Court Forces Non-Religious Mom To Get Christian Counseling Or Lose Custody Of Her Children

[JakeStarkey]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

As well as the original decree of divorce.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

Why the fuck would I have access to either? The story gave us the facts. A woman asked a judge to order co-parenting counseling. The Judge did. The woman went and the counselor insisted in inserting religious principles into the counseling. There were recordings of what she said. It was not disputed that the woman insisted on inserting religion into the sessions. The mom objected and did not go back. A court suspended her custody until she did. She objected, claiming that the counsel was forcing religion on her and the Judge did not believe her. Ultimately, she finished the counseling and custody was restored. You insist that there has to be something about the religious uprbringing of the kids to justify the order when there is no evidence, at all, that that happened.

 

[peach174]

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

The right to practice their faith.
It is also discrimination against those of faith.

Baking a cake for a party that follows a wedding is not "practicing their faith". There is nothing about baking a cake that is a religious expression. You choose to engage in commerce, you have to follow the rules and one of the rules is that you may not discriminate.

It is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs or quit their jobs and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Your Rights Against Religious Discrimination | Nolo.com
Federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and the laws of most states prohibit employers from engaging in religious discrimination: making job decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s religion or lack of religious beliefs. Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of religion. And, Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, as long as it doesn’t create an undue hardship.

Who Is Protected From Religious Discrimination?
Title VII applies to all government employers, whether federal, state, or local. It also covers private employers with at least 15 employees. Private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor/management committees are all subject to Title VII, as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

Why the fuck would I have access to either? The story gave us the facts. A woman asked a judge to order co-parenting counseling. The Judge did. The woman went and the counselor insisted in inserting religious principles into the counseling. There were recordings of what she said. It was not disputed that the woman insisted on inserting religion into the sessions. The mom objected and did not go back. A court suspended her custody until she did. She objected, claiming that the counsel was forcing religion on her and the Judge did not believe her. Ultimately, she finished the counseling and custody was restored. You insist that there has to be something about the religious uprbringing of the kids to justify the order when there is no evidence, at all, that that happened.

And from those "facts" you made silly allegations. We need the original documents, you know it, and the fact you deny it means you know you have been pwnd.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They have the right to believe as they wish.

Their rights to act on those beliefs in the public work place is dependent on public accomodation laws if any.

There are no statutory Title protections, although it is fun to watch the allegations.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

Why the fuck would I have access to either? The story gave us the facts. A woman asked a judge to order co-parenting counseling. The Judge did. The woman went and the counselor insisted in inserting religious principles into the counseling. There were recordings of what she said. It was not disputed that the woman insisted on inserting religion into the sessions. The mom objected and did not go back. A court suspended her custody until she did. She objected, claiming that the counsel was forcing religion on her and the Judge did not believe her. Ultimately, she finished the counseling and custody was restored. You insist that there has to be something about the religious uprbringing of the kids to justify the order when there is no evidence, at all, that that happened.

And from those "facts" you made silly allegations. We need the original documents, you know it, and the fact you deny it means you know you have been pwnd.

I made no allegations. I read the facts and, based on what was reported, offered an opinion. If the facts change, my opinion might. You are the one assuming that there is some decree or order that has something to do with the religious upbringing of the kids when there is no evidence of that.

 

[paddymurphy]

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

The right to practice their faith.
It is also discrimination against those of faith.

Baking a cake for a party that follows a wedding is not "practicing their faith". There is nothing about baking a cake that is a religious expression. You choose to engage in commerce, you have to follow the rules and one of the rules is that you may not discriminate.

It is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs or quit their jobs and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Your Rights Against Religious Discrimination | Nolo.com
Federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and the laws of most states prohibit employers from engaging in religious discrimination: making job decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s religion or lack of religious beliefs. Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of religion. And, Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, as long as it doesn’t create an undue hardship.

Who Is Protected From Religious Discrimination?
Title VII applies to all government employers, whether federal, state, or local. It also covers private employers with at least 15 employees. Private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor/management committees are all subject to Title VII, as well.

The people who asked the bakers to bake a care are not the bakers employers; they are their customers. What you have cited to deals with discrimination IN EMPLOYMENT. It has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. Know what laws does? This one:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(b) A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered by the provisions of section 24-34-802.

(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

Why the fuck would I have access to either? The story gave us the facts. A woman asked a judge to order co-parenting counseling. The Judge did. The woman went and the counselor insisted in inserting religious principles into the counseling. There were recordings of what she said. It was not disputed that the woman insisted on inserting religion into the sessions. The mom objected and did not go back. A court suspended her custody until she did. She objected, claiming that the counsel was forcing religion on her and the Judge did not believe her. Ultimately, she finished the counseling and custody was restored. You insist that there has to be something about the religious uprbringing of the kids to justify the order when there is no evidence, at all, that that happened.

And from those "facts" you made silly allegations. We need the original documents, you know it, and the fact you deny it means you know you have been pwnd.

I made no allegations. I read the facts and, based on what was reported, offered an opinion. If the facts change, my opinion might. You are the one assuming that there is some decree or order that has something to do with the religious upbringing of the kids when there is no evidence of that.

Your opinion is an allegation without all the supporting facts.

Without original documents, we don't know the whole story.

And if you work for family law court, you should be ashamed. You know better.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then produce the Petition and the Order.

Why the fuck would I have access to either? The story gave us the facts. A woman asked a judge to order co-parenting counseling. The Judge did. The woman went and the counselor insisted in inserting religious principles into the counseling. There were recordings of what she said. It was not disputed that the woman insisted on inserting religion into the sessions. The mom objected and did not go back. A court suspended her custody until she did. She objected, claiming that the counsel was forcing religion on her and the Judge did not believe her. Ultimately, she finished the counseling and custody was restored. You insist that there has to be something about the religious uprbringing of the kids to justify the order when there is no evidence, at all, that that happened.

And from those "facts" you made silly allegations. We need the original documents, you know it, and the fact you deny it means you know you have been pwnd.

I made no allegations. I read the facts and, based on what was reported, offered an opinion. If the facts change, my opinion might. You are the one assuming that there is some decree or order that has something to do with the religious upbringing of the kids when there is no evidence of that.

Your opinion is an allegation without all the supporting facts.

Without original documents, we don't know the whole story.

And if you work for family law court, you should be ashamed. You know better.

My opinion is an opinion. I never claimed to know the whole story. Like everyone else on here, idiot, I was offering an opinion on the facts reported. And my experience in family courts tells me that the Order that was issued simply directed the parties to participate in co-parenting counseling for a specific number of sessions and provided the name and address of the counselor. It also tells me that no judge would knowingly order a person to undergo counseling where the counselor was going to base it on religion.

 

[peach174]

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

The right to practice their faith.
It is also discrimination against those of faith.

Baking a cake for a party that follows a wedding is not "practicing their faith". There is nothing about baking a cake that is a religious expression. You choose to engage in commerce, you have to follow the rules and one of the rules is that you may not discriminate.

It is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs or quit their jobs and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Your Rights Against Religious Discrimination | Nolo.com
Federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and the laws of most states prohibit employers from engaging in religious discrimination: making job decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s religion or lack of religious beliefs. Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of religion. And, Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, as long as it doesn’t create an undue hardship.

Who Is Protected From Religious Discrimination?
Title VII applies to all government employers, whether federal, state, or local. It also covers private employers with at least 15 employees. Private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor/management committees are all subject to Title VII, as well.

The people who asked the bakers to bake a care are not the bakers employers; they are their customers. What you have cited to deals with discrimination IN EMPLOYMENT. It has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. Know what laws does? This one:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(b) A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered by the provisions of section 24-34-802.

(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

They are forced to bake that cake or quit their job at that bakery or if they own it, have to shut down their bakery.
That is discrimination.

 

[paddymurphy]

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

The right to practice their faith.
It is also discrimination against those of faith.

Baking a cake for a party that follows a wedding is not "practicing their faith". There is nothing about baking a cake that is a religious expression. You choose to engage in commerce, you have to follow the rules and one of the rules is that you may not discriminate.

It is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs or quit their jobs and that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Your Rights Against Religious Discrimination | Nolo.com
Federal law (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) and the laws of most states prohibit employers from engaging in religious discrimination: making job decisions based on an employee’s or applicant’s religion or lack of religious beliefs. Title VII also prohibits workplace harassment on the basis of religion. And, Title VII requires employers to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, as long as it doesn’t create an undue hardship.

Who Is Protected From Religious Discrimination?
Title VII applies to all government employers, whether federal, state, or local. It also covers private employers with at least 15 employees. Private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor/management committees are all subject to Title VII, as well.

The people who asked the bakers to bake a care are not the bakers employers; they are their customers. What you have cited to deals with discrimination IN EMPLOYMENT. It has nothing at all to do with what is being discussed. Know what laws does? This one:

24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition.

(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.

(b) A claim brought pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) that is based on disability is covered by the provisions of section 24-34-802.

(2.5) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for any person to discriminate against any individual or group because such person or group has opposed any practice made a discriminatory practice by this part 6 or because such person or group has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing conducted pursuant to this part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.

They are forced to bake that cake or quit their job at that bakery or if they own it, have to shut down their bakery.
That is discrimination.

No, it is not. They are not employees. They are a business that has to abide by the law set forth above. Everyone has to follow the law. There is no discrimination. The discrimination is what the baker is doing. He is discriminating in violation of the law. Did you read the law I posted above? Care to show me where there is any exemption for folks to discriminate as long as they claim God requires it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paddy, of course you don't know the whole story. You can't without the original documents to see what the judge was looking at. You knew that in the beginning.

 

[paddymurphy]

Paddy, of course you don't know the whole story. You can't without the original documents to see what the judge was looking at. You knew that in the beginning.

I know enough of the story to know that it was a violation of the moms first amendment right to have to undergo counseling with a proselityzing wacko. There is TV news report that tells more of the story and which shows the order.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Paddy, of course you don't know the whole story. You can't without the original documents to see what the judge was looking at. You knew that in the beginning.

I know enough of the story to know that it was a violation of the moms first amendment right to have to undergo counseling with a proselityzing wacko. There is TV news report that tells more of the story and which shows the order.

Know you don't, because you don't know what is in all of the documents.

 

[paddymurphy]

Paddy, of course you don't know the whole story. You can't without the original documents to see what the judge was looking at. You knew that in the beginning.

I know enough of the story to know that it was a violation of the moms first amendment right to have to undergo counseling with a proselityzing wacko. There is TV news report that tells more of the story and which shows the order.

Know you don't, because you don't know what is in all of the documents.

Maybe you don't think you know enough.

 

[jon_berzerk]

so what you leftards always say the judge is right

--LOL

Only when they are.

in your opinion

Nope my agreement to a given verdict or ruling is not based on opinion but facts.

only when you think so

Nope.

yup fraid so