Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The self declared constitutional law asshole has spoken.
As usual, he is wrong. I would suggest he read West Virgina v Barnette.
Since Public Accommodation law didn't come into being until usually the 60's, it's not surprising that hadn't surfaced.
Since 1943 (WV v Barnette) these laws have been passed and the court seems to have decided something different.
From Justice Antoney Scalia in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990):
"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
<<SNIP>>
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
>>>>
Are public accommodation laws valid and neutral if they force a church to host a same sex wedding?
No.
I guess that makes me right, again.
Nice try, but an allegation is not considered a fact in court. Baking a wedding cake is not something that allows people to come to the shop and pick up the cake. That means that they did not just refuse to "make the cake."
If I remember correctly the complaint is on record and the Klien's have filed a response. Neither disagrees that the issue is that they owners would not create the wedding cake. They both stipulated to those facts.
Now you are moving the goal posts. You said, and I quote, "they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception". The complaint as filed with the State EEOC (and IIRC) the Klein's response mentioned NOTHING about having to attend the reception or cut the cake.
Arriving BEFORE the reception to setup a cake is very different then having to attend the reception, cut it, and serve it.
Since you and I have already been through this, and I remember challenging you to prove me wrong, and you have returned to the same stupid argument that a wedding cake is no different than a cake you can buy at a grocery store, can I assume you are calling me a liar because you can't prove me wrong?
I have proven you wrong. You indicated that the complaint wasn't about refusing to make the wedding cake, you claim it was about attending the reception, cutting, and serving the cake.
I provided the link to the complaint which proved you were wrong. The responsibility is then to prove you are correct with direct links to the complaint, Klein's response, or the EEOC decision which supports your position. If you can't do that, then being proved wrong stands.
Now as to whether you are a liar or not, that is up to you. If you believed what you said, then you mistaken, not a liar. Now that you have been shown what the complaint actually said, if you knowing continue to posit the position that it wasn't about creating the wedding cake but was about participating in the reception (which I have never seen a baker do) - you will get to decide whether you are a liar or not or able to accept a correction to a mistaken position and move on.
The choice is yours.
>>>>
Since Public Accommodation law didn't come into being until usually the 60's, it's not surprising that hadn't surfaced.
Since 1943 (WV v Barnette) these laws have been passed and the court seems to have decided something different.
From Justice Antoney Scalia in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990):>>>>"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.
<<SNIP>>
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
Are public accommodation laws valid and neutral if they force a church to host a same sex wedding?
No.
I guess that makes me right, again.
Show us a Public Accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members.
BTW - If a religious organization rents space out to the public at large beyond their congregation, they are not functioning as a "church" they are acting as a business. So let's see an example in this country where a Church has been forced under Pubic Accommodation laws to host a Same-sex Wedding?
>>>>
Are public accommodation laws valid and neutral if they force a church to host a same sex wedding?
No.
I guess that makes me right, again.
Show us a Public Accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members.
BTW - If a religious organization rents space out to the public at large beyond their congregation, they are not functioning as a "church" they are acting as a business. So let's see an example in this country where a Church has been forced under Pubic Accommodation laws to host a Same-sex Wedding?
>>>>
Didn't I just argue they don't?
You really need to stop getting emotionally involved in your arguments, you will lose every time.
Show us a Public Accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members.
BTW - If a religious organization rents space out to the public at large beyond their congregation, they are not functioning as a "church" they are acting as a business. So let's see an example in this country where a Church has been forced under Pubic Accommodation laws to host a Same-sex Wedding?
>>>>
Didn't I just argue they don't?
You really need to stop getting emotionally involved in your arguments, you will lose every time.
This issue isn't about Public Accommodation laws being applied to a Church, these are about Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses. Just because Public Accommodation laws don't apply to Churches does not mean they are invalid in other contexts.
Are they valid (as in Constitutional and legal)? Yes.
Do I support them? No.
******************************
Often people are emotionally involved and don't recognize the difference between "should be" and "are". I recognize that difference.
>>>>
Have you read the reply from Sweet Cakes?
Didn't think so, yet you still know what it says because you want it to back your position up.
They did object to that, that is part of the service they offer.
Yeah, because they both require you to be someplace you don't want to be. Until you can show me how showing up somewhere outside your business is a public accommodation, you might as well drop any attempt to defend forcing people to do it.
Because "Making a wedding cake" is not just baking a cake. Yet you keep insisting it is, you even want to pretend that forcing people to show up somewhere is a legitimate interpretation of public accommodation laws.
Two points.
- If complaints were proof then all complaints filed would automatically result in fines. Since they aren't actually proof, the BLI actually has to investigate all complaints.
Think about it, and feel free to admit you were wrong.
Didn't I just argue they don't?
You really need to stop getting emotionally involved in your arguments, you will lose every time.
This issue isn't about Public Accommodation laws being applied to a Church, these are about Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses. Just because Public Accommodation laws don't apply to Churches does not mean they are invalid in other contexts.
Are they valid (as in Constitutional and legal)? Yes.
Do I support them? No.
******************************
Often people are emotionally involved and don't recognize the difference between "should be" and "are". I recognize that difference.
>>>>
If that was the issue why did you ask public accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members, and then try argue that a church renting out facilities makes it a public accommodation? Doesn't that mean that you think that public accommodation laws apply to churches?
And you have the audacity to attempt to force me to defend your point because you know it is indefensible.
Have you read the reply from Sweet Cakes?
Yes. Although I don't have the link handy you are more then welcome to find it yourself.
Oregon public records laws prohibit the Bureau from releasing any portion of the file, other than the original complaint, until the case is closed. That means the investigator will not be able to send you copies of witness interviews or other documents obtained during the investigation. After closure, you will be able request a copy of the file, for a copying fee.
That is irrelevant though since you said the complaint was that the store refused to attend the reception, cut, and serve the cake - the complaint didn't say that at all.
The link was just provided to the actual complaint which is that they refused to create the wedding cake.
Didn't think so, yet you still know what it says because you want it to back your position up.
Wrong.
My position is what the complaint said, not what the response said. Although when I did read it previously it it confirmed the same facts as provided in the complaint. Their claim was that they did not discriminate based on sexual orientation because they would sell homosexuals other products, but refused to sell them wedding cakes.
Not relevant to the case since they refused to even create the cake.
If they provide delivery, then that is a service they provide to the general public as part of their business, the law is then that they cannot deny delivery based on the sexual orientation of the couple. If they offer delivery of wedding cakes to different-sex couples, they cannot refuse delivery to same-sex couples.
Discrimination in Public Accommodation
A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older).
But again you are moving the goal posts, the complaint wasn't that they would create the cake but not deliver it. The store refused to even create it in the first place.
False.
I'm pointing out that the store offered services to the general public to create wedding cakes on a for profit basis as part of a licensed business. Therefore they fall under the states Public Accommodation laws.
They refused to provide services offered on an equal basis, they may be found to be in violation of that law. (I don't think a final ruling has been posted yet.)
Two points.
- If complaints were proof then all complaints filed would automatically result in fines. Since they aren't actually proof, the BLI actually has to investigate all complaints.
I never said the complaint was proof. YOU said that the complaint said it wasn't about creating the cake, it was about failure to attend the reception, cut the cake and serve it.
I provided a link that showed that was false and quoted the relevant part, which was:
"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.
5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."
Think about it, and feel free to admit you were wrong.
I wasn't wrong about what the complaint said, I misstated EEOC for BOLI, and stand corrected and will try to remember that in the future.
See that's how it works, when you are proven to be wrong you accept it. Take it with grace and move on instead of digging in your heals and then getting abusive.
>>>>
This issue isn't about Public Accommodation laws being applied to a Church, these are about Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses. Just because Public Accommodation laws don't apply to Churches does not mean they are invalid in other contexts.
Are they valid (as in Constitutional and legal)? Yes.
Do I support them? No.
******************************
Often people are emotionally involved and don't recognize the difference between "should be" and "are". I recognize that difference.
>>>>
If that was the issue why did you ask public accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members, and then try argue that a church renting out facilities makes it a public accommodation? Doesn't that mean that you think that public accommodation laws apply to churches?
My feeling is that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, that is my opinion on "what should be".
However when discussing "what is" the laws already spell this out and some research on your part will find this to be generally true (specifics may vary by state) - generally Churches functioning as Churches and servicing their congregation are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. However if that Church sells services to the general public then that portion of their activities then can become subject to Public Accommodation requirements.
If the Church has a banquet hall and they make it available only to members of the congregation, then they are exempt because they are function as a private entity in support of their private membership - not a public accommodation. On the other hand if the Church has a banquet hall and they rent that space out to the general public (no just Church members) then that activity is subject to Public Accommodation laws.
If the Church does not want to be subject to those laws, then don't function as a rental agent for a banquet space.
[I use your word "Churches" although I prefer "religious organization" as the laws are the same for Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and other related houses of worship.]
And you have the audacity to attempt to force me to defend your point because you know it is indefensible.
I've never asked you to defend "my point". I do that quite well on my own. I've asked you to support your point when you claim something as fact.
You stated the complaint said one thing. I stated it said another.
I provided a ling to the original source document showing I was correct and you were in error.
You on the other hand have not provided any links to source documents to support your position, that is all I've asked for.
>>>>
>
I have to select Other from the Poll options and here is the requested explanation.
The Thread Title and the OP asks the wrong fundamental question, and that is if I may paraphrase,:
The assumption is that Public Accommodation laws are valid, but that someone can claim an narrowly tailored special privilege (Religious Exemption) to apply only to one specific group The Gheys.
Public Accommodation laws are built on the premise that government has a fundamental function to regulate the practices of private businesses who provide goods and services to the general public in terms of who they chose to provide such goods and services as opposed to regulations such as fire codes, tax codes, food safety, etc., which have a fundamental function of ensuring public safety.
This narrowly awarded special privilege, as noted, would only apply to The Gheys. A person could claim my religion says I cant provide services to the gays and that person would receive such an exception. Another person could claim my religion says I cant provide services to interracial couples but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isnt gay its race. Another person could claim my religion says I cant provide services to (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. [pick a religion of choice]) but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isnt gay its religion. Another person could claim my religion says I cant provide services to women but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isnt gay its gender.
Remember, the basis of the special privilege (being exempt from the law) is the claim of individual religious beliefs, those beliefs are not required to be proven, they do not need to be generally accepted by a religious organization they are the personal beliefs of the individual to claim the exemption.
**************************************
So the more appropriate question, IMHO is this:
Given: As a private business entity, the owners of such an entity are the owners of the goods and services they provide.
Given: Individuals can have a desire for the goods and services provided by another private entity, but they do not have a right
Given: That Public Accommodation laws use the power of government to force private business owners to associate with and provide goods and services to customers the owner has no desire to conduct business with.
Question: Should the desire of the individual to have a specific private business entity usurp the right of that business owner to free association (the flip side being a right to chose non-association) and their property rights.
**************************************
The OP asks What should be ? as opposed to What is ?, which is a perfectly valid question but many confuse the two. I can argue and articulate the law and some of the case history which shows the basis of What is, that is a totally different thing then discussing What should be. Some however seem incapable of differentiating the two and confuse what they think the law should be with what the law actually is.
This case shows that the couple (apparently) violated the law, although a final determination by the appropriate government entity hasnt been rendered yet. Sweet Cakes by Melisa (Oregon) and Elane Photography (New Mexico) violated the law, the New Mexico case going all the way to the NM Supreme Court who upheld the law and provided that religion was not a special privilege to claim exception.
I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.
With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:
1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would not apply to elective procedures.
2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from entities that discriminate (which is the governments choice).
If a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim. Fine.
If a Bakery doesn't want to sell cupcakes to Asians. Fine.
If a Photographer doesn't want to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. Fine.
The problem is some on the right want special privileges to the threat of Public Accommodation laws as a means for discriminating against one narrowly defined group, and those on the left have used such laws in the past which lends some credence to the claims of those on the right.
Private legal entities should be able to discriminate against whomever they want, whether it be by race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc. - and if they choose not to be eligible for government contracts, that's their choice.
Freedom can sometimes be messy.
>>>>
Consequently, if a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim, not fine - not because its harmful to Muslims, but because its harmful to commerce.(d) Congress had power to enact appropriate legislation with regard to a place of public accommodation such as appellant's motel even if it is assumed to be of a purely "local" character, as Congress' power over interstate commerce extends to the regulation of local incidents thereof which might have a substantial and harmful effect upon that commerce. P. 258.
(2) The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth [p242] Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law. Pp. 258-261.
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
Didn't I just argue they don't?
You really need to stop getting emotionally involved in your arguments, you will lose every time.
This issue isn't about Public Accommodation laws being applied to a Church, these are about Public Accommodation laws being applied to private businesses. Just because Public Accommodation laws don't apply to Churches does not mean they are invalid in other contexts.
Are they valid (as in Constitutional and legal)? Yes.
Do I support them? No.
******************************
Often people are emotionally involved and don't recognize the difference between "should be" and "are". I recognize that difference.
>>>>
If that was the issue why did you ask public accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members, and then try argue that a church renting out facilities makes it a public accommodation? Doesn't that mean that you think that public accommodation laws apply to churches?
And you have the audacity to attempt to force me to defend your point because you know it is indefensible.
Is that because you really don't like me doing to you what I just did to him?
It's because I really like WW. Always have. He sets a nice standard.
He is almost always wrong, which is a lousy standard to set, in my opinion.
If that was the issue why did you ask public accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members, and then try argue that a church renting out facilities makes it a public accommodation? Doesn't that mean that you think that public accommodation laws apply to churches?
My feeling is that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, that is my opinion on "what should be".
However when discussing "what is" the laws already spell this out and some research on your part will find this to be generally true (specifics may vary by state) - generally Churches functioning as Churches and servicing their congregation are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. However if that Church sells services to the general public then that portion of their activities then can become subject to Public Accommodation requirements.
If the Church has a banquet hall and they make it available only to members of the congregation, then they are exempt because they are function as a private entity in support of their private membership - not a public accommodation. On the other hand if the Church has a banquet hall and they rent that space out to the general public (no just Church members) then that activity is subject to Public Accommodation laws.
If the Church does not want to be subject to those laws, then don't function as a rental agent for a banquet space.
[I use your word "Churches" although I prefer "religious organization" as the laws are the same for Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and other related houses of worship.]
And you have the audacity to attempt to force me to defend your point because you know it is indefensible.
I've never asked you to defend "my point". I do that quite well on my own. I've asked you to support your point when you claim something as fact.
You stated the complaint said one thing. I stated it said another.
I provided a ling to the original source document showing I was correct and you were in error.
You on the other hand have not provided any links to source documents to support your position, that is all I've asked for.
>>>>
If you argue from are why do you misrepresent the laws as applying to delivery services when they only apply to places?
You are wrong about the laws, you are trying to defend something you don't understand, and you claim you don't even like the laws.
I hate the laws, but I know exactly what they say, and what is required to run afoul of them.
I never said anything about the complaint, I made a claim about the response. You then claimed the response agreed with the complaint, and insisted you read it. I proved you couldn't have by linking to the BLI site which states that the law prohibits releasing any documents until the case is closed. I even linked to the BLI site where it defines a public accommodation as a place.
Twice.
Try again.
If that was the issue why did you ask public accommodation law that applies to Churches when functioning as a religious organization for it's members, and then try argue that a church renting out facilities makes it a public accommodation? Doesn't that mean that you think that public accommodation laws apply to churches?
My feeling is that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, that is my opinion on "what should be".
However when discussing "what is" the laws already spell this out and some research on your part will find this to be generally true (specifics may vary by state) - generally Churches functioning as Churches and servicing their congregation are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. However if that Church sells services to the general public then that portion of their activities then can become subject to Public Accommodation requirements.
If the Church has a banquet hall and they make it available only to members of the congregation, then they are exempt because they are function as a private entity in support of their private membership - not a public accommodation. On the other hand if the Church has a banquet hall and they rent that space out to the general public (no just Church members) then that activity is subject to Public Accommodation laws.
If the Church does not want to be subject to those laws, then don't function as a rental agent for a banquet space.
[I use your word "Churches" although I prefer "religious organization" as the laws are the same for Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and other related houses of worship.]
And you have the audacity to attempt to force me to defend your point because you know it is indefensible.
I've never asked you to defend "my point". I do that quite well on my own. I've asked you to support your point when you claim something as fact.
You stated the complaint said one thing. I stated it said another.
I provided a ling to the original source document showing I was correct and you were in error.
You on the other hand have not provided any links to source documents to support your position, that is all I've asked for.
>>>>
If you argue from are why do you misrepresent the laws as applying to delivery services when they only apply to places?
You are wrong about the laws, you are trying to defend something you don't understand, and you claim you don't even like the laws.
I hate the laws, but I know exactly what they say, and what is required to run afoul of them.
I never said anything about the complaint, I made a claim about the response. You then claimed the response agreed with the complaint, and insisted you read it. I proved you couldn't have by linking to the BLI site which states that the law prohibits releasing any documents until the case is closed. I even linked to the BLI site where it defines a public accommodation as a place.
Twice.
Try again.
It's because I really like WW. Always have. He sets a nice standard.
He is almost always wrong, which is a lousy standard to set, in my opinion.
No. He almost always disagrees with you. And he does it without angry posturing.
My feeling is that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, that is my opinion on "what should be".
However when discussing "what is" the laws already spell this out and some research on your part will find this to be generally true (specifics may vary by state) - generally Churches functioning as Churches and servicing their congregation are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. However if that Church sells services to the general public then that portion of their activities then can become subject to Public Accommodation requirements.
If the Church has a banquet hall and they make it available only to members of the congregation, then they are exempt because they are function as a private entity in support of their private membership - not a public accommodation. On the other hand if the Church has a banquet hall and they rent that space out to the general public (no just Church members) then that activity is subject to Public Accommodation laws.
If the Church does not want to be subject to those laws, then don't function as a rental agent for a banquet space.
[I use your word "Churches" although I prefer "religious organization" as the laws are the same for Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and other related houses of worship.]
I've never asked you to defend "my point". I do that quite well on my own. I've asked you to support your point when you claim something as fact.
You stated the complaint said one thing. I stated it said another.
I provided a ling to the original source document showing I was correct and you were in error.
You on the other hand have not provided any links to source documents to support your position, that is all I've asked for.
>>>>
If you argue from are why do you misrepresent the laws as applying to delivery services when they only apply to places?
You are wrong about the laws, you are trying to defend something you don't understand, and you claim you don't even like the laws.
I hate the laws, but I know exactly what they say, and what is required to run afoul of them.
I never said anything about the complaint, I made a claim about the response. You then claimed the response agreed with the complaint, and insisted you read it. I proved you couldn't have by linking to the BLI site which states that the law prohibits releasing any documents until the case is closed. I even linked to the BLI site where it defines a public accommodation as a place.
Twice.
Try again.
They are a "place" of public accommodation because they operated a store front, which is where the services would be contracted and the wedding cake made.
But you can tell yourself that a business that creates wedding cakes on site and then delivers them is not subject to the law if it makes you feel better.
Just as you can tell yourself that a plumbing business that repairs toilets in the home is not subject to the law and therefore can refuse black people.
Just as you can tell yourself that a Domino's Pizza that delivers to a home is not subject to the law and therefore can refuse Jewish people.
Just as you can tell yourself that a Heating and Air Conditioning business that works on units in a home is not subject to the law and therefore can refuse Mexican people.
You would be wrong though on that fundamental concept. "Sweetcakes by Mellisa" was a place of business since they operated a storefront and provided goods and services to the public.
***************************
Since the Sweetcakes case is still in the investigatory and decision making process by the BOLI, we need to examine a case that has gone through the process including appeals and final decisions.
Such a case would be Elane Photography v. Willock in which the New Mexico photographer was found to be in violation of the Public Accommodation laws for refusing services to a same-sex couple. Those services to be to shoot their wedding, services at the wedding/reception location.
Since photo shoots of weddings occur on site, your premise that such "out of storefront" services are not covered is incorrect.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/sc33687.pdf
>>>>
My feeling is that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed, that is my opinion on "what should be".
However when discussing "what is" the laws already spell this out and some research on your part will find this to be generally true (specifics may vary by state) - generally Churches functioning as Churches and servicing their congregation are exempt from Public Accommodation laws. However if that Church sells services to the general public then that portion of their activities then can become subject to Public Accommodation requirements.
If the Church has a banquet hall and they make it available only to members of the congregation, then they are exempt because they are function as a private entity in support of their private membership - not a public accommodation. On the other hand if the Church has a banquet hall and they rent that space out to the general public (no just Church members) then that activity is subject to Public Accommodation laws.
If the Church does not want to be subject to those laws, then don't function as a rental agent for a banquet space.
[I use your word "Churches" although I prefer "religious organization" as the laws are the same for Churches, Synagogues, Temples, and other related houses of worship.]
I've never asked you to defend "my point". I do that quite well on my own. I've asked you to support your point when you claim something as fact.
You stated the complaint said one thing. I stated it said another.
I provided a ling to the original source document showing I was correct and you were in error.
You on the other hand have not provided any links to source documents to support your position, that is all I've asked for.
>>>>
If you argue from are why do you misrepresent the laws as applying to delivery services when they only apply to places?
You are wrong about the laws, you are trying to defend something you don't understand, and you claim you don't even like the laws.
I hate the laws, but I know exactly what they say, and what is required to run afoul of them.
I never said anything about the complaint, I made a claim about the response. You then claimed the response agreed with the complaint, and insisted you read it. I proved you couldn't have by linking to the BLI site which states that the law prohibits releasing any documents until the case is closed. I even linked to the BLI site where it defines a public accommodation as a place.
Twice.
Try again.
You mock, shame, belittle and badger people when they have done you no harm.
What makes you 'okay' is being right and having the last word, when what should make you 'okay' is knowing who you are in Christ Jesus, as a person of faith.
Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.
Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.
Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies
A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the states Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.
The Odgaards Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.
His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. That decision is based on our religious beliefs, she stated. And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.
The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. I would serve them in every other way; we simply dont want to take part. It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility, she told reporter Billy Hallowell. I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.
Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you cant discriminate based on sexual orientation, said Stafford.
On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.
The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery, the suit reads. Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.
I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?
Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.
Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.
Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter
"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought Id get her two identical cakesbasically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.
Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? Itll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.
In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.
Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.
This is why gays want to marry
so they can sue the fuck out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.
next up, churches
This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting peope.
fyi; called it years ago.
He is almost always wrong, which is a lousy standard to set, in my opinion.
No. He almost always disagrees with you. And he does it without angry posturing.
In this thread he was flat out wrong, and lied. He might not have postured angrily, but that doesn't make up for being wrong.
