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

[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.

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

We always end up at this impasse together. lol

Happy New Year, Marty.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

"
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

The First Amendment is the law of the land.
The dumb left wingers need to read the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

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.

We always end up at this impasse together. lol

Happy New Year, Marty.

You to man.

 

[Silhouette]

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

This isn't about any one religion dear. It's about an individual's personal convictions clashing with behaviors, ideals or rituals of another. You can't force them to play along. Not in this universe unless you're establishing an official religion of State; like Colorado tried to do favoring gay bakers right to deny service on things they
found offensive to their ideals.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

The universal ideological pillar of left-wing politics, is an "us verses them" attitude. It's evil rich, oppressing the perfect poor. It's the evil companies, oppressing the benevolent workers.

Everything in left-wing ideology is built on greed and envy of others. It is all about painting yourself as a victim, and everyone else as perpetrators.

The current situation in the gay community is that they have no valid complaint. They are denied nothing. They are oppressed by no one. But that doesn't stop them, because like all left-wing ideology, it is built on 'us vs them', and thus they must be a victim. They must claim to be oppressed. It's part of their left-wing ideals.

This is why they have to find people who are religious and demand they violate their own religious freedoms, and be forced to provide goods and services they do not wish to provide. Because it is all about left-wing 'us vs them' attitudes.

 

[Andylusion]

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

Evidence?

The fact that gay ratios are drastically higher in prisons where people have loose moral values, and are isolated in a male only environment.

 

[Moonglow]

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

Evidence?

The fact that gay ratios are drastically higher in prisons where people have loose moral values, and are isolated in a male only environment.

Yet being gay, bi or in love with yer dog is not a political theory..

 

[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?

*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.

The Constitution found that they can refuse a behavior, ritual or ideal they find repugnant.

There's going to be some sifting on the 14th Amendment here too. An incomplete set of deviant sex addictions was not legally able to be affixed outside the Legislature to the meaning of the 14th. It's all inclusive. Can't have incomplete lists. And you know where that's going in deviant behavior land. If a behavior is deviant or offensive to the majority in a given state (Windsor says states determine marriage) then who arbitrarily decides which offensive behaviors get to skip law and order and which don't?

You can see where this might lead the penal codes with enough time and lawsuits. TOTAL MAYHEM once you start assigning arbitrary favors to a class based on behaviors.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How is being gay a political philosophy?

It’s a behavior choice.

Evidence?

The fact that gay ratios are drastically higher in prisons where people have loose moral values, and are isolated in a male only environment.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. I asked for evidence, not your opinion.

 

[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.

The Constitution found that they can refuse a behavior, ritual or ideal they find repugnant.

There's going to be some sifting on the 14th Amendment here too. An incomplete set of deviant sex addictions was not legally able to be affixed outside the Legislature to the meaning of the 14th. It's all inclusive. Can't have incomplete lists. And you know where that's going in deviant behavior land. If a behavior is deviant or offensive to the majority in a given state (Windsor says states determine marriage) then who arbitrarily decides which offensive behaviors get to skip law and order and which don't?

You can see where this might lead the penal codes with enough time and lawsuits. TOTAL MAYHEM once you start assigning arbitrary favors to a class based on behaviors.

I love that you say something all has to all inclusive all the while arguing that some people can refuse service, but others can’t not. Not shocking that standards you set only ever apply to homos.

 

[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?

The universal ideological pillar of left-wing politics, is an "us verses them" attitude. It's evil rich, oppressing the perfect poor. It's the evil companies, oppressing the benevolent workers.

Everything in left-wing ideology is built on greed and envy of others. It is all about painting yourself as a victim, and everyone else as perpetrators.

The current situation in the gay community is that they have no valid complaint. They are denied nothing. They are oppressed by no one. But that doesn't stop them, because like all left-wing ideology, it is built on 'us vs them', and thus they must be a victim. They must claim to be oppressed. It's part of their left-wing ideals.

This is why they have to find people who are religious and demand they violate their own religious freedoms, and be forced to provide goods and services they do not wish to provide. Because it is all about left-wing 'us vs them' attitudes.

First off leftism is not a political theory it is a political position. Liberalism, democracy, republicanism are political theories or philosophies...When you say leftist politics you need to be specific as to which subcategory exist..Social democrat, socialist, communist, capital communist etc. The abuse of the political position for a political theory is from the illogical false narratives contrived by the echo chamber of partisanship..
Someone can be a socially motivated exclusive victim which is not a political position or theory...It has to do with civil rights of which according to religious adherents they feel sovereignty status to not comply...

 

[bodecea]

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.

So, being straight is a behavioral choice too? When did you choose your sexual orientation?

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

This case is a prime example of why public-accommodation laws are needed. Why do you want to reimpose segregation?

This critter has a business license.

BTW: please do not take this guy as a representative of Christians across the nation and the world. He is a cultist.

 

[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 passed. The free market will decide if businesses will rewarded or rejected for their practices. Easy peasy, George and Weezie.

This case is a prime example of why public-accommodation laws are needed. Why do you want to reimpose segregation?

This critter has a business license.

BTW: please do not take this guy as a representative of Christians across the nation and the world. He is a cultist.

But the issue is a contracted service, not an actual PA. "money changing hands" does not equal a PA.

and a Business license doesn't mean you give up your constitutional rights.

 

[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?

*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.

The Constitution found that they can refuse a behavior, ritual or ideal they find repugnant.

There's going to be some sifting on the 14th Amendment here too. An incomplete set of deviant sex addictions was not legally able to be affixed outside the Legislature to the meaning of the 14th. It's all inclusive. Can't have incomplete lists. And you know where that's going in deviant behavior land. If a behavior is deviant or offensive to the majority in a given state (Windsor says states determine marriage) then who arbitrarily decides which offensive behaviors get to skip law and order and which don't?

You can see where this might lead the penal codes with enough time and lawsuits. TOTAL MAYHEM once you start assigning arbitrary favors to a class based on behaviors.

I love that you say something all has to all inclusive all the while arguing that some people can refuse service, but others can’t not. Not shocking that standards you set only ever apply to homos.

No, it would also apply to gays rejecting Christian customers asking for "homosexuality is a sin unto God" to be iced on a cake. Also, Jews right to refuse "Jews are a plague on the earth" for a Nazi cake party. etc.

Or just a regular person feeling that a contract cannot be used to legally separate a child from a mother or father for life...a cake celebrating that. This runs the gamut mdk. But you already knew that. Thanks for yet another dose of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Silhouette]

So, being straight is a behavioral choice too? When did you choose your sexual orientation?

A gay baker would be able to refuse service to a normal wedding too.

 

[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.

This case is a prime example of why public-accommodation laws are needed. Why do you want to reimpose segregation?

This critter has a business license.

BTW: please do not take this guy as a representative of Christians across the nation and the world. He is a cultist.

Quite the opposite. This is a prime example of why they need to be thrown on the ash heap of history. I think people should be allowed to do business with whomever or not- as they see fit. The business will fail or succeed on those decisions. If I learned business X doesn’t serve Y, I would tell my friends and take my money to a place whose practices align with my beliefs.

I don’t take this gentleman’s actions as representative of anyone, but him. I am not down with broad brushing people as it is as lazy as it is foolish.

 

[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.

The Constitution found that they can refuse a behavior, ritual or ideal they find repugnant.

There's going to be some sifting on the 14th Amendment here too. An incomplete set of deviant sex addictions was not legally able to be affixed outside the Legislature to the meaning of the 14th. It's all inclusive. Can't have incomplete lists. And you know where that's going in deviant behavior land. If a behavior is deviant or offensive to the majority in a given state (Windsor says states determine marriage) then who arbitrarily decides which offensive behaviors get to skip law and order and which don't?

You can see where this might lead the penal codes with enough time and lawsuits. TOTAL MAYHEM once you start assigning arbitrary favors to a class based on behaviors.

I love that you say something all has to all inclusive all the while arguing that some people can refuse service, but others can’t not. Not shocking that standards you set only ever apply to homos.

No, it would also apply to gays rejecting Christian customers asking for "homosexuality is a sin unto God" to be iced on a cake. Also, Jews right to refuse "Jews are a plague on the earth" for a Nazi cake party. etc.

Or just a regular person feeling that a contract cannot be used to legally separate a child from a mother or father for life...a cake celebrating that. This runs the gamut mdk. But you already knew that. Thanks for yet another dose of your intellectual dishonesty.

You can’t forced a baker to write anything on cake against their wishes right now, dumb shit.

Why should I be forced to do business with someone that violates my deeply held belief concerning the First Commandment? After all, being a member of particular religious group isn’t innate, but a behavioral choice. You’re cool with people being forced into business with one another, so long as they met whatever legal loophole you’ve crafted for people you like.

 

[Silhouette]

Why should I be forced to do business with someone that violates my deeply held belief concerning the First Commandment? After all, being a member of particular religious group isn’t innate, but a behavioral choice. You’re cool with people being forced into business with one another, so long as they met whatever legal loophole you’ve crafted for people you like.

One could argue that a cult surrounding deviant sex acts is a religion as well. As such, both that religion & any other could object to promoting the other’s values.

So this will be fair mdk. Unless your cult has a rabbit to pull out of the hat that just some deviant sex acts ( but not others) are innate

 

[deanrd]

I guess we’ll find out if hate is considered religious freedom.