Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

[Ambivalent1]

"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.

Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.

In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.

However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."

Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

Let's see what happens

 

[satrebil]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I'm shocked someone is being taken to task for anti Christian bias. Not since imperial Rome have Christians
been the butt of prejudiced disregard like they are in modern day America.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

You notice the left wing avoids this kind of thread like the plague.

 

[Moonglow]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

How is being gay a political philosophy?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

 

[Silhouette]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It isn’t. It’s just one of a spectrum of deviant sex behaviors. Like any other of a number of deviant addictions.

The problem is that you can’t force others to promote behaviors, ideals or rituals supporting said behaviors if they find them morally repugnant. This applies to more than just Christians. It applies to anyone.

Race & gender, innate states of being, will continue to have protections.

 

[Moonglow]

Good. The left has attempted to create an atmosphere where individual liberty is only respected if it follows the progressive narrative. Can't wait to see this suit shoved up their virtue signaling asses.

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It isn’t. It’s just one of a spectrum of deviant sex behaviors. Like any other of a number of deviant addictions.

The problem is that you can’t force others to promote behaviors, ideals or rituals supporting said behaviors if they find them morally repugnant. This applies to more than just Christians. It applies to anyone.

Race & gender, innate states of being, will continue to have protections.

Well supposedly there is free will and all yer ranting and table pounding will never stop it from occurring.

 

[Silhouette]

Well supposedly there is free will and all yer ranting and table pounding will never stop it from occurring.

Yes.

And free will includes the will to say no to behaviors, ideals & rituals one fundamentally rejects. You didn’t think that worked both ways, did you?

 

[mdk]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

 

[bodecea]

"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.

Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.

In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.

However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."

Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

Let's see what happens

Sure...show the court how christers are so persecuted.

 

[Rustic]

"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.

Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.

In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.

However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."

Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

Let's see what happens

Sure...show the court how christers are so persecuted.

 

[martybegan]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.

I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.

A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.

Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

 

[mdk]

Well supposedly there is free will and all yer ranting and table pounding will never stop it from occurring.

Yes.

And free will includes the will to say no to behaviors, ideals & rituals one fundamentally rejects. You didn’t think that worked both ways, did you?

*Unless one fundamentally rejects something you’ve decided can’t be refused. Those folks don’t have property right, business rights, or individual rights...only certain people are afforded such luxuries.

 

[Moonglow]

"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.

Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.

In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.

However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."

Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility

Let's see what happens

Sure...show the court how christers are so persecuted.

Like building a wall...

 

[mdk]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.

I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.

A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.

Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has passed. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.

 

[martybegan]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.

I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.

A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.

Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.

The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.

And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.

When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.

 

[mdk]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.

I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.

A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.

Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.

The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.

And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.

When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.

I would be willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of hotels are owned by corporations that don’t give shit about anything other than your ability to pay or not. There isn’t going to be some rash of hotels refusing X,Y, and Z. If one was foolish enough to do so, it would a PR nightmare from Hell. It’s time to get rid of all them let the market decide. That is what really achieves the maximum about of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

Evidence?

 

[martybegan]

Good. I hope he wins. People should not be forced to do business with others against their wishes. Sadly, we are not seeing a major push to end public accommodation laws- just a bunch of little loopholes that only allow *certain* people the right to refuse.

The issue here is the definition of a "public accomodation." To progressives a PA is anytime money changes hands. In reality the meaning was really to cover areas of assembly and locations of point source commerce. Things like hotel rooms, movie theaters, restaurants, and retail stores.

I do think PA laws are allowable, but only when it comes to an actual Public Accommodation.

A good example would be a hotel with conference rooms. I would say PA laws would require them to rent their rooms out regardless of the person in question, but they would be able to pick and choose who can rent their conference rooms out for an event. That being said they could not deny entry of a person to said conference or event based on who the person was.

Confusing? Yes, but it allows the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

Just find another hotel. I am not sure why some businesses get more rights to refuse people they don’t want to accommodate, but others do not. There was a time for public accommodation laws in nation, but I think that time has pasted. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.

The thing is hotel rooms, as places where people visit, may actually fall under federal scrutiny, as they are part of interstate commerce.

And finding another hotel at 3:00 AM when tired of driving can be an issue, and falls under the "immediacy" requirement I have often used in these posts as a reason PA laws are needed and are valid.

When you invite someone onto your property to do point of sale commerce, government can have a say in it. To me they have much less of a say with contracted services that are not time-sensitive, non-vital, and easily replaceable.

I would be willing to bet the vast and overwhelming majority of hotels are owned by corporations that don’t give shit about anything other than your ability to pay or not. There isn’t going to be some rash of hotels refusing X,Y, and Z. If one was foolish enough to do so, it would a PR nightmare from Hell. It’s time to get rid of all them let the market decide. That is what really achieves the maximum about of freedom for the maximum amount of people.

Well this is where we disagree. PA laws are fine when applied to actual Public Accomodations.