up the concept of a compelling interest. So it is a matter of degree, not ability. Currently, I don't think there is a federal requirement preventing a shop owner from serving someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But I think you would be hard pressed to justify refusing to serve someone on the basis of religion for religious purposes. For example, refusing to serve Jews. Sexual orientation is really at the state level, so it becomes a matter of state's rights.

So, is there a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent discrimination of groups in the market place? You agree there is and I agree with you. How far does that interest go? I think a valid argument can be made that is goes all the way, because any discrimination at all is, by its very nature, destructive to the community. And how does the government determine which services are necessary and which are not, and under what conditions, without massive litigation - which is also destructive to the community?

I expect this to find its way to the SCOTUS. I'll be interested in the outcome.

 

[g5000]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

I actually don't like the government forcing someone to make a sandwich at a lunch counter for a black man. But I blame the intransigence of bigots for the expansion of the federal government's power, not their victims.

And you would, too, if you were honest.

And the defenders of these bigots would not be referring to these assholes as Christians if they were honest. This is not a religious issue, and it is extremely dishonest to portray it as such.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seeking middle ground is what you do before an issue is settled. Not after it's settled, and you've lost.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

 

[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?

You have already agreed they can by bringing up the concept of a compelling interest. So it is a matter of degree, not ability. Currently, I don't think there is a federal requirement preventing a shop owner from serving someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But I think you would be hard pressed to justify refusing to serve someone on the basis of religion for religious purposes. For example, refusing to serve Jews. Sexual orientation is really at the state level, so it becomes a matter of state's rights.

So, is there a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent discrimination of groups in the market place? You agree there is and I agree with you. How far does that interest go? I think a valid argument can be made that is goes all the way, because any discrimination at all is, by its very nature, destructive to the community. And how does the government determine which services are necessary and which are not, and under what conditions, without massive litigation - which is also destructive to the community?

I expect this to find its way to the SCOTUS. I'll be interested in the outcome.

Actually it doesn't go all the way, because there has to be actual harm involved. The harm in the Jim Crow period was the total economic servitude of blacks due to the laws put in place. The Woolworth counter pictures show the symptoms of this, the counter bans were not the cause.

A single baker, or few bakers saying "I don't want to work gay weddings" does not even come close to what was seen in the Jim Crow era. to compare the two is ridiculous and self serving to those who see government as a method to force change on how people think.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

 

[g5000]

It is very simple. Targeting a specific group for exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with Bible compliance.

Wake. Up.

 

[martybegan]

Seeking middle ground is what you do before an issue is settled. Not after it's settled, and you've lost.

Pro-life people "lost" back in 1973, have they gone away yet?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

You have already agreed they can by bringing up the concept of a compelling interest. So it is a matter of degree, not ability. Currently, I don't think there is a federal requirement preventing a shop owner from serving someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But I think you would be hard pressed to justify refusing to serve someone on the basis of religion for religious purposes. For example, refusing to serve Jews. Sexual orientation is really at the state level, so it becomes a matter of state's rights.

So, is there a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent discrimination of groups in the market place? You agree there is and I agree with you. How far does that interest go? I think a valid argument can be made that is goes all the way, because any discrimination at all is, by its very nature, destructive to the community. And how does the government determine which services are necessary and which are not, and under what conditions, without massive litigation - which is also destructive to the community?

I expect this to find its way to the SCOTUS. I'll be interested in the outcome.

Actually it doesn't go all the way, because there has to be actual harm involved. The harm in the Jim Crow period was the total economic servitude of blacks due to the laws put in place. The Woolworth counter pictures show the symptoms of this, the counter bans were not the cause.

A single baker, or few bakers saying "I don't want to work gay weddings" does not even come close to what was seen in the Jim Crow era. to compare the two is ridiculous and self serving to those who see government as a method to force change on how people think.

The point is the same, it's business not faith, so shut up and do your fuckin' job.

 

[martybegan]

It is very simple. Targeting a specific group for exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with Bible compliance.

Wake. Up.

In your opinion, nothing more, and again, you don't get to make that decision.

 

[martybegan]

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?

You have already agreed they can by bringing up the concept of a compelling interest. So it is a matter of degree, not ability. Currently, I don't think there is a federal requirement preventing a shop owner from serving someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But I think you would be hard pressed to justify refusing to serve someone on the basis of religion for religious purposes. For example, refusing to serve Jews. Sexual orientation is really at the state level, so it becomes a matter of state's rights.

So, is there a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent discrimination of groups in the market place? You agree there is and I agree with you. How far does that interest go? I think a valid argument can be made that is goes all the way, because any discrimination at all is, by its very nature, destructive to the community. And how does the government determine which services are necessary and which are not, and under what conditions, without massive litigation - which is also destructive to the community?

I expect this to find its way to the SCOTUS. I'll be interested in the outcome.

Actually it doesn't go all the way, because there has to be actual harm involved. The harm in the Jim Crow period was the total economic servitude of blacks due to the laws put in place. The Woolworth counter pictures show the symptoms of this, the counter bans were not the cause.

A single baker, or few bakers saying "I don't want to work gay weddings" does not even come close to what was seen in the Jim Crow era. to compare the two is ridiculous and self serving to those who see government as a method to force change on how people think.

The point is the same, it's business not faith, so shut up and do your fuckin' job.

No, and I'ts not about me, its about others who don't want to do those things. There is no reason for government to force them other then spite, and petty petty rage.

 

[g5000]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.