Colorado appeals court backs gay couple in wedding cake dispute

[martybegan]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

 

[bodecea]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Did you just make up that list?.....
The question is irrelevant.
The owner refused to accommodate a gay couple based on religious grounds.
If the owner had a decent attorney that knew his way around Constitutional arguments and could present case law supporting religious objections( narrow scope) the courts would have no choice but to rule in favor of the respondent.
Now, a few observations.....
In your list...
What is the difference between "sex"and "sexual orientation"......Question....Have you ever heard of the fitness centers known as "Curves"?...These are female only centers. Males are excluded...Now, if a man wished to join and was denied based on gender( discrimination) would you object on the same grounds as the baker who refused to do business with the gay couple?
Define "creed"....As you know it. Do not look it up....
What is the difference between "race" and "Color"?.....
Oh....BTW....Just in case you try, answers to the question relating to the fitness center, answers such as " there are other gyms for the man to choose from" are unacceptable because the same could be said about bakeries for the gay couple to patronize.....
Have at it....

A woman's only gym is a different concept from a "straights only" bakery.

Here's a difference...A women's only gym ANNOUNCES that it's a women's only gym. Did that bakery ANNOUNCE that it was a straights only bakery?

 

[martybegan]

. . . because they are a black person.

Marty is right about differences of government and private service. The only way to address that is with PA laws, which have to be done at the state level.

PA laws should only address actual public accommodations, not every business transaction that can occur between private parties.

A person's right to get a hotel room when they need it trumps a person's moral compass, the need for medicine, food staples, and basics of life trump them as well.

A contracted wedding cake does not.

 

[bodecea]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

 

[martybegan]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sounds like this is headed for the SCOTUS.

Help me out here. I thought it would only go to the SC if there were differing opinions in the lower courts, and then the Supremes decided if they even wanted to take the case. The appeals court agreed with the first court, so there is no disagreement in the lower courts, and no question of law to answer. Have I been misinformed all this time?

No, it is just a matter of how the SCOTUS decides which cases it wants to deal with.

If all lower courts have had the same consistent decision then the SCOTUS can refuse to review the baker's case when it is appealed to the SCOTUS.

But it only takes 4 justices to agree to review the baker's case in order for the SCOTUS to take it up. That is called granting Cert as I understand the process. And that could still happen even if every lower court had agreed and ruled against the baker.

My reasoning above was based upon what might happen with the appeals process. Personally I don't see Roberts wanting to take this case if he doesn't have to and if it does end up on the docket then I can see him voting against the baker because he really doesn't want another bad decision on his record because he already has some lousy decisions that he probably regrets like Citizens United.

 

[Seawytch]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Oh, you think you can be the arbiter of personal religious beliefs too?

And yes, people thought black people were black because of...SIN.

 

[martybegan]

So here are the people protected by Colorado's public accommodation laws- which 'bakers' can't refuse cakes to just because they are 'X'-

Do you think Bakers should be able to refuse to sell someone a cake because of a persons:

1. disability,
   
2. race,
   
3. creed,
   
4. color,
   
5. sex,
   
6. sexual orientation,
   
7. marital status,
   
8. family status,
   
9. religion,
   
10. national origin,
    
11. or ancestry

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Oh, you think you can be the arbiter of personal religious beliefs too?

And yes, people thought black people were black because of...SIN.

An overwhelming majority of theologians agree that the bible finds homosexual acts sinful. The number who think the bible says being black is sinful is far far far far far far far smaller.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Here is the link to the actual decision.

If anyone cares to read it.

http://media.thedenverchannel.com/d...1-PD.pdf?_ga=1.88503899.1710761070.1439519391


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

 

[bodecea]

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Oh, you think you can be the arbiter of personal religious beliefs too?

And yes, people thought black people were black because of...SIN.

An overwhelming majority of theologians agree that the bible finds homosexual acts sinful. The number who think the bible says being black is sinful is far far far far far far far smaller.

And....?

 

[martybegan]

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

 

[martybegan]

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Oh, you think you can be the arbiter of personal religious beliefs too?

And yes, people thought black people were black because of...SIN.

An overwhelming majority of theologians agree that the bible finds homosexual acts sinful. The number who think the bible says being black is sinful is far far far far far far far smaller.

And....?

See my next post.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes I do believe they should be able to and should have to advertise who they won't serve.

Of course, everyone sniveling and whining about bakers and florists aren't going after the grand daddy of Public Accommodation laws, the Civil Rights Act. Nope, they are going after state and local laws.
Some "states rights" folks they are.

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

Which does not change the fact that people saw black people as sinful. Which takes me back to my original statement...try denying that wedding cake to an interracial couple. Oh right, you can't. Why? Federal PA laws.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

No Marty, that's not a difference. Historians and theologians can point quite clearly to where the bible was interpreted to see blacks as being sinful. It was all the way up until the 70s that the Mormon Church continued their "mark of Cain" bullshit so you can't even play the "dark ages" card.

They run 100% counter to your bullshit argument which is why you are so willing to dismiss them. You think the anti gay bigot should be able to discriminate but the racist one not. Probably because you're an anti gay bigot, but at least you're not a racist. Bully for you.

 

[martybegan]

Mostly because Accommodations under the federal law are actually listed, and not expanded to include all transactions between private parties.

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

Which does not change the fact that people saw black people as sinful. Which takes me back to my original statement...try denying that wedding cake to an interracial couple. Oh right, you can't. Why? Federal PA laws.

Has anyone actually been punished under FEDERAL PA laws for exactly that?

 

[martybegan]

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

No Marty, that's not a difference. Historians and theologians can point quite clearly to where the bible was interpreted to see blacks as being sinful. It was all the way up until the 70s that the Mormon Church continued their "mark of Cain" bullshit so you can't even play the "dark ages" card.

They run 100% counter to your bullshit argument which is why you are so willing to dismiss them. You think the anti gay bigot should be able to discriminate but the racist one not. Probably because you're an anti gay bigot, but at least you're not a racist. Bully for you.

I am an bully bigot, and your side is currently the bullies. Worse, you don't even have the balls to do it yourself, you run to government like spoiled little children because people don't approve of your lifestyle.

 

[Seawytch]

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

Which does not change the fact that people saw black people as sinful. Which takes me back to my original statement...try denying that wedding cake to an interracial couple. Oh right, you can't. Why? Federal PA laws.

Has anyone actually been punished under FEDERAL PA laws for exactly that?

I don't know. How does that matter? We know that blacks (and Christians) have successfully sued under PA and Employee protection laws and won. We know that FEDERAL law prohibits such discrimination and we know that is the law ya'll should be going after, not these local and state laws.

Of course, you're swimming against the stream. It's much more likely gays will get added to Title II than you to get rid of it, but I support your "efforts".

 

[Seawytch]

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

No Marty, that's not a difference. Historians and theologians can point quite clearly to where the bible was interpreted to see blacks as being sinful. It was all the way up until the 70s that the Mormon Church continued their "mark of Cain" bullshit so you can't even play the "dark ages" card.

They run 100% counter to your bullshit argument which is why you are so willing to dismiss them. You think the anti gay bigot should be able to discriminate but the racist one not. Probably because you're an anti gay bigot, but at least you're not a racist. Bully for you.

I am an bully bigot, and your side is currently the bullies. Worse, you don't even have the balls to do it yourself, you run to government like spoiled little children because people don't approve of your lifestyle.

If that makes you feel better about supporting PA laws that protect race, but not ones that protect sexual orientation, call yourself whatever you want.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Uh huh...try and be a baker that refuses to serve a black person.

try and find in the bible where being black is sinful.

Plus, the market would take care of that anyway.

Many people used to interpret the bible in such a way that black was a symbol of sin...just like lefthandedness was a symbol of evil.

Color Black in Scripture Bible - Is black the color of sin

Or it could be that black represented the dark, and before modern times the dark was something to be afraid of.

As I said...this is how SOME people have interpreted the bible. I am not responsible for their being logical. In fact, for the most part, any literal interpretation of the bible (any version) usually leaves out logic altogether.

The difference is that there is overwhelming consensus among theologians that all three monotheistic religions find homosexuality sinful. The ones that interpret the texts of said religion to find sin in race are the equivalent of truthers, birthers, and moon hoaxers.

But they give you a talking point, so you inflate their importance to aid your argument.

Apartheid was based upon bible texts.

Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae - Interpreting the Bible in the context of apartheid and beyond An African perspective

It is still used to justify racism to this day.