Dicks and Walmart getting sued HAHA

[martybegan]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

The law is where the tires hit the pavement.

What scenario where a business is not accountable to local PA laws?

 

[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.

It was in direct response to your quote...

It's not, but OK, I gave you an answer anyway.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The law is where the tires hit the pavement.

What scenario where a business is not accountable to local PA laws?

The law can be wrong, or should we have just accepted separate but equal under Plessey?

Why does a local PA law automatically win against the Right to Free Exercise?

 

[jc456]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.aad35c23c783
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

Dick’s and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.

Watson is asking judges to force Dick’s and Walmart “to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18, 19, and 20 year-old customers at all Oregon locations.” Additionally, he is asking for unspecified punitive damages.
-----------
2015 ORS 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
Looks like those fascist PA laws are coming back to haunt some people

the plaintiffs are going to get their butts kicked.

that's what's funny.

or not

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

 

[jc456]

Since Dick's isn't the only place selling guns, why did he go there? Is this another bake-a-cake suit? Who won that one?

like that baker isn't the only baker? LOL i love it how you all come around to common sense like us.

 

[jc456]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

you should perhaps read up on the case.

 

[HappyJoy]

'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.

The law is where the tires hit the pavement.

What scenario where a business is not accountable to local PA laws?

The law can be wrong, or should we have just accepted separate but equal under Plessey?

Of course the law can be wrong. But you haven't even noted an example where it is wrong. Perhaps start from there. But, let's not make up stories about a gay couple asking a bakery to create a custom gay wedding cake.

Why does a local PA law automatically win against the Right to Free Exercise?

Who says it automatically wins? This is where you would argue for or against current laws.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

you should perhaps read up on the case.

Thanks for your concern.

 

[jc456]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

you should perhaps read up on the case.

Thanks for your concern.

for accuracy I am. you should learn the issue ahead of asking questions.

 

[martybegan]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

Yes, rights can be limited, but there has to be a compelling reason to do so, and even then the limit must be via the least intrusive method possible.

The cake provided by the baker who don't want to provide it for that specific event, THAT specific cake.

 

[OldLady]

Since Dick's isn't the only place selling guns, why did he go there? Is this another bake-a-cake suit? Who won that one?

like that baker isn't the only baker? LOL i love it how you all come around to common sense like us.

Yeah, "Me people" has always been a little conflicted over that whole thing. If only it weren't bigotry at play.

 

[HappyJoy]

Actually the 'whole concept' of PA laws usually revolves around the rights of citizens and they have been found to be constitutional.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

you should perhaps read up on the case.

Thanks for your concern.

for accuracy I am. you should learn the issue ahead of asking questions.

Yeah, they attempted to order a wedding cake from a photo album provided by the baker. The baker said he didn't make gay wedding cakes, the couple left and then sued.

The cakes they were looking at were 'on the menu' so to speak.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

Yes, rights can be limited, but there has to be a compelling reason to do so, and even then the limit must be via the least intrusive method possible.

There is a compelling reason. Especially if whole cities and towns (say in the south) were allowed to discriminate against minorities.

The cake provided by the baker who don't want to provide it for that specific event, THAT specific cake.

A cake that is offered to every other customer.

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyway NYC is right, this thread is now way, way off topic. Take the last word if you want.

 

[jc456]

Since Dick's isn't the only place selling guns, why did he go there? Is this another bake-a-cake suit? Who won that one?

like that baker isn't the only baker? LOL i love it how you all come around to common sense like us.

Yeah, "Me people" has always been a little conflicted over that whole thing. If only it weren't bigotry at play.

yours for sure, for thinking to invade someone elses right. they both have rights and you chose the one that they don't agree with. but they also have rights correct?

 

[Flash]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.aad35c23c783
PORTLAND, Ore. — An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

Dick’s and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.

Watson is asking judges to force Dick’s and Walmart “to stop unlawfully discriminating against 18, 19, and 20 year-old customers at all Oregon locations.” Additionally, he is asking for unspecified punitive damages.
-----------
2015 ORS 659A.403¹
Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.
Looks like those fascist PA laws are coming back to haunt some people

Age discrimination is against the law in Washington and Oregon.

Looks like these stupid politically correct Libtard assholes are going to be getting a little karma payback.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

They should have that right according to the Constitution


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

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.

But citizens also have the right to free exercise.

And they still do but all rights are limited. <--have fun taking that completely out of context.

Why does one person's right to have a specific cake for their wedding override the cake provider's right to free exercise?

Specific cake? Who said anything about a specific cake?

Yes, rights can be limited, but there has to be a compelling reason to do so, and even then the limit must be via the least intrusive method possible.

There is a compelling reason. Especially if whole cities and towns (say in the south) were allowed to discriminate against minorities.

The cake provided by the baker who don't want to provide it for that specific event, THAT specific cake.

A cake that is offered to every other customer.

If it was a whole town, you would have a compelling reason. But this is one baker, where other bakers are available, and the baker denied service only in the specific case of a wedding cake, not all cakes or products.

So where is the compelling reason to override free exercise, and more importantly, how is a 6 figure fine the least intrusive method possible to rectify the situation?

Cakes, they would like to now make clear, they only want to offer to opposite sex couples for their wedding ceremonies.