Colorado is after this guy.

[Dogmaphobe]

Probably my mistake for dating a Wiccan.

How interesting. Thedoctorisin has talked about hanging out with lots of Satanists.




…...must be a coincidence, I guess.

 

[dblack]

And that's clearly not the case. The baker would have been in the clear if they'd just declined service for no reason. They were punished because they turned it into a statement of protest.

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

They were originally about stopping whole towns or counties from banning certain people from certain commerce.

Their application in individual cases of limited refusal to serve is a new concept.

They would have had evidence of him not doing other cakes based on his religion, evidence of him doing wedding cakes, and then him not wanting to do this specific wedding cake.

Based on the inherent bias seen in the Commission that even the liberal SC justices pointed out, they would have reached the same conclusion.

It's still the expression of that bias that is the target. Without that, or a history of that, there's no crime. These laws aren't about protecting individuals from personal discrimination. The target is public bias. The goal isn't to force businesses to treat people equally. The goal is to prohibit them from putting up signs saying "We don't serve xxx".

I don't read into it that deeply. The original goal and the current goal of PA laws is very different.

Before it was to keep public spaces civil and make sure point of sale items were not limited to a person because of race.

It was never meant to go into individual contracted transactions.

Why do I feel we are arguing about a faucet leak while on a sinking Titanic?

It's actually a pretty important point. And the kerfuffle over Alex Jones makes that clear. Principles matter. If we accept government social engineering for a "good cause" we have to recognize that "good cause" is relative and subjective. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding public opinion.

 

[martybegan]

I doubt it. The Commission would have still taken the complaint and I'm sure would have implied the denial of service was due to it being for a SSM wedding.

But in order to make a case, they'd have to have other examples of the baker's bias - some other expression of the banned opinion. If the baker had expressed no such bias in the past, short of extracting a confession, they'd have no case.

I think people take this argument as a 'technicality', but it really is the point of these laws. When they're sober, and not engaged in partisan debate, you can even get liberals to admit this. It's not that controversial. These laws aren't about individual justice. They're about social engineering - controlling public opinion via the law.

They were originally about stopping whole towns or counties from banning certain people from certain commerce.

Their application in individual cases of limited refusal to serve is a new concept.

They would have had evidence of him not doing other cakes based on his religion, evidence of him doing wedding cakes, and then him not wanting to do this specific wedding cake.

Based on the inherent bias seen in the Commission that even the liberal SC justices pointed out, they would have reached the same conclusion.

It's still the expression of that bias that is the target. Without that, or a history of that, there's no crime. These laws aren't about protecting individuals from personal discrimination. The target is public bias. The goal isn't to force businesses to treat people equally. The goal is to prohibit them from putting up signs saying "We don't serve xxx".

I don't read into it that deeply. The original goal and the current goal of PA laws is very different.

Before it was to keep public spaces civil and make sure point of sale items were not limited to a person because of race.

It was never meant to go into individual contracted transactions.

Why do I feel we are arguing about a faucet leak while on a sinking Titanic?

It's actually a pretty important point. And the kerfuffle over Alex Jones makes that clear. Principles matter. If we accept government social engineering for a "good cause" we have to recognize that "good cause" is relative and subjective. Government shouldn't be in the business of molding public opinion.

The problem is government itself is a form of social engineering, progressives just take it to the extreme.


While I admit the use of civil rights laws in the 60's as well as PA laws was heavy handed, there wasn't any other way to re-enfranchise blacks and return them to economic parity, at least at the local level with respects to access, even if the ability wasn't there yet.

 

[dblack]

While I admit the use of civil rights laws in the 60's as well as PA laws was heavy handed, there wasn't any other way to re-enfranchise blacks and return them to economic parity, at least at the local level with respects to access, even if the ability wasn't there yet.

Maybe not. But we need to recognize that the basic principle of the law was flawed and invites abuse. We need to retire such laws, not expand them to other areas.

 

[martybegan]

While I admit the use of civil rights laws in the 60's as well as PA laws was heavy handed, there wasn't any other way to re-enfranchise blacks and return them to economic parity, at least at the local level with respects to access, even if the ability wasn't there yet.

Maybe not. But we need to recognize that the basic principle of the law was flawed and invites abuse. We need to retire such laws, not expand them to other areas.

I agree they were flawed, but again if they weren't used what was the method of stopping local governments from disenfranchising US citizens or denying them equal protection under the law?

It was a crap situation that required a crap solution.

But yes, the desire to expand them needs to be stopped.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets be consistent.

Yes. Let's.

Everybody here knows damn well that if it were a Muslim baker, you would be saying NONE of these things

Heck, a Muslim baker could lop off the head of the tranny and you would be here refusing to say there is anything wrong with it, you would be ridiculing those who objected to it by indicating it was funny and you would be demanding people attack some christians, instead.

Now you are being pathetic and silly. In Colorado, if they serve the public they cannot discrimminate. Sorry you are too dense to comprehend it

Learn the difference between "they should not discriminate" and "they cannot discriminate". I can assure you that they're fully capable of it, whether they're supposed to or not. And the Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

Or are you just trying to claim that YOU would never demand that public servants discriminate? Because I'm calling bullshit on that, too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets be consistent.

Yes. Let's.

Everybody here knows damn well that if it were a Muslim baker, you would be saying NONE of these things

Heck, a Muslim baker could lop off the head of the tranny and you would be here refusing to say there is anything wrong with it, you would be ridiculing those who objected to it by indicating it was funny and you would be demanding people attack some christians, instead.

Now you are being pathetic and silly. In Colorado, if they serve the public they cannot discrimminate. Sorry you are too dense to comprehend it

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

Show of hands, everyone who's sick unto death of Coyote conflating "not unlimited" with "therefore, we don't have to pay attention to it at all".

 

[Coyote]

Now you are being pathetic and silly. In Colorado, if they serve the public they cannot discrimminate. Sorry you are too dense to comprehend it

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

The right in question is religious freedom, a constituional right. Your pesky PA state law doesn't have a prayer

Religious freedom doesnt overrule all other rights. Case in point, you can bot wear a hajib for id photos. And biblical objections to interacial marriage were struck down.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

The right in question is religious freedom, a constituional right. Your pesky PA state law doesn't have a prayer

Religious freedom doesnt overrule all other rights. Case in point, you can bot wear a hajib for id photos. And biblical objections to interacial marriage were struck down.

For the last fucking time, a constitutional right overrides your lame ass PA law.

Kill the thread, it's become a redundant bore

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes. Let's.

Everybody here knows damn well that if it were a Muslim baker, you would be saying NONE of these things

Heck, a Muslim baker could lop off the head of the tranny and you would be here refusing to say there is anything wrong with it, you would be ridiculing those who objected to it by indicating it was funny and you would be demanding people attack some christians, instead.

Now you are being pathetic and silly. In Colorado, if they serve the public they cannot discrimminate. Sorry you are too dense to comprehend it

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

Sorry, what "right" do people have to other people's approbation? And how does that fit together with the Constitutional right to withhold approbation, or even to disapprove, if one's conscience dictates?

In other words, what could these vindictive homosexuals possibly have a right to that does not conflict with the First Amendment?

 

[martybegan]

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

The right in question is religious freedom, a constituional right. Your pesky PA state law doesn't have a prayer

Religious freedom doesnt overrule all other rights. Case in point, you can bot wear a hajib for id photos. And biblical objections to interacial marriage were struck down.

They have to be taken into account though, and when violated the solution has to be as least impactful as possible on those rights.

So you may be forced to remove your hijab for a photo ID, but you would be taken to a seperate room and have a woman take the photograph for you.

The biblical objections to interracial or inter-tribal marriage were tenuous at best. OTOH biblical objection to homosexuality is quite clear.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

In CO, if you publicly offer a service, you cannot privately contract the same service and discriminate.

Yes.

If he routinely sold cakes that celebrated the cutting off of penices, he would be expected to do so here.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

The right in question is religious freedom, a constituional right. Your pesky PA state law doesn't have a prayer

Religious freedom doesnt overrule all other rights. Case in point, you can bot wear a hajib for id photos. And biblical objections to interacial marriage were struck down.

In this case, a whole host of Constitutional rights stand on the baker's side. All you got on your side is a very flimsy whining about how you think you have a "right" to someone else's service and labor.

Good luck with that.

Not sure what "objections to interracial marriage were struck down" is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting that making governments issue marriage licenses to interracial couples is somehow comparable to forcing a private citizen to bake a cake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A baker who offers a certain set of goods out as wares to the public, cannot refuse any of that custom to certain customers under CO's PA law.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Lets be consistent.

Yes. Let's.

Everybody here knows damn well that if it were a Muslim baker, you would be saying NONE of these things

Heck, a Muslim baker could lop off the head of the tranny and you would be here refusing to say there is anything wrong with it, you would be ridiculing those who objected to it by indicating it was funny and you would be demanding people attack some christians, instead.

Now you are being pathetic and silly. In Colorado, if they serve the public they cannot discrimminate. Sorry you are too dense to comprehend it

In the United States the First guarantees an indivudual the right to freedom of religion, it shall not be stifled nor infringed That overrides any PA law.

A Constituional right is paramount.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

Show of hands, everyone who's sick unto "

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another? I think on one side there are thise clearly trying to bait and set up people like the baker but on the other side ther are people stretching the meaning of religious freedom until it becomes a thin veneer to mask blatent discrimmination.

The man is a Christian. In Christianity homosexuality is clearly sinful. He's within his constitutional rights to refuse.

These gays targeting these Christians and yes they are can easily find a baker to accomodate them but instead they're pushing it. Then absolutely shocked when the push back begins.

It is not unlimited however and that is the issue to be resolved...at what point does one right overrule another?

If there actually were two rights conflicting, you'd have a point. Cake is not a right.

You are right, cake isnt.. However...that is not the right in question.

The right in question is religious freedom, a constituional right. Your pesky PA state law doesn't have a prayer

Religious freedom doesnt overrule all other rights. Case in point, you can bot wear a hajib for id photos. And biblical objections to interacial marriage were struck down.

In this case, a whole host of Constitutional rights stand on the baker's side. All you got on your side is a very flimsy whining about how you think you have a "right" to someone else's service and labor.

Good luck with that.

Not sure what "objections to interracial marriage were struck down" is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting that making governments issue marriage licenses to interracial couples is somehow comparable to forcing a private citizen to bake a cake?

A baker who offers a certain set of goods out as wares to the public, cannot refuse any of that custom to certain customers under CO's PA law.

this baker does not offer tranny cakes.

The difference between contracted service and public accommodation has been explained to you many times.

Is it stupidity or dishonesty that accounts for your stubbornness?

 

[JakeStarkey]

dogma, your misunderstanding of the law of proferred services and contractual obligations has been explained to you often, and you stupidly or dishonestly refuse to accept the facts and the law.

 

[JoeB131]

He doesn't hate them, he still serves them point of sale, he just doesn't want to participate in a SSM wedding.

Anyone willing to piss away this amount of money to not serve gays really hates gays.

A worker isn't a business owner. A worker's right to do certain things is different.

But that's the point. You want privilege for business owners. "I don't have to do this because of my religious beliefs", you'd support firing that person in a heartbeat, and you know it.

he only benefit is people like you get to cum in your pants every time someone you don't like gets fucked over.

Only person fucking over these homophobic bakers are themselves. They were told what the law is... they made a very big deal about breaking it. He could have just as easily lied and said he was booked up that weekend.

The law cannot override 1st amendment protections.

Sure it can. That's why Mormons can't have plural marriages anymore... because plural marriage is illegal.

You being a bigot disqualfies you...not to mention your own posts on this rhread reveals you're clueless on Christianity.

12 years of Catholic stupidity and psycho nuns, I've had more "Christianity" than I can stand.

Nice attempt at argumentum ad abusrdum there. You don't get to decide how the guy free exercises, and in this case neither should government.

But the government decides that laws are more important than religous practice all the time.

It's why the Rastafarians can't smoke pot.
Why the Mormons can't have polygamy
Why the Branch Davidians can't diddle their kids.

We decided - get this - that laws protecting the rest of us were more important.

 

[Synthaholic]

Yes, they are. They favor the chinese extremely heavily. They are far from even reasonable. They are batshit crazy deals that enrich them, and impoverish us. So, if your goal is to destroy the USA as Spain was destroyed through its trade deals back when it was the wealthiest nation on the planet, then yes, your point is correct. On the other hand, if you want this country to remain strong, then you and your claims are moronic.

Um, no, they aren't.

Americans were losing the trade wars long before the Chinese showed up.

That's what happens when your corporations become more focused on quick profits than quality.

So what's Trumpenfuhrer's solution? Making consumer goods more expensive for Americans!

No, we weren't. Up until the 1970's the USA enjoyed a trade surplus, since then our politicians have engineered us into the largest trade deficit the world has ever seen. Get your money for education back, because you don't know squat.

Holy shit, that’s ignorant!

Watch this and learn something.

 

[JoeB131]

That would constitute involuntary servitude, which is explicitly prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Um, no, everyone who signs a contract is obligated to do what they promised.

Kind of like if I say, 'Apples, $1.00/lb" I can't change it to $2.00/lb because I don't like you.

It's the same principle. But I know that word is foreign to you. Party allegiance is all that matters. If a business is discriminating against someone you don't like you cheer. If they're picking on a friend, you pass a law. It's the political philosophy of an arbitrary bully.

Yawn, buddy, Facebook is on solid legal ground. They have terms of service clearly defined, and Jones violated them by saying hte Sandy Hook Families were crisis actors. If they didn't dump him, they'd probably be liable for damages.

That's the entire purpose of these laws. That's all they do. They don't stop discrimination. They merely suppress the expression of opinions that the law has targeted for extinction.

OH MY GOD! What kind of a world would we live in if racism, misogyny and homophobia became extinct?

Oh. Wait. A pretty good one, actually.

Carry on.

It was never meant to go into individual contracted transactions.

Why do I feel we are arguing about a faucet leak while on a sinking Titanic?

Because only you think the ship is sinking, or that there's anything wrong with the faucet..

The thing is, you guys had no problem with PA Laws until they started applying them to the ka-weers!

 

[JoeB131]

How interesting. Thedoctorisin has talked about hanging out with lots of Satanists.
…...must be a coincidence, I guess.

Not really. This was back in the 1980's...

Show of hands, everyone who's sick unto death of Coyote conflating "not unlimited" with "therefore, we don't have to pay attention to it at all".

Which isn't what she said.

Let's review one more time. She cited some examples, like not wearing a Hijab for your ID photo. I pointed out others like ending Polygamy for Mormon cult offshoots, Rastafarians can't smoke dope, Branch Davidians can't let their Cult leader diddle their kids.

In short, if a law is generally considered a good idea for non-religious reasons, then it should not be set aside for religious reasons.