Dicks and Walmart getting sued HAHA

[HappyJoy]

Please do demonstrate your point in the real world.

A public accomodation is a business that opens itself up to the public, allows the public on it's property, and conducts point of sale commerce. Contracted non-essential and non-timely services should not fall under the same rules.

An example would be a Hotel can be compelled to provide rooms for people regardless of who they are (as long as they can pay) as they offer rooms to the public, and the use of the room (as long as lawful) is of no concern to the owner of the hotel.

On the other hand, if the same hotel offers it's rooms out for events, it should be able to pick and choose which events it hosts, and not fall under PA laws as this is a non-essential, non-timely contracted service.

Yeah, I understand the concept of what you are saying. I was being polite, provide a link.

Why do I need a link? This is my opinion on what a PA is, and is not.

States are the ones who have extended the meaning to include "any time money changes hands"

Oh, OK. I didn't realize we were debating a make believe world in your head. My bad.

We are debating concepts, if you are not up to it, may I suggest they Hello Kitty message board as something more your speed?

'Concepts' isn't the law of the land.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that a baker is an artist, and as such has to craft the item desired by the customer.

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

So if a gay person orders a Whopper at BK, they have to sell it to him, but if a gay person orders a Whopper without cheese,

BK can refuse because they don't do special orders for gays?

lol

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the bakers advertise that they do 'wedding cakes'. If same sex marriage is legal and entitled to equal protection under the law,
it is unconstitutional to single out same sex marriage for discrimination.

So if they made a sign that said "we do Opposite sex marriage wedding cakes" that would be OK?

Weren't these cases before Obergfell was decided?

What you fail to include is the also protected right to Free Exercise, which has to be taken into account.

 

[Vastator]

The difference is that a baker is an artist, and as such has to craft the item desired by the customer.

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

So if a gay person orders a Whopper at BK, they have to sell it to him, but if a gay person orders a Whopper without cheese,

BK can refuse because they don't do special orders for gays?

lol

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the bakers advertise that they do 'wedding cakes'. If same sex marriage is legal and entitled to equal protection under the law,
it is unconstitutional to single out same sex marriage for discrimination.

A,d each work of art is commisioned. An artist isn't obligated I perform on command. Compulsory service is illegal. Unless this is the draft, or a chain gang.

 

[martybegan]

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the meat supplier has the right not to do Business with Burger King if the owner of the store is gay?

A wholesaler again offers a point of sale service, although the question of a wholesaler being a PA is an interesting one.

Has there ever been a wholesaler that has denied service on these grounds?

Really? Are you purposefully not answering the question? BK and the meat supplier have a contract and the meat supplier does not sell directly to the public. Are you saying they have a right not to do business if a BK store is owned by a homosexual?

Actually it's an interesting question, but I would say no, they would not be able to deny sale due to the point of sale nature of the transaction, and of no other compelling interests, such as potential 1st amendment issues.

Again, has this even ever come up?

I see, in other words you're kind of caving on your argument. But, we've already confirmed your not working with reality.

Not caving at all, but discussing the mechanics of what a PA is and is not.

 

[Vastator]

Yes they are. Whether you like it or not. Crafting is an art. But go ahead and amuse me... Show me how a baker isn't an artist...

For starters...

The Oregon bakery case was precipitated by the sellers refusing to do business with the customers simply because they were gay,

not because of any artwork issues.

Inspiration is a fickle thing. Especially in the art world...

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

 

[martybegan]

A public accomodation is a business that opens itself up to the public, allows the public on it's property, and conducts point of sale commerce. Contracted non-essential and non-timely services should not fall under the same rules.

An example would be a Hotel can be compelled to provide rooms for people regardless of who they are (as long as they can pay) as they offer rooms to the public, and the use of the room (as long as lawful) is of no concern to the owner of the hotel.

On the other hand, if the same hotel offers it's rooms out for events, it should be able to pick and choose which events it hosts, and not fall under PA laws as this is a non-essential, non-timely contracted service.

Yeah, I understand the concept of what you are saying. I was being polite, provide a link.

Why do I need a link? This is my opinion on what a PA is, and is not.

States are the ones who have extended the meaning to include "any time money changes hands"

Oh, OK. I didn't realize we were debating a make believe world in your head. My bad.

We are debating concepts, if you are not up to it, may I suggest they Hello Kitty message board as something more your speed?

'Concepts' isn't the law of the land.

appeal to authority. Try again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if a gay person orders a Whopper at BK, they have to sell it to him, but if a gay person orders a Whopper without cheese,

BK can refuse because they don't do special orders for gays?

lol

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the meat supplier has the right not to do Business with Burger King if the owner of the store is gay?

A wholesaler again offers a point of sale service, although the question of a wholesaler being a PA is an interesting one.

Has there ever been a wholesaler that has denied service on these grounds?

Really? Are you purposefully not answering the question? BK and the meat supplier have a contract and the meat supplier does not sell directly to the public. Are you saying they have a right not to do business if a BK store is owned by a homosexual?

Actually it's an interesting question, but I would say no, they would not be able to deny sale due to the point of sale nature of the transaction, and of no other compelling interests, such as potential 1st amendment issues.

Again, has this even ever come up?

Your position is confusing. Are you claiming that a painting contractor, for example, has the right to refuse to paint a gay couple's house because they are gay?

 

[HappyJoy]

For starters...

The Oregon bakery case was precipitated by the sellers refusing to do business with the customers simply because they were gay,

not because of any artwork issues.

Inspiration is a fickle thing. Especially in the art world...

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

I believe it was privately owned, but that has nothing to do with the post you're replying to.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, I understand the concept of what you are saying. I was being polite, provide a link.

Why do I need a link? This is my opinion on what a PA is, and is not.

States are the ones who have extended the meaning to include "any time money changes hands"

Oh, OK. I didn't realize we were debating a make believe world in your head. My bad.

We are debating concepts, if you are not up to it, may I suggest they Hello Kitty message board as something more your speed?

'Concepts' isn't the law of the land.

appeal to authority. Try again.

That's a cop out.

Why don't you give an example of what you're talking about?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Inspiration is a fickle thing. Especially in the art world...

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

I believe it was privately owned, but that has nothing to do with the post you're replying to.

The Oregon bakery case hinged on the sellers claiming a religious objection to doing business with homosexuals. That was pretty much it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, what happening to the gun issue??

 

[HappyJoy]

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

I believe it was privately owned, but that has nothing to do with the post you're replying to.

The Oregon bakery case hinged on the sellers claiming a religious objection to doing business with homosexuals. That was pretty much it.

Yeah, I know. I'm just doing my best to answer Vastator's question which didn't really apply to my post.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

a better question is where to you stand on it? Can bakeries discriminate if Walmart can discriminate?

The difference is that a baker is an artist, and as such has to craft the item desired by the customer.

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[HappyJoy]

lol, what happening to the gun issue??

Oh....good point.

 

[martybegan]

The change in the product is still point of sale, and they specifically include that in their point of sale concept. (hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us)

It really isn't that hard to figure out.

But the meat supplier has the right not to do Business with Burger King if the owner of the store is gay?

A wholesaler again offers a point of sale service, although the question of a wholesaler being a PA is an interesting one.

Has there ever been a wholesaler that has denied service on these grounds?

Really? Are you purposefully not answering the question? BK and the meat supplier have a contract and the meat supplier does not sell directly to the public. Are you saying they have a right not to do business if a BK store is owned by a homosexual?

Actually it's an interesting question, but I would say no, they would not be able to deny sale due to the point of sale nature of the transaction, and of no other compelling interests, such as potential 1st amendment issues.

Again, has this even ever come up?

Your position is confusing. Are you claiming that a painting contractor, for example, has the right to refuse to paint a gay couple's house because they are gay?

I agree it's confusing, but it's an attempt to balance rights between people, which is always messy.

As for the house, i don't see rote painting as any form of endorsement, which one could see at a SSM wedding.

Now if you tried to require the painter to paint a chapel that does same sex weddings I can see there being a reason they should not have to do it.

 

[martybegan]

Why do I need a link? This is my opinion on what a PA is, and is not.

States are the ones who have extended the meaning to include "any time money changes hands"

Oh, OK. I didn't realize we were debating a make believe world in your head. My bad.

We are debating concepts, if you are not up to it, may I suggest they Hello Kitty message board as something more your speed?

'Concepts' isn't the law of the land.

appeal to authority. Try again.

That's a cop out.

Why don't you give an example of what you're talking about?

No, you saying "teh law is teh law, fuh fuh fuh" is the cop-out.

Try debating the topic at hand.

I gave an example with the hotel scenario I wrote about above.

 

[Vastator]

Inspiration is a fickle thing. Especially in the art world...

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

I believe it was privately owned, but that has nothing to do with the post you're replying to.

It was in direct response to your quote...

 

[martybegan]

The difference is that a baker is an artist, and as such has to craft the item desired by the customer.

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

it came from whole towns and States denying equal rights during the Jim Crow era, which required a response. A heavy handed response, but that's what you get when some morons on the SC make up law like they did with Plessey.

 

[HappyJoy]

The difference is that a baker is an artist, and as such has to craft the item desired by the customer.

That's incorrect. The gay couple didn't ask the baker to create a unique cake, they simply ordered a cake that the baker already makes, they didn't ask for anything additional or creative. Basically, they ordered a product.

Contracted, not point of sale.

PA law shouldn't apply in this narrow case.

What does 'contracted. not point of sale' have to do with anything?

it has to do with the original concept of a Public Accomodation.

The whole concept of PA was a bullshit way to get around the Constitution and force private entities to do what they are told by the Govt.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Actually the 'whole concept' of PA laws usually revolves around the rights of citizens and they have been found to be constitutional. They are certainly not some sort of government plot to control our lives.

 

[martybegan]

Do you think Dunkin' Donuts has the right to stop selling food that they make over and over again simply because the customer is gay?

If the customers point of contact was the owner. But I believe DD is a publicly held corporation. That changes things.

Not if it's franchised.

Was the bakery franchised?

I believe it was privately owned, but that has nothing to do with the post you're replying to.

The Oregon bakery case hinged on the sellers claiming a religious objection to doing business with homosexuals. That was pretty much it.

Only in the specific case of providing a cake for their wedding, they went on record saying they did not want to deny point of sale items.