Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

He had a self proclaimed religion. As noted the Owner had asked on previous visits why he didn't want bacon on the BLT because of his faith. And the policy was to not serve bacon to KNOWN Muslims.

His policy violates both Federal and State violation laws based on discriminating by religion. It makes not one wit of difference as to whether the owner had acknowledged that the customer had previously not ordered bacon.

Now to say "are you sure you want bacon on that BLT?" and if the customer replies in the affirmative and the owner refuses service based on the customers religion - his behavior is a violation of the law.

Now I also posted another example, but for some reason you never quoted the post that you are referencing.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Go a post number for this other example you came up with.

So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?

In response to a cafe owner refusing to sell bacon to Muslims, that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer.


.>>>>

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I still can't tell if you keep saying this with tongue firmly in cheek or you're being serious. If serious, what's your core argument? Like John Stossel, do you just feel "the market" will soon put all those who discriminate out of business? Do you think there's no longer any money to be made in spreading hatred and division?

Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.
2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.
3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.
4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.
5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts itself in terms of taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability of a community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.), and complaints filed with business licensing entities. People should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I find my position aligned with what were called Goldwater Conservatives quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government and who the government can do business with, but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other private individuals.



>>>>

Thanks so much for that thorough and thoughtful response! We agree and disagree on much there. I'll chew on it and get back to you...

 

[dblack]

The need is for essential goods and services. Housing, food, etc. What the PA's did were to trivialize what were essential law. Equating the need for Housing to the need for a specific decoration bastardizes the entire idea that created these laws in the first place and become overly political and cumbersome.

The problem here is the assumption that need establishes something as a right. That's problematic because need is an entirely subjecting estimation. We end up with laws that force others to serve you, as long as you can rationalize whatever it is you're after as a 'need'.

 

[Silhouette]

Obviously there were discussions on design, WEDDING IS A DESIGN!

Obviously you are wrong. Court documents and the statements of Mr. Phillips are that there was never any discussion of design. As soon as Mr. Phillips was introduced to both grooms he in formed them he wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same sex couple.

.>>>>

The Court didn't spin their response to that. They suggested Colorado remain "respectful" of the baker's faith. Now what was that all about?

 

[Grumblenuts]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

 

[Pop23]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Hetero Couple: We want a gay themed wedding cake.

Baker: Sorry, I don't serve them to anybody.

Heterosexual pair: Ah, we see. You promote the institutionalized bigotry of the heterosexual majority by discriminating against the gay minority. Big of you!
Meanwhile, our mom still needs a wedding cake...

Nope. Just sell certain kinds of cakes, that's all. Do you want to force me to sell you something I don't, Herr Goebbels?

Ah, and I can see your cute little sign now too: "Whites only complimentary water-ice with any order over 1 dollar!" Nice touch!

Force them to pander to pedophiles, sicko.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.

Says you, and obviously in direct violation of PA laws says everyone with two remaining healthy synapses to rub together.

 

[Aba Incieni]

He doesn't sell certain cakes to anyone. Doesn't matter where they put their weiners.

If he didn't sell wedding cakes to anyone, then there would be no issue.

However Mr. Phillips did sell wedding cakes and refused base on who the customers were.


.>>>>

Then Jewish delis and muslim falafel shops will be forced to sell pork.

Maybe you can force the darkies to pick cotton while you're at it.

Sure hope your life never ends up depending upon your reading comprehension.

Yours depends on your knowledge of humans. You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.

Better tell Jesus.

 

[Aba Incieni]

You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.

Better tell Jesus.

Not to mention Yahweh and allah. You pervs are heavily outnumbered.

 

[Pop23]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.

Says you, and obviously in direct violation of PA laws says everyone with two remaining healthy synapses to rub together.

"Say's you" is an argument forwarded by either a 12 year old or an adult with severe immaturity problem.

I'm thinking it's the latter with you.

 

[Silhouette]

You start forcing religions to do the bidding of perverts and you're going to lose bigly.

Actually, nobody can force anyone to promote a culture of child public sex exhibitionists (gay pride parades). There are laws against that in all 50 states.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

 

[Silhouette]

I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."

Does taking care of the weak include children who must not be exposed to graphic deviant sex acts in public as a matter of "pride" by a behavioral group that strongly identifies with and supports such things?

I don't recall anywhere in the Bible or in any state law in the US that says "Thou shalt condone & promote an ideology that includes and is synonymous with performing lewd graphic acts of deviant sex in public where they invite children to watch and march in that parade". Can you point me to where Jesus (or state law) said that Christians (or anyone else) should do that? Thanks!

 

[Aba Incieni]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.

 

[Pop23]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.

If you flipped the numbers. Make 95% of the population Gay, and 5% Straight, and all following generations are split 95% gay and 5% straight, you see that within a short period of time that there would be no population left for evolution to even have an effect on.

G-Nuts needs to cut the crap. Not only does Science find these arguments absurd, simple math does as well.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Since some simply remain bent upon bouncing off the walls and non sequituring all over the place,... Richard Dawson says:
Survey says: "Americans Like Gays But Hate When Gays Act Gay" - a real like/hate relationship if there ever was one, lol
Richard Dawkins says: "homosexuality does not conflict with the evolutionary principle. In a talk at Kennesaw State University, he said that "[Evolution] is the explanation for why we exist. It is not something to guide our lives in our own society. […] What we need is a truly anti-Darwinian society--anti-Darwinian in the sense that we do not wish to live in a society where…the strongest suppress the weak…I want to live in a society where we take care of the sick, take care of the weak, take care of the oppressed."
Richard Darwin is known for his work on Star Trek: Beyond (2016), X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) and Lost in Space (1998), but otherwise had no comment.

First of all, evolution is not an explanation of why we exist. It is a theory on how we came to exist. There is no why to it.

The part about caring for others could have paraphrased any one of the Gospels.

If you flipped the numbers. Make 95% of the population Gay, and 5% Straight, and all following generations are split 95% gay and 5% straight, you see that within a short period of time that there would be no population left for evolution to even have an effect on.

Cut the crap. Not only does Science find these arguments absurd, simple math does as well.

Without heteros there would be no homos.

#HeteroPride.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Eeeww, seems my little exploration of Richard Ds has struck a noive or three!

Who knew simply mentioning 3 Dicks would drive y'all nuts?
All you devout haters, more pork knee-jerky, please!

 

[Grumblenuts]

"So, what part of the PA is the Cafe owner violating?"
"that would be federal and state Public Accommodation laws for refusing service based on the religion of the customer."

The Owner is simply observing the religion that the customer has proclaimed as his own.

So some new right to interpret another's religion for them grants you power to discriminate against them? Gee, really gotta wonder what part of "refusing service based on the religion of the customer." you still don't grok?

Nope, he specifically told the Cafe Owner what the Religion demanded, and the Cafe Owner, knowing the "fluid" nature of Religion made a very well thought out policy, thus avoiding future issues.

It's all very considerate and kind of him.

Says you, and obviously in direct violation of PA laws says everyone with two remaining healthy synapses to rub together.

"Say's you" is an argument forwarded by either a 12 year old or an adult with severe immaturity problem.

I'm thinking it's the latter with you.

Actually it was just a statement of fact. You said it. I said you said it. Quoted it and all! There's no "argument" to be had there,... but I've noticed how you never let facts ruin any apparent new opportunity to make a complete ass of yourself. Poor fella. Your gun control advocate face feels for ya, I can just tell.