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

[Andylusion]

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

Must really suck to live in a country with religious freedom huh?

Better to eliminate that stuff. If you want, you could always go to Saudi Arabia where they don't have that annoying religious freedom crap.

 

[Andylusion]

The 1st Amendment freedom of religion was around long before it became trendy to support sodomite relationships.

Religion has no business in my bedroom...

Agreed. Stop demanding we accept what you do in your bedroom. You stay out, We'll stay out. Everyone is happy.

 

[Silhouette]

The 1st Amendment freedom of religion was around long before it became trendy to support sodomite relationships.

Religion has no business in my bedroom...

And your bedroom has no business in the 14th Amendment; unless you're willing to cover ALL bedrooms under the 14th Amendment.

 

[Lysistrata]

The 1st Amendment freedom of religion was around long before it became trendy to support sodomite relationships.

Religion has no business in my bedroom...

Agreed. Stop demanding we accept what you do in your bedroom. You stay out, We'll stay out. Everyone is happy.

Where did this idea come from that we "accept" what each of us does in our private bedrooms? For all that you know, donnie might be in the bedroom with melania right now. Mikey and karen might be going at it as we speak. The sexual activities of other people are none of your damned business.

Your use of term "sodomite" makes you sound like a fundie.

 

[Silhouette]

The sexual activities of other people are none of your damned business..

The sexual activities of other people also aren’t constututionally protected in the marketplace.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

How is being thick as a brick a valid argument?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Thanks to people like Mr. Phillips, neither will all the left's legal persecutions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Incrementalism. Pushing to end PA laws entirely would be too far, too fast right now. Far better to work on them a little at a time, for a number of reasons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No.

Hotel rooms are not "part of interstate commerce". The hotel is in one state; you're in the same state while you're renting the room. Really, really tired of all these weasely excuses for the federal government to micromanage things.

And 1) why in the hell are you leaving it until 3 am to find a hotel room? 2) where the hell are you, that there's only one hotel? Can't say that YOUR lack of planning is anyone else's responsibility.

WHY does government get a say in anyone's commerce? You state this as though it's a self-evident fact, like "Gravity makes you fall down". I'm not seeing it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yes, well, they stop being fine when we can't agree on what constitutes a public accommodation, and that's the crux of this whole argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

The political philosophy in question, doofus, is not homosexuality; it's the idea that people can and should be forced to do things they don't agree with because it's politically incorrect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I just heard, "Public accommodation laws are needed because otherwise, people might feel free to disagree with me!"

I've had business licenses before, Lice. I don't remember anything in the paperwork stating that I was signing on as a slave of the government or entitled twats like you. Maybe the business licenses in Colorado have different wording.

BTW, please do not think YOU represent Christians anywhere, of any sort. You are an evil, deluded dimwit.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Although why on Earth they'd WANT to reject such a large segment of a bakery's income stream is a puzzler.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

You’ve argued that on many occasions here in the past. You stopped doing so after I pointed out that classifying being gay as a religion would give them a vast amount of more rights. You know, like being covered under every state and federal public accommodation law instead of just a handful. You backed away from that nonsense like a vampire from garlic.

They have yet to apply for tax exempt status. Always wondered why, as you also recall. Why do you suppose that is?

Because only retards like you and other assorted loons think being gay is a religion.

You do have to admit there are some militant queers out there who probably should be classified as a cult.

No, just generally obsessive.

 

[boedicca]

"
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.

Fox Butterfield I presume?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cecilie1200]

The 1st Amendment freedom of religion was around long before it became trendy to support sodomite relationships.

Religion has no business in my bedroom...

But when you go out and buy a cake announcing it, it's not in your bedroom any more.

 

[Silhouette]

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

Although why on Earth they'd WANT to reject such a large segment of a bakery's income stream is a puzzler.

The thing is in principle & law, they can.

In fact this is surely to be the meat of the baker’s case. Colorado arbitrarily allowed gay businesses to refuse to print messages they found offensive but punished the Christian baker for the same refusal. In so doing the State not only violated his civil rights, but also de facto declared a protected ideology.

That is to say, in their actions, Colorado declared a state religion of homosexual ideology. Or as I have coined it, “the Cult of LGBT”.

 

[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.

I just heard, "Public accommodation laws are needed because otherwise, people might feel free to disagree with me!"

I've had business licenses before, Lice. I don't remember anything in the paperwork stating that I was signing on as a slave of the government or entitled twats like you. Maybe the business licenses in Colorado have different wording.

BTW, please do not think YOU represent Christians anywhere, of any sort. You are an evil, deluded dimwit.

You appear to have lost it all together. What religion are you, anyway? How about Phillips? Methodist? Catholic? Baptiist? Lutheran? what?

 

[hazlnut]

"
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

Homophobes aren't really Christian... they just misuse biblical text to justify their own sick fears and insecurities.

This baker is probably a closet gay and now he's "cooked" up a get rich scheme to sue the state.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

"
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

Homophobes aren't really Christian... they just misuse biblical text to justify their own sick fears and insecurities.

This baker is probably a closet gay and now he's "cooked" up a get rich scheme to sue the state.

Homophobe is calculated misnomer. Weaponized language. There is nothing phobic about innate repulsion.